fidd

Registered Users
  • Content count

    4,109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Green Tag

About fidd

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday
  1. I was looking around a battle, and it occurred to me that the fonts used above peoples inf/tanks etc could be improved: Suppose that the size of the font, and rapidity of it rendering were related to the size of object being viewed, (the larger font the bigger) and distance (the closer the bigger). So, a tank close would be large font, same tank at medium distance medium font, and at long range small font. With infantry, the same system would be used, but the range at which fonts would change. I also propose that a series of filters be possible, so that you could, on the fly, shew only tanks, only atg, only inf, only squadmates - or any combination thereof. Mouse-hovering over an icon on the map would still present the name/unit type in the usual way. People requesting ammo would present for a short interval as normal, irrespective of settings.
  2. I'm firmly of the opinion that anything, whatsoever, that is capable of helping players, will also be exploited by more experienced to lure away less experienced players into the wilderness, if there's the slightest wriggle-room in the way it's implemented. If the result of that is to give newly joined players a confusing and poor gameplay experience, who we're already asking to accept dated - but acceptable graphics and a complex interface - then we're shooting ourselves in the foot in the long term.
  3. I think on balance, it's with instituting, but I think a close eye should be kept on how it's used - and misused. If it sucks away lots of players to "listen to the crickets" on a routine basis, then reducing AO's still further might have to be considered, as even two AO's with one on a city is gping to generate an awful lot of missions. There is another issue in this. With player-generated missions, a greentag will tend to see missions posted at spawnable cps's, where he stands a chance of seeing some action. If every cp in a city has a mission, then he's effectively given too much choice. Don't get me wrong, it's a goodish idea, but there are drawbacks with it.
  4. At first blush, I thought this was a really good idea, however, after a bit more thought, I think perhaps there is a potential flaw in it, in it's current form: Scenerio: One side elects to attack in one place, and spoof an attack in another. Both are AO'd. Greentags/steamies spawn into the defense for the spoof attack and listen to the crickets, in numbers now magnified by the now 5-10 missions automatically posted in response to the AO. This would obviously be effective for the side that placed the AO's, but also even more ruinous for the gaming experience of new players. Not ideal, it'd be moling on steroids. I suggest that perhaps relating auto-DO's to EWS may be an answer, so that greentags are not sucked into defending towns with no enemy present? Or, that these auto-DO's are not visible to greentags until a player of Lt Col or above first spawns into them, which would tend to have the effect of getting the greentags to spawn into the more important ones. In short, if auto-DO's were applied to a large city, then there needs to be a mechanism to prevent that being employed as a means of taking players away from where the real attack is going in, assuming that is elsewhere.
  5. I forgot to add: that adopting the super AO, within which AO's must be placed, is a good idea because, it potentially greatly reduces the amount of brigades needing to be moved after a successful attack, or, in reinforcing a bde weakened by an unsuccessful one.) In other words, the chances of a breakthrough being achieved when few or no HC's are online is greatly reduced; this removing a source of considerable source of irritiation. Another way of thinking on this, is to simply suspend Bde movement for both sides off-peak, unless there are at least two HC'ers on BOTH sides. This would still allow towns to be taken, but would greatly reduce the scope for and severity of, off-peak map-movements and breakthroughs.
  6. Good post Jiprin. In essence, as I understand it, you're suggesting a sort of contracting and expanding "Super AO" within which other AO's must be placed, the size of which varies with the server-population, or perhaps the population of the under-popped side? It is a grand idea, and you'll not be surprised that it has been suggested many many times before. Unfortunately, for historical-game reasons, there is something of an anathema in some circles, to AO's. It goes something like this: "If our side is winning we're obviously more better and more organised than the losers. If more people join our unit/side/attack, it's because they recognise this fact. Why should my fun be limited because they're not organised?" It is of course nonsense. The reality is that whichever side has the numbers tends to move the map. Winning the map is fun, however, the players who last, year in year out, are the ones who despite being outnumbered can poke the opposition in their metaphorical eye by correctly anticipating an attack and forestalling it by inflicting a lot of damage on them as they roll into town, almost unopposed, with a well-sighted ATG or LMG nest! In short, whatever side you play for, "learning to lose" is a necessary WW2OL/BGE skill. My advice would be to roll with the punches, resist the urge to change sides each campaign, as that is ultimately unsatisfying. There is some value to being up against it with, as it were, a small "band of brothers". If you stick on the same side long enough, about half the time you'll win. I would suggest you do play both sides, as it'll teach you a lot about the various capabilities and limitations of kit - and people! For me personally, I change sides about every 5-7 campaigns. Your suggestion is a most logical and, in my view, correct analysis of the problem with a viable solution, as the off-peak mob do make a practice of hopping around the map, so giving them a smaller sand-pit within which to play makes some sense. How that's arrived at is the burning issue.
