Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by carlz

  1. With rear supply interdiction, tracked bombs, and more development of bombers as an integral parts of the game, we really need to start looking at ways to develop Polycrewing so that weapons platforms can perform to their maximum abilities. It's very frustrating to invest time into using these weapons only to be killed because you can't jump from position to position fast enough. Very few can pull this off successfully. The ability to develop camaraderie among platform crews will pay off handsomely with additional subscriptions.
  2. My advice isn't to stop playing the game. I'm simply pointing out the realities of the current game play, and offering a solution to the problem raised by CRS in this post.
  3. Playtime, The point of your post is kind of all over the place, but I guess it refers to my suggestion that veteran players don't see the value in subscribing to paid accounts without the tools to conduct a more mature team style game play built into the game. You recognize that squad based game play where affiliations and dependencies between players are important and model real life attributes. But, then query how anyone can be board when so many role alternatives exist in the game. This is apples and oranges. What you play and How you play are completely different animals. Yes, squads are great and provide the support and interaction needed to provide optimal game play. But being in a squad means supporting your squad mates by regular attendance. For many mature players who can't maintain regular attendance with a squad or can't dedicate a 3 hour block to squad night objectives, those affiliations are a disservice to the leaders who are struggling to provide meaningful team objectives without proper organizational tools. How many mission leaders have planned squad missions only to have a whole horde of unaffiliated players ruin it by running directly to the objective without proper support? Happens every time and does not support the strengths of this game. The UI addition I am suggesting can be used by Squads to strengthen their mission planning, but also be used by unaffiliated players to organize meaningful and fun tactical missions outside of the overall strategic goals of the game. It is the perfect way to train new subscribers to embrace the social aspects and organization of the game that lead to the long term subscriptions needed to keep WWIIOL alive. If CRS were to add these tools into the game, but limit them to paid subscribers, I guarantee veterans would resubscribe and retention rates for new players would increase dramatically.
  4. Joined Bose26 in Airwarrior in 1998. I was accepted as a Beta tester when WWIIOL came out...however, my system couldn't handle the game and I let a squad mate play with my identity. Joined game shortly after it went live in 2001.
  5. THANK YOU! I am not proposing changes to the current mass spawning UI because many love this type of action, but the addition of an alternate UI that embraces team play. By adding in a mission interface that can be used by small groups (around 15 members) that gives command and control over to the mission leader would produce a much more immersive game play atmosphere for those who want the Band of Brothers experience that the game is ideally suited for. By limiting the amount of members on each mission we prevent large squads from running the map as CRS had feared several years ago and hijacking the experience. Good squads know that any larger missions tend to loose command and control of the objective and could easily coordinate several missions. The missions would be open to anyone to join. This means that newbies could join the mission with experienced players to learn the ropes without the risks. This also means that a squad would need to be more organized regarding planning and execution. This would be an excellent recruiting tool and a great way to retain subscribers in a game that has a very steep learning curve. It opens up the possibility for busy veterans to log into the game for just an hour or so and enjoy several meaningful spawns. Yes, there will always be idiots who use second accounts to spy or just irritate others, but with the much more intimate social climate that the small dynamics provide, these guys will quickly gain a bad reputation. So will the good leaders. This UI could have the following tools: - The ability for the Mission Leader to plan the mission before opening it up for members. - A Map with markable icons that can be taken into battle. These might include new icons which mark staging or fallback options. Perhaps give the mission leader the ability to draw on the map. - Ideally the map could have overlays that would allow several missions to coordinate with HC or each other two other missions. - A toggleable interactive Notepad where players could use the keyboard to mark down com channels, attack coordinates, timing, or any other pertinent info. Also provide the ability for mission members to remove marks they placed on the map. - The opportunity to change out ordinance from inside the ready room before spawning so that a proper weapon balance could be established before spawning. - The ability for the Mission Leader to launch the team to spawn together from a forward base and to set up a spawn point for only his/her team. The Mission Leader should coordinate the transport of his team to the objective. (Yes, this is different than using a forward spawn point- those who are in a hurry can post the original mission types). An interface such as this could be used by all service branches to produce more quality game play.
