raptor34

Registered Users
  • Content count

    687
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

raptor34 last won the day on July 24

raptor34 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

18 Green Tag

About raptor34

  • Rank
    Advance Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    Canada
  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Air Force
  • Preferred Unit
    Spitfire
  1. I always found it odd that the US had an ATR, I agree it should be removed. (The UK should also not have the M1 Garand in my opinion, not because it could not be lend-leased but because it didn't fit with Royal Army doctrine) However, on a random note, I found it interesting that the BEF used the 25 mm Hotchkiss anti-tank gun in France during 1939/1940 to make up for a shortfall in 2 pound AT guns.
  2. What is wargaming other than gaming out what is never a level playing field, warfare? I know this is a very simple reply to your question but it is at the heart of the matter. It's why we model Tigers and Shermans differently. Also, the players CAN have an impact on this, they just have to work towards it. The population is an issue, but not the design per say, though I would personally scrap RDP bombing altogether in favour of operational level air power that effects local supply, at least until we have heavy bombers. It's an abstraction but its what we have for now.
  3. I hope we see some Dutch and Belgian troops with these map updates for 1.36, I'd like to see national garrison forces in their respective countries for a 1940 map start. Would have made more sense than Italians (unless we are headed to North Africa). Good to see regardless.
  4. Well done, keep it up!
  5. The way it is right now is mostly this; bombers are doing a good amount of damage but it needs to be kept up to be effective, which is good as far as it is the most realisic in my mind as well. I quite like the idea of time fused AA rounds for player heavy AAA, regardless of whether many would do it or not. Another realistic gameplay option at least. I wonder how difficult it would be to put into the game. EWS needs to be rethought though, however I do not believe aircraft spotting is a problem.
  6. What is the point of supply unless it is limited? It’s up the players to keep their units alive and in fighting shape, it’s the job of your enemy to deny that to you. If your preferred unit is not available, use something else. My thoughts on the matter at least.
  7. Good call CRS, looking forward to the patch.
  8. And poof indeed, fixed. Thanks HEAVY265
  9. No change yet.
  10. I have complete access to the forums. I also tried logging in and out as well as updating my profile but its showing Free Play. Thanks for looking into this.
  11. Bought a year of Premium two weeks ago but for some reason, the forums are not reflecting the change. In fact, after being on and off again I felt that now more than ever if WW2OL is going to survive it needs direction and funding. So I'm with you
  12. OHM I thought this event was a great start towards what I'd like to see for future events. The one big drawback from this last event was the incorrect Tier, I was looking forward to fighting the battle with historical equipment. So ensuring that the spawnlists and supply conform to the event is a must. Also, I believe that a focused event with objectives to take and hold (or defend) will bring the most out of the events, channelling player efforts towards said objective, which could range from a particular area or town to a hilltop or geographic area. I'd like to work with other members of the community towards making these events a reality. Standby for my suggestions.
  13. All, Since coming back to WW2OL in January after a multi-year break, I’ve spent quite of bit of time both in game and reading about the various states of things on the forums. To sum it up, I feel that WW2OL is facing a bit of a crisis of direction at times, at least in what some players are expecting, including me. What I want to discuss is not the spirit of WW2OL (the WW2OL Moment as XOOM has put forward) but the heart of the game, it's base rules that make it a combined arms simulator (or least what it can be given limitations). For me, WW2OL has always been about the simulation aspect, about getting things as close as possible to reality in an MMO environment as possible. Lately, I’ve seen a lot of discussion about how to balance and automate the game in order to make up for various issues. While I understand that population is a major factor in this, I also feel that there is a distinct pull by some towards making things more action and balance, but at what expense? Other FPS can and are doing great justice towards smaller, focused map battles but WW2OL is something else. It has the scale and a dynamic campaign that is based entirely on the actions of its players. With these thoughts in mind, I’d like to present a few ideas/thoughts on the direction of WW2OL for the community to discuss. I know that not all will agree but that’s ok, I think it’s a conversation worth having. 1. Simulation and historical accuracy should continue to drive WW2OL. No other game has focused on the early war like ours has and to be honest I’d like to see that fleshed out rather than running around adding in a Tiger here and a Firefly there. WW2OL could be more complete by picking a timeline and era and doing it really well, rather than trying to mix up 1940s gear with 1943/44 gear all on the same map. I for one would be interested in seeing a limited supply tier 0/1 game only that simulates the 1940 blitz. Next campaign could be a 1943 invasion by US/UK that brings in the late tier equipment without feeling out of place while adding in map variations. 2. Perfect balance is not required in a wargame. Through all the talk of CP timers, EWS, and Tigers, I see the difficulty in trying to balance the game. It doesn’t need to be. Players can and should adjust their tactics to make up the strengths and weaknesses of their side. If one side breaks out, they should reap the benefits of it. Supply should run low or run out if attacks are done poorly and losses are too high. High consequences are a fact in a simulation wargame, not trying to override the fun of playing but they do give urgency and weight to the actions of the players. I think there needs to be more of that not less. 3. Player action should drive gameplay. Like most of you, I am looking forward to what 1.36 will bring. While I personally like the TOE system, it’s not working right now and the issues it brings are well known (limited AOs, too much supply, HC, and so on). It is my hope that 1.36 will put the pressure on players to work together, built supply for attacks, and work as a combined arms force. In this, there needs to be room for a side to make quick progress. If one side is winning there should be no limitations on those players being able to exploit their success. To sum it all up, I believe that WW2OL should strive to be more historically accurate, hardcore, and a challenge while delivering a player driven battlefield where actions and leadership matter. - Edit - This was a post I've been meaning to make for a long time, even if just to express how I feel WW2OL should develop moving forward. Each issue needs to be broken down and looked at one at a time, this post does not do that. My only objective was to try to express a vision for this project and maybe hear what others have to say about the same. Raptor34
  14. I do believe that congratulations are in order for the brave defenders of Lille. Well done Allies,
  15. My thoughts on the matter as well jwilly.