krazydog

Registered Users
  • Content count

    1,315
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

krazydog last won the day on June 20 2017

krazydog had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

124 Salty

About krazydog

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. Variable gear for the tiers? Knowing this community, I would not be surprised if people will start complaining about new tier imbalances or perceived campaign manipulation when they don’t like a particular gear change. Are you guys sure you want this new headache?
  2. I voted for work on a new game engine. I am getting bored to death of the endless tweaking of gamepkay with the current engine. I prefer to just play with what we got now and let CRS develop WW2 Online 2.0.
  3. I think the LMG suppression code might possibly work something like the old concussion effects that we used to have in game from near-miss HE blasts - except the body would hit the ground temporarily with an increased heartbeat, instead of the blurred vision and the load ringing in the ears that the old concussion effects had on a player. Actually, I thought the old concussion effects from HE weapons were a good thing in principle to have in game. I admit the load ringing in the ears was a bit too much with headphones on, but I always thought the old concussion effects from HE blasts and grenades were a good and realistic thing to have in game. It created more realistic weapons tactics just like LMG suppression effects would do as well.
  4. I think at a minimum the LMG user still needs to be able to WALK and shoot at the same time. Everyone knows you die in this game if you can not keep moving. If you guys just nerf the LMG like suggested at the top of this thread - then no one will use the LMG at all. It will be worse than a rifle. You guys might as well just pull the LMG weapon out of the game entirely. It wouldn’t be needed. The LMG needs to have some kind of other purpose (special advantage) if it has to remain stationary while fired. Right now it really doesn’t. That is why I suggested as an alternative giving the LMG some SUPPRESSION FIRE ability to offset what you guys are taking away for it. It would be historical. This needs to be a part of this conversation I think - It is relevant to this discussion. Right now you guys are just talking about crippling the LMG without considering what purpose it will have in the game after this hapoens. The LMG is one of my favororite weapons to use in this game. I must admit I may not be too happy with CRS if you guys just kill the weapon system entirely so it has no use in this game at all afterward. Please think very carefully about what you guys are proposing to do. This is a very sensative topic in this community. Its a real “hot potato.” You guys may now lose some subscriptions no matter what happens now - because the axis and allies have a serious love-hate attitude when it comes to the LMG. lol.
  5. The LMG also needs SUPPRESSION fire. Otherwise no one will use the LMG at all if you just nerf it. Suppression fire would be historical and give the LMG a purpose instead of capping.
  6. The strategic map was too bright last time the snow was in. It hurt my eyes to look at the map. I personally don’t want snow again unless they fix the brightness first.
  7. Hi Sixpk9, if I am not online when you are, try asking for an invite from CT123, KMS, googs, Heirbart, sinewave, Thomboi, cyyoung, coila, or one of our other recruiters online in game. cheers!
  8. I will give the changes a try before expressing my final thoughts. I have expressed my concerns as I see things now. I just ask you guys to give what I said some thought too.
  9. I think garrison supply is ok - if the objective is to fill in the gaps for HC: to allow the playerbase to use it to cover an hour or two gap when no HC is online in Tz3. That is fine. But you guys are talking about a very powerful garrison supply system - with more supply than the movable hc flags have. You are trying to supersede the need for hc and movable flags. That is not a good thing IMHO.
  10. Well with all the changes CRS is introducing, its probably time to call the game “WW1 Online” and not “WW2 online” Everything new we are doing is to slow down the flow of campaigns: (Hardening of fbs, underpop timers, softcap rules, heavy garrison supply, etc...). We are starting to make this game a trench warfare game - slow and boring. Not to mention dragging out the agony of the losing side that is ready to start a fresh campaign a month before the end of every campaign lately. Am I wrong about this?
  11. You guys will kill this game if you kill the strategic level of this game. The strategic level of this game is the only thing that makes WW2 Online unique from the other WW2 online shooters.
  12. Take a look at the top of 1.36 Vital Questions FAQ thread at the topnof this forum - I just checked it again right now: QUOTE What will the ratio of town supply to flag supply be? Will towns have more supply than flags, equal? or less? This has not yet been determined. Remember, flags are only going to be move-able, supplemental supply howeve UNQUOTE Also I have talked to some Playtesters for the Rats. I was told the supply of garrisons was going to be even less than HQ flags. So I don’t know whats true now.
  13. What? That is not what I have been hearing. Garrison flags will have more supply than movable flags? REALLY???? Looking the FAQ about 1.36 the Rats saud the ratio of supply between garrison flags and movable flags still has not been determined yet. If garrison flags have more supply than movabke flags, then that would kill the strategic level of this game (if that is true). And I don’t think I would like that much... The only thing that has kept me playing (and paying) this old wargame for over a decade has been the strategic level of this game. CRS be careful not to alienate your old loyal niche customer base with this big patch!
  14. Why? I am assuming garrison flags will have less supply than movable flag supply. - Something like HC flag supply. What is confusing about having a smaller flag in size for a garisson flag than a bigger flag for the movable flags with more supply in them? That extra visual information on the strategic map will be useful info for everyone. People already compain about the complexity of the learning curve for new players. I am just talking about some simplification of the user interface - things that will make the strategic map more user friendly, and easier to read for everyone. That is all. cheers! KD -XO - 91st
  15. Yes, I see that Zebb but it is a bit difficult to read the map that way. It will be really hard to look at the webmap from smartphones out of game - which is what I do all the time right now. The map might be easier to read by making the garrison flags smaller or a different color. Or even no garrison flags at all - it is undestood that towns on frontline and the backline towns have supply in them. The movable flags should be clearly distinguished from the garrison flags I think - (if it is technically possible to do that of course). CRS might want to think about it.