  7. They may be easy to camp, but they're bloody hard to destroy with HE. I plastered one with a whole load of 75mm l.24 HE - it stayed up! As far as the "ease of camping" is concerned, the simple fact is that the're not meant to be a stand-alone fortress, but one that can survive in an integrated local defense. IE, of you hold a tank back from the FMS, and that tank can survive, then in all likelihood the FMS will too, as the tank can kill ei sappers/engies trying to take it down. In my view they should be a little easier to destroy, say 5-8 rounds of 75mm HE or direct AP fire of 57mm and up, p'raps 9-14 rounds or so?
  8. To model this anything like accurately you'd have to have an eviscerated Luftwaffe - think less than 10% of standard ww2ol lists, HUGE naval imbalance, with no DD's for the axis, and pretty severe imbalance of troops and tanks, numerically after the 1st day. You'd also have to add Shermans and M10's to the British lists. Oh, and there'd be no German reinforcements whatsoever of armour, and a glacial-rate for German troops renewing in the spawnlists. In short it'd be about 5 times worse than the worst moments of the last campaign. A few of the axis might enjoy a fleeting "Michael Wittman moment" before they were obliterated by Fireflies and plastered by 25 pounders or Tiffies whenever they moved in daylight......
  9. If you'd bothered to read the post properly, you'd have noticed that there are several metrics that determine where you would stand in relation to other players when choosing sides at log-in. The reason there are several is precisely to cater for people such as yourself. If you're unable to put lots of hours in, then you can help "keep your place" by joining a squad, playing some of all tiers, playing the same side last campaign (I forgot that one in the original post!), and when you log-in, are you generally underpop (etc). All these things would count in your favour. Properly calibrated, it would help towards, roughly balancing numbers throughout every TZ, and every tier. It would really only start to penalise those who fall foul of two or more of the metrics, unless one side or other was massively oversubscribed. More importantly, it would tend to act on lonewolves, who have recently played for the other side, ie arguably players who are not overly concerned about who wins the campaign.
  10. This needs careful consideration. One immediate result for both AB and CP resupply, even if only for the defenders, is that one can thereafter expect a rain of continuous mortar-fire from AB's and CP's within range, on any captured CP or along the line in from an FMS. As it stands, whilst it's true that the attackers can put down a high volume of mortar fire from the FMS, it also betrays the position of same, and in any case is unlikely to be within raage of a worthwhile target.
  11. Up to a point, superior numbers are essential - if all was completely even, the map would never move. What has always, since day one, needed addressing, is the situation, in any TZ, especially low-pop, where massive imbalances occur. It's interesting that CRS elected to relate - if you're correct - to lower popped side, as of course, that makes not the slightest difference if the over-popped side outnumbers them 3-1 or better. The number of AO's only works if there are players in game to contest such AO's as are applied. I profoundly disagree with you concerning breakouts, they provide a fluidity and speed quite commensurate with armoured warfare of the period. Where I would agree with you, is if they occur as a consequence of massive imbalances caused by people changing sides or periodic large imbalances by TZ. If they occur simply because players of that side cease logging in for whatever reason, then they've only themselves to blame. In other words, CRS need to successfully and actively manage numbers with a fairly complex algorithm that makes sides reasonably equal at the campaign start for all TZ's, and then only penalises players moving to the winning side, or who only log in with regularity once the later tiers arrive. And rewards those who continue to play for the losing side.
