5.1.4 preview

If there is something new, it will be posted here.
User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3815
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.4 preview

Post by Warhawks97 »

MarKr wrote:
M3 is up to Wolf....it is a visual glitch but not really any serious, it is not like the main purpose of M3 should be mobile fire platform for infantry. It is a transporter that provides cover to loaded infantry, even if they cannot shoot from it, it is not a big problem.


are you sure? There have been plenty of players using this vehicle with inf inside. I used it sometimes with rifles inside and it is an armored transporter from which the people inside can shoot in all directions while being so far bulletproof to small arms.
If we would only need a transporter we could build trucks (we just would have to give them the ablity to reinforce nearby units).
Lots of people used it with bazooka teams inside. But that was a part i didnt like bc you could rush tanks and vehicles too easily.
For me it was a combat transporter which i used as fireplatform with infantry also staying arround it and reinforcing.

It would be really great to have this fixed. Even just for optical reasons. All other armored transport vehicles have their soldiers visibile and able to shoot.
The cheaper HT version got even removed from BK bc of this glitch.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3029
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.4 preview

Post by MarKr »

If I am sure about its intended purpose? Yes, I am but, you speak about the way people used (or maybe abused?) it. Yes, people used it as a mobile infantry-shooting platform. But it is meant to be a trasporter that provides protection from small arms to infantry + can provide fire support from the MG.
Some of the armored transports (Kangaroo or the other CW armored truck) don't have weapons on their own, M3 still has the .50cal so in terms of firepower even with the glitch, M3 is still doing better than some other armored transporters in the game.
The M2 was removed but it could have stayed, just cheaper and always with the canope, thus no visual problem. But it was ove
Image

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 3980
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.4 preview

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

MarKr wrote:What kind of reasoning is this? Marder never had flank speed and so it should get it now because Hellcat has no longer the speed boost when it leaves camo? :?

You got it wrong, I think.
I said Marder.3 should get flank speed as well as Hellcat, I mean in case that Hellcat would have it too...
Also because Marder3 dies easily with any regular bullets, which isn't really fair to be honest!

MarKr wrote:Hellcat is still way faster than M10 you cannot really say that it has no speed advantage.
It can stay like this.

I am afraid u r just killing the Hellcat this way. No one ever complained about the Hellcat speed performance.. so why nerfing it??
Hellcat has basic speed of 8 and Wolverine has basic speed of 5 so the Hellcat is obviously faster by default.. true, but I think the flank speed ability is still superior without any doubt, specifically in terms of providing acceleration.

MarKr wrote:Yes, I am but, you speak about the way people used (or maybe abused?) it. Yes, people used it as a mobile infantry-shooting platform. But it is meant to be a trasporter that provides protection from small arms to infantry + can provide fire support from the MG.

Transporter vehicles are not just transporter vehicles.. combat half-tracks were designed so that infantry could be quickly transported anywhere on the battlefield, but also the half-tracks were open from the top for a reason... Soldiers inside are always supposed to fire whatever weapons they have, and there is no abuse with AT teams inside HTs anymore after adding the 2s aim time for handheld AT weapons!
Anyways, hopefully Wolf could find a solution for it at some point then.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3815
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.4 preview

Post by Warhawks97 »

MarKr wrote:If I am sure about its intended purpose? Yes, I am but, you speak about the way people used (or maybe abused?) it. Yes, people used it as a mobile infantry-shooting platform. But it is meant to be a trasporter that provides protection from small arms to infantry + can provide fire support from the MG.


Oh, so what about other HT´s such as the 250 and 251? Make the guys inside invisible as well so that the vehicle can "serve its (BK) purpose"?

User avatar
Wolf
Administrator
Posts: 998
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 16:01
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.4 preview

Post by Wolf »

Oh come on, don't make it like "allies dont have it, so let axis not have it too".

It is a bug, it will be fixed, but it is not something that should make "zomg w