Kilemall

Registered Users
  • Content count

    67,844
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    67

Posts posted by Kilemall


  1. The Raid was more of a turning point then just Midway. 

     

    At the time the Raid occurred the IJN was tearing up the RN in the Indian Ocean.  Neither side came to final grips with each other, but given IJN results, if they could have found Somerville's Fleet the results would have likely been disastrous.  With Indian manpower and supplies cut off, North Africa would have been far less sustainable. 

    Then, BAD THINGS HAPPEN.

     

    I'll let Churchill explain-

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Sunday_Raid#Churchill_quote_on_the_Battle_of_Ceylon

     

    That's right, Churchill's darkest moment is NOT the Blitz and the Battle of Britain or the Uboat War.  The most dangerous moment is the unhinging of the UK supply lines and the loss of the Suez and North Africa, freeing up a LOT of manpower for other anti-UK operations, UK production takes a hit, perhaps the Italian fleet in the Atlantic or getting Spain in on the Axis side for Gibraltar, it just goes on and on.

     

    Maybe the Germans get enough manpower and equipment to finish Russia properly at the velocity they needed at that moment in the war.

     

    Would the IJN have had the fuel to actually land forces on the Suez?  Probably not, and their landing forces weren't equivalent to our opposed amphib capability, but they could neutralize the RN and tear up supply lines, and in general accomplish the grand encirclement without direct invasion.

     

    But Doolittle's Raid forces them to abandon following through on their Indian Ocean operations, switch back to protecting the homeland instead of pushing, they steam into Midway, and never come back in force.

     

    Intentional results on our part?  I'm sure FDR and the USN knew about the Ceylon Raid and what was happening, but wasn't a driver as the Raid was planned ahead of those events.  Just goes to show having the spirit of the attack and dictating events by initiative can yield results you cannot imagine or professionally hope for.


  2. 51 minutes ago, tsb said:

    I guess I was asking about an actual list of the weapons in game now. 

    When I left it was just the regular infantry and a few tanks. There was talk about the P38 and I think I saw the Stuart. 

    I apologize for being unclear 

    What side and equipment type are you interested in?  It's a rather extensive list and in some cases with infantry some come and go.

    Plus a lot got added just in the last 1.5 years.

     

    Here is a wiki armor list, but in the past year they have added CS version of the Matty, Sherman Firefly, PzIIIL and PzIIIN, and I'm sure I'm forgetting something.

    https://wiki.wwiionline.com/view/Armor#Vehicles

     

     

     


  3. 16 minutes ago, jwilly said:

    It was a strategic marketing mistake for Old CRS to make strat bombing subtract from gameplay fun potential for the bombing-recipient side.

    No form of gameplay should have a consequence other than loss of the units directly involved, and points toward victory for the prevailing side.

    CRS is a commercial game company. They always should strive to maximize fun delivery for both sides, right up to when one side wins. That means no subtractions from supply or delays in weapon arrivals.

    Wut?

     

    This is a game predicated on ruining other people's day. 

    Bombers blow up FBS and FMS.

    Squishes get on airfields and raidkill planes taking off with LMGs and AA, and ultimately tanks.

    You can be a rifle cut down in CQB against an enemy that has better MG supply at the moment, or be set to cut any inf trying to cross a field and ultimately camp depots/FMS/ABs.

     

    Fun delivery is ending someone else's good day with a better day of your own.

    My argument is that other then PN mechanisms to allow underpopped the same opportunity to ruin people's day, if your butt can't be bothered to protect the FB/assault the capture point/defend and yes get in a plane and strat bomb or intercept, there will be consequences.

    2 people like this

  4. 1 hour ago, hillstorm said:

    I totally get what you’re saying and I agree to some extent. In fact I’ve had greentags crawl into my foxhole with me and refuse to leave, throwing smoke bombs and stabbing at me, etc.  Or just generally acting crazy at an FB or wherever. Some of them don’t ever respond to chat or PMs, to a degree that I think they probably don’t know how. 

    But look at it from another perspective.  There are many WW2 games out there to choose from. This is just one among many that maybe they’ve decided, on a whim, to try out. And it’s an FPS, and most FPS games these days act *mostly* the same .. the controls are similar, the general objectives usually seem clear (maps indicate capture points, things generally point you in a direction after you spawn in. Or you just follow the other players around!). 

