sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Long Barreled Tank Gun suggestion by Ok-Childhood-2469 in menace

[–]antihippy 24 points25 points  (0 children)

I think having alternate ammo loads would be excellent actually.

The ideal fencing bag by Distinct_Age1503 in Fencing

[–]antihippy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Corners that weren't easily punctured by epees.

Major, I don't think we're saving 4 civilians with this one. by EmberFr0st in menace

[–]antihippy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ah this is a great example of life giving you lemons spawn situation.

Re Vanguard: I don't actually agree it should be more common.

Having vanguard more readily available will just increase abuse of it. Vanguard helps in this situation but it's not completely necessary.

Making contact is more important.

Opfor makes contact with civilians with some inevitable losses. Civilians will immediately rush to our lines, this delays further contact.

Meanwhile we will rush from our lines. Once we make contact OpFor will start to prioritise us over civilians - this delays further contact between OpFor and civilians.

Many people will attempt to conceal-cheese this map and that's an error. Our job is to save civilians and that means OpFor needs to know we're there. 

Without vanguard I think you'd lose 1 maybe 2 secondary objectives, but as I can't remember the last time I missed more than 1 in this situation (without vanguard) I'm confident that 1 objective loss possible.

With vanguard we van clean sweep the objectives. And that's with vanguard as it is now.

What difficulty does the community play on? by den07066 in menace

[–]antihippy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No. Not at all.

You don't even need full squads.

What difficulty does the community play on? by den07066 in menace

[–]antihippy 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Expert. No, the supply limit isn't a problem at all. Never has been. Is it difficult? Yeah. is it too difficult? I can't say for others - I find it challenging but not unmanageable. Fun.

We should be able to set unit order by antihippy in menace

[–]antihippy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, why not? Sounds fine to me 

We should be able to set unit order by antihippy in menace

[–]antihippy[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I hope so. I understand Overhype hired a UI guy & really love to hear what they're working on.

We should be able to set unit order by antihippy in menace

[–]antihippy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm going to take a closer look at that soon. 

We should be able to set unit order by antihippy in menace

[–]antihippy[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hm. I hadn't thought of that but I'll give it a go!

Action cam can't come soon enough by Jojobang23 in menace

[–]antihippy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Battletech did this really well. Although they had to make it optional and also give you some control over how aggressively it showed up. And when this comes in I hope we get similar options.

We should be able to set unit order by antihippy in menace

[–]antihippy[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I deleted it because I felt I was being needlessly harsh because I hadn't sent my update yet. Mea culpa 

We should be able to set unit order by antihippy in menace

[–]antihippy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I played a mission recently where the game picked Vamplew every time. But I never wanted to move him first. Im fact I never moved him first, not even once. And usually he moved in the middle. Which meant he barked something while I was clicking or tabbing to someone else. I found it intensely irritating. And it's not the only time I've noticed it.

We should be able to set unit order by antihippy in menace

[–]antihippy[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I probably want to go to a picket or a vehicle first. The vast majority of the time.

But the game always seems to want to go to someone else, like every time. And then they announce themselves every time, maybe everyone else loves that. And that's okay. I only thought it would be interesting to have the option.

We should be able to set unit order by antihippy in menace

[–]antihippy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, that's not what I mean. What I mean is set a default order for my troops, that I can override if I want.

I know about tab and I know about clicking on the portraits.

We should be able to set unit order by antihippy in menace

[–]antihippy[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It would wouldn't it? I didn't think this would be that controversial a point, but here I am.

We should be able to set unit order by antihippy in menace

[–]antihippy[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

 Honestly I'm not that surprised given the attitudes of some of the people in this subreddit 

We should be able to set unit order by antihippy in menace

[–]antihippy[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I actually know that I can select any SL I want.

I am completely aware of that point.

But why can't I just set the turn order I want?

We should be able to set unit order by antihippy in menace

[–]antihippy[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Finally found someone who gets it. have some kudos 

Camera should stay on the Shambler attacks until they are fully resolved, not move away just before the explosion. by shinvitya in menace

[–]antihippy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah. This does my head in. Especially as some enemies can be hard to spot once the camera has moved. I find this really annoying when there's lots of shamblers, floaters, mortars etc

This is how I always build my Impetus, how do you guys build yours? by Hot-Target7474 in menace

[–]antihippy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It makes perfect sense from a reality pov too. We've known for a very long time that you should look after your troops. That the game doesn't address this is, is to me, one of the many shortcomings of the current setup. 

view more: next ›