krazydog

Registered Users
  • Content count

    1,093
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

krazydog last won the day on June 20

krazydog had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

71 Vet

About krazydog

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. I agree. Keep it to TTs. There really isn’t a problem with gameplay and river crossings.
  2. I think you guys are still missing the main point: Very often these naval MS wont be getting deployed anywhere near towns (at least for Channel crossing invasions). They will be getting setup more likely several KMs from their main targets. So most of the time you dont want infantry (and new players) spawning directly from a naval MS in the middle of nowhere and walking for 30+ mins to get to a town and the action. Instead you need “mission leaders” spawning from the navel MS (with vehicles) and letting the mission leaders drive up closer to the towns to redeploy a land based MS where the infantry attack can spawn from. So the naval MS would function more like some kind of mini-FB rather than a normal MS (but with limited supply) - maybe like depot supply like you suggest, or something else.
  3. Well I suppose depot supply does allow mission leaders with trucks to spawn too, and they can drive out from a depot to set another MS. So yes that could work. Just cant limit the Naval MS to spawn infantry ONLY, that would not work.
  4. Read my post above in this thread. I don’t think a naval FMS spawning INFANTRY ONLY would work, because you can’t really safelly deploy a transport ship close to towns across the channel. Enemy air, destroyers, and AI would gang bang the transports before they ever get deployed. A transport ship needs to be able to find safe spots on the shore to land and deploy naval MS, and then spawn mission leaders with trucks or tanks that can then drive up to the towns to deploy the attack MS. Otherwise the infantry would probably be walking 2-3 km to the attacks most of the time. That is too far. I proposed a limit of 4 vehicles per transport ship - they same amount they can hold now.
  5. Yes, its rare for organized squads to go for invasions these days. i guess that is the whole point about thinking about creating naval fmss - so invasions happen more often. Because if we had naval ms, then i agree with you that the “quantity” of invasions would go up. Where I disagree a bit is that letting a naval fms spawn 4 mission leaders with vehicles wouldn’t just be “pew pew” - or now all invasions are easy as cake invasions. The quantity of invasion attempts would go up for sure, but they would still be tough attempts. And what I propsed: “letting 4 ML drive vehicles out of transport ship” is nothing beyond the capability of what a transport can hold and transport already right now. Besides if we allowed Naval MS to happen, they wouldhave to be setup right on the beach shore in the openn right? And you can just drive a naval transport racross a channel and park a naval MS right outside of a town with 500 m of a spawnable depot with enemy ai and destroyers spawning in within visibility range, and enemy dive bombers buzzing slowly overhead unopposed. That would not work. You usually have to have a beaxh landing some distance from a towntarget anddrive KMs to the attack. So if we had a naval ms it will absolutely be necessary for it to have the ability to spawn mission leaders with trucks who can then drive inland and closer to the target town to redeploy their own FMSs. Sure maybe people would choose more often to spawn a couple of tanks too, but remenber if you limit the naval ms to only 4 vehicles max, then each tank spawned will be one less fms deployed too - so there would be a trade off.
  6. It sounds like you try to load up guys you don’t know like a para drop. Ya thats not easy, and not they way to do it really. Getting 4 guys to load up in a transport is a liitle work, but not really that hard for the organized squads. But lots of squads usually dont want to bother with it because the long boat ride, people always ctd, or the boat gets sunk on the way. And even if you make it to the other shore its still a very low probabilty chance of success on the attack because you can not bring up firepower support that easily to maintain the attack once it gets going and it usualy just turns into a failed meat grinder attack.
  7. I think only Transports should be able to set Naval FMS (not all boats). I think a Navy FMS should be able to spawn exactly 4 vehicles with mission leaders from them (which is what the TT can hold in their cargo now). Thats it! Players can choose to spawn what four vehicles that they want from a Naval FMS: 4 trucks to setup 4 normal FMS, or alternatively 2 trucks and 2 tanks, etc... but only 4 vehicles can spawn. Actually, I dont think this would alter the gameplay too much with Naval invasions to England. From the way it is now. The hardest part is still going to be getting the slow transports across the channel. Maybe a couple of tanks would show up more often on the invasions but thats about it. But at least a bunch of guys wont all have to sit in the boat 1-3 hours during the crossing attempts with low probabilities of success. We might get some more action in England, as well as Allied counter-attacks on the port towns in Calais, Dunk, and Oost when the Axis occupy those towns.
  8. If you want to know which side is overpop, you can already see that right now, just pay attention to the Persona Selection screen when you log into the game - it shows which side is overpop, or if the sides are balanced. It might be nice to see the pop balance info at the brigade selection screen too for convenience, but I am not so sure that the exact #s are so necessary.
  9. I can think of a lot of good reasons to give a Mission Leader (ML) the ability to toggle on and off spawning of players on their missions, but I request this feature mainly to prevent new players from spawning in empty FBs or backdoor towns on my mission while I am driving a tank, or still driving a truck to target and haven’t deployed my MS yet. This is the main reason why new players spawn in the middle of nowhere and they don’t know what they are supposed to do, get discouraged and quit the game. Every single day I play, I pick up brand new player / squad auto-recruits and they always get automatically assigned to the mission I am on, and probably 50 percent of the time they spawn back in the middle of nowhere at my point of orgin while I am still driving to target. I am getting kind of tired of suggesting to them to despawn and change missions for better action. Most of the time these new players don’t listen or communicate anyways. So I think it would be just easier and better for the new players if I could just toggle off spawning on my mission for everybody until I get a FMS deployed. just my 2 cents. cheers!
  10. A Normany invasion campaign would probably require giving the Allies a 4 to 1 equipment advantage over Germany on the Western front like they had in real life in 1944.
  11. Welcome back! If you join Axis Discord voice chat, then you are welcome to check out the 91st if you are looking for asquad. cheers! krazydog XO - 91st
  12. Pop statistics do not tell the whole story: Need a stat to show the player population in game for players who have been playing the game more than one month. Its really only the veterans who react to strategic problems on the map. Maybe sides are balanced sometiimes in numbers, but if one side has a majority of vets playing, and the other side is 95 pct green tags - then its really not a balanced situation.
  13. Contour Lines on the strategic map, or something else that will dispkay terrain elevations.
  14. Yes, this is a ‘technical argument’’ and a valid point. But .also..... I am noticing if there are 3 or 4 AOs on map for one side - most of the time the attackers are concentrating on 1 or 2 AOs, and the 3rd and 4th AOs are usually mole attacks. So its not like pop level is balanced evenly across all 4 AOs - so I am thinking there is some “wiggle room” to tweak the [pop level/AO no.] threshold levels. cheers!
  15. If you look at the terms I used, again, I never said we need to go down to 1 AO level, or anything like that. Yes the only variable that changed was pop increase - and agian a big pop increase realtively soeaking to the old existing population, but a pop inctease that largely ignores the ‘strategic layer’ of the game (which is understandable at this stage), but is still impacting the number of strategic AOs on the map and creating the main issue. I called for just a (pop level) to (AO #) “tweaking” or a “toning down” of the threshold level for AOs - especially to reach the 3rd or 4th ao level. I think that would make a significant impact on the map rolling. To be clear I also proposed just a “temporary” change: until some of the new Steam crowd starts to understand the strategic layer of the game and playing accordingly (which takes time I know - usually 3+ Months). This is all I proposed.