Jump to content

Placebo

Members
  • Posts

    503
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Placebo

  1. Very interesting topic.  I would love to see the logic in how BF work out the price for tanks. I suspect they have a formula but during beta testing when people are using them in different situations there is a lot of “that tank is way OP for the price, it needs to cost more” and it evolves to be what we end up with now.  I am at the point where I go with whatever interests me at the time, so do not get too hung up on the cost, but it does grate sometimes as the axis that I know I am paying a lot more the the US for their tanks (whether it’s fair or not)!

  2. 19 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

    When the time is right, absolutely!  But like anything we're do, we only start talking about something when it is ready to talk about.  We aren't quite there yet.

    Steve

    Mmmm intriguing, I cannot believe hanging on to hear about the release of F&R is about to be replaced with hanging on for some info on CM3 😀.

    P.S. if it anything like the change from CM1 -> CM2 it is going to be mind blowing!!

  3. “best combination of fire power , mobility and armor”. That is the holy trinity of tank design, however for world war 2 I think you have to add ease of manufacture and complexity of the design/reliability.  For me the Panther 1 on 1 with any other tank probably comes out on top but add in the the time it took to manufacture and that it was a complex machine prone to breakdowns then it’s T34/85 1st, Sherman 76 2nd and panther down to 3rd place.

  4. The first aider has to be in the same square of the map, it can be hard to judge somethings when the soldier seems to be across the edges of 2 squares.  As I have found trying to get hold of a precious MG42 or AT rocket from a fallen soldier.   

    As already said it also boosts you casualty figures at the end as well even though they take no further part in the battle. 

×
×
  • Create New...