What does Paradox (DEVs) thinks of all the threads?

[Kriegsspieler]

I notice that podcat didn't provide percentage breakdowns of his four categories, but I have to say as a long, longtime HOI player that the quality of ideas here has been generally quite good.
Especially in comparison to what one sees over in the forum of another recently released PDS title that I won't name.

 

[Ikarases]

Planets Vs Zombies !?!? . . . . . AWESOME!

Lawn mower!

Anyway, we need more DDs. I read them all at once about a week ago so quickly that it wasn't even funny :sad:

 

[TWking]

I know I read those DDs before they get sunk by BBs.

 

[seattle]

#3 reminds me. I did that for HOI3. Wanted the ability to demote generals to fit in where I wanted them. My suggestion was soo bright and brilliantly smart, that it reached back in time and infected the devs brains before I even thought of it myself.

Yeah, the promotion/demotion-mechanism pretty much sums up the failure of HoI3: full of splendid ideas that just didn't work out for one reason or another.
In this particular case you could simply promote a leader from one to four stars without it affecting skill, loyalty, dissent or anything else. The next moment you could simply demote that same dude from the highest to the lowest rank, again with no repercussions whatsoever. No sense of progression, no sense of realism, no sense of seniority, no sense at all.

 

[seattle]

Its a mix of:
1. mmm, we will do it our way
2. hmm, thats a good idea, take it!
3. Already did that *smug*
4. *shudder*

That's pretty much how I imagined it. It's funny how some people actually believe that PDS handles customer relations like EA. After all, you guys keep in touch with the community more than any other developer.
Companies like EA create forums in order to keep discussions about their product in a controllable environment. They only filter unwanted comments and don't spend a second considering any feedback.

If on the other hand the head honcho of HoI4 has over 7.400 posts on this forum, then he must be either a giant troll or really be interested in customer feedback.

 

[podcat]

If on the other hand the head honcho of HoI4 has over 7.400 posts on this forum, then he must be either a giant troll or really be interested in customer feedback.

or both

 

[Kriegsspieler]

or both

podcat is just trying to match Darkrenown's lifetime post count.
He only need another 4000-5000 to catch up.

 

[podcat]

podcat is just trying to match Darkrenown's lifetime post count.
He only need another 4000-5000 to catch up.

To be fair though, about 4000 of those are panther hate

 

[Darkrenown]

1 per breakdown

 

[Gamer_1745]

Darkrenown,

If you had to ride into battle in a tank (I am not talking about which side or other battle conditions), which of the three would it be?
1. T-34
2. Panther
3. Sherman

 

[Darkrenown]

Sherman.

 

[Gamer_1745]

Darkrenown is really Oddball!

 

[Mannstien]

to be fair though, about 4000 of those are panther hate

rofl

 

[keynes2.0]

Sherman.

We already knew that one.

How about M3 or T-60? German heavy armored car or T-26? Vickers Mk2 or "heavy tractor"?

 

[Stafroty]

wonder why sherman..
I would have taken panther. good gun, best armor, good mobility, really good observation devises and best steering system(turning while moving causes no power loss, or average amount if turning really tight/in its place)
tho its nightmare in maintence terms compared to others. least wear for steering system(brakes/clutch, most on final gear on transmission)

Sherman, decent/good gun(depends the gun), good armor, decent mobility, good observation, and good steering system (some power loss while turning and 50% if turning in place)
engine maintenance complicated cos many different engine setups used. biggest wear on brakes.

T-34 decent/average gun(depends the gun) , average armor, good mobility, poor/average observation(pre 43/43 models) and average steering, most power loss while steering)
easiest to maintenance. quite much wear on clutch/brakes.

 

[keynes2.0]

I would have taken panther. good gun, best armor, good mobility, really good observation devises and best steering system(turning while moving causes no power loss, or average amount if turning really tight/in its place) .

The Panther had these abilities on paper but a lot of them didn't work very well. The steering for instance was supposed to be the best but if actually used to it's full capacity would cause a breakdown. The mobility was great on paper but the mechanical limits of the primary gears were much lower then the Sherman, a tank 33% lighter. The gun was great in an anti-tank capacity but less then ideal (though not bad per-se) outside of an anti-tank role. The armor was great in the front but frontal armor isn't the end-all be-all. It did have good visibility, profile and targeting (disregarding target handoff), building on previous German innovations in that regard.

The Panther was a classic example of where the boss wants a certain number so the specifications are changed to incorporate that number regardless of whether it's good design. The tank was designed to be a lightning fast 30 ton tank (hence the name). It would have probably been the medium general purpose best tank of the war if it had remained on these lines. But Hitler wanted stuff to be better without allowing for any tradeoffs. It had to be heavier but it couldn't be slower. The turret speed needed to be faster but the gun or turret size couldn't be changed. As a result the engineers basically had to fudge things together by doing stuff like overload the transmission, design the turret power around restrictions that were a liability on the battlefield. It was a great design when it worked. But when it didn't work... you got half the tanks sent to France turned into scrap before they even saw battle.

All this has been discussed in many other threads, I'm just summarizing what those threads said about the limit of the Panther here for your convenience. If you want to continue this discussion just click a random thread in this forum and you'll probably find a panther tank debate.

 

[seattle]

Darkrenown,

If you had to ride into battle in a tank (I am not talking about which side or other battle conditions), which of the three would it be?
1. T-34
2. Panther
3. Sherman

I'd pick a Japanese tank. Sure they sucked, but you'd be fighting Chinese peasants with wooden sticks and rocks. At least that's how Chinese war movies show it. No joke, watched a couple of them when I was living in China.

 

[Gamer_1745]

I was thinking of a 12 tanks vs. 12 tanks battle. 12 of one type against 12 of another type. All things being equal other than the type of tank. I would have made a poll, but I couldn't see how.

 

[Ikarases]

I'd pick a Japanese tank. Sure they sucked, but you'd be fighting Chinese peasants with wooden sticks and rocks. At least that's how Chinese war movies show it. No joke, watched a couple of them when I was living in China.

I, for one, would choose V-8-H

 

[keynes2.0]

I was think of a 12 tanks vs. 12 tanks battle. 12 of one type against 12 of another type. All things being equal other than the type of tank. I would have made a poll, but I couldn't see how.

Well then you want to be in an M3. That way you end up fighting a bunch of Japanese tanks.