fidd

Free Play Account
  • Content count

    4,243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by fidd

  1. When we get Bren Carrier? Speaking of APC's, I'd like to see commanders with zoom views added to the all apc's, and ideally zoomable views from vision-slits.
  2. What's needed is timers that are both asymmetric and variable, reflecting pop of each nationaility, and overall players on line. So, in low-pop with a big imbalance, capture timers for the low-pop side would be relatively fast, but the overpop side would require much longer to recap a cp, or capture a low-popped one. At peaktime, timers would tend to be shorter, and more equal. etc
  3. Pink is a surprisingly effective colour in some conditions, RAF PRU (Photographic Reconnaissance Unit) Spitfires were painted pink as they often took pictures towards dawn and dusk, when shadows were most pronounced, enabling interpreters to gain more information than in pictures taken at mid-day. Pink was also a very good colour in haze. I imagine the use of pinks in the desert was more of a counter-shading deal, to help conceal the silhouette of the tank.
  4. Thanks chaps. Am I alone in thinking this somewhat eccentric?
  5. I have a number of photos on my pc that I want to put into a post. In other forums I can attach these to a post via an attachments tab. I can see no means of uploading photos from my pc on this board - what am I missing? It can't be the case that the only way of doing this is to upload pictures to a website and then post the link, can it? If I click on "Insert other media" and thence "insert existing attachment" it says "you do not have any existing attachments". I can't see any means of adding them... Help!
  6. This is putting the cart before the horse. Before anything remotely useful can be done with ML's, the unit's spawnable on anu given mission need to be controlled by that ML, and missions be searchable by players before spawning in. So, you want to spawn a PzII, you can search the missions list and find all the missions requesting those that also have that vehicle in the spawnlist. That way ML's will have self-selecting players on their mission responding to requests for xyz kit, and a logical group to lead. People don't follow ML's, currently, as it's impossible to lead a group of odds and sods spread over 4km or so between FB and town, constituted of everything from riflemen to heavy armour on the same mission. It's daft. Sure, there's a few leaders who can deal with that, but they're few and far between, and mostly allied. ;-)
  7. There was practically no resistance activity in Belgium, the low countries or France until after France had fell. The reason for this is that the Germans had come down like a ton of bricks on towns where they suspected (often erroneously) that they'd come under fire from "Franc tireurs"; during the 1914 advance. Hundreds of civilians were shot. Not infrequently this was as a consequence of unseen allied soldiers firing from within the town, rather than civilians resisting. This rough treatment was one of the things that impelled the great coloumns of refugees in May of '40, the presumptions being that a frontline would form as it has in 1914, and that the Germans would behave in the same way - hence no-one wanted to be the "wrong side of the line". As to the idea, not sure really. Most resistance activity was intelligence gathering/cutting telephone lines, killings were relatively rare by Resistance groups because of the taking of hostages, until there was a realistic prospect of liberation before the Germans could intervene. Hence the uprising in Paris only occurring shortly before Leclerc's armour arrived. Consequently I don't think there's much of a basis for armed resistance groups being modelled.
  8. Sorry, that was ambiguous. Yes, you're correct, I did mean town-based supply rather than brigade supply, I wasn't referring to your idea.
  9. Just so, nor indeed that of the ammunition or the crew. As for the 251/22 portee Pak40, you probably have to wonder what on earth induced them to go to so much trouble building it, when a towed Pak40 would have been so much less effort. The answer is of course that the towed Pak40 renderered the 251 virtually un-steerable off-road, and making it a portee mount improved that by bringing more weight onto the wheels at the front- but was still a grieviously overladen and over-stressed transmission. As a stop-gap late-war variant it probably made sense in that it was "better than nothing". But not much.
