Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About carlz

  • Rank
    Free Play Account
  • Birthday
  1. Isn't the idea of belonging to a squad to inspire teamwork? And...if you can overstock from a rear town, isn't that the definition of teamwork. I came from a huge squad but I think incentivizing larger squads at the expense of smaller squads and lone wolves will be problematic. Add more supply to rear towns and let squads use their social skills and resources.
  2. Let's get polycrewing to fill all the vehicles positions before we even think about getting out.
  3. One of the keys to increasing team play is to add a "Ready Room" option to the UI where Mission commanders can brief the team, coordinate ordinance and mission responsibilities, and work with HQ to coordinate with other missions on an overall strategy. This doesn't take anything away from those that want fast action. Yes, right now most players are fast action freaks because that's the way the game has been promoted for the last 6-7 years. But if CRS wants long term consistent membership, then building comradery and squad relationships is the way to go.
  4. Hmmm...Just like RL.
  5. If it were up to me they could get rid of all the tracking software and rely on kill reports and scouts to find out where the enemies strength was.
  6. Been out of the game for a while but with all the new activity and development going on it seems this may be the time to bring up a lot of the old ideas that were passed by. I'm an old fart who grew up on WWII TV and movies and it really seems like the "Band of Brothers" game play that builds comradery and game loyalty is really missing due to the emphasis on twitch game play and huge battles. But it need not be. We could have both with some tweaks to a separate mission spawning interface. First and foremost would be adding a new in mission organizing tool to the UI. This would require a Ready Room where teams (squads or any affiliated players) could organize before spawning. Mission Leaders could have communications control, access to mark-able maps to allocate member duties, ability to request ordinance load outs so the team was adequately prepared for the mission at hand, ability to link mission objectives with other mission leaders so too coordinate air, sea, or armored units, and change missions in the field so that a well oiled team could experience the fog of war and make attrition meaningful. (Members killed would need to re-spawn a separate mission to link up to the existing mission). This would involve a one time mass spawning of mission members as dictated by the mission commander. Another aspect of this is that it adds another tactical tool to High Command who could be involved in the approval of these missions. I'm sure others might have so great ideas to add.
  7. If I remember correctly, maintenance issues were a lot more prevalent during day 1. I love the idea of adding additional role play to the game for greater immersion and team play.
  8. By the look of the pic, only half the soldier needs to be modeled.
  9. 20,000 man battles are a little overblown as a goal of the game. Bigger isn't always better. Big battles destroy much of the intimacy and impact players enjoyment. Now, if AI platoons could replicate the opposing sides manpower balance and be introduced on a limited basis to level the playing field during peak periods of imbalance it might be worth all the huge amount of development time it would take to work the bugs out. Bingo! This adds a whole new level of game play and has been needed for a long time.
  10. Great Post! This kind of play offers a very needed aspect to the game that would help bond players to squads and offer some context that the other million FPS games don't have. But all this is mute until players have a way to organize before spawning. We need a UI with a Ready Room that allows squad leaders to organize team members, assign load-outs, tasks, transportation, etc.. - because doing it in the field is like herding cats.
  11. I have been away for a while and there seem to be a lot of positive developments taking place. Seems as if the developers are trying to roll back systems to reintroduce less FPS and more team oriented game play. Kudos! One of the biggest loses for the game was when CRS became adversarial with squads to accomplish the brigade system in order to place higher dependence on HC. Now that supply will be changing back to towns, it seems as if player organized missions and squad play will be more important than ever. We could really use some tools that will allow for more organization. These include a "Ready Room" style User Interface where Mission Leaders can pre-plan and communicate tactical sequencing, team member roles, ordinance load-outs, transportation logistics, rally points, comms, and many other tactical and logistical aspects that make game play successful and fun before spawning and being immersed in battle. This also includes better Mapping and Visual Communication Tools both during mission briefings and in the field. Do we have anything planned for this?
  12. I agree. It should take some coordination with multiple trucks which add to team play...
  13. LOL- Why would someone spawn a medic to draw fire when they can spawn an infantry as a free account and actually shoot back? There currently isn't any penalty for killing anyone in game. Killing a medic would be no worse than shooting a para and we have no penalty for that?
  14. QFT- It's really not about the impact that a medic class itself would have on the battle, but the global reality that expanding roles outside of warriors would be good for the game. In RL only a small percentage of soldiers actually see combat. Expanding roles within WWIIOL lends itself to creating more immersion and authenticity. This holds true for many of the logistics functions that could be programed into game play. If we are looking for authentic representation of a WWII experience, medics are a good first step. What's good for the game is expanding the player base so that we can afford more developers to make the toys we know are missing. Be honest - How many times have players significant others commented on "Your always playing that dumb game and we never have any time together"? Adding additional roles for non-combat personnel could have a proportionate effect on 2nd accounts. Same could be said for individuals who may be too young or elderly to contribute to a effective combat role. The additional roles don't have to be as nurturing as a medic but need some sense of purpose that contributes to the war efforts such as engineers do in combat. If there is any doubt that subscribers would be drawn to these activities take a look at the success of the SIMS games which have virtually no goal other than to sustain their character.