Capco

Registered Users
  • Content count

    8,785
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

Everything posted by Capco

  1. This is what I was referring to when I said some type of qualifier.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. I couldn't agree more on that front.
  5. 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).
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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).
  9. Well done CRS.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. I have no idea how much the server hosting costs are, but they are a pittance compared to paying full time employees. Just one full time programmer would take over 250 premium subscriptions to cover (and they would be a poorly paid programmer). Does this game even have 250 subscribers?
  14. That's indeed one of the critical flaws of the FRU. I would have preferred development of an offsides ruleset over the FMS.
  15. @sydspain Hello Syd. Good post. You highlight some excellent points. I don't think you're being too pessimistic. I am still holding out hope for WWIIOL but I am starting to have doubts. I also think urgent changes in the business model are needed. I think dfire's point about "value" vs "price" is accurate. The gameplay was worth the subscription years ago. It's not worth it today. I pay out of a sense of loyalty and hope at this point. I think there have been several mistakes by CRS 2.0. I don't like the garrison supply as implemented. The garrisons are too big and the brigades are too meaningless now. Removing F2P accounts was a major mistake since action requires bodies. Variable cap timers are good, but I think the base capture time is so high that it too is stifling action. But imo the move to truck-based FMS's and the loss of the infantry FRU has killed the action more than anything else, and without action people don't log in and we go deeper into that vicious cycle. The FMS, designed to help sustain attacks, has actually done the opposite and helped the defender. This is because an FMS-based attack requires a great degree of manpower to be successful against an active defense. If you don't have an escort, you are vulnerable to a strong breeze let alone an enemy with a firearm. If you don't have air defense of some form and the enemy has an aircraft patrolling the skies, good luck getting your trucks out of the FB. The problem is magnified tenfold if the AO isn't completely fresh. The end result is that a lot of ground is being taken without a proper "battle" occurring, despite the addition of (substantial) supply in every single town. The FMS could have worked very well about 7 years ago when the combined arms battle was a daily phenomenon. Right now the defender has too many advantages for the current level of population since the critical mass required of the attacker per active defender is higher than ever before. It used to be possible to win a battle and take a town with even population. Today, 20 defenders will beat 20 attackers every single time if supply is equal. I know the inf FRU is very unpopular with people who like to play defense, but at the end of the day it was a "cheap" way for the attacker to establish a spawn point, and therefore a battle. That's the major issue here folks. If the attackers don't bring you a battle, there is no battle period. At least it made action easy to generate. No town was ever lost because the defender couldn't find an infantry FRU. A battle with a ZOC that is eventually spoiled by a flanking inf FRU was still at least a battle for a little while. The alternative we have now with the FMS is incredibly stale and boring.
  16. I think it was the best change in recent memory, and it's unit access should not be expanded in any way. The main issue with the old FRU was the AT capability that allowed sappers and zooks to do disproportionate damage. At the end of the day, the HC FRU (or any other infantry-placed FRU tied to a very limited number of units accessible to all premium subscribers, which I think should have been the way forward) helps facilitate action. There's nothing stopping me from walking directly from the FB if I want to set off EWS and mole a town on my own, with or without the HC FRU. I can hide in a bush all day with a rifleman too. But that's not what it's about. It's about creating action, creating battles. And the only time trucks are very successful in that regard is when one side hasn't spawned in to defend a town because they are so severely underpopulated; likewise, defenses are more successful for the overpopulated side when they have the soldiers available to spawn in and hunt the trucks down before they can even set their FMS. The problem gets 10x worse if the AO isn't brand new. For whatever reason, instead of making action easier to create, CRS 2.0 has taken numerous steps to make it harder. This HC FRU was one of the times you threw in the right direction. It's also worthy to note that the majority of those against the SMG addition play Axis. I'm not sure why that is but I find it very interesting nonetheless.
  17. The Blenheim doesn't have bomb bay doors. Afaik, the default for jettison ordnance is Control + J, and it is done with the pilot, not the bombardier. If you keymapped it to another button, try that button while in the pilot's position.
  18. I've stayed subbed for 7 consecutive years at a WBS rate. If I get dropped do I lose that rate when I go to resub @TMAN?
  19. At some point, you'd think the TZ3 crew would get bored and find another game to play. Just goes to show how susceptible people are to low hanging fruit.
  20. No. Report it if you come across it or see someone doing it please.
  21. I very much agree, but CRS has repeatedly stated that this isn't possible because the HCs can't handle the brigade movements 24/7. The game has devolved since 1.36 imo. And now with F2P access gone, I can't use those accounts to drive around my main account to sap FBs or set up multiple FMS/FRUs for AOs. I can't help with flag movements because flags are so insignificant now. All I can do is kill, and while I'm not terrible at it, that wasn't what made this game fun for me. It was the complete package, and sadly that feels lost altogether now. The flavor went from intense to bland overnight apart from the initial excitement and population surge.
  22. I have a good recollection of the map position if you lost that data. The Allies were just outside of Koln and Dusseldorf. Well, technically it was just the British since... oh nm.
  23. Queued spawning has been recommended in the past by me if not by others as well. I think it's a natural match for what WWIIOL tries to accomplish. There's certainly some finer points that need some thinking about, but that'd be my choice forward. Anything else in terms of forced spawning is hard to sell while the game is subscription-based. Can you imagine WoW PvP servers telling Horde players that they couldn't log into their Horde toons and/or only play PvP with their alt-Alliance toons (if they even have any) until the PvP situation becomes more balanced? WoW would go from MMO to MMR: Massively Multiplayer Riot.