Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Augetout last won the day on August 7 2019

Augetout had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

381 Salty

1 Follower

About Augetout

  • Rank
    Allied Forces Commander and Chief
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit

Recent Profile Visitors

1,423 profile views
  1. Different from some of my posts, this one will be short(ish). It is with great regret that I am retiring from my role as CinC Allies Forces. Simply put, my current job has made it impossible for me to get ingame, let alone fulfill my AHC responsibilities. In point of fact this condition has existed since the end of August, and it is only through the patience and willingness of the rest of AHC to step up that I was able to wait this long to reach the decision that things won't be settling down at my job, thus I need to step down. I want to thank the Allied players for their efforts in the campaigns I was CinC. I want to thank the Officers in AHC for their efforts as well. I wish nothing but the best to all of you, (even you players on the dark side, ). I hope at some point in the near future to return to the game, and I hope we continue to build towards a better future for the game, and our community.
  2. Side affiliation o Allied (I will send you the logo on Teams or via email) Lafayette Federation o Tradition, Pride, Excellence o Formed February, 2001 Type of squad o Lafayette Federation is Army, Air Force, and Navy Squad night: We do not have an official squad night, but weekends are when we have the most members in-game. Not having a squad night is a tradition we have abided by since the very early days of the game, when our membership numbers were such that every night was our squad night. Discord voice comms o Yes o Augetout 7-10 Lafayette Federation is always seeking new members who are team-first oriented, and loyal to the Allied side. The rest we can teach. Lafayette Federation is a pre-day 1 WW2Online unit. We’ve been around for over 18 years. We’ve seen a peak membership of over 250, and have only recently begun rebuilding the unit. We are used to being an elite Allied unit, and once we have the numbers (again) we’ll return to that status. For now we do more with less than any other unit/squad in-game.
  3. Meaning no offense, 'you will never be locked out of your side or from playing....' is a tomato tomahto argument. I have no firm numbers, but dozens of Allied players during 165 logged off via saying on side chat that it was specifically due to the 30 second spawn delay they were suffering from every time they died. In your proposal they might be last in a line of 100 people to get back in-game, which presumably will take far longer than 30 seconds. Thus they would be left with 3 choices: join the underpop side, sit for who knows how long without being able to spawn back in, or log off. Too many are going to choose option #3, thus I would not support this idea, while respecting the perspective behind the idea. I care about squads, and perhaps it's a chicken and the egg argument, but the demise of the squads can be directly linked to the lessening of in-game population, so I'm not sure how continuing to not care about squads, even in an effort to preserve the game, is going to do anything but more harm. Build the squads back up, and the balance issue will take care of itself to a large degree.
  4. So the obvious questions (to me) would be: 1. What happens to the players who won't play for the other side? 2. What happens to the players, who due to being new or not being very good at the game yet, prefer to spawn in on the side that is overpopulated to lessen the risk of being noticed as new or lacking in-game skill(s)? 3. What happens to the squad who organizes a squad night, only to find that part of their squad either cannot play, or will be forced to play the other side? Please note I'm asking despite having experienced some nasty underpops on a regular if not constant basis thus far in 167. Wouldn't the player who won't play for the other side simply not log-in? Wouldn't the new or unskilled players do the same? Wouldn't a given squad not only have a failed squad night, but be less likely to bother planning the next one? As Allied CinC, I certainly wish Pym's unit had stayed on the Allied side for 167. The same sentiment goes for Dwalin's. Given the unhinging of the numbers, I even made a direct appeal to the members of AEF who had decided to play for the dark side this past campaign. Between Pym's unit, Dwalin's unit, and the significant number of AEF folks who swapped sides combining with the axis players coming back from 'vacation', the numbers ratio this campaign have been nasty for the Allies. And still, I am not in favor of forcing folks to play for a particular side. I have seen compelling arguments for forced side-balancing of in-game populations for the respective sides, but none can guarantee me or the rest of the community that a player forced to play the side he/she doesn't want to play for won't simply find something else to do. Pulling numbers out of my hat, I'd rather be outnumbered 3 to 1 with a healthy in-game population, than have an unhealthy in-game population (or risk thereof), and have even numbers.
  5. You stay the hell away from him!
  6. I Thank all awarded soldiers for your contributions to the Allied team in 166. Also, thanks to Quincannon, who has taken a position in AHC to help me out with making sure Allied players are recognized for their in-game exploits. The above was a helluva lot of work, done by him.
  7. I think posters as gameplay tips is a great idea.
  8. Congratulations to your family!
  9. The map at start of campaign was not changed for 167. Matildas in garrisons were reduced by 1, and I believe CS Matildas went up by 1.
