ian77

Free Play Account
  • Content count

    1,974
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by ian77

  1. Tater, is there any aspect of our game that you like? I think warping is a result of being able to rtb, I doubt it was a design element to evade the defenders sniping from their depots.
  2. IIRC 9 Factories, and the towns they are in fully owned Ian
  3. CC Allies are winning and still have no HC in game at times. Garrison supply gives both sides a chance to fight that movable brigades did not when HC were absent or struggling with the demands the role placed upon them. Ian
  4. Yeah, but would new players understand this concept? Would the vets? How many would set individual missions just to have their own map? I suspect we would end up with dozens of 1 man missions. I am not saying you are not right, just that players will generally play to their own advantage. ian
  5. That explains why you never leave the spawnable! Ian
  6. Oh I dont disagree with you Sir, was just mentioning it in case you were not aware of it. I have tried, and it was frightening how much I had come to rely on the minimap to navigate town and highlight threats. The removal of name tags really makes you duck for cover! It is immersive, but not conducive to "winning". ian
  7. Yeah my sons are both far better at the CQB than me, but dont like the length of the fights. They want 20 mins of action and then to be declared the winner or not. Then either start again or play another game entirely.... You know you can switch off your map/mini map, and player names, etc. Make it more immersive. Personally I decide some nights to just try to avoid dying, as in keeping alive as long as possible - though that is just not possible when guarding or assaulting CPs, and you are as old and slow as me! Hence my lifetime KD! This map I set out to help AOs as much as possible, and went capping mad - not very realistic, but it was the challenge I set myself, a self imposed House Rule if you will. Ian
  8. CC and I understand, but I think the allies need to break the mind set that fundamentally they cannot win. Yes some axis vets came allied this map, and I think/hope quiet a few are staying. The game needs two equally healthy populations, who have an equal chance of winning the campaign game, and "winning" their fight at the time they play - even if "winning" means restricting the other side to just 3 or 4 town captures. However it is tough ask to be positive when you are swamped by superior numbers day after day in game. As I understand it from the numbers referred to in other threads, the total of players on both sides is usually about level, with possibly a few more on the allied side. The difference is the hours in game, when you are happy and "winning" you stay logged in for longer. When you are being whacked over the head again and again you log out. We need to get both sides to believe their contribution counts and makes a difference, and get them to log in more often and for longer. With out a doubt this game works so much better with more players in game. Anyway, Welcome back - a lot happened in the last 10 years. Ian
  9. He has a point, it is not just numbers (but numbers are the number one map mover) - last map, and those before, allies have their OP in TZ2, "US Primetime", but the axis are able to keep town losses to a minimum and move the map more effectively when they are OP. Yes the axis OP is greater in proportion than the allied OP which certainly helps. Ian
  10. It was a reference to Tater and his insistence on only discussing allies defending. The game does indeed need both sides to attack and defend, creating the battles we claim to want and enjoy. Ian
  11. It also wasnt about 30 v 20 or a "battle" with 250 troops to spawn. This is a game. A game that is struggling to survive. IMHO Any changes have to be easily implemented, and encourage players to log in, log in for longer, and to encourage them to get their friends to play. We were told that fixing the rambo lmg would bring back hundreds of allied players, hopefully some returned, and hopefully very few axis subscriptions were lost. ANY CHANGES NEED TO BE NET SUBSCRIPTION GAINS not losses, regardless of realism - yes I know many on these forums disagree, but I truly do not want to see this game end, and I fear that changes that do not encourage players to play will just be more nails permanently closing the WWIIOL coffin lid. I play this game because it is/was a great game and I made many great friends. I do not play because I want to role play being a soldier in 1940 north west europe. The game is set against the background of 1940, and has a flavour of WWII. It is not a recreation of WWII. Ian
  12. But again, you want the allies to only defend. This is a game. Most people like to win when they play a game. If the allies are to have to keep retreating and reforming their lines then we need to give them a goal, and means to measure their success or failure. You seemed determined that the axis will always be on the attack and always eventually win the Battle of France. And yes, the smgs were returned to the allies, but it was too late, many saw it as the last straw of CRS bias against the allies (nonsense of course but passions run very high in this ultra competitive game that so many of us love!). They also slowly trickled a few panzers back to the axis - we are talking 4 stugs 4 232s and 2 P38ts V 6x Matties 4 Matty CS, plus vickies etc. It was a disaster for gameplay and player numbers, and we have never recovered. The previous map to the realistic spawn proportions we had 3 AOs regularly, and sometimes 4 - this was pre 1.36 remember when extra AOs were harder to achieve. After the changes we rarely saw 2 AOs even in prime time. Numbers recovered a bit as panzers were added a few at a time (initially there were 25 PnzIIs in the axis Armoured flags because this was historical) but player numbers never really recovered from the "Hardest Campaign Ever" disaster. Ian
  13. What General is going to attack you up hill, into woods, in prepared positions, in close proximity to your supplies and reserves? If he has to use that line of advance, he will blow the FB, (probably by backdooring it) our version of severing your communications and go around you. Some strong points have to be assaulted, in game these are the towns and cities, but these too can sometimes be cut, and nullified. Do you only defend in game? You always seem to want the perfect defensive position/set up. You are allied yes? You should be "immersing" yourself in the desire to recover the homeland lost to the dreadful Boche not being Wellington and seeking potential positions for your next defensive battle! We know the axis won the Battle of France in six weeks, we know the axis have been winning our campaigns recently, and this seems to have set a permanent fixation with the allies on defending rather than attacking. That is great if that is how one wants to play this game, but if you never attack you can never win the campaign game. You will be like the British Tank Corps and their Matties, you can hold the line for your one engagement, but your comrades lost elsewhere and you need to abandon your position, scuttle your tanks and retreat - in WWIIOL you cannot just defend forever and hope to win. Ian
