rinzello

Free Play Account
  • Content count

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rinzello

  1. I've thought about it too, but I'm not sure I'd get that many viewers. I have a friend that does some video game related videos on YouTube, but I'm not sure if him or his fans (friends) are interested in games like this. But maybe he'd be willing to give a shout out or link to my videos if I did any. I'd need to invest in some recording software though...
  2. Little known fact: If you set up a channel for channel 65, it's actually an Uber line and someone will come pick you up. Just tell them where you want to go!
  3. Well, he DID call the graphics "poopy"... So who wants that kind of attitude anyhow? haha And he seemed to use his own voice communications to great effect with his teammates. I understand that it might be a "negative" for the game itself not to have it, but he did communicated. Unless it was on the text chat in game where countless players tried to help him yet he couldn't even see their messages. I try to share his videos with people on FB though because he seemed very passionate about the game when he did play. I think when I discovered his videos I was kind of thinking about getting into the game again but his first video intensified it. I even played the first part for my wife (who is not really a gamer at all) and she even laughed by how excited he was. But I agree. We move forward. To Berlin! Or... whatever city is actually in game.
  4. Maybe we'd want that! It'd make for an interesting sniper's nest. What I'd want to know about the sand bags and the tank traps, is would it be a small section of sand bags or a single tank trap placed? If so, would you be able to place numerous sections of sand bags or tank traps? Would there be a delay or a limit to how many each player can place? I could see having a supply where you could only build 3-4 pieces. Maybe it could be resupplied by a FRU or truck. I think it'd be interesting to see one or two players try to throw up a few defenses while other players hold off the EI. Also, could the placements be deleted or destroyed by either a friendly player OR enemy player? I'd imagine that if the defense of a city is going bad that maybe players would seal up the entrances to an army base and fight from inside. If the friendly players turned the tide, could they delete their own tank traps to let their tanks out? For sand bags, will LMGs be able to set up on top of them? Even if not right away...
  5. I wish Bluedrake42 would come back into the game. I know I really enjoyed his videos when he aired them. I know when he played he had tons of players come with him, but I'm not sure how many (if any) stuck around after he stopped.
  6. Yes, just like the real truck drivers in the war. They always abandoned their trucks full of supplies and grabbed a gun to fight next to the soldiers. You should've seen the nurses and chaplains in those days. Always abandoning their duty to grab guns and shoot at each other.
  7. I've said back in the day that maybe artillery would be an "AI" that higher-command players could place and control from the map. Players in the town (or in the field) could call for an artillery strike, the player who controls it would select the location on the map and fire a number of rounds (either pre-set or maybe they can choose how many rounds). In game, the guns adjust then fire, but the rounds would only go so far before disappearing. The game would calculate the approximate trajectory on where they'd come into town (or regular field) and the rounds would fall accordingly where the player selected. The guns should be able to be heard from a long distance so they might be able to be tracked down, while friendly players would get warned of nearby enemy units near their artillery pieces. They could then be destroyed similarly to AI emplacements or FB buildings. I know some people wouldn't like this idea as they'd much rather control the artillery themselves because that would be quite the good feeling to wipe out a whole bunch of infantry and vehicles. Although they probably wouldn't know without people nearby telling them the results. I just imagine with the amount of teamwork needed just to fire one gun that few players would want to dedicate themselves to sitting out in the middle of a field just waiting for coordinates from players in town, trying to figure out distance and direction, turning the gun the right way, then firing, only to miss 99% of the time. They'll also be super vulnerable since even LESS players are going to want to sit in that field to guard them. At least with the AI it'd free up players to actually attack town. It may put more power in fewer players' hands, but it could be another perk of high rank. Even if the player is in town and selects the area where troops are, chances are it might still take some time for the artillery rounds to fall. It would still be a challenge to get rounds falling where you want at the right time. But if Steam brings in a lot more players and there are plenty to spare, then sure, have them be player-controlled. I'm not against it. Would be interesting to see a higher level of destructible buildings then. It's fun to see some holes in the buildings and such, but a heavy bombardment would be pretty bad for those poor buildings.
  8. So long as you don't upgrade Poly the Truck Driver. He's awesome just the way he is!
  9. I had an idea once that sometimes players could get injured enough to not be able to walk, but not die right away. They'd lay on the ground making audible screaming/pain sounds. If a medic came by then they could RTB or be Rescued, otherwise they'd die and be lost forever. I just wasn't sure how much people would want to lie on the ground for long periods of time trying to crawl around. I liked it because it'd be a bit more realistic as far as the battlefield went and maybe the other side could be jerks and wait for help to come, but I can also see how some would hate it. Maybe always leave the option to just escape and leave the soldier as KIA. OR, have it be an AI soldier just laying there waiting to be rescued until they bleed out.
