Normandy 44 : European Theater (Sweeten2213 retired - 2.0 Alpha released))

[Jonas87]

nevertheless what you all said or will say:
The mod (1.7) isnt worth playing

Furthermore the so announced changes are invalid for 99% of people out there...
cause "normal" people can just play 1.7 and dont take part in any changes/ work you are doing on the actual version
Goodluck to those 1% that can take part in de-bugged version

Thats why im a bit p*ssed of of the arrogance of the Alpha Testers against "normal" players...
No one really is helped by saying: "trolling", "nonsense", "failed to notice ""no use of logic" ... and if i get insulted here i use my right to defend myself
Or sentense like: "this is already changed in OUR version of game"
Who will install 1.7 after those comments?

we're all here doing the grunt work so you guys can enjoy it --> I have doubts the support is zero
You would be honest if u say: we're all here doing the grunt work so WE can enjoy it
Having to wait 17 months for simple bugfixes can hardly be called "support"


"Is easy to criticise but hard to make an effort to make things better.."
Funny... i report bugs here and get told they are solved... which isnt true btw
So how should i make things better when the only thing that is told me after telling bugs is : "Oh...no bugs.... they are already solved"???

Btw: i have nothing against this mod here i just dont like the way it is promoted and managed (espcially towards normal 1.7 players)

[gliz2]

@Jonas87
This is MY last reply to you mate. If you had bothered to just check I have apologized and asked to disregard my comments. Yet again you are unwilling to accept that the fact that as with every other Alpha/Beta there are few who actually have access to those. And you are unwilling to understand that this has been reported before and has already been fixed.

You may not like the support but no one is GETTING PAID for the hard work. And you also have failed to noticed that sweeten2213 has been sick for past long weeks.

Conclusion: I don't think anyone will be wasting his time for you anymore if you keep your attitude. I defo won't.

[DMz]

@Jonas87 .............

Did you even bother to read my post.

Now please stop trying to bait gliz2 and other mod members into an argument. when this conversation was over 4 posts ago and get back onto topic.



Next i dont usually bother to say anything in this thread apart from when i used to show pretty pictures of models id made. But im going to say this now once again.

NO ONE IS GOING TO UPDATE OR FIX 1.7. ESPECIALLY WHEN 2.0 IS AT LONG LAST IN THE FINAL STAGES PRIOR TO A BETA RELEASE.

2.0 is to all intents and purposes a completly new, incompatible version of N44. It is totally incompatible with the old 1.7N44. Therefore to expect any sort of fix, or to make any sort of comparison is absolutly pointless.

To expect anyone to fix anything in 1.7 at this late stage is absolutly POINTLESS.

To expect any help with 1.7 when you are unwilling to listen to these facts, IS ABSOLUTLY POINTLESS.



As for the REST of the TEAM, i seriously suggest you start posting Alpha feedback where it supposed to be over at blacksand studios, in the mods Alpha bug reporting section. Because although its nice to post here. Alpha reports here only bring up issues like this, again and again. And basically antagonises people who do not have access to 2.0 Alpha.

ONLY POST UPDATES ON PROGRESS HERE. Not alpha bugs ect.

Please dont think im being rude with that suggestion, but i think after 18 months busting my balls attempting to get models ingame for this mod. And then watching members come go and simply dissapear off the face of the earth, without so much as a by your leave. Then watching Sweeten night after night on xfire, spend 8, 10, sometimes 12, hours killing himself coding and animating,i have a right to make it.

One should not wash his laundry in public, id have thought that was common sense.

My personal advice to everyone is play 1.7 if you want to, dont expect any updates for it because 2.0 is to all intents and purposes a totally incompatible version of the mod, and no one left on the team has time to work on 2 seperate versions of mod.

We will help you with install issues and graphic problems ect, but thats as far as anyone can go with 1.7 .

And no one gets paid for this its a hobby as gliz2 has stated. So remember that too please when you make requests.

AND NO ONE APART FROM ALPHA TESTERS WILL HAVE ACCESS TO 2.0 AT THIS POINT.
So please stop crying about that. Besides i really do not think any of you would want the 9 gig svn download involved to get the alpha up and running.

If the 2.0 version of the mod were at beta stage we would ask for beta testers and consider everyone fairly.

[[]inveigle[]]

Good to hear that you are on the mend brother. Know that the team has our continued support and admiration.

[Twitchy]

Everyone- I'm just going to say this, and only this.

My friends and I have been playing ET44 (1.7) for months now. So despite what you might believe, people do still play the 1.7 version of the mod regardless of it's quirks, and we most certainly enjoy it.


And on another note, if you don't like the way our modification is promoted and managed, don't bother posting on this thread. Your posts will be read over by the team (Management) and we're also the ones who do the Promoting. In short, if you dislike it feel free to sing to the high heavens about it somewhere else.

Your posts about bugs ARE important. But please, keep in mind how long we've been working on the 2.0 release since 1.7's release. At this late a stage, pretty much everything (More or less) has been fixed or has been ironed out.

Now, please everyone, let's stop all of this. None of this contributes to anything relevent and I would rather not have our thread be filled with arguments.

Everyone lay back, calm down and have a nice day.

If I see any responses to any of the older posts regarding the argument that isn't relevent to the mod itself, I will personnally shoot a PM off to a Moderator and have them clean up the thread.

I'm really tierd of these arguments guys, Seriously. This is a Modification thread, and I'm only concerned with Bug reports and critiscism. I will NOT tolerate any more of this nonsense.

Good day everyone, enjoy your sunny days! (I sure am!)

~Twitchy

[Kapp'n]

I was going to step in (and I'd hate to do so after such a short period of time since last time) but... well whats needed to be said has been said already!

So lets all disregard the above posts, this one included, and continue on topic please. Anyone who want's to continue dragging up this petty argument wins a warning and thread ban for me.

[Ultim]

Just a quick version 2.0 question:

First off, glad to hear Sweeten is on the mend!

Was just wondering if the computer specs that were given for v1.7 are going to be roughly the same for v2.0? or is it too early to tell yet with the Alpha...

Love the MOD, all the best to the team. Thanks for all of your hard work and all time you're putting into making it even better.

Ultim

[gliz2]

@Ultim
I guess it is the same. You need a decent GPU to run the high details but I don't think anything has been upped as to GPU power needed (GPU with 512mb memory).

[Ultim]

@gliz2

Thanks for the quick reply. I can run everything on high detail with v1.7. Looking forward to v2.0 even more...

Ultim

[hharo]

Hi,
I have installed a long time before this owesome mod, but i played another mod. Now i try N44 again but when i choose WH like army which i want to play or as opponent, game always freeze in loading(full temp blabla ) or fall in game(convulsive movement with camera, then freeze or fall). But when i chose another fraction without WH all its fine.
SRY for my bad eng. language.

[GreenGriffon]

I would gladly post bugs and feedback for the alpha over at BlackSand Studios, however last I checked, the most recent posting in the Alpha Bug Reporting section was something like 16 months ago. Kinda safe to assume no one is listening to feedback over there, and I'm not taking the considerable time to write up any further reports unless someone is around to read it. Sweeten himself told me this was the place to post for 2.0. If you guys have some other super-secret hideaway that you're using to discuss these things, I'm all ears.

To anyone griping about issues with 1.7, feel free to roll up your sleeves, learn some modding, and contribute to the community. These guys don't work for you, and they don't make a dime off of the countless hours they spend on the mod. They're simply sharing the fruits of their labor with you, free of charge. Come in here with an attitude or some misplaced sense of entitlement, and you can guess what kind of a response you'll get.

GG

[Khannis]

It is astounding how difficult it is for people to understand that this is a mod made for our joy, and the best part - for free! And people have the goddamn courage to come here complaining...

[Ivan]

How to remove pop-pt, counting grenades, reported injuries and the like?
Thank you

[BlackScorpion]

i had this mod for quite sometime and everything works ok until i load in on a map.....now it CTD, every damn time?!?!>!
Any advice?

[GreenGriffon]

Ivan - Start reading up in the Modding How-To forum. Anything you want to do can be learned there.