  10. As I stated earlier, allowances in the form of substitutes for un-modeled equipment, and for gameplay issues, such as our current over-reliance on CQB fights, have to be made. That is to be expected, and is different than the leaning towards a red v blue environment, or the proven to be ineffective method of attempting to artificially balance gameplay based on a 'matchup' system, etc. My opinion only, and I've stated it before, but in May of 1940 a country that didn't have the best tanks, the best fighter planes, the best artillery, or even the most tanks (depending on how we arrive at the number of tanks) etc. crushed an Allied force that did have all of those things. It is a unique period in time when the weapon systems in use essentially balanced themselves out even before the action/reaction phases of weapons development really hit their stride, sometime after the historical end of the Battle for France. Allied tanks (some) were better than axis tanks, but then again the axis had the Stuka, and the 88. French artillery was better, but then again, the axis had the luftwaffe to even (or better) things out whatever marginal disadvantage they suffered from in artillery. I think 163, which was billed as the hardest campaign ever, actually was the last time the axis won, but I understand your point. It was indeed almost impossible for the Allies to take ground. Simply put, no allowance was made for the game's over-reliance on CQB. Once said allowance was made, in-game player populations returned to their previous levels, if not higher due to the positives associated with 1.36 . I was one of the Allied folks who suffered from the short-term lack of SMGs, and admittedly it was very frustrating. It got fixed, and we moved on. The Matilda issue is different, in that the remedy is already in-game, (my opinion).
  11. So if I understand you correctly (and I might not, one never knows), players, mainly on the axis side lobbied CRS to decrease the distance on FMS set up and EWS distance for trucks, due to their claims that it 'was too hard to attack' and that 'defense was too easy', and the unintended consequence of that wish being granted is that now the 88 is not as useful? Instead of imagining your scenario, imagine if hardly any Allied players bothered to spawn M10s, etc., and then tried to make the case that CRS was against them due to the Tiger not being more easily killed. I understand the frustration with less players currently in-game meaning less are available for team-oriented and seemingly necessary if the Matilda is to be dealt with in-game as opposed to cutting their numbers (done for this campaign) or coming up with new equipment (done bunches of times in the past) to appease the gripes of folks who, if they chose to spawn 88s would erase a self-created problem. Anecdotal evidence, but I spawned a CS Mattie yesterday due to an AB that was more populated by enemy Infantry than friendly Infantry, and once moving out of the AB became 'the next task' I was hit from who knows how far away and one-shotted by (presumably) an 88. To use the logic that is being used by some in this thread, my response should be to go to CRS now and gripe that there should be more Matildas, because they aren't as survivable as they were when axis players didn't bother to spawn 88s. If the data says otherwise, they should ignore it? I mean no offense, truly. It just seems like a problem that is player-created, to me. Of course historical kill ratios mean little in a discussion where you are arguing that the 88s aren't worth as much as advertised. This is especially true when the historical K/D ratio of the Matilda is central to the argument for altering the game somehow to make it easier (I would say even easier) to kill. How is it important that CRS adjust for the kill ratio (historical or campaign by campaign) of the Matilda, but at the same time CRS should disregard historical k/d numbers for the 88? Thus far in 167, the Matilda has 29 kills, 5 of which are enemy tanks. For whatever reason no kills or deaths versus the 88. The 88 has 29 kills on Allied tanks, with 6 deaths from Allied tanks. They have more kills when throwing Allied Infantry into the mix (and more deaths, too). It's 1 and 0 versus the CS Matilda---I only mention that to emphasize the fact that I guess I'm the only one thus far dumb enough to drive out of an ab when there's an 88 around, in a CS Matilda... Small sampling, and it will be interesting to see how the data progresses during the campaign. For the record, I wasn't a fan of moving the EWS/FMS distance closer. I did not anticipate that some would later conclude that to be a reason why the 88s, which weren't being spawned before the change was made, is somehow less than useful, though. I dunno, maybe it all does boil down to less players equaling the 88 being less effective. Since the whole series of discussions regarding Matildas and 88s started, I've actually seen more 88s in-game than before it allegedly became an issue. I mean no offense by saying 'allegedly'. I do this due to my belief that it is not an actual problem. The SMGs disparity turned out to be a real issue despite other reports to the contrary that I initially parroted. I would (I don't fly these days but I understand the gripes) think that the 'fishbowl' is a real issue. Had the ROF on the Somua (and Charbis1) been found (by Hatch) to be incorrect, then that too would have been a real issue. I just believe that if one chooses not to spawn a weapon that can kill every tank in-game at long range from Tier 0 thru the last tier, then the problem is player-caused. If/when the Allies don't guard an AB bunker, it isn't the Mp40's fault that we didn't hold the bunker, right? If AHC can't convince players to drive trucks to set up FMSs (as has sometimes been the case, I might add), is it the game's fault that there aren't more FMSs, or is it a player-caused problem? I could argue that there are less truck drivers because there are less players in-game, too. Would that seem credible to you? I expect a result of these conversations will be a continuation of increasing usage of 88s, which is a good thing for the game as a whole, because regardless of the cause, it isn't good for gameplay when one weapon holds power over all others. If, at the end of a couple campaigns when the 88s are actually being used, it ends up that the Matilda is still impossible to kill, then and only then would I be willing to consider this to be anything but a player-caused issue.
  12. Lafayette Federation is (still) looking for team players loyal to the Allied side. As our in-game numbers improve, our statistical performance is showing that (currently) we do more with less than any other squad in-game. We used to be one of the 'huge' squads, and we'd love to get back to that point. In order for that to happen, folks who are team-oriented need to sign up! We won't disappoint, I assure you. Our veteran players will help new players get the hang of the game, and our time-proven tactics are successful more often than not. We do not cheat, or exploit holes in the game, and we are loyal to the Allied side. We have players who are experts in every type of weapon system in-game, who can help increase your in-game enjoyment, by allowing you the opportunity to be more successful in killing more of our virtual axis enemies. Join us.
  13. I was there for the discussions leading up to the full effects of the RDP set of rules, