It is currently Mon May 29, 2017 1:15 am



Welcome
Welcome to Victoria 2 multiplayer forum.


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:46 pm
Posts: 7
Otto von Saxony wrote:
Supernova wrote:
One thing that you have to remember is that hoi4 doesn't represent everything directly. The USA extensively used bazooka support but there isn't a rocket launcher support company, it's represented as a tech that gives infantry more hard attack and piercing. Flamethrowers are debatably represented in the support weapons tech, which already improves breakthrough. Armored cars are pretty much the same thing as mechanized infantry.


I disagree with flamethrowers, IRL they were only used in specialist units and not used in every divisions. So they cannot be covered in Support Weapons. Furthermore, Support Weapons tech effects infantry battalions and infantry battalions never deployed flamethrowers but specialist units like the aforestated Germany Pioneers or American Special Weapons companies.

Armoured Cars were added for Heavy Recon, which is also clearly not in recon as well the stats are indicative of an infantry unit not an armour car unit. I added the line Battalion because why not the equipment already exists. Also Mechanized Infantry are very clearly infantry in APC and later in IFV,not infantry who have armoured cars.


After looking it us some more, infantry flamethrowers were used so minimally and spread out in europe they shouldn't appear at a company level. The German pioneers were primarly engineer companies and the Italians only had 8 flamethowers per division. The only use big enough to possibly justify it is the US marines in the Pacific theater, but it doesn't really make sense to make a new unit type and new equipment for such a niche thing, there were dozens of armor variants that don't appear in game.

Armored cars and APCs are basically the same thing, since the former evolved into the latter. If you want to add an armored car tech before mechanized in order to get them earlier you could justify that and just give them stats slightly worse than later mechanized infantry.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 6:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:10 am
Posts: 80
Supernova wrote:
Otto von Saxony wrote:
Supernova wrote:
One thing that you have to remember is that hoi4 doesn't represent everything directly. The USA extensively used bazooka support but there isn't a rocket launcher support company, it's represented as a tech that gives infantry more hard attack and piercing. Flamethrowers are debatably represented in the support weapons tech, which already improves breakthrough. Armored cars are pretty much the same thing as mechanized infantry.


I disagree with flamethrowers, IRL they were only used in specialist units and not used in every divisions. So they cannot be covered in Support Weapons. Furthermore, Support Weapons tech effects infantry battalions and infantry battalions never deployed flamethrowers but specialist units like the aforestated Germany Pioneers or American Special Weapons companies.

Armoured Cars were added for Heavy Recon, which is also clearly not in recon as well the stats are indicative of an infantry unit not an armour car unit. I added the line Battalion because why not the equipment already exists. Also Mechanized Infantry are very clearly infantry in APC and later in IFV,not infantry who have armoured cars.


After looking it us some more, infantry flamethrowers were used so minimally and spread out in europe they shouldn't appear at a company level. The German pioneers were primarly engineer companies and the Italians only had 8 flamethowers per division. The only use big enough to possibly justify it is the US marines in the Pacific theater, but it doesn't really make sense to make a new unit type and new equipment for such a niche thing, there were dozens of armor variants that don't appear in game.

Armored cars and APCs are basically the same thing, since the former evolved into the latter. If you want to add an armored car tech before mechanized in order to get them earlier you could justify that and just give them stats slightly worse than later mechanized infantry.


An Italian Alpini division in 1940 fielded ~54 flamethrower in theory (in practice it was lower) so unless you want to provide me a source I am gunna stay with the information I have.

They were used sparsely in Europe because they are A) expensive B) short ranged C) heavy and D) best at attacking fortifications. Europe, being mostly mobile was not the best place for flamethrower usage. That being said the USA deployed 154 on D-Day and produced 10,000 during 1940-1941 so they evidently planned on using them.

If you have a source feel free to share it, otherwise I'm gunna trust my sources.

To armoured cars, I again emphasis they exist because they are going to be used as Heavy Recon and there is no reason to not allow them to be in their own battalions. Eventually I'll fix heavy recon and then they will be re-enable.

