• Announcements

    • GVONPAUL

      Need help for incoming players.   04/29/2017

      With the looming Steam release, we are anticipating many new players to the game. This is great for all of us, and it's important that we retain as many as we can. With that in mind, we'd like to enlist players to help with the inevitable questions asked in the forums. Ideally, gameplay questions are asked and answered in-game, but it's not always easy or convenient to answer questions while playing. A Gameplay Support Forum would be a good place for those who want to help. We are now accepting volunteers for the Rat Patrol, who will provide correct and consistent info to new players in the Forums. The more new players we retain, the better it is for the game and the biggest hurdle in player retention is grasping the complexities of this game. If you are interested, send me a PM.  
    • Dodger

      Squad Leaders Contact GVONPAUL OR Dodger for Squad Forums   05/18/2017

      Soldiers!

      We are seeking Squad Leaders to volunteer their squads to help us test the upcoming Squad Forums system. This system will integrate squads who wish to participate into a self-sustained "forum within a forum." You will be able to add members to your squad, assign permissions, and create forums/calendar events on your own. The idea behind this system is part of our commitment to support squads as a integral part of our community. This service will be offered free of charge to all squads of World War II Online upon launch. Our goal is to offer all of the services a squad off-site forum can offer but free of charge and tied in to our existing forum service. So what do you need tested? We need willing volunteers to test the whole system - make forums, post threads, assign permissions, etc. The idea is to have several squads giving it a test run to point out any flaws before we launch it publicly. What are the requirements? We are ideally looking for medium to large squads - Ideally ten people or so plus, but smaller squads feel free to apply - and a willingness to use our platform. It's important to note (as of now - these may be included at a later date) we are unable to convert posts from a private forum if your squad previously used one, and you (or your XO's and recruiters) will need to assign individual members permissions. It is entirely possible that in the future this system will be automatically linked to the game's squad roster, but as of now developer priorities are elsewhere (1.37 and steam, w00t!) How do I sign up? PM me ( @Dodger ) on the forums, or email me at dodger@playnet.com - Please indicate your squad name and how many members you have. I will get back to you with more instructions.

Capoo

Registered Users
  • Content count

    5,700
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Capoo last won the day on May 21

Capoo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

140 Salty

About Capoo

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. Combined-arms battles with military grade ballistic calculations in the background was, is, and will always be the bread and butter, the main focus of WWII Online. Any components or additions to the game, whether they be new vehicles, squads, HC, brigades, AOs, etc., have always had that focus in mind, regardless of success or failure. Mission leaders are older than the HCs themselves. I'm not even sure how you try to connect that with the HCs. The mission leader role helps HC in no direct way whatsoever; it indirectly functions as a method for herding cats via the '$miss' command (and that function was certainly not the design intention, but rather a byproduct of the missions being named). And blaming the loss of squad missions on HC? Like... where do you even come up with this stuff? Tell me: what part of the current UI makes our job as HC easier that also comes at the expense of the playerbase?
  2. The UI is complete garbage. Everyone knows that. But to suggest that the current UI is somehow geared towards "some hypothetical high commander" is utter nonsense. There is zero, zilch, nada when it comes to HC features in order to help us lead outside of .axis/.allied. And then to pile on how much is expected of us with how few tools we have to accomplish it... and YET you still have the gall to run your mouth about that which you clearly know nothing about. Your anti-HC agenda does no good for anyone except your own ego.
  3. Removing AOs would be just as, if not more significant than removing movable supply. And far more disastrous than the latter ever could be. Talk about a catastrophe in the making.
  4. Best of luck.
  5. For everyone person willing to do this, there are 5 who just want action fast. Moving around as a team is inherently slower. The bigger the team, the slower the speed. What type of mechanic/incentive could be introduced that could force/promote such behavior?
  6. Just a thought, but isn't the full title of the game Battleground Europe: World War II Online?
  7. It's a lot easier to just post via your Steam app, either on your PC or your smart phone. I never login via a browser.
  8. The M26 would pair well with the Panther or Tiger I. Only a single M26 was created to go toe-to-toe with a King Tiger, the Super Pershing. The Tiger I arrived in late-42, after being rushed to service in its prototype form, and the design didn't really come into its own until mid-43. The M26 was also ready for service by 1943, but there were many factors that kept it from being put into service that had nothing to do with the technological advancement of the design: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing#Delayed_production Comparing the M26 to other armor is not nearly as simple as introduction dates suggest. Even the "Heavy" designation isn't straightforward.
  9. Oh come on. Have you ever even played Allied? All the hardcore Allied air squads are gone. The Axis are the only ones with such a squad (Zulu); 4-wing arguably does more on the ground than in the air. I went Axis for a couple campaigns and flew exclusively. I managed to stay in the top 5 through three tiers with the vast majority of my flying experience in Allied crates. And I'm not even a very good pilot. The 109 is the best overall airframe in the game. You are just flat out wrong here. I don't think absolute numerical player balance is the solution, but there is certainly room for a pop neutral balancing mechanism. The one thing that kills fun and pop more than anything is imbalance. You can't have fun without balance. That has to come first.
  10. I cannot deny that it generally sucks to tank as Axis by comparison (T1 with the 3h is probably their best overall armor tier). But historical stats completely reject the notion that flying Axis sucks. Before Stats 2.0, I ran the numbers on overall K/D for Axis and Allies, fighter vs fighter (including fighter-bombers). The historical Allied K/D was 0.95. If you removed both the 110s from the calculation, the Allied K/D dropped to 0.77. But I'm sure all your anecdotal information will continue to convince you otherwise. Also, I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement (there's massive room in fact), but WWIIOL is still a good game with good gameplay even in its current form. The one thing that keeps it from achieving that good gameplay is a lack of players. When this game has pop and is rolling on all cylinders, it's extraordinarily fun. While these moments are rare, I have yet to experience equivalent "highs" in other games. On some level, I know you feel the same. Otherwise you wouldn't keep posting here. When the Steam version is released, there will be great battles and lots of fun, even if CRS does nothing from this moment on other than Steam. That's simply a function of the expected population spike. BUT, if we want to actually take steps forward and get that good gameplay around the clock, CRS needs to keep working hard. Thankfully, they are.
  11. I think if you created a second-tier of squads (let's call them "divisions" for now), it would be possible for squads to converge and diverge at will. These divisions would essentially be a "squad for squads." Squad leaders would be able combine forces and make alliances with other squads, but if it doesn't work out, they can just leave their division and continue to act independently, or join another division. Squads within a division could communicate via a division channel, while simultaneously maintaining their squad comms with their squad channels. In this way, squad identities would be preserved, but forces would still be able to come together better.
  12. A lot of good points. The biggest thing CRS can do to ensure good player retention after the Steam release is introducing some type of balancing mechanic. I also expect the Axis to get a larger share of the overall interest. But you also have to consider that when Steam is released, it will likely coincide with a new campaign. That means those new Axis players will get their first taste of Allied gear during T0, which is easily the most Allied-dominant tier in the game. Map starting position, Allied heavy tanks, and the best RDP tier for DB7s all culminate into a pretty steep slope for the Axis. There will probably be a good chunk of sideswitchers going back and forth during that first week.
  13. This math makes no sense. You're saying in the killing of those 118 ETs, 4 scout cars were lost to ETs. That's patently false.