caydel

Registered Users
  • Content count

    478
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by caydel

  1. Best idea of the week. To refine it a touch: 1000 points gets a premium account day pass they can activate on a day of their choosing. One soldier spawned from FMS: 1 point One gun towed: 2 points One minute guarding a CP in a DO or AO: 3 points One enemy unit killed: 1 point That's a good way to give Free to Play players an incentive to be in game and creating content. My guess it would take ~1 week of regular play to earn a day pass - enough to give them a taste without necessarily impacting subscribers.
  2. Anything but more RPATs. Don't get me wrong - they fill a specific niche. They are invaluable for defending a FMS, or dealing with armour in town. They are often one of the best available solutions to spawn-camping armour, and should remain that. However, i feel that having an RPAT hunt you down 1.5-2 km out of town when you are behind your ZOC and cautiously approaching town is just gamey. We don't have enough players to ever establish a proper defensive line, so RPATs can just roam the countryside as long as they are willing to invest the time to get out of town in a moderately circuitous route. I'd love to see the ability to fire an RPAT limited to say... 400M from a friendly FMS or any CP. That way, it can still be played in town or used to defend your FMS, but prevents near-invisible, silent tank hunting out in the open country. Past 400M, enemy armour can be dealt with by friendly armour or guns.
  3. Roermond. Fighting in Roermond implies the Allies hold Roermond West, and you end up with a massive river crossing op with a large amounts of players confined in a small area. Mortars raining everywhere, each side trying to control the river and either build or destroy the bridge depending on strength. Some of the best fights in the game for me, but far, far too rare.
  4. How will the country change work when the US is introduced into the map? Will a certain range of frontline towns be switched to US? Will it be instantaneous? Does HC get to choose where the US flags are deployed to?
  5. Something I've noticed in a few fights - the US brigades are quickly depleted of rifles seeing as they start with 30 or 50 in infantry and armoured brigades respectively. This causes us to lose many of our greentags partway through the fight as they go somewhere else where there *is* supply for them, or they log out. This is complicated by the fact that a good number of premium subscribers like myself prefer the Springfield, which puts more strain on the limited pool than just F2P alone. This is causing real-world issues for those who can't spawn anything else, and we are losing a chunk of our players - this doesn't help new player retention for the Allies. I suspect that Rifles should always be available to spawn if we are going to have free rifle accounts!
  6. You are probably right, but there should be some kind of middle ground. Again 24 grenades without a single fragment contacting the the two ei is a bit ridiculous.
  7. Because I stood on the stairs when I threw it, and went up immediately following detonation, and they were prone and deployed already. I don't think they moved.
  8. So, prone infantry should be immune to grenades? Sorry, I don't buy it - even if no primary fragmentation hit them, there is a decent blast, ricochets, splinters and all kinds of nastiness. Edit: and under 1m, there should still be at least some primary fragmentation hitting them. I'm not saying it should cut them down at 10-20+ feet.
  9. I'm not so certain grenades are working awesome against prone infantry, although they've certainly improved against crouching or standing infantry. Last week, we had a CP that was being capped by 2 EI LMGs... Both were prone, flanking the upstairs stairwell entrance at a 90 degree angle. I was a rifleman - we were low on supply. So I followed a practice of nade and rush. Over a bunch of sorties, I threw a total of 18 HE grenades into the CP attic from outside. I threw another 6 up the stairs from below to ricochet off the slanted ceiling and drop more or less on their backs. I never scored a hit with any of the grenades (that's 24 of them, including 6 that I *know* were within 1-2ft of the ei). I eventually hit one of the ei with a rifle shot before getting mowed down, but it wasn't a kill. Then they completed the cap. As far as I can tell, grenades are more or less ineffectual against prone infantry. I expect them to be somewhat less effective, sure... but not completely ineffective. Grenades seem to work very well against crouching or standing EI in CPs. Clearing CPs with a rifle in much more feasible in these cases. You just still can't do anything about prone LMGs camping the stairs unless they make a mistake and allow you to get a shot off.
  10. I would like to see no capping unless heavy EWS is triggered. We've had a lot of defences in the last campaign or two where: We successfully kill off the EFMSs and defend the town. The enemy shifts elsewhere - either to a different AO (during 2 AO times) or to defend / blow FBs / whatever. Low EWS remains, but no sign of enemy activity is seen After 20+ minutes, boredom has attrited away the defenders and they are needed elsewhere anyways. Eventually, an EI walks in and caps the spawn. Sometimes up to an hour or more after the last enemy activity was seen. Low EWS on the whole time. This is probably due to an attacker AFK in a bush somewhere. The capper may not be the same player as the one who has kept the EWS active - often it's a FB defender who worked all the way out to the town. The only way to defend this is to leave at least one player per spawnable in town staring at CP walls for an hour or more 'just in case' whoever is triggering the inf EWS decides to head into town. Not many players are willing to do that. I know I'm not - I have limited time to play, and that's not how I intend to spend it.
  11. All the new premium players I've seen lately have started as Free Rifle Accounts who eventually wanted more weapons. I don't know how many would have just jumped in with a sub otherwise.
  12. Yep, I don't like this change as well. We need side-wide communication - with consistent lower pop, we need to be able to quickly rally what forces we *do* have to trouble spots.
  13. I guess I'll be that someone, and I'm not pretending. They are the best unit in the game, if you use them according to their abilities. Those abilities don't include rambo-capping depots, though with the large number of grenades, smoke and a satchel you can tilt the odds considerably in your favour.
  14. 1. Why do you assume the solution being looked at is infinite rifles, vs just adjusting numbers in US flags? 2. Why would you make the assumption they would give infinite rifles to Allies only if this was something they were going to look? The bottom line is that in 60% of our flags, Rifle account players cannot spawn into our attacks and defences after the small supply of rifles is exhausted. This is both a gameplay issue (less numbers in these attacks) and it's both a marketing and player retention issue. I really would not care if they bumped Axis rifle numbers accordingly. They rarely get exhausted anyways.
  15. How about split the map North / South instead of East / West? That would give opportunity to fight in a bunch of towns we rarely see. Might need to get creative to protect the factories.
  16. As I said above, I think the basic rifle should have more or less endless supply if CRS is offering a free rifle account to attract players. It's not good marketing if a side has only a single AO, and that AO only has trucks for a Free Play account to spawn in with. However, since endless rifle supply isn't done anywhere else at the moment, let's pick a number. Practically, the French and British flags rarely run out of rifles with our current server populations, so this problem is mostly confined to the American flags. Since a good portion of the paying playerbase do use the Garand, we can probably get away with splitting the difference between the 150 rifles in other flags, and the problematic 30-50 rifles in US flags. Say... somewhere around 80-100?
  17. 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.
  18. Yes, to a point. But we also have a lot of times where we have a DO with light infantry EWS and 15-20 defenders camped in it, and an AO with maybe 5 people attacking.
  19. Bang on. For many, many Allied players, DO's are instant action. AOs are work. Only a small portion of our playerbase cares enough to put in that work and that portion continually shrinks the longer the Axis roll goes on.
  20. About 20% of Allied players are vets, who are good at responding to calls and doing what needs to be done. However, probably 80% of the Allied players are newer, or just don't care anymore, and are in it for the way *they* like to play it and don't respond to anything or coordinate with anyone. And when a call comes in, a certain portion of those 20% are *already* doing something mission critical that they can't easily step away from to respond to the call. I think a second aspect is that many of our players that are more attack oriented have left - to many players, attacking is not as rewarding, time-wise, as defending. Running FMSs, jogging into town, running into defended CPs is all less rewarding than sitting in a building on the edge of town and sniping incoming ei. So again, most attacks are driven by the same 20% as above. However, our attacks are at best weak because a large portion of our playerbase would rather window camp on a DO with light EWS than run into town. On top of that, the Axis have excellent town defence - given our weak attacks, on any given AO, it's unlikely that we will achieve a toehold and more than likely our AOs turn into desperate defense of our FMSs. On top of all of this is a certain amount of low morale - I think there's a certain feeling that the map outcome (Axis victory) is more or less sealed, so players play for the immediate, short term fun rather than the work that leads to long term map victory. When I'm online, we are typically at a pretty significant population disadvantage and the axis roll towns - at best we slow them down. I'll admit that at this point, I consider 'slowing down the Axis' to be a victory rather than 'winning the map'.
  21. I'll third the grenades working - clearing a CP as a rifleman is much more feasible than it used to be, as you can pitch 4 grenades through the upstairs windows. In fact, it works well enough that I suspect over time, CP defence will shift to the first level as there's more walls to duck behind.
  22. Hey Rats - years ago, we used to have some raging battles on the training server during downtime. I seem to recall that Roermond W would be flipped to Allied and get a bunch of flags stacked in it, and both sides would duke it out for an hour or hours, depending on the length of the campaign map being down. Any chance we can bring that back?
