1i think mortars are very powerfull they should fire slower be total unaccurate and deal less damage.
there should be something like a radar building but it should be 4s slow it is ww2.

2builders must have guns? it is annoying to find another builder while building flags and can’t kill him.

3should remove the mg denfece from lvl1 builder at brits they got overpowered inf and mg from the 1 sec?

4general use inf should have a bit more range, cuz close Q is still pwning at any distance.

5range of tanks and art lower? sometimes you build it and start firing from there.
add more defence like bunkers trenches. sandbags.

6economy…at most maps metal is low there should be something to give energy take metal.

7storage? russians build builder all other build buildings but still low. add a building for extra metal storage.

8i think taht every nation should have something at the start to defend to make impossible 1 sec rusher germans got mg at their bunker how about add a tower with a mg at other too?

9inf is very accurate at moving targets they should be more unaccurate and AT can hit very easy moving tanks from average distance.

10trees block tanks this is annoying tanks should kill the trees when touching them

11 the model of russian partisian … come on change it, it is worst than lego

12 soldier’s bobies don’t stay CQ germans and P russians

13inf die in 2 ways how about add more dead positions?:stuck_out_tongue:

I agree, and mortars have already been “nerfed” by reducing their rate of fire.

There will be, but radar will be limited to detecting aircraft and larger ships only.

Lol yeah that might be good, for self defense, an M1 Carbine or just a basic rifle. For now, try reclaiming the other guy’s engineer. It works!

MG Defense is already removed (in the latest internal version of the game).

We’ll look into it.

No, we’re not going to be making any significant changes to weapon ranges at this point.

There will be some addition defenses added. For instance, most towed guns wil be able to dig in and become an entrenched defensive structure. Germany will receive some hardened bunker defenses. But we’ve made it a design priority to sort of stay away from large amounts of defenses. This game is about attacking, not porcing up.

We’ve already discussed this and are planning for something that’ll let you get more metal, ie increasing metal returns and emergency metal sources.

It’ll be dealt with, don’t worry. Anyway economy is being overhauled completely.

We don’t like this idea. I would suggest that when the game starts the first units you build be soldiers. This is what everyone does and is a smarter strategy. Soldiers can for the most part build flags so its usually soldiers who are built, maybe a dozen or so to start with, and sent to secure areas of the map.

I agree and i’ve brought this up and it’ll be addressed.

Actually most tanks, atleast in WW2, can not simply drive over a solidly-rooted tree, but maybe we’ll look into it with the inclusion of the tag allowing crush and mass to operate independantly of metal.

Lol that was a temporary solution that I Just never got around to fixing. Too busy with other models.


Because the engine does not support more than one position.

Actually features can have a mass tag, so their crushability doesn’t have to depend on metal value (but most of them don’t have that tag defined so it defaults to old formula). Heavy tanks (40t+) should be able to crush most any tree (except those megaold few-meters-in-diameter monsters).
As for builders reclaiming each other, imagine they are fighting using their shovels. They have a shovel on the buildpic, they must use it somehow… :unamused:

14 the number of the mg defence and other defence buildings should be limited or he can’t build a mg closer than 4 squares to another one.

13 i mean that sturminfatry and Partisan don’t leave a corpse when they die

If your enemy clusters their defense buildings, you are free to 1) flank them, 2) shell them with mortars 3) shell them with any form of artillery 4) snipe MG nests. I see no need to implement a limit such as you propose.

  1. crush them with your armor (which ignores MG fire) :smiling_imp:
    In short, that means porcing in S’44 fails (and that’s exactly how it’s been designed).

i just had a question. are the units weapons, reloading and ranges going of any historical conversion system? it might help if you use max effective ranges for infantry and large weapons and read about average reload time for the artillery pieces of the time.

just an idea

we used max effective ranges for all of the infantry weapons as much as possible. all automatic weapons use effective RoF to create their burstrate/reload time. data on effective ranges for bigger guns is much harder to come by - there we’re just trying to make sure that everything is correct relative to each other (so a 25pdr has more range than a M2 105mm, for example).

Reload times are also accurate relative to each other; we didn’t really want to use actual time since then units like the ISU-152 would fire two shots a minute, and 30 seconds between rounds is pretty harsh. However, we did make sure that the ISU-152 has a proportionally longer reload time than, say, the T-35-76.

as much as humanly possible we have made sure to incorporate real world data into the balance of the game - has been a large source, along with

Well, finding real ranges for most of the guns isn’t that hard… But it would just mean most guns will fire right across the 16x16 map if done in the same scale infantry weapons are in (16km wasn’t an exceptional range for heavy guns, even 20km wasn’t. And naval weapons are even more insane in that department).

maybe 2 scales then, infantry and then artillery?

with your infantry scale you are suing now i dont see a huge difficulty in keeping both scales together, but it would change the game play alot.
example: m1 grand Max effective range 457 m/~500 yds, and spring range of 525.6 in the older version on midinfo (im not at home dont have spring on this computer). but the mp40 is 321 in spring version and has a max effective range of 200 m (220 yd), could be lowered a little if we were using this scale.

the tanks such as the tiger which has an unknown max effective range but according to wiki “tigers were reported to have knocked out enemy tanks at ranges greater than a mile (1,600 m), although most WW2 engagements were fought at much closer range” and is similar to the spring range of 2000.

now artillery such as the sFH 18 15cm had a range of 13km, which using the same scale would be 13,000 spring. but is only 3500 according to the … a_v0.01b3c ,which i know is an older one but i dont have the latest one on me now.

Small arms are scaled more by likely engagement ranges than max effective ranges.

At one time arty was scaled as 1 spring unit = 1m, but its possible that has been changed for balance purposes.

BTW, just masked you as a tester so you should be able to see the dev forums now. :slight_smile:

A heads up would have been great when I was made a tester… I only just relized there were other forums :wink:

I believe Nemo masked you, blame him :smiley:

400 babies!

Uncomfortably Energetic!

We have had to make some concessions to range for purposes of gameplay as someone else said, if we stuck to pure, unadultered realism then most guns would fire well across almost every map out there. But relative to one another they are pretty much realistic.

Also, armour piercing rounds have not only relative ranges but relative penetration/damage values according to range. A 3-inch gun for instance may be able to fire at 3000 range or whatever, but it may lose all of its armour penetration potential at that range, so to be used effectively it must move a lot closer.