  10. And then the barbed wire fence, right? Just kidding. I'll be happy with those listed above. I'd just be curious that if it's only Engineers that'd be making those, or are other classes included. If it's mainly Engineers, which I'd be fine with although it could get very tiring, would you add more Engineers to the supply, or risk losing all of them just to build some tank traps?
  11. I've been for this for a while. It could change how we fight in towns and make each fight different. Plus if sappers/engineers could cut through or blow up defenses then you might see more of them on the battlefield.
  12. Yeah, I wish there were some way to tell how you were going to throw a grenade without the realism being totally ruined. Although, bouncing a grenade off a wall when you're two feet from the window isn't very real either. haha
  13. To be honest, I hardly notice how ineffective the grenades are because I barely use them. Although, that could be because I noticed how often I don't kill those I throw them at and stopped using them. Just like everything else in this game, I'm fine with them not working well if you haven't trained yourself on using them well, but if they're basically useless, then they should be fixed. I remember killing plenty on the offline part. Still had to land it basically at their feet though.
  14. Couldn't the Rats have an invisible "photographer" and just run around and snap a couple pics? They might have to wait a while to get a good shot, but they might get a few "during the battle" action shots.
  15. That is what I meant to say...
  16. I'm no programmer either but I don't think a complete overhaul of the game is as easy as you think...
  17. Could be interesting to have the noise of people discussing tactics or military moves while you look at the map.
  18. I would define the end of the battle as the AO being dropped. I wouldn't even say ALL tanks are recovered, but ones with lesser damages like being detracked and maybe missing a crew member should be somewhat simple.
  19. Well, being that it's a game it should be obvious it'll be somewhat unrealistic. If 20 people attack a town with a supply of 200 riflemen, it makes no sense that only 7 will come out at a time while the rest apparently sit in a depot waiting for one of those 7 to die. As far as vehicles, I just think that it's a shame that vehicles can be list so easily sometimes. Maybe at the very least gain them back quickly if you're near a friendly town, OR a town that becomes friendly after the AO is resolved. You can just imagine that the vehicle was repaired sometime after the battle.
  20. So, would you have to go and take over a bridge before a plane can come and bomb it?
  21. I like the idea of a deeper rating system but do you think you'll really get a more accurate rating when depending on player votes?
  22. Then configured it shall be!
  23. I've heard some people wanting HC to have more to do and/or have different jobs. I think it'd be interesting if they could have more control over the missions themselves. Instead of just setting up an AO they may make the missions themselves and set their objectives and the make up of the squad (in this tread I refer to squad in the military sense, NOT the WWII Online groups) Most of this is optional for the HC as he/she can just leave it up to the people running the mission. I picture it going as follows. HC wants to attack a town so they set an objective for that town. At the same time they create a mission and set the objective to take the town. They can set their own attack points or rally points if they want or just leave it as an overall attack and let the soldiers figure it out. But the mission will have a spot for a CO (and possibly an XO as well) but the HC member then decides how many people are part of the mission. They can even assign the CO position to a specific person if they choose, although you should have to attain a certain rank before you can be CO. The HC doesn't have to join the mission themselves and instead focus on the map or other missions they may be setting up. When the mission and CO are set then the HC or CO can choose the make up of the squad. The CO might be able to choose their class/weapon, but for an infantry squad they might choose to have (as an example) 6 Riflemen, 3 SMGs, 1 LMG and two wildcards (allow the CO or soldiers themselves to choose their own weapons (set aside for mortars, snipers, ATRs, etc)). Once the mission is posted then players would join that mission and pick their position in the squad then spawn in. You fight as you normally would, but it'd be urged that you stick with this group and it's mission. The same types of missions could be done with the Navy and Air Force as well. If the other idea I posted (Actual Supply Lines) gets implemented, then the HC can also choose the amount of supplies this squad takes with them, or leaves it open. HC can also choose to have a certain mission retreat without cancelling the whole AO (unless perhaps it's the last mission) I'm not suggesting this be the overall new rule on how missions are created and how players choose their class as HC could just create a mission and leave it ALL open for the players to choose the specifics, but it's a way to give HC much more control over their army (navy, air force). It'd give HC a feeling of actually being in charge and not just the monkey that sets AOs. Let me know your thoughts...
  24. That all makes sense. I'm just talking about what it should be like. What you described sounds more like the HC members are just the ones that know what needs to be done and does it. FRUs and guarding CPs and FBs aren't HC's job, but perhaps the ones that want action ignore those jobs. That's why I think it would be better for HC to be able to set up numerous missions from the menu and not have to go set it up themselves. If they want a team to guard the FB, they make a mission for it. If they want a team to take out the east CPs of a town, the make a mission. If there is a team attacking an airfield but then your FB comes under fire then maybe HC will order that team to fall back and defend the FB. A lot of stuff that HC members could be watching over and create strategy. Or if none of that sounds fun to the HC, they just do it the old way. I was just thinking for ways they could stick to a command role and stay out of fire... if they wanted.
  25. I didn't want to lose the entire war because I single handedly knocked out the LW!