Also I disagree that armoured cars evolved into IFV as both armoured cars and IFV still exist and are both used. Furthermore an AC is basically a tank on wheels, whereas an IFV is an APC with the turret. Where an APC is a vehicle used to deploy infantry to battle and that they can fight while inside of. An APC is basically a truck with armour and tracks, so I don't see how that could have evolved from an armoured wheeled turreted vehicle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:46 pm
Posts: 7
Otto von Saxony wrote:
Supernova wrote:
Otto von Saxony wrote:
I disagree with flamethrowers, IRL they were only used in specialist units and not used in every divisions. So they cannot be covered in Support Weapons. Furthermore, Support Weapons tech effects infantry battalions and infantry battalions never deployed flamethrowers but specialist units like the aforestated Germany Pioneers or American Special Weapons companies.

Armoured Cars were added for Heavy Recon, which is also clearly not in recon as well the stats are indicative of an infantry unit not an armour car unit. I added the line Battalion because why not the equipment already exists. Also Mechanized Infantry are very clearly infantry in APC and later in IFV,not infantry who have armoured cars.


After looking it us some more, infantry flamethrowers were used so minimally and spread out in europe they shouldn't appear at a company level. The German pioneers were primarly engineer companies and the Italians only had 8 flamethowers per division. The only use big enough to possibly justify it is the US marines in the Pacific theater, but it doesn't really make sense to make a new unit type and new equipment for such a niche thing, there were dozens of armor variants that don't appear in game.

Armored cars and APCs are basically the same thing, since the former evolved into the latter. If you want to add an armored car tech before mechanized in order to get them earlier you could justify that and just give them stats slightly worse than later mechanized infantry.


An Italian Alpini division in 1940 fielded ~54 flamethrower in theory (in practice it was lower) so unless you want to provide me a source I am gunna stay with the information I have.

They were used sparsely in Europe because they are A) expensive B) short ranged C) heavy and D) best at attacking fortifications. Europe, being mostly mobile was not the best place for flamethrower usage. That being said the USA deployed 154 on D-Day and produced 10,000 during 1940-1941 so they evidently planned on using them.

If you have a source feel free to share it, otherwise I'm gunna trust my sources.

To armoured cars, I again emphasis they exist because they are going to be used as Heavy Recon and there is no reason to not allow them to be in their own battalions. Eventually I'll fix heavy recon and then they will be re-enable.

Also I disagree that armoured cars evolved into IFV as both armoured cars and IFV still exist and are both used. Furthermore an AC is basically a tank on wheels, whereas an IFV is an APC with the turret. Where an APC is a vehicle used to deploy infantry to battle and that they can fight while inside of. An APC is basically a truck with armour and tracks, so I don't see how that could have evolved from an armoured wheeled turreted vehicle.


Italian wikipedia (which sources some book) claims 12 flamethrowers per division mainly within the engineer company. That number is nowhere near enough to justify a separate company off 300 people. Similarly 154 is almost nothing on the scale of something like D-Day. The US did produce a bunch of them, but they were mainly the marines in the pacific, and stored away until the Korean War and Vietnam War.

An IFV is somewhat different because it is better armed and meant to assist the infantry that it transports. Both ACs and APCs serve the same role of transporting infantry more safely than basic motorized infantry, the wiki page on APCs even says that they evolved from armored cars. An AC is in no way a tank on wheels, as they were much lighter and had much weaker weapons similar to an APC which were also lightly armed and armored and were usually wheeled or half track. an IFV is closer to a tank, but is still lighter and fulfills a fundementally different role.

Any of them can and were used for heavy recon, but a heavy recon is pointless for gameplay because it would do the same thing as a regular recon division but cost more.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:10 am
Posts: 80
Supernova wrote:
Otto wrote:
Supernova wrote:

After looking it us some more, infantry flamethrowers were used so minimally and spread out in europe they shouldn't appear at a company level. The German pioneers were primarly engineer companies and the Italians only had 8 flamethowers per division. The only use big enough to possibly justify it is the US marines in the Pacific theater, but it doesn't really make sense to make a new unit type and new equipment for such a niche thing, there were dozens of armor variants that don't appear in game.

