|
Personally speaking I prefer Discord because I already always have it open on my laptop (And have the app on my phone), so it's a lot more convenient to chat or see who's doing what.
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Hedgerow Hell is real and it is horrifying
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:Do we know what type of units are in the Polish division? Great idea with going with nation/type decks as those were the most fun in RD. There's no information on them yet, but historically they were equipped as a British Armored Division so expect lots of Sherman 75s and Fireflies.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
If you can't point out the specific differences between an M4(105) and a M4A3E2(75)W then I don't even want to talk to you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:So one of the Eugen devs confirmed on the Paradox forums that only 3AD gets Jumbos: I'm still surprised they put Jumbos in the game at all, considering that they didn't even show up until October '44.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:something I've noticed in my last few games -- can the 88mm German AA gun not utilize hedgerows? I don't think so, I think it counts as a vehicle in that regard.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne dropped directly onto Sainte-Mère-Église during a firefight, but that was, to put it lightly, A Bit of A Fuckup. A more realistic option could be Glider insertions, but I'm not sure the game engine could support modeling the gliders having to land in a perfectly flat field or otherwise die horribly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:so does this mean that the BFF just has an AP cannon and nothing else now? It'll still have a co-ax MG.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
The Tiger will probably have worse front armor than the Panther, but much better side armor. AT performance will likely be about the same, maybe with better range or accuracy, and it'll definitely have better HE performance.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Isn't MadMat the guy who also gave increasingly implausible excuses as to why Americans couldn't get the Javelin in the Wargame series, and that having lovely ATGMs was their 'flavor'? Seriously, gently caress that guy. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Popete posted:Idk I think people are getting unreasonably upset over 3rd armour not having every American tank. Game is still in beta, it's cool discuss balance changes and realistic division loadouts and yeah maybe that dev is giving bad reasons for why it's not in the 3rd armour deck but at the end of the day it probably just comes down to balance and that's a good enough excuse for me. We still have like 8 more divisions to see. I think you misunderstand the argument somewhat-it's not about the division having access to "every tank". The issue with 3rd AD is that for a tank division, its anti-tank assets are severely limited, and they're not allowed to have mobile anti-tank units for nonsensical "Historical" reasons (Even though the 3rd AD's signature tank in the game, the Jumbo Sherman, didn't even show up in Europe until loving October). There's both gameplay and historic reasons to be annoyed with Eugen's decisions on that front, and the fact that the most visible person associated with the Dev team is a known giant idiot isn't helping matters.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
I am consistently amazed at how bad pubs are. I'm not even good at this game and I'll routinely stomp randos, both with and without goon support. Edit: MonkeyLibFront posted:How are goons organising games these days, played AN and RD via camping the stairs. Discord, check the OP
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
French are incredibly powerful right now because they can own the poo poo out of Phase A, and Phase A's the most important phase of the game. They've got a ton of Recon M8s and Stuarts that can run a train over anything other than a dedicated AT response, they've got infantry cheap enough to fill in the gaps, and they've got so much income even a completely blown opening won't put them on the back foot for long.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
MazelTovCocktail posted:How is the SP in the game? I actually liked SP in the previous two war games...even if I sucked in it. It's technically still in beta, so there's no SP yet.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:If you need higher velocity to get more penetration, and do not want to build a bigger, heavier gun, squeeze-bores make sense right up until you run out of tungsten for specialized ammunition. Although, you would think a discarding-sabots would be easier to work with than squeeze-bores. Sabot rounds were hideously inaccurate* when they were first developed, since it was difficult to consistently achieve a clean separation between the penetrator and the rest of the round. They eventually solved those issues after the war, but it took a lot of design work and materials science to get there. *To the level of "Couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from within the barn"
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Isn't this all from the same source? There was one recent investigation of the 17 pounder and it came off as some kind of weird attempt to explain why the US went with the 76mm which ended up being horribly disappointing. I don't trust military historians ever since I read some Ambrose books and my eyes rolled out my head. Saying you distrust military historians because of Ambrose is like refusing to eat pizza after having a slice from a hot-and-ready reject from the dumpster behind Little Caeser's. There's plenty of good military history scholarship out there, especially in recent years. Check out Steven Zaloga in particular for Sherman-related stuff, he's got some great books. As to how the 17 Pounder compared to the 76mm, the 17 Pounder was unquestionably a better gun for anti-tank work, though as mentioned the APDS rounds had significant accuracy issues (Though regular AP was often good enough for the job). It helped though that the British actually had the 17 Pounder in time for Normandy, whereas the Americans didn't deploy the M4A1(76)W until Operation Cobra. That meant