Capco

Registered Users
  • Content count

    7,412
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Capco last won the day on September 21

Capco had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

601 Hero

1 Follower

About Capco

  • Rank
    Allied High Command
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Air Force
  • Preferred Unit
    P-40
  1. Thanks for the update.
  2. Just the simple fact that the Truck part of this advertisement says NOTHING about FMS usage just goes to show how little you understand your game sometimes... It is the single most important object in the game. Nothing else even comes close.
  3. Just in case you only glossed over my post, I wasn't saying I don't agree with removing SD (I was a proponent of it and still am until the data says otherwise). What I don't agree with is removing FMS ability from F2P players. It's very unfortunate that creating an FMS is tied to using a truck (because I'm fairly certain that's why you are restricting it). Like I said, it's pretty obvious that fewer FMS per campaign means less action overall. You should be doing all you can to maximize FMS placement, not minimize it.
  4. He means that the balance mechanisms are working to prevent a map roll. I don't think he means the "game" itself is working and healthy (because its not...). The balance mechanisms are not designed to make losing more fun. They are designed to make losing suck less. In fact, I have yet to play a competitive game where the balance mechanisms are such that I am always having fun when I'm losing, and/or never care that I am losing. I'm not sure why the map hasn't rolled faster (maybe the overall pop is THAT low?), but delems is right that 24% TOM advantage is enormous. It's also possible that the recent change to the F2P accounts to prevent them from setting FMS has led to a net decrease in the total amount of FMS set. If no FMS = no successful attacks, then it follows that fewer FMS = fewer successful attacks. I still am not a big fan of this idea at all @XOOM.
  5. @chaoswzkd can. And this is a very good question too, one I didn't even think about yet.
  6. Hey guys, Sometimes you might feel like this is a thankless job (and for the most part it is). Sometimes you have to deal with disgruntled, side-biased players who are incapable of reason in your quest for usable feedback. Sometimes you sacrifice your family time to get an extra hour or two of volunteer work done. I'm writing this so you know that you are not forgotten about. You are all appreciated for helping to move WWII Online forward. We couldn't be doing it without you. Thank you for combining your individual expertise with your passion for our beloved game.
  7. This (some movable air supply) is fine for AHC. We can work with this until you guys have more time to revisit the garrisons and what not. And obviously the Axis needs the same setup for balance reasons even if they don't need the added flexibility (at least until we get to a full-fledged Italian TOE where they can garrison towns and airfields on their own). We understand you can only do so much. I think I've made our case very clear to you chaos, and based on your posts you in turn definitely understand where we are coming from. That's all that we at AHC can ask for. PS - if every airfield is active, that means whoever owns more airfields has more air supply. I'm not sure I like that... At this point in development I doubt you can change that, but doing it like that means that whoever is winning the map gets to turn their snowball of aircraft into an avalanche, if they so choose.
  8. Absolutely. Doc had the balance down pat. I never once had to point out a supply issue to him (apart from M10s in T0 but that was a real anomaly). But with new CRS? Balance seems to be a problem every other campaign. We still have the obscene amount of Tigers in T3+...
  9. 1. Capturing towns. If we cap something when I play, I consider that satisfactory.
  10. Yes. Chaos did say that there will be some movable supply, but he also said that Xoom and Ohm have not decided on whether or not movable air flags will remain in 1.36. I am just trying to make my case for them remaining in some form in light of Chaos' answer.
  11. So the garrisons have to be all from 1 country? Understood. Like I said, it's not a huge deal for the Allies to be able to blend navy from one country with army from another within the same town. That's manageable. However, the air game is entirely different. If you're saying that air garrisons can only belong to one country, that is bad news bears for the Allied Air Forces. It's just going to create lots of infighting about which nationality should be in which airfields (aka the gripe that TOEs completely fixed), and then when people don't get to use what they want, they just log off. Movable supply for the air (and navy) would alleviate all of these issues. I really, really hope that @XOOM and @OHM think long and hard before deciding to saddle the Allies with the side-specific constraint that I have just illustrated. Please don't feed us the line "well it's war soldier! make it work!" When we had to fight each other before we even fought the Axis, it was a miserable time for the Allies.
  12. I was happy to see the segment start with an overview of 1.36 and especially with the Allies' concerns about town supply. Chaos seems to have a great understanding of how things should work and look in the hybrid system. I look forward to the next development update on 1.36. One question I have for @chaoswzkd is in regards to Air and Navy supply for the Allies. As I understand it, the Navy and the Air will be garrison-based rather than in the form of movable brigades like they are now. You said that the Allies would be able to switch ownership (within certain limits) for the Army supply. My question is, will AHC be able to differentiate the Air and Navy supply from the Army supply? Continuing off your Namur example in your presentation, standard operating procedure for AHC is to always try to blend units from different nationalities whenever possible in order to give the playerbase their choice of weapons. So in that example, if we had a French army brigade in Namur, AHC would generally place a British navy flag to supplement the French army flag. Likewise with the Allied airfields, will we be able to blend aircraft from multiple countries in 1.36 like we can now? If we have a French army garrison in Brussels East (the section of Brussels that has the airfield), will the aircraft from that airfield be exclusively French? This is even more important than the being able to blend the navy with the army of different nationalities. It would be very unfortunate if a town that has docks and/or an airfield may only be garrisoned with one country's soldiers at a time (outside of the movable supply that will remain of course). I loved seeing the sample of new goodies by bmbm and the 3D and Environment presentations. I really like the Easter Egg approach to some of your work too, guys. It not only gives the game character, but in some ways it also allows you as developers to put your own personal stamp on your work and thereby give it more meaning. In my experience, the final product is better when you personalize it. I think the overall plan is really solid. CRS has both short and long term goals. I think the DLCs have added additional revenue streams for CRS and I hope they end up being successful. PS - I would have attended it had it not been on a football Sunday afternoon. Maybe another time or day would be better next time (if there is another one during the football season).
  13. That was the first thing that popped out to me too. Calling out Sudden for posting toxicity? I mean he trolls his fair share (it's an OT thing...) but he's as solid of a community member as any other and when push comes to shove he's as serious about getting stuff done as anyone else. @Sudden I personally am very grateful for your continued subscription and your level of care and passion for our game. I really do hope that Xoom just mistyped as he said (if you look at the original wording, it isn't even proper English so there was obviously something missing).
  14. Somewhat fair statement. There are a few loud, bad apples that are always negative no matter what is going on though.
  15. He's so side biased he's ready to lash out at any who disagree with him. Even Axis players apparently lol.