Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

76 Vet

1 Follower

About Quincannon

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat

Recent Profile Visitors

299 profile views
  1. Just tell an HC member... lots of our awards aren't the kind that could be used as Steam achievements and are not stat based.
  2. I'd be fine with that if they also changed the Allied version to one that could be stuffed into the tracks of a tank and be powerful enough to actually destroy some lighter tanks. The Allies did have such satchels, and there is no reason to completly remove them from the game and leave the Axis one in.
  3. Why does this matter? The only thing I can see posting this stat when people log in doing is telling new players which side wins more, effectively acting as a recruitment tool for that side. I do agree that it would be good to be notified of intermission status before I have to log in all the way, saving me the time and letting me log off until there's actually a campaign in progress.
  4. There could be some debate on which uniforms would be used. In game, there could also be debate about the land forces used by the navy. We have often referred to them as Marines, but in all actuality, the way they are designed in game, these would simply be land garrisons to support and protect the various fleets, rather than dedicated marines. In such cases it is quite possible that both types of uniforms would have been used, as land combat uniforms would not have normally been issued for shipboard use, or even for general shore duty; rather, they would most likely have been issued in advance of planned inkland assaults, or to those assigned specifically to base security. In general, most sailors in the various navies would have worn normal Navy uniforms on duty. If their base were attacked, they would likely simply have grabbed weapons and combat gear and worn it over their normal duty uniforms. That is what I imagine in our game.
  5. I think that this is probably the best WWII game around and it is made up of tons of unrealisms and ahistoric combat-interactions. Do you want the game to be ONLY historic accurate, and have nothing historically inaccurate? Because it would not even be recognizable if that were done; and that is if it COULD be done in a game. You could start by there being no such thing as a spawn point anywhere on the map. All resupply would have to be driven or flown by players from the rear of the map. A time ratio would have to be set, unless each campaign is supposed to last 6 plus years. Vehicles would require a full crew of players each to function. We would need fuel depots and players to play mechanics and ground crews. Vehicles would be much more limited. Case in point, the Tigers would be almost nonexistent for Axis players to use, based on their incredibly small historic numbers, and that most used in combet were deployed to the Eastern front. Squads would nto be by choice... players joining would be assigned to a brigade and would have to fight wiht the folks from their brigade, and players who gained more rank in game would be the ones in charge. There would be no in game communications besides a local voice chat and radio communications between units. The list would go on and on and on....... We want this to be a game... we have to accept the compromises that allow the game to be played...
  6. Historically, satchels could not be "stuck" to tracks or wheels either. Heat satchels did exist and were used to combat tanks, though. One version was powerful enough to destroy a medium tank. Unfortunately, in our game, it's not really viable to place satchels on the inside of the tracks. (I tried that early on when I first started playing and it did bupkiss, as did placing the satchel to the outside front of the track) As far as wheels, I can't see how anyone could attach a satchel to a tire... To be honest, if we wante realism, a satchel should be able to be placed on the inside of a tank's tracks, on the engine deck, or UNDER the tank, where the armor was supposedly thinner, at least on some tanks. Other than that, satchels in the game are basically just for blowing up structures, and lack the best capabilities they would have there as well. One wonderful tactic to blow a bridge would ave been to rig it to blow (A la Bridge over Ramagen), but we can't do that. we can't set a bridge to blow with plungers and wait for that tank to start crossing and then BOOM! drop the bridge and tank, and potentially infantry , most of whom should be killed if they are on an exploding bridge. But our tanks aren't designed to allow the historical use of satchel charges. We can't try to toss a grenade inside an open tank hatch. The AT rifle is designed well which makes it almost useless against later tanks...and of course, we can't make molotovs, which were more effective in anti-tank combat than satchel charges and much more common. The problem is that if CRS nerfed satchels against tanks completely, and failed to fix placement so that thye tanks could be tracked, then, other than what 2-3 Piats or Bazookas per brigade, or town after 1.36, Infantry would be completely helpless against any and all tanks. Considereing that we commonly filed a LOT more tanks than historically accurate, a few tanks at any battle would effectively just end the game. It would be a game of tank combat, with some infantry around the edges. Unfortunately, the numbers of tanks could not realistically be nerfed that much or we would lose tank players. Currently, those 'fantasy satchels' are one of the only equalizing limitations infantry have to combat armor. ATGs can do it to a point, but historically they would have been in preset emplacements and we rarely have anough people who know how to set up such organized fortifications, even if our ATG players would use them, so they tend to get eaten by tanks i the open.
  7. One of the main reasons the Battle of Britain was successful was because of radar. take it away and you really cripple the Brits
  8. I will add to this. There is a discrepency between the satchels used by Engineers and the ones used by Riflemen, From what I have seen the Engineer satchel still makes as much sound as always, but the Riflemen satchel is silent until it explodes. I'm not sure why this difference is there. I have not tried to compare the plaement for sappers in relation.
  9. And on that day the Mosizalk's heart grew three sizes..... Way to go Mo!
  10. Not to be rude, but he did post in the Allied forum. Why are you recruiting for Axis squads in this forum?