  10. Oh the old 251/Pak40 chestnut. I looked into this in some detail a few years back. IIRC The Pak40 is right on the limit in weight of what the 251 was rated to tow, and whilst it was capable of "moving" a Pak40 - and was frequently used for that purpose, it was not used as the dedicated tow vehicle over distance or rough ground. This was mainly because the 251's steering was poor off-road, and much more so if towing (anything at all), so it was always a choice of last-resort. Soldiery, from any nation, in any war, will always use what's to hand if it saves pushing something unweildly or heavy, no matter how much QM sobs about burned-out clutches etc! A more representative tower is the HT, as that was easily capable of towing the gun, it's crew, and a modest load of ammunition for it too - unlike the 251. To save anyone the trouble, yes, if you look online you'll find several pictures of 251's with Pak40's 'behind them', however, these were only used if nothing more appropriate was to hand. The question to ask yourself is what if the shoe were on the other foot - would you want to see 17 pdrs or 25 pounders towed with Universal Carriers if someone were to turn up a photograph of some clot "towing" one with one?.... Or a Jeep? (My uncle spent some months towing 17 pounders around after D-Day - with a turret-less Crusader! These heavy-guns would complete bollocks the transmission of lighter vehicles) My suggestion as per spirit of the thread: Add the Universal Carrier, and turretless Sherman (as Ram Kangeroo APC)
  11. The tan/light blue scheme on British tanks is for the Western Desert. The French camo schemes were meant to be used in conjunction with natural vegetation, and were as much to break up the silhouette of the vehicle and prevent identification of it as this or that vehicle, as to conceal it. In Western Europe British and American camouflage was fairly primitive - not needed due to air-supremacy, but in theatres where this wasn't the case it was readily developed. I'd like to see the ability to apply "bits" of speedtrees as camouflage, but not by the tank-player.
  12. You may want to think about that, consider say Antwerp. It'd be impossible to move a Bde into if only one cp, anywhere in the city, were enemy owned.....
  13. I like this idea a LOT, not least because the work required to achieve it would go a long way towards having greater differentiation between different brigades, via the mechanism of having company-sized units of (for example) engineers, AT infantry, ATG's, heavy armour and so forth able to be attached at campaign start to full brigades. Thereafter they'd simply form an augmented TOE for the Brigade to which they're attached. So you might have infantry Rifle Brigades, augmented with ATG's, or an Armoured Brigade augmented with APC's etc; to being a little more variety to proceedings. As these would be attached for the duration of a campaign, or longer if not changed, there would be no addition to work for HC.
  14. The original logic for the current number of Brigades was to allow for some rapid movement if an area was stripped of brigades in good supply. The problem is that it was much easier to go to the edge of the map and cut-off numerous enemy brigades, requiring a high level of HC participation to forestall such moves. I fully agree with you about the town-based supply being a lunatic plan, but differ in that we have already tried it, and it generated a style of gameplay that magnified pop-imbalances and promoted play that was ultimately the same for every attack, Very very dull.
  15. I think you're on the right lines with the idea, although I think it would be much better directed at preventing infantry, wheeled vehicles and ATG/AAA from moving through or across or through 6 foot + bush-lines. As others have pointed out, the difficulty with buildings is in the combination of their ubiquity and proximity. Were this adopted, it'd help make towns less porous to infantry by virtue of creating visual and physical "choke-points" though which attacking infantry would have to pass. Which is not far off what you're call for here.
  16. ....with every vertebra fused solid, inflexible and [censored] all use as a spine
  17. That works for me. Although, I wanted to avoid presenting players with too much information. It should be enough for most players to see what their ML wants them to achieve and where friendlies are. If a player becomes and ML then he should see what the OIC wants achieved, and where he wants xyz. I wanted to give squads more functionality in this regard.
