Forums

  1. COMMUNITY SUPPORT

    1. COMMUNITY TECH & BILLING SUPPORT

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

      110,276
      posts
    2. GAMEPLAY SUPPORT/TRAINING

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

      684
      posts
  2. QUALITY ASSURANCE

    1. TESTING AND BUG REPORTING

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

      44,541
      posts
  3. DISCUSSIONS

    1. 544
      posts
    2. GENERAL DISCUSSION

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

      26,187
      posts
    3. FREE PLAY SUPPORT AND INFO

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

      1,510
      posts
    4. GAME IDEAS / SUGGESTIONS

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

      9,289
      posts
    5. SPECIAL EVENT FORUM

      WWII Online special events.

      10,021
      posts
    6. 4,461
      posts
    7. MINI-CONS

      Listing of player hosted Mini-cons

      618
      posts
    8. WAR STORIES

      Player-written stories from the virtual battlefield

      2,802
      posts
    9. SQUAD RECRUITMENT

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

      50,637
      posts
    1. Squads

      Player created squads

      18
      Squads
  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Posts

    • Double-post.     Also yeah I am aware of the Maus being one of the stupidiest awesome idea of the germans. Was placing mostly with heavy sarcasm behind it.
    • Clearly CRS bends that history to have a marketable game. That's unavoidable, because the Germans-have-to-win-or-else time threshold would have been early 1941 at the latest, not sometime in 1943-44 as in the current game. The German early win and combat experience with very low losses allowed extraction of cadres, around which new divisions were formed. The divisions that went to the Balkans and Greece and to Libya were from that expansion. The cadre approach to army expansion only works if the existing divisions have experience with low losses, so that that experience continues to exist and the second-tier mid-level leaders can take over. The alternative would have been to raise new units from scratch, with inexperienced tactical leaders. That's fine on paper, but it can take a year or more of training before such units are combat-useful.  The entire German army and air force were committed in France. If France had become an ongoing struggle, there would have been no troops available for the Balkans and Greece, for Libya and for Russia. If Italy had lost Greece and Libya, the Italian govenment might have fallen, and with it any German hope of expansion toward the Middle East's oilfields. Stalin was known to be musing the possibility of attacking toward Poland himself. Germany only had a short time window to succeed in France, or everything would fall apart.  But, CRS has to have a fun game. A game that offers only the 1940 weapon-set is maybe not so much fun.
    • In an enemy-air-supremacy environment, and particularly in a guided-air-launched-missile environment, the Maus would have been an exceedingly expensive way to distribute large piles of rusting steel across western Germany. It was not moveable by train, per its width and height. It was too tall to move by special truck. It would not have had the powertrain/suspension/rack durability to move to the front on its own tracks.  It was too heavy to move across the majority of western Europe's bridges.  Its huge cost per unit would have diverted scarce funds and production resources from building Panthers, SPAA and supply trucks. Its slow speed on pavement and impossible immobility off-road in damp/wet weather would have allowed highly mobile opposing forces...like those of USA and Britain...to run around and fly over the road-bound front-line Maus units and annihilate the supply infrastructure behind them. Isolated tanks are relevant for one day, until they run out of fuel.  Maus was a strange, radically economically dumb idea. There's been criticism in the past of the latter-war German prediliction for looking for Magic Bullets instead of increasing their ability to develop and build proven-effective war-solutions. That criticism was valid. The Germans had a demonstrated ability to advance the State of the Art in conventional solutions, gaining a temporal advantage until the Allies would catch up. Their plan should have been to stay focused on that, and keep doing it so they had a continuing stream of temporary advantages. The Germans however also had a demonstrated weakness in staying focused. Maus was one of those lost-focus instances. 
    • What's needed is timers that are both asymmetric and variable, reflecting pop of each nationaility, and overall players on line. So, in low-pop with a big imbalance, capture timers for the low-pop side would be relatively fast, but the overpop side would require much longer to recap a cp, or capture a low-popped one. At peaktime, timers would tend to be shorter, and more equal. etc
    • How about no?   The whole point is the fact that the Axis can win, and here we are not simulating a war on two front. With all the different factors, put a clock AND making the allies winner if they aren't kicked off is ridiculous and would destroy the WHOLE point. And making the game incredibly imbalanced.
    • Rather than adding late-war or post-war equipment, I believe the war should be put on the clock.  In reality, the germans could not have survived a long-term struggle in France and the low countries.  Simply put, if they can't take the Allies out within a certain number of weeks or months, the campaign should be awarded to the Allies.  That solves the need/temptation of putting Tiger IIs downrange, and all that other stuff that would kill the game for those who do bend towards historical accuracy.   This game was never graphically the best.  It has always been, though, the only one who combines accurately modeled equipment into a persistent environment.  Making the environment better, then, should be the focus, rather than on adding new toys.  
    • Hmmm.  I kinda like the idea of players paying to play a side, and paying more to play both sides.   I remember my first wife (yes, my interest in this game outlasted an entire marriage) even joked one time that I was 'getting ripped off' because I was paying for a whole game but only playing half of it.  Perhaps she was wise...lol  (back when I was paying, that is---------and I'll pay again, soon I hope).
    • I hear you, O'donovan.  I figure it will work until our web-gurus come back to the fold.  As it was my first attempt, compromises for my lack of talent in that area had to be made!  
  • Popular Contributors