Armored cars and APCs are basically the same thing, since the former evolved into the latter. If you want to add an armored car tech before mechanized in order to get them earlier you could justify that and just give them stats slightly worse than later mechanized infantry.


An Italian Alpini division in 1940 fielded ~54 flamethrower in theory (in practice it was lower) so unless you want to provide me a source I am gunna stay with the information I have.

They were used sparsely in Europe because they are A) expensive B) short ranged C) heavy and D) best at attacking fortifications. Europe, being mostly mobile was not the best place for flamethrower usage. That being said the USA deployed 154 on D-Day and produced 10,000 during 1940-1941 so they evidently planned on using them.

If you have a source feel free to share it, otherwise I'm gunna trust my sources.

To armoured cars, I again emphasis they exist because they are going to be used as Heavy Recon and there is no reason to not allow them to be in their own battalions. Eventually I'll fix heavy recon and then they will be re-enable.

Also I disagree that armoured cars evolved into IFV as both armoured cars and IFV still exist and are both used. Furthermore an AC is basically a tank on wheels, whereas an IFV is an APC with the turret. Where an APC is a vehicle used to deploy infantry to battle and that they can fight while inside of. An APC is basically a truck with armour and tracks, so I don't see how that could have evolved from an armoured wheeled turreted vehicle.


Italian wikipedia (which sources some book) claims 12 flamethrowers per division mainly within the engineer company. That number is nowhere near enough to justify a separate company off 300 people. Similarly 154 is almost nothing on the scale of something like D-Day. The US did produce a bunch of them, but they were mainly the marines in the pacific, and stored away until the Korean War and Vietnam War.

An IFV is somewhat different because it is better armed and meant to assist the infantry that it transports. Both ACs and APCs serve the same role of transporting infantry more safely than basic motorized infantry, the wiki page on APCs even says that they evolved from armored cars. An AC is in no way a tank on wheels, as they were much lighter and had much weaker weapons similar to an APC which were also lightly armed and armored and were usually wheeled or half track. an IFV is closer to a tank, but is still lighter and fulfills a fundementally different role.

Any of them can and were used for heavy recon, but a heavy recon is pointless for gameplay because it would do the same thing as a regular recon division but cost more.


The USA landed with 5 divisions IIRC on D-Day so 154 is approximately accurate to my units of 24.

In regards to Italy I'm very specifically referring to Alpini in 1940 which used 54 in theory. If your looking at in practice equipment distribution during the war that is a different story. The theoretical value is more important in this context.

In regards to AC an IFV like a Bradley has the same armour and gun as a modern AC. Furthermore, few AC were designed to car troops, instead as reconnaissance vehicles as they were light cheap and fast. Additionally AC tended to have 20mm-50mm guns by late war compared to APC have an HMG at best. That puts them into a far different category than APCs.

To me, a tank is essentially a combat vehicle that is Mobile,tracked, armoured and armed. Seeing that an AC is Mobile, wheeled, armoured and armed it is basically a tank on wheels. IRL some of the heavier AC and lightest tanks are only distinguishable by wheeled vs tracked. Example being Stuart vs Staghound. Thus I think my assessment is reasonable.

In regards to use, paying more for a battalion thay has a large punch is the entire doctrinal basis for Schwerpunkt. You concenitrate all of your assets to a small point so you can break through somewhere. That was the design intention behind Heavy Recon, a more expensive but more powerful recon unit you could use to make breakthroughs divisions stronger.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 6:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:46 pm
Posts: 7
Otto von Saxony wrote:
Supernova wrote:
Otto wrote:

An Italian Alpini division in 1940 fielded ~54 flamethrower in theory (in practice it was lower) so unless you want to provide me a source I am gunna stay with the information I have.

They were used sparsely in Europe because they are A) expensive B) short ranged C) heavy and D) best at attacking fortifications. Europe, being mostly mobile was not the best place for flamethrower usage. That being said the USA deployed 154 on D-Day and produced 10,000 during 1940-1941 so they evidently planned on using them.

If you have a source feel free to share it, otherwise I'm gunna trust my sources.

To armoured cars, I again emphasis they exist because they are going to be used as Heavy Recon and there is no reason to not allow them to be in their own battalions. Eventually I'll fix heavy recon and then they will be re-enable.