  18. I would suggest that if your "squad-night is being ruined (by HC)" you: 1. Have totally unreasonable expectations for it, and.. 2. Have a completely dysfunctional relationship with your HC. It's always been my experience that HC's love to facilitate AO's/Brigade movements for squads, where that doesn't require insane risks, or be simply impossible due to limitations on moving Brigades. By and large if HC can't, they'll say so, and if the MOIC is asked in a sensible fashion, (and I don't mean whingeing that "HC are crap" etc) they'll usually explain if they have the time to do so. It is manifestly unreasonable to expect HC'ers to keep track of whose squad-night is when, and how many are likely to log on. Given that, a certain latitude is necessary to allow them to recognise your squad is having a squad-night and to try and fit in, as far as possible, with what you want to do. It is simply nuts to expect them to drop the current AO's at your whim, and at the drop of a hat. If you can't see that, I would suggest your time would be better spent getting some ADHD medication or therapy, than ranting at HC. A little forbearance, politeness and humility, a bit of "give and take", good manners and "I've got 25 guys on, what do you need?" (to start with) rather than "I've got 25 guys in, we want the current AO dropped and a new one at xyz - now - or we log" is going to work wonders. To Capco: I was saying that there "isn't currently a role for squads", not "there shouldn't be one". Big difference! To Bmbm: It is complicated to explain, but would be easy to use and flexible. Basically, HC decides where the attack goes in, a squad CO (in all likelihood) takes OIC. He marks his map with what he wants there. (When he's ready) HC applies AO The ML's who can see his marks, make missions to try and comply with that, and their marks/FMS positions are seen by the OIC and the players on the ML's mission. So at all times there's a flow of information, in crude terms, "what's needed where" and "I have a mission to accomplish this" back and forwards. As the spawn-limitations take effect, each ML only has the units he needs spawning on his mission, which means he's now got a manageable task, he's no longer trying to manage infantry, armour, atg's and AAA to a task that only (say) requires infantry. Once player's selection of a unit-type is in accordance with what the ML is asking for, a sea-change in teamwork becomes possible. If your ML wants nothing but AAA, then before long he'll have a number of self-selecting players on that mission spawned as AAA, and he can get a number of players operating together very effectively - and having fun. If players chose that mission to spawn what they wish, with the prospect of an ML who has a clear task in mind, they'll be much more likely to try and make that task a success.
  19. I think that ML spawn limiting is absolutely a pre-requirement for any kind of graphical orders system to function, as until that exists you'll have loads of different types of equipment on each and every mission, as now (from missions from FB or AB's). It is too much to ask for ML's to contend with issuing orders (that make any sense) to all those differently spawned players, and so they don't, or at least, the orders are do general in nature as to be near useless. As to the map-tools: For HC's, I shall not comment, but I daresay a list could easily be compiled. I've been out of HC for so long that I wouldn't like to comment. The HC's should nominate an OIC, or, any player of Lt Col rank can apply to be an OIC for an AO or DO. Once "okayed" by HC, he/she then gets the OIC map tools. In the case of an AO, he can apply for OIC-ship before the AO is placed by clicking on the town to be attacked. This gives him time to employ his map tools, the output of which would be visible to all HC's, and to all ML's spawning into missions to that town. The ML's in turn get map-tools, shewing their MSP location to to the OIC and all HC'ers. The detailed map markings made my ML's would only be visible to players on their mission. (so as not to clutter the map). Conversely, a regular player would only see map markings by his ML. An exception to the above, could be that all map-marks from ML's or OIC's would be visible to all members of the same squad. So a lonewolf would only see map-marks from his ML, a squadded player would see all map-marks from all members of his squad, provided that the ML's or OIC were members of his squad. This would confer considerable advantage to squads taking tactical leadership in the form of ML's and especially the OIC position, without over-awing a new player with tons of map-marks. (Remember that lonewolves only see map-marks from their ML) I propose that map marks simply be the same as we use for "enemy contacts", but a different colour, and mirror-imaged and/or vertically inverted to the enemy contact marks. I would further suggest that there be a hotkey to cycle "enemy contact", "friendly contacts", "friendly orders", "all". The map tools could be fettled with over time, but that, coupled with spawn limitations, would be the bare-minimum that might work well, I suggest. If each mission had icons to shew what the ML wanted spawned, and players could sort those missions by requested unit, this would help greatly because: Then a player wanting to spawn (say) a PZII, could simply look for a mission not excluding the Pz II, and choose which of those he wanted to join. In effect missions would become logical groups fulfilling a role, or roles, dependant on what the ML was willing to "lead". So, a player that wanted to defend CP, would probably "allow all" to spawn, but, a mission from an AB might be for "AAA alone", or "ATGs alone", or "ATG's and infantry", and so on, with a defined purpose via the .orders command. The important point is that spawn-limitations applied to missions could be changed in real-time, so in practice I'd expect initial defensive missions at a town to which an AO has been applied, to be "unlimited", but which the ML could apply restrictions to, if he wished, as time went on. Attacking missions would more likely be "limited" from the word go, but this would remain the choice of the ML. In short, the spawn-limitations and indeed map-marks would be an available tool for ML's, OIC's and HC's to elect to use, not a "hard" system to preclude any given player from spawning what he wants. If there's no mission calling for the unit he wants to play - very unlikely imho - then all he has to do is make a mission, as now.
