Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Green Tag

About tac2i

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    West Virginia
  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
  1. June 6, 2001 (as Koenig) Do not remember what squad I joined. Do not believe it exists any longer. Played about 5 months and then quit. Commanded a Corps back in those days. Came back a couple of times for brief periods. Rejoined with subscription in April 2016. Basically an intermittent player these days. I recently created a second account via Steam to try out the DLCs and see how they work.
  2. @jwilly: Cap timer differentials (and spawn delays) are already in the game obviously and while it is helpful to the underpop side, it does not seem extreme. Both Allied and Axis players seem to have accepted this 'balancing' mechanic. The awarding of new weapon systems and/or the early arrival of later tier weapons to the underpop side seems to me very extreme. I do not believe the player base would accept it. I do not believe CRS would expend the resources to code it. I have seen at least one Allied player infer that the Allies cannot win a campaign without one or more Axis squads switching sides. I do not know if this is true or not. If it is, why is it more folks do not wish to play Allied on a regular basis? It certainly is not because they are disadvantaged by equipment (tanks, planes, ships or infantry weapons). I assume both sides are about equal in HC leadership and about equal in terms of individual player abilities. I have to repeat, most if not all, campaigns are won by the side that can move the map and this almost always means being overpop. This map movement leads to better player morale and engagement. The opposite is true for the losing side: lower morale and less engagement with the game. I appreciate that players are always discussing ways to improve game play. This game has been around for about 18 years. Clearly it has staying power. Is there a perfect solution? Probably not. Is there even a good solution? I do not know. Human nature is what it is: winning fun, losing not fun. As expressed earlier, it seems to me a push to make the game essentially unwinnable by either side. The underpop side wants to stop the winning side cold in its tracks through game mechanics that give it greater combat power? If that ever occurs, we probably would be better off playing games like Red Orchestra, Company of Heroes, or Darkest Hour: Europe '44. In any event, good discussion...
  3. Sorry, except for cap timers, these kind of changes would be disastrous if they were ever implemented. This would appear to be punishment for the currently winning side (high pop) by giving the losing side (low pop) added combat power via additional weapon systems or early arrival of better weapon systems.
  4. This is the human behavior I mentioned in a previous post in this thread. It is true for both Allied and Axis. When you side of choice is losing, your motivation to play suffers and you log in less or eventually not at all until a new campaign starts. I do not know that CRS can change this basic human behavior. We all like winning. Losing isn't fun. Can a game where no side ever wins be fun? I think some ideas being pushed/considered could push the game in that direction.
  5. Agreed, whether a paid subscription or F2P, a player should never, ever be forced to play a particular side.
  6. This topic and discusssion is as old as the game, yet Allies and Axis continue to both win campaigns. If a player number inbalance is the main factor in a campaign victory, which I believe it is, to cure that inbalance may be worse than the status quo. If one side were perpetually underpopped campaign after campaign, which is not the case, then that would be a problem in need of a concrete solution. The winning side has good player morale and this improves player engagement with the campaign. The losing side has poor player morale, and this negatively affects player engagement. This is human nature. This first person shooter is like no other. Capture of terrain (towns) is essential to campaign victory. Remove that aspect of the game or neuter the ability to 'move the map' and all you have is a run of the mill shooter. I do not think anyone wants that.
