pfmosquito

Registered Users
  • Content count

    645
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

pfmosquito last won the day on October 20

pfmosquito had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

47 FNG

About pfmosquito

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. It is ironic that none of the main capitals are actually on the map. Not London, not France, not even SgtHenning's underpants. Taking another look at a map, I can see why, except perhaps for omitting London. There is a lot of real estate Germany's western border and Berlin, and even Paris is a little 'out of the way' relative to the current game map. But I like the idea of tying victory conditions to the capitals like that. I suppose if we were ok with a somewhat contrived game map wherein the capitals were not strictly speaking accurately placed, geographically, but roughly so, something like that could be done.
  2. If I am thinking of the same intermission fight, there was also the fact that there was unlimited supply. Nothing like sailing into a never ending flock of enemy destroyers! Attrition is a valuable part of the 'real world' experience, which intermission does not provide. However, any kind of scenario in which we did start a campaign with England needing to invade France right from the beginning (something that I think would be cool for the CAMPAIGN) would indeed need an expanded England. Also, the EWS angle is definitely a potential show stopper. I can see such a campaign being ended prematurely because its impossible for either side to ever get a foot hold. It might not be anything we can do now, but its fun to think about. But what we could do now is not give the Axis a victory if the Allies still hold England and still have a sizable army in France.
  3. Taking England seems a good and obvious victory condition for the Axis. One can easily see how if one took England, even if there were armies afoot on the continent, they would collapse if they lost their homeland. Taking England is difficult, but it HAS happened. I think its easier to figure out non-arbitrary victory conditions for the Axis than it is for the Allies. I understand there are downsides and upsides to everything, but my inclination is to match the game dynamics with real world dynamics whenever possible. If something is closely matched to how it would be in the real world, and people complain, you just rub their nose in the fact that its exactly how it would have been in real life. Easy-peasy. But if something is skewed, contrived, and gamey, and people complain, and your solution is something that is equally skewed, contrived, and gamey, than the complaint cycle is able to run on forever, a veritable infinite regress. And I'm just saying that having the Axis win the map whilst the Allies own England and still have a large army placed on the continent is contrived and gamey. In my opinion, its something worth looking at every now and then--like everything in the game. That's how the game gets better.
  4. "It wouldn't matter PFM I would still go for the French factories every map. Once I took them I would kick the rest of your army off the map." This goes with what Capco said. Even if this is the case (and I accept that it is), and it means the rest of the campaign is grinding, I prefer that. We've both seen sides rebound from near defeat and come back and win it. "Then you would complain that its unfair because the French units have no supply to fight with." I take offense to this. *I* wouldn't complain. All *my* complaints are reasonable. You must be surely thinking of a number of other people. "However there was a great hue & cry from the masses about how boring it was only having the 1 way to win." Yes, the story of our lives--you can't please everyone. You're lucky to please enough for things to proceed. Well, even so, I'm a believer in debriefing and constant re-evaluating. Maybe we could come up with some other way of being able to win that isn't as contrived as having a significantly sized army on the continent. Allowing, of course, that in this campaign in particular, said force would not have been able to fight its way out of a wet paper bag.
  5. To Merlin: "Id love to do a "Not until England Falls" campaign " I think maybe there is a misunderstanding. I'm not saying the Allies lose once England falls. I'm saying it makes more sense to have the Germans win once there are no Allied boots on the French side of the channel.
  6. "Clearing the continent... does that mean you'd be interested in requiring the Allies to capture every town there as well?" I said I wasn't sure what the appropriate corollary would be for Germany. Perhaps as simple as pushing Germany back to its pre-war borders? "Why not just remove the portion of the map to delete England's land from it?" I think in ultimate terms, we would love to see even more of the map fleshed out. I mean, we don't even have Berlin on the map! I would love to see freighters trying to get across the ocean with supply, fending off subs. I would love to see more dimensions added, not removed. I allow that all that will foul up the victory condition calculus, when, and if, we ever get there.
