Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Kilemall

  1. Well, I don't know what they are as I usually bring up issues in the Barracks, hard to have a conversation about what I haven't read. Link where you have listed them?
  2. Well, if I understand what you want, sounds like you want historical unit and formation spawning and organization organic to each formation type, and a hard push to fight as the WWII units actually did. Thing is, the game always had more of a 'make your own war' toolbox approach- solve your own tactical and strategic problems with the tools on hand. The weapons themselves alter tactics and force players to at least respect and problem solve the more powerful ones, and use powerful weapons to overcome numbers and/or terrain/supply/spawn advantage. But operating units and groups of players as a recreationist hardcore simulation- no, I don't think that is going to work, or be a feature that will bring in more players. What IS missing is better organic organizing tools- it's not what units can spawn in what order, but getting players organized as part of just spawning in and playing. Squads did, can and still do that, but they are not the default play unit in 24/7 when it's not squad night, and we need adhoc grouping and org on a scale larger then missions.
  3. I am curious about the criteria of SD and it's refresh rate, if they have spread it out over several minutes as an average like I suspect you could have drastically different pop at spawn time from the average over the last 15 minutes. Also, any of the pop things aren't going to distinguish between land and air/navy, an air squad could pop in your side and still leave you short on the ground.
  4. I'm curious Minky, what are the balance issues you are concerned with? Perhaps the current crew has made changes that you are unaware of? I have Star Citizen money in being an original backer but have chosen not to expend effort in it as those forums are at once more toxic and more carebear then I can stomach. I do however have an official fizzy drink I named and I think affected their thinking re: modularity in ship design. They are going to have to show me SQ42 before I put another dime in. They also did not put in real physics as promised, the ships should fight less cinematically and more hard intertia if they had delivered.
  5. Woohoo! Roof sniper supreme!
  6. Paras should get ammo boxes though, in the graphic form of supply drop. Pilot gets one to drop, and has to go back to AF to reload.
  7. I have a solution to that. NAOs, for New AOs. HC places an AO, it stays for two hours minimum. Every town connected to the target town is eligible for capture, including the defenders' towns behind the AO target town, and attackers' frontline towns linking to the target. HC places AO, then forgets about it and hopefully concentrates on battle management. Big regional fights. AO not yanked, paradrops that count, interdiction for 15km around. I have a whole thread on that I can bring up in Barracks if you are interested.
  8. Real big problems with AO elimination. Doesn't force the big fights where the game pops. Early going pop differential rarely exceeded 30%, now it does all the time. Overpop in no AO means a bunch of overrun towns and two week campaigns.
  9. I'm playing Axis nowadays, but am still 4RCA- 4th Regiment Chasseurs of Africa, so good to see other Chasseurs in the game.
  10. August 2001. 4RCA Madurai was on the orange boards, was talking it up. I didn't want to have anything to do with the launch problems he described, so I signed on a month later after the game was more reliably up. 4RCA stands for Quatrieme Regimente Chasseurs d'Afrique. Translated, the Fourth Regiment Hunters of Africa, an historical colonial cavalry unit. We picked it because I insisted on a French unit. Madurai went looking for a unit that could have been in North Africa OR France, and chose this colonial one as it was one of the first to fight the Germans after the Allies landed in French North Africa. Actually, they wanted to kill everything on the Tunis tarmac (no air reinforcements!) but were dissuaded until the Vichy NA situation was clarified. That's right, our historical unit started the war camping an airfield.
  11. Now that I have seen, I had not associated it with near zero supply but more like intense battles (where the supply is often running down to zero yes, but the system is also busy dealing with a LOT of deaths in a short period of time as things get intense). I'll keep my eye on it, but I don't know that any of Delems' suggestions are going to fix it. That's more of a throughput thing through what I'm guessing is the strat server. Best fix there would likely be a properly cached disk array, but probably not happening at CRS' fiscal state.
  12. Those have fewer units to burn through, else I don't see how the unit type would create some sort of 'different' timer on spawn in.
