Quincannon

Registered Users
  • Content count

    3,219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Quincannon

  1. CRS did begin development on High Command/ Mission Leader uniforms. Unfortunately, staffing concerns and more necessary projects have caused this to be on the back burner for now. Hopefully CRS will be able to look at this again. I would not look for it any time soon, however. That said, I like the idea that HC officers could be worth more points.
  2. Thanks to the GMs for what you do. It is appreciated. But I have to ask, and if it doesn't belonmg on an open forum would someone PM me.... WTH is a Buzzard sortie?
  3. The problem with ONLY registering a kill on a tank or ship (Even if you disregarded the Captain): If I am playing a tank and someone double tracks me and I can't get to an effective position....My unit is effectively useless. As a player.. there is no reason that i am going to stay logged into that unit until someone kills all 3 crew. I'm in a tank and someone kills my gunner and driver. Nothing I can do. If the enemy see that and doesn't continue to pound me until the tank blows or they get my commander... I am still helpless... again I will despawn... This is effectively the same even if just the gunner is killed. It works very similarly in a ship If you were required to kill the entire crew, it would take forever. And until I actually sink, I can get an RTB. I agree that the system coud use some revamping to consider what qualifies as a kill on a vehicle that doesn't allow an RTB. I guess it should have two factors: What stops the vehicle from being able to fight? Consider that a tank or ship with no engine/ driver can still effectively shoot at the enemy, but they cannot move. They are, in effect, sitting ducks. That said, one COULD surmise that until the unit is completely destroyed, the crew has survived to man another vehicle; hence the RTB.
  4. Hey folks, Y'know, like it or not people swap sides all the time. Sometimes a few times a week, sometimes only every campaign. When that happens, if they really want to know what's going on and they are subscribed, they then have to request secure forum access on the new side, and request that they have their secure access for their previous side be removed. It then takes from a half hour to the next day (say the play TZ3 and no HC is on the forums) for the new access to be granted and old access to be removed, a period during which they are playing one side with secure forum access to the other. These changes need to be made manually. Now magnify that by the number of new Steam subs we are hoping to get. New players are going to be frustrated trying to navigate the system. I know some people won't like this, but remember that this iS just a agame. I suggest that we consider simply giving all subscribed members access to both secured forums. We make it an "honor system" not to log into the opposing Secure access while playng on one side or the other. This would help prevent more frustration for players who like to swap sides at will and who don't want to jump through hoops to do it.
  5. Happy Birthday/Anniversary Rats! Here's to another 16 years and more!
  6. The minimum number of hours ina 24 hr period to even get to vote puts this squarely in control of those who have a lot of disposable time on their hands. A lot of players don't have more than an hour or so a day to play... a system with a requirement that shuts them out doesn't sound like a really fair or viable option. Also, trying to ignore the potential for popularity abuse.... what would this really do or achieve? Players don't follow someone because of their in-game earned 'military' rank, so why should they feel obligated to follow players based on this proposed system? What would make players who log in to play feel like they should participate in this vote, and if it really had an effect, how would players know in-game?
  7. It's not just explosions in tanks... I can't remember how many times people have tried to talk to me while I was driving a truck and there was no way that I could hear them over the engine noise.
  8. XOOM has mentioned the possibility of Medics in the future. No idea when or how, but it has been mentioned. We can discuss it to death (and I have in previous threads); but right now all that some of us can do is hope that the company does better, can implement the current items on the road map, and eventually be able to look at the idea further down the road.
  9. I have seen what happens when 4-5 Tigers enter a town. They destroy pretty much everything in their path. ATGs get taken out ridiculously easily. The Tigers sit out and play artillary until the Allied tanks that can spawn get chewed up, and then they roll in. At that point the only thing that can do much are the RPATS, and each brigade gets, what? 2-3? I have been in full agreement regarding getting rid of FRUs, which did a lOT towards getting rid of the instaspawn anti-tank infantry, but they are historical units, and they should have a place in the game. That said, i would be all for a mechanic requiring a reloader or an inability to move once loaded iF the number of Tigers in game were reduced to historically accurate numbers for the Western front.
  10. Unfortunately this has been this way fort a very long time. The stats reset at the moment that CRS starts to reset the servers for intermission. It would be great if stats from previous campaigns could be preserved, but I don't know if they ever will be.
