dragoz

Registered Users
  • Content count

    326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

23 Green Tag

About dragoz

  • Rank
    Monthly Hero Builder
  • Birthday March 18

Profile Information

  • Location
    Vancouver Island
  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Army
  • Preferred Unit
    Rifleman

Recent Profile Visitors

571 profile views
  1. Hmm. The MP40 wildly inaccurate? Really? I test fired it at the range today. Using single fire I was able to shoot very tight groupings indeed. Far tighter than any other smg. Cannot for the life of me understand what you are talking about.
  2. I don’t get it. I played axis for years before creating this allied account. The MP40 is a fscking fantastic weapon, you can easily snipe guys at 400m with it, and I have a massive tremor disorder! On full auto the barrel jump is very easily controlled.
  3. IF CRS wants to make the changes proposed regardless, if I were them, I would stage the changes. Start with altering the stamina. Then alter dispersion to force barrel raise, not just make the rounds disperse spherically. Then alter the reloading behaviour to require a stationary reload. And so on.
  4. @Kilemall @sorella Squad based waypoints and map marks would be an awesome idea! as would being to see all MLs if you are an ML. Hell, even making ALL MLs visible to all players on target would be VERY useful! fantatstic suggestion
  5. @Lafleur @bmw @Merlin51 You guys make a lot of excellent points. It would be very reasonable to tie, even if just by policy, a certain unit to a certain part of the map. Both sides did exactly that in WW2, eg Canada in the Low Countries. one of the reasons I picked 5 divisions is bacuse as it sits, the map is reasonably divided into 5 zones (4 for sure): north of the Muse the Muse loop Along the Muse South of the Muse and extended south but also to represent the equipment that is in BGE: American, British, French and hopefully Canada. So at a minimum I would have thought 3 :: Brit, Yank, French.
  6. @augetout personally, I like the idea. It does require strong vibrant squads, and to some extent limits player options, but an interesting idea. squads have always been the backbone of the game. As they have declined, so too has the game. I think that some game mechanics did not help retention: like initially F2P could not cap or take mission lead or make missions, that was a huge mis-step. And I agree that the HC system has always been a serious issue. It was never fully realized and never had any accountability to CRS or the playerbase. What do you think of the idea of mission leaders being able to place waypoints that are visible across the objective? Or perhaps just OIC being able to do that? seems to me that would encourage team play a tiny bit more?
  7. Backline FBs can and, as far as Iknow, always have been blowable. It is the easiest way to turn a No man’s attack into a softcap. It is also a great way to prevent the other side from moving supply in to resupply a DO. How does that affect overstock?
  8. 4) That's not a bad idea, just from an operational perspective, knowing the kit someone can access could be very useful. 3) Hmmm. that requires some thought @delemsthanks for suggestions.
  9. This a general question for all Players. we need some simple ideas for: 1) what in game changes would help foster team play? They need to simple and easily implemented by CRS. 2) how can squads best retain new players? Especially squads that are still very small but trying to rebuild. 3) I know that allotting squad based AOs in the past was a great incentive for squad nights, but at present we have very low populations, aside from allowing squad directed AOs, which we HC still do when a squad asks or when we see a squad working. What other ideas for HC can you think of that we can actually do to help squads? 4) lastly, just spitball. thanks kindly.
  10. I appreciate everyone’s response to my suggestions and concern. No doubt we will see eh? I still think that the is naturally divided into 5 zones, which is why I suggested that number. @Lafleurhmm, good point, we don’t want the game driven by HC alone, but we still want HC to have influence? Maybe not, as @bmwpoints out, in early days there were no AOs, and frankly, that is one of the things that got me hooked quickly into the game. That and the fact that it creates necessarily team work. I personally think garrison supply is an absolute must to make the game work. I also think that to have an HC that is more than in game leadership formalized( which we don’t neeed) you need to have that larger strategic role. CRS will have to find a way to balance that against a player driven tactical game, or eliminate HC altogether. @XOOMthanks for addressing my suggestions.
  11. @xoom two division is not actually going to be strategically valuable is it? Honestly, that's not really leaving the brigade system in play is it? Garrison supply is a great idea, but it should not be the nearly singular form of game play. You really do need brigades, which is why they were introduced in the first place, and I'll point out, they were introduced while removing garrison supply against the advice of some at the time if you recall. 5 Army Divisions per side. Don't forget you are expanding the map considerably, and you will need to provide front movement opportunities in those new areas as well. With 2 divisions you will end up 90% of the time with no opposition divisions to face. Massively limiting strategic options and opportunities. Take some time, think about before you respond.
  12. @xoom couple comments: 1) player driven AO could be done day 1 if you were able to just tweak the Auto AO. put in a touch of code that checks: No HC on? Current AO population < 25% of players on side? New AO > 5 players? Then clear old AO and place new AO. 2) You could also set the minimum AOs to 2, and allow HC one and AutoAO one AO. 3) Squads need to be the main driving force of the game, to whit, team play has be a primary focus of you development, not First Person shooter: I would suggest a) move current AI Towers to cover approaches to town, so that an attacking force must take out the AI and keep it down to maintain an attack. (Team work) b ) allow free to play accounts to create missions, place fms, and drive trucks. (That way they will learn how to lead and work as a team from day 1)(otherwise they simply don't learn those skills ) c ) put navy in every town that has water. Again, this is for team play, allowing Navy to be used as a effective unit far more often. There are more, but this simple changes would massively improve team play. Others would include giving Mission Leaders the ability to set area wide WayPoints. Allow OIC to make coloured or highlighted messages in Target Chat Channel. and so on.
  13. Historical force levels? You mean game historical? cause in game we are missing roughly 1/2 of air and land troops. Their nation is not represented in game at all, nor their equipment, which made significant contributions in all operations in Europe. Right from day 1.
  14. FBs: huge topic, but... Rear FBs should not be blowable until the AO is active for 10 min, same as cap timers start. i also think that one should be able to spawn from rear supply to the link FB as soon as the AO becomes active. That way it is defendable, and useable to break Tanks camps of a town. It would really up game play.
  15. That was sweet, great work all round.