• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by XOOM

  1. 9 hours ago, delems said:

    *** Once an airfield becomes frontline, the Air garrison will become inactive.

    So they will stay, but can't use them ?

    Their supply will be unusable, that's the definition of deactivated. Once you buffer the Air Field, that supply will become available again.

    Paratroopers are an exception however, you will still be able to use Paratroopers at an unbuffered Air Field to promote more usage of them.

    1 person likes this

  2. 4 hours ago, Capco said:

    Will a newly captured town also take 15 hours to fully resupply?


    For any side.  Not talking about the Allied ownership mechanic. 

    A newly captured town, will have a 10 minute delay before it becomes active. During that 10 minute period, Allied Officers can change the Garrison to the country ownership of their choosing, without penalty.

    From there, a trickle rate from 0% to 100% supply will take 60 minutes, or 1 hour. German supply acts the same in every respect, except they will only have one Garrison country owner.

    The 15 hour resupply penalty is for when Allied forces manually try to change an already determined owner and they decide to change it later. The reason it is set up this way is because it's the best option we could implement at the earliest opportunity to give you guys options without making it something gamed in a way that would provide an unfair supply replenish advantage. It is intentionally something you don't want to do without consideration. You will have the option to VETO a change within the first 5 minutes as it is in a proposal state, like AO and brigade movements today.

    This 15 hour resupply matches the global setting of when a unit is expended to the time the factories rebuild and deploy that unit to the frontline... or what people refer to as RDP today.

    Allied forces will be unable to change the ownership of a Garrison to a town which is connected to an active attack objective.

    1 person likes this

  3. 8 hours ago, delems said:

    Will or will not their be navy and air infantry personnel at ports and AFs ?

    If not, how come?  (ports and airfields didn't have any troops assigned to them?)

    And I will be very disappointed if not.  Where can one spawn navy infantry then?

    Every Airfield, Docks and Deep Water Port will have an Army Persona Garrison.

  4. 2 hours ago, mundagurri said:

    The game's not launching for me after downloading those last 3 patches. Anyone else getting this problem?


    2 hours ago, noparty said:

    Just got  "login aborted" message when I tried to launch game.  Tried to launch three times....same message after i hit play button. 


    Guys please do a full reinstall of the game,


  5. 33 minutes ago, SCKING said:

    Once an airfield becomes frontline, the Air garrison will become inactive. The Army, Naval and Airborne Garrisons will remain

    This is correct @dandare9, and there's no difference in how LW or Allied Air Force Garrisons work, exactly the same with the rules and frontlines vs not.

  6. Hope you all had a blast, I know all of us RATS did! We had the highest numbers online since our Steam debut - friggin awesome! Thanks to all of you who could make it.

    AAR Questions

    1. What did you enjoy the most?
    2. What could have been better?
    3. What was the best battle?
    4. Was there enough leadership on your side?
    5. What did you play as the most?

    If you have any screen shots please provide them as we'll be happy to feature them on social media.

  7. I'll place a comment here that infantry reload times are dependent on animations as well. This has been a major crutch we've been experiencing (infantry animations) for our team and finding the right talent to work on it has also proven difficult.

    Set expectations accordingly that we probably will not entertain too much, if any of it, for the foreseeable future. That's not by desire necessarily, but by roadblock.

    I'd also like to say a lot of these "audits" have come from the intention of making our vehicle and equipment set function as historically intended. The impression that we're arbitrarily messing with things, just because, I think is a dangerous assumption.

    There are growing pains and adjusting involved with this, but we have been trying to correct things that should've never been. Thank you guys for being as rational and patient as you can be about it.

    1 person likes this

  8. 37 minutes ago, hondo said:

    It would be nice if you guys ( Rats) could get the multi channel typing working again.  It was very helpful for the HC guys and also people posting missions to be able to do 2 or 3 channels at once.

    Should be a high priority imho

    I think it's important for everyone to note, that CRS has a lot of stuff that we want to do - that we all agree with you on. In this case Hondo, we totally agree with you. So this work being done, is very minimalistic, in fact I personally changed a couple of variables in the code and we're doing some database work that does not impact the work flow that we have currently being applied to 1.36.

    I need to find a way, and I've been struggling to do so, that makes it known that we have a variety of resources that do things around here. I get the impression that although we're doing lots of stuff, players are assuming that means we're intentionally ignoring other important matters and redirecting valuable time of our development team while forgetting the big important stuff.

    I'd like to say, that's not the case, particularly in this regard and in many others.

    Genuine question here: How do we make resource distribution more clear? Does it matter to you as players? Does it just come across as making excuses for not doing things ( even though it's not )? I don't mean to be critical in saying that, I just truly want to find a way to effectively convey this because I think, far exceeding this particular topic, it's important for players to know who's doing what and that we're not ignoring things. Perhaps only the solution in a timely manner matters and no explanation is acceptable. If that's the case, do our words matter? 

    Let me know, I don't want to create subconscious or direct irritation and this sort of feedback can be very beneficial. To anyone wishing to respond to this question, please be constructive on this one.

  9. 2 minutes ago, xanthus said:

    XOOM, please put a trigger warning in....also model a safe space and put it in Area 51. Let players spawn in with adult coloring books and have a special channel where they can talk about their feelings.



    LOL! Kudos, that was a good one :D. That is called side channel! Hehe.

    1 person likes this

  10. 10 minutes ago, david06 said:

    it's also probably not a good idea to have the primary chat channel have a big scary warning message telling anyone that posts there to only use it for serious business

    that is sure to work against facilitating communication with new players, I'm still not sure why the help channel still has a warning message

    Scary warning? It’s an informational message on the purpose of the channel. Wouldn’t call that a warning or scary.