  11. Not me brother. I go where needed. This map changes so drastically and rapidly, I find it hard to think of being able to play in just one area. Add to that, I can't imagine being in one town and hearing a call for defense in another town across the map and refusing to go help, simply because it "wasn't my town", and I was busy making sure that the enemy didn't get a foothold in my area. Maybe we will geta large area someday...I would like to eventually have a Squad. But if someone tried to assign me to a particular area of the map I'd tell em they can go learn to whistle "Dixie" before I do something like that. As far as town resupply. If you want to spend your time driving tanks behind the lines. have fun. Not me, brother.
  12. I agree that there should be rewards for support roles. For example, the current stats for Engineers is determined by [Kills +(Caps x5)] This makes no real sense. The job of an Engineer is to destroy FBs, Build and repair bridges, Repair AI, and Build support PPOs, such as ATG pits. Combat roles are sapping buildings and destroying Fortified Mobile Spawns. Utilizing Engineers to cap CPs or to try to use them as Riflemen is very risky for a unit in such little supply already. But their stats do not reflect ANY of their primary jobs. When they sap a bridge, they only get points for the first of 4 satchels. They get NO points for repair, rebuild, or PPO construction. Driving a truck offers a similar lack of experience or reward. The player is driving an easy to locate undefended unit, but gets almost no experience. Stats are based on sorties and RTBs, but with the new changes to placing FMSs, Trucks that place them are in more danger and RTBs are much harder to get. As far as rocketing new players up the ranks? Well, unlike other games, there are very few 'unlocks' in this game. You can use pretty much everything by rank 7. Some players lose interest in a game once they feel that they have unlocked everything a game has to offer; so by speeding up their level increase, you may be shortening the amount of time that they will play the game.
  13. You can NOT force people during the lowpop TZs to quit their normal squads and form a new Squad. One major problem is that there are almost no dedicated TZ3 players. Most play during other TZs, but either start early or play late to try to help, But they still belong to the Squads that play in non-lowpop time zones. It's NOT a matter of recruitment. Are YOU going to tell people that they have to quit the very Squads that you are espousing? I can say for a fact that TZ3 Allies are not capable of forming even a medium sized squad for that TZ, because almost all of those players belong to Squads already. In addition, a couple of the few small squads switch between sides for different campaigns, and when they go Axis, it gets even worse. The fact is that there aren't any players TO recruit for an Allied TZ3 Squad of any size. In addition, the players in that TZ work with their own squadmated first, so there are several groups of 2 and maybe 3 active players at any time. No matter what you do, unless those players quit their squads to combine and form a new one, you will never be able to have the cohesion and coordination required to even TRY to beat groups like 250 and 91st. At best we can try to hold them off, but it never works very well or for very long. Most players like to attack, and in lowpop you are almost always forced to defend. Once that happens half of the players who would play log off, making the imbalance even bigger. I'm actually firmly convinced that there IS no solution to this. Town supply isn't going to really change things. All it will mean is that no supply will be lost and no brigades will get cut off as the OP side rolls over the lowpop side. Despite the numbers online at any one time, the majority of players will always choose to play Axis unless they are bored or tired of not being challenged. The ONLY fix is to change the attitudes of players...and that is NOT going to happen. And new players are not the answer unless somehow a DROVE of Allied dediicated players who just happen to be available in the middle of TZ3 join the game, while at the same time, no one new joins the Axis for a period of several months or longer. Why? Because people try to get their friends to play. Ther are more Axis players who have more friends than the Allied players. Mathematically speaking, it is statistically impossible (for all practical purposes that the Allied players would ever be able to recruit enough new players to equal the Axis players, simply because there is such a significant player population difference. The only mechanics that I have ever seen that could potentially offset this issue would be having a ton of small pop instances for battles instead of large ones (16vs16 or 32 vs 32) which would essentially render Squads and sides pretty much unimportant, because if there were only 10 allied players and 30 Axis, tthen 14 of the Axis players would have no opponents unless they switched sides and fought each other... OR... Add AI bots to even out population imbalances, something that, even if it were accepted by the player base, would be nearly impossible to institute on a mapwide basis across the entirety of the map we use. Neither of these options would retain the uniqueness of this game, and the power gamers in the game would revolt if they had to fight AI opponents. Again... I don't believe that there is a really practical solution, short of bribing players to plat a side they don't like, which would likely cause them to seek other forms of entertainment elsewhere. We can debate it endlessly. We can suggest forced temporary solutions but as long as people find unbalanced gameplay acceptable, they are very unlikely to consider changing their play preference.
  14. If the Squad Mobile Spawn was limited to being inside a town, how is it worse for tankers than spawn CPs, really? BOTH create magic infantry spawns behind the lines. From what i heard most tankers hated FRUs out in the fields behind them when they roll into a town. This is hardly the same concept. I do agree with you that Paras could use some kind of MSP.
  15. Color me confused. I DO refer to FMSs when I talk about them; the same with UMSs and FRUs. The Idea I'm talking about is NOT a Fortified Mobile Spawn....it would essentially be what we have always called a FRU. I suppose you could call it a Squad Mobile Spawn (SMS). Did I mistakenly call a FMS a FRU somewhere?