  20. Can we have the real Stankyus back please? Hehe. It seems there's some agreement now. The one point I'd like to pick up on was someone mentioned the "cult of personality" in relation to squad leaders. I think that's true in a wider sense though, ie, it's not limited to squads at all. There are some HC'ers for whom you'll drop what you're doing and try to comply with a request for blowing an FB or setting-up an FMS, and there are some for whom you'll do it when you've finished what you were doing when they asked. For no other reason than you've formed a working relationship with them and their decisions and aims are more successful and timely than other HC'ers. Success in this regard breeds success; conversely, these HC'ers (or indeed squad-leaders) can prevent a retreat turning into a rout, which is by far the better test of leadership in my view. Any damn fool can take towns at will by spamming the text-buffer when he has the advantage of numbers, the real test for both players and HC'ers is to "give ground, but not up". AO's and Brigades made Squads less relevant, but only because (as a sweeping generalisation) there's no logical role for squads beyond the social now. Whilst I do have strong views about some of the worst excesses of squad behaviour pre AOs, I do think this is a shame. I'd like to see a role for squads between the player-base and HC, without AO powers, but with members indoctrinated in Brigade movement and able to follow the decisions of HC. This would provide a ready pool of players who could go on to HCing, as well as useful "eyes" to keep feeding back information to the MAPCO about how attacks are going, supply issues and so forth. More than anything however, we need far better map tools for HC'ers, OIC's and ML's, and for ML's, the ability to limit the units spawnable on their mission, and for that information to be searchable by players, so the player desiring to spawn a (for example) AAA gun, can find a mission specifically calling for these. This, more than any other measure, would allow ML's to make and transmit sensible orders and aims for the players on their mission. It's essentially impossible now, as the mission is nothing but a gateway to spawning in whatever the player wants to, and 9 times out of 10 with little or no relevance to what the ML wishes to achieve. In other words, leadership and command is, and always has been, fundamentally broken. Where-after discussions of HC's, OIC's and indeed squads is, frankly, moot. The only reason the "cult of personality" method "worked" was that zerging the maximum possible kit to the town faster than defenders could react was about the limit of what could be achieved. There simply wasn't, and isn't, the scope for more nuanced game-play.
  21. Thankyou for taking my post seriously, and giving a considered sensible reply. Personally I have never understood why squad leaders, by and large, failed to join/remain in HC and lead through that mechanism. I recall at the time of HC being introduced there were a lot of toys threwn out of the cot, and several squad leaders at the time made some ill-advised statements of opposition to the HC system they subsequently felt unable to publically retract. However, I do not assert that this was entirely problem born out of this attitude. CRS were equally culpable in my view for the failure by: Not making HC training a two-stage process whereby players could, after HC training, shadow a serving HC officer to understand what he did, and why, and why he didn't make certain map-moves. This would have led to a more gradual change between HC training and moving Brigades, as well as providing HC with willing hands on the ground who could communicate back up the chain of command with feedback on the status of attacks/defenses. Instead there was a sudden responsibility for hundreds of players, and if mistakes were made, a tirade of confected abuse from squads who "could have done it better" - but never did. The other failure, was, as I said, the utter absence of ability for transmission of orders on the map. I'd suggest: A different coloured set of "friendly" orders icons. These would be placeable by an attack or defense OIC, and would shew "where he wants" tanks/atg's/fms's etc. These could be changed in realtime by the OIC. ML's would have the ability to make a mission to one of these, and on deployment, if within (say) 300m of it, then the "order icon" would change to MSP icon". Similarly ML's could set "where they want stuff" but their "order icons" would only be visible to players on their mission. Orders set by the OIC would be visible to all ML's, but not to all players.