that for a time the Firefly was often the only tank in the Allied arsenal that had a reasonable expectation of being able to take on a Tiger or a Panther, which greatly inflated its reputation as a tank-killer. It carried a piss-poor HE round and wasn't a massive improvement over the 76mm though, which is why the Americans rejected it. The 76 had its own issues, though. It was in many ways a disappointment, both as a tank-mounted weapon and as an anti-tank gun. As a tank-mounted weapon, while it was an improvement over the 75mm against other tanks, it wasn't the game-changer that it had been built up to be, and came with inferior HE performance (And the bad habit of kicking up dust and poo poo every time they fired, which significantly affected the tank's practical rate of fire). This was somewhat solved with later versions of the gun mounted with a muzzle brake, as well as improved HVAP ammunition, but those came long after Normandy. Still, it wasn't a bad gun, and certainly gave American crews more anti-tank firepower than they'd previously had. It was certainly better than the 76mm ATG was pretty much just straight-up terrible. Mounted on the 105mm howitzer carriage (Which made it a bitch-and-a-half to move around, let alone camouflage) and relegated to Tank Destroyer Battalions (Which limited its use), it only really saw significant action during the Battle of the Bulge, where they performed miserably.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Chump Farts posted:How good should I be before I play online? I usually do 3v3 against medium AI and do alright. I've only played 7 hours and this is my first Eugen game, so I don't want to ruin allies' games. Pubs are incredibly bad so by being able to speak coherently and click tanks you're already massively ahead of the game.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Cimber posted:If i remember right, USA doctrine in WWII called for the Sherman to be more of an infantry support tank with a limited AT role. If a serious tank on tank engagement was to ensue, the M10/M18s would be the primary weapon. That's a myth. The Sherman was a tank, and was designed to fight other tanks if necessary.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Popete posted:Allies won WW2 so clearly the Sherman > Tiger. I think you misunderstand. It's not that Shermans need buffs to make Allies better, it's that the Sherman (Really just the M4A3(75)W) needs a cost reduction to make it a competitive choice compared to other Allied vehicles.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
All of this has happened before All of this will happen again
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Now that it's confirmed that 3rd Armored is supposed to be the big Allied Phase C armor deck it's really confirmed how goddamn stupid it is that they don't get tank destroyers. M10s already kind of suck and denying 3rd Armor the only 1200 meter motorized gun in the American arsenal does nothing except remove it from serious consideration even against Panzer Lehr and other late game wunderdecks. You're forgetting the Sherman 76 there. Granted, lacking access to the cheaper M10 does hurt, but 3AD isn't entirely deficient of mid-late game firepower
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:What divisions/builds are good for a new player? Are the Poles any good? 2ID and 15th Scots are probably good beginner decks, since they're very well rounded and get good stuff in every tab.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
TV dog Wishbone of PBS posted:They also made the jumbo cheaper as a panther. In history the jumbo cost much more. And and and... be happy with this part of unrealistic buff. I can't stop laughing, holy poo poo
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
At the same time they were still killing tanks, even if it wasn't a massive amount, so it's still a pretty dumb argument.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:They really weren't. Post-war analysis concluded that WW2 airplane anti-tank weapons were entirely ineffectual and were a waste of time for everyone involved. I'm not saying that the 129 was anywhere near as effective as it's portrayed in the game (Or effective at all), but dismissing the entirety of airborne anti-tank efforts as a waste of time is a hell of a stretch.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:That is the conclusion every single (surviving) military came to after the war, once they had the time to evaluate the data gathered from the war. Not... really? I mean, nobody built ~dedicated~ anti-tank gun carrying aircraft like the HS-129 for a long time after that, but on the other hand the Germans were also the only ones who ever built and fielded anything like it to begin with. Rockets and bombs on aircraft were used against tanks throughout Korea, and the Navy even developed and fielded a weapon called the Anti-Tank Guided Rocket. Plus, there's also the fact that even if an attack aircraft failed to actually kill a tank, that doesn't mean the strike wasn't successful. Dropping a bomb or hitting a rocket right next to an armored vehicle is still going to severely gently caress up the crew and/or non-essential systems temporarily, and can easily delay, distract, or suppress an attacking force-and that's not even counting what aircraft would do to unarmored logistic convoys. I mean, I completely agree that a flight of P-47s isn't likely to knock out an individual armored vehicle, but I also think you're going a bit too far in dismissing the effectiveness of aircraft against armored vehicles as a whole.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 19:17
|
|
Anti-tank aircraft completely stopped being a thing until guided missiles came along, much later.
|
Arglebargle III posted:4th Armoured is a smaller division with older tanks. Probably one of the most accomplished American Armored Divisions after Normandy, though, most notably kicking the poo poo out of a pair of fresh German panzer divisions at the Battle of Arracourt
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Anyone interested in making a new thread?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:Warno sounds like a hastily invented fake Polish city name. War? No! (Good God, Y'all)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2021 04:20
|
|