Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Capco

  1. My recommendation (for the old tier system) was to start every 5th campaign in T2 or T3.
  2. I see. My only counterpoint would be that the consistent premium subscribers will continue to be consistent. It seems from the feedback in this thread that the people who want a downgrade option are those who can only pay the premium level at certain points of the year. It does not seem to be from people who feel they have to pay full price despite not playing every aspect of the game. I think you'd bring in more money and wouldn't pose much of a risk to your bread and butter subscribers by avoiding an all-or-nothing approach once premium level has been reached. I don't have any data to support that of course. It's just a hunch. If you have data that says you will lose premium subscribers to basic level subscriptions then I'm wrong.
  3. I think it has something to do with vehicle/unit access and how that is tied to in-game rank. There's an issue here that pops up when trying to downgrade after having "unlocked" certain units via rank increases. I think, anyway. Otherwise the lack of downgrade option really doesn't make sense to me. Could you clarify @XOOM?
  4. People will fly French in droves once the P-47 and/or P-51 are modeled. Spitfires might even become a minority. I missed reading this yesterday. Honestly, out of all the versions of 109, the G would be the closest match to the H87. Both are on the heavier side in terms of weight and armament. I'd still give the edge to the G. But yeah, handling that H87 slow on the deck is no small task. Well done Bmbm.
  5. As an energy fighter with a wingman I agree that it's fine if not very effective, but in a 1v1 co-alt duel with just about any 109 or 190 the H87 is at a severe disadvantage.
  6. It's a shame it took this long for this to be posted. H81 is the best French fighter prior to the P-38. The H87 sucks.
  7. Wasn't it @dfire?
  8. It has been my official recommendation to AHC as DDOP CO since the arrival of 1.36 to deploy the 1st BEF Division in the south as a matter of course, and likewise to deploy one of our two French divisions in Belgium. Bringing over troops via para plane just to capture a city as one particular nationality was a phenomenal effort and worthy of praise, but at the same time it was an Achilles' heel to the Allies and one that the Axis simply never had to experience at any level. It has already been deemed a net detriment to the Allies to have a North-South split. There is no need to re-litigate this and uninvent the wheel just to have the exact same problems crop up.
  9. Thank you for your input delems. Much appreciated. Remember, I asked for ranges though. What I mean is we can't just have one numerical distribution that we have to stick to. Are we supposed to take a calculator out and count up all the frontline towns each time a town changes hands on the map to make sure we are at 50/50? That'd be rather silly imo. For example, early on I feel like a fair distribution is a minimum of 30% british to a maximum of 50%. That way we have some leeway and flexibility, and don't have to change swap two town ownerships at once just to maintain one hard set ratio. I hope that makes sense.
  10. I'm looking for acceptable percentage ranges of town ownership. If you are suggesting that we must restrict the placement of our forces based solely on geography, that is a non-starter. The deployment of British forces in the South (and conversely French forces in the North) has been AHC standard operating procedure practically since brigades were first introduced. Movable brigades was the mechanic that broke the infamous North-South divide. That's exactly why we have the ability to swap town ownership in 1.36 in the first place. For example, as you brought up with airfields, if the Allies cannot swap airfield ownership then that drastically limits our flexibility to deploy both countries airplanes across all sectors, which again has been Allied SOP for over a decade. It would effectively create an aerial north-south divide once again. We do not have enough air flags available to provide our pilots with the freedom of choice, and so our only alternative is the ability to change airfield ownership as we see fit and within reason. This is both a blessing and a curse for the Allies. It takes a lot more work to manage our forces than it does for the Axis to manage theirs, but on the flip side we have more freedom of choice in regards to equipment, a hallmark of the Allied side.
