*

Account

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 26, 2024, 08:29:13 pm

Login with username, password and session length

Resources

Recent posts

[November 01, 2024, 12:46:37 pm]

[October 05, 2024, 07:29:20 am]

[September 05, 2024, 01:54:13 pm]

[July 16, 2024, 11:30:34 pm]

[June 22, 2024, 06:49:40 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:13:38 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:12:54 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:09:37 am]

[December 30, 2023, 08:00:58 pm]

[February 04, 2023, 11:46:41 am]
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: PZ IV/V CCT  (Read 15741 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
tank130 Offline
Sugar Daddy
*
Posts: 8889


« Reply #20 on: June 18, 2013, 01:25:57 pm »

Brits need a none doctrinal sniper tbh, all other factions have them.


And if someone says recon section youre a fucking mong.

inb4 the mongs.


Yes because we should us one of these when designing factions.......



Why do so many people QQ that just because one faction has it, they all should have it.
Logged

Quote
Geez, while Wind was banned I forgot that he is, in fact, totally insufferable
I'm not going to lie Tig, 9/10 times you open your mouth, I'm overwhelmed with the urge to put my foot in it.
TheIcelandicManiac Offline
Resident forum troll. Fucked unkn0wns mom
*
Posts: 6294


« Reply #21 on: June 18, 2013, 01:29:08 pm »

Well if thats your opinion tank then why the fuck was PE given a sniper?
why dont they also make the commando sniper non doctrinal then?
Logged

Quote from: Grundwaffe
Soon™
gj icelandic i am proud of u  Smiley
Sometimes its like PQ doesnt carrot all.

Work Harder
deadbolt Offline
Probably Banned
EIR Veteran
Posts: 4410



« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2013, 01:38:35 pm »


Yes because we should us one of these when designing factions.......



Why do so many people QQ that just because one faction has it, they all should have it.

In fact axis have all the variants of all the factions different units you fucking mong so why not try removing some to make some allied units a little more appealing? Unless ofcourse youre adamant mirrors aren't used in your shitty team.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2013, 01:40:29 pm by deadbolt » Logged

DERDBERT
Like Jesus, Keeps died for us

He made a funny thread for bear, and got banned.

Now bear makes his own funny thread. It's unsurprisingly not funny.

Keeps died for our funny threads.
tank130 Offline
Sugar Daddy
*
Posts: 8889


« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2013, 01:43:25 pm »

Well if thats your opinion tank then why the fuck was PE given a sniper?
why dont they also make the commando sniper non doctrinal then?

Very good question IMO. This is what happens when you start along this path. Then each decision made is a reflection of the previous decision made; so on and so on.

Logged
tank130 Offline
Sugar Daddy
*
Posts: 8889


« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2013, 01:46:51 pm »

In fact axis have all the variants of all the factions different units you fucking mong so why not try removing some to make some allied units a little more appealing? Unless ofcourse youre adamant mirrors aren't used in your shitty team.


Our Shitty team?

There is no need to call people mongs or say our Dev team is shitty just because we disagree.

Knock it off with the aggression.
Logged
TheIcelandicManiac Offline
Resident forum troll. Fucked unkn0wns mom
*
Posts: 6294


« Reply #25 on: June 18, 2013, 01:51:59 pm »

Very good question IMO. This is what happens when you start along this path. Then each decision made is a reflection of the previous decision made; so on and so on.



Well lets just hope one of you guys hits his head and finally figures out how to balance without adding endless amounts of new units.
Logged
nikomas Offline
Shameless Perv
*
Posts: 4286



« Reply #26 on: June 18, 2013, 01:56:14 pm »

CCT = Combat Command Tank

Dayme tig, get with the times!
Logged

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they've tried everything else."

Quote from: PonySlaystation
The officer is considerably better than a riflemen squad at carrying weapons. Officers have good accuracy so they will hit most targets.
XIIcorps Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 2558



« Reply #27 on: June 18, 2013, 02:01:12 pm »

Tbh tank if anything you guys need to use more mirrors.

Look at the ostwind compared to the wierblewind.

 Both extremely similar yet ones useful the other is a waste of a t3 unlock.

