eggert

Registered Users
  • Content count

    252
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Green Tag

About eggert

  • Rank
    Advance Member
  • Birthday 02/23/1980
  1. Uh... no. The way mobile spawn to deploy an entire brigade of infantry behind the lines is bad enough. We don't need to make things worse by making them air-mobile.
  2. Don't need a visible arc. Just need some indication of when the thing is going to be released and with how much force. Other games do this much better.
  3. HE (including grenades) used to be a LOT worse, so much so as to be basically useless. This was because they were originally modeled as individual shell fragments, and due to hardware limitations only a relatively small number of fragments could be modeled. The Rats eventually switched to a probabilistic model, where the chance and amount of damage is based on the fragment density and distance from the explosion point. This makes HE and grenades at least usable, although still not quite as good as they ought to be to be realistic. The main issue now is that terrain objects (including the ground) are modeled as indestructible barriers that absorb all damage, rather than just absorbing some damage while allowing some fragments to penetrate as well as contributing to the fragments themselves. Additionally, the way grenade throwing is modeled in this game makes us all look like drooling morons that have never thrown an object in our lives. It's difficult to even throw a grenade into a meter-wide first floor window or doorway from close range without running the risk of missing and having the grenade bounce back at us.
  4. It wouldn't be realistic for a paratroop transport plane to land in a combat area. However, it would be perfectly realistic for it to paradrop a resupply package (sort of like how FRU's work now, but without the spawning). :-)
  5. I would like to add to my original idea: any friendly-held capturable position that becomes cut off from friendly forces, i.e., if there is no longer a contiguous chain of friendly-held positions leading back to a friendly spawn point or brigade HQ, immediately switches to neutral. This would save invading armies the pointless trouble of running around "capturing" unoccupied enemy-owned positions, though they would still need to capture those positions before moving their own forces into them for spawn purposes. For example, if town X is owned by the Germans, but they have no brigades or battalions stationed there (no active spawns), and the Allies completely encircle the town with their own captured locations, then all capturable locations in town X immediately switch to neural. The Allies would need to send forces into X to capture the locations before they could start spawning there, however.
  6. How many governments have you established in this game? For strategic purposes, "capturing" a location means to occupy it with your own forces while denying the enemy the ability to occupy it with theirs. Capturing "wild land" is of no value per se, but that "wild land" might contain a hill positioned near a road, and occupying that hill would effectively deny the enemy the ability to use that road to transport supplies, since it would not be safe for trucks to drive along the road without getting shot. Likewise, occupying bridges and other key positions along a road would also deny the enemy its use for logistical purposes. I'm not advocating for random locations in the wilderness being capturable, just those that have important logistical value (i.e., particular buildings, roads, and waterways, and tactically valuable positions around them). Any capturable position could potentially be a spawnable position, which means that it would need to have a readily accessible link to the supply system. In general, this means roads and locations immediately adjacent to them.
  7. Armored vehicles should be mandatory multi-crew, with one player per position. If you don't have enough players to fill all positions, then those positions go unfilled (which is fine for useless positions like radio operators). This would result in there being far fewer tanks involved in most battles, but the tanks that do appear will be far more effective. Also, it should be possible for tank crews to bail out, and there should be some benefit to RTB'ing tank crewmen even if the tank is lost (plus it should be possible to recover disabled but not destroyed tanks). Ah... wishful thinking.
  8. I think it would be easier for all involved if capture just happened if one side has overwhelming numbers within the (presumably fairly small) capture area. Defenders would then just need to keep most of the attackers out, and attackers would need to eradicate most of the defenders while getting as many of their own people into the capture area as possible. I think the bar should be lower to switch a location from "owned" to "neutral" than to switch it from "neutral" to "owned". For example, having 6 attackers and 3 defenders for a sustained period might be enough to make the location "no longer owned" by the defenders, but it might not be enough (or it might have to be sustained for a very long time) to give the attackers credit for fully "capturing" the location.
  9. Give it a chance?! When I was in HC, there were no TOEs. I know what it was like! The game has many design issues, but TOEs are not one of them. The problems being ascribed to TOEs are really problems caused by missing features, such as a meaningful rank system (which we've been promised for years but never materialized) that allows junior officers to assume command when senior officers are not available, as well as a brigade management system that is intuitive and fully incorporated into the UI, rather than the bizarre one we have now that requires special training to use. Removing TOEs would be a very large step backward in the design of this game, and probably one that would make me abandon all hope that the game will ever become when I always thought it had the potential to be.
  10. Worst idea I've ever heard of, and might be the final straw that causes me to unsubscribe after 15 years.
  11. Defense of Vouziers, 2016-09-10 (YouTube) The action starts just after the 4:20 mark. Things start really heating up around the 11:30 mark, and reach their climax somewhere around 17-20 minutes in. They begin to wind down after around 23 minutes. AAR: 32 minutes, 10 kills, 0 deaths. :-)
  12. Correction: Nijmegen is in the game (when the heck did that happen), but Arnhem is not, and it was the primary objective of the operation.
  13. Well, I'd prefer to have captures determined by complete exclusion of enemy forces from the area being captured. However, that's difficult to achieve when one defender could just hide in a corner. Also, defenders could just rush into the area over and over to disrupt the capture timer. Basing it on numerical superiority would avoid both of these problems. It wouldn't necessarily give the overpop side the advantage, since a supermajority would be required to achieve dominance, and the way you keep the enemy's numbers down is to kill them and then prevent them from re-entering the capture area.
  14. An Operation Market Garden event would be awesome. The trouble is, most of the important locations involved in that operation (e.g., Son, Nijmegen, and Arnhem) don't yet exist in the game. Without them, it would just be a generic "drop some paratroops behind enemy lines and drive an armored division in to link up with them" operation.
  15. That's probably true for factories, but less so for facilities that have immediate logistical impact, such as supply depots, where controlling it directly benefits the logistics of the military forces in the area.