Kilemall

Registered Users
  • Content count

    69,220
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    91

Everything posted by Kilemall

  1. Independent of the massive amounts of physics work to just recreate what we have here never mind going forward with a better one, there is the factor that these cheap engine prices last I heard come with some vicious 'we get a percentage of your business' strings attached, such that you end up paying far more in the long run then a straight up license buy.
  2. And again, I have been arguing for years now for differentiated divisions- some that have all 3 inf, some that are 2 armor 1 inf, some that are as now 2 inf 1 armor. A much bigger impact re: what type of battle in an area then just spawnlist tweaking.
  3. Both formation types had tanks, it was a matter of proportion of equipment types. Rule of thumb is infantry divisions broke through with infantry divisions for tanks to exploit, armor divisions broke through with armor to let their infantry mop up. As noted above, different nations had different doctrines re: infantry/cruiser/infantry support/tank destroyer/breakthrough heavy/light tank/recon/main battle tank types. The missing component is infantry's artillery for attack firepower.
  4. Ya, like this.... NcKlDMYnmug
  5. Psssst. Ball bearing attacks weren't the war winners. Too many ball bearings were in the supply chain to stop production before the factories went back online. Attack the electrical system, and the 3 chemical plants making the doping to increase Luftwaffe performance (thus dropping their octane something like 20 points) and now you're talking.
  6. Bank on it. Guarantee it. Because no matter what you do, somebody's preferred game style will not be favored and may even be coded down/away, intentionally or side effect, and because people do not like to change. You have to approach this in something like a steely-eyed version of what Jwilly is talking about, and do what the game needs, not what people say they want.
  7. Love you Froggie, but you are wrong on this one.
  8. Okay, now you've crossed a line. We aren't kidding about this. We just don't. An incentive? Ya, that's an issue the Rats need to address in future rule changes/algorithms. But don't you dare say the Allies would.
  9. I think the extent of incredibly specific gameplay requesting was an incoherent roar amongst the Allies 'stop allowing TZ3 para softcaps across the map to determine campaign outcomes', not any rule this specific. The general rule of thumb to any of this sort of thing, Old Rat or New Rat, is that you may ask for a thing, gameplay change or new toy/feature, but you will likely get something else you had not envisioned. Hence all those WillyTee cartoons like this- I only wish I had that kind of spidery control, but I don't, and frankly don't try very much. This theorycrafting of yours as to what happens has a lot more to do with your worldview then what actually happens.
  10. We never do that. Honest to goodness I have never seen ANY Allied leader, squad or HC, ask people to log off to affect SD OR ask people to bring on 2nd accounts to alter AO count on the Allied side. EVER. That being said, yes it is a loophole that could be used in that manner especially with F2P, but I can virtually guarantee the Allies won't do that intentionally.
  11. Got to reading about the whole issue of F2P and 'not getting the whole game experience', and I am wondering if the Rats should target intermission as a 'try everything' promotion. Advantage- they can try everything, mission lead and do all that good stuff. Disadvantage- they might get the wrong idea about normal gameplay and learn to blow through supply as though attrition does not matter, possibly even less motivation to get with a team and learn the game, and a shock when normal campaigns resumes and the Tigers/Shermans are not instantly available. Opinions?
  12. Are you supporting kamikaze bombing?
  13. So Rats, you want my commentary here in the open relatively, or behind closed doors? Are you even watching this thread?
  14. Welcome back! The HC designed spawnlist/RDP delay feature was discontinued. There were a lot of issues that arose. Sometimes one side or the other's HC out did the others with spawnlist choices and an entire side was disadvantaged, causing them to be outraged at 'their' HC. HCs also would seek to optimize spawnlists for premium units and the Rats found they needed a guaranteed level of the earlier tier items for lower ranking players to spawn. Bombing caused so much disaffection with 'too few people affect too many people' that tier intro effects were eliminated, now bombing does affect the game but instead affects resupply tickets. In larger resupply tickets and timer sometimes you can get to hours which can advantage a division or a whole front. As part of the package that went in for RDP 'happiness', Rats put in AWS, an air radar that has a map grid superimposed over the whole map. Sectors turn yellow for a few enemy aircraft, and red with many, but the grid sectors are too large to say they are over a specific town, you have to still patrol and find them. The alerts are also a few minutes behind so fast aircraft may have actually moved past the alert sector. No they cannot, but the rescue rules are a lot more liberal the originally so if you can avoid an MIA and make a RES without fatal damage, the tank can come back into the spawnlist in 15m if you are out of range of a spawn point.
  15. I could level the same about Axis and LMGs.
  16. Propa is a treasure!
  17. It's what I call the Cycle of Suck. The game can't afford to not break it.
  18. Nevah! You know what awaits OT invaders.....
  19. Sometime before ToEs the Allies were pulling closer to even wins, ToEs the Allies got ahead a bit in campaign wins, then it's gone back and forth. What's different is there tends to be more 3-4-5 wins in a row by a side.
  20. Oh well then, let's get rid of those trucks. TERRIBLE K/D.
  21. I have an extensive pop neutrality thread, would you want the link here to that or for me to reproduce it here?
  22. Define the goal of balance, and then define how players are to win within that balancing mechanism. You can design a game that can never be won, and that would be just as frustrating if not moreso then games that have equipment/gameplay/numbers imbalances. The perfectly balanced game must fly like an F-16- fly smoothly, by electronically moderated flight control, but be inherently unstable and prepared to depart from controlled flight in order to have the violent maneuvering and meaningful actions people are here to experience.
  23. Pop neutrality would mean each side has a chance to engage in meaningful combat, every day, and would break the cycle of suck, thus putting more players in play and superior consistent play wins rather then counting on a mechanic of morale defeat to settle campaigns.