Profile of pigsoup

Anyone know why the French sunk their navy?

Toulon, where the navy was statione, was to be taken by the allies soon. The French admirals were collaborators of course. so they had a few choices
1. fight the allies - losing battle, unneccessary French deaths
2. surrender/switch side, possibly/probably losing the command - losing your fleet and pride
3. scuttle their fleet - fuck it no one wins.

i think all squads still react to explosions and flames by hitting the deck if they are not moving.

replayed through it, did all the side contents except for hunting for rare unmarked keycards or whatnot. and made different choices.

I was impressed by the choices I did not notice that existed during my first playthrough. And side missions I missed were also top notch. Took about 30 hrs. This does not mean other bad things I talked about are better during the second playthrough but y'know.

But the most impressive part for me was that I got better at the game. Places where I thought there is no way of getting through quietly without cloak, I got through just by getting better: observing enemy pattern more, using cover better, exploring more and just by being more ballsy. I think the stealth and combat system have some impressive depth and that made it fun for me to play again.

p.s. current DLCs suck.

Why should anyone invest in a tier that hurts them more than it helps? Without any AT, the only way T1 would be worth it is if it's so overpowered that you smash your opponent before he can get enough fuel to make a difference.

high risk high gain. you either do enough damage to go directly to T3 or pay measly 160mp and 20fu to get a ATG.

-------------------------------------------

let's just nerf penals a bit from the live model.

Let's look back at the REAL problem and the similar case we had in the past.

1. Penals are prominent primarily due to their flamer. not their great vet or higher dps than cons. You guys, GG, keep telling us that their DPS is really good and whatnot. But it is the flamer on the 6 men squad that makes this unit over the top - OP in MOST maps due to high number of building counts and negating green covers. The flamer on one of the most durable squad >>> any dps you can assign on penals.

2. History: flamer Riflemen was a problem because the main line strong infantry had flamer. Solution was to give flamers to rear echelons. The current problem with penals is similar. They can be used as mainline infantry and they have flamers.

3. the conclusion is that flamers on DURABLE squad is the main problem.


Even though it might seem like that I am leaning towards removing flamer, I honestly think flamer is the only way to give sov T1 the umph to be "high risk, high reward" without making T1 OP to make it high reward.

My idea is: make penals 4 men initially (make penal SVT 1.5 stronger so if you want to keep penals as mid range unit, you can) - they gain 5th man when T3 is built. I am not sure if they still got that "till last man" zeal bonus but have that so when they are 4 men, they have health of 4 men but when they are 3 men, they have health of 3.25 men, 2 men - 2.75 men (or simply a slight reduced received accuracy but zeal will make the first kill much easier and wll cause a huge drop off in dps). Give 80muni upgrade of flamer +3ppshs (4th ppsh for the fifth man).

Why I think this will fix the problem: with flamer and ppsh, the T1 will still have that umph to be very aggressive and more mobile and hard hitting IF DONE RIGHT compared to pure con spam or maxim spam. and yes, sov can still have an army of flamer penals but they will be more squishy but penals still keep their current role.

i guess it's just a fancy way of nerfing penal's durability while making penal upgrade more specialised.

these analysis say a lot about the game.