Let's compare the Churchill mk6 to the cromwell or even the Sherman

One has highish hp and not much more going for it, the others have medium hp and everything else making the mk6 obsolete as a t2

Let's look at the IHT compared to the roo.
Ones a useful if not foundation of a faction, the other is more broken and useless then humpty dumpty.
Logged

some of My kids i work with shower me Wink
tank130 Offline
Sugar Daddy
*
Posts: 8889


« Reply #28 on: June 18, 2013, 02:01:21 pm »

Well lets just hope one of you guys hits his head and finally figures out how to balance without adding endless amounts of new units.


Nothing wrong with new units. They can be cool and fun to use.
New units to replicate what another faction has is wrong IMO
Logged
tank130 Offline
Sugar Daddy
*
Posts: 8889


« Reply #29 on: June 18, 2013, 02:07:39 pm »

XIIcorps, I don't even know where to start with your post.......


Each faction originally was designed to play a certain type of play-style. Granted, when we take those factions and put them into a completely different play arena, (EiR) changes had to be made.

But, you can't compare one factions tank to another factions tank and expect them to be the same.

The IHT is a non doctrinal unit and the Roo is a reward card - how can you even compare those?

My point is not about the effectiveness of all those units your listed. My point is we need to stop adding units to a faction just because the other faction has it. I would like to see the design team stop doing this and the community learning how play the factions as designed again - like the good old days.
Logged
nikomas Offline
Shameless Perv
*
Posts: 4286



« Reply #30 on: June 18, 2013, 02:08:15 pm »

Then why is out official name for the reward unit: "Panzer IV/V Command Tank" and not: "Panzer IV/V Combat Command Tank" and our official name for the British Commanding Tank is: "Cromwell Command Tank" and not: "Combat Command Tank"?

 Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes
Because someone insisted on adding IV/V and that left no room for combat on the reward card, in my honest opinion it was the best decision ever made in this mod.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2013, 02:10:45 pm by nikomas » Logged
XIIcorps Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 2558



« Reply #31 on: June 18, 2013, 02:15:03 pm »

Yes tank I know Vcoh
Americans are ment to overwhelm the superior WM
Brits are supposed to lock down sectors and use emplacements, opposed to PEs mobility.

But honestly why does the roo even exist atm in its current state?
I've had three and just sold them because there about as useful as a bicycle to a quadriplegic.

And you guys made the roo a bloody reward card, it used to be a doctrinal unlock.
Whose fault is that.

Same as the fj marksmen, I could understand/accept it being soley for luft, even as a reward for PE but to give it to every PE doctrine is just insane.

Give brits mandos sniper faction wide........
Logged
TheIcelandicManiac Offline
Resident forum troll. Fucked unkn0wns mom
*
Posts: 6294


« Reply #32 on: June 18, 2013, 02:17:17 pm »

Nothing wrong with new units. They can be cool and fun to use.
New units to replicate what another faction has is wrong IMO

Well why is the EIR Dev team so obesessed with mirror balance?
From the 6 pounder and the vickers MG team to the PE sniper and the 50mm ATHT and when you guys changed the mainline PE infantry pretty much into Wher grenadiers and changed slow to a shitty bar suppression, Why do you guys keep talking about not wanting mirror balance and yet make that the only thing you guys do?
Logged
tank130 Offline
Sugar Daddy
*
Posts: 8889


« Reply #33 on: June 18, 2013, 02:21:18 pm »

Same as the fj marksmen, I could understand/accept it being soley for luft, even as a reward for PE but to give it to every PE doctrine is just insane.

Give brits mandos sniper faction wide........

So you argue a bad decision was made, so we should correct it by making the same mistake with another faction?

That's exactly what I am having an issue with. Design changes are made, then everyone says, "you did it before, do it again". It just keeps going round and round until every faction has the same shit and the same play style.

I am not happy with it, but I do not design the game. Try not to make this a personal attack please.
Logged
XIIcorps Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 2558



« Reply #34 on: June 18, 2013, 02:32:46 pm »

Im not personally attacking you tank, as you stated your rather opposed to the current agenda of bandaiding the holes in factions with"mirror" units of other factions.

As Icelandic stated brits needed mobile atg, they got the 6pdr
Brits needed hmg section with suppression, they got the Vickers .303

But honestly no faction is ever going to have the same play style regardless of units included, due to the already included vanilla units, stats and buffs.