BlackScorpion - One thing you can try for troubleshooting purposes is to lower the number of factions you're starting a battle with. If you're trying to have the US and CW versus the WM and PE, instead try loading the map using only US vs. WM (or whatever 1-on-1 combo you want). If the map loads, then it's possible the higher number of textures loaded when you play with more factions is causing you to crash.

[sweeten2213]

Just a quick update...

I finally got a chance to do some modding on Sunday night. Finished up some German infantry squad abilities. I should finish the Germans very soon and move onto the Soviet Infantry abilities. After they are done I will move onto squad description text (none of the new units have a proper description yet - names are correct but they use other infantry descriptions)

[BlackScorpion]

Nope that didn't work. I dont get it. It loads up to about 90 percent then it crashes to desk top? I have never had this problem, before?

[blackbishop]

@BlackScorpion
Increase your PC's Virtual Memory.

[BlackScorpion]

how do i go about that?

[bangalor44]

Blackscorpion you can google virtual mem theres a formula for it also i had a similar problem i had to set the texture in the graphics on start page to medium or low hope this helps.

[GreenGriffon]

Sweeten, while you're looking at squad abilities, would it be possible for you to look into the rifle squad engagement ranges? They seem awfully short, and personally I feel they should be able to engage much further than they do right now.

Also, sight range for infantry units is woefully short. Tanks are fine and should be blind requiring combined arms, certainly, but infantry should be able to see further. Infantry are virtually blind and it makes having to recruit and position the few (if any) scouts you're permitted to have a real unpleasant chore instead of an interesting gameplay feature.

Besides, the AI doesn't appear to obey your LOS settings, so you're at a critical disadvantage in a comp-stomp because they can see everything while you can't even see the mobile artillery fifty yards ahead of you blowing away all of your expensive emplacements.

[gliz2]

I would second to Griffon on the LOS... It is devastating to see this against AI. And there is one problem to the whole idea. Either every faction/sub-sub should allow for at least 2 scouting/sniping units (with basically the same sigth ranges) or the binocular options should be given to much more Inf.

As to the engagement ranges of Infantry there was discusion on this. There is a problem with scale. I don't see it being a big problem. Yes - it would be nice to increase them by 20-30% but then on 1v1 maps you might have a bit of a sniping competition. Again - it's my personal view on this after long consideration though.

[sweeten2213]

I actually did look at the ranges to make them what they are now in the alpha. You may remember a few months ago and several pages ago where I was discussing ranges and how to put them "to scale". As I recall, I was able to put them to a scale, but there were and always will be disagreements as to what the scale should be. Mainly, exactly what gliz said. What works on an extra large 4v4 map doesn't work as well on a 1v1 small map and vice versa. However, small maps do exist (especially with the demand of the mod on graphics - many people may literally only be able to play small or medium maps and on 1v1 or 2v2's) and I need to take them into account. So the scale has to relative to those.

As for changes - right now I am looking to "finish rather than tweak". I am doing the squad abilities not to tweak them, but to fix them (IE some captain squads had a member in the squad screwing up a call in, some of the scout/recon squads had the old observation halt rather than bino, and other small things that were wrong or still based on the old system). It still requires a lot of work - for each faction about 3/4 of all the individual squad members needed/need changes so that's 1000's of units to change - plus the squads themselves needed some adjusting so that's 100's more files.

And what I mean by finish rather than tweak is to get this to a releasable alpha - it's been WAY too long. So I want to fix what's clearly wrong - then we can tweak after an alpha release.

[Twitchy]

@Sweeten - Good to hear you're getting back on the saddle man!

Two small questions on my end however, since I sadly lack the space on this current harddrive to get the Alpha up and running.

Do we have the 75mm LeiG Infantry Support gun in there? And moreover, is the Grille to "Prototype" for us or is it going to fit in somewhere.

Oh, almost forgot. Will the 37mm Pak Halftrack/AT Gun make an appearance?

I honestly can't remember and I've been home sick for the past couple of days, so forgive me if we already made these decisions/talks awhile ago.

Have a good one!

