Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Capco last won the day on February 8

Capco had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,312 Hero


About Capco

  • Rank
    Allied High Command
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
    Air Force
  • Preferred Unit

Recent Profile Visitors

3,251 profile views
  1. @OHM I noticed that Free-to-Play accounts can no longer post in the non-premium Discussion forum since the forum settings were last changed. I can see the discussions and read them just fine, but I can't post and I noticed that no one else with a Free-to-Play account status is posting either. Is that intentional or a mistake? What's the point of having a forum open to Free-to-Play if we can't use it?
  2. Looks like the same on my end as well. Should I just wait for the big fix or does it need to be done on a ticket basis? I don't want to overwhelm support staff if everyone's will get fixed eventually.
  3. This is what I was referring to when I said some type of qualifier.
  4. I find it incredibly ironic that the solution to brigade "warping" involved (drumroll) a magical influx of supply. Silly folks trading one form of magical supply for another. But yet I haven't seen them complain about this kind of magical supply warping. How strange.
  5. Yes. There needs to be some type of qualifier in place for long term vets to have HC access to help fill in the gaps.
  6. I couldn't agree more on that front.
  7. Good post. I was really coming at it from a very basic angle. People often say the depot supply for SMGs is too low, and the easiest way to increase that depot number is to increase the total amount of SMGs in the master supply pool (since the depot number is derived as a fraction of the master pool).
  8. Genuine quality-of-life question, pf: would you be okay with upping SMG numbers to an ahistorical amount for both sides (i.e. making the SMG supply equal to or greater than rifle supply)? If that's what most of the inf players want and need to do their jobs, then I think such a move should be strongly considered by CRS as a push to improve gameplay and the general user experience. Since the CP is so critical to the game's functionality, I think this is one area where "historical accuracy" is most afforded to be thrown to the wayside.
  9. Maybe give brigade movement ability to any Lt. Colonel (or set some other standard), but reserve veto power for active HC officers. There would need to be a new command for cancelling your own movement orders though, otherwise any accidental movement orders issued couldn't be reverted.
  10. It's like some of us had a crystal ball or something back when 1.36 was first being discussed. It's a combination of humor and outright fury for me though, Kile. And it's heavy on the fury. This style of hybrid should have been what we went with all along (i.e. way more than 3 divisions on the map alongside smaller garrisons in every town to prevent softcapping without some kind of fight).
  11. Well done CRS.
  12. Absolutely. It’s a fantastic concept. I mean I helped coin it. Soft capping was a plague that needed getting rid of. But the balance point atm is not where it needs to be.
  13. It was accurately predicted that 1.36 would dumb down the game as implemented in its current state. I remember very well those absolutely tense moments between your timers and your enemy's timers, whether it be on brigade movement, AO placement, capping CPs... all of it created an unbelievably electric atmosphere whenever both sides were matching wits with one another. I feel like this encapsulates how I see the state of HC today. Cheerleading has always been a part of HC, but those oh-so-addictive electric moments that made the boring work (like cheerleading) worth it are pretty much gone. Pre-1.36 was more of a "valleys and peaks" type system, where you would have good times with plenty of HC... then bad times with low HC/player turnout. The problem with 1.36 is that by removing the old valleys they've also removed the old peaks... you know, the high water marks of WWIIOL gameplay. 1.36 is still viable, but not in its current state imo. Garrisons should never have had the amount of supply that they do. They are garrisons for crying out loud. If you want to have more ebb and flow, if you want to have more peak moments of gameplay, then you need to risk having those valleys too. In pre-1.36, if one side lost enough brigades then the other side could "softcap" territory at their discretion at certain parts of the map. At some point those lost brigades would come back from training and the line would stabilize. On a fundamental level, that is an example of ebb and flow. New CRS said that this was too much ebb and flow. Well fine, but consider the following. Imagine the above situation again: a loss of brigades has lead to a "softcapping" opening. This situation is exactly the same as the one above in that there is a problem, a predicament, an issue because of the loss of movable brigades. Only this time instead of waiting 8-12 hours for those brigades to come back while the players are forced to watch the other side capture territory without being able to fight, now the players can spawn into those towns no longer occupied/covered with brigades and defend them with a small, token force (you know, a garrison). Now will this company be able to hold against a full division with enough players committed to spawning that supply? Probably not. BUT casualties will be taken during that battle. And the next battle. And the next. And eventually those enemy brigades will run out of steam simply by coming into battle with enough of those smaller garrisons. And now instead of 40 towns lost as in pre-1.36, you are looking at 20 towns lost. Or 10. Or 5. The side that is receiving the punch isn't knocked out. In fact, their brigades are just about to come back, and now it's their turn to go on the attack against an exhausted and over extended enemy. But instead of the enemy having to retreat with empty brigades as they did in pre-1.36, they too get to spawn in with their garrison troops and stall the enemy's advance! Who knows, maybe this counter advance will itself advance too far, and a new opportunity will be presented! In essence, the game ebbs and flows as a consequence of its previous ebbs and flows. Did that "second" ebb and flow happen in the old system? Yes, but it often came far too late and was too unforgiving of mistakes because all of those towns that were undefended. The new system with garrisons could effectively put a damper on those movements that CRS considered to be too much. Are these peaks going to be as high as the old system without garrisons? Honestly, no they won't be as exciting. But the valleys won't be as deep and excruciating either. That should have been the approach with 1.36. Instead, the current implementation has sucked the life out of the game for me. There is just no liveliness or sense of vitality anymore. TL;DR In short, there is no more "flow" since 1.36, and the opposite of fluidity is stagnation. That's what you are creating when you stock up the garrisons with that much supply and leave the movable brigades to the wayside. You can counter argue me all you want about why it needed to be done and whatever else, but I'm just making an observation that the move made to stabilize the game has in fact stagnated it. It's up to CRS what they want to do with that kind of situation.
  14. Imo, this would be a good rule set for player placed FBs. Applying this to truck based mobile spawns is a bad idea imo. What I would like to see is an inf FRU that is connected to an FMS where the FRU is placement must be within so many meters of the home FMS. Probably no more than 200m. That way if you get flanked by an inf FRU it's because you already allowed a very loud and defenseless truck flank you. Likewise, destroying the very easy to locate and camp FMS destroys the associated inf FRU. Forcing people to bring supply more manually to the battle is a recipe for failure. It's too much work for too little reward.