KH_Alan

Member
  • Content count

    4,134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal medal medal

Community Reputation

2,063 Outstanding

1 Follower

About KH_Alan

  • Rank
    Marshal of the Air Force

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
  • Interests
    House Music, Games, Software, Graphic Design, Aikido

Recent Profile Visitors

3,852 profile views
  1. Gun example is not very good one as gun is external damage and its visible. With "Critical hit" info you still know you knocked out his gun. Knocking someones turret ring or gun breech is not visible. HitCam showing that is unrealistic. With "Critical Hit" info you know that you destroyed some module but you don't know which as it is in reality. Seing where your shell hit one can assume what damage its done. As it is in reality. Again smoke is implemented to give some concealment but with HitCam showing hits not so much. Which is also unrealistic.
  2. They would IRL but in WT we shoot tanks until they are destroyed so even limited info like I posted would sufice. Current damage report is too detailed. Also as Drusas posted HitCam can see through smoke/bushes too.
  3. Thats what I wrote above. Game should return Ricochet/No Penetration, Hit (non critical module/crew damage), Critical Hit (some module destroyed & at least 1 crew member killed) & Killed
  4. True. But regardless damage report is too detailed. Maybe just showing module you hit as list (like it shows for crew positions now) and rough damage level in terms of Hit (Yellow & Orange) & Critical Hit (Red & Black). Also since there are no disabled tanks in WT so regardless to HitCam one always shoots until tank is destroyed.
  5. There are two separate things: HitCam and KillCam. HitCam is showing where your hit and KillCam shows your destruction. IMO both needs to go as HitCam gives too detailed damage report. There should be only Ricochet/No Penetration, Hit, Critical Hit & Kill.
  6. But even with enough SPAA spawn at begining situation is not much better. If SPAA stay at safe place they cannot help their teammates in time because planes will go for middle of the battle field/caps first. If SPAA gets closer it risks to be destroyed by enemy tanks loosing their purpose. To fix combined arms they need to: 1. address cap & fly mechanic 2. fix HE blast calculation 3. make AOs bigger so ground vehicles can employ some tactics not only air 4. remove 3D markers after hit
  7. As I have said you need to wait untill all spawn in. And what if 5 more people wait to see what vehicle will spawn?
  8. You cannot figure out something which is random. You don't know what your team has deployed unless you wait untill all spawn in. From Gaijin part? Thats for sure.
  9. Its not that simple because if people take SPAA as first spawn and wait for planes they weaken their team assault. Only on Battle gamemode that might be valid tactic as all flanks should be covered by tanks. In all other gamemodes SPAA in the begining is useless unless one is using it to cap which results in his destruction quite fast afterwards.
  10. As first spawn no as 2nd yes and no.
  11. Why? To be effective against tank infantry would need to get real close approx 150 m (for some weapons even closer). Planes can do it from much safer distance. Unfortunately with infantry on small maps like we have combined arms would be even more broken than it is now. Addressing cap & fly and HE blast calculation issues would fix quite a bit and balance CA.
  12. Not only maps. Game mechanics which allow cap & fly and also wrong (very simplified) HE blast calculation. Exactly, because thats how it was. Fear of AT infantry was much bigger than fear of planes.
  13. Mixed unit tactics without tactics (due to small maps) and without all units that should be in CA (infantry, AT infantry) and on top of that its done wrongly. Basically thats what is WT CA.
  14. "Center of attention" means you got penetrated as tank has you zeroed. So if you got penetrated you would stay inside and hoped that: 1. that was only tank that hit you 2. he will keep missing (even though he hit you already) untill your reinforcements arrive If that is your reasoning you probably wouldn't survive long.
  15. So you didn't read 2nd statement carefuly did you? Do you know what that means? You know what "centre of attention" mean in this statement?
  16. He does not. Read what he posted again carefuly (especially 2nd statement of first 3) and youll see.
  17. I have only that recording from that time. Maybe planes were introduced after short time I am not sure.
  18. No you misunderstood him. You sit in a tank when you know its safer inside. After 1st penetration its no longer safe inside.
  19. Unfortunatelly you are not. WWII historical after action reports disprove your theory.
  20. That was probably a bit later. On that perticular battle there was no player controled planes at all. You couldn't select one. Only tanks were allowed at that time.
  21. I don't think its was CBT (maybe I am mistaken). When Kursk map was released there was still no player controlled planes only AI. I have Kursk battle recording from May 2014 without any player controlled plane only AI Stukas and Il-2s.
  22. But thats the point. Crews didn't bail because they panicked they bailed because they knew what is going to happen if they stay in the tank.
  23. All tanks can be defeted, Abrams included. Why it doesn't make sense? As people said before if you stay in the tank you are 100% to be killed. If you exit infantry might kill you but you have much better chance of survival against infantry at lets say 600m than tank.
  24. We can discuss this as much as we want is it logical to bail or not but historical reports clearly state that most of the time crew bails after 1st penetrating hit. Its understandable that people think otherwise since its a game and after you get killed you just get into new game. In reality people tend to value their life.
  25. Yes and no. In the begining there were no player controled planes only AI. So technicaly speaking yes but realistically speaking no.
  26. Saliors may not be fine sailing warship but its their duty as navy sailor especially in wartime. Same is with tankers. You think people love to be stuck in metal box which can be blown up at any moment most of the time without even knowing from where (especially today with all those AT missiles)? I don't think so. But they accept it as its their duty as tankers. Difference between WT and reality is that there are no disabled tanks in game. Everything is repairable in matter of seconds. In reality changing blown track could take hours. Some modules couldn't even get repaired in the field. Those and basic survival instinct was main factors why crew most of the times bailed after 1st succesful penetration hit.
  27. You are mixing peoples feelings as "being fine" and their duty as "being a navy sailor".
  28. sound

