Kilemall

Registered Users
  • Content count

    68,590
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    75

Everything posted by Kilemall

  1. This is something I've been for for a long time, or even having to 'rank up' to become HC through dedicated experience and support. Alas, as I understand it CRS is looking to junk the whole system because of the drastic things that happen with HC mismatches or more likely no HC on. Any system we do come up, town based or other, has to consider the man-hours and motivations of people to want to do it.
  2. I don't think you are thinking this through.
  3. Pop neutrality or bust.
  4. And exactly the sort of thing that contributes to the cycle of suck.
  5. Completely, utterly disagree. Months or years of having to be the defense TZ drives off players, contributes to the cycle of suck, and really is cheating the people of a particular TZ out of half the game, offense for the underpop and defense for the overpop.
  6. My answer to this is simple and consistent. 24x7, either side can successfully defend and attack, no matter the pop imbalance. That's what I mean when I use the phrase pop neutrality.
  7. Thread in Premium Discussions, they wanna know whatup.
  8. The problem with your conception Knucks is that if the Rats put in a whole progression for free, who will pay for the game to continue operating? At some point money has to go into the game. A serious issue is cannibalization of their own cash flow- if everything or at least 80% of what a player wants is free, why sub? Many paying players would switch to F2P- for rifle/SMG guys, many already have. Who pays the bills for the servers or any dev going forward? Part of what makes this game the unusual gem is precisely that there are no unearned powerups, so handing out sparkle, XP for sub money or powerups as part of the sub goes against the very ethos of the thing. About all I can see is something like access to new camo skins/paint jobs, uploading your own clip to be an official brigade/squad patch, etc. I am curious about something, you did see that there is a $5 intermediate play option, with access to better stuff but not all the premium to be earned, yes?
  9. I live here of course. It would greatly help knowing the effective area you are working in as DFW is a big place so transit time is a factor, and if dinner is to be part of this meeting. We have to be careful with our choices as many venues are busy on Saturday night, some might even have live entertainment events. Dave and Busters is a sports bar/video game venue. There are meeting rooms as I recall but I expect there are charges for them. http://www.daveandbusters.com/dallas
  10. In one way I agree with you, F2P is NOT an enticing experience if you are not gobsmacked by the whole Big Battle/War thing. They don't give it a chance, they don't convert to subs. On the other hand, there has to be a reason to pay, at some point the superior equipment has to be behind a paywall, and if too many items are F2P, the Rats gut the existing paybase who just then switch to F2P permanently because everything they want is there. So, criticism is easy, architecting solutions is hard- where do you draw the line with the different accounts to achieve both objectives?
  11. Er, there IS no Allied 75mm ATG, anywhere. Closest is the French 3" tier 2 gun, which most Allies hate due to it's tendency to tip in a light breeze. So the answer is no it isn't, and I expect very little increases with it in depots, especially after the first few rounds of inf hero with no battle lines. If you mean the French 47, it's the first thing used in T0, almost no one uses the 25mm except in desperation like the baby Pak (although I often do because I can get nearly as good results and it is much more nimble rolling over rubble). British 2lber is by far the most popular gun, except when the 6lber becomes available, and people then prefer it over the 17lber, for the same reasons Axis have issues with 88s. But as an Allied strategist, I fear the last depot camp and the destruction of ANY way to stop Tigers if players do what they do and insist on playing Alamo to supply list destruction. I gotta tell you, hate your suggestions re: field bunkers. Major bleh. I would much rather have a mini crew with the AT so the truck, crew and gun are one thing and I have dedicated inf I can switch back and forth for, and an engineer for building up light field protection. As for Axis tanks, I've already been on for some time about the nature of the game vs. historical German tank design. Putting 17lbers and M5s in the depots isn't going to help that, and 88s rolling out will be meat (except possibly to Matty drivers, who have similar problems to many Tiger drivers).
  12. I think this is one of those Axis/Allied things- the 88s are more likely to be worked over by Allied air, Allied big guns in depots are more likely to be worked over by inf or camping 232s.
