Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Green Tag

About nc0gnet0

  • Rank
  • Birthday
  1. So in game enjoyment has nothing to do with new and returning players? Are you crazy? I find the cost just fine.
  2. says who? Try it out for a campaign. I have listed numerous reasons what that has already been done. Again, doing so ignores the fact of why the weapons existed in the first place, to counter the Kv-1 and t-34's, which the allies do not have. Ultimately your argument always go's back to history, which in game is a best a bad charature. You keep coming back to the matty/Char argument, and it suggests your primary weapon of choice is axis tanks. IMO, the biggest glaring problem that exists in game is more infantry based, because a tank can't cap sh**.
  3. Absolutely, as long as giving those up was a means to bringing parity (ie the axis would have to give things up as well) The eastern front will never be modeled, were all kidding ourselves if we think that will happen, but it does bring up an interesting sub-point. The only reason the German tanks are what they are was they were designed to engage the KV-1 and T-34. With the omission of the eastern front (which is a complete joke in a ww2 sim) why does the Tiger and P4 even exist in game? For almost 20 years running now, we have a ww2 game that chooses to ignore the battlefield in which 70% of the war was fought. Not sure why your saying "go down the road of "balanced triads" you dig yourself into a hole you can't explain"....... My friend this ground was already breeched when the game was introduced with no eastern front. I have been saying all along, you can't half a$$ history. If you want to take a historical approach to the game (which I highly advise against), many many more factors have to be introduced other than just weapons and weapon models. War economics is a real thing. Over extending ones forces is a real thing. Each capture of an enemy territory comes at a cost, not just in lives and equipment lost, but costs of occupying the newly acquired territory. Furthermore, since in game the French don't have the Maginot line (in game), isn't it safe to assume that that money spent would have been spent on tanks an mobile ATG's as well? And before you reply how ineffective the line was (Germans drove around it) it at least gave a commander that had a clue (the French did not) on where the attack was most likely to come from). Which leads to another point-Strategic objectives and the cost if they are not met. The german war machine needed to secure oil, be if in Grozni or in North Africa, they did not. As such any historian will tell you that the war was really over by fall of 1941. so if you want to explore this historical approach in game, this is a war of attrition, and all the allies really need to do is hold on until tier 1-1.5, and if they are not conquered, they have won the war. In essence, what I am saying is historical accuracy is not a road you want to go down, period. Because if you do, and you model it correctly, the Allies (not the axis) win every time. Dfire's approach to a red vs blue in a ww2 wrapper is about the best you can hope for.
  4. echo echo echo
  5. And what if CRS goes belly up 5 months in, leaving subscribers who payed for a year basically screwed? Better off introducing a model in which "premium" subscribers that pay a fee have a seat at the table in the decision making process.
  6. Additionally, spawn timers are the wrong way to try to adjust for side imbalance, as it makes the gaming experience less fun. IMHO it would be a much better practice to account for side imbalance on the weapon supply side. For instance, when a side was overpop by a 2-1 ratio, when the over pop side spawns in say an mp40, deduct 2 mp40's from the available weapons list. Now, I am not sure exactly how the ratios would work, (maybe only cost the overpop side 1.5 mp40's), but it is something to try.
  7. Much a do about nothing. Number of matties is irrelevant if you don't have anyone spawning in. Maps are won and lost based on inf population, tanks are almost a side note. This takes us to the capture model and how it is done in game, which is not realistic at all. WW2 was not fought by running into depots and army bases and "capping" them. That's absurd. This is why the auto weapon disparity and the Axis uber LMG is such an issue, because of how it effects the success ratio of capping a town, which is something that is unique to this game, and far from being historically accurate.
  8. Who likes it? Axis players? Historical introduction of weapons and numbers is a joke. Too many other factors not accounted for, the largest being player side population. It needs to be abandoned, and now! In theory you could have a side with superior weapons (axis) while the opposing side (allies) had superior numbers (more people playing). In practices, it doesn't work, because the player base all gravitates to the side with the better weapons (be it perceived or not). Net result is one side with superior weapons and population advantage, and then CRS sits bat and scratches its head and wonders what went wrong.
  9. The problem with this is we don't play the game and capture territory anything close to as it was done in WWII. I am sure the allies would have carried a lot more Auto's if they had to "cap" a depot or storm a AB bunker like we do to capture a town. And for that reason you can just throw all the historical crap out the window. You can't alter the way with the battle is fought and assume the Allies would equip their troops the same way, that's idiotic. The allied LMG is complete crap when trying to be used to capture a depot, yet the Axis's version is quite good. People have been complaining about this for years, and CRS doesn't listen. Again historical accuracy means nothing when the game is not fought the same way.
  10. Get rid of F2P entirely, rather offer up a 3 month trial package at a greatly reduced rate ($5.00 ?). Add milestones to help new players rank up quicker by doing assorted things such as place a fms, Use HE charges on a FMS or FB, use comms, Take part in a successful cap of a depot or AB, etc. Short videos on how to do these things would go along way towards traning. Also get rid of the locked units designated only to steam or F2P players entirely.
  11. Would there be a maximum limit on the inf placed FRU, or could you have 30 of them at one time?
  12. While essentially correct, the fms is still distance limited, whereas the INf place FRU is not. It's one thing to assume a brigade of troops has moved within 1km of an enemy town (truck placed fms), quite another to have them suddenly appear at your doorstep (inf placed fru).
  13. How can you be so myopic? Just because you have limited the FRU's to no ATG's or sappers, doesn't change the fact that you have eliminated their reason (tanks) to exist in game. Inf that can just suddenly appear behind the defensive line by magically warping in behind the tanks set-up in defensive positions, which normally suppress the oncoming advance of troops, means tanks will no longer serve a purpose. You will be making this an infantry only game.