    It’s not reasonable to expect most new players to do their homework about this game and really try to understand “what makes the game work as intended” before they hit the game world. It’s not really laziness (well maybe a little bit), it’s just short attention spans and thinking “well if this game sucks, I’ll move on to the next one.”  Should they take the training? Absolutely. I know I did. But the training only goes so far, there is a still a ton of stuff that is confusing even after learning the basics. 

    I don’t have a solution, unfortunately. 

    I do, a LOT more linked wiki entries, direct YouTube-equivalent links, etc.

     

    Plus an offline trainer build package that squads can create their own boot camps and share the files with their new squaddies that run them through THEIR idea of the basics.  Call it Bootcamp Builder.

     

    And above all, integrated voice comms that comes with the game package and sets them up to be talking to us first thing.


  5. Completely disagree with the OP.

    This game is all about scissors/rock/paper, so yes strat bombing should impact resupply tickets.

    To what extent is arguable, but disconnecting the strat game from affecting ground supply?  Nope.

     

    I certainly wouldn't argue that it is unrealistic because it affects everything 'immediately', because it doesn't.  It only kicks in when the resupply ticket is written, which means the unit is lost in combat or an MIA, and only really affects the game when the side that has normal resupply tickets gets their lost units back and the damaged resupply ticket side won't get them back for hours.

    Given the long long resupply tickets CRS has been doing lately, the bombers have to drive the resupply ticket number up ahead of battle loss, battle loss is incurred, then cash in at the same locations fought over 15-30 hours later. 

    As presently constituted, it's more then half a day to day+6 hours effect, not immediate, and assumes the area was static in the meantime.  Bigger effect would be on the hybrid ToE brigades if you tend to crutch on them.

    As for historical, absolutely yes bombing affected frontline supply, and in the delayed manner abstractly simulated here.  In addition to production, transportation was hit by strat bombers particularly before and right after D-Day, to isolate the NW France battlefield and indeed, 'slow down resupply tickets' in RL.

     

     

    Now then, as to Capco's point, I had suggested 1 hour resup tickets and much much smaller spawnlists.  Under those circumstances the effect would be much more immediate and 'gamey' in that sense, but the point would be to give the strat bombers an immediate payoff to bombing in their TZ.  I would tend to want to have factories self-repair faster, so the effect both ramps up and cools down fast when strat bombers aren't active.  Might also want double effect on timers (so 50% on 1 hour tickets is 1 hour).

     

    Intended benefits-

    * Fast battle on most towns that aren't multi-AB or have ToE brigade reinforcement

    * Battle supply scaled so a reasonably sized squad can attrit a town and win on their own

    * Overstocking and thus interdiction becomes more of a thing and has real rewards that pay off in a 2-4 hour play session

    * Stalingrad battles are exceptional and hard-fought events likely with large scale brigade commitment

    * It can pay off more if supply is driven in and supports a defense holding out until the 1 hour is up- or more risk if that town becomes exposed

    * Since towns can be taken fast, the map changes a lot faster and would be sized more towards even a smaller force able to knock off big towns,  WWI static lines would likely be largely unknown

    * Strat bombers see immediate benefits to their activity and don't have to bomb at odd hours for something that happens 24 hours to get useful effect

     

    PN has to be absolutely maintained in order to not lock in major overpop advantage.


  6. 14 minutes ago, sgthenning said:

    RLMAO Rebel How many maps did we role in a row now SD comes back must be magic. Now that the axis player base decided to go Allied to help you all win a map so you all don't rage quit or unsub. The only time Allies win a map is if Axis feel the need to help you win one. For some reason people are more attracted to the Axis side than Allies. 

    I served under you when you were Allied CinC, gotta say I'm ashamed to see you go this route.


  7. 3 minutes ago, choad said:

    Meh - i just disagree. Offense is rewarded by making it easier to hold what they took. Defenders are provided a great opportunity to resist OP more effectively for thosevthat show interest in actually guarding spawnables.

    IMO it is better than the situation as it exists presently .... it provides a better opportunity to defend for underpop while at the same time .... does not penalize OP.  If UP does not do the things necessary to hold spawnable CP's ... well it shouldn't be at the expense of the OP players at a certain point. 

    Definitely against the principles of PN I am promoting, forcing UP to be defenders only and against the rack of "I better not leave this depot".

    That's not going to generate any more fun of fire and movement for the UP much less allow offense for that side.  Bleh.

