Silky

Registered Users
  • Content count

    33,720
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

Silky last won the day on July 15

Silky had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

986 Hero

3 Followers

About Silky

  • Rank
    Imperialist Red Coat
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Army
  • Preferred Unit
    Rifleman

Recent Profile Visitors

1,602 profile views
  1. I don't know if I can see it working, unless a re-AO operates totally outside the AO mechanic. For example, it could be that a new town remains hot after the AO finishes, but that would leave players spawned in doing nothing, and town captures usually have such local numbers supremacy that I don't think that would work. What you could do is tweak the timers so a unit moving in to a freshly captured town has a 1-5 hour time of almost zero supply, leaving it wide open to counterattack. But I'm not sure of that. You almost want for a town to be captured and for then immediately to be facing heavily supplied FBs with reduced cap timers, FMS deploy timers and increased top tier tickets, greatly favouring a side that loses the town but has enough about it to immediately launch a counter. Maybe, when a unit it bounced, all supply left in it when it bounces is made available for FB-origin attack town missions, in addition to the supply that it fell with, doubling up the supply available for an immediate counter. Dunno. But I like the idea of giving a huge capability for a side able to organise itself to retake lost ground, given the way battles played out in 1944 Normandy
  2. Someone with a sexy voice should then do a voiceover
  3. It would be interesting to explore the spawn mechanics of this set up. Can the mechanics support the layout, whereby the concept of spawn points falling back represent a force being pushed out of town to a defensive position that can be both the launchpad of a counter and a location of a heroic last stand? Almost like a rear AB, where the linking FB might lie?
  4. The problem is that one man's 'set up and surprise attack' is another's 'quick camp' Perhaps we should be thinking about double perimeters - an outer layer that can be penetrated by a well executed set up that overcomes defence by speed, and then an inner core that provides opportunities for a defender to repulse an unexpected attack Or, we think more about the actual style of fighting that occurred in 1944, an attack that took ground but was immediately counter-attacked with the end result being neutral. Do we model counter attacks sufficiently, on the tactical level? We can re-AO a town, but with AO and unit timers etc counters are strategic in nature, once the AO is won, tactically everything stops. Perhaps this is something to examine
  5. That’s what the the wiki says but the reality is that every player refers to a capture building as a CP
  6. The overrun, fallback and haac commands could’ve been remodelled a few years back
  7. My opinion is that the TOES mechanics could have been adjusted to give a better game experience whereby uncontested gameplay was reduced and HC retention would have been improved
  8. I’m also saddened by the change that 1.36 will represent. I think full TOES could have been retained abd amended to deliver great gameplay
  9. What’s the resupply timer going to be, or is it infinite supply?
  10. No, campaign in full swing
  11. If encircled units didn’t automatically rout, there’d be all kinds of mechanics problems. With the soft/hard AOs rule, a side could leave routed units rotting, and would then have a divisional advantage everywhere else on the front. Similarly, the AO mechanic would cause problems for the winning side if pocketed units were just left indefinitely. The risk of pocketed units using soft AOs to go on rampages would mean all AOs would be used to crush the pocket, meaning the missing divisions couldn’t be exploited fully, or you’d have the situation where the winning side is trying to crush the pocket whilst the pocketed units expand the pocket in a different direction, a comical, nonsensical situation that would encourage full surrounding of a pocket, which would in turn create space elsewhere on the front, punishing the winning side for winning. i think I’m satisfied with the current pocket surrender mechanism, it is the magic, surprise return warping of fully supplied divisions to the front that troubles me
  12. Except if HC move the units from rear to the front (which I do not support, for the PITA reason), the opposing HC know where the units are headed and can prepare accordingly. My complaint with the current system is that the returning division HC holds all the cards, despite having been outplayed - they get to deliver a full unit to the front in a completely unrealistic manner We've seen it before, routing Axis divisions as we push on into the German heartlands, only to have the returning divisions in the far north, threatening the entire campaign and making a mockery of the whole TOES concept. And we've done the same back, place returned divisions at the enemy's weak points because we can choose where they come back with no real obstacles and it reeks of gameyness. I'd propose changing the supply/ticket timers on returning units or returning the division before the brigades in order to signify where the units are going to return to allowing the opposition to respond in time
  13. So wouldn’t it benefit the game to try to simulate the marshalling and re-equipment by doing something different with supply tickets in returning units?
  14. I’ve wondered about each FMS have a maximum tranche of unit supply that can be spawned. So a single FMS couldn’t spawn a brigade’s worth of infantry The problem being that it would most likely be another obstacle for the attacker and favour defenders
  15. Magically appearing where your enemy isn’t sounds more like Harry Potter than Saving Private Ryan