Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

124 Salty

About chaoswzkd

  • Rank
    Advance Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
    Anti Air Gun
  1. Joined in 2011 directly into Windhund 116th. Been that way ever since (even though Axis peeps keep accusing me of being Allied or having Allied alt accounts since I don't immediately buy into bias arguments, lolz).
  2. You have my vote. This has also really frustrated me, especially since I often do it for tankers and air to track movement and make a ton of marks and then I can't anymore because I have too many.
  3. Players can type .ammo to have their icon flash for other people, but when lots of people are on it can easily get lost. I do think a shovel icon would be useful to designate "build here" for FMSes, other fortifications, and ammo crates.
  4. What even is HAAC? That sounds like it was before my time.
  5. Ratios being enforced is absolutely a priority, if for no other reason than not enforcing them would allow Allied HC to effectively remove content from the game. As for historical period ratios, that kind of gets into unwieldy territory. A major selling point for 1.36 is to lighten the burden on all HC, and telling Allies "btw, if you have to change town ownership, make sure in Tier 1 you can't have less then 87% French, and Tier 2 it's 65% French, and Tier 3 is xx%" etc., and then add on to that when the US comes in. Modifying the ratios and the equipment lists in these brigades and garrisons is one of the only things left to CRS to attempt to balance the game with how deep into historical accuracy we're trying to have the game model, and restricting ownership ratios takes yet another thing away from being able to balance the game. So it might be something we explore, but there are a lot of reasons not to.
  6. The issue with FF griefing is extremely real. Just look at how toxic even other wargames are with it. World of Tanks and World of Warships has always had a large community of people teamkilling over frustration or committing suicide so that their teammates wouldn't win. Their solution in those games is to allow for some FF that might be accidental and then cause any additional inflicted FF damage either (WOW) instead be done to them or (WOT) place them on a separate team where anyone in the game gets additional points for killing them. In World of Warships, player names are also highlighted in a different color for several games so other players know to watch their back; after showing some good behavior they will lose that highlighting, or after additional poor behavior their account may be suspended or banned. A game like Squad, on the other hand, has dedicated servers run by different groups that have 0 tolerance policies and just blacklist your account. Squad isn't F2P though so people who might be grief-prone think twice. Even if someone does grief, though, the most you could ruin in a match that takes place over a couple hours if it's a big one. In WWIIOL, a critical griefing moment could result in the loss of an entire town, ending a battle that could have taken anywhere from half an hour to several hours or even days of constant attrition, and the loss of that town could cause a major loss of morale or an entire front to buckle. As unrealistic as wading through friendly mortar explosions, grenade fragments, and MG fire is, completely removing the possibility for FF (except when destroying a building) has helped keep WWIIOL clean from that kind of community and players away from that environment. Even then we occasionally have people griefing by switching sides, throwing smoke, or shooting a lot to alert the enemy of a friendly spawn location. Opening up FF in addition to that might be the straw that breaks the back of the entire playerbase. It'd be easier to handle with a lot more GMs constantly online to monitor things. Perhaps one intermission or maybe on a training server or something it could be turned on to try it out to see if the community can handle it.
  7. Exactly what do you want him to do that won't just break the game in new and interesting ways?
  8. Don't know why you roll your eyes against the truth Xanthus. Yes, both the American and the French 76s do well against everything except for the StuG III G (which it has advantage over, but 0.8 to 1 K/D isn't that much of a domination) and the Tiger, which the Tiger wins out over with a 2.06 aggregate K/D. It's an issue I've pointed out before, that the only thing the Axis has that can go toe-to-toe with the Sherm 76 is something that demolishes it and every other bit of Allied armor, but without it the Allies demolish everything the Axis has. It's not a good place to be for game balance because there are no good, clear solutions (keep it, Axis are imbalanced; remove it, Allies are imbalanced). Relevant thread I'm referring to:
  9. What's not shown is the Matilda K/D versus the StuG G, PzIV G, and the Tiger, chich are 0.06, 0.39, and 0/2, respectively. Once you get into late tier, the Matty stops mattering. By the numbers I ripped just a bit ago, the Matty has 377 kills against German armor and 65 deaths to German armor this campaign, with "Last Faceoffs" a week or more ago for said armor. The Tiger has 672 kills against Allied armor and 178 deaths to Allied armor this campaign, and the only K/Ds below 2 that have deaths for the Tiger are the Churchill MkIII (1.83), Churchill Mk V CS (1, with 1 K/1 D, surprising), Churchill MkVII (0.92), Crusader Mk III (1.5), French M10 (0.8), and the French Sherm 76 (1.5). So, you're technically right, but you fail to note that the Matty gets all of its kills front-loaded and then becomes useless, while the Tiger demolishes any competition with rare exceptions in perpetuity once the campaign goes on long enough. It's important to note that kind of thing because that's what the Allies are upset about specifically, and what you say doesn't acknowledge that and obfuscates the issue because you're arguing a different (and far simpler) issue.
