Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by aismov

  1. Was just looking at the forums, and honestly I think we could delete a bunch of forums and turn some into pinned topics like Kilemall suggested. It would not only make the forums appear more alive with multiple posts a day (nobody wants to participate in a forum that gets posted in one a monthly basis) and actually make it easier for new players to become part of the community. I'll @XOOM and @HATCHon this to see what they think. Delete: Free Play Support and Info: redundant, rarely checked by vets, and F2P have access to General Discussion New Player Support/Training: redundant forum which is essentially as as F2P forum and is also never checked by anyone Special Event Forum: 2 posts since October, 2018 (!) WWII Military History and Technology: 3 posts since December, 2018; prior to that the last post was in May Mini-Cons: couple posts in all of 2018 War Stories: not used, more players will see your post and reply in General Discussion Squad Recruitment: why is there a general squad recruitment forum, AND an Allied one, AND and Axis one? Either keep Allied/Axis separate, or just collapse them all into a single forum Bug Reporting: merge it as subforum of Community Support Discord support: can be a pinned top on General Discussion or in Support Page (more ppl will see it in general discussion) The War Academy: useless forum (can just post on axis/allied secure forum). Last post there is from 2014... no joke. 1.36 Hybrid Supply: always assumed this was a temporary forum Merge/Rename: General Discussion + Free Player forum + all the above (minus squad recruitment) Squad Recruitment: just have one squad forum with [AXIS] and [ALLIED] tags (they all have them anyway since we used to have a unified forum). Community Support: keep subforums and add in bug reporting Foreign Speaking Communities: change to "International Forums" Squads: rename to Squad Forums since most people don't know what the "Squads" thing even is, also it has a forum called "Squads" that leads to another forum called "Squads" which then leads to the individual squad forums. This is a different URL, so right when you get to the squad forums, you can't navigate back to the regular forums. So the new forums would look something like this: Headquarters (General Gameplay Discussion): merges special event, WWII history, minicon, war stories Headquarters News Feed Gameplay Tutorials Community Support Billing Support Windows Support Apple Support Bug Reporting Squad Forums: renamed from "squads" and moved to a more prominent location Squad Recruitment: move more prominently to help players find squads (now you scroll to the very bottom past a bunch of random unused forums) Barracks Hangar Motor Pool Harbour Off Topic Allied Discussion: Allied Secure Axis Discussion: Axis Secure International Forums: rename this from "Foreign Speaking Communities" ... it has a nicer ring to it. Plus International is something that everyone fundamentally understands. Foreign speaking... not so much. International Subforums (not listing them here) This way we go from 24 forums to 12. Thoughts?
  2. Hatch had a similar idea, which would help cut down on the #1 problem with your proposal: suicide truck spam. His idea was that you would get infantry to board the truck and when they get off, the truck can deploy as a 1-time FMS for those infantry originally on the truck only. That way you cut down on suicide truck rushes since it no longer some dude in his second account doing banzai charges into town, and gives the players on the truck the chance to respawn once close to the action as well as being able to bring any weapon to the battlefield. I would support Hatch's system, but I would not support your system really for the truck spam reason. As far as paratroopers, I have to disagree with this system for the reasons above. If this was implemented all you will see is empty Ju52s buzzing around with calls over chat "Para plane over target!!! SPAWN SPAWN SPAWN!" Never mind the fact that the defenders flying in the air shot you down 8 times before, but this time you snuck in and get rewarded by letting dozens of paras jump out.
  3. Dunno, but I think we are going down the road of needless complexity. I was on discord with a greentag a few weeks back and one of the biggest issues was the amount of complexity and him simply having no clue WTF was going around him. For us it is easy to figure stuff out since we've been doing this since day 1; but for many new players just wrapping their head around the idea as simple as not being able to spawn because an FB has been blown by the enemy is a huge hurdle. Yes, a lot of this is poor documentation IMHO (we desperately need a solid gameplay manual), but a lot of it is simply the game being complex. I think this is natural given what we are trying to simulate and achieve here, but I'm a fan of the KISS principle. The more simple it is, the better. Which is why I'm a fan of the same spawn lists in every town along the front. No need to explain to players why you can't spawn a Tiger in this town but can in that town. For WWIIOL veterans that may be ok, but for guys first trying the game out on steam they will look around, see bad graphics, and be "yeah, not wasting my time trying to figure this [censored] out."
  4. Would that work? My understanding is that Google searches and archives hits based on outside links to the site. Worth a try though. We could at least get rid of at least 3 forums that way that get new posts in them maybe once every 4 months.