  22. Your post presupposes that the 'dwindling of squads' is a "problem" and implies that if it is one, that there must therefore be a "solution". Don't misunderstand me, I'm all for squads, from the social side of things, but really, the "good old days" of pre AO's and Pre HC's were anything but, and that the hegemony of half a dozen very large squads on the previous occasion we had "town-based supply" may have been a barrel of laughs for members of those squads, but the gameplay was dire. Most battles consisted of getting the most possible armour to a town in the briefest possible period, to camp all cp's and especially ab's before defenders had a chance to learn of their arrival, much less spawn in. This was called "superior tactics" but it was literally killing the game. AO's, EWS and HC's followed "swiftly", as CRS attempted to staunch the loss of players. The worst of it was that it became the only reasonably surefire way of taking a town, so each TZ tended to become dynamically unstable, ie as numbers moved away from balance, they became more so, and faster. The logical result of this was the 'Breakfast Club' in TZ3. A return to town-based supply and squad-driven AO's will almost certainly see me unsub. It's been tried before and caused so many problems that CRS spent the next 3-6 years trying to correct them instead of generating new content. Returning to that is depressing beyond words. What's needed are tools for ML's, tools for Squads, tools for OIC's and HC's, so that there's better communication both ways up and down the chain of command. Heck, 17 years after the game was begun we still have no way for ML, OIC or HC (or indeed a squad officer) to mark on a map where he wants stuff, and other players be able to see it and comply. In short, the very basics of any kind of organisation are missing, and frankly, not greatly improved by being in squad either. If you want a reason why squads "dwindled", that's it, right there. The communication tools are so poor in game that they allow for little more than a great snake of armour following the leader, followed by ultimately poor game-play. It was inevitable player numbers would drop. Instead we have the prospect (or wet-dream) of a return to map-rolls and huge squads and a return to "the good old days". Lunacy.
  23. I'm not sure exactly how the steam F2P accounts were arranged, but I gather they were limited to certain classes of infantry and a limited number of AFV's. Suppose that in future F2P steam accounts be operated on the same principle, for the first 3 months, but that at the end of the 3 months, they be given a month of unfettered access to all units, subject to rank, as per a paying player, afterwhich it reverts to the limited units as now. This might well help Steam players translate from a F2P account, to the normal paid-for unlimited account, but reducing the problems of very inexperienced players burning through high-value items in the spawnlist, and also avoiding giving them too many units to learn from the word go.
  24. Interesting idea, but I would suggest keeping it simpler has the benefit of not creating situations where people can misunderstand what they've bought were they to "incrementally" subscribe, which just takes effort to sort out, and may create a "bad smell". Giving people something free for a limited period is less likely to create issues, I would surmise. Rise of Flight (A WW1 air-combat sim) had an interesting payment model, where you paid a one-off fee for each aircraft, and likewise mods you could apply to them.
  25. Mindful of the current ETO map "misbehaving" when opposing sides become concentrated into too small an area, towards the end of a campaign - hence the 95% of towns for campaign win rule - would it not make sense to extend the map east beyond El Alamein rather further? (Very cool work by the way) Also, for N Africa to be a success, then some means of "digging in" and camouflaging infantry and ATG positions is a must. It would also be very cool if asymmetric problems beset the various sides. So, the British forces should have the LRDG/SAS for (very occasional) interdiction of German/Italian supply, much stronger naval units. The Germans have initially superior armour and ATG's but a perennial supply problem as they move east, and the poison-chalice of reliance on Italians as allies. British tanks should improve over time with Grants and Shermans, and have greatly superior artillery. On the plus side, the Germans have 88's, qualitatively superior Luftwaffe, initially superior tanks, with a sprinkling of "Mark IV specials" (Mk IV F2) which will be pretty formidable to take on with British armour until the Grants and Shermans came into play. It'd be a truly fascinating additional fighting area.