Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 FNG

About rule303

  • Rank
    Advance Member
  • Birthday
  1. I think you didn't read the point where I said I do not do Paypal.
  2. I wish to renew my subscription for WW2 Online, however it appears you still after the past 2-3 months I've checked are not offering direct bank account payments to subscribe, and only accept cards. However, I currently do not have a functioning bank card and need to renew my billing method, but no other options besides Paypal (which I also do not use) are provided. Do CRS intend on bringing back offline payment options at all?
  3. The usage of gas weapons did not take place in Europe in WW2. Only major usage of gas during WW2 was in China by Japan, in which case they used it in horrifying amounts and even still to this day has never apologised to China for the horrific warcrimes that they inflicted upon the country.
  4. They legitimately could have once they removed the Germans from occupied territories that they were plundering for supplies. It was exactly what the Allies did to Germany in WW1, because their combined industrial might was significantly better than Germany's, and because Germany could not get any shipping into their country except from limited exceptions. However, unlike WW1 there wasn't a prolonged stalemate of fighting anywhere, so this was not necessary as the Western and Eastern allies by the end of 1944 were pushing the Germans back more and more.
  5. I think you should be able to both blow up or overrun the FB, agreed. It allows F2P players be able to actually be usable somehow for FB raids as well. Can represent capturing overrun forces. Besides, if you are having infantry and tanks storming your staging grounds on an AO, you deserve to be forced to have your spawns and AO thrown out the window.
  6. The problem with this is the way the movement and supply system currently works. Railway stations usually are several towns apart, and second line brigades/reinforcing brigades usually are not far behind the actual front line as it stands meaning that there isn't actually any situation that is going to be of much use to bring flags forward to the line because you redeploy units from training directly back to the front, rather than up from rear lines. The supply chains also don't require bridges to be in tact either if they're not on the front line, and trains can't just go around a destroyed bridge on a detour road. More rather, I'd like to see trains added to the game as a playable unit with railway stations being able to have a transport flag deployed from the army. Trains can then be run from factory towns that have train links to brigades that are deployed to a connected railway station. When a player drives the train from the factory to the unit being reinforced off or on the front, and RTB's at the train station, that brigade gets a bonus increase in unit numbers immediately, or the unit(s) in town get a temporary boost to their resupply speed, reinforcing their losses faster. In addition, to encourage interdiction, trains currently on the map are detected as an EWS unit by the enemy DESPITE not having to own that town. This way, air units can fly behind enemy lines on railway raids and try to intercept trains and destroy them. Trains in turn can have AA weapons mounted on board to try and protect them from enemy bombers/strafings that the crew can utilise. This way, you can have a reason to deploy brigades a fair bit behind the front line awaiting deployment at major rail hubs to increase their numbers or make replenishment faster AND you can represent the crucial supply line roles that railways actually played in the war AND a reason to defend bridges that aren't on the front line AND army flags at factory towns in home territory rather than just Air Force ones.
  7. I've played this game for a very long time and have lots of experience with it, in particular I enjoy infantry and naval operations over others, but I am also able to fly to an average standard and can be a very good tank hunter. I'm looking for a squad to join (I'm still listed as being 8th Chasseurs who are no longer around) that plays both sides, switching after each campaign. Currently I am playing Allied, so a squad that currently is playing Allied would be preferable to a squad that is currently playing Axis, and intends to swap next campaign to Axis.
  8. It's interesting that you mention the map. I will say the map's design actually makes it very easy - perhaps too easy - for the Allies to get cutoff in the south. They are forced to withdraw their lines northwards from Mourmelon/Val-de-Vesle sector if there's a push anywhere around the centre, which risks cutting off their south entirely very quickly. Usually from experience, this is how most Axis campaigns are won. If they added more towns to make the map more square with even distance both ways to go, that would make balance a hell of a lot more easier. Besides, I'd like to have the opportunity to blow up the Eiffel Tower.
