Silky

Registered Users
  • Content count

    30,600
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Silky last won the day on June 3

Silky had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

307 Salty

About Silky

  • Rank
    Imperialist Red Coat
  • Birthday

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

550 profile views
  1. 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?
  2. You think. I think differently.
  3. 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!!'
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Even if that's true, that doesn't disqualify his opinion or make it incorrect
  8. That's actually a great point. We obsess over supply mechanics but our concerns can be distilled down to simpler points that probably deserve more focus
  9. Please keep discussion civil guys
  10. Great job
  11. And to queue brigade movements to occur once timers allow it can't be that hard, surely?
  12. More players takes a lot of the negative aspects of TOEs we've lived with off the table. But I would seriously urge CRS to have GMs or Rats or other responsible actors in place ready to avoid morale-killer moments which result from no HC if we want to retain the Steam players
  13. Surely the easiest thing would be to set up divisions facing one another in areas of the map not usually seen in campaign maps - far south east, far south west, far north
  14. I don't think limited or restricted missions would be a problem if the broader funnelling of players to action was smooth. As it is, any mechanism that is restrictive will hurt the game imo
  15. Gagamel put it best - the fact that the best command-control in game is the enemy boat mark tell you a lot about the areas that need investment if we're to get to coordinated, cohesive activity