Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Kilemall last won the day on February 1

Kilemall had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,269 Hero


About Kilemall

  • Rank
    That's the way, uh huh uh huh, I like it
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    Not quite Dallas TX
  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
    Anti-Tank Gun

Recent Profile Visitors

2,299 profile views
  1. Merlin, will you be acting on this very strong suggestion?
  2. FRU placed off the FMS, which becomes a separate mission, and no AT works. Either FB or FMS goes down, all FRUs tied to them go down and close missions. It's like Gophur's fallback FRU. People still have to drive the base FMS forward and so earn the placement and maintain it, but it can reasonably be placed in a survivable location beyond 1km and still have all sorts of little FRUs 400m or intown. Absolute no to dropping overpop cap time cost in that case- overpop will be far better equipped to maintain their FRUs in this rules regimen. Minky, combined arms 360 security in the real world with enough eyes and weapons to see and at least fire/communicate enemy presence is a different matter then our sparse per km frontages. This along with 'it's a game' is the outstanding issue re: 'modeling' combined arms warfare. We're just always going to only approximate or use game shorthand. So both towns and attacking FRU/FMS and armor are going to be unusually vulnerable to stealth, and stealth will be stopped cold with enough set eyes and/or not enough firepower once attackers or defenders gain position. Right now that requires tanks. We should have artillery too, the fact that we can't further unveils the true gameplay cost of the nodal spawn fortress design. All the camping in either direction is a desperate clawing to get that firepower position superiority and various timer/EWS mechanics to allow a battle to organically develop before it's over. Most suggestions of the OP's nature are attempts to escape the cage of 'game' and get to a mutual maneuver/fire battle. I wouldn't pee on the goal even if the mechanic proposed has problems.
  3. Merlin, everyone is gonna be all over you to fix this and that. But keep in mind, I think a LOT of town design was predicated not only on the unique tactical puzzle principle, but also the flow of the map, how easy or difficult a particular town or towns should be to attack from X direction. This is particularly important to pay attention to since you are going to 1.36 TBS, terrain is likely to loom larger the less that local ToE brigade supply can overwhelm a particular spot. You could seriously imbalance the map more then you might think with TBS going in. I strongly strongly strongly recommend you talk to Doc about this specific thing, or you may find yourself constantly altering catchup to fix unleashed problems you never knew could exist.
  4. On the LONDON question, I'm assuming all capitals..... are capitalized. Pretty typical realworld map standard.
  5. So what do you want, an even chance for everyone that includes your play but includes others that might disrupt your play? Or guaranteed your kind of play? And I wasn't arguing get gooder anyway, interesting you went that direction. I was saying it's a harsh combined arms realm that wasn't intended to be easy for anyone, even if some equipment choices combined with game design ends up favoring one side or another, culturally or actual capability, and the real challenge is organizing to overcome. It's a very human game, always has been, and therein lies it's glory and it's Achilles heel.
  6. I think my answer is implicit in my post- scissors guy idea of fun is not paper's idea, etc. What I see over and over again is that people want their rockplay or whatever and don't seem to be willing to accede or at least live with different play intruding upon their idea of fun.
  7. We get that about every 1 in 3 campaigns often going long to finish the campaign, weeks of S76 and Tiger is not a new thing.
  8. Sure you can have exposed CPs, AND closed in CPs. There should be differences. The trick is to give it the feel of the real towns circa 1940, AND design which ones are inf friendly vs. camp friendly predicated on how easy one link to another should be in one direction or another, and what the 'tactical puzzle' of each town should be, which should be as unique as possible. What a horrible mistake to make the towns play all the same and have the same rote tactical solution to each capture and defense.
  9. Well, the product was designed with this being 'players surmount challenges and create orgs and relationships on their own' sandbox. So, don't act surprised. Rats also get shaped by interacting with us and the practical aspects of satisfying scissor rock paper communities, they get surly if for no other reason then literally anything they do to make somebody happy will almost inevitably mean someone else will be complaining. Doc ended up being the face of Rats 1.0 mostly because the rest of them broke under the incessant waves of hate.
  10. This is why you have to have discernment, not reaction to player requests. The scissors guys want more paper to kill but damn all that rock is too hard can you do something about it, rock guys want their scissor-killing but damn that paper is unfair, and paper guys like the increased paper supply and are smothering the rocks, but what's with all this scissor cutting? You're selling scissors-rock-paper, NO one is going to be happy unless their equipment is supreme, which is what you must NOT do. Less of what people want. More of what the game needs.
  11. Same thing happens now with infantry guy that ranks up then takes a Matilda or a Tiger out with no clue.