~Twitch

[sweeten2213]

@ Twitch - the 75mm LeiG is in the alpha, as is the grille and the 37mm HT

[GreenGriffon]

Sweeten - I completely agree....fix now, tweak later.

Thanks!

[Ivan]

Will the IS-2 and anti-aircraft gun K-61? Will the automatic switching of high explosive and armor-piercing shells. And then as you watch everything not easy ...

[sweeten2213]

The IS-2 and K61 aa gun are in v2.0. HE/AP shells more than likely won't be switchable for now. I like the idea of certain vehicle serving more specific purposes appropriate to how they were used as a majority. That may change in the future.

[Ivan]

All clear, I just do not see them in the tree of specializations of the Soviet.
With regard to urban assault grup, infantry will be equipped with body (visually)?
And would like to know the account penalty box, will they?

[Therewasatime]

Ivan,
The tree featured in the video are only special call ins. The units in question may not be part of special call ins, but may be only facility producible.

Ultimately that may not be the case however, as listed in the video description the tree displayed is subject to changes before it's final release.

Hope this clears things up.

[sweeten2213]

I was able to finish up the German squad abilities over the last two nights (for those with the alpha you may want to update). I will try and move onto the Soviet infantry squad abilities during the weekend.

Moral of the story - we are making progress again.

[Twitchy]

I've acquired the latest Alpha version of ET44 again, and will be group testing it with other Testers.

@Sweeten - I believe that after a testing game that ThereWasATime and I had he sent you an e-mail with some bugfixes enclosed, if he does not I would like to point out that:

The Soviet Engineer/Sapper (Combat units) Are, well invincible more or less.

Also, Whichever Sub Doctrine under the Panzer Lehr has Wespe's is still using the Marder III model.

[sweeten2213]

Glad to see u have the alpha now

I just "fixed" an ability that the Soviet engies have - hopefully their not invincible anymore

Also after checking in the lehr Wespe, I realized none but the 2.PD had the Wespe model (must have put it in the 2.pd to test, and forgot to add it to the rest after the test). They should all be fixed now

I'm not sure if I have Therewasatime's e-mail.

Just keep in the back of your mind as you are testing and getting lists together we are more or less "rushing" the alpha out there to the public at this point. Once I get these infantry squad abilities done (I am almost half way done the soviets now) I will do the text description fixes for the new units - then some of the obvious art fixes (IE we have some new pics for the doctrine selection screen where the old one's have the wrong divisions on them) and any glaring bugs (the wespe fix would be considered a glaring bug). I won't be tweaking balance, etc... until after an alpha release for the obvious fact that it will take time away from what is "clearly broken". The Soviet Engie thing was easy enough as I pretty much knew what it was and was one file to change - but anything requiring real figuring, testing, multiple file changing, etc... will more than likely wait. I anticipate doing what "needs" to be done at well over 100 hours of work left if that gives you any idea.

[Therewasatime]

Sweeten,

Glad to see you posting again :-) I know you're hard at work on v2.0

Twitchy and I did play a game earlier this week and I made a list of bugs we both experienced. I'll try to get it to you this weekend.

Please don't hesitate to message me with specific models you'd like tested out. I've started using FRAPS so I can even get you video checks on the unit abilities and characteristics in game, just let me know! :-)

I'm very glad the Soviet engineers have lost their invincibility. You have made a lot of German artillery crews very happy.

Ihr Kamerad,
Therewasatime

[gliz2]

@sweeten2213 & Testers

My report is on the binos. I have problem with coordinating the use of them on a 2v2 maps (on a bigger map it is a disaster). Having 2-3 units with them meaning you have to mannualy click every given cooldown period on the area you want to make visible. While I get the idea I personally think it would benefit to make it more of a perm ability. You'd point an area and it will be visible until you either move the unit or untick the bino/watching ability (then the cooldown should kick in). Now it is really annoying (and I mean really really annoying) to have to have monkey skills to switch between them scouting units to just have a LOS. I mean - that kills the fun of playing at the moment.

PS. Maybe all the sub-subs should have one sniper/scout to counter this problem. I guess that would mean much less work. What is your view on this guys?