  23. I'm curious what the Rats' thoughts are on visual supply someday. I think it would bring back a big chunk of the air war, but would need some real thought as it would essentially require the introduction of a small 'supply economy'. I see it something like this: Supply Trucks These are the primary manifestation of visual supply. They represent supply travelling from the factories to the front lines. We can use existing truck models for this. Supply Depots Supply depots exist 1-2 towns back behind the front line - far enough that the drive is 10-20 minutes. Their positions are unmapped and random so they need to be found by enemy reconnaissance / scouting. They would spawn alongside an existing road. They are well-protected by AAA AI, have have a smallish spawn-pool that allows them to react to ground attack. Supplying front line towns A supply depot facilitates supply into flags in nearby towns by running AI trucks along the road network into the nearest AB of a town with depleted flags, where they despawn (and spawn lists then increase). Let's say a truck leaves the supply depot every 1-2 minutes, and 'carries' a certain number of replacement units, dispatched in the order those units were killed out of supply. Destroying the truck destroys those units, and they need to be dispatched from the Supply Depot again at a later time. This would change the ground war into giving incentive to attack / defend the supply line into a flag. I would make it so that HC can stop supply into a surrounded flag / AB, to avoid destruction of the en-route supply until the supply line can be secured again. For attacking flags, I would see AI trucks running from the town AB to the FB to replace units that have spawned. Factories Supply travels from factories to Supply Dumps via supply trucks. These trucks don't carry specific units so much as 'supply tickets'. When a truck reaches a Supply Depot, those 'tickets' are converted into units (ie, Riflemen, ATGs etc.) that are dispatched via supply trucks to the front. By interdicting the flow of supply tickets to a Supply Depot, you restrict the amount of replacement units the supply deploy can generate to forward on to the front line flags. We can use the existing damage / resupply rate to determine how fast tickets can be dispatched from the factories. Defending the supply line The biggest flaw with this type of idea is that there is nothing stopping a lone wolf from driving out into the middle of nowhere with a SPAA and stopping the supply network for an hour. To that end, we would need some sort of EWS and even somewhat vague area-based 'automarking' of nearby enemy units to help defenders (likely air based) locate and destroy the attacker. Bridges would become critically important, and require extra defences to protect against air attack. A downed bridge at a critical junction could cause a delay in supply as en-route trucks need to reroute themselves 'the long way around', or even a supply blockage if all bridges into an area without land access are cut. The routing AI will need to be able to accommodate these situations and make decisions as to whether a specific blocked truck should try to re-route, or perhaps carry it's tickets to another reasonably close supply depot that *is* accessible, or even turn back to preserve the supply until a route to it's destination reopens. Islands Islands, such as we have in Zeeland, do provide a hitch in this plan. I presume we would need to have supply transports performing a similar role to supply trucks, with the port towns having attached supply depots to dispatch the the supply to it's destinations. Implementation I see a few main requirements here: A model for the Supply Depot Logic to dynamically select a location and spawn Supply Depots Truck navigation logic - can be pretty simple - they would have to be able to identify roads and bridges, and take the most direct route to the destination that stays 1-2 town back of enemy flags The ability to create non-player units in game (like on the training server) EWS and automarking logic Figuring out how supply should flow through the resupply network - how do you prioritise active AOs and DOs vs resupplying depleted flags on back towns? Maybe set default rules that HC can override? What are everyone's thoughts?
  24. Ok... Do you have a suggestion for defending the supply lines? In reality, vulnerable infrastructure would have AA crews on the ready to defend them. In game, we can't expect players to man positions 'just in case' (when a given spot may not be attacked for hours or days), and given the speed of the planes, way too much damage can be done before ground-based human players spawn in to react. And when they do, the attacking planes can just move a km or two further up or down the road until the defence shifts, then move again. The only other option is to make that behind the lines defence completely dependent on friendly air until such a time as persistent multicrewed SPAA can be coded in to travel with the trucks. But again, sufficient air population would be needed to defend, and the friendly air would have to be proactive rather than reactive - you can't give an attacker 2 minutes of tearing up the supply lines before friendly fighters arrive up. They would have to intercept the attackers reliably somewhere near the front lines - if the attackers get past and can shoot up supply, then they've earned it. Even that strategy would we strongly impacted by air population imbalance - the side with a few extra pilots can easily slip a few past and tear up supply at their leisure. The only counter that I see is AI AA, which would blunt the advantage that overpopulation brings. Finally, I'm not a pilot, but I don't see the problem with a pilot using friendly AA to his advantage. I'm sure it happened in reality, though so did friendly fire...
  25. Possibly... The Red Ball Express didn't, AFAIK, have SPAA travelling with it although that was very much due to Allied air superiority at that point in the war. My biggest concern is that persistant polycrewed objects don't yet exist in game, and that would add another large coding task to the projects. I'd rather see better AI AAA concentration near towns, bridges and road junctions to provide some level of defence, along with a good way of alerting allied aircrews about threats to the supply line. I think having AI work as 'Spotters' to track enemy aircraft over friendly territory is a viable alternative to the current AWS system, though with a certain level of 'communications' delay to help obscure the exact positions. That would help to intercept threats to the supply system before they get there. Long term, I agree, but trains would provide more difficult in figuring out the routing. You can't just re-route a train to where it needs to go - it can't just turn around at a blown bridge! Furthermore, and so it sits... I would keep the trucks spread out, so that a kamikaze can only take out one or two - and make the supply value carried by those trucks be less than what is consumed by the loss of the plane. Make it a losing proposition to sacrifice a plane for a truck?