  6. I realize that and yes, I could log into one of the com programs used with the game. But, this still does not offer the same immersion and gameplay that could be afforded on multiple levels by producing a UI that allowed (and guided) mission members to work more efficiently towards a common and achievable goal. This game is ideally situated to be a very socially interactive game in which players work together to achieve tactical goals (ae...dominating choke points, interdiction, capturing FB's, bombing factories) towards strategic objectives. Yet, the mechanisms and tools are not in place to encourage players to work together. Instead of logging in for an hour of stimulating game play to achieve a sense of satisfaction working in an organized fashion towards a limited mission objective; most game play is overwhelmingly similar to 5 hour Viking berserker attack in which players use up all the axes and swords in short order and fight a battle of attrition with knifes. Same old scenario almost every town. Multiple missions from different spawns all with the same lack of coordination. We play this game because it's a simulation of WWII, yet the very precepts which governed the battlefield are ignored. It doesn't have to be this way. With some very simple adjustments CRS could produce ready rooms where mission leaders (and squads) could have the tools to prepare the mission, brief mission members, assign personal objectives, assign ordinance, mark secondary targets or fallback positions, organize armor support and transportation. The game was created with choke point's in mind to simulate WWII conditions. Veterans have been very patiently waiting for these enter the game. We know that things like visible supply, impactable ammo, fuel, and maintenance facilities are very technical issues that will take more resources to achieve. We are willing to overlook the graphics, slow weapons development, and minor technical issues that may be beyond the capacity to improve at the current time. But, veteran players have evolved beyond being part of the hoard. They want to support the game but they can just as well die as a rifleman without paying for a subscription if every battle comes down to rifleman anyhow. Throw us a bone and build a more immersive UI and you will see player subs increase.
  7. I was a day one player who now only plays occasionally as a free player. I was very active in a huge squad for a very long time. The game changed when developers turned against squads and to their credit are understanding the important dynamics of squad play and the huge benefits that the social aspect provided the game. But life is busy now. I don't have time to cultivate squad relationships when I can't play consistently enough to support them. I don't really enjoy being fodder in a massive attack with no purpose. However, I would subscribe again if WWIIOL had a way to organize missions so that they had a mechanism where I could interact with my mission team members towards achievable goals. This provides the immersion that is the strong point of the game. CRS needs to reorganize the UI so that groups of players (and squads) can plan missions effectively...
  8. I wouldn't think topo maps would have to be perfect. Prior to WWII none were. But it would stimulate a strategic element of the game that is missing.
  9. Better UI. Ready rooms for mission planning before spawn.
  10. I think removing the Flags is a great idea. The game will be changing and with that we need to keep open minds about how it is played. By only revealing that sides equipment levels to the HC for tactical planning, it adds authority to the command level to prioritize missions. When HC says an Attack objective is P1 or calls for a withdrawal, it's because they have info which will produce better game play for the players. I see nothing wrong with allowing commanders with better organizational skills and the ability to communicate with side members to have a heads up advantage over those that simply want to attack with no intelligence data. It adds to the Fog of War and the strategic element of the game. It can also add a recon element to the game. With a little art work, the Rats could add quieter scout cars based on those vehicles that are not in game and both Air and Naval forces could be used for recon. Once engaged, It seems pretty obvious what kind of supply the enemy has left in a town by the type of ordinance being spawned.
  11. True and Not too far from real life. So HC's should take this into account when conceiving a battle plan. Don't demoralize your player base with grand strategies. Stick with small winnable goals.
  12. Great Thread! Pre-spawn Ready Rooms for missions would help alleviate many of the problems mentioned here. The opportunity to coordinate players into a cohesive unit with common goals is essential for good military simulation. Give the mission leaders better tools to brief and plan missions, Coordinate communications, and assemble the correct ordinance for a successful mission. This really isn't rocket science and producing a better UI would improve the games immersion factor 100%.
  13. The game needs a better UI for mission spawning that has the tools to allow the mission leader to guide his players. (Ready Room) This should include a way to brief mission members, organize load outs, assign duties, plan fallback contingencies and secondary objectives with maps and way points. Many people don't have the time to commit to joining and actively participating in a squad, but miss the quality of game play that teamwork brings to the game. This means yearly subscriptions are down because the value isn't there. I only have a few hours a week to play and it takes all that time to find and get vested into an organized game play. This would be great for squads too as it would build leadership and recruitment. The old fear of squads taking over the game can be eliminated by limiting the number of mission members per mission.
  14. Squads and any other affiliated members who want better mission experiences need better tools. The Problem is with the UI. We need a User Interface that will allow players to congregate and plan before entering battle. Many games call this a "Ready Room". A mission Leader can set up a mission and alert squad members to join. As members join the mission leader can communicate to them what the mission entails through a markable planning map. The leader can assign and brief each mission member on their duties, recommended ordinance, waypoints, fallback and contingency plans etc... Non-affiliated players can join but should respectfully follow the team leaders directives. This way new members can learn and experience quality game play first hand. A great way to build a squad. All missions will spawn at the FB and be required to find their own transport, however once at target they can set up a mobile spawn that will only be seen and used by members of that mission.
