Players Helping Players. Windows & Mac trouble shooting in here. Billing Support contact forum.


      Tips and Tricks to make you a machine of warfare in WWII Online. This is where your gameplay questions will be answered.



      Repository for reports from pre-release testing and live game bugs.


    1. 973
    2. 1.36 (HYBRID SUPPLY)

      1.36 (Hybrid Supply), the return of town based supply (garrisons) on the frontline with moveable brigades. Any and all questions and discussions can be discussed here.


      Squads are the backbone of the game - JOIN UP! Axis & Allied squads who are currently recruiting.


      General discussion for all players of WWII Online. Includes Premium, Starters and Free Players.


      Player to Player awards! Whether you're Allied or Axis, check this forum to see who has been recognized for outstanding effort!


      New to Battleground Europe? Here's a great place to learn more. (trial or premium subscription required)


      Help us make WWII Online better with your ideas / suggestions!


      WWII Online special events.

    9. 4,490
    10. MINI-CONS

      Listing of player hosted Mini-cons


      Player-written stories from the virtual battlefield

    1. Squads

      Player created squads

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Posts

    • Interesting idea.  Note though that only the overpop side would get the extra defenders. From a capability-balancing perspective, it's the underpop side that needs more defenders.
    • *** When I'm in game and I decide to defend a FB w , or guard a Bunker or a CP I do so on my time Heh, just thought of something.... What if the player in the queue could chose a CP, FB or bunker to wait at? Then, the system would spawn them (as rifle or SMG) to that area, and not allow them to leave say 100m from it; until their queue time was up. Then, you will be in game, you will be helping your side, and it means more things will be guarded!   Remember, anytime the pop was with in 3 to 2 (I'd guess 75% of the time or more), there would be no queue. Though, I would think we'd want to move it to 5 to 4 later.  
    •  There are a few problems that are really hard to overcome. #1 is nigh impossible... 1. For reasons that I can't fathom, most gamers who play WWII games prefer to play Axis. It has been this way for years. I have seen it in other games. There was even a forum poll done on the Armchair Generals forums a few years back, asking folks which side they would want to play in a WWII game. The result was overwhelmingly Axis. Some reasons given were the belief that the German weapons were better, and that many people were tired of WWII games that only offered an Allied perspective.

      2. Sidelocks rarely work. There are a lot of other things to do out there. If people go to log into a game and they can't get in to play with their friends, they are going to go find another game to play with those friends. Very few people are willing to sit around hoping for someone else to die to get in game. And if they spend 10 minutes waiting, then play for 5 minutes, die and get dumped into a queue again? They're probably out of there. 3. Statistics. This is a BIG one. Our current gaming culture in most games says.." If you don't make the top of the leaderboards... you SUCK LOSER". People are so used to it, that they bring that outlook to our game... Many just want to win... they don't care about which side wins... so long as they are on that side. It ups their statistics... the numbers are bigger when you're winning. And I'm not talking about side swappers per se. Just folks that care more about the leaderboards/ stats than anything else. One example we have seen of this is when a campaign is lopsided and almost over, and those on the losing side stop logging  in, and people from the winning side make posts about how upset they are that they don't have anyone to fight.

      4. Friends. If all your buddies play on one side... you want to play with them. It's more fun to play with friends. Since most gamers prefer Axis...their friends who join are more likely to play Axis. Most of the long term veteran players seem to be dedicate Axis in part because of this. 5.  Recruitment... I'm not sure why this is... but the Axis squads recruit incredibly hard in comparison to Allied squads. I've even seen some post inside an Allied squad;s recruiting thread to try to entice away a prospective Allied player. More Allied squads recruiting and growing might help.
      The ONLY way we will ever get the population to even out is if we start getting a substantial rise in the number of dedicated Allied players WITHOUT a similar rise in the number of Axis players, and KEEP them playing as Allied. We've already seen that an overall pop rise in the game just maintains or exacerbates the issue. I do not believe that any artificial side rule will really make things change. The only exception I have seen was in small side matched games that would not start unless both sides had a minimum number of players. When given a choice of play evenly or no one plays, then and only then, it has worked. But in such games there was no real effect afterwards, so sides didn't matter beyond the current match. You just can't make people play on a side they don't want to play matter what you do.    
    • I think CRS brings Queued spawning in , I would quit. Staring at a hold screen is not my kind of fun. The SD we have is a minor nuisance, then a Queued spawn option.
    • By sit and wait , I mean staring at a countdown timer till I can cash in my ticket. When I'm in game and I decide to defend a FB w , or guard a Bunker or a CP I do so on my time and that's what I want to do right now in game and because it's beneficial for the side I play. What I don't find very beneficial for either side or my enjoyment is sitting on a Q-ticker till it let's me spawn in cause someone died .  I can get that at World of Tanks,Warship, Plane, and there I do about 5 maps then I have my fill , cause if the ticker does take 5min I wasted 25min of valuable game time by not playing but looking at a hold screen.  The SD that we have in game is actually a minor nuisance,  the spawn in bug is more of a pain in the [censored] then the max SD , cause now I have to reclick then have to go through it again.   
    • Could not squads coordinate with CRS what side they intend to play in a campaign and advise how many players they will, on average, bring. This way a call can be made "we need more players on side-x for the campaign please". Indies sign up for a side too. Currently I try to pick the side that lost the last campaign and play for that side. I used to login under either side during campaigns but you get the "side-switcher" remarks. I recently tried going to underpop side but its not fun getting hammered all the time and the differences in overpop vs under seem to be substantial anymore. There is also the option just to not login and that's been a option chosen a little more here lately despite subscribing to a starter account (via steam since that's where I have some DLCs).    
    • Yep. I don't like the sneak attacks as the attacker any more than I like spawning in as a defender when the cause is either already lost (even as the first defenders spawn in), or the defense manages to work the usual way (by zerging in). Both are entirely unsatisfying, IMHO. This is the fundamental problem with the spawn list size, as well as huge garrisons, IMO. Even announced attacks (if AOs had to be made even longer in advance, and any EWS reset that timer) result in "sit and wait" gameplay since the defenders then spawn in the usual places, then have to actually set up any defenses outside of town. (so it's "walk and wait" not sit and wait, but same thing). I'm not sure there is any way to change anything. Sad, because the current gameplay makes me want to rage quit a lot, and a lot of rage quitting is poor salesmanship for me keeping my sub.  
    • Not off topic at all. Fundamentally, CRS created a problem when they designed a game that, to work properly, requires significant amounts of no-gameplay-action defender gameplay. The original term for that kind of gameplay, appearing in these forums from early in the game's existance, was "bunker duty". An alternative to the "bunker duty" design would be to require attackers to pre-announce their attacks, so that defenders could get into place. That could be done with a seamless AI defense that positively keeps out all attackers until the attack jumpoff time. Then there'd be no need for bunker duty gameplay. Consistently over the years, though, any mention of such a design change has resulted in pushback from players who like attacking against an unprepared, unmanned defense...unrealistic though it is to have the defenders arrive after the attackers...because it makes it easier for the attackers to win.
  • Popular Contributors