ATTN: We need your help to support our game!Learn More

Soldier!

Your help is needed to achieve our funding “Stretch Goals” so that we can introduce the first new vehicles into WWII Online in almost 10 years, increase and purchase vital software to improve our team’s organization and produce additional vehicles!

This game would not be possible without you and your support!

capco

Registered Users
  • Content count

    5,214
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

84 Vet

About capco

  • Rank
    Allied High Command
  1. If they went to 6 degrees of freedom in the air game at some point, there's not reason you couldn't apply it to ground vehicles as well. I think you could then do things like move the crewman around a bit. I know in air sims, 6 DOF allows the pilot to lean forward and backward, but I'm not sure about side to side.
  2. It's kinda creepy how well that came out.
  3. Some people don't always think things through. I know I don't
  4. Your bofors definitely has an aimbot!
  5. What's your Steam info? We should play Twilight Struggle sometime
  6. Except that it's extremely easy to camp bofors coming out of a vehicle spawn with aircraft...
  7. I included "potentially" for this exact reason. It's essentially a 180 in regards to how supply works on the ground in 1.36. But its simplicity helps it deal with other issues. I think if you took a poll in the Hangar most pilots would approve of it. If it turns into an airquake parade (I personally don't see that being the big issue, but let's say it is) it can be tweaked from there.
  8. I'm very happy to see that 1.36 is just a small part of what to expect in 2017. CRS isn't putting all their eggs in one basket. The move to 64-bit and UDP is fantastic. Mattwitt and I were just talking about the 32-bit limitations yesterday. Also looking forward to integrated VOIP. I think the move to 1 single supply pool for AF and Navy is potentially brilliant. It addresses all the concerns that pilots have had about how air supply will function in 1.36. There's also no issue about having adequate British/French supply in whatever airfield. @XOOM Thank you thank you thank you for the squad tools and "HC Options". Besides their declared functions, these also give you a foundation to build on to add more strategic options as the year moves forward, should you chose to do so. Maybe not, but at least you now have a system in place just in case. As a brigade mover, I'm a little disappointed to see the Italians introduced after the removal of movable brigades, but oh well who cares! It's still a great addition nonetheless (and one that is long overdue)! I assume you guys want to see a full fledged Italian list so that you can give the Axis the options to make towns either German or Italian controlled, but that might be out of the scope of 2017.
  9. One of the complaints about the current RDP setup is that the Allies have twice as many factories to bomb as the Germans. If we were to expand the naval game, I think it would have to revolve around convoys and convoy raiding. I simply don't see how the Germans could have convoys modeled for their side, but obviously the Allies could. So the convoy game would be 1-directional. The reason I brought up the extra Allied factories is because I think that vulnerable Allied convoys could help rebalance this imbalance, since there would be no German convoys. Perhaps you could tie loss of convoys into losses in BEF supply? On the one hand, the Allies will have even more RDP targets than before if there are Allied-only convoys that are RDP-related. However, if you make the convoys sufficiently vulnerable, you not only provide incentive for the Axis to RDP bomb convoys, you provide incentive to the Allied naval and air forces to protect those convoys.
  10. Like people have stated above, the Germans never used a semi as a main battle rifle. The Americans were the only army to do so. Since we have Americans and their Garands, we had to give the Germans a disproportionate amount of semi auto rifles in their spawnlists for the sake of balancing them with the Americans. Likewise with the British, since the Germans have a disproportionate number of semis, the British need Garands for the sake of balance. If you remove the Garands from the Brits because it wasn't historical, you should also use the correct proportions of semis to bolt actions for the Germans under the same line of thinking.
  11. Is there any reason why these numbers aren't made available @XOOM? I know old CRS was all hush-hush about everything so I never bothered asking then. But what's your logic about not making these numbers available? Do you think it will be bad for the game if we have that knowledge?
  12. Does the game cease to function properly in TZ2 like it does in TZ3?
  13. I think voice comms are a great force multiplier. But you do bring up a valid point that I see over and over: people who are predominantly on TS sometimes never read chat or look for marks. I'm not exactly sure how to remedy that, since I see chat and voice comms as both essential elements moving forward.