Just one minor thingy - Last night I have played Reds against SS and the StuH or StuGs are overdone a bit. I mean each and every shell had hit something and the damages it wrecked (2 shots an infantry squad and a t-34/85 gone, another brought down a ISU-152 and Tankodesantovniki with 3 shots - and I mean shots not direct hits...). Maybe I just had a bad luck but it was odd.

[sweeten2213]

@ gliz - I hear what you are saying about the bino ability - however, one thing to keep in mind...

Theoretically the LOS of infantry is what it is (greater than vehicles, but to scale in reference to how far they could actually see unassisted by things like binoculars) and the bino ability is used to extend that using a "tool". I know you mentioned the LOS in general before, and we talked about how the scale of the larger maps seems "off" in order to make it appropriate for small maps. In short, do you think you may be seeing the bino ability as more of "what infantry should be" rather than a use of a tool? By no means is that a bad thing or accusational - just wondering is that plays into it. That being said, I suppose I could turn it into and on/off ability - off the top of my head I am not sure how that will affect it.

As for all subs and sub-subs having snipers or scouts, I think just about all of them do (maybe the Brits don't?) - I would have to look.

Edit - taking a look now...

All six US Subs have either a sniper or recon (all the sub-subs don't, but if the subs have it it means they are available)
About half of the Brit Subs have snipers - the ones that do not usually have carriers or dingos/AC's for scouting
The heer infantry subs have snipers, but the 4 arnor subs do not. They usually have motorcycles, HT's, etc... (more motorized) and a few of the sub-subs have infantry and motorized scouts
All six of the LW/SS subs have snipers
All six of the Soviet Subs have scout teams or snipers

So for the most part they are there.

As for the StuH/StuG - the StuH has the HE and the StuG the AP rounds. They are, as I recall, pretty proportionate to other similar guns (IE the StuG is almost identical to the 75mm Sherman) and of course the StuH does more damage, but with less armor penetration. As always I could take a look at the numbers (I looked at the StuG as I was typing and it has 162 damage where the Sherman 75mm has 160), but I was pretty careful as i did the tank guns for 2.0 to make them "proportionate"

[Twitchy]

@Sweeten2213 - I think the only odd things I've seen tank wise is Panthers still being extremely hard to kill with PIATs (They don't hit the tank itself, they keep hitting the ground under it) and the British AT Grenades seemed useless against the Panther aswell. The only thing that seemed to do the job was the 17 Pounder, but to my knowledge we can't get moveable versions of those anymore so the Emplacement just gets Mortared into oblivion. Maybe that would help my problem? I dunno.

Fireflies and Achilles in my opinion need abit of a buff, they don't seem to be able to take out any of the heavier armor (Not that they should be equal with the Panther or what have you, but they certainly are EXTREMELY fragile tanks at the moment)

And I thought the Firefly was a capable tank when it came to actually hunting down the German ones.

I dunno, have a look at them.

Also, for the 709th Division I like what you did with the "Advanced Building Pioneers" But I still think that all Pioneer Gruppe's from the Doctrines that can get Emplacements/Bunkers should be able to build them. Otherwise they seem really odd and I find it extremely hard to move around two Five man Pioneer squads who have zero combat ability to build things.

[gliz2]

@sweeten2213

I'm taking that sniper thing back then

As for the binos - the LOS in general is acceptable - but I'd question the idea of the tool given. My idea would be that the area that they reveal now on a temporary basis should be revealed permanently (until you move/they are attacked etc). I guess that would be both more realistic and playable. I really don't undestand the point of this restriction - I mean why on earth you can use binos for X seconds. Batteries running low or what

As for the StuH42 - well many things had been kinda scaled-down for the purpose of playability on smaller maps. But I will have to play bit more to be able to get my head over this one.

