Kilemall

Registered Users
  • Content count

    71,515
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    132

Everything posted by Kilemall

  1. Annnnnnnd...... How do you stop someone from the opposite side using a second account to take that position, move brigades to make a win easier? Or someone who is not a griefer but ignores everyone else because as you say they never signed up for the Articles of Conduct and makes crazy moves that damages their side worse then no one there? HAS to be a vetting/failsafe component, one way or another.
  2. I fail to see how this is any sort of serious solution to pop imbalance. Very few side switch. Most effects are the 'demoralized' side stops playing. The target should be to get people to play even if their side is down, either map or population, and reduce the effect of population as content decider. You shouldn't be punished for signing onto a side that is underpop, and likely will be for months or years. Pop neutrality is the second biggest retention tool the Rats could put in (the first is addressing the 'lone soldier' effect of being thrown into the shark tank with no readily looked up info, no knowledge of channels, no voice comms, and no idea of squads or how to find battles).
  3. It was a dark age of bananaphones, and people posted that cause of Badger over and over and over and over and over and over..........
  4. Yello I think still sports the squad label, someone uses the laf1 account, not sure how many others.
  5. Ummm. No. WWIIOL is about combined arms combat, of which maneuver by infantry re: sneaking is just a part. My point is AI greatly encourages showing up with at least a gun if not a tank if you want a clear approach and not have to burn time and maneuver to kill the AI from behind. The AI is simulating defending troops, many of whom are up on a tower and certainly CAN see you. I am utterly unclear as to what point you are driving with on all infantry is killed with one shot being false- most of our weapons certainly can kill with one shot as they do in RL, this is a very lethal game in large measure because you can get one hit one kill. Wondering how much D you have actually run to make these assertions. Certainly an infantry scout is a powerful D tool, but often you are playing for time and AI costs time for attackers to clear. And no the AI is NOT down often during an attack, some of the most important signs of an impending attack are when you spawn in and hear AI going down, that itself is a sign of where they are, and a quick repair job when enemy density is low can catch many attackers that are not practicing combined arms and buy time. True, didn't say they were. But it does teach maneuver, planning, precision in grenade placement, and dealing in fields of fire. Your saying neener neener neener does not make a thing so.
  6. Im good with AI as a trainer for attackers, a driver to have combined arms, and a helpmate to first responders on defense when they are often outnumbered. The disabling of AI autorebuild has really been a good change, especially for particularly odious AI like AF or deepwater bases, while preventing autocamps to these sensitive facilities. If you can't deal with the AI, you're not ready for the humans.
  7. This but with the FMBs.
  8. If you want a nice little easter egg sound, try shooting the church bell.
  9. I'm for this, just common sense.
  10. Not always, but it is the way to bet. One can win on org and sheer stubbornness, particularly catching an enemy when they think the campaign is in the bag. ToEs particularly can do this, when forces get cut off and/or divisiion replacement allows exploitation of thinly held critical ground. Tactics of mistake.
  11. I would go with anything that gets you to 4 Ghz, 8-16 MB, 600-700 W PS with the 80+ rating and best Nvidia within budget. The game is processor intensive first and graphics second, highest cycles since it mostly uses one processor, anything above two cores isn't getting you much given the nature of the workload. The higher PS allows a nice cool graphics run on amperage and room to pop in a newer card as a faster upgrade. For a mere $50 more you can go to a real sweet spot of price performance with the GTX960.
  12. No, but I am stating what I believe the business reason was for having an Open forum in the first place. I have no inside knowledge of that, only posting what makes sense to me. The other reason would be to attract critics here where the Rats can selectively respond. Most of the things I suggest for the game is all about that First Hour people play, that's when you hook em or lose em, for reasons unknown to me the Original Rats intentionally or otherwise didn't focus on that, I'm hoping New Rats really pay attention and is a large component of future dev.
  13. IMO you have an agenda, not an answer to the OP.
  14. The General Discussion is there I think precisely for F2P to talk and perhaps be persuaded to sub, or not, and let their experience/viewpoint be known as to why they are not subbing if that is their decision. As such, crapping on them in forum is likely not helpful in increasing subs.
  15. This is actually normal and predictable, what I call the Strategic Calendar- times of the year where one side or the other is pop advantaged. Allies are typically pop advantaged between Christmas and New Years.
  16. There is no way a squadcentric OR HC resource game or anything else can protect all players' fun. It's not to the detriment of every player though, that's a ridiculous statement. What would be a fair statement is that the kind of skill in an HC and squad leader set that can work together in their respective responsibilities minus org tools is a small percentage of the players involved and at the smaller pop levels we have are often not all in place. Seen it over and over with recent patches and campaigns of interest, the player count goes up and this old girl of a game can still kick up her heels. I think the 'cycle of suck' is a far bigger unsub issue, of which the HC/squad/AO issues are only a part. When my squad joined, we EXPECTED to be common soldiers led by HCs, that was what we signed up for. We only got into HC after we found it lacking on the Allied side. I believe that's the difference to our approach in a nutshell- people showing up expecting to be Patton without any Ike direction and no one wanting to take orders when orders that look stupid are so milsim it hurts when we EXPECTED that experience, and when we found HC lacking we went in and worked on it rather then sniping on the outside. I do agree that there are issues, of which the current HC/squad relation to game tools is one, but going Tribal Raiders of France is not the solution.