  13. I'm not following the EnterWorld bug argument, at all. Remember captures go faster with more people in them independent of the pop sliders, so faster single man caps is ninja-friendly- which is NOT about action but rather cheap capture without a fight. That was the whole point of the original faster cap timer with more capture people point anyway, get more guys in at even pop and you cap/recap faster which meant you concentrated players successfully and fended off disrupting defenders. It rewards concentration and sustained battle over facilities. Only argument I see here is easing single man caps to get spawnable/warp up and go to close quarters battle. That's different from what does need to happen, overall faster base caps. I have not noted a 4m base and certainly doesn't feel like it, but if it is that should be 3m base. Not much faster. I don't see the point of spending another moment monkeying with the AO logic on the current version- rather they do 1.36 right, which likely will eliminate the softcap limit since every town will have at least a minimum of supply.
  14. Actually given the childish take advantage of coding of a lot of game players, I'm VERY good with the current state of no friendly fire. The one reality buster for most wargamer and actual in combat army types is the lack of artillery. Forget camping tanks, it was the big guns that did most of the killing.
  15. Next step would be pilots bailing out over towns then capping. Cause pilots often did that in WWII.
  16. This. Can't be bothered to coordinate with a tank or ATG team to keep the FMS clear? THEN DIE STUPID.
  17. I disagree about your characterization of interaction. I'm not talking about jumping in and out of vehicles, plenty of arena games do that already. I'm talking about the frame of reference problem where ships that can shoot at inf that can shoot at ground vehicles that can shoot at ships and they are all on the same area. SC planet and station fights will require this. Jumping in and out of vehicles is not fighting. Most of the time the play will be out in 'space', computationally a far simpler thing as all you have to do is manage displaying and calculating other ships' image and position accurately, That's one frame of reference, operating at ship speed/distance. Ships in SC are functionally equivalent to our planes, both in relative speeds and maneuver. But mixed interaction is going to be very difficult and WWIIOL's engine already does it. Yes, the art assets are reused in WWIIOL. Price of no stutter/load. I think Chris Roberts' isn't going to get it done, but that's another discussion level. The relevant point here is that doing what WWIIOL does and SC is trying to do is not trivial and amenable to 'just switching to another engine' approaches, and does require a lot of resources to get the combined arms fidelity we have come to expect.
  18. Presumably WWIIOL would not sell subscriptions to an Alpha UE product, so I'm not sure where you are going with this. Which of course begs the question, what WOULD the business model be, given that the modern gamer seems to freak out at the subscription concept. Paying to get a Tiger might be the only way CRS can go given the current mores towards earned effort of the gaming market. But, again, SC doesn't have it all working great in terms of vehicle/ship/inf interacting. It's mostly one or two types, not all three. And I guarantee you those planets won't have a tenth of the modeled interaction space WWIIOL does. Which, again, points out the unique aspects of this game engine.
  19. I would recommend dropping them back at the nearest factory with all tickets set to return on the same timeframe as current replacement tickets.
  20. What, Hybrid supply won't be a thing?
  21. I disagree. You don't have player agency, you throw away CRS' defining market differentiation. Going hardcore to the point of losing customers over what I call the 'lizard' approach rather then the 'mammal' approach (drop eggs then walk away letting new players fend for themselves vs. nurturing new players for higher retention rates) is definitely an area I have been on about for a long time. That's a business approach that borders on suicidal that needs changing. But lack of freedom on where to spawn and travel, more restrictive capture/spawn mechanisms- that throws away the 'your war' and all that wonderful contiguous terrain that is a unique feature set of this game. I would seek to expand on the strengths, not make it another arena clone of other companies that won that WWII shooter market share a long time ago and not giving it up to a no-PR buck operation on the margins.
  22. Just another no SD/no cap timer ploy. Not interested, particularly as this specifies only arty for defense. Underpop needs to be able to attack to spread overpop around, and could be just the thing for suppressing overpop AB defenders while underpop caps the bunker without needing cutting inf/armor. Then we might be talking about something useful.
  23. That seems reasonable, long as they have the rank too to spawn the thing.
  24. Is it like you haven't read a damn thing I've written over the past 10 years? Zeb I understand, but I would expect you know better then that. I was agreeing with his principles, but stating additional principles that whatever the fix is cannot use 'action defined on rails' and destroy player agency even more then it already has been. Part of why my fixes concentrate on a proper mix of AOs and timers that may annoy but not destroy cohesion or ability to spawn and maneuver, and why I step back and look at fundamentals of the game as evolved such as Nodal Spawn Castle and attrition and player preferences that are diametrically opposed and try to figure a fair meeting ground to continue to create the combat biome we all want.