@Twitchy
The problem is that the Firefly gun was very unaccurate at a distance of ca 1500 yards the Panther could hit a 1 feet target with 85% while the Firefly only at ca 50% (I will double check this tomorrow) APDS (the APCBC were far more accurate) http://wargaming.info/1998/us-army-1...ring-test-no3/. The same was for Russian tanks (but this was due to terrible optics - and they got they way around it with those big guns).
Anyway at close range anything should be able to destroy anything with a single round. The fights that went under 1000 yards were to the point of who will hit the target first (with the exepction of shorter 75/76mm guns).
One more thing IS-2 gun had a theoretical accuracy of over 50% on 2000 yards (which is preatty impressive as Tiger had ca 30%)

[Twitchy]

@Gilz2 - Hmm...Alright.

I like the idea for the Binoculars that you're suggesting as well.

@Sweeten - Take a look at my earlier post, and give me a shout of what you think of what I've pointed out/suggested.

[sweeten2213]

@ Twitch and Gliz -

I will more than likely make that switch to the bino to make it on/off

As for the 709 and other emplacement builders. I still like the idea of only having the starting builders able to build emplacements. Otherwise those 5 man units with no combat skills truly become useless. The Pio's/Engie's from all doctrines other than the starting builders certainly can build some stuff on a more minor scale (bags, mines, trenches, etc...) but I see them as front line combat units rather than behind the scenes giant emplacement builders (keep in mind that some of the emplacements are concrete - that wouldn't exactly be an "under fire" thing to build). I certainly see your point where it would make things easier or "less frustrating" or even easier to manage - but I like to keep things more "specialized" with certain units doing certain things rather than any "do it all" units. It's the same philosophy for the AP/HE unit switching. If that were the case in the mod, I am sure numerous units would never be built since you would another that can do the now useless units job and it's own. Does that make sense?

Just a general note on all things balance...

What makes the mod work (or not work where it is off) is the balance between cost and power. For vehicles, more powerful guns costs more muni, thicker armor costs more MP, thicker armor/size costs more fuel, "eliteness" effects MP, and all of the above combined affect time to build. For infantry, health affects cost, weapon affects muni, "eliteness" affects MP, and all of the above affect time to build.

So theoretically, Group A that costs X and takes Y time to build should be equal to Group B that costs X and takes Y time to build. However, if you facing off with a "cheaper faster to build" force that matches in numbers to another "more expensive slower to build" force (say 10 units each), the more expensive slower to build force will win. Two shermans will lose to 2 Panthers every time - but those Shermans were also cheaper and were able to be built much faster (in terms of build time). You can build 3 or 4 Shermans for the cost and time of 2 Panthers. And an SS Panther will be more powerful, but also more expensive and slower to build than a 2.Pz Div Panther.

All that doesn't answer all balance questions, and I am sure there will be balance issues with this Alpha when released. But I hope that helps describe the theory behind it all. There are many units, as they were in real life, that are superior. But in the mod they cost more and take longer to build. That (hopefully) allows for the inferior units to outnumber the superior.

And for giggles - here is the main site I use for armor thickness and weapon penetration - http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/introduction.html

I wanted to try and use one main resource to keep things relative (and as you have seen relativity and scale is a pain to get right)

[gliz2]

@sweeten2213
I can't wait to test the on/off binos

As for the balance issue - may I remind that for each Firefly there was (more or less) 1/2 Panther in Normandy. And for each Sherman there was only 1/9 Panther in Normandy. I know I'm a pain in the ass with my balance theory. The thing is that ze Germans were outnumbered 5 or 6 to 1 in tanks yet still they managed to hold a line for so long. The key factor should be the experience (and I'd rather have a system with units not gaining any expo on the battlefield but they should be green/elite from the beginig thus they should cost less or more. This is off topic as I cannot see it implemented in COH).

And so many times tanks were knocked out but repairable. I do not know if this could be reflected in the mod (something like a critical damage - where you could repair the tank but it would not be operational, moving basiclly it would be a sitting duck. You would need a Engineering Tank to repair it).

I also use this site - I think it's reliable

[Twitchy]

@Gilz2 - Well, in a perfect world we could try switching to an EiR like system, with Persistant veterancy and No buildings (The different Sub Doctrines could be earnable through Experience through Battles instead of the "Ranks" on the EiR system. So a player could start off with a Specific Division and then work towards which sub Docts they would like first.)