    1 person likes this

  11. At this time these changes do not open up an additional channel selection. Those are a bit more heavy duty than we're ready to tackle at the moment.

    I can appreciate some hesitation expressed about it and I understand that for years the Side channel has turned into a defacto dump-all comms into it. That's largely part of the reason we're stepping back to emphasize OPS usage and localized chat.

    If you want to tune side chat and stay on it, that's up to you and that choice can be made at any time.

    @Kilemall asking CRS to increase moderation will result into further backlash from players. I of course encourage peer correction (self policing) where ever possible as you see fit and appropriate. These changes at this time are necessary and will go forward.

  12. In the near future we'll be updating our default chat channels to include the following:

    • F1: Mission
    • F2: Target
    • F3: Origin
    • F4: Squad
    • F5: Operations
    • F6: Help

    The big change comes from resetting F3 from side to origin. We want users who spawn from the same town to work together, hence "origin" chat. 

    Operations will therefore become the Global "Operations / Organization" channel. It will be very focused and High Command officers and veterans should have it tuned to work together and share mission invitations, battle planning and other operationally important information.  CRS will be working hard to make sure the new users understand what this channel is and how it is valuable to them. It will therefore become the new staple of operational organization for your side globally.

    What will happen to Side channel?

    Side channel, will still be available for you to tune should you choose. But do note, that upon deployment of this update, everyone's default channel listing will look like the above. It will override your current selection to make sure we properly reset the standard globally. Again, you can easily modify your channel selection as you see fit.

    Side channel will continue to be somewhat of an undefined "General Discussion" channel where users discuss a variety of topics. 

    This is part of an effort to keep comms centralized and focused on the best game play and community support experience we have to offer. We want new users to receive guidance and for veteran players in their local area to help them out. New users joining our game should feel comfortable and optimistic about their new experience learning about WWII Online as we all have over the years.

    This channel selection puts them in the best position to be exposed to helpful targeted information that gets them into the organized game experience faster.

    1 person likes this

  13. 4 hours ago, caydel said:

    Just to get back to side channel for a second - I have to assume that it's used differently on Axis and Allied.

    On the Allied side, it's the way that side-wise coordination happens. Sure, there's some OT talk, but I've never really noticed it being 'poisonous' the way @XOOM indicated. I'm sure we could do something like replace 'Side' with 'Ops' for team-wide Coordinator, but the OT discussion would follow there as well. In other words, I'm not sure detuning or removing 'Side' would really impact things.

    The only thing I can see is moderating OT discussion into a separate channel... but most players would still tune it, as that is the lifeblood of our in-game community.

    Most players will still likely detune it, but we'll be resetting the default channel selections to prevent new users from being affected by it.

    I'll provide some more clarity on this very shortly so you can understand better. We have another patch not too far out and I'll discuss it there.

  14. 3 hours ago, choad said:

    IMO breaking up the large towns makes it much much easier for low pop times to take a large town. They take one part of it ... move a flag in, and are well positioned to take the next piece, where their armor and trucks only have to drive a small fraction of the distance. Plus .... fewer flags for attackers to cover. Defenders really only need to hold certain key points to keep the town from changing hands., whereas attackers need to keep all that they cap regardless of it is some pointless cp.

    That seems to be the case. The hopeful intention at the time of introducing this was to make the fighting much more difficult and bring action closer, to aggregate more people in tighter zones so they could see each other instead of walking around all of Antwerp on foot without seeing a whole lot. 

  15. 5 hours ago, dre21 said:

    Huh?  The US Forces their own set of factories? 

    What do you mean by that?

    They way I read that it makes no sense, the US had no factories in Europe .

    I meant that the Americans need a factory equivalent of some sort, could be a depot or warehouse facility. Point is, something like that needs to exist so we can more appropriately integrate them into the total campaign experience.

  16. Just now, Silky said:

    Breaking up Ant and Brussels has changed the ebb and flow of the initial parts of each campaign. When might we expect Lux and Liege to be deconstructed into smaller chunks?

    Not currently on the books. I don't really want to break up all of the big towns, we did want to add some variety for others however. Can't really provide much detail beyond that. Right now I am more concerned with getting the US Forces their own set of factories in terms of terrain development.

    1 person likes this

  17. 6 hours ago, Jsilec said:

    I think a small change in starting lines would be welcome instead of fighting over same towns at map start every campaign...

    This is definitely something we've discussed. I'd like to see some updates to it as well to avoid monotony. 

    Perhaps even, we can consider who ever won the last campaign, might start a little behind their normal starting line (not excessive, but a little). Regardless, we definitely want to keep things enjoyable and not too routine.

    2 people like this

  18. All of that said, every member part of our CRS team, does care deeply about not just the game, but its community. So we strive to do the best we can. We fall short on occasion, but we try to make up for that. Perfection is not promised. But consistency, not giving up, and staying positive about the future are things we've been able to hone in well.

    2 people like this

  19. 9 hours ago, Capco said:

    That's kind of how I view the forums tbh.  

    That's exactly how I feel about it as well. And as I mentioned above, we're open to that. But we need to keep the game fun and separate some of those comms. It's simply correcting and establishing new standards for the heath and benefit of the game.

    Side channel really isn't productive, it's a quick vent and gets quickly lost and forgotten. We can't act on that sort of stuff. Typing a .report does get logged but similarly doesn't offer us the ability to interact with and move a discussion into something actionable. 

    3 people like this