    Issue with BSM is PS4 players cannot use it so its unfair advantage against them. There should be universal sound fix for all.
  29. Realistically speaking shell (at least 75 mm and higher) should just tear off cupola, not explode downwards into crew compartment.
  30. Exactly
  31. It would because he was talking about raising spawn costs only for attackers and bombers (I might add fighter ordnance too). Even if fighters (without any ordnance) spawn cost stay the same, they are quite easy accessible now. Fighter with loaded ground ordnance should cost even more that pure attacker or bomber.
  32. Not now with 2 or 3 kills but what if you needed at least 5 or 6 kills to spawn CAS plane?
  33. Thats what I thought too especially when server replays for SB are listed under "Random Battle" "Arcade Mode".
  34. True but even ThunderSkill themselves state they are not accurate.
  35. I know you haven't and I didn't talk about ThunderSkill but WT stat page. For me it also shows like I did but haven't touched AB in years. I shows differently.
  36. If you checked your stats then you could see that it shows you played RB and quite few battles but when you try to see which ones Air or Tank stats show 0. Same is with Arcade. Those stats are wrong as I really don't think (I might be wrong he can correct me) GateNomes plays AB and according to this stat page he does even more than TheGun31 stat page shows.
  37. Those general "Arcade Battle"/"Realistic Battle" stats can be wrong. Switch to "Air Arcade battles" or "Tank Arcade battles" and stats will be different. In his case 0. For example server replays for SB are all listed under "Random Battle" "Arcade Mode". If you try to find replay with your name and select simulation battle you wont get nothing.
  38. That tank controls are exactly the same in all 3 modes while plane controls are not.
  39. sound

