csm308

Registered Users
  • Content count

    8,300
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

csm308 last won the day on March 25 2017

csm308 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

241 Salty

About csm308

  • Rank
    Axis Officer
  • Birthday 08/16/1954

Profile Information

  • Location
    Laurel, MD
  • Preferred Side
    Axis
  • Preferred Branch
    Air Force
  • Preferred Unit
    HE-111

Recent Profile Visitors

895 profile views
  1. Fair enough, as long as you're even handed about it. VR
  2. My statement was in reference to Dropbear's insistence that complaints about spawn delay were bipartisan. They are not. As for your TOM issue, I could be indelicate and use the same response the Allied RDP bombers gave to us the last two campaigns, but I won't. PS......it absolutely is a question of sides. If the Allies were winning, the complaint ratio would be reversed. Nothing more. VR
  3. Ummmm, the VAST majority of posters in this thread are Allied players complaining about no spawn delay (who knew!). There was actually only ONE Axis player who was complaining about no spawn delay. Don't even try to say that complaints about no spawn delay are bipartisan. Not even remotely close. VR
  4. All I know is that the "keep what we've killed" crowd has won again. Nothing will change, the game will keep on dying a slow painful death and the "keep what we've killed" crowd will say and do anything to keep THEIR game. Anybody else's game is of no importance to them. Squad's will never come back the way they were in the past. Never, as long as the "keep what we've killed" crowd remains. CRS has done next to nothing to bring them back as a force in game. Player controlled AO's will never come back. Don't give me that "HC are players" drivel because its simply being dishonest. I've been HC and I've listened to more than a few HC in game who have absolutely no respect for the player base whatsoever. The players are simply tools to be used in "their" HC game and nothing more. Now we have the "mercenary" HC who go back and forth on a regular basis. You think I trust "them" to do what's best for my side? No way. Spawn lists also keep being cut to the bone so that players have nothing to play with because some dolt says there's too much supply in game. The dolt certainly doesn't care about anybody else's game except his. Just as bad is that an HC officer simply cannot count on anything to remain the same from one campaign to the next. True planning can't be done before a campaign starts because some Rat will change something, more likely many things and won't tell anybody until the campaign actually starts. Why should anybody stay in the HC when you can't count on anything? Without a major change, such as Squad/Player controlled AO's, all you're doing is moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. Oh I have faith. I just upgraded my subscription to founder level. But it won't stay there for long if the "keep what we've killed" crowd keeps killing any and all dissent to "their" game. VR
  5. Non-HC controlled AO's. AO's are generated by population or by squads (with sufficient population present) at a target city or town with no HC control or permission. If you wish to control "tribal raiders of France" you can have it so that a certain number of squads must propose an AO AND they must have sufficient population present. This way you enforce cooperation amongst squads. On the live battles screen you could also have proposed Squad AO's with how close to the population required they are by percentage. Players could then choose which proposed AO they want to participate in and push it over the level necessary for the AO to be generated. Squad/Player generated AO's would receive a warning if they fall below a certain percentage of population. It shouldn't be 100% of the level necessary to be generated. Perhaps 50%. 50% would indicate that an AO has truly failed. Squads would then have two minutes to get back above that level. Population would be based on players in mission, not players spawned in. VR
  6. If it doesn't contain the words "player controlled AO" then your proposal is just more of the same. If the AO is placed by HC or an algorithm, it is not player controlled. If it is not "player controlled" then it is not "freedom of movement." So my answer to your proposal is no. VR
  7. Player generated AO's outside of HC control. VR
  8. Ah yes, the "reasonable" "keep what we've killed" crowd. If you had half Axis sorties and half Allied sorties, you might be considered objective, but you don't. You are a near exclusive Allied playing player and member of an Allied squad. There is nothing objective about you at all. Nothing. You will shoot down anything that threatens "your" game and it is a near metaphysical certitude it will be anything that you think threatens the Allied side. No, you are not "objective." The past matters because it colors everything that happens and how people view the game and that includes you Mr. Objectivity. VR
  9. You are the definition of the "keep what we've killed" crowd. Open to "new ideas" except ones you don't like which threaten "your" game. And no, it was not compromise that led to the hybrid concept, it was outright naked threats to unsubscribe by the pro-TO&E's crowd. VR