At least that's my opinion anyways. We could still use the same Doctrine Call ins as player earnable abilities in the Doctrine.

I dunno, I'm just picking at straws here.

About the "Knocked out but repairable" idea, one could have a tank put into a state much like an AT gun where the "Crew" has been killed and that if it was Re-crewed it would have either all of the Critical hits that it had before it's original death or we could just force it to have all of the criticals in place so the player would be forced to repair it.

[gliz2]

@Twitchy
Maybe decreasing the speed at which units gain expo would be easier to do (same problem as with everything - scale). Plus the veteran/elite units would need to be far more expensive. I think we should leave this for now as I do not suppose there is enough time to implement such a change and to properly test it.

My vote would be for forcing the player to repair the tank (and it should really take a while). But now I see the problem - how it would go with the cap system? Would the "knocked down" still be counted to the cap?

[Twitchy]

@Gilz2 - I think the "Knocked down" vehicle should only count towards the population cap once it has been full repaired and it is capable of actually doing anything. And of course, at least in my opinion we'd section it off so that opposite factions can't recrew the opposite sides tanks.

Think of it as Recrewing an AT Gun.

You can't repair the uncrewed AT gun when there isn't a crew on it, but you can destroy it. So you get your special "Tank Crew" unit out of 4-5 Tanker looking guys, and you "Recrew" the Vehicle just as if it were an AT Gun.

But instead of it being instantly useable you have to repair it all the way up. Now whether the Crew that you just recrewed it with should automatically have an extremely slow, base repair rate or whether we should force the player to use any unit that repairs is debateable, but just like an AT Gun you can't repair the AT Gun without a crew but you can destroy the AT gun in either form. So the enemy could easily bombard/attack ground/attack the recrewed vehicle and destroy the Wreckage completely, or they could simply just uncrew the Tank again just like an AT gun or an MG.

I think having this would add ALOT of depth to gameplay, and it would certainly be cool to see in action.

Also, I have no idea if this is true or not but if an AT gun/88 dies in it's emplacement (So it can't be recrewed) and you repair the Emplacement does the 88/AT gun come back or is it destroyed regardless?

Oh, one more thing while I'm thinking of it.

What if AT Guns could have their Main guns destroyed or have their wheels hit, making them immobile or just extremely slow moving? I know Men of War has this type of system in place and it certainly helps the realism factor.

And if everyone is worried about it becoming a reoccuring problem you could easily put a "Crew Repair" ability on them and have the crew stand up from the AT gun and start the repairing animation for 30-60 seconds leaving the AT gun vulnerable.

[onemanarmy6491]

Hello, me and my friends have enjoyed your mods for years.

We played way back when 1.4-1.7 was released but havnt played in over year, since then n44 has been wiped off all 4 of our computers,


But now we reinstalled and want to play this awesome mod again but whenever we try to play multiplayer, we all crash to desktop(or atleast someone ALWAYS does), we got it to work all the months back with 1.7 but its been so long we dont know how to get it to work again...
*mod works when we all play a skirmish or so individually with no problems*

could it be the custom maps we're playing?(we had no problems before)

I know you're hard at work on 2.0 and 1.7 isnt a priorty right now but any help would be great!

[gliz2]

@onemanarmy6491

Strange thing - If it was a compatibility issue you'd rather have an error message (at least I've always had one). Crashing straight to desktop with no message whatsoever? Is the map starting to load and then crashes? Would need some more details or better a crash log.

[gliz2]

I was thinking on some idea someone had earlier - so-called hero units. Well I was thinking of maybe adding this so-called hero units as a special one-off call-ins? The units should be with better ratings (faster reload time, better LOS - say 10-15%)

on the knocked down I have a good one example:
At 26th March 1944 sgt. A. Pegov (commander of the light tank T-70) of 3rd Guards tank army saw a columm of aproximately 18 German tanks. Pegov took an ambus and waited untill the enemy get closer to 150-200m. Then he open fire by the APDS ammo and flamed one of the Panther and immobilized another one. The road was blocked, and the T-70 retreated. (http://wio.ru/tank/ww2tank.htm)

[Twitchy]

@Gilz2 - That was my idea, and they were Fictional characters, but I see no harm in your idea either. Mine would be more of an optional addition anyways with the ability for the Host to have it in the Gamemode or in the Rewards menu.