  5. Please have been doing this since 2001. It happens with every other game. Just google any game name and "reddit critisism" ....
  6. I completely agree. The warping supply into a town has been one of the worst parts of ToE, it wasn't liked by players when it was introduced and its just one more thing in a long list of ToE trip-ups that helped chase away squads. With attrition like you said in your previous post you know you are doing something with every unit you take out. How many times did we used to call out over the chat to play smart and wear down the enemy spawn lists? I haven't had that feeling since 2006 since you can count on it that at some point in the battle a flag will get moved in and suddenly 50 more tanks start coming out of the AB. It effectively negates any battlefield tactics since it boils down captures to who can either ninja cap the AB when defenders aren't suspecting, or overwhelm the defenders with sheer numbers. Smart tactical play is pretty useless since supply is for the most part more or less infinite (at least at the current population levels). Bringing back TBS/attrition/interdiction wont be a silver bullet. But it will at least start slowly turning the ship to a better course and give players reason to come back. For too long the game was designed to cater to HC and players who rather play the meta/strategic flag game at the expense of the greater majority of the players who came to WWIIOL for the tactical experience with some strategic flair thrown on top. We chase away the capability for squads to plan their attacks (AOs), removed the capability to overstock/plan for attacks (ToE), removed the ability to tactically plan an attack and attrit the enemy (flag movement). Without a reason to exist squads evaporated.
  7. But balancing that out I think is an impossible task IMHO. Its hard enough to balance out the RDP war from being so important that one side can dominate the other, to being so insignificant that nobody even bothers. That said I agree that there is a core issue with the new ToE implementation based on historical ratios and how the game is fundamentally played. It forces both sides into straight jackets regarding tactics that they never really used, while at the same time affecting players ability to enjoy the game with the vehicle/weapon system of their choice. Certainly there will be time when supply runs out, or prime-level weapons like the Tiger or Firefly fly out of the spawnlist like hotcakes... but that is something players understand since it is a game and not everyone can have the best of the best at the same time. But the current system where for example early on the Allies were lacking SMGs, or how currently the Axis have functionally no tanks that are a threat to infantry in the Infantry Brigades, or any number of other issues I think is pretty concerning since it tries to emulate the tactics of history, but outsides of the real confines and scenarios in which that occured. No matter how hard we try... we can't use the StuH42 to shell the enemy to oblivion since buildings have only 1 damage state. Same can be said about any number of other weapons matchups that have been mentioned in these forums recently. Fundamentally I think there are two main issues with the current system: 1) Historical production costing doesn't take into account how WWIIOL is player, so you have a divergence between the production value of a weapon and the WWIIOL-combat value of a weapon. The classic example of this is the Matty vs. StugIII. Technically "similar" in production value... but which will you pick if given the choice? 2) Historical costing/ToE makeup doesn't account for outliers. Classic example of this is not enough SMG in Allied (British) brigades, or no/minimal numbers of MG-armed tanks in Axis infantry brigades. Those are two huge gameplay outliers that weren't picked up in the statistical analysis of production costs. IMHO we should use production costing as a place to start, rather as the end-goal. Since gameplay shows us that if you only account for production costs, and not in-game combat effectiveness, the game can become imbalanced. I hope that with 1.36 we will return to the Doc-era (pre-Tiger mania) spawn lists that are unified across the front and balanced, I like historical introduction years, but this needs to be carefully balanced as well. This way tankers can play with their tanks, the SMG mafia can spawn their autos, and pretty much everyone has the opportunity to play with the toys they like the most. Balance out the numbers appropriately. "National flavors" of weapons systems will come naturally with the vehicles themselves. The Allies always will have the heavy tanks in Tier0, the Axis always will have the Tiger to play with. Lets keep those weapons in there, but balance the numbers out so they create even matchups within the game, and not on an economic production cost spreadsheet.
  8. Does it help if you say any special incantations before firing up the Terrain Editor?
  9. Agree with the ground textures especially, it is a very quick fix that would make a huge impact on perceptions of graphical quality. Making the berms look less jagged as well.
  10. I think you raise an important point of having things to do in low-pop situations. I think that CP capture without an AO (and thus no AB capture) could have a lot of unintended consequences particularly for new players who cap CPs and then wonder why there is no fight. The reflexive answer is "go blow some FBs." But you can't expect players to do that all day every day. I was talking to a squaddie who was around during the steam release and one issue he mentioned was that new players didn't understand the HC/AO system and wanted to start their own attacks. But got frustrated when they realized they couldn't. I think the most simple solution is to have proximity AOs, and in low pop/severe overpop increase the time until the bunker table is hot. At the end f the day we want action at all time zones, but don't want the negative consequences which aren't necessary one town being captured, but map rolls where 10+ towns fall like dominos overnight. This way you can still cap and there are consequences to capping (can capture the town) but big map rolls become harder.