  17. England has been invaded successfully, and without FRUs.
  18. I recall and can verify that. Some of your complaints don't make sense to the AHC history I know and lived, especially the power mad assertions. So I have to assume most of it was Axis experience. You can. You just don't get free reign to swoop down on an entirely undefended town and beat on the few ragged defenders that show up. I do however want to see attack become easier, once pop neutrality is in, and again squad setup interruption needs to be addressed (which NAO does, it's precisely intended to adjust the balance between player ops and HC strategy). Pop Neutrality, or NAO? PN is an absolute necessity to do NAO. I doubt that any of my solutions will be exactly implemented as I describe them. But then again, most of the Rats did not get to implement what they wanted, they did 'what the game needed' and that was at odds with one or another preferences. What WILL happen is that a lot of the concerns I bring up and reasons the Rats did what they did in the past still obtain, and that the problems will have to be addressed even if not exactly how I think they should be. Given your constant drumbeat for 'take me back to 2003' seems to me you don't pay attention to a lot of the issues I bring up, but that doesn't mean they aren't there and that the Rats can afford to ignore them. Without hard Rat numbers we are indeed just exchanging opionin. I feel pretty confident though in my assessment given the hordes of unsubs that occurred on the Allied side in the 'good old days'. What I do know for a fact is that the Rats said their accounts were up for ToEs not down. Complexity is NOT a problem, consider Star Citizen, a game that gets more complex all the time and it hasn't even been released yet. 100s of thousands are eating it up. What is a problem is speed of squads, the game fighting organization, easy fast wiki help ingame, voice comms, tools for org, a need to get away from the spawn castle paradigm, and a clear communication about what the game offers that others don't. 2003 isn't the answer. Neither was 2008. 2017 is.
  19. I've no problem with that, everything I am pushing for allows that to happen. I am not against that, I am against 40 vs. 20 being an autowin for the map, and I want to have tools in place so the unorganized 20 can get organized without necessarily being in a squad and not have pop work against them. Which is just basic business 101 horse sense, don't run off your players. You guys have gone on and on about how changes have run off squads, but I can count 1000s that unsubbed on pop and org mechanics- somehow you guys never count those losses. I'm not against small battles and skirmishes at all, and you never read that part where we didn't want AOs but got them anyway. You got issues with the old GHC, take it up with them, not AHC. What I am against is a side winning because they have more people on, not more org, and can just flood a front, unearned victory. That is not an anti-Axis thing by the way, same thing happens in reverse with Allied numbers against Axis, and sucks in both directions. Take it up with the Old Rats, they wanted the big battle as content and sub retainer. I want ninja to be possible, just not the norm. Best read my NAO proposal before you go making assumptions about what I want to see done. I think you might be surprised. Let me tell you something, they didn't particularly listen to us HC types otherwise they wouldn't have done some things and failed to do others. I think they listened to their investors, their vision, their bottom line, reacting to unsub feedback and player ingame actions as a subset of their vision and bottom line, and virtually never took any of our HC proactive advice when it interfered with their vision or investor/bottom line priorities. Which effectively translated into 'what the game needs', not necessarily everyone's wish list. No ToEs, I can tell you the game would have died years ago with Allies gone and no pop modifiers in place.
  20. Tanker commander animation still needs his sidearm to deal with inf.
  21. As I have said over and over, AOs were not welcomed by us, and I was there at the time, I know EXACTLY what AHC mindset was about those things. ToEs are needed, for variability if nothing else, and town supply ain't it. I don't buy the 'I just wanna fight' mantra, at all, what is really desired is being organized to guarantee a win before the enemy starts spawning in, then finishing. AOs and ToEs do interfere with the 'speed of squads', no question. No question about battlefield leaders, I've consistently pointed out the speed of squads business, but the one thing you and your ilk continue to ignore is what happens when the above sort of leaders are NOT around, which is going to be most of the time. What you are describing is a completely squadcentric game, and if one's squad is not on or an open leader like Deadlock was, or worse you are on the opposite side of such a person with no leader on your side to counter, it sucks so very badly. You gotta think about ALL the players not just 'your' game.
  22. I detect the fine writing style and account naming scheme of Zeppelin. So you would rather stir up crap rather then an actual response to the OP? Never mind, what am I saying. Of course YOU would.
  23. The American 37mm was VERY hard hitting, much better then the German 37mm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.7_cm_KwK_36 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/37_mm_Gun_M3#Ammunition The Stu however is ultimately a light tank and so it evens out. Angle also plays a factor, if the Stu was on a hill and hitting what would normally be a sloped front, it could have been straight 90 degrees and therefore easier to penetrate. Also, being up on a hill usually confers angle advantage to the higher altitude tank (unless the tank is heading down, in which case it could be exposing it's top side and much more vulnerable). The thing missing from the model for the Axis is FHA for the earlier panzers, face hardened armor, which should be better against lower caliber lower speed rounds and more brittle against heavier calibers. I don't think the model is that nuanced.