I'm pretty sure every brit player would agree with you. Why? Because the way it works now it is more a debuff when out of cover than buff in cover. They even get the special, weaker, version of bren that only performs when in cover. That means IS is a unit that needs carefull positioning to work instead of blobbing like all other long range infantry does, and that often one granade denaying cover means lost engagement even when dodged.
I had same views as clarity at first but the more I play this patch the more I enjoy the game and more ballanced it seems to be. If I was relic I would concentrate on bug fixes while waiting for meta to clear up as from what I'm seeing its still developing and it makes deciding what should be changed really hard right now.
They shouldn't have signs though. Only way you'd lose a squad(s) is if you don't pay attention (keep on running through it) or its in the retreat path.
And the same thing will happen if any other faction's mines were in a square 4 at a time spaced like s minefield and the opponent does the same thing or they're in the retreat path.
Arguably the only benefit the s mine over an equivalent mine-field is cheaper muni cost (60 vs 120 muni for equivalent other faction field). But then again, it can't hurt armored vehicles and requires 60 muni in the bank to even order (compared to 30) so there's a tradeoff.
So no, there shouldn't be signs. It already has tradeoffs in terms of usability in exchange for its cost.
Wait, so what you are saying is that mines should wipe? Like what? Especially 15 muni mines? Man come on, one wipe is a loss in every single equal matchup. There is no way any mines should wipe full health squads, especially spammable cheap mines that cover huge are so it is harder to miss them...
Packet loss means that you send a packet of data to the server, for example "retreat unit x" but data are lost in the process, for example due to routing loop and they never get there.
Problem is that would mean game is using UDP I'am pretty sure it uses TCP though to avoid such problems, why wouldn't it?
I think what the issue is is that there is a short delay before the modifiers are removed, so if you recrew the weapon within that short time frame then you will retain the previous veterancy's modifiers.
It is better than what it was before, but not perfect... sigh. I will see if I can remove that delay.
Isn't it possible to bind vet to the crew? I mean I guess you guys have your reasons to do it the way its done but its kind of basic princple of modelling reality to save attributes in the object that really posess them avoiding such problem.
Btw. Once it was stated that the game works that way is rushing to recrew counted as bug using?
It is worth mentioning that if there is any cheater in the game, he is probably at least top 1000 (and named expert AI , no thats not what I ment) as maphack is basically everything needed to get there even if you have no clue about the game.