  7. [Side winning always happy (fun)] + [Side losing always unhappy (not fun)] = Normal Situation (since 2001) [Side losing gripes about this or that] + [Side winning offers counter arguments] = Normal Situation (since 2001) CRS is always listening to the above and making adjustments as it deems appropriate. Rinse and Repeat... Most, if not all, campaigns are won mainly by the side with consistent player numbers in its favor and thus better overall player morale. I will not go into all the factors that affect those numbers as they have been discussed ad nauseum. Yesterday Ath was an Allied attack objective. I had a short period of time I could play so logged in Axis (iTacc, my Steam account). I found Ath had light ei ews. I go to Ath and see two other Axis out in the field, none in town. I check the CP that would allow Allies to spawn if capped. I am killed inside the CP. I sound the alarm to the other two just outside of town. They do not move. Go back to the CP and get killed again. CP is capped by Allied and very quickly another CP is capped, and another. I sound a 911 alarm on the Side channel that if Ath does not get immediate help, Axis will lose it. I run to AB bunker and get killed again. Run back, get killed on the way. Clearly a small group of Allied players have planned this attack well, infiltrated the town with several players but not enough to trigger a high ews warning and are very close to taking the town. In all I think I was killed 5 of 6 times in very short order without killing a single Allied player. Not a fun experience for me. I had to log shortly thereafter. Later that evening I check the webmap and see that Ath is still Axis. Despite not having a 'fun' experience I am happy that Ath remained Axis and that I might have had a part in that successful defense. Axis and Allied have both been on the losing side numerous times throughout the long history of this game. Is it ever really fun when losing a campaign, despite how successful you are as a single player? Probably not. Can CRS make it so the losing side is having an overall fun experience while losing? Probably not. Can CRS turn WW2 Online into WW1 Online through modified game mechanics? Surely they could and both sides would be unhappy and the whole game experience for everyone will be not fun. Is it so hard to accept that losing is rarely, if ever, fun and that both sides are gonna win some campaigns and lose some campaigns?
  8. My perception: [Winning side always happy] + [Losing side always unhappy] = Normal Situation (since 2001) [Losing side gripes about this or that] + [winning side counter arguments] = Normal Situation (since 2001) Most, if not all, campaigns are mainly won by the side with consistent player numbers in its favor and thus better overall player morale. I will not go into all the factors that affect those numbers as they have been discussed ad nauseum. The one I will mention is this: losing side usually fields a high number of players at start of a new campaign. Winning side seems to field a lower number as many are taking a break after a hard fought win. Re "Test" environment: The game is always evolving, albeit at a slow pace, so to argue CRS owes us players a "free" experience for the duration until 1.36 arrives does not make good business sense.
  9. HC mistakes, morale and overpop all lead to momentum for one side or the other. When momentum kicks into high gear, it is hard to stop though not impossible. Swing players begin to switch to the side that is winning and momentum just swings even further to the overpop side. In my opinion, player morale is the number one determinant in victory. Morale drives the level of commitment of the player. Experience seems to indicate if your morale is busted you are less likely to log in and play for your chosen side whereas the side with higher morale gets more of its players logging in. Good teamwork and a host of other factors are all involved but morale is key I believe.
  10. @kuronyra, yes the 91st is still very active and always looking for new members. Someone from the 91st will find you. @krazydog @raydr
  11. Big question is: at Day 72 will these percentages still be approximately the same? If they are, what will be the mood of the playerbase regarding a potential stalemate? Will the morale of one side take a hit for one reason or another and start the other side on the road to a map win? Time will tell...
  12. Not sure what it says about recent cap timer changes (and other recent changes) but I observe that on Day 36 of this campaign we are at Day 0 town percentages: 55% allied and 45% axis.
  13. For others having similar issues: Windows 10 C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Cornered Rat Software\Battleground Europe <-- shortcut location "C:\Program Files (x86)\CRS\Battleground Europe\WW2.exe" <-- Offline shortcut points to this file
  14. Getting killed a lot is true for most players. Just remember it does not negatively affect your promotion points. If it did very few would ever get a promotion. Your best chance for survival is to snipe at the enemy from a distance. That said the best chance for earning lots of promotion points is capturing and then defending a CP and killing the ei that try to take it back. Doing that successfully, alone with a bolt action rifle, is rather slim so try to play along side some of your teammates. Lastly I'd recommend you upgrade to at least the $4.99 account so you can gain access to better weapons as you get promoted. Note also that just guarding a capturable CP can earn you points, around 15-20 points for just 30 minutes of guarding. Find a 'quiet' capturable CP and guard it for awhile. Despawn, respawn and guard some more. -------------------------------------- P.S. I'm a paying customer. Don't know why it still says Free Play Account.