    OP definitely should get 'reward' for getting their people on target and coordinated, but not to the point that their defended points are virtually impregnable and they are the only ones with extra people to clear depots consistently.


  8. One concept I just realized about the front line thing would be for FMS to perform a check against 'closest enemy facility'.  If that facility is closer to your point of origin (typically FB, sometimes AB or depot) then the FMS cannot be laid, only an LMS.

    I think this would result in having to clear facilities in a broad band fighting forward, but there could be weirdnesses especially in big cities.  The surrounding FMS could still be laid, but they would have to be more distant and carefully laid to be allowed.

     

    You could probably do coding for a check against the town marker for the same, but you couldn't have the sense of 'won ground' as you inch forward with facility caps, and town markers are often not set in town centers so some town 'front lines' would be wonky.

    1 person likes this

  9. 9 hours ago, choad said:

    Single defender vs 1 capper. Defender does not have to seek attacker. Attacker needs to take out defender. Anyone who operates around CP's knows that it is way easier to let them come to u vs clear cp. Combine that with a delayed respawn for everyone that u kill ... well there u go. If u can't hold a spawnale cp at that point .... u prob deserve to lose it.

    Ok, I didn't misunderstand.

    Hell no.

    Underpop often can't clear depots reliably on cap or recap, it's the very nature of being hit with superior pop.

    Also throws the game more towards second accounts on guard, which is already distasteful to me in terms of SD/CT calc.

    It would also be multiple times harder for OP or UP to simply capture, and offense needs goosing more then anything else.

     


  10. 13 hours ago, biggles4 said:

    I was trying to think how gambling might be incorporated in game to raise money. On the face of it yours seems as good an idea as any.

    I don't think it's considered gambling in the US if it's a promotional item, plenty of 'games of chance' in as mundane settings as fast food and grocery stores.

    Perhaps a one time $2 a ticket drawing, or say add $1 per sub to be entered in the drawing per month?


  11. 1 hour ago, bus0 said:

    We got to 20 something spawn delay Saturday, clubbing baby seals = NOT!

    Cause Axis didn't even bother showing up, I see Allies aren't the only one's having trouble quick switching on AO's, too the current GHC, welcome too the Allied nightmare of the past 7 maps. This is what 3/1 odds do. 

    At least Wellin was interesting. Thank you.

    CSM, drop the forum rants and come on over to AEF channel and we'll have fun.

    Some of us played when we had 2min SD, this 30sec is child's play, do I agree, No, but its a necessity per Xooms view of recent game play, can always revert back in the future, for now, STFU and play.

    PN at least for me was NEVER about 'making sure the Allies win', the pendulum eventually swings both ways, it's about making sure you can make a difference in your time in game even if your side decides not to show for whatever reason.  That makes it more palatable to login and stay longer, be a noob and have a sense from context of other players at least that the side has a chance, and in general make it a game, not a mugging.

    3 people like this

  12. 1 hour ago, delems said:

    How about we just make a rule the over pop side can never win?

    If they take 95% of map, or 3 factories, they automatically lose.

    Then, everyone will always move to the under pop side.

    Which, will then become over pop - so some will move back.

    Ultimately leading to even pop on both sides.

    Allowing either side to win, as at that point there is no over pop side.

     

    SD is bad;  30 sec SD is abysmal.

    Even the horrid capture timers are better than having SD.

    ( Capture timers only ruin attackers fun - SD ruins everyones fun)

    Remove SD.  (and fix the EnterWorld bug for free)

     

    I can't speak for what CRS' intent and goal is vis-a-vis side wins or whatnot- my objective for pushing PN has virtually NOTHING to do with win counts.

     

    In fact, if you had perfect PN only the better organized side over longer hours or more effective actions would win- I'm looking to eliminate population from the equation of victory.

     

    I don't want that hours and hours of agony spread on the rack of being underpop under the no-mitigation policy of the earlier game, for days weeks and years.  I want a GAME that you can come in and get your team going to WIN WHILE you are on, 24/7.


  13. 1 hour ago, choad said:

    So the scenario that seems to be the nemisis of the community .... is ultra low pop, sides imbalanced.

    The above outlined scenario allows for two things. Defending a cp against 1 capper is many many times easier. In fact, it is up to them to get you. Not the other way aroynd. When you kill them, they wait to respawn. The same likely isnt true for you. Now if they cap an unguarded cp .... getting it back is tougher! But i mean, come on .... guarding spawns is always P1 and if you dont do it to a minimal degree ... well then. This change would make it easier as a single defender. Seems like an improvement from staus quo imo.

    Follow you right to the last.  Don't get it.


  14. Not aggressive enough Choad, while I think your thinking should be in play, one of the overpop effects is that you DON'T die very much and have longer TOM per mission precisely because there are less underpop killers total and less that survive long enough to kill you.

    The other problem is the time sink- takes X number of people to cap/recap, if the overpop has extra people to put on their caps they can cap towns much faster then underpop, part of the point of PN is that you aren't stuck in what I call the time well, taking too many people to recap a town and overpop shifts to another and uses their superior numbers to multicap fast when d is still back at the first town trying to lib.

     

    Underpop goes and d the second town, overpop just switches back to the first town that never libbed and finishes it.  Underpop never gets time to get out and generate some offense.

     

    So, more of the grouping up and rewarding team caps yes, rewarding the overpop with the Iwin button in beating the snot out of underpop with more faster teams creating a time well, hell no.

     

    1 person likes this

  15. 4 hours ago, hillstorm said:

    I played this game off and on for years before I subscribed. Honestly I had no clue what was going on, just ran around and played out of curiosity, had some fun times and some not-so-fun times back then. I'd get frustrated and quickly go back to other games that I thought (at the time) were better.

    So one Saturday I was cycling through my various games, and while marching around clueless in this one, Rockhit took pity on me and showed me the ropes, told me what was going on, and invited me into his squad. Within a few weeks I was playing nearly every day, then I subscribed, and I've been subbed ever since. 

    If I'd been given just a two-week window, that never would have happened. 

    The game needs more players, not fewer. I think locking out FTP would be a death knell for this game. Is it annoying having people run around and play for free who seem, based on some of their comments, to HATE the game and want it to fail? Sure it is. But we still need those boots ... those bodies, those targets. ;) 

    I'm much more focused on your Rockhit experience <get the t-shirt>, and what hooked you was understanding just how far and deep the game really is.

     

    I really think 90% of those Steam people literally do not understand the game, and TBH the game does a [censored] poor job of marketing it's addictive strengths, or demonstrating it clearly, all cause of whatever 'player acculturation' clause has to be in that damn design document.

    1 person likes this

  16. 9 hours ago, biggles4 said:

    Yet they are programming proximity AOs. Proximity to a point on the map code might then be transferred to capture to create ZOCs.

    Course, open flags will give you a pseudo ZOC for less.

    They have a town marker to key player unit count to.  Not the same as an object they can proximity far 10000x across the map.


  17. 5 hours ago, david06 said:

    no one has defined a map roll nor have they even said what is an acceptable # of towns captured per day

    there should be less focus on how to handicap a team of 25 players for being "overpopulated" during a main time zone, and more on how population will ever be able to increase

     

    I did define the loss rate equation, but I expect you would like to ignore that whole answer.

     

    The focus on fair play IS about increasing population, at least not making the game a miserable experience for the underpop, but I do think many things along those lines need doing, integrated voice, organic organizing tools and/or much better game explanations available so we aren't so dependent on a Darwinian retention strategy.


  18. 2 hours ago, dre21 said:

    Plain and simple risk vs reward.

    Should it take more then 1 Engineer to take down a FMS , my idea is 6 charges in other words a Engineer and a Sapper or obviously 2 Engineers,  I doubt one would get 6 Rifle all in 1 swoop to go to a FMS to take one down.

    The idea is to keep an attack going , toany complaints , that Defenders have it to easy and getting or sustaining an attack is to hard. 

    One reason for the sustainability is the before mentioned easy of only needing 1 Engineer.

    Please respond with your thoughts.

    S!

    The sustainability of attacks has little to do with FMS and everything to do with the approach to spawn castles across fields or easily identified slaughter channels, the lack of spawning discipline to spawn mostly rifles to get into town and secure lanes, the lack of combined arms tactics to not try the town entry without tanks, the lack of artillery which was more of the methodology then tanks for said closure in RL, the lack of use of even light mortars and HE assault tanks in indirect fire and smoke roles, and the MG count meaning the zerg ninja tactics are revealed as the sham of supposed superiority they aren't. 

     

    Fix that, and the defenders are going to have a MUCH harder time camping or blowing the FMS.

    1 person likes this