Capco

Registered Users
  • Content count

    8,808
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

Posts posted by Capco


  1. 6 hours ago, TheCat said:

    … It's the Magical influx...and disappearance  of troops that I really think should change.

    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.  

    1 person likes this

  2. 2 hours ago, pfmosquito said:

    "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)? "

    I would lean towards "no" on that formulation.  I don't know what the historical numbers are on either score.   Is that what is going on right now?  Is the SMG list tied on a percentage basis to the number of rifles, each pegged to historical figures?  If so, I have not heard that.

    "I think this is one area where "historical accuracy" is most afforded to be thrown to the wayside." 

    Maybe.  But there are other ways to manage, it, too.  For example, it seems there is a tension right now between the pay-to-play folks and the advantages of ranking up.  Setting aside exceptions like HC, doesn't a paying LT. Col have the same access to SMGs as a paying 1st Lt?  That is my understanding.  Maybe revisiting this so that rank matters would offset this issue.  My understanding is that as rank goes up, ACCESS to unit type changes, but what if the unit access was the same but the NUMBER AVAILABLE changed? 

    It could be rationalized by saying that a Lt. Col would have more men under his command than a corporal, or something like that.  :)  (Although I have suggested several times that paying players have supply they can allocate, which I did again above.)  

    I'm not necessarily advocating for this, I'm just saying that maybe we can balance other 'historical' aspects into the analysis so that we can make some changes which are perhaps stretching it a bit, but not to the level of "throwing it to the wayside."

    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).  


  3. 1 hour ago, pfmosquito said:

    In other news, I went a whole campaign and a half hardly being able to find a SMG.  There seems to be about 5 in the smg depot list, which goes super, super fast.  (For some reason I'm able to nab one of them more often than originally.  Not sure why.)  Personally, I don't think 5 smgs is 'overstrength.'  Maybe other areas of the garrison have too much, but for where a lot of us have fun--the smg--it seems frankly sparse.

    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.  


  4. 14 minutes ago, tater said:

    Maybe the system can control a couple floating BDEs that get put on the front when no HC is on in a reactive way? If a town gets attacked, the system makes sure they both have BDEs with no HC?

    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.  


  5. 15 hours ago, Kilemall said:

    Bwwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    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).  

    1 person likes this

  6. 18 hours ago, choad said:

    I far prefer the game post 1.36. Ok, when the game had 4x the population the HC system worked and provided both the non-HC playerbase and HC members the different kind of thrill they were looking for. Fact is, that model just did not work any longer with the population as it was/is. CRS had to adapt and i think where they landed with 1.36 is a good concept. Sure, the number of moveable flags and garrison supply numbers could be tinkered with a bit to give a bit more emphasis to the importance of those flags. 

    I never found it entertaining soft capping towns where the enemy could not spawn in and put up a fight. This is a game after all ... and finding ways to ensure there is some action that is relatively easy to be found is a good thing imo.

    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. 


  7. On 12/17/2019 at 1:48 PM, foe2 said:

    As someone who has HC experience pre and post 1.36 all I can say is that 1.36 has made the HC game boring.  There is not Strategy anymore. no challenge.  there isn't the thrill of realising that the opposition has made a mistake and you only have  a limited window to exploit that mistake and move the map forward. No thrill in capping a town and knowing that you can breakout and push the map.  There is far less thrill in cutting towns and kicking flags because flags mean so little now.  everything is basically one massive grind, since all towns have ample supply its either hit them hard and fast and cap the whole place before any defenders show up  or grind them down constantly in attrition battle. 

     

    Just ask players like @Silky who was always active HC  pre 1.36 who I've not seen online in game at all post it. 

    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.  

     

    On 12/17/2019 at 2:54 PM, dwalin said:

    I can certainly see what @XOOM is saying about trying to make it better for everyone, because let's face it, when one side has HC for hours and one side doesn't, that's how we get breakouts that race across the map.  That said, I wish there was a bit more to do as HC because it is kind of a boring job now.  I'm much more of a cheerleader than anything else at this point.  I've rejoined to do my part, but if you look at the map now, for example, there is no way for me to get flags into a place where I can threaten Allied lines and help break the Axis out of where we are.  I personally loved the old flag dance, that strategy of going up against someone you knew on the other side and seeing which of you would make the mistake first.  That was fun and challenging. 

    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.  

    4 people like this

  8. 2 hours ago, tater said:

    This is an assertion made without evidence, so it can be dismissed without evidence. I am not seeing any obvious problem at all.

    N1ckB1C.jpg

    Assume the Allies control Profondville (or vice versa) (snapshot of current map, but wanted 2 close towns to show facilities in 1). The attacker from Prof can place an MSP inside that circle (minus whatever the enemy facility limit is now X hundred meters).

    So limiting. Note that nothing prevents driving a truck full of men to anyplace you like, or driving armor anyplace you like, or having ATGs have to take a tow---anyplace they like. This ONLY limits where armies of men can spring forth.

    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.  

    2 people like this

  9. Just now, tater said:

    I was against the FRU as implemented only because I think that ALL MSPs should have some "on sides" rules. Given the number of towns that are attacked by 2-3 linked towns, on-sides rules would not change all that much, but would certainly make things "feel" right in terms of where to expect the enemy to come from on defense (or for the offensive side defending the FB).

    That's indeed one of the critical flaws of the FRU.  I would have preferred development of an offsides ruleset over the FMS.  

    1 person likes this

  10. @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.  

    4 people like this

  11. On 10/8/2019 at 6:45 AM, ZEBBEEE said:

    Hey, guys, just give me some time to discuss it with HCs and Leadership. It was introduced with some good intentions; if it somehow failed of course I will try to push it on top of the topics to be looked at.

    Very busy at rats HQ with the next patch, the payment portal update, and the other big projects going. 

    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.  

    1 person likes this

  12. 6 hours ago, lonepilgim said:

    I crashed 1000 times but im getting it..also I play with a mouse..its good enough and one less thing to think about..as far as the carpet bombing thing idk...I think its only certain planes...the Blenheim has  bombs mounted outside the plane..i don`t think the open Bombay command does anything..not sure

     

    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.  


  13. On 9/20/2019 at 11:29 AM, gavalink said:

    When talk of having garrisons started, I never envisaged garrisons strong enough to mount offensive operations as we currently have.

     

    3 hours ago, tater said:

    Yeah, seems like they should be rear area forces capable of holding against some attacks, but not offensive forces. BDEs are not meaningful unless they are substantially more powerful than garrisons.

     

    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.  

    1 person likes this

  14. 17 minutes ago, OLDZEKE said:

    I don't play other games, don't realy have the time. My grandson plays about every ww2 themed game available. Now what I've noticed with him is he waits a queue until he can spawn. Seems to me he waits way more than we do with SD. So I guess a option might be setup a queue system where you could only spawn the underpop or wait until sides balanced to within x%. To me that would suck but maybe I'm just old and out of the loop?

     

    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.