  11. Sounds great! Looking forward to test it out and give a hand bug hunting.
  12. The key here is to expand T0, which BMBM is working on As far as Tier3 is concerned I think it is nice to be able to play with late tier weapons, and I'm sure the Allies appreciate the US having a strong presence. I am still biased to my minicampaign idea. Think that would be the best of both worlds.
  13. Overall I think it was a very good video and nice preview of the new hybrid system. I give it two thumbs up! 1) I was at first a bit worried about frontline +1 town back, thinking that we may run low of resupply options. But after seeing the map that concern has been completely eliminated. I would say it is closer to "1.5 towns" back since you have adjacent and criss-crossing towns that can be used as well. The idea of not allowing mobiles spawns to overstock a town is very good, that would have been beyond gamey with 2nd account types respawning dozens of times over. 2) I like the dot system... makes it clear how many garrisons are in a town and the approximate "strength" of it. Having supply at every airfield is a big plus and with paras being there are well you won't have to be frustrated to hunt down the right brigade in order to make a mission. 3) Spawning into the game I think is good at first. The "right click > spawn" system is really necessary to simplify the game. I know UI changes are coming but we need to minimize the number of clicks to join a mission AND the crazy number of redundant missions that we have. If you think of the Uber app, I can open the app and in literally 2 clicks I have a car appear at my front door. As far as the Divisions/Brigades go, I would personally keep the 3 Division for the reasons that were mentioned (to have Brit/US/French division), but I would just eliminate the brigades and just have the HQ Unit (without the HQ name). New players get confused by the brigades, figuring out which KG, etc etc. Again, just something to simplify the spawning/UI experience.
  14. If anything we need to cut DOWN on the crazy number of forums. A lot of them could be simply merged into a general WWII history forum, a Genersl Gameplay Forum, and a Squad Recruitment forum. But that's just me.
  15. F2P has access to trucks and can make FMS.
  16. Well the answer is... bring your own tanks and don't ninja the spawnable and then make the call to arms to spawn in without any armored support.
  17. Well said. In a world of infinite resources I agree it would be a nice addition there there are a few times I would like to have my vehicle recovered. But there are more pressing concerns. The way I personally see it working is like how a medic would work. It would turn an Rescue into a RTB and allow the vehicle to be resupplied back 100% faster than a KIA/MIA. This way you also semi-simulate the time it would take a recovered vehicle to be able to return to the battle. This isn't realistic since in RL it would need to be sent behind the lines or sometimes even back to the factory for a full overhaul.
  18. Yeah looks nice
  19. Who is this Lum you speak of. Must have been when I was away from the game.
  20. I think so. Oil was a global market then as it is now. Prices go up, mix in a little fear mongering how the devious Germans are going to cut off the world from Middle East oil, some personal appeals to members of congress by the British and I think it would have happened. I think the pro-neutrality side had no interest in engaging a continental European war, but if greater strategic interests were in play I think the tube would have changed very quickly. Just like how the Western Allies didn't give a crap about Czechoslovakia and Poland, the United States didn't care about France, Belgium, etc. since it was just a "regional" issue for most Americans. At least that is how I see it.
  21. Agree with this. With higher populations you burn through supply very quickly and the current system of 12 hr resupply (not to mention 24 hr resupply) would really hurt. I like the idea of factories giving bonuses since it simulates efficiency. We know from history that bombing did little to effect German war production ability until very late in the war, things simply became decentralized and this less efficient. So factories speed up your resupply, and taking out convoys slows it down for a sector along the front. I also agree that it should be capped at about 15-25% for gameplay reasons.
  22. Germany not attacking the SU would have been a very interesting situation since all/most resources would have gone to N. Africa and the Suez would have fallen and the Middle East would be dominated by the Axis. Would the Soviet Union have been content with dividing spheres of influence with German in the Middle East and possibly dominate Persia while Germany holds Iraq and Arabia? I think that is a big unknown, as well as the status of Turkey in all of this. What I think is clear is that the British would have no way to stop Germany in the Middle East. The supply convoys would be too log and too vulnerable, especially if Germany made a pact with Turkey and had a full land corridor. I also think that the United States would have entered the war in this situation since they knew the vital strategic importance of Middle East oil and wouldn't want it outside of Anglo-American influence/control. So even without Japan attacking the US, I still see the US entering the war in ~1942 mostly to defend Mideast oil interests.
  23. nope its been up for a few hrs