[Brandon]

the decade mod has something similar, although pretty much every unit is a hero unit

[gliz2]

@Twitchy
Well my point is that we have a realistic units and they could use some realistic aces (heroes to me sounds like something from a Hulk comic) like Wittman, Barkmann etc. They should have the top expo plus 10-15% better stats for reload, LOS, turning the turrent etc. So not to make them 'heroes' but rather make them unique but still not that hard to kill. They should be better killers though. Maybe some inspirational commanders who could inspire troops bit longer (real guys though). It might add a bit of flavour to the game.
And they should be available as a unique units - say 3-4 per sub-sub but the player could only take 1 or 2 of them. Still it sounds like a hack of a job to me and I'm no coder myself...

But I do think this is a very useful idead Twitchy and I'd love to see it one day in Norm'44
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On the night of August 12th, Capt. Ivushkin and crews of two tanks heard a sound of engines. In the morning of August 13th, Germans performed an artillery and air bombardment but without any success due to the good camouflage of the Soviet troops and tanks and overall lack of inteligence on Soviet positions. At 7:00, 11 Kingtigers moved straight into the Soviet ambush. German tanks had problems to move in the sandy ground and advanced slowly. Three Kingtigers passed the camouflaged T-34-85 and afterwards two tanks of Capt. Ivushkin opened fire and destroyed 3 Kingtigers by direct hits to their side armor. The road was blocked and other Kingtigers were forced to retreat.

On the northern flank of the bulge, the attack started at 9:00 as four Kingtigers went into the counterattack against the Soviet Infantry, supported by the assault guns. Germans lost one Kingtiger to the fire of ISU-122 of Lt. Klimenkov. The other three tanks were forced to retreat, because the sandy ground limited their maneuverability.

After that, Soviet infantry entered the village of Ogledow without strong resistance from Germans but was suddenly attacked by 7 Kingtigers from the flank. ISU-122 (No.98) commanded by Lt. Udalov, which covered the flank opened fire from the distance of 700 meters, destroying one and damaging another Kingtiger. German tanks returned but due to the low speed they could not retreat once in danger. Lt. Udalov crossed the forest, came into a flank of this group, opened fire and hit another one. In two hours, Germans attacked again, but well camouflaged ISU-122 commanded by Lt. Beliakov opened the fire from the distance of 1000 meters hiting another Kingtiger. During their attack on Szydlow, Germans lost 4 Kingtigers to fire of Soviet IS-2 tanks, which opened fire at ranges from 700 to 1000 meters.

Soviet troops rushed into the village of Ogledow and Staszow, where they captured 3 Kingtigers (No.102, Command Tank No.502 , No.234), which were left behind by German crews. No.102 and No.234 were brokendown but repairable, while Command Tank No.502 was fully operational. No.502 was originally No.002 and belonged to the junior commander of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 501. The number was changed by the Soviets after capture due to unknown reasons. All three tanks were captured by tankers from Major Korobow's 53rd Guards Tank Brigade.

Later on, captured tanks were shown to the commander of the 3rd Tank Army Gen. Col. P. Rybalko, who was impressed by their weight and dimensions. In a month, one of them was on display of captured German AFVs. It was ordered that all three tanks were to be transported to Kubinka but only No.102 and No.502 reached their destination as No.234 was used for parts to keep other two tanks in running condition.

During the three days long battle (August 11th to 13th), in the region of villages Stachow and Szyldow, 14 Kingtigers were destroyed by tanks and asssault guns of the 6th Guard Tank Corps.

The result of the first appearance of Kingtigers on the Eastern front was unsuccessful. Kingtigers were actually perfect tanks for defense but during offensive they suffered high losses, what is proven by events on the Eastern and Western fronts.

source: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/articles/tigertam.htm

So much for the 'mighty' Konigtiger