merlin51

Registered Users
  • Content count

    14,494
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

merlin51 last won the day on June 1

merlin51 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

739 Hero

2 Followers

About merlin51

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday June 7

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    774017

Profile Information

  • Location
    Underpop
  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
    Army
  • Preferred Unit
    (Hokey-Pokey) Char

Recent Profile Visitors

1,960 profile views
  1. No I meant if the freighter, as it is now in game, a slow unit of about 0 offensive use, that kind of does nothing floating around alone and empty simply didnt trigger ews, there would probably be no harm, as a loaded freighter would trip EWS based on its cargo.
  2. The freighter has nearly 0 value, outside of a very very slow AA platform if it is just driving around by itself for no reason. Has nearly 0 offensive value. So, if the freighter had an EWS range of 0, as it exists now, there would be little harm. The units a freighter is hauling would trip EWS in their own fashion just by being onboard. If you stick a truck on one and drive to an enemy town, at 700m the INF EWS goes off, if you stick a tank on one somewhere around 1.5-ish km the Armor EWS goes off, so they cant ninja in a landing force because of the passengers themselves. Now if the freighter could be turned in some fashion into a kind of floating version of a truck FRU then of course it needs to trip EWS so that one can not just sneak right into an enemy harbor and set up the spawn factory maybe something like 1km?
  3. Heh, i would actually do this. Airdrop in the dark near GHC command, steal the enigma encrypted battle orders, report back to versailles BUT Instead of turning them over to French command, i steal the French commands encrypted battle orders, and then i make my way back to London and turn over both documents to british high command, and britain takes over control of the empire again and all is well as it used to be. Ok fine, maybe it doesnt let you do all that, but i would still go on missions like that.
  4. This would not work for a campaign, but it might be interesting to try for say an event? Start with X amount of tickets in the various unit types and when you run out of something, it is gone. Or some variation of that? For a campaign it wouldnt work because you'd reach a point where people simply cant spawn in because their side only has X amount of units left and XX amount of players wanting to play. For a campaign, im not sure how you would score a victory based on attrition numbers alone It would reward the turtle, which in T0 is a game the french can outplay everyone in. just sit in a defensive huddle, because the axis will have to sacrifice a good number of units to wear away that early french armor shield. So the losses would stack against the axis if victory was based on that and the axis tried to do anything in the early tiers. I fear we would have people not playing for fear that their attempts would generate too much loss causing their side to lose, and so you get everyone trying to turtle I think you always need territory to be a major factor in deciding the outcome of conquest And that players should not be burdened with calculating loss outside their immediate situation, they should not have to worry about "How many tanks have we lost this week" only how many tanks they might be losing at town A right now. Can not have people afraid to play, have fun, make mistakes, take risks, die in a glorious fireball and laugh about it, etc. If you attack Paris and Versailles, it may cost you 195,000 units to accomplish it to the 17,000 the defenders lost But if you stand at the front steps of the palace 6 days later, costly as it may have been, you should be the victor, yes? What i think probably should not happen though is, as you continue to advance, you should probably not face the enemies entire intact army compressed into a small area, so maybe as the territory losses begin to go to the large scale the losing side should begin to suffer loss of flags? Say starting at like 75% or something, whatever percentage works as a good starting point, the losing side would lose some flags from play until they could reverse their losses. (the winning side would not gain extra of course) Town supply already handles that naturally, as you lose towns 1 by 1 you lose potential resources and the victor gains them up until the point that the front begins to narrow and the losing side is backed into a corner, then the victors battlefront resources narrow a bit too as a majority of his holdings become non frontline, kind of semi self balancing so it doesnt become mordor VS hobbiton. Just my thoughts, but i think silky's general idea would make for a cool scenario/event type of thing
  5. When i like softcaps: When both sides have an FB to the town, and are actively trying to take control of the town. And it is mostly infantry because all armor on both sides has to drive in from the FB's and can not spawn from the town. When i dont like softcaps: Most other times, they just are not very fun, even if you are winning the town. Garrisons would at least give the owner the opportunity to defend or try to fight out unless they really mean to sacrifice the town.