  12. Now then to respond to the OP's hypothesis, this is my understanding of the situation- In terms of absolute unique side dedicated players, the Axis historically had more then the Allies. This was confirmed, in the forum, by Rats 1.0, but any discerning Allied leader or player already knew it. Just seems to be a surprise to Axis guys, I guess because they never lived it and didn't see it go on for years and assumed it was always Allied sucky organization. I don't know and would not assume it is still true, but I also have no reason to particularly believe it has changed, other then the Axis side has had a lot of losses over the years and was always squadcentric so squads leaving may have hit that side harder. The core of the hypothesis is correct IMO, superior leadership drives greater player hours. There can be surges driven by new rules, new objects, new toys, but the most reliable creation of 'more pop' are HC/squad/player leaders. It takes 1-3 weeks for leadership consistently showing up for the effect to start happening as more players have signed on, get the message that the leaders and other players are playing longer and smarter and see that their efforts will not be wasted. You can get a small surge immediately of people staying on, but to really affect a campaign it takes consistent effort. One leader can turn things around (but with a lot of sacrifice), it's usually better when a group of both HC and squads put in multi-TZ effort. Conversely it only takes a week for a side to decide it's not worth effort to 'play to win'. Whether that extends to campaign end depends again on whether you have HC, squads and player leaders showing up to build the surge again. Squads will show up irregardless of HC state, they are pegged more to the squad leader then HC. The squad leader can decide it's too much hassle to keep their guys interested and the squad will log, and this can happen whether that squad's side is overpop or underpop, it's then the squad leader's relationship/respect for the HC on that counts. To quote HG, 'this is a game of relationships'. The weapons of this and that are ultimately immaterial except as regards to player affinities and being able to influence battle- what keeps em coming back and working as a team is the relationship the player has to squad, side, and leadership, leaders between themselves, and the perception of 'meaningful battle'. The ultimate supply is NOT X tanks Y planes and Z inf, it's player-time and cohesion. Act like it. One other bit I will relay as part of a response to the OP- when ToEs was finally coming in the full brigade form, we AHC that were left after an utterly brutal series of leadership and trust losses knew it was the last straw, last chance to get a full team going. So we had a LOT of effort that went into the organizational side including how to handle maps, internal org/reporting, squad relations, etc. Most of this work was done by others, but I had three goals that I think I got impressed onto our planning. #1 Get all AHC to know, 'no really it's our responsibility to get players to play' and therefore competence in both technical map matters AND player relations was our job #2 Align proper interests in map and battle leadership so people skilled at doing whatever are incentivized to do their thing, and #3 Get back one specific leader. That last one was one I didn't publicize, he was one of the French generals that quit after Tiger Sunday when no pop mitigation effort was coming to deal with that kind of surge where weeks of effort were destroyed in one day through sheer overpop (again, meaningful battle). While he occupied a very key TZ position and was therefore a very key officer, I looked at getting him to come back more as a bellweather indicating we had done the right things to get the best team back. So Potthead, you got a look at the backend result of a lot of that during your time over on the Allied side. It wasn't an accident or 'luck' or 'CRS coding for one side', but a concerted effort based largely on your hypothesis. You saw it, so other then this equal players thing you already know the answer.
  13. As the guy who pushed the squad liaison project, I can confirm this is largely it with the addendum that players were complaining to CRS about 'those slacker HC' when they were SLs. Any toxic leadership would be attributable to the Allied CinC who, being pressed to solve the above complaints (CRS is going to lean on HC leadership for 'officer actions', quite right in most cases) decided to end the program rather then work the problem. While I am not a fan of that particular CinC (and he is not a fan of mine), it wasn't necessarily his 'fault'. The problem IMO is that it wasn't coded the way it was originally conceived, with either SLs invisible to the HClist or having at least an SL tag next to them indicating they aren't regular HC. There was no coding done for this at all, the only option was to put SLs in as regular officers. My understanding is that both sides have to agree when it comes to HC coding and apparently the Axis HC at the time wasn't on board with this. The AHC CinCs that pushed for and supported the program showed real interest in integrating willing squads into the action, and it was very successful for everyone when in operation. Your organization is your comms is your relationship with players. Whether HC and squads/players or even if you have Tribal Raiders of France 1940, this has been and will remain so.
  14. Easy way to tell. Score one point for each of the following- HCs healthy and active most TZs Active Squads Happy With Game and HC Players Believe In HC, Other Players Will Show Up RDP Bombing Campaign Score two points for CinC active, involved, built relationships with HC AND Squads TZ3 pop superiority Within 5 towns of enemy factories Score negative three points for Each side that is melting down Add up the points, higher number wins, speed of victory largely determinant on how lopsided the two side valuations are. Here's a fun fact- change one or more of the above factors in your favor even in the middle of the campaign and you can change the chances of victory.
  15. This is more of what I expect out of the truck audio. Nothing wrong with my sound card playing that back, so it's either the source sound or some mangling in the game creation/playback mechanism. The Opel isn't a 350HP hemi, but it's not a lawn mower either.