  9. Rifles are excellent for defence, and defence is better suited for F2P because they don't have to run as far to get to CP's and where the action is at. Forcing F2P players to an underpop side I think is an excellent idea indeed. I'd get too bored staying dedicated to Axis side. It was boring as hell enough as it was being locked to Axis when I used to be part of GHC a few years back and when I was with the FF. I would rather switch it around each campaign swapping sides to experience the game from both ends. Allies and Axis have significantly different tactics and playstyles, which is mandated by their equipment differences. Allies for example have generally through all tiers a distinct advantage of having better air equipment and more numerous tanks, so their strategy often relies over Air Superiority to allow DB-7 and Havoc swarms (Axis have no equivalent to either of these) that can devastate ZOC's very easily, and ensuring that they lock CPs with tanks. Axis strategies in contrast tend to rely on infantry to lock CPs down more (MG34 is a beast) and focusing on using tanks to neutralise specifically other tanks to protect their infantry. Allies also tend to be better suited for FMS hunting, and their ordinary infantry equipment is better (Allies have better rifles, better sights on their SMGs with higher firing rates.)
  10. In terms of extra firepower, that's largely debatable. The Axis have stronger armour later tiers, but the Allies have better armour in the early tiers. Later Allied tanks are also more numerous, and Axis don't really have equivalent to tanks like the Stuart which is very agile for example. The Axis have the better LMG (high ROF with 50 round belt,) but the Allies have better rifles and SMGs (peep sights making them much easier to aim, faster firing rates, and stronger damage output.) Allies have superior aircraft. I've never seen there be a side imbalance, and I switch sides after campaigns. I think the solution to side imbalance is probably side locking for each campaign, but I suspect this will likely also kill the playerbase numbers and that just makes the game crap for everybody.
  11. You could always when there is 3 or less active HC online at the time have players vote for temporary HC who nominate themselves to serve the role. Actual HC members can if then necessary veto or dismiss a temporary HC when they wish.
  12. Dropshooters ballet twirling around with massive BAR's as if it was goddamn swan lake.
  13. That's what I was thinking, a limited number of infantry available only from infantry or LW brigades armed with VG1s or MP507s, but only enough rounds for 2 full reloads and a single Panzerfaust to represent their cheap dispatching with limited supplies. They don't last long in sustained fight because they don't have enough ammo, but in ambushes or in rushes to clear CPs, they would be effective. They also provide a last ditch alternative to push out armour. Would be awesome if the Americans had a National Guard equivalent in later tiers for infantry brigades as well that are armed with M1 Carbines and a single M18 Recoilless Rifle for balance.
  14. Sounds good, but it needs to be a larger zone imo, about 100x100m.
  15. In WW2 Online, we have the tier system in game which effectively represents a year forward into the war etc in the war: Tier 0 being 1939, Tier 1 being 1940, Tier 2 1941 etc. Effectively, we've got a campaign that is now in Tier 9, and has been going for over 2 months. Axis is currently slowly pushing westwards from the campaign start positions, but they are still yet to seize Brussels and Antwerp - and at any time it could easily swing towards Britain throwing the campaign back the other way and further dragging it on. With it currently being Tier 9, we are now effectively in 1949 by maintaining the general logic of the Tier system that the game uses. Assuming technology continues to be developed as the war progresses, should we add in some of the technology that WAS developed during the war, but finalised into production too late to reach the frontlines of Europe by the time of German surrender? In addition, what about some really late war equipment that DID see service in WW2 but isn't in game? Here are a few examples of such equipment: UK: Centurion Tank w/ 17 Pounder: November 1945 Gloster Meteor Jet Fighter: July 1944 Sterling Submachine Gun: September 1944 Browning Hi-Power: March 1945 Hawker Tempest: January 1944 de Haviland Vampire: June 1946 Sherman Firefly: June 1944 France: ARL44: March 1946 MAS-44: January 1945 Grey Ghost: June 1945 USA: M2 Carbine: April 1945 P51-D Mustang: May 1944 P82 Twin Mustang: June 1945 T20E2: May 1945 Germany: Sturmgewehr: October 1943 ME262: April 1944 ME163: July 1944 MG42: July 1942 VG1: October 1944 MP507: January 1945 Panzerfaust: November 1943 Panther: June 1943