alexmcguiness

Member
  • Content count

    619
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

370 Good

2 Followers

About alexmcguiness

  • Rank
    Pilot officer
  • Birthday December 23

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Oooh!
  • MSN
    I can
  • Website URL
    use these
  • ICQ
    boxes
  • Yahoo
    to write
  • Jabber
    cryptic
  • Skype
    messages...

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Still preparing for the landing on Hokkaido...
  • Interests
    WWII, British aviation, Space, Aircraft, Typhoons/Tempests and the Tetrarch.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,207 profile views
  1. Thats what I meant. Much like the airfield "A" on Korea, which is useless, and burning.
  2. If the 3 bases are removed, the airfield being destroyed cannot end the match then. Instead, destruction of the airfield results in no more repairs for that team, and base AAA being destroyed automatically too. Yes, but there's also people who legitimately want the B-36, and nuclear bombs for nuclear-capable bombers. There's always people who will induce power-creep, just so that their favourite nation can have the edge. Hopefully planes like these are prevented from being added, at least with the game in it's current state. The 390, Tu-4, B-29 and future super-bombers could work in-game, but Gaijin need to rethink the effect of bombers on a mission. They should rethink the way bombers spawn, and change targets from bases to factory districts, small airfields and train stations much like IL-2 Sturmovik BoS, but on a much bigger scale. Only then, will bombers have a balanced role in air RB.
  3. I agree. But I don't know if Gaijin will ever change bombers, or ever change air RB for that matter. Here's to hoping.
  4. Look, just because we can have something, doesn't mean we should. It'd be much better if Gaijin added the He 177, you know, a vehicle with an actual operational combat history. The Germans just didn't have as developed strategic bomber forces as the allies, maybe that should also be reflected in WT. I hate the B-29 and Tu-4 very much. Playing Hokkaido in a Tempest Mk II is practically impossible, as you can't climb to the B-29s before they end the game. You make it sound like I'm someone who doesn't want the 390 in-game because I want these broken bombers to retain their exclusivity. The less game-ruining bombers we have, the better. I never chose for Gaijin to add the B-29 and Tu-4. Ahem, B-29 is WWII. And all three you mentioned are far from fake... Plus, if you've ever checked, the Lincolns bomb load is so pathetic it's impossible to win a game using one. Of course, post your outdated imgflip Star Trek meme. It's such a good replacement for a structured argument.
  5. No, we shouldn't... Unless strategic bombers are made less game-breaking, no more should be added. And the existing ones should be removed. You don't fix broken game design by adding more broken bombers.
  6. Thanks, did not know that. But we should still be able to remove them.
  7. Right, maybe that should be sounding alarms. Unless all the "Tu-4 ruined the game" comments were only because it's a Soviet plane, and as soon as any Soviet vehicle is powerful, the playerbase get their pitchforks. Of course, make it German, and it's no longer game-breaking.
  8. But we should be allowed to remove them. Much like in real life, when all they did was slow the craft, and wail constantly.
  9. Solution: Don't play tanks. plz don't kill me. Is of jokes
  10. My post was mainly in jest. But they had Panthers, as they were captured, and I'd imagine Pzgr 39/42 would be much easier to replicate in the USSR than a high quality composite APCR shell.
  11. Jeez, very recently we went from many planes in game not having a cockpit modelled at all. Now everything has a cockpit. What more can you ask for in such a small space of time? Developers can't work 24/7, it takes time to do the things you are proposing.
  12. Yes, me too. no problem though, I have saved my setup, so I just had to re-load it.
  13. Because the Russians didn't have a supply of German APCR?
  14. They didn't ram them! They flew very close, so that the wingtip of the RAF plane was a few metres from the V1, the airflow off of the RAF plane's wing would push the V1 over, and it's primitive control system could not counter the effect, so it would spin out of control and fall into the sea. Firing guns at the flying bomb would lead to the V1s explosion destroying the RAF plane.
  15. IS-6 does not have fake stats, just a very trolly mantlet. 150mm plate, we all know about it: 50mm spall shield, fairly well known about now. But, there is another piece to the puzzle, 20mm plating too (Mega Sekrit): Throw in optics and such, and you have a mantlet that may not be overly resistant to penetration, but effectively stops all spall damage from reaching the crew. At the cost of the breech of course.
  16. I'm guessing that's in AB? That game on Normandy was RB.
  17. Yes, the F2A-1 is confirmed very good. The armament is incredibly strong, C.202s and other Italian aircraft fall very quickly to them.