Major von Mauser said:
1. MN38 exclusion. Why was the MN38 taken off the map? At this point in the war the Soviets still used all 3 MN variants to an equal extent. Maybe you could re-include the MN38?
Yeah, I can put it back in for Beta 3.
Major von Mauser said:
2. PaK 41/43 cover. Why are the PaK guns given virtually no cover at all? One of the things that made me love Berizina was the AT guns, they were a real threat, not one shot wonders like the PaK. One of the things that made the AT gun such a threat was that it was well covered by sandbags, whereas the Pak is given no sandbag cover making it extremely vulnerable. With your theoretics of everything being an obstacle to the Russians the PaK seems out of place, it should be giving the Russians the same amount of trouble as the PanterTurm, but instead it seems to act as a fixed Panzerfaust: one shot and it's done. Maybe you could give the Pak 41/43 some more cover?
Originally the plan was for PaK positions to be hidden within buildings, and I'm still toying with that idea for the bridgehead with the only real consideration being performance (don't want to have excessive BSP cuts), as well as if you have a PaK gun in a hole its position will be predictable (much like the second story AT Gun on Tractor Works at the first objective). What I had intended to do to sort of counter this issue was make the walls destructible at the Bridge so that when an Axis player got to the gun they could blow the wall to reveal the weapon, such that when it came in to play it would be manned instead of taken out by a Soviet tank through the distance fog after they capped the Hotel.
Major von Mauser said:
3. German spawn distances. To me the German spawn distances from the objectives (excluding first and last spawns) seem to be way to far. Each run seems very long compared to the Russians who seem to spawn much closer then the Germans. Maybe you could make them a little bit closer?
Well the idea here was to make the Russians seem like a relentless wave to whom reinforcements would not be an issue, whereas the Germans are low on manpower and every one of their deaths has a greater impact on the battlefield. Realistically speaking though, the spawns are about equidistant for the objectives in many cases, but the only thing is the Allies spawn and are in a combat area, whereas the Axis need to work their way toward the action. Still though, this lets the Allies put greater pressure on the Axis. Currently I think Axis walking distances are okay, but I feel that if there is any place they need improvement it would be the Hotel (perhaps).
Major von Mauser said:
4. Last objective cap zone. The Moltke cap zone seems to be way to far for the Russians to have a decent chance of capping it, you pretty much need to be right next to the rubble pile to cap, but then you are at the extreme threat to grenades. Maybe you could make the cap zone extend into the bridge a little bit more?
The goal with the Moltke Bridge was that if people are to capture it they must control the length of it, or in this case, the opposite side of the riverbank. It's not an easy objective to take, and there is a thread open for discussion about capturing the final objective in the Tactics forum. However, just be aware that you can push further than the rubble pile, something it seems people tend to conveniently forget when attacking the bridge. That left building makes an excellent place to cap from if you manage to assault and secure it.
Major von Mauser said:
5. Bot support. There always seems to be 3-4 useless bots just crouching at spawn, pretty much a waste of space. Maybe you could include bot support?
I will look in to including bot support for the final version -- the Betas will mostly be about refining gameplay and performance until I get to that point.
Atomskytten, you raise some valid points about the tracers for the Allies. I may seek to increase their brightness -- albeit marginally -- as their use in serving as "tracers" to lead to potential targets is something that would benefit teamplay.