  11. I've always thought that it would be a good idea to look at setting a time limit on campaigns of about a month. That would be a week per tier, and at the end of that time, if it's not over, they could declare a winner based on percentage of map ownership. I know it's not a perfect system, but it would allow for people, especially new players to get a feel for every tier. It would allow squads to plan schedules for play based on tier progression, and almost guarantee that we see the later tiers more often. This might be more popular with customers, as sometimes we go a couple of campaigns without ever having the Americans in play. Alternatively, have the first three tiers each last a week and then let Tier 4 take as long as it takes. (On the other hand, my personal favorite idea would be to introduce some sort of resource system that links rdp and tier progression per side. Each HC could decide how much of their resources go to resupply speed and how much to tier progression. choosing to have a faster resupply rate could give an advantage in resupply, but would slow down tier progression, potentially allowing the enemy to reach higher tiers faster. This would also make strategic bombing and inderdiction important. Neither side should be able to shut the other's rdp down entirely, but even a reduction of 10% could matter. But this is just a fairy tale thought)
  12. I am well aware that some naval personnel were issued OD uniforms under certain circumstances, and that the Navy wore a version of the M-1 helmet. They also often stenciled their OD uniform blouses and jackets with USN as well. The standard US Navy utility jacket was the same OD color as that used by the Army or Marines . However, the fact remains that the USN DID use shipboard personnel for infantry and artillery, when necessary, and it was not guaranteed that they were always issued ODs. I still believe that if a naval base were attacked, that any naval infantry would have had a good chance of being in the normal naval uniform of the day.
  13. I am not arguing your point on the German land units of the Navy; and I admit that i have not researched too closely into the British and French, beyonf finding the images that I have shown in this thread, but I KNOW that the United States Navy DID use shipboard Naval personnel as infantry. Point of fact: Sailors as Infantry in the US Navy ~ Patrick H. Roth (Captain, US Navy, Ret.) Some quotes: " On June 7 2005 Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vern Clark, directed development of a “Navy Expeditionary Sailor Battalion Concept” with the goal of standing up a combat battalion in fiscal year 2007. This is return to the past. Up through the 1970s, competency as naval infantry—sailors performing as infantry, and sometimes providing land based artillery support—has been an integral part of the Navy’s operations. While this competency has been gone from the fleet for a generation, its return can be facilitated by an examination of a rich history. " " In 1891, the Bureau of Ordnance issued “Instructions for Infantry and Artillery, United States Navy." Besides providing instructions for drill and tactics for infantry and artillery, “Instructions” general regulations directed that: "Each ship and squadron will have a permanently organized landing force composed of infantry and artillery….” “ The section, consisting of one officer, two petty officers, and sixteen men, is the unit of organization. All sections are drilled both as infantry and artillery." " The largest operation during the early years of the 20th century involved the occupation of Vera Cruz Mexico in 1914. A seaman brigade of some 2,500 bluejackets conducted the landing and infantry assault alongside a 1,300 man marine brigade. " " Guidance on amphibious landings continued to be included in Navy Landing Force Manuals until 1938. By then amphibious landing tactical doctrine had been subsumed by publication of the Marine Corps developed “Tentative Landing Operations Manual” of 1935, which was adopted by the Navy in 1938 as “Fleet Publication 167.” Landing party organization continued to be required and infantry drill and tactics continued to be part of the Landing Force Manuals. Bluejacket infantry continue to have a role, albeit much more minor than it had been decades earlier. In China, infantry operations ashore by sailors continued as an integral part of the Asiatic Fleet’s operations along the Yangtze River even though the marines had taken over the bulk of activity. " During WWII: " ...a Naval Battalion, formed from the remnants of the shore establishment of the 16th Naval District in the Philippines, performed bravely and effectively on Bataan in late 1941 and early 1942. The USS Philadelphia landed a landing party to assist the 47th Infantry in capturing airport at Loa Senia, Morocco, during Operation Torch. Admiral Halsey’s Third Fleet sailors, organized as three battalions of infantry, assisted marines and a British Landing party with the occupation of Yokosuka Naval Base at the end of World War II. " USS Houston (CA-30), ship's landing force reembarks from a motor launch, after exercises ashore at Dumanquilas Bay, Mindanao, circa 1931-33 Note that they are not dressed in Marine OD or camo uniforms, but Navy ones. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/s/sailors-as-infantry-us-navy.html
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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...
  19. 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.
  20. One of the main reasons the Battle of Britain was successful was because of radar. take it away and you really cripple the Brits
  21. And on that day the Mosizalk's heart grew three sizes..... Way to go Mo!
  22. Not to be rude, but he did post in the Allied forum. Why are you recruiting for Axis squads in this forum?
  23. 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.
  24. 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.