  13. Won't argue with you on all three points, just not magic ATG beans or forts. The SPAA though, while useful for what we really need, forcing air to stay up and not get laser bomb accuracy, will I predict be used more for heavy anti-inf work. I should mention that most Allies are PRAYING for the MG shield. Might help with inf or bofors, but tanks will more readily kill those crews and guns. I always thought the way to go with the shield was hold them out for an 88 higher tier model, the one with absolute killer ammo rounds. T3 weapon, especially if we get around to T4 tanks.
  14. 88s get special attention like no other gun, because of what it can do, just like Tigers. The Allies learned from early days on that there is no charging, outshooting or outdoing the 88 straight up except possibly surprise Bofors ridge clearing- otherwise, if there is proper inf coverage we HAVE to call in the planes. Magic popping 88s would be something like magic popping S76s. Allied ATGs get killed far more often by Axis infantry.
  15. I dunno. AT gunners are somehow better then tankers that have to drive it?
  16. Heh, I was peripherally involved in that as an effort to get more BEF divisions so a higher ratio of Brit equipment was in, at one point it was 25% Brit and 75% French while the Allied PB was more 50/50, several Brit fans never got to play their stuff during a session. Instead of changing from 2/6 ration of divisions to 3/5 like we expected, the Rats went 3/9, main reason as I understand it was to provide more units to spread to the flanks and put the North and South in play. Well, that's not what happened, people of course stacked in the center. Enough punishing campaigns have occurred where both sides have learned the lessons of trying the flanks. So I would be pleased as punch to see an 8 division campaign, but keep in mind that might not be good for the Axis at this time.
  17. I could see this to an extent, say Reserve Pz in the same way we have Reserve Inf. But I would keep their mitts off the IIIHs and IVGs, that's too important hulls for the paying Axis playerbase to have access to. Same deal. IVGs are too favored and heavily used as the tank of preference for general attack and assault work NOT a Tiger. A IIIG is probably a better choice in that those are underutilized but powerful. You may not be aware of this, but there is a long standing proposal called Personal Spawn Limits that has a similar point system, mostly to prevent people from wasting equipment and giving them Fear of Death. That PSL system sounds like your point system and could be readily adapted to that trial account purpose. I was under the impression the Rats were switching around equipment for freeplay accounts anyway, giving them tastes of various equipment for a week. Is that still going on?
  18. I'd say do it, and set the AOs for a higher number, say 13- that's the minimum frontage that happens prior to endgame. The fast caps were exactly what happened in the old game. I say go further- run a campaign with those settings.
  19. As a dedicated AT gunner, I think that's the best way to lose all the heavy guns fast. I'd rather all FBs supporting opened up and you could flank the attacking forces with your towed gun.
  20. Problem with this suggestion isn't the idea itself (personally I'm more for rank loss, but whatever), but what happens in underpop situations under camp. Underpop guys try to rescue AB bunker, by your rule they are doing it with rifles while the overpop guys camp with their MGs and ensure victory. Yaaaa. No.
  21. As a general principle, wouldn't want that, toom uch of a giveaway for overpop. As a pop neutrality measure for the underpop, maybe, although I would prefer they got real AOs so they can continue to attack even if the FB for the main AO goes down.
  22. Worked the other way round, infantry camped up towns.
  23. * Employ pop neutrality, so the underpopped can attack effectively and it is MUCH harder to get a camp on, or an overpop side that squanders their manpower on camps loses towns at a 2:1 ratio. * Alter the game to get away from nodal spawn castle play to fighting in the fields and approaches to a town and the mphasis on force destruction in the field. Towns still should be key from a logistics node/facility perspective, but something that is fought over not an attrition death trap. This will also help with Axis tanking as it's tank on tank instead of infantry assault tanking, an Allied specialty. * Destroy the mission leader/spawn point paradigm, go to persistent visible formation, where the ML or any invited or open players can take over an existing unit in place and maintain position and cohesion. Among other salutory effects, this would minimize the overpop maneuver/firepower advantage, as the underpop could get to a superior position/approach just as readily rather then being bottled up in a known killzone.