Capco

Registered Users
  • Content count

    7,628
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Capco last won the day on December 26 2018

Capco had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

702 Hero

1 Follower

About Capco

  • Rank
    Allied High Command
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Air Force
  • Preferred Unit
    P-40
  1. I care about gameplay. I couldn't care less about graphical improvements. But you can't have good gameplay in this game without population. This game thrives with hundreds of players, not a few dozen. If graphical improvements will bring bodies into the game, get it done. @scotsmanI have always told others for years that no other game I've ever played captures the psychology, the morale, and the momentum of real warfare like WWIIOL does. Unfortunately, that is simultaneously the game's biggest asset AND its own worst enemy at times. When the game is that grueling on a player's psyche, some people are more inclined to log off than keep playing. Fewer people = worse gameplay = more boredom = even fewer people.... etc.
  2. What it shows more than anything is: 1) how low overall population is right now 2) how few vets the Allies have at their disposal over the past year and change WHIPs are an excellent bunch of guys with a really good skill set, but I'm pretty sure they would be the first ones to tell us that they aren't some unbeatable powerhouse, at least in their own eyes. It's absolutely not their problem to "fix" just for being arguably the best squad in the game right now. But if the Allies can no longer win campaigns without support from side switchers with supply lists as lopsided as this, that's potentially an extremely serious problem for the health of the game, and it's also something that 1.36 on its own will not fix. Divisions getting cut off means nothing if there aren't enough players playing before those morale cascading events start to snowball in the first place. Just from conversations with several former squaddies, the Tiger mania of the past ~2 years was enough to get them to stop playing altogether, and somewhat including myself. Before the additional Tigers though, the Axis were almost in as bad of shape as the Allies are now (but not for nearly as long as it has been for the Allies atm).
  3. Tbf, I always did like the original F2P setup where they got the rifleman, a basic ATG, a basic tank, and a basic fighter plane.
  4. 12 campaigns eh? That’s unheard of in the history of the game afaik. Ouch.
  5. From 2011 (when I first joined HC) to about 2016, the Allies were generally superior at executing the "fast swap" concept. We could keep the Axis on their toes while underpop at times because we were so good at it. Marking has always been kinda bad though, I agree.
  6. Outside of FMS spawns, waved spawning will actually be a boon for the camped. At an FMS though, 1 HE device (or even 1 rifle bullet) will be devastating... set up a perpetual timer to give you a notification every time a spawn is about to occur and you could time your camp perfectly. But tbf, the FMS is easily camped no matter what in its current form. It's clearly still a work in progress.
  7. History shows people typically will not wait to group up despite the overwhelming force multiplier effect it has. Also, you don't have to coordinate anything beforehand in this regard, something that takes time, effort, and ends up being fruitless more often than fruitful. With wave spawning, it's all done for you. Once that initial hump is overcome (which is the hardest part), people are much more likely to stay grouped up when they spawn in and see 4-5 guys around them. It's not a guarantee, but it definitely facilitates teamwork. DoD isn't exactly a great game, but the game would be a heck of a lot worse if people trickled in as they died instead of attacking together in waves.
  8. What about American involvement during WWI, a continental war where France wasn't defeated immediately? Didn't American units begin to outright replace some of the most beleaguered French and British units on the front?
  9. People are more likely to work as a team if they all spawn in at the same time. Once you nail the cap timers down and can drop SD entirely, I really think you should add this feature if at all possible. Maybe ask Zebebee to do his polling magic. Explain it to the PB well ahead of time so that they know this is going to improve their gameplay experience. I think wave spawning every 10 seconds would be an excellent place to start. I'm not sure if 5 seconds would be enough to make an impact, and anything above 15 seconds starts to "feel" punitive.
  10. That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't think the Allies have won a campaign without Axis players coming to play Allied in over a year.
  11. Axis seem to be doing just fine in the first 20 hours. I was talking to a former officer and player last night about these new changes to the supply lists. His exact words: "If the Allies don't absolutely curbstomp the Axis in T0, then there's something very, very wrong with the Allies right now."
  12. I've always been a proponent of this and recommended it before.
  13. 6-3-1 would be better IMO. That's potentially a lot of Sherman Fireflies...
  14. I've been saying this for a while now, as have several others. Nostalgia can be the worst enemy of progress and development. I do think the Rats are aware of this for the most part, but we still need to give feedback like this because they too have at times been sucked into the nostalgia rabbit hole.
  15. Or just history. "The Prussians believe – not without reason – that their virtues as a people can carry them through any trouble: martial discipline, sacrifice, a sense of order, but this sense of duty should not be confused with ignorance or intolerance, no matter what others may say. Prussians have always had to fight, but that has made them competent, not bloodthirsty. They have the potential to become a great continental power thanks to their martial traditions, many of which can be traced back to the Teutonic Knights. These could form the basis of a truly world-beating army. Under the right guidance, they could unite the German-speaking peoples into a single entity, dominate the Baltic and, perhaps, extend their reach far beyond the confines of Central Europe." -snippet from Prussia's Total War introduction === "Since the 17th century, the army of Brandenburg-Prussia was characterized by its initiative, maneuverability, and aggressive command at the operational level of war. The Hohenzollern state often had fewer resources and manpower than its rivals, and thus the Prussians focused on quickly achieving a decisive victory to avoid a war of attrition. The Prussians practiced what became known as Bewegungskrieg, or war of movement, in an attempt to strike at the flanks or rear of the enemy. The Prussian emphasis on decisive battles instead of wars of attrition led to its being inexperienced in siege warfare, at which the Prussians have been considered incompetent." "The Prussian Army is often considered to have used the flexible command of Auftragstaktik (mission tactics), by which subordinate officers led using personal initiative. This developed out of the relationship between the Junker aristocracy, who made up most of the officer corps, and the monarchy. In return for political support from the nobles, the monarchs granted them greater privileges on their estates and greater initiative on the battlefield. According to the theory of Auftragstaktik, the commander would issue a mission to his subordinate officers, who were to pursue the directive as they saw fit. Gneisenau was an early proponent of Auftragstaktik, and Moltke interpreted the theory as "the higher the authority, the shorter and more general" the orders; considerable leeway was granted to subordinates in order to pursue the goal. 19th-century historians saw Leuthen as one of the best examples of Auftragstaktik and an early example of combined arms." That same environment and culture also produced some inherent weaknesses too: "The Prussian-style war of movement and quick strikes was well-designed for campaigns using the developed infrastructure of Western and Central Europe, such as the wars of unification, but failed when it was applied by the German Army to the Soviet Union and Northern Africa. The Prussian and later German systems were regarded as weak in intelligence, counterintelligence, and logistics, but during the First World War the German Army was often able to lay its hands on British and French battleplans. If the enemy successfully endured the initial operational attacks, the Prussian system had great difficulty in Stellungskrieg, or war of position, though during the First World War those were not as pronounced." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Army#Characteristics