Profile of Osinyagov

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 04:43 AMmiragefla

We are finalizing things at this point for internal testing so likely no 1.9. No major changes, though there is a discussion of possibly placing the Valentine to tech since it arrives so late to the field. Likely after Bofors/AEC tech and then figuring out if it's balanced appropriately.

Jump back to quoted post15 Sep 2018, 10:33 AMOlekman

I agree. Brens, PIATs and British roundel on top look a bit silly.

How about reusing MG emplacement entity, except with MG and gunner removed and with a radio station in the back? I've reused USF MG emplacement in my Engineer Combat Company mod in similar way and I'd say it doesn't look that bad. This is how it would look for the Soviets:



EDIT: Alternative version with USSR flag added.

Jump back to quoted post15 Sep 2018, 18:07 PMTiger Baron

This is already a much better design for a unique building in my opinion, even tho I haven't even seen the retextured British FHQ for the Soviets.

Another alternative is probably the building SneakEye is using in his All Units mod for the USF as a forward base.

Seen here:

(Top middle)

Jump back to quoted post16 Sep 2018, 09:04 AMOsinyagov

I have looked at suggested variants for soviet FHQ and here my though about it.

Outward appearance

Current FHQ provide:
- healing
- reinforcing
- attack and defence bonuses for infantry and infantry weapons (Mortars, AT-guns, Artillery)

Also, it should not be extremely big to avoid problems with construction on city or small spaces maps. Of course, to small construction can't have enough durability and can be spammable in huge numbers, it's not right too.

As result, FHQ outlook should reference to this characteristics.

Candidates (british FHQ for comparison):


Candidate 1


Pros:
- High durability seems obvious for it due materails (looks like it is from wood and metal with huge wall of sandbags).
- Have space for field hospital. So, reinforce is beyond any doubt.

Cons:
- It is extremely big, player can face the problem with consctruction on smallspace map or on city maps. Also, it will be the biggest soviet construction ever
- Not enough details inside in comparison with USF, OKW and UKF field consrtuctions. Nothing provide about healing and aura buffs

Candidate 2 (my favorite)


Pros:
- Good size of building. Player won't face the problem with construction.
- Good interior. Include medkits, shells and camonet above. Really looks like FHQ, which provide support and reinforce.

Cons:
- Player can be confused by WC-51. At the moment only USF has this jeep in the game. But historicaly USSR get more than 20 000 of these jeeps.
- In the mod, it is mobile jeep with abillity to set up. Will be funny to see how combat engineers construct jeep for everlasting campsite. Can be solved by adding this jeep to soviet HQ as doctrine unit with price of FHQ and free abillity to set up.

Candidate 3

Pros:
- It's extremely small.
- Has place for mobile command post.

Cons:
- Once again - extremely small. Can be spammable for multiple buffs.
- Low durability. It is just small tent and some sandbags. Even british FHQ looks more durable.
- Bad interior. Nothing mention about healing, reinforce and aura buffs.

Jump back to quoted post16 Sep 2018, 10:45 AMOlekman

So I tried to replicate SneakEye's thing with ZiS truck instead of WC-51. It's pretty barebones, lacking things like medical crates and whatnots. Either way, the truck is just a bit too tall and clips with the camo net.

Jump back to quoted post28 Oct 2018, 11:57 AMCrecer13

One simple mistake from the start of the game:

In the game, the Soviet grenade is called the RPG-43. But this is not an RPG-43, this is an RPG-6.
Show Spoiler

But british tank hunters infantry section have an RPG-43

Show Spoiler