  12. Different tiers are perceived as more or less "fun" to players, and so as tiers change, so does relative population. Consequently, considerable efforts are made to move the map as far as possible, as quickly as possible, to try and forestall the enemy gaining a territorial advantage when these tiers come in. It would be wrong, therefore, to ensure that tiers arrive at "map triggers" irrespective of RDP. Quite apart from anything else, it might make the situation actually worse, as players would see no need to log-in during tiers where they're on the back foot, so to speak. If you want to play late tier kit, the solution lies in your own hands: fight as hard as possible in early and mid-tiers, to slow the loss of ground (or advance towards the enemies factories!).
  13. That presupposes that these measures worked. Spawns-delays, depot spawning and even AO's do not matter a jot if you find yourself one of a literal handful of players available to defend a town, as I did in my TZ for month after month. Spawn-delay has no effect. AO's are based on server population, not side population, so if one side has a massive imbalance, they don't work either. Spawn delay, which might have covered this scenario, is nerfed in respect that it doesn't work for respawns, but only on initial log-in, as far as I can tell. AO's do help a little, but do not address the core problem, and could be greatly improved. For my money, there should be: 1. a great reduction in visual cover, and a lot more low colliders in the cover that remains. The chief function of these would be to generally stop ei and purely wheeled items from crossing them at speed. Visual cover should provide protection from one side only, in effect. 2. Brigades TOE's should vary with tiers, but also between each other, at HC's pre-campaign discretion. 3. HC need tools to indicate on a map, the rough outline of what they want to achieve, and move bde's to achieve that. 4. Senior players/ML's/Squad leaders should have same tools for map icons as the HC's, and be able to see both HC map commentary for an attack or defense, and also that of their mission. (we're halfway there on that one) 6. Normal players would just see ML commentary. 7. AO's would be based on side population, not server pop. 8. Change of AO interval would be based in same. 9. Ability to choose a side based on points scored in last campaign for metrics in post upthread. 10. If HC'er unavailable, AO's be placeable by any player (in order of preference) Most recent retired HC'er online on that side If none, then a player of Lt Col rank on the leader's course (see below), on a missions to or from or at a town, given a simple menu to choose from to move a bde into a town from such bde's as can make a legal move. He would not be able move around Divisions to accomplish this. 11. Creation of a "leader's course" as an interim rank between full HC-ship and regular player. Limited to Lt Col's, it would enable them to use HC channels on discord, and HC chat text, so that they can become very familiar with the reasons why bde's are moved in the way they are. They can also take off some of the leadership duties from the map CO. Ability to remain in the leaders-course limited to a calendar year, once complete they can either complete the HC course, or, revert to normal player status. This would greatly help Squads in terms of communication with HC, which might help them understand why a particular attack is ill-advised; but also help HC in having a wider pool of organised people who can undertake tasks to help the game generally.
  14. The case for the prosecution rests, M'lud.
  15. Frankly HC'ers should have a ton more powers and tools than they have now. Historically, when HC's were first introduced - as far as I can recall - about 3/4 of the playerbase accepted them without much comment, and 1/4 had a tantrum the like of which hasn't been seen since. All the toys were threwn from the cot! These were chiefly "egos" of the very large squads whose routine was to swamp a town in 2 minutes or so, covering every possible exit from the AB. This was called "good tactics" and "good organisation" and things like that, but it was ruinous for gameplay, and, frankly, rather boring! (this in the days before you could spawn from a cp). However, the noise on the forums from the "egos" was so loud, that CRS basically bottled it, and no further development of tools for HC's, or indeed the most crucial aspect, am interim stage between being a fully-fledged HC'er and a regular player was created. This combination of errors and omissions has hobbled the HC system from the word go, it is to all intents and purposes, half-finished and wholly CRS's fault that they never completed what they'd started. It should therefore be unsurprising that ever since HC's train up lots of officers, but lose most in short order as they realise the responsibilities, the hours and the inability to really be effective in any way. Odin67's post above really nails it.