Kilemall

Registered Users
  • Content count

    69,155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    88

Everything posted by Kilemall

  1. Beats the unending nightmare that would have been Nutsy Europe.
  2. We don't smell of sauerkraut and sweaty oompah bands. If the Allies win, rock and roll and bikinis are born. We HAVE to win.
  3. Who says it's just conceptual?
  4. I am an ally who will say that the Axis tank park has issues as a game, but most of the nerfing was done in 1941 and 2001, not 2011. The game's design ends up rewarding Allied assault oriented tank designs, as opposed to Germany's more anti-tank/expert user orientation. Both terrain and spawn castle choices make this happen. The other part are limitations of the universal vehicle paradigm chosen, the joule-to-effective-armor-by-angle-penetration, to model complexities of FHA and shattergap that would end up making the Axis tanks, especially the early ones, more survivable (although in the case of FHA they would be more vulnerable to later tier guns). I greatly dispute the idea that the Axis tanks were nerfed to somehow balance out the game. I do think that they require more care to operate successfully and need a majority at a specific attack to maintain their flanks. In those conditions they can crush Allies just fine. I also dispute that there was some nerfing involved re: England invasion, for many years now we have had a ruleset that allowed mission leaders to create FRUs by riding as infantry and glider attacking and so Axis have often won invading UK first, with the national factory victory change Axis could win with just that, an advantage that allows for a win with as little as 75% of the towns. The truck FRU change will definitely make the UK invasion harder, but will also make the cross-channel return invasion harder as well, securing flanks better for a French factory finish (and again fewer towns required total of the map for victory, but to be fair Axis have more towns to take so that aspect balances out for the most part). I suggest any reader here consider a broader perspective then either side to assess such questions.
  5. While I am no fan of david01, he does have a point, different eras of major WWIIOL rules changes play differently. I think the truck only FRU merits an Era-level change effect designation.
  6. I don't really care whether you or anyone else does, I never sought the affection of anyone in the game besides my squad members and esteemed colleagues. What I do want is a recognition that we need each other, that this is a valuable game and community, and for the game to give everyone equal opportunity to win (but not equal red vs. blue), only the quality of their play affects the outcome. You can hate me all you like, if I have the above that's all I would want out of these exchanges or your emotional reaction to me.
  7. I am really getting pissed off at both sides' craptastic insult posting here, and may I remind the posters that this goes out to the whole internet as opposed to the premium private stuff? Check your attitude and your privilege. Free accounts shouldn't be a ticket to insult. Neither should a premium account as we need to attract people who are sitting on the fence about subbing. People have concerns. Some can be ridiculous. Others can be legit. Sometimes it takes a clash in a forum to get closer to the truth of which it is, but we don't need to get nasty while hashing this out. Name calling is so 9 year old. Leave it back at the elementary school with your childhood, and try and act like the adults you theoretically are.
  8. Again, I'd be good with a review of the MP40, might as well since that's the only 'vehicle/weapon' changes happening anyway. Just as long as the same modelling criteria is applied to all SMGs in that class.
  9. 4G isn't, clearly. It should be treated as a TD with secondary assault support, an M10 you can close the spawnable with if the flanks are covered. IIIG is superior to Sherman 75 and M10, it's Tier 2 competitors, except for infantry assault. Tiger should be up on the hill, killing everything that threatens either of the tier 2 tanks, or in the spearhead with supporting tanks to flanks. Axis equipment requires a pro approach to things, that's just cold facts and a side effect of any kind of accurate modelling of the two equipment philosophies. It's harder, but you can do more with it.
  10. I have personally seen absolute crushings of Allied positions by Axis tanks and very recently too, little as 1-2 campaigns ago. What Axis tanks need however are numbers, equal or advantaged because they are definitely weaker in the flanks. If the Axis tanks roll out without cover, they die. The return of the ATG with the FRU change accentuates this situation. As for the Axis SMG, I am always in favor of any denerfing and returning to as close to weapon spec as possible. The MP40 always was #1 SMG, not sure what could have changed in the meantime. My definition of modelling is a bit more aggressive and so I would want the weapon failures to be modeled too, something that CRS did a little bit of back in the day and largely backed off of due to the crowd that wants the weapons to work as perfectly as test conditions.
  11. Correct me if I am wrong, but is this a netbook/laptop? That's a modern but likely underpowered/cache starved CPU in the i3 range and worse the graphics card is likely not going to help as most budget laptops do not have gaming graphics, may even be using integrated graphics which uses main memory. Can you get us the graphics stats please?
  12. No wai! Which side you working this time around?
  13. I think giving and getting feedback is utterly critical and has a lot to do with why I have never signed an NDA. I've said things here that likely would have got me banned from most game forums, but since I say them in the context of making a better game and with all due respect to what the game is even right now, I don't get hammered and hopefully they listen to at least some of it. One thing you cannot do though is post nastily. That gets you a fast trip to the trash vault and mod action. The OP didn't do that per se, just a little mean and got a response, just saying that in general the Rats have always accepted a lot more then most game publishers, but they do have a limit which can be avoided with just a little self control. Another is demanding this or that feature and expecting it to happen. I can go into the resources vs. incredible scope and courage of the game features, even 15 years later, and that's valid. But a bigger issue is even if CRS had a $10 mil annual new content budget, the game will NEVER be exactly what any specific person wants. Including any given Rat. Because of competing agendas, WWIIOL has to get into features of what the game NEEDS rather then what Johnny Wants and Sue's Must Haves. The risk is not strongly appealing to just tankers or just air guys or just inf. The reward is a combined arms mix that no one is going to touch for another 10-20 years, until game PCs are powerful enough to just crunch through an insanely complex engine.
  14. And as what you are doing, the main thing you can do that you can't as non-HC is managing brigade moves, AOs, etc. You can lead attacks and defenses either in HC or out, but sometimes you can be more effective if you are 'in the loop' or develop map vision and know where the hot spots are, or are going to be. As MOIC or the comms/XO officer you are prioritizing where effort should be, attack or defense, which one, asking for teams to blow specific FBs or prep for an upcoming attack, etc. etc. I also think it is very important to be talking to the players in general so they know what you are thinking, that there is method to the madness and someone at the helm that knows what they are doing. VERY key to getting people to stick around that extra hour or three, as opposed to feeling their time is wasted and logging. Maybe even crack a few jokes, or respond promptly to supply concerns. I call this aspect of the job being 'party hosts to war'- making sure everybody has drinks, snacks, weapons and a place to use them, while keeping a relaxed and/or serious business of winning attitude going so an otherwise frustrating game can stay fun. Many effective multitasking HC can run an AO/DO or blow an FB while MOIC, hopefully in most cases there will be others running the map and you can concentrate on some major ingame tasks.
  15. This was a key component of the program we hoped would be acted upon shortly after successful testing. That was years ago. Another part of the original impetus for this was the squad liaison program, the idea being that we should have squad members and/or leaders in HC act as liaisons for their squads, for closer relations comms and operations. I would greatly like that sort of identifier to show up in the .hclist and the game name, maybe L for liaison and RO for reserve officer in the rank slot.
  16. Bonus points for where "operations" fits into that spectrum.
  17. 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.
  18. 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).
  19. 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..........
  20. Yello I think still sports the squad label, someone uses the laf1 account, not sure how many others.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.