Also I disagree that armoured cars evolved into IFV as both armoured cars and IFV still exist and are both used. Furthermore an AC is basically a tank on wheels, whereas an IFV is an APC with the turret. Where an APC is a vehicle used to deploy infantry to battle and that they can fight while inside of. An APC is basically a truck with armour and tracks, so I don't see how that could have evolved from an armoured wheeled turreted vehicle.


Italian wikipedia (which sources some book) claims 12 flamethrowers per division mainly within the engineer company. That number is nowhere near enough to justify a separate company off 300 people. Similarly 154 is almost nothing on the scale of something like D-Day. The US did produce a bunch of them, but they were mainly the marines in the pacific, and stored away until the Korean War and Vietnam War.

An IFV is somewhat different because it is better armed and meant to assist the infantry that it transports. Both ACs and APCs serve the same role of transporting infantry more safely than basic motorized infantry, the wiki page on APCs even says that they evolved from armored cars. An AC is in no way a tank on wheels, as they were much lighter and had much weaker weapons similar to an APC which were also lightly armed and armored and were usually wheeled or half track. an IFV is closer to a tank, but is still lighter and fulfills a fundementally different role.

Any of them can and were used for heavy recon, but a heavy recon is pointless for gameplay because it would do the same thing as a regular recon division but cost more.


The USA landed with 5 divisions IIRC on D-Day so 154 is approximately accurate to my units of 24.

In regards to Italy I'm very specifically referring to Alpini in 1940 which used 54 in theory. If your looking at in practice equipment distribution during the war that is a different story. The theoretical value is more important in this context.

In regards to AC an IFV like a Bradley has the same armour and gun as a modern AC. Furthermore, few AC were designed to car troops, instead as reconnaissance vehicles as they were light cheap and fast. Additionally AC tended to have 20mm-50mm guns by late war compared to APC have an HMG at best. That puts them into a far different category than APCs.

To me, a tank is essentially a combat vehicle that is Mobile,tracked, armoured and armed. Seeing that an AC is Mobile, wheeled, armoured and armed it is basically a tank on wheels. IRL some of the heavier AC and lightest tanks are only distinguishable by wheeled vs tracked. Example being Stuart vs Staghound. Thus I think my assessment is reasonable.

In regards to use, paying more for a battalion thay has a large punch is the entire doctrinal basis for Schwerpunkt. You concenitrate all of your assets to a small point so you can break through somewhere. That was the design intention behind Heavy Recon, a more expensive but more powerful recon unit you could use to make breakthroughs divisions stronger.


My source claimed 12 (possibly 36, the wording wasn't very clear) per division as a theoretical value. It doesn't matter either way though because 24 or 54 is still well short of a company of 300, proven by the fact that the Italian military did not list them as a company in their order of battle, while they did list the engineering companies that most of them were part of. Maybe you could add a branch tech to engineering companies or marines, but for the numbers they were used in it doesn't make since to have to dedicate factories to special equipment.

The definitions of APCs and IFVs have changed somewhat over time and most modern APCs have weapons at least as good as an old AC, while some new IFVs have weapons pulled off of tanks (although they are still much more lightly armored). You also have to consider that light tanks fell out of favor and that the lines blur between a heavy AC/APC/IFV and a light tank (some Stuarts were converted to APCs). And while tanks are always tracked and ACs are wheeled, APCs and IFVs can be either or half track. There is also heavy overlap in their roles, as they have all been used for both transport and heavy recon. Ranting aside, I think that they are similar enough to not warrant a new equipment type.

As for their use, a better but more expensive recon unit is reasonable, but I think it would be better represented by just having a higher recon value (maybe +1.5 instead of +1) because they could move more quickly and safely while doing recon. More breakthough doesn't make sense because their strength was doing recon for the tanks, not in the breakthough itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:10 am
Posts: 80
Supernova wrote:
Otto von Saxony wrote:
Supernova wrote:
Italian wikipedia (which sources some book) claims 12 flamethrowers per division mainly within the engineer company. That number is nowhere near enough to justify a separate company off 300 people. Similarly 154 is almost nothing on the scale of something like D-Day. The US did produce a bunch of them, but they were mainly the marines in the pacific, and stored away until the Korean War and Vietnam War.

