Capco

Registered Users
  • Content count

    8,140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Capco last won the day on February 12

Capco had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

909 Hero

1 Follower

About Capco

  • Rank
    Allied High Command
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Air Force
  • Preferred Unit
    P-40
  1. That was exactly my first thought as well. And Syd still hasn't told us what the Y axis is quantifying.
  2. Why am I not surprised...
  3. Last time I flew Axis (many moons ago... aka a lot more pilots playing but also post-fishbowl), I was in the top 10 fighter list (at one point 4th) for almost 2.5 tiers, and that was flying without a squad and rarely did I even have a wingman. Q: Why was I, who for the most part is a subpar pilot, able to accomplish such a ranking through almost an entire campaign? A: Axis planes have an advantage that noobs rarely if ever use: with your speed and climb rate, you can dictate the pace of most engagements. Even if you are a single LW pilot, if you choose to egress, you can usually egress freely and without harm. If you have a wingman on comms, that egress doubles as a drag for your wingman to line up on. If I'm dragging 4 Allies on my tail away from the engagement at the cost of my single 109's presence, that's a huge win even if I'm not scoring any kills. The only way the Allies can change that dynamic before the Spit IX is if they take the time to gain a considerable energy advantage (gain altitude) outside of and away from the current furball... which is rare. P-38s can be a little dangerous as well with their lazzors during the egress, but can't keep up long-term with their abysmal climb rates. The learning curves for each side are the polar opposite of each other. When you fly Allied, you start low and slow but eventually realize the value of wingmen, speed, and altitude after trying (and failing) to chase down a 109 solo for the 500th time. When you fly Axis, you start with altitude and discipline and eventually work your way down low when you become accustomed to your airframe after trying (and failing) to turn-and-burn with a Spit for the 500th time only to flop into the ground. The 109's instantaneous turn rate is enough to get deflection shots on any hamfisted Spit with proper flaps and throttle control. 109s in general are (and the F4 in particular is) extremely difficult to ever score a kill on if flown with discipline. Just don't turn unless you know it's the right move. It takes some experience to know when to do that. If you don't have that experience yet, just don't turn until you do. And the second half of "turn-and-burn" isn't usually worthwhile in Axis planes. You can actually "turn" just fine, but you will "burn" more energy than a Spitfire will in a sustained, lengthy turning engagement. The only planes where burning energy is an even bigger issue are the French ones. Axis planes can turn and burn with most French aircraft quite well since their power/weight ratios are so much higher than those heavy American pigs with their pitiful, non-supercharged Allison engines. The H87 gets a Merlin but they are just too heavy for it to make a difference. The H87 might be the worst sustained turner in the game. All that being said, I'd agree with the overall cultural differences between the two sides regarding air power. Lol @major0noob's tactic for capping towns... that's actually pretty smart.
  4. By comparison to the breakdowns of the last decade, the most recent lists frequently give the Axis a technological edge. In T0.5, the Axis get access to the 109E4/b. The Allies get no such fighter-bomber until T1.5 (the Bell; the Hurri2c doesn't come out until T2). In addition, the T0 Spit1 and Hurri1 have never performed at their historical speeds. In T1.5 they get access to the 190A3 F/B and the 109F4. Both of these aircraft trounce anything the Allies have until the P-38 (T2) and the Spit IX (T2.5). The 190A4 now comes out a full tier ahead of where it used to come out (T2 instead of T3).
  5. I didn’t mean numbers, I meant unit distinctions and specialization. Infantry flags will still have infantry tanks and support tanks (but not the armored flag stuff). Garrisons will be generic, not specialized.
  6. I finally have time to get on today and should have more time for the foreseeable future. I fully support 1.36 in intent. Don’t take comments like the above as a sign of anything otherwise. I can be skeptical about certain things while being welcoming of the rest. Speaking of poutine eaters, I’ll be going after @Lob12 to come back once 1.36 gets to beta.
  7. I mean, compared to the turtle game, Ciney changing hands 5 times a day would be an improvement, sure. It’s still not ideal or worthwhile gameplay. If I knew ahead of time that the AO I’m about to partake in would simply be recapped in an hour, I wouldn’t partake to begin with. Lasting results is a cornerstone of this game. In lieu of that, there are better FPS options.
  8. kgarner. Also lol at the dodgeball draft. I’ve done that to set up teams for scrimmages in other games and it actually works well! I don’t think that will work for WWIIOL though. There’s too much going on at a cultural level on each side. Then there’s trust and relationships, things that take a long time to earn. Not only that, but that would only work if the HC problem was THE problem. But at this point it’s worse than that. If I was able to reassemble the AHC All-Stars for a campaign I still don’t think it would be enough. No amount of communication and leadership can get people to listen and respond when they choose not to, or get people to attack when they choose to defend. The Allies are short on skill and organization (as a side) just as much as leadership. If the Axis kept their core players playing, I’m certain they could win campaigns while underpopulated.
  9. That’s awful gameplay. If I wanted to play the same arena over and over I’d play Battlefield.
  10. Even if it was 55-45 or 52-48, the fundamental point stands. The level of disparity only affects the rate of side fatigue, it does not remove its existence.
  11. I think mortar rounds are the only STO munition.
  12. Just reading this thread now, and it’s basically a carbon copy of the original discussion on hybrid supply from over two years ago (going on 3 now)... I wish some of you posted then... The term “garrison” was coined then, when garrisons were proposed as a method to stop soft capping and provide supply to the PB in times of no HC online in an effort to keep movable supply on the map. The name stuck throughout the development phase even after the decision to make them the main source of supply. I’m not really sure where the line is being drawn as of today however.
  13. Flags will look like they do now. Garrisons will look more like Doc era infantry flags. They will be more generic and cookie-cutter. They will have at least 1 of every type of applicable unit. All spawn lists pretty much need perpetual tweaking as long as new units are getting introduced.
  14. Except that the Allies don't have an equal opportunity to win because of the historical population disparity. When the side "balance" is 60-40 for almost 2 decades, you get to a point where one side (in this case, the Allies) become an atrophic shell of their former selves. Don't get me wrong, the Axis are the better side right now on just about every level regardless of pop. But that statement ignores how the Axis got there. Side fatigue from being underpopulated has lead the overburdened doers on the Allies to stop playing. This happened systemically over many years. Balance mechanisms like spawn delay and variable cap timers do not reduce the amount of effort and time that the doers have to put in for their side to succeed. These mechanics to not prevent side fatigue.
  15. Fwiw, right now in regards to historical tier progression, the Axis have a fighter edge in every tier until the Spit IX and P-38 come out. The edges are slight but they are there.