raptor34

Registered Users
  • Content count

    725
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

raptor34 last won the day on July 24

raptor34 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

33 FNG

About raptor34

  • Rank
    Advance Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    Canada
  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Air Force
  • Preferred Unit
    Spitfire
  1. All-Arms Air Defence. I think the post idea isn’t bad and should be fairly easy to do in game.
  2. The idea has merit in my opinion; I agree that FMS should represent moving the line of contact forward and be the focus of battle, not hiding them. Covert OPs should be small teams of infantry behind the lines or paras, with no or very limited spawning options.
  3. Interesting idea, I think it has potential. If one side wants to hold X town, it must control hill Y that is the dominating terrain feature. There is plenty of historical justification for a mechanic like this.
  4. I like this discussion, keep it up.
  5. UK Shermans are a higher priority I’d say, due the number used historically and the fact that they are much easier to model I’d assume, reading into what you said Bmbm.
  6. A lot of games have auto balance but that doesn't make it a good mechanic to use all the time. In most, there is the option to switch if you don't like the team you are on. I for one dislike being forced to play on the side that is not my choice. In Red Orchestra, for example, I would side-switch or worse, if forced by the server, wait until I had a slot on the team I wanted. Forcing players onto a side shouldn't be the rule. Verdun has a good example I think; they let you pick your side but you get messages telling you what the imbalance and if you want to switch, although even that can be overdone quite a bit. If I said no the first time, don't ask me again for at least an hour. WW2OL has side loyalty for many, that is not a bad thing.
  7. Disagree. Players must be free to join the side of their choice. At most I would support a longer side lock.
  8. Just got caught up with the discussion. To be clear, when I said I disagreed with you Stankyus what I was really trying to say is that I support the global move to more historical TOE. If the Firefly is to be limited (as they should be) as per TOE, so should the Tiger in Tier 3. As with the Matty and B1 in tier 0. And I am fully with Jwilly when I say that I think the only good way to deal with weapons and ammo is historical dates and modelling. If it was a poor performer, then its a poor performer in game. Having ammo from one time and vehicles from another just doesn't make sense in the long run. When we use history (within reason) we have something that should act closer to the real event than not. As you said this means that the axis tier 0 will have to deal with mainly pz38 and pz2 as their main armour number wise, IVD and STUG B will be very limited as they were. On the other side, there will be very few Mattys and B1 and only in a few units. I fully support the idea of armour flags post 1.36 btw, where heavy armour must to brought in to support an attack or defence, not just available at every depot and to every inf unit (unless historical to that unit's TOE). Tier 3 the axis should have very limited numbers of Tigers available but that means we need to fight them with Sherman 75mms. It is not going to always be in one sides favour but it will move from tier to tier.
  9. CRS

    Bit excessive Dropbear. What are we going to do, force people to play a side? Because I won’t if forced. I think campaign side locks isn’t a terrible idea for one campaign
  10. I respectfully disagree Stankyus, I'd like to see where they are taking the historical dates and TOE. Personally, it would improve the "simulation" aspect and that's why I support it.
  11. I’d be ok with testing two AOs at all times. Personally, movement is ok and should be encouraged if players are pushing successful attacks. I don’t quite understand the drive to prevent movement as defeating the enemy and taking ground is the objective. In my opinion, keep the spawn delay and look at result based delay in the future (KIA/MIA results in spawn delay, based on unit type). But that is another discussion. Keep up the good work CRS, (Edit: To be clear I am not in favour of a two AO option if there are very little players online as the objective shouldn’t be to create 5 people looking for 3 across a massive map. Single AO would have to stay in for very low points of global population)
  12. I really like what I’m seeing here; anything that makes losses have more of an effect on the campaign is a good move in my opinion. It also reinforces the idea of playing smart and working together to avoid said losses whenever possible.
  13. I think it word take away from realism rather than add anything. I like the separate units and personas, its one of the draws. Balance isn't everything in a wargame.
  14. I for one support any attempts at making the TOE more historical. I play WW2OL because of its sim elements, not because I want a perfectly balanced game that looks like WW2. In a war game the challenge comes from the inbalance of the historical situation, it’s up to players to make it work. I’m not staying throw any sense of gameplay out the window but the game/sim should always move in the direction of ever greater realism. My thoughts anyways.
  15. I’d like to see timed fused shells where historically appropriate. Give the player a range card and let them go to work. It’s unlikely that a single 88mm would be a significant threat but if players grouped up into small batteries it would be interesting to see.