An IFV is somewhat different because it is better armed and meant to assist the infantry that it transports. Both ACs and APCs serve the same role of transporting infantry more safely than basic motorized infantry, the wiki page on APCs even says that they evolved from armored cars. An AC is in no way a tank on wheels, as they were much lighter and had much weaker weapons similar to an APC which were also lightly armed and armored and were usually wheeled or half track. an IFV is closer to a tank, but is still lighter and fulfills a fundementally different role.

Any of them can and were used for heavy recon, but a heavy recon is pointless for gameplay because it would do the same thing as a regular recon division but cost more.


The USA landed with 5 divisions IIRC on D-Day so 154 is approximately accurate to my units of 24.

In regards to Italy I'm very specifically referring to Alpini in 1940 which used 54 in theory. If your looking at in practice equipment distribution during the war that is a different story. The theoretical value is more important in this context.

In regards to AC an IFV like a Bradley has the same armour and gun as a modern AC. Furthermore, few AC were designed to car troops, instead as reconnaissance vehicles as they were light cheap and fast. Additionally AC tended to have 20mm-50mm guns by late war compared to APC have an HMG at best. That puts them into a far different category than APCs.

To me, a tank is essentially a combat vehicle that is Mobile,tracked, armoured and armed. Seeing that an AC is Mobile, wheeled, armoured and armed it is basically a tank on wheels. IRL some of the heavier AC and lightest tanks are only distinguishable by wheeled vs tracked. Example being Stuart vs Staghound. Thus I think my assessment is reasonable.

In regards to use, paying more for a battalion thay has a large punch is the entire doctrinal basis for Schwerpunkt. You concenitrate all of your assets to a small point so you can break through somewhere. That was the design intention behind Heavy Recon, a more expensive but more powerful recon unit you could use to make breakthroughs divisions stronger.


My source claimed 12 (possibly 36, the wording wasn't very clear) per division as a theoretical value. It doesn't matter either way though because 24 or 54 is still well short of a company of 300, proven by the fact that the Italian military did not list them as a company in their order of battle, while they did list the engineering companies that most of them were part of. Maybe you could add a branch tech to engineering companies or marines, but for the numbers they were used in it doesn't make since to have to dedicate factories to special equipment.

The definitions of APCs and IFVs have changed somewhat over time and most modern APCs have weapons at least as good as an old AC, while some new IFVs have weapons pulled off of tanks (although they are still much more lightly armored). You also have to consider that light tanks fell out of favor and that the lines blur between a heavy AC/APC/IFV and a light tank (some Stuarts were converted to APCs). And while tanks are always tracked and ACs are wheeled, APCs and IFVs can be either or half track. There is also heavy overlap in their roles, as they have all been used for both transport and heavy recon. Ranting aside, I think that they are similar enough to not warrant a new equipment type.

As for their use, a better but more expensive recon unit is reasonable, but I think it would be better represented by just having a higher recon value (maybe +1.5 instead of +1) because they could move more quickly and safely while doing recon. More breakthough doesn't make sense because their strength was doing recon for the tanks, not in the breakthough itself.


Edit: my post got deleted by this shitty website >.>

Edit 2:

My original post was more thoughtful, but I dont have the time to rewrite it as well so here's the jist of what I wanted to say:

The flamethrower company is basically an Assault Engineer Company, something which was used distinctly different then regular Engineer irl. Being more of a fortified position assault specialist. The flamethrower equipment & company represent that as most of those units used Flamethrowers when employed, it just so happens IRL they were not deployed in Europe frequently because the war didn't stalemate. Specialized equipment is only produced when there is a need for it, and seeing that only the USA really had a need for it (in the pacific, where they used a lot of flamethrowers) Flamethrowers were not heavily deployed. That being said, I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that if the USSR built a huge fortified line from Riga to Odessa that the axis and commintern would have deployed large formations of Assault Engineers/Sturmpioneers/Flamethrower companies whatever you want to call them.