  10. @Silky @Capco Apologies, IRL stuff happened. Haven't been on the forums or the game for a month and a half or something. My WWIIOL-related energy (what I have to spare anyway considering all the goings on for me) has been being invested in managing 1.36 stuff internally. Anyway, answers to your questions: Capping a linked CP gives a spawnable: yes, no change there. Spawn into a friendly town that you've lost supply in through linked CPs: yes, no change there. When all of the major facilities for a particular branch are captured, the corresponding garrisons will be hidden. That means capping all the ABs will effectively 'boot' the Army garrison. Capping all of the docks will effectively 'boot' the Navy garrison. Capping all of the airfields will 'boot' the Air and Airborne garrisons. Now, if you recap those major facilities, the garrisons should un-hide, effectively putting them back into play. At least for the first release of 1.36. Everybody's been asking for it for a long time, it's the #1 priority (or among #1 priorities; 64 bit, for example, is also huge, and the other branches of CRS have their own priorities), we're trying to kick it out the door. How we're going to handle air garrisons (Air Force and Airborne, they're split because one's Air persona and one's Army persona) is that they'll be disabled on Frontline towns. They won't mimic brigades. Air units on frontline action doesn't really make sense unless things are really dire (Luftwaffe ground forces in the late war, for example), but shuffling around brigades is up to HC. HC won't be managing garrisons, so just not having them is the way to go for now. We can explore changing that to mimic brigades more closely after 1.36.0. When a town is completely captured, town ownership will flip, garrison ownership will flip and change supply lists, and supply trickle timers will pop in. Expect garrisons to have their own trickle timers (and other related variables) separate from brigade trickle timers. Garrisons do not 'rout', they are always in the city they belong to. That's not the most realistic thing, necessarily, but working with supply isn't the easiest thing either, and we've pruned 1.36 to the core functions in order to get it to the players ASAP. I think that, while the above isn't perfect, it's definitely functional and usable for the playerbase. It will provide us with a firm foundation without too many working parts muddying the waters for trying to refine particulars for both balance and realism. Look for future patches beyond the first release of 1.36 to touch things up.
  11. That kind of analysis isn't really valuable, because it could be more recent changes that are drastically affecting balance/population/etc. If a critical change was made 2 campaigns ago, or if a bunch of people left for x reason or joined for y reason 2 campaigns ago, then the only campaigns that really matter are those two campaigns. Or if things changed 4 campaigns ago, then those 4, or 6 and 6, etc. When you get into numbers like 20 or 56, it's a bit irrelevant. If Allies are winning a ton of maps and it's imbalanced, that's bad. If something happens and that imbalance flips and now Axis are winning a ton of maps, that doesn't make it better, that still means it's imbalanced. I'm not saying it's particularly imbalanced at the moment or anything. I haven't been playing a whole lot recently (busy code-monkeying 1.36), but of what I know the population has been ping-ponging back and forth, and as we all know population is one of (if not the) biggest contributor to winning. I'm just saying too far in one direction doesn't justify going too far in another direction. The goal is genuine balance, so the last x campaigns should follow a trend of 50/50, whether that's 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 20, or 40 campaigns.
  12. They're limited today. There are no mixed brigades today, they're all one country, one supply. The closest to mixed we have is French inheriting a lot of US armor supply, but those are all French variants. They're driven by French personas, and show up as French Stuart, French Sherman, etc. in stats. The game cannot handle mixed brigades at this time. Theoretically, we could mix the brigades, but then we'd have British P38s, French Spitfires, etc., which would get extremely confusing for stats and make a tangled mess of data and equipment on the back-end. So in order to get 1.36 out ASAP, the best that can be done at the moment would be to give some movable flags to the Allies (and in turn the Axis so there's no supply disadvantage) so they can diversify the supply at their airfields. Doing so might put way too much aircraft supply in the game, though, so it needs to be looked at. After all, every airfield across the map will be active.
  13. This could work, although I think it'd be better until some things with squads and infrastructure were changed up. We currently rely very heavily on squads and the community to retain new players. However, we also want new players to try out both sides so they see what they like. You can also only join a squad if you join a mission hosted by that squad, so you'd have to join the squad to be able to be side-locked, and waiting until one side isn't overpop so you can hop and get side-locked is gamey. I think maybe a short grace period for brand new players would be appropriate, and Integrated Voice Comms would be critical since we'd be tacitly discouraging committing to a squad until you figure out the side you'd like. Still, it doesn't solve the problem where if you have a lot of people in one side's squads then you're still pretty much stuck. You can flood the other side with newbies but quantity doesn't exactly compensate for quality. What the game really needs is more side-switchers and incentivizations to side-switch, as anathema as that is to basically every single vet. I'm not saying "play five minutes and switch", but "play for a couple hours, log, when you come back pick the underpop side please". Among those incentivizations needs to include some variety of community integration since almost all of the squads (if not all) play one side or the other for a campaign and boot side-switchers. So IVC is critical in those hat situation as well.
  14. Because it'd kill squads, and once squads are dead the game would follow.
  15. To my knowledge, the game currently can't handle dynamic capture objects. So each model would have to have its own capture area, which means separate models.