    +1
  40. gameplay

    +1 I believe people are asking that plate wear be implemented into game for a long time.
  41. I know it is but from time to time someone neds to bump the therad otherwise it will be forgotten.
  42. Thats what I was trying to tell you on I can't remember which page ago. AFAIK Devs don't read these forum pages. Forum moderators and Community Managers most likely do. But Devs and Tech. Moderators might read suggestion threads so its better to make discussion there to get this noticed.
  43. That is very true but unfortunately it probably wont change.
  44. Currently I am indifferent to this change without testing it first. And if you read 1st page you could see I asked quiestions what OP wants. We had normal discussion and than you barged in without even reading posts above just replied with something that has nothing to do with what I repied to przybysz86. Fact is that more choice brings more flexibility to the game. Is it good change or not none can tell without testing. Games evolve. Was SB in the state as it is now in the begining. It was not. It changed.
  45. Again you assume to much. Point out where I posted I wanted this change.
  46. No I didn't vote at all because as I posted numerous times in the thread poll in this state is useless. OPs first post is unclear and open to different interpretations.
  47. You see discussing about something is quite different of wanting something. You just assume too much and of course reading without reading still. Point out where I specificaly posted I want this change.
  48. And you see that what means reading without reading means. Can you point the post where I mentioed I want tactical choice? Or do you even know how I catsed my vote or if I even casted my vote?
  49. And again you are completely wrong.
  50. No you really don't. If you read the whole thread than you might know.
  51. No you don't get it but thats OK.
  52. It most likely would because gameplay would have more possible combinations and probability you get to worse case scenario is much lower than it is now. But its unknown for sure without testing it. Change like that can't be done over night. It should be tested either on dev server or as series of separate events leaving current SB events out of it.
  53. And again every system has worse case scenario none is immune to it because its random. Its easy to keep track on tanks in the game by making quick look at score sheet to see if SPAA is needed or not. Situation can be exactly the same now if 5 spawn with SPAA first and get killed by whatever and spawn back with SPAA. So they also hinder your team by having SPAA as their 2nd spawn.
  54. Exactly. So you see there are so many possibilites and there is no system which can coutner all of them. Regardless to the system there will always be some worse case scenario. Its all about probability. The more combinations possible less probability of worse case scenario.
  55. I see your concern but situation you described can also happen with current system. If player spawn with plane and you spawn with SPAA. He kills your 1st SPAA (yes SPAA can easier defend itself than tank but its not like planes cannot kill them) and you kill his plane with 2nd SPAA. Then he spawns in his T-55. Again you face T-55 with Vulcan. Point is even if thinking of implementing something big like that, there should be some lengthy testing (some months - dev server or separate event) done previously.
  56. It is but its also problem of team which has that player. As I said before this poll is useless in current form as its not exactly clear what OP wants. Thats why I asked those questions at the beginning. Having SPAA completely replace planes has been discussed before and dissmissed. What could bring more flexibility to SB is ability to choose your 2nd spawn of your 2 spawn vehicle. Thats it. No extra grpund spawns for single spawn vehicles or replacement of planes with SPAA. Exactly same as it is now but with option to have med/light/SPAA combo.
  57. Number of ground spawns shouldn't change. No 2nd ground spawn for heavy tanks. If you have heavy tank and don't fly you leave. If you have 2 spawn tank and don't fly you have choice for 2nd spawn. If you have 2 spawn tank and fly you have even more choice. Basically this system would suit even better for versatile players. Clear skies with SPAA, jump into plane and do some CAS and then jump into medium/light tank to finish cap. Main idea is not to increase ground spawn numbers. Thats why I said poll in this form is useless as is quite wague and open to different interpretations.
  58. Why would everyone spawn in SPAA? The whole point is that you have a choice. Once you get killed in your tank (which has 2 spawns) you can either continue with vehicle you had or choose SPAA or choose plane if you like. If there are enough SPAA spawned people will continue to use their initial vehicles. Its not like you must spawn in SPAA after you get killed in 2 spawn tank.
  59. Its just your opinion its their biggest argument. You cannot know that. You pointed out you have more ground kills than air with SPAA thus making SPAA OP against ground vehicles.
  60. So you are saying that SPAA is OP in regards to ground vehicles and it needs to be nerfed?
  61. Which all can be done with tank too. SPAA is better against planes while tank is better against ground vehicles. Both can cap.
  62. They still carry the same weight because your opinion is against any change so of course that costs nothing.
  63. And that is your opinion which carries exactly the same weight as OPs.
  64. If SB were not event but normal game where MM was matching BR than your answer you make sense because why would someone deliberately choose BR where you don't have any planes. Since lineups pre predetermined it can happen that someone has no plane (yet) for certain lineup. So you think its better not to contribute to your team if you don't have any planes then let player sacrifice his 2nd spawn for the team and take SPAA?
  65. You are looking at this wrong way. None is trying to fix anything and nothing is broken. OP just made suggestion (I still claim he needs to redo poll choices as it useless now) which is in his opinion an improvement for SB. Yours is that it isn't. Both yours and OPs opinion have the same weight because system OP suggests hasn't been tested in SB.