jwilly

Registered Users
  • Content count

    21,745
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

jwilly last won the day on January 15

jwilly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

882 Hero

1 Follower

About jwilly

  • Rank
    WWII Online Builder [GOLD]
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. It's notable that almost all of the voices calling for the game to be entirely free are players that aren't paying anything now, and want more for nothing. It'll take a bunch of resources to add monetization mechanisms, with no assurance that they'll work for this game because so many of the "free to play" customers actually want the game to be free for them. What hooks players is the gameplay. Those same resources could be used to add even better gameplay. Explain to us again why free-with-monetization is a good plan? Would it make sense to go back to organic growth by attracting players that are actually looking for this kind of gameplay, and understand that nothing good can really be free...?
  2. Speaking of FTP, it makes total sense for FTP folks to be able to read these forums, but...except for help and tech support...why can they post? Over many years, lots of customers have felt the forums are a valuable part of the game experience. Why does CRS give away that value?
  3. There's no way to coexist with potential customers who are committed to the concept that everything should be free. It's a mistake to market the game to people who can't understand the simple math of how many hours of fun you can get a month here for the price of one movie ticket or a couple of cups of fancy coffee, versus how much fun you get for that same money somewhere else. Eliminate "Free To Play". Their PTW accusations only make sense to people who think like them, that everything should be free. It's hopeless trying to explain otherwise to them.
  4. I'm not defending Bmbm's and CRS's TOE choices, but in fairness he's told us that those T0 TOEs are based on production numbers for the whole year of 1940...possibly in the upper 300s per an earlier Minky post...rather than the pre-May-1940 production of 22 or 23 depending on source.
  5. RTRs are not "HQ troops" in some unitary administrative sense. They were combat units with hierarchical structures, intended for deployment in support of infantry formations. There were times in Libya when 4 or 7 RTR were attached to multiple infantry formations squadron by squadron.
  6. In the context of a practical game structure, the Brit arrangement is OK. RTR elements (infantry tanks) were assigned to operate and coordinate with infantry divisions at Arras, and in North Africa many times. Just think of the British Infantry Brigade structure as an infantry element with an attached RTR element.
  7. Old-CRS's policy was: 1. Pre-May-1940 history remains as is. 2. History in other conflict zones that is substantially independent of game events remains as is. 3. History that depended on events that are re-determined by game events is rewritten corresponding to what happens or doesn't happen in-game. The first major expansion of the German Army after France was made possible by the quick campaign end and very low German casualties among divisional officers and non-coms. That permitted each division's leaders to be extracted as a cadre around which a new division was formed, with the prior seconds-in-command taking over the original division. In some cases, two cadres were extracted from the same deep-leadership, proven-effective division. It was the Heer expansion after France that made enough forces available to garrison territory while sending combat units to the Balkans, Greece and North Afrika. The second expansion after Balkans/Greece made the Heer large enough for the Soviet Union attack. Without a victory in France, the entire German Army would have to remain committed there. Cadre extraction cannot occur in a sustained-fighting, continuing-losses environment, because effective leaders are out in front and take calculated risks, and too many of them die. Plus, a high-weapons-use/loss environment would prevent German industry from "getting ahead" to equip new divisions, because they'd be replenishing those losses. Without the first expansion, there could have been no Balkans/Greece campaign, and without Balkans/Greece there could have been no Soviet Union invasion. So, no, if the Germans haven't won yet against France/Belgium/Britain, there could not be substantial withdrawals, and the other campaigns don't occur as they did historically. Old-CRS wasn't always consistent with the above, of course. Nonetheless it was the foundation of the game's backstory.
  8. Realism clearly goes out the window when CRS bases TOEs partly on total annual production, ignoring anyplace else some of those weapons historically had to go. Old-CRS had a consistent concept for how to deal with pre-game and simultaneous-to-game-in-other-conflict-zones history, They seemed to be able to stick to that concept even as they negotiated the difficult customer-relations terrain of partisans from each side complaining that their side's being nerfed, because that historical basis by and large made sense to the players. Some of us wondered how CRS would be able to sell TOEs based on equal total production cost without a consistent explanation of either the relevant history or how the resulting TOEs would result in balanced gameplay, and the answer so far seems to be that it's a problem.