  15. I don't know about any TOE issues, but I saw some unbelievable leadership, teamwork, and perseverance in this comeback. Kudos to Axis leadership!
  16. I think building more bridges into the game is a great idea. Using fancy mechanics to distinguish ownership isn't needed. If you can get to the other side of the bridge without own it.
  17. 1) A UI that includes a ready room to organize missions before spawning. This will give mission leaders the opportunity to brief team members on the mission goals, assign duties, ordinance, rally points, contingencies, and other factors that build teamwork and quality play. 2) Add strategical objectives like bridge, top hill, crossroad and more. Completed the objectives and you can launch assault /ao on the town. This will make the game much more realistic... 3) Add additional personas that support the logistical aspects of the game...AE, Medics, Specific Combat Engineers, Radar Techs, Transport Operators, etc... 4) Visible Supply by means of AI Trucks, Trains, and Cargo Ships. 5) More goal oriented rank incentives (rather than killing) that measure the true contributions of field operations. AE, Mission success ratios.
  18. I'm a noob at gaming engines and only play WWIIOL, so hammer away if this is a silly question... Would switching to Unreal build in some capacity to address several of the long term wants and needs of this game? Ae...Poly-crewing, Visual Supply, Ocean Depth that will allow subs, limitations on bomb tracking that makes high altitude bombing useless, etc?
  19. The reason squads started pulling out of the game is because CRS at the time started an overt effort to diminish squad effectiveness in favor of catering to the instant action FPS market which they thought would draw in more players. As a consequence they lost the role playing and social aspect of the game that kept many individuals drawn to the relationships they had formed. Many subscribers would log in every night and perform seemingly mundane duties simply to reinforce their "team". Members of a squad would maintain memberships even though they could not justify paying for the actual time spent doing game play, and family members who did not enjoy or could not master FPS combat bought subscriptions because it supported the squads overall success. The trap became that those instant action FPS's were never satisfied with how quickly they could attain personal success and without the role playing aspect of the game to reinforce the lowered graphics, weapon development, and software development of newer games quickly moved on. Older players who were drawn to the original concept of strategic game play were dismayed and disgruntled. I am excited at many of the recent developments that the new management has put in place. I think they "get it". WWIIOL has enormous potential even without the latest graphics and weapons array. But, if the goal is to develop leaders, then providing the correct tools and objectives is paramount. Mission Leaders need a purpose and making more small objectives in which to utilize tactics towards the overall strategy goals in the game will be a great start. To be good leaders they need the organizational tools to organize groups of mission members towards those objectives. an enhanced UI that offers mission leaders an opportunity to brief members, detail maps, rally points, set communications, assign duties and ordinance, offer contingency plans before spawning would not be difficult to build and would be a great start in developing both leaders and long term players.
  20. Building an airfield should be so much more than just spawning from a single truck. Factors like the terrain and flight path should be taken into consideration. It would also be great to get transport planes involved to add some additional roles for them. I would love to see equipment paradrops added to the game. There should also be a risk factor. Let these forward fields get overstocked with the risk of losing any equipment placed there.
  21. Some great ideas....YET, what is really needed is a better UI for Mission Prep that allows Mission Leaders to prepare his team for the combat situation. It does no good to know you have an LMG or ATG nearby if there is no coordination. This is a must have to develop leadership and squad formation that leads to active memberships. Currently, missions operate like herding cats. Ready Room - A place where the mission leader can assemble the team before spawning: - Brief the mission purpose. - Get mission members familiars with the terrain, possible cover, AI placements, other threats, etc.. - Review the experience levels of his team. - Assign objectives. - Assign Ordnance. -Assign communication channels. - Communicate contingencies and rally points once the mission has been accomplished or compromised. Another Huge map improvement would be to let mission members remove old map icons. Every time a tank rolls by it looks like a platoon of tanks on the map. Mission members could color code Enemy icons when they have been killed so that other mission members are still aware of a threat in that area, but aren't lured on wild goose chases.
  22. So...for the sake of historical accuracy you want to introduce native troops. Does that mean the allies would be aggressors or would you keep them behind the Maginot Line? For that matter, the Italians didn't formally join the frey until after Hitler had captured Paris in June of 1940. But, just for the sake of argument let say that the winning side was able to turn the captured countries forces into a usable asset- What would it do for gameplay to add a force multiplier to the winning team? I think this idea needs a lot more thought.
  23. 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.
  24. Let's get polycrewing to fill all the vehicles positions before we even think about getting out.
  25. 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.