Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Silky last won the day on July 31

Silky had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

403 Salty

About Silky

  • Rank
    Imperialist Red Coat
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit

Recent Profile Visitors

688 profile views
  1. That's a great idea. How about Mons, near the BEF HQ. Or near Ieper perhaps
  2. I completely agree and I'd love to see some development resource invested in the Air War. There's such a potential market to tap into, it's a massively under-developed element on this game
  3. Good idea fully support
  4. Great idea
  5. The issue is that the design of HC and tools given to HC were designed in a way that completely ignored field leadership, apart from .allied global chat This fatal design flaw meant there was no narktural migration from squad leader to HC leader; there was no uplift in leadership tools from being HC. If HC tools had been designed to facilitate field leadership, I doubt we'd be having this discussion about HC numbers which ultimately undermined the TOEs supply mechanic So my only plea for 1.36 or v2.0 would be to not ignore leadership tools. We have to be more ambitious than an enemy boat mark when thinking about how to provide the foundations for players to organise and coordinate other players.
  6. I'd be interested to see how it might have worked if capping the city CP prevented bde rotation it would've been interesting to see genuine fights over the City CP, without defenders spawning feet away
  7. I wonder if the real discussion shouldn't be about the fabled v2.0 What mechanic would drive v2.0? A problem I have - as a broad fan of TOEs - is how does manoeuvre warfare, with Liddell Hart 'Path of Least Resistance' strategy work in a PvP game where you surely want maximum engagement with a maximum number of players?
  8. You think. I think differently.
  9. This is true it's a bit like 'We want attrition! Attrition is realistic! Where's our attrition?!?' Then supply times are increased and it's 'There's no supply! I want my Tiger/M10!!'
  10. I mean complex on a strategic level. The tactics of taking a town probably don't differ that much from town-based vs TOEs, bar the depot/rotations etc but it's been a while since attrition and JWBS was really an issue stopping largely successful attacks from succeeding. I'm talking the strategic, campaign game.With town-based supply, it can be battle/rinse/repeat as you're taking a fluid environment (think soccer/rugby) and making it a more deliberate, static, staged environment (think American football). I'd call this loss of fluidity and dynamism less complex than a map where the set up and the supply used to support attacks varies every single set up
  11. If the TOEs system had been designed with the ability for a HC player to plan and pre-load moves that execute when timers allow, this wouldn't be an issue. Many of the problems associated with TOEs comes down to design choices, in the system itself and the tools available for this 'leadership' tier of player. Removing moveable supply units from the map makes the game less complex, and more one-dimensional, which I believe is a negative move, but I do recognise the need to do something, because the initial design of TOEs contained some major flaws that now manifest themselves in a game that sometimes doesn't work. We seem to be moving towards throwing baby out with bath water, whereas I believe we could keep the positive aspects of moveable supply by correcting those design flaws. Pre-planned moves that execute when timers allow Permit HC to set fallbacks through code not through moving units Provide better AO planning through a useful tools set - annotated maps, squad comms tools, ML comms tools Improved chat channels, eg macro commands (to loop instructions), more flexible chat commands (don't limit to 6) Provide rear line units that can move freely to cover holes and flanks via No Mans Make these rear line units huge supply pools so all equipment is available to those willing to drive from rear 6 moves that would keep the flexible, interesting elements of the system we have but also uplift the way the game plays and prevents the worst falling down moments
  12. I posted this a few years ago And the key aspect in reality is that the game should reward the players more, in terms of increasing survivability and allowing more players more chance to feel like they're actively engaged in a battle before they're killed and that session ends. To really capture players, there's got to be more to the game than spawn in, run around a bit, then die to an enemy you don't see, didn't know was there, before you've even fired a shot
  13. Even if that's true, that doesn't disqualify his opinion or make it incorrect