  9. Yes. +10 . Another idea, to implement not only Small Unit Teamwork, but also Fear of Death and Suppression: In real life, soldiers have fear of death. There's no way that game players will voluntarily behave that way, since death costs them only a little time and frustration. Fear of death in-game would manifest as a soldier ducking whenever a bullet passed close by, or a fragments-producing event occurred within lethal distance. A soldier under sustained close lethal fire may be suppressed, i.e. he is psychologically unable to charge into that lethal fire. In real life, soldiers have morale. It's high or low depending on multiple factors...their unit's recent battle experience (stay behind cover for a while while being shelled, and your morale goes down; your unit captures an important point of value or kills some of the enemy, and your morale goes up), whether you've personally wounded/killed an enemy lately (that's one that won't be getting you), whether someone in your unit has recently been wounded or killed, whether you and your unit are carrying plenty of ammo or have ready access to more, and so forth. Being under especially close fire definitely hurts morale...almost dying is scary every time. So: every player gets a persistent Morale factor for when they play ground. Events and experiences in-game affect that player's Morale. Small Unit Teamwork is implemented by Morale. It's voluntary to group up, but a soldier within X proximity of his section leader, and/or Y other members of his section, gets a Morale adder every minute if he's within that distance. Having plenty of ammo, or ready access to more, gives a Morale adder every minute. Fear of Death and Suppression are implemented by involuntary, but morale-dependent, flinching. Immediately after a soldier with average-or-below Morale has a bullet pass close enough to actuate the bullet-sound code, or is close enough to the explosion of a fragment-producing ordnance that the code does a hit check on that soldier, that soldier automatically switches to one stance lower and loses some Morale. Standing or Walking --> Crouching Kneeling or Crouching --> Prone Running --> Prone Jogging --> Prone Only crawling is not suppressed. Soldiers with high enough Morale don't flinch, but still take a Morale hit. Eventually, even the highest-morale soldiers can be suppressed by continuous proximity to close lethal fire. A soldier that's been suppressed can get back up immediately, but also can be suppressed again immediately by another event. The obvious preferred response to being suppressed by gunfire or explosions is to hightail it out of wherever you're getting shot at. If someday Medics are implemented, having a Medic in your section is good for Morale. Having a Medic stabilize a wounded section member so he can be evac'ed reverses the Morale hit caused by the wounding.
  10. So you want to make individual infantrymen able to fight tanks on equal terms? What's next, infantry that can take on bombers on equal terms? Definitely heading in a realistic-gameplay direction.
  11. Yes, but not just the FPAs. Remove the knife, and replace it with bayonet gameplay. Knife gameplay has always had terrible movement-dynamics. Maybe bayonet gameplay would look better. But, no movement indoors with a fixed bayonet. It's bad enough seeing just the ordinary rifle cutting into walls while running down hallways. A collider-less bayonet would be worse.
  12. And the SAS, and American paratroops, and the FFL.
  13. This is supposed to be a small-unit-action game, but everyone wants to add Rambo features. Instead strengthen the small unit action. Add morale dings, no map access, and no cap capability for being too far from your platoon/mission group. Add morale bumps for unit proximity. Add an implied medic capability for platoons/mission groups...greater odds of getting a Rescued instead of a KIA if injured to a despawn level outside of normal Rescued range. Eliminate the ammo-carry for HEAT manpats...loading requires an ammo pack.
  14. Anything else we can do to move the game toward the mass market fantasy shooters? How about bunny hopping...you didn't mention that. And maybe jet packs. Oh, yeah, and health pills. Gotta have health pills.
  15. Don't make every rifleman a tank killer. 1. Wildly unrealistic...no country had personal HEAT devices in 1940-41 that would kill any tank. 2. Would kill the armor game. 3. Would dramatically move gameplay toward World War One Online, with weak offense and strong defense. 4. Would bring back the worst game feature ever, Rambo Infantry running around the countryside, and therefore undercut any tiny bit of remaining interest in small-unit gameplay. Instead make infantry less lethal toward tanks and make it harder for tanks to spot hiding infantry. Infantry should fight infantry for captures. Armor should fight other armor for chances to cut the other side's supply lines.