  14. They did not have a barracks, they were in foxholes and barns desperately trying to find their HQ and their next planned defensive position. Once your front is punctured, the rear towns were not active manned by fresh brigades standing to, they were rear echelon wallahs bricking it when they heard the rattle of tank tracks coming down the road., hastily packing up shop and joining the floods of refugees on all the roads. If you want realism in the game where are the refugees and civilians? Where are the PBI trying to fill waterbottles in the lull in action? This is a game, and nothing like actual combat. We can have realistic performance modeling of weapons. but at present an opel or 232 can bounce a tiger off the road... so we dont have accuracy in this area. This is a skirmish game, with multiple small unit actions and missions that are constantly repeated, the campaign map serves to provide a different town layout etc as we go east or west. But it is a game, we get to live and die time after time, we have no fear of death and we can choose what we want to spawn up to the limits of the spawn list. Telling paying customers they may not spawn an smg when there are 40 or 50 in supply but it is not realistic to use it yet will not win much praise from the general player base. Tater, you asked about the "half SMGs" - this refers to the "Hardest Campaign Ever" when axis had virtually all panzers removed from the majority of flags and allies lost much of their smgs, all in the name of realism. It was a disaster for player numbers and seemingly for subscriptions judging from Xooms posts. Allies could not defeat axis infantry who outnumbered their supply in smgs and lmgs, eventually every fight was rifles v smgs in the CPs. Axis won. Many tankers left the game as well, axis because they had no tanks, allies because they had no one to fight. When "realism" is chosen over gameplay, it is invariably the game which has lost. Ian
  15. Why strive to make the game less accessible and fun? This is a game for pleasure/fun, not a chore. Guarding etc is bad enough without adding the inability to know where your team are and where the enemy is. You want to see more ninja town caps? Get rid of marks etc and only let squad COs and HC communicate. Sheesh it is herding cats to get peeps to spawn on D or AO as it is, you think they will obey orders and just sit and cover their assigned section of town like good little soldiers? You think squads will get off discord and not jump to other channels to share intelligence? The allies have enough communication issues (and so do the axis) without it being hard coded. We dont need this GAME to become even more hard work and unpopular with the subscribers that are left paying and praying it continues to survive. Ian
  16. Or we could just have all the units activated and not have to jump off the depot roof until we got SMGs back into supply?
  17. That was WWI not The Battle of France 1940. The campaign we supposedly are fighting was one of maneuver and rapid action, and it starts after the breaching of the Dutch and Belgian frontiers, there were no static lines and strategic bombing. The static lines in France were bypassed hence we fight in Holland and Belgium, pushing down into Lux and N France. The initiative rested with the attacker, and they did not send a message to the defenders; " I say old boy, how about we fight this morning at 10:30AM? Will that give your chaps long enough to have had their breakfast and positioned their ATGs? It will. Oh super!" After the initial Axis assault and breach of the frontiers, the allies were in an almost constant state of disorder, re-positioning sometimes several times a day, and always going back towards the next river and the channel in the BEF case and towards N France for the AoF. Battalions within the same brigades had no idea where their sister units were, never mind their higher echelon HQs and support units. They did not retreat a town or village at a time, they pulled back from one outmaneuvered riverline to the next. IIRC the Matildas fought just one action, it was "a draw", but they were once again outmanouvered to their N ans S, and the British retreated abandoning the few Matildas that had survived the action. This is a game not a recreation of actual combat. I doubt many would want to "play" a game where you spend hours terrified, witnessing the death and horrendous injury to your brothers, images that will never leave you. This is a GAME not real warfare, and you are not real warriors so give up claiming it isnt "realistic". Of course it isnt. Ian
  18. HC have to activate - and straight away we have a fail - we dont have HC for long periods of every single day.
  19. Superior comms and teamwork. Numbers helps too of course.... Ian
  20. You know EWS is displayed in game right? You can spawn at a town when ews goes active - so no eis all over town. If you ignore ews and it goes heavy, then yeah you have a problem. The Big Fru + little fru with 180 degree front has some merit.... mmm need to think.... Ian
  21. Or we make trucks not set off ews, but a fru does, as well as inf and guns, tanks etc...?
  22. Just a thought, but probably impossible to implement in game, but Paras to be able to capper faster. Paras are a "cool" unit, new guys love them, but we hardly use them because they soak up many "man hours" getting the paras spawned at the AF and then to the AO. BUT if they could be more useful when at the AO they would be used more. So faster capping paras would be most useful to the OP side, so they would have more of their OP players sitting at the AF or in the transport - in turn this is helping pop balance in the AO. When they get to the AO, well we all know how vulnerable paras can be, they are just inf afterall. Faster capping will still not beat the minimum cap timers, and while it would help the OP side it certainly shouldn't break the UP defence. I think it will see paras used more, and if we extend para rifles to F2P it will give new guys a bit of added fun as well. Ian
  23. You don't think paras have enough issues already? We were trying to find more reasons for paras to be used, not trying to put people off spawning them. I agree that landing injuries for paras would be more realistic, but I don't see this as helping game play. Anyway, with the new group cap timers we sort of have "fast cap paras", or fast cap anything. Don't cap alone, always take a friend with you! Ian
  24. Guys, well deserved.