  7. I don't understand what the un-population of England has to do with it. If anything, it would seem to support what I'm saying. If all that is left is England for the Allies, then they have been pushed back beyond the channel, effectively ending their chances at re-taking Europe. The fact that there aren't many cities in England right now only makes it less viable. The more England is fleshed out, the less it makes sense to have the Germans win the victory if they push the Allies across the channel. Incidentally, I think it would be fun to see some campaigns that start in 1944, with the Allies having to actually storm the beaches. That would be cool.
  8. Nice bear. Did you kill it yourself?
  9. Sorry, I don't know where on the forums to post this quasi-rant. First off, there is no doubt in my mind that the Axis would have won the last campaign no matter what the victory conditions were. If the victory conditions were "Run around spawn cps and never guard a flag while disappearing into the wilds 1k outside the perimeter so that the Axis could cap EVERY SINGLE ALLIED TOWN" the Axis still would have won. That said, this isn't the first time when the Allies have an army on the continent but still lose the campaign. I dunno. It just seems to strike me as unreal. I don't know what it should be to win victory over the Germans, but it seems to me that the Germans shouldn't get the victory until the Allies have been thrown completely off the continent. I get that the capture of factories makes the defeat nigh inevitable, but we have seen crazy turn arounds before--that's what makes for grand tales told around the fire.
  10. I think it may be having an unintended consequence. If you pick the mission that is most active, but it is most active because a bunch of new guys are on it who don't know better, and this mission happens to be a fms out in the middle of nowhere, you will continue to get new guys joining said mission, keeping the mission very active, drawing even more players to the middle of nowhere, which attracts even more new guys....
  11. I've tried to talk to green tags, by pm and otherwise. Only about 1 out of 20 will show any evidence that they are seeing it. Whether they like the text or not, its critical. Maybe that can be a system tip: TIP: If you want to die and have a miserable time, just spawn in and run around randomly. If you want to succeed and have fun, ask for help and then monitor the text box for insight.
  12. First of all, kudos to CRS for the Steam launch. The influx of players has really made for some riveting game play, even with them all being brand new. However, these same new guys are what I wanted to comment on. I don't necessarily have a solution to all these items, but... First of all, the training tutorial is making them learn basic movement stuff and very basic comms, but the tutorial offers nothing by way of some very important game mechanics: namely, flag buildings, spawn cps, what a bunker is and why it is important, and other insights that would help give them some idea what to do when they finally enter the game. Right now, they just wander aimlessly by the dozens, accomplishing very little, either for themselves, or for their respective side. Second of all, even though the tutorial has them do a bit on comms, it is not near enough, and its the wrong stuff, I think. Let's start with the 'wrong' stuff. The tutorial makes them 'tune' to f3, which is otherwise a default anyway. Knowing how to tune a radio channel is really low on the list of things to know. I am guessing that they didn't want the new recruits to see all the side chat until they were quite ready for it, but in all the business about having them tune the channel, the significance of side channel, targ channel, etc, are not fleshed out. These two items seemingly combine into a situation where there are multitudes of green tags who need direction, and hardly any of them will communicate with you. I've tried to talk to dozens of them, and I bet only 3-4 have actually replied or showed evidence that they are aware of my communication. You private message them, and nothing. Meanwhile, they're running en masse into the wilderness and the next time you see their gaggle, they are 2k out from a town, probably bored out of their minds. Or, if they are at least in the town area, they're still running wildly (dying a lot), not responding to comms, and ignoring obvious tactical objectives such as the spawn cp. You can't make people communicate but the obvious question is... are they actually seeing the comms? Do they know how to reply to a private message? Or recognize it when they see it? I'd love to help them, and try to bridge the gap between the game play and the tutorial, but if they don't or won't or are unable to communicate, I can't help them. Adding items to the tutorial seems easy enough. What solution can be given for comms, I dunno.
  13. Town based supply!
  14. Someone in the game was musing that it would be fun if the Italians didn't merely come in with the Axis, but actually came in as a third warring party. The historical context is turbulent--they did originally fight alongside the Axis but then were defeated and at that point, elements of the Italian army actually fought AGAINST the Germans, WITH the Allies. Not much room in either scenario for an autonomous third party from a historical point of view, but I had to admit that the idea of having three different armies warring against each other in the same town would be a certain kind of awesome. Not proposing anything here. Just sharing something I heard someone else say which sounded potentially cool.
  15. Nily the Knife is not going to like that. He is very sensitive about his appearance.