  11. I'd like a detailed, numerically defined, official proposal from GHC as to what they believe is an appropriate distribution of not their own, but our forces. Remember to include acceptable distribution ranges for French, British, and eventually American levels of ownership. I'm not sure why we should listen to the other team telling us how to deploy our army, but I think we should listen anyway in good faith. If you think we crossed a line, I need that line to be well-defined. AHC was in discussions about town ownership during some of the development of 1.36. We fully expected a hardcoded town nationality distribution range and initially planned accordingly, but eventually CRS gave us the leeway to choose as we see fit within reason. Obviously that means we cannot completely remove one nationality from the front line and to date I don't believe this has ever been done. Also, I just want to know, if the situation was reversed and the Allies had well over X% of their towns under French ownership instead, would you still complain that it's not right? It's not the distribution itself that the problem itself, but where that distribution lies, isn't it?
  12. Granit's tag didn't work, so I'm tagging you for him, @XOOM.
  13. Good.
  14. Gretnine, wegue, and pulfer are playing again? Well well well...
  15. I like the effort Ohm. Not sure how popular this will be, but I'm always glad to see you try out new things. And even if the farmers grab their pitchforks, it's only intermission.
  16. Good gracious, that was too fast... RIP You will be missed.
  17. Hello all. There's only been two campaigns since 1.36 came out, but there's been a consistent observation I've noticed between both sides. Prior to 1.36, making a race to the enemy factories while ignoring the rest of the front usually left you vulnerable. In most parts of the map, you wouldn't have enough divisions to push forward and cover your flank at the same time. However, in 1.36, you can take whatever crazy maneuvers you like with your capture paradigm, because there is always supply no matter how long or big the front line is. In the first campaign, the Axis made it to within a couple towns of the French factories without capturing Brussels or Antwerp (although I believe these towns were eventually capped before the end). Likewise with this current campaign, the Allies have pretty much ignored the south and ran straight for Essen, Koln, and Dusseldorf. Imagine if the front was just a large squiggly line that went back and forth all over the map. Every single town would have supply (and a decent chunk of it). It wouldn't make any sense but it's entirely possible now. That's not right (and this was all predicted btw). Personally, if this trend continues I think it only reinforces the notion that the garrisons actually need to be more garrison-sized and that we need more flags on the map. That way such unrealistic map advances can potentially be checked. A garrison-only force would not be able to cover the flank against a proper attack with movable brigades.
  18. I do seem to recall a change of some sort recently, but I can't put my finger on it. The last I knew, victory conditions were as follows: 95% (or whatever number it is) of town ownership This is irrespective of factory ownership 9 enemy factories owned The towns that contain the factories must be fully owned For the Allies, this means they must capture and hold Essen, Frankfurt, Koln, and Dusseldorf simultaneously
  19. That's not necessary. You can just add another division and/or cut the garrison supply lists slightly. Garrisons would still have the majority of the supply accorded to them, but it would shift the needle in a better, more dynamic direction without going back to a pre-1.36 situation. If every map just turns into this bulge towards the losing side's factories, the campaigns are going to get old very quick.
  20. I think if you could create a .fallback command that allows us to manually set fallbacks for brigades, it would essentially be the same thing as AI damage control to some degree. Someone (even a GM) could log on for 5 minutes a day to make sure via a simple text command that flags don't stupidly fall back into pockets. A big reason why there were catastrophic map failures was because of bad fallbacks combined with the fact that it sometimes took hours and hours to fix those fallbacks. It wouldn't fix every instance of issues with no HC but it would be a big help.
  21. He's got many good gaming years ahead of him if that's the case! I've always had bad reaction time, but in my gaming "prime" (teenage years -> early 20s) I was a handful for other players in competitive settings. If he's got extra quick reaction speed, he will be a gaming god if he wants it.
  22. Excellent squad idea and name! Thank you Dwalin!
  23. I don't want to throw you under the bus in public, but this post is wrong on so many levels. I hope your health improves though. The one thing you said earlier that's worth mention is the added draw that the Axis side has.
  24. Area capture is basically not an option at this time since the capture mechanic is based on textures.
  25. Correct, especially the last bolded part. As I said before, if you don't like spawn delay, play for the underpop side. It's really easy to avoid.