Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by aismov

  1. LOL yeah I remember the HAAC firehose. Beyond silly.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. /\ Yup infinite supply. Crash away
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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!
  11. 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.
  12. Bump We're doing very well, thank you
  13. 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?
  14. 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.
  15. @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!"
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. Missions and spawning has always been clunky. My own personal bias is that there should be no missions per se but rather spawning based on location... You look at the map and simply click where you want to spawn. That way it's obvious for new players how to get in the game. Take it one step farthur and make the AB look more prominent on the map so new players know what to click on.
  21. It's automatically set to lock. Back in 2001-2002 it was set to unlocked on spawn, which caused quite a bit of crashes
  22. Hopefully page #55 will come around the corner anytime now.
  23. Agree with every thing that you posted Hans (minus the FB part). The webpage has improved but yes, you raise a great point that a player why goes there the first time won't have the impression of the scale or the immersion. You raise a good point about the vet vs. noob thing which certainly can be an issue, but could be alleviated with a better tutorial that focuses on gameplay and not FPS mechanics which all players already know, as well as voice comms which would be huge. I think that for a long time CRS 1.0 effectively outsourced a lot of this training and retention to squads and later attempted to do the same with HC. I think a lot of this could also be helped by like you said some key how-to videos as well as a true game manual. Now regarding the FBs, I agree with Kilemall here: I think that its important that WWIIOL has a "big tent" approach and cater to as many players as possible. And I think there is certainly a fair amount of players who like to defend/snipe. I know many vets look down on the snipers in the windows, but at the end of the day they are paying customers enjoying the game the way they want to... and thats ok! FBs are a similar situation. Although we don't see it now mostly due to population issues, when the server population was high FBs were actually a very active and popular place where to fight. Specifically it again catered to a different type of player. If you were the aggressive capper type, or a tanker you would go and attack a town (most players did this). But there were tons of players who were more defensively minded who liked doing more recon roles, and defensive stuff for which FBs were perfect. FBs were also the go-to place to spawn AA guns for the players who loved shooting at planes. It created this sort of virtuous circle where the pilots knew there were ground targets to kill at the FB, and AA gunners knew the planes would be coming for them. Some of the most intense AA fights outside of an AB under full on Allied AirQuake(TM) were consistently at FBs. Similarly, a fun mission was FB assaults as well. So personally I wouldn't write off the FBs so soon, there are some issues where you can flip one in low-pop, but given the amount of sachels it takes to take one down, even a token defense is sufficient usually.
  24. /\ Just going to repost my image from Page 1. I think we could avoid a lot of issues by simply keeping it simply and just making infantry equal across the board with some exceptions here and there (early Mas40, etc).
  25. Lol did infantry divisions not walk?