  10. You do see the inconsistency in your two statements don't you? Also, I seem to remember the hysterical and near hysterical posts from you and the other "keep what we've killed" crowd when the HC control of the game was threatened with the original 1.36 version. There wasn't a lot of compromise in any of those posts. Caterwauling is the more apt description. VR
  11. Sounds like a "keep what we've killed" adherent. Better watch this one. VR
  12. And I repeat, only ONE squad deliberately operated that way, "avoid the fight." Don't smear an entire player base with those tactics. It simply didn't happen the way you "remember." It rarely happened the way you remember. Whatever AO's were intended to do, they killed off almost an entire player base with its thousands of subscriptions gone. But then, the "keep what you kill" crowd doesn't care about "them?" They deserved what they got all of them being "tribal raiders of France." I'm glad you think CRS needs every customer, but its too little to late. Certainly not soon enough for the thousands of subscriptions AO's killed off. TO&E's could've actually worked the way it was intended, but the combination with limited AO's killed it completely. When I was Axis CINC I had over 250 plus HC officers under my command and we recruited enough to maintain it. How many are left in the OKW now? VR
  13. And your "key event" is blown way out of proportion in order to suit your narrative. I was not present for the "key event' but I know exactly what happened to that ONE squad in its immediate aftermath. As I'm sure you are aware since you appear to know "everything" about an Axis squad in the Axis player base, it wasn't the squad at large, nor its members that did what you allege, only its leadership. The squad members who wished to remain in the game were placed in the old 4th Panzer Division, and I was the Division commander when they finally "joined" the GHC (something the squad had previously said they would never do), immediately after the "key event." I was given "history 101" on them, what to expect from them and what to do if they reverted to form again. I went with them on every one of their squad nights and became quite familiar with them and their "situation" as a result for as long as I was the 4th PD CO until I was promoted out of the position some months later. The squad members who remained turned out to be great players and glad for the opportunity to remain in the game. Not all of them got to after that "key event." Oh, and that "key event" occurred way before AO's and TO&E's. The only other Axis squads who had the kind of pull to threaten CRS they way you say, would've been the 31st Wrecking Crew and the 3rd Panzergruppe. Those two squads controlled entire Armee's in the GHC. Nobody else had the pull that they did. If they did participate in that "key event," guess what...…..absolutely NOTHING happened to them and they went on to bigger and better things until a series of unfortunate events many years later. And yes, it was dumb of CRS to part company with big squads if that was indeed their intent. The "shadow" of a game population speaks volumes to the stupidity of that. VR
  14. Eveybody seems to think that that was the MO for the entire Axis side, "tribal raiders of France." Only one squad actually operated that way, Sturmgrenadier, and really, only a portion of that squad. A combination of hubris and game coding took them out. The rest of the Axis side simply played in a highly organized manner. Our pre-TOE&S HC was a tightly run organization, run by the squads themselves. Individual HC officers didn't really matter, the squads did. That organization, and its game, were virtually destroyed over night. It took a few years, Rome didn't fall overnight, but numbers don't lie. That Axis playerbase is almost entirely gone. Only a few diehards like myself are left. All the rest are gone. Several thousand Axis players (and subscriptions) gone due to a then management attitude of "we're right and you're wrong" and outright hostility from the "keep what we killed" crowd. I have to ask you Merlin51, was that Axis playerbase offered a "middle ground" or compromise? They were not. I'm more than willing to give the current management a chance, mine and my current squad Blitzkader's personal donations of hundreds of dollars to the various go fund me efforts bear this out, but this latest RDP debacle is really pushing their luck. VR
  15. You really believe that? Jwilly,, odonovan1, Capco and the rest of the "keep what we've killed" crowd have already shown that middle ground and compromise are not in their vocabulary. Only their game matters. The rest of us don't matter to them. The number of Axis players lost does matter to me, the loss of my entire original squad, Panzer Lehr, matters to me. A squad with hundreds of players, gone due almost exclusively to AO's and TO&E's. It certainly doesn't matter to Jwilly, odonovan1 and Capco. Only lost Allied players matter to them. Are you in that category and only paying lip service to middle ground and compromise? I wonder. Is any "player driven fun" possible at all in YOUR game? VR