Logged
tank130 Offline
Sugar Daddy
*
Posts: 8889


« Reply #35 on: June 18, 2013, 02:39:00 pm »

Well why is the EIR Dev team so obesessed with mirror balance?
From the 6 pounder and the vickers MG team to the PE sniper and the 50mm ATHT and when you guys changed the mainline PE infantry pretty much into Wher grenadiers and changed slow to a shitty bar suppression, Why do you guys keep talking about not wanting mirror balance and yet make that the only thing you guys do?


I think saying the Dev team is "Obsessed with mirror Balance" is very over exaggerated. Sure, there are a number of examples that have surfaced some what mirrored, but saying they are Obsessed is just insulting and not going to evolve into a productive conversation.

I think the 6 pounder and vickers are more of an attempt to eliminate the camppy game play of Brits that is not conducive to the Eir environment, then  a mirror balance.

50ATHT - good question. Why was it ever brought in? I think more often then not it is a result of a vocal out cry of the community looking for something TBH

Similar to how some argue that Brits need a none doctrinal sniper. If we think the majority want it, then its going to sway the design team in their decisions.

Logged
tank130 Offline
Sugar Daddy
*
Posts: 8889


« Reply #36 on: June 18, 2013, 02:41:20 pm »

As Icelandic stated brits needed mobile atg, they got the 6pdr
Brits needed hmg section with suppression, they got the Vickers .303

Perhaps I misunderstood Icelandics post. I thought he was inferring the Dev team was obsessed with mirror balance, that's why they added those items.

I think they were added because Brit emplacements did not work in the Eir Environment.
Logged
XIIcorps Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 2558



« Reply #37 on: June 18, 2013, 02:45:19 pm »

Yes we all know empalcemnets are useless in eir (top RE T2 still not implimented) .cough cough

Mirroring is some what needed to keep factions inline with each other, but exacpt duplicates indeed are not.

Logged
Tymathee Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 9741



« Reply #38 on: June 18, 2013, 02:54:20 pm »


I think saying the Dev team is "Obsessed with mirror Balance" is very over exaggerated. Sure, there are a number of examples that have surfaced some what mirrored, but saying they are Obsessed is just insulting and not going to evolve into a productive conversation.

I think the 6 pounder and vickers are more of an attempt to eliminate the camppy game play of Brits that is not conducive to the Eir environment, then  a mirror balance.

50ATHT - good question. Why was it ever brought in? I think more often then not it is a result of a vocal out cry of the community looking for something TBH

Similar to how some argue that Brits need a none doctrinal sniper. If we think the majority want it, then its going to sway the design team in their decisions.



we got 6 pdr because the 17 pdr was too strong to make it unemplaced and movable. Then when the range was hightened and it was like the 88, people complained.

Also because of how strong axis off maps are, if you built an emplacement, you're just asking to get offmaped (also on map rockets are really good vs emplacements as well)

So the 6 pdr, mobile vickers and 2in mortar were created.

As for the 50mm HT, i have no flippin idea, i hated it in the first place, rallied against it forever and they still made it.

If i remember, it was brought into play because of the above, brits being mirrored so mirror PE but PE is diff from brits as they're mainly vehicle based so to keep the flavor they put a pak on a LAT and called it a 50mm ATHT.

(new nick name, HAT Track, heavy anti tank halftrack like LAT haha, anyway)

Also the whine back then was the marders turn radius was too small, so the 50mm was created with a higher turn radius but no lock down, not as fast forward and not as much damage.

It's still a very redundant weapon and should've just been a gun upgrade to the LAT which disables the other two upgrades but back then vehicles didn't have Mu attached to them and the HAT was only MP and FU.
Logged

"I want proof!"
"I have proof!"
"Whatever, I'm still right"

Dafuq man, don't ask for proof if you'll refuse it if it's not in your favor, logic fallacy for the bloody win.
GrayWolf Offline
Development
*
Posts: 1590



« Reply #39 on: June 18, 2013, 03:14:30 pm »

Then why is out official name for the reward unit: "Panzer IV/V Command Tank" and not: "Panzer IV/V Combat Command Tank" and our official name for the British Commanding Tank is: "Cromwell Command Tank" and not: "Combat Command Tank"?

 Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes

Card name was PZ IV/V CCT (Combat, becouse it has a GUN). Cromwell don't have a gun so it's just CT
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

TinyPortal v1.0 beta 4 © Bloc
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.093 seconds with 34 queries.