In regards to the unit numbers, keep in mind Flamethrower Companies did not arm every guy with a Flamethrower. Instead they were deployed 1 or 2 per squad, and seeing that squads are ~9 guys that gives my Flamethrower company (24 weapons) a 'frontline' manpower of 216. Consequently, 84 men are either logistics/supply/maintenance/staff officer/staff position. That is actually rather low considering Tanks deploy ~250 men in the latter rolls.

Now you could argue that it would be best as an upgrade to Regular Engineers. However, I don't think the upgrade represents the different training/equipment satisfactory and if it did it would become an obvious choice as it would greatly increase Engineers power without increasing the units costs. Now, I could also give Engineers a special equipment type (in place of Support Equipment), and make Flamethrowers an upgraded version, this in turn though has the issue that it complicates production far more than the separate unit type does, and it forces the player to disable the upgraded version on all units they do not want to have the benefit of the upgrade. Doing the latter also has an annoying consequence that you now need 3 lines of equipment, Engineer1, Engineer 2 and Support Equipment for your other support companies, instead of Flamethrowers+Support Equipment. I personally see no value in complicating industry management when it adds nothing but busy work.

For Armoued Cars you are more or less right that most AC are either very similar to APC (such as prewar AC to mid war APC) or they are very similar to a comparable Light Tank. However, for Heavy Recon, Light Tanks would be a huge combat power buff, and I already have very little wiggle room in stat tweaks on them since they already have very high innate maluses to be balanced. Additionally, light tanks were less commonly used in Reconnaissance than AC. The combination of those makes have AC as a separate unit more logical, it also means that if people want to use Heavy Recon extensively they have more research decisions (in a positive way from my tests).

In regards to the companies stats, I think you got the wrong picture from my last statement. They are by no means a large increase to breakthrough, instead its ~+2 to SA/DEf/BTK and ~+1 HA (Also a very small amount of armour and piercing) at the lowest level for ~+100 production cost. I think those kind of increases are also justified as, well, having an AC even if it just has an HMG gives you a mobile Machine Gun that makes your recon have an easier time doing its job, and if it gets in a firefight gives it more firepower. If the higher level armored Cars are used, its basically like having a direct fire artillery piece and HMG supporting them. In both cases, I think that definitely warrants more than a +Recon buff.

Edit 3:
I've been looking into the Heavy Recon issue (Recon +movement speed stacking) and I have basically five solutions:
1. Heavy Recon disables regular Recon
2. AC techs just provide a flat buff to all Recon
3. I do as I outlined above with Engineers but with Recon, i.e. Recon Equipment 1, Recon Equipment 2, etc.
4. Leave Recon as vanilla
5. Use rules to prohibit both Recon and Heavy Recon in a division.

Thoughts? I wont comment as I don't want to bias anyone, but all of these are technically possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:46 pm
Posts: 7
I think were more or less agreed on historic units now (we could argue minor details of vehicle classification and Italian OOB all day but there's not much point). The stats are also reasonable, your wording earlier made me think it was bigger than that.

The main point I want to make is that HOI4 is heavily abstracted, there's not not even currency, you just trade factories for resources directly. And because of that it's not worth separating things too much unless you want to go full black ICE with this mod. For engineers with flamethrower teams I think just have them require extra support equipment is enough, support equipment is already very vague and used by several different companies that definitely did not use the same type of equipment. Also, they should probably have a fairly high increase in equipment in order to keep them at historically low levels.

I'd go with option 5 for both engineers w/flame and heavy recon. No to 1 because there might be situations where you don't want to pay extra for the upgrade. No to 2 because then everyone would do it all the time. No to 3 for simplicity's sake. I'm fine with 4 too, since it might be hard to balance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 12:00 am
Posts: 24
I like option 6 of not using the mod.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:10 am
Posts: 80
JozyAltidore wrote:
I like option 6 of not using the mod.


I don't understand if Recon are reverted to vanilla what is left in the mod that you don't like? Keep in mind I agreed to revert economy to vanilla. So, what is left? I'd appreciate more detail so I can try and do better, but as is you don't really say anything about why you dislike.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:10 am
Posts: 80
The beta patch does most of the main changes my mod did if we would prefer to just try the new beta patch instead of my mod.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
suspicion-preferred