  6. Just thinking out loud.. But if "shipping lanes" links would exist, they would probably need to exist in a non spawnable form to prevent non navy from ganking the naval ports for little effort, meaning you could AO it, and go drop a bunch of paras on it and cut the supply link, but the navy guys stationed in town can respawn, the invading paras can not, nor can someone hurry and POST a mission at the spawnable and FLOOD. So unless you really mean to attack and put forth the forces and effort, it's a doomed distraction at best. It might need some other naval mechanics to add much fun level to it though?
  7. one weird visual issue with that, is that, it would take 1 hour to drive from remagen to unkel or roermond to W roermond, and similar situations and short distances. Also, if i boot you out of a town, we are both sitting there for an hour looking at the big hole in the ground, you cant fall back, and i can not move up. Just feels kinda wrong. 20 minutes in motion + 10 minutes trickle time on supply fill (includes fallback) 5 minute cool down Can move to adjacent town only, so if intended destination is 7 towns away, it will take 7 moves or 175 minutes. (flag literally shows up at each town) Can not move into a contested town, will have to use rear FB Can not move out of a cut town (all connecting friendly depots capped) Naval and Air would of course need deviation, they move much differently No adjacent town limitation longer in transit time and longer cool down, less trickle time Can not move into a contested town, if town becomes contested, rubberband back to origin (AF and Navy kinda need their AF and Dock to function, not rear FB's) Can not move out of a cut town (all connecting friendly depots capped) warpy is bad, but if im running away, you do want to kind of be able to chase me, i think? adjust trickle to whatever works best
  8. Ok, that makes a bit more sense. Im looking at the map trying to figure out how to drop the doom hammer ONLY by taking Mald. If someone takes all that, i cant argue against it really at present. Well, Antwerp wont be such a walk in the park anymore, soon-ish. Right now Antwerp is such a pain in the behind unless you can dump 300 people on it because it is so big and so spread out that it is mostly a game of which side gets tired of running back N forth over and over 1st. It's just darned frustrating to attack or defend really, but the defend part usually wears out first, you just keep probing it until the defender dies of boredom or heart failure from jogging from N AB to S AB repeatedly. And if you do go and full attack it, you can have both feet in the door, you can lose the whole thing to one depot cap or FB loss even if you have taken half the town over.
  9. In long term, i would like to go to where YOU assemble the FB, wherever it tactically best suits you (with in the rules of placement) In whatever arraignment the terrain allows for, with the given PPO objects to build it, plus defensive objects. (er by given i did not mean current objects) It would be quite hardened, enough so that it simply requires a fight to take it down, unless the owning side has truly abandoned it without deleting it. It isnt capturing it, but i think when you have kind of a personal vestment in the FB have picked its location for some special advantage, carefully gotten there and put it together, built the fortifications, put in time to make it exist etc players will feel more attached to it and less happy about letting some guy waltz in and wallpaper it with 100 satchels unopposed? Not to mention, FB's could be used for more than just travel reduction, you could use them to actually exert control of area in some instances which could maybe lead to some non town related fighting. The auto FB's could maybe still be kept and used for the rear FB's under a town supply system?
  10. that i guess is where i have trouble seeing it? And i am probably wrong But it looks like you have to secure a lot more to cut off, or take over, the zealands. The only point i see mald becoming the 911 of the zealands, is if i have lost everything below it on a westward retreat all the way back to Mald? But it seems that if that has happened, the zealands are the least of my losses? I dunno, i always sucked at the running the map stuff
  11. Somehow i am not visualizing it? Brekens would seem to be the crossing link? which has multiple links out Mald and Ijzen? But even if you cut Beskens, the W part of zealands still links itself outward through BOZ Which links out in 3 directions. And to the north through Westvoorne? I think i am obviously missing something, got a diagram or something? This is what i am seeing but obviously there is probably some big glaring thing in front of me that i am missing. forgive really terribad picture ok
  12. What is the actual issue?
  13. @BLKHWK8 Can you give more detail on what you are asking?
  14. Ah, that is a bummer. Still, your video looked real good image wise, even though im seeing it on a really crappy workstation monitor
  15. Looks really good, shame about normal maps, they look nice except for the fire scorched trees. Does the Nvida driver not allow virtual resolution? Where the game runs at 8k but gets resized to fit your monitor? I did that once on my AMD, but since it did not look any better on my monitor, which is just actually a 36" EHD tv i just set it back to native resolution, did make nice screenshots though. You happen to have a with and without post render screen shot? I think i've always had it on. I haven't the upload speed to do anything besides horribly compressed vids if i want them uploaded before Xmas