aismov

Registered Users
  • Content count

    4,700
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Everything posted by aismov

  1. So we have towns changing hands multiple times over the course of a day with dynamic fights and desperate defenses and successeful counter-attack occuring? Sounds like fun gameplay to me compared to the old system of mindlessly zerging the AB Bunker until you finally capture it. Now I can hang back and snipe high value infantry if thats my thing. Knowing I'm making a difference. Now I can interdict ETs trying to resupply/support a town. Knowing I'm making a difference. Now I can set up firezones and wear down the defenders. Knowing I'm making a difference. Now I can STILL zerg the AB Bunker if thats my thing. Knowing I'm making a difference. Now I can do logistics/trucking work if thats what I enjoy doing. Knowing I'm making a difference. Yes, with supply/attirtion you may not always find your favorite weapon. But it expands gameplay roles and makes for more dynamic fights. Its the give-and-take. Have infinite supply via brigades and all you can hope to do is rush the bunker... anything else is a waste of time. Now we actually cater to more than one gameplay style. EDIT: which is why I also think we need to move on to proximity AOs, that way players who for example really like one weapon system or type of combat role can create their own action and not hope that HC puts down the right type of AO. At the end of the day it's a game that people play for fun, and we can't forget that. But I also think from a gameplay design perspective having limitless or effectively-near limitless supply is very corrosive for gameplay. Yes, there will be times you can't get your favorite weapon and that sucks, but the flip side is limited supply/attrition creates far more gameplay opportunities than it takes away. Yes I know I'm biased since im a pure all-around player. One mission im bombing bridges in a He111, next I'm fighting with a Stug, followed by rushing a bunker with an SMG, followed by an 88 sortie. Supply never was a big deal for me since I play pretty much every unit in all the branches. So I u de stand where say a dedicated Tiger driver or SMG man is coming from. But I think my basic premise on gameplay design still stands.
  2. It does. Let's say you cap the city CP and then cap the AB. It will cause the FBs of the defending backline towns to open up and enable spawning in the linked CPs using the spawn pool of the backline towns. AND you canst I'll spawn from all the CPs of the home towns garrison, but can't spawn tanks u til you recap the AB. Best to cap the AB last IMHO.
  3. My understanding was that if you lose the AB, all it does it shut down your ability to spawn tanks, but all the other CPs can still spawn the usual infantry/truck/ATG. Is this *always* the case and how do linked-CPs work? Example: today there was a long fight in Hastiere, lots of back and forth. But no matter what we did, there were still SMGs, sappers, etc spawning a solid 4+ hours into the battle. The ownership was thus: AB: axis City: axis Feschaux CP (axis spawnable): axis Givet CP (axis spawnable): axis Dinant CP: allied Flavion CP: allied In this situation does the supply first drain all of hastiere, and then when there is no supply left switch to the supply from the linked CP (in this case Dinant and Flavion)? If that is the case, its probably best to cap the AB last to not open up extra supply going into an otherwise exhausted town.
  4. Claw and welcome to WWIIOL! If interested in a combined arms squad recommend checking out the 31st. We're combined arms so have roles to fill all the way from a simple rifle to a Navy Destroyer! www.31stwreckingcrew.com
  5. BETA Just have fun, and try to break things to test for bugs
  6. BETA Just have fun, and try to break things to test for bugs
  7. LOL yeah I remember the HAAC firehose. Beyond silly.
  8. Interesting, I'm the opposite I like the dots compared to having a forest of flags everywhere. Makes the division's stand out more too.
  9. Personally as a builder these options don't affect me, but a fair amount of players will likely be interested in the ground option and the air option. I think it may help out the pilots the most.
  10. Are you guys aware of the FMS-overstock loophole? I'll cross post it in the 1.36 beta forums and big reporting as well.
  11. /\ Yup infinite supply. Crash away
  12. Which I agree with from a historical standpoint but I don't agree with from a faneplay/sales perspective. Deep down we are all peacocks. Everyone wants to show off, whether it is via stats or squad affiliation or rank. I think that from a business and gameplay standpoint doing away with things that offer bragging rights, even though it may be more historical, is to the detriment of the game experience since as I said part of the gameplay experience is a little bit about showing off.
  13. Players will adapt. It won't take ppl long to figure out that a airfield PPO is a quick drive for a scout car to go and camp if it's too close to the front. Not to mention that you can also now easily drive SPAA to the approach vectors and shoot them down as they are lifting off. Good luck trying to hunt down a fast mobile SPAA in 25 km2 of terrain outside of your PPO airfield. This will naturally send PPO airfields farthur back behind the lines. Which in turn will promote para operations to take them out. Which will promote action to help defend them. Overall this creates a virtuous cycle. I'm 100% in support because this gives players more gameplay options. It's the big tent theory of WWIIOL where you want to cater to many gameplay types and not just the aggressive infantry player who wants to capture bunkers. There is a lot of money to be made in catering to builder-type players and defensively minded players who prefer this kind of stuff. Just imagine all the cool stuff players could build with an expanded PPO toolset.
