Silky

Registered Users
  • Content count

    36,769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    61

Everything posted by Silky

  1. So let’s say Allies are defending Leuven. Axis cap the Tienen CP, they get a spawnable, as now? so they continue to attack and now cap the AB, but the Brussels CP remains Allied. What happens? Does the garrison get bounced? Can allies spawn from the AB? Can allies spawn from the Brussels CP?
  2. I may have missed this but what happens to the garrison or air supply when the AB or AF is capped during an attack? Bounced off map? Does that mean fallback is now extinct? Will linking supply be a thing through linking CPs?
  3. I recognise the desire for garrisons but I’m concerned about the inflexibity of town ownership restricting country equipment choices. It seems that CRS recognises the need for flexibity for air units, so the question I’d pose is why, if air supply requires country flexibity, do ground forces not?
  4. Thanks guys
  5. So I'm upgrading my home laptop and the wife likes the Inspiron 15 5000 I don't really care, I just need know if the game is going to run well on this set up 7th Generation Intel® Core™ i3-7020U Processor (3MB Cache, 2.30 GHz) 4GB, DDR4, 2400MHz Intel HD Graphics Is the graphics card something I need to look into and upgrade?
  6. Agree. The officer ranks should fit with squad structure
  7. it is a difficult topic to engage with. I would favour a periodic reset of all ranks - annual? Every 10 campaigns? Every major version release? - but only if rank was disconnected from equipment access, which has been my point in this thread. I’d much rather have a hundred privates a side with a few officers than the Lt Colonelfest it is currently. But to go in that direction and deny players access to units would indeed be suicide
  8. Cheers guys, that’s what I thought. What about the processor and RAM?
  9. Then also factor in other abilities that one could use to reward rank advance, other than access to equipment. Suppose there was differentiation in abilities such as the ability to annotate mission maps for players moving up to NCO ranks, with officer ranks being able to access a command chat communication layer, or officer ranks accessing enhanced FMS placement tools or NCOs enhanced PPO options. Imagine bomber pilots having slave drones for bombing missions, with the number of drones correlated to the rank of the pilot - Pilot Officers has no slave drone, Flying Officer has one, Flight Lt has four, Squadron Leader has eight, Wing Commander has sixteen etc Then also perhaps consider a way to link these abilities with side loyalty, so there's a reward for sticking with one side for the campaign, and also a reward for the way the campaign plays out - quick victories are rewarded, prolonged are rewarded over rapid defeats Then also let's look at points being awarded based on underpop/overpop, so the side that is underpop is balanced by being able to progress in abilities and options faster than the overpop sides. There's a plethora of options and game balance mechanisms available should there be development hours thrown into the entire XP/Points systems. I just don't get the feeling the XP 'currency' as KFSone use to call it is really on the radar at the moment. It should be front and centre, because we can use XP to shape player behaviours, and these behaviours are the most important elements of the entire game
  10. I have a proposal floating around my head needing articulating into a coherent plan. I would factor Mission Success into your point scoring considerations. Currently, the mission objectives don't mean anything. Let's imagine a game where the points you score are strongly connected to the success of the mission objective (CP attack/defence, town attack/defence, bombs on factories, bombers downed, air-ground targets destroyed, enemy fighters destroyed etc) and this then encourages grouping to achieve the mission objective and placed less emphasis on the players to achieve kills, so long as the mission grouping achieves the kills and objectives. This take some pressure off new players and also slightly reduces the burden on each of us to be one another's contents.
  11. I’m 100% committed to a rank-XP system that could really change the way the game plays, but restricting gear to newer players is possibly not a way to win new hearts, minds and subscriptions. You want new players to come in and be competitive from the start, not just be fodder to more expert players armed with more lethal equipment
  12. This. North Africa would be a better second theatre. But let’s face it, it’s pie in the sky. There’s much work to do on the Western Front.
  13. Friendly fire would be great until a point, within the first 10 minutes, when the first exploit occurs Then there'd be a great disturbance in the Barracks, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible will happen
  14. Would it help? i’d rather have an XP system that forms s core part of the game as have XP rewards increased for underpop, so it’s not just a plea to players’ sense of fair play, there’s an actual reward for playing the underpop side
  15. Tibbs definitely join HC as a Reserve. It’s specifically for players who cannot commit time to HC but who can support their side when needed. Do it!
  16. A big thing for me is that we’d do really well to increase the perception of being in a battle before you get killed. Sound and visual cues would be one part, virtual warnings or simulations would be another, riskier one.
  17. Well deserved. It is a privilege to be a part of the Allied side alongside such great players
  18. With Ju-88 and Wellington or Manchester skins?
  19. Only if Allies capture the town, to simulate liberation. When Axis capture a town, all animals and civilian NPC s should have sad faces
  20. Not a fan of any of these ideas 2) has the most promise but isn’t something I’d want to commit more time to look into
  21. Before 2006. I don’t think I ever saw a non-AO game
  22. I said many moons ago that the issue with HC and TOES that the gameplay problems were symptoms of a pop drop. The analogy I thought worked well was a lake or reservoir where the water level was slowly dropping, as it does, it reveals hazards and problems that weren’t previously visible or problematic. But the fact that these problems are caused by population bleed doesn’t mean it’s not right to address them
  23. It differs from other elements in the game in that different tactics work when attacking a CP whereas they don’t work when attacking a FB. All players can assist in attacking a CP, of all ranks, carrying all weapons. One can attack a CP with surprise, with ninja, with assault force, by trickery, one can use smoke, grenades - the whole gamut of game elements can be used to capture the CP. Options when attacking a FB are much more limited because the Engineer unit is a fragile rifleman, of limited numbers available to only some of the playerbase. You can’t as reasonably bring overwhelming force to a FB and knock it out. And i’m Not necessarily arguing that the above are problems in every context - variation is good - but the upshot of the above is that gameplay suffers for the reason Mo originally points out - the end result is a gameplay mini-system that leaves players sat at FBs mostly doing nothing but watching bushes or leaves players spawning trucks and either spending 20 minutes solo blowing a FB or tying up 2/3 others for 10 minutes blowing a FB. And it’s this loss of player manhours that the game can’t afford right now. I feel we’d do better if all available players who want to PvP get clustered roughly together in order to provide content for one another, not go off single player playing mini-games The current FB set up doesn’t broadly encourage or reward attacking, which in turn doesn’t broadly encourage or reward defending. So the few players who do either are, for the most part, not contributing to the opposing side’s content.
  24. And moving to a capture mechanic would not stop those players who thrive on the ninja game. But it would offer an alternative to combat avoidance tactics And it would open up a thousand combat flash points across the map, open to all players who in numerous equipment, independent of AOs and largely independent of TOES