Dundee93

Member
  • Content count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Dundee93

  • Rank
    Aircraftman
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

39 profile views
  1. Honestly, except for the issue of having a T5 premium (which is what the RU 251 would be, regardless of what Gaijin designates it), I think so far the premium additions have been good choices. Only reason I don't like the RU251 is that it is definitely 7.7 material (and the Maus is in the tech tree despite a similar production run). Giving the RU251 less than 7.7 would be even worse than having a T5 premium, btw. Especially since it comes spaded... Although, the Americans do already have a T5 premium in the M46 and the British in the Strv. Just saying. Not trying to encourage a top tier premium, though.
  2. tanks/vehicles

    I'd really like to see this and the other german half-track SPAAs added.
  3. Oh nice. I'm glad to hear that. I guess this thread is pretty much pointless then (especially since people in the CBT probably have a much better idea of what they are talking about).
  4. It's nice to get your input. I will say, I'd hate to see players give up on influencing the game because they assume they are not being listened to. You seem to have a longer and more involved history with the game than me, though, so maybe I am just being idealistic about that. I do think destroyers may be difficult to balance, and the way they are balanced (if added) will have a huge effect on gameplay going forward. Depending on whether they go merely put destroyers as late tier, or use a more chronological approach to balance, will affect nearly every aspect of the game (BRs for current and future vehicles, map design, game mode design, etc.)
  5. I'd personally like to see a change in weapon control, making it closer to using a multi-turreted tank, where you can opt to control each weapon individually if you want. Also maybe give AA guns different key bindings, either treated as bomber defensive guns or as tank MGs. I don't really like the whole unleashing everything automatically aspect.
  6. I forgot to mention, adding small ships (especially destroyers) would also make Japan way more competitive.
  7. So, I have been following the forums and watching youtube videos of naval gameplay, and I noticed that there is not really any discussion going on about how to make small ships (corvettes, DEs, DDs) work in the current format, even though they are far more likely to be implemented than battleships, etc. I personally like the idea of limiting WT Navy to boats and small ships, but even if you want larger ships, finding a way to make small ships work with boats will definitely help pave the way to larger ships. I think the biggest problems facing the addition of small ships will be balancing older destroyers (WWI era convoy escorts, for example) and later vessels. River boats will also be difficult to balance, because they would have their advantages limited to shallow water combat if better armed open-ocean capable ships are around. The AFP could still do well fairly early, because of its heavy armor and decent weaponry (I believe in some ways it is better protected than many destroyers). I think maps that combine fairly large shallow portions (which would prevent larger ships from dominating the entire map) with a good amount of deeper, less calm areas could do a lot to make for balanced gameplay. I think a good step towards bringing ships in would be to develop a quality tech tree based limited to balancing small ships and boats, rather than 1) insisting on bringing cruisers and battleships in, or 2) giving up on anything bigger than an MZ1.