For the people who want a balanced game -1 reply

Please wait...

the_move

Frisch, Fromm, Fröhlich, Frei!

50 XP

28th September 2003

0 Uploads

656 Posts

0 Threads

#11 17 years ago

These are not the only problems.

The problem that DC suffers is that the US Troops have more various stuff. That makes them more interesting and most players join US.

In FH all Teams at all maps should have interesting and -certainly- enough equipment, so players join both opposing teams equally.

Players imbalance is the biggest problem of all in any Team Match game.




the_move

Frisch, Fromm, Fröhlich, Frei!

50 XP

28th September 2003

0 Uploads

656 Posts

0 Threads

#12 17 years ago
FreakNasty Russia - 13.600.000 Germany - 3.250.000 Great Britain - 330.000 French - 220.000 United States - 170.000 There is no need for western allies to die more often in this GAME!

Not quite! Most of the German casualties were in Russia. And most of them died by cold (it was a hard winter) than by gunfire.

I highly doubt that hollywood movies were 6 US G.I die in comparison to 400 Germans on the other side show realism. I am pretty sure 85 - 90% of the German casualties were in Russia and the eastern front.

And not the Western and Africa Front.




FreakNasty

Singlehearted

50 XP

7th October 2003

0 Uploads

2,489 Posts

0 Threads

#13 17 years ago
the_moveThese are not the only problems. The problem that DC suffers is that the US Troops have more various stuff. That makes them more interesting and most players join US. In FH all Teams at all maps should have interesting and -certainly- enough equipment, so players join both opposing teams equally. Players imbalance is the biggest problem of all in any Team Match game.

I agree with you. On DC it's a bit boring playing Iraq. Everyone looks like Saddam and every rifle looks like an AK. FH should get various stuff of weapons and vehicles (hopfully not focused on the germans) but that will be a lot of work. I'm looking forward to further releases, new maps and new armies and... a well balanced game within historically correctness.:clap:




FreakNasty

Singlehearted

50 XP

7th October 2003

0 Uploads

2,489 Posts

0 Threads

#14 17 years ago
the_moveNot quite! Most of the German casualties were in Russia. And most of them died by cold (it was a hard winter) than by gunfire. I highly doubt that hollywood movies were 6 US G.I die in comparison to 400 Germans on the other side show realism. I am pretty sure 85 - 90% of the German casualties were in Russia and the eastern front. And not the Western and Africa Front.

actually there were about half a million german cassualties in the westernfront battles. And i forgot the Italians with 330.000




bmargb

BF 1936 TEAM

50 XP

31st August 2003

0 Uploads

340 Posts

0 Threads

#15 17 years ago

To FreakNasty. When I talk about Superweapons, its just a term to said that were better than the allies ones (I copy that from a great english writer called Federick Forsyth).

So calculate the number of the cassualtities in the western subfront... maybe 500.000 versus 200.000 germans . (5 allies for each german) 100.000 british, 200.000 americans, plus 200.000 french.

In the Italian subfront: 100.000 british 100.000 americans 100.000 germans.

In the Russia front the germans casualities were about 3.200.000 (plus 400.000 romanian soldiers, 200.000 italian soldiers, 100.000 hungarian soldiers) versus the russian 11.700.000.

(I utilized the fonts of my enciclopedy, it is reduced to 100.000 amounts)




FreakNasty

Singlehearted

50 XP

7th October 2003

0 Uploads

2,489 Posts

0 Threads

#16 17 years ago
bmargbTo FreakNasty. When I talk about Superweapons, its just a term to said that were better than the allies ones (I copy that from a great english writer called Federick Forsyth). So calculate the number of the cassualtities in the western subfront... maybe 500.000 versus 200.000 germans . (5 allies for each german) 100.000 british, 200.000 americans, plus 200.000 french. In the Italian subfront: 100.000 british 100.000 americans 100.000 germans. In the Russia front the germans casualities were about 3.200.000 (plus 400.000 romanian soldiers, 200.000 italian soldiers, 100.000 hungarian soldiers) versus the russian 11.700.000. (I utilized the fonts of my enciclopedy, it is reduced to 100.000 amounts)

Hello bmargb! I have only waited for your post;) Maybee Federick Forsyth is wrong? Wich "superweapons" did he ment? (I utilized the fonts of "Die Landung in der Normandie" Dr. Christian Zentner, Moewig Verlag and "Die Invasion - Frankreich 1944", Janusz Piekalkiewicz, Bechtermünz Verlag)




bmargb

BF 1936 TEAM

50 XP

31st August 2003

0 Uploads

340 Posts

0 Threads

#17 17 years ago

hello Freak :) Federick Foryth said that Panzerfaust, STG44, Tiger, King Tiger, the reaction fighters, the reaction bombers, the V1/V2, and thinks like that.

I think that you can undesrtand, in that cases, the word "superweapon" is equal to more advanced & powerful weapons.

NOTE: I don't got anything against the allies weapons. (but I'd rather use the german ones in game) I'm waiting for the AT rifles and the King Tiger.




FreakNasty

Singlehearted

50 XP

7th October 2003

0 Uploads

2,489 Posts

0 Threads

#18 17 years ago
bmargbhello Freak :) Federick Foryth said that Panzerfaust, STG44, Tiger, King Tiger, the reaction fighters, the reaction bombers, the V1/V2, and thinks like that. I think that you can undesrtand, in that cases, the word "superweapon" is equal to more advanced & powerful weapons. NOTE: I don't got anything against the allies weapons. (but I'd rather use the german ones in game) I'm waiting for the AT rifles and the King Tiger.

Come on... Most of theese weapons saw only little action, had low production numbers and were introduced very late. Deutsche Propaganda. But one funny thing... Why do you allways try to teach me? :confused: I know what "superweapons" mean, i just wanted to know what weapons you are talking about. ;)




bmargb

BF 1936 TEAM

50 XP

31st August 2003

0 Uploads

340 Posts

0 Threads

#19 17 years ago
FreakNastyCome on... Most of theese weapons saw only little action, had low production numbers and were introduced very late. Deutsche Propaganda. But one funny thing... Why do you allways try to teach me? :confused: I know what "superweapons" mean, i just wanted to know what weapons you are talking about. ;)

Well the STG44, panzerfaust, Tiger, King Tiger, V1 and V2 were used in a important numbers. (milions of panzerfaust, thausand of STG44, thausand of Tigers, about 180 King Tiger, and hundreds of V1/V2 )

I don't want to teach anything, I only try to explain as better as I can.




Artie Bucco

Guey>Tio(a)

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

3,682 Posts

0 Threads

#20 17 years ago

Ive always found that the STG44 is at least partially overated. It is no were near the uber weapon it was and it's round was comprable to the .30 carbine and the 7.62 tokrav.