  14. Oh ok, I see what you mean. Yeah the .fallback I agree with. I thought you were referring to letting the enemy cap your town in a "controlled" fashion which is a different kettle of fish. IIRC the .fallback command could be done even if only one CP was controlled by the enemy, so you .fallback, but still have all the linking CPs available to spawn, quickly recap the AB (usually already had AB pre-stacked with defenders before the fallback) and liberate town. Now I don't remember but I think you had to do a .HAAC before you could activate .fallback, but my memory escapes me.
  15. Yup great example. Staring at a spreadsheet with numbers as far as your eyes can see can make you crazy. Its like the time in high school you wrote the essay, checked and re-checked it a dozen times, had a friend read it, yet someone missed the and and typo in the 8th paragraph.
  16. Theoretically that is certainly possible, but does anyone currently in the game have the operational skill and organization to pull something like that off. Even back in the day I can't think of an example of that being successfully done. I remember times when you either lost the town or simply threw in the towel knowing the writing was on the wall with 20 rifles left in the spawn pool, and then happened to stage a successful counter-attack, but those were pretty rare IMHO, and certainly not pre-planned as a greater strategy. I remember that slogging through an attritional meat grinder would leave me exhausted and happy that the battle was simply over, even if we happened to be on the losing side. I guess guys on the other side felt the same way. Ironically in a way WWIIOL does a pretty good job of semi-simulating the war!
  17. Yeah thinking that in the situation of exhausted garrison save the AB for last otherwise the FBs go up and new supply comes from linked CPs. Interesting trade off since you weigh the benefits of shutting down tank spawning with benefits of limiting linked CP supply.
  18. So if I am getting you correctly both sides have PPO FBs, but neither side can leapfrog one another... you have to steadily push it back towards the enemy's town and advance your own. That may you can have the French attacking Gedinne with their PPO FB while the Axis attack Haybes with their own PPO FB, with supply warping past each other. Thats not a bad idea, my one major concern here would be how much would this slow down the map? Campaigns already can take months. What are the unintended consequences of such a FB system?
  19. Not a bad idea actually. Should get some serious looking into. Not sure if that is technically possible without someone manually having to flip a switch at 1 AM eastern time though.
  20. @catfiveI would make it even easier... just cut out the mission all together and simply have everyone in town on one big mission automatically, BUT allow custom radio chat channels for players who want to form ad-hoc battlefield units. Map > Choose Depot/AB > Choose Weapon > Spawn Keep is simple! During an attack or defense we all use the same chat channel anyway (Target) and Mission chat is rarely if ever used. Instead of tying players to a mission, tie them to the parent spawn point. In WWIIOL every spawn point boils down to what town is it associated with. So every FB, depot, dock, etc is associated with a specific town. What even better there is really no extra coding required since we already have the ORIGIN and TARGET channel. If players feel the need to make custom ad-hoc radio channels to simulate what the MISSION channel does, simply increase the available custom radio channel numbers from 1-1000 that way you never run out of custom radio channels. Back in the CRS 1.0 days the resistance to using the "click on map to spawn" system was that new players would have no idea how to find the action. To that I say there are ways to design the UI to make it clear as day where the action is. Something as simple as the player activity overlay we have in BEGM is a start, as well as making facilities like the AB or a contested town stand out more. To take it one step farther you can have a "Standard UI" and a "Pro UI" mode where the vets can have a more cut down version more akin to what we have now and not have to be babied to "hey... this is an AB that is under attack, you should spawn in here!"
  21. Yup well said. I've been and always will be very critical of the infantry FRU. For all the arguments of how it will improve gameplay by keeping battles going, there are numerous counter-arguments of how it will be abused to make everyone's life miserable. Oh and: Yup, CRS knows and is actively looking at a solution. Luckily this is what BETA is for.
  22. I'm not sure. I think its actually pretty well balanced. During BETA I checked this out and it takes ~10 minutes for the first resupply to roll in which accounts for ~20-25 infantry and several pieces of armor/ATG/AA, with new supply rolling in at 5-10 minute intervals. That seemed pretty reasonable to me since it makes counterattacks possible, but the counterattacking side needs to immediately attack and not dally for 30 minutes. Similarly, its not long enough to where you have no chance of defending a new captured town. And as far as the draining supply, my experience has usually been that much of the "counterattack roll" supply isn't coming from the captured town, but supply that was brought from the backline forward and continuously carried forward. Usually the frontline town it beat to all hell, and it takes a long time to get decent armor numbers in a newly captured town. I don't know the exact timing, but I'll test it one of these days to see. Either way to me it adds an interesting dynamic where you sometimes have to simply call off an attack if you are chewing through too much supply; and on the flip side you need to have a feeling for how the enemy is doing and possibly press your advantage.
  23. How would that change the dynamic? It's still an FB you have to defend. The only change is that the enemy needs to first find the FB, which with air recon won't be too hard.
  24. That has a lot to do with axis tactics. We've always been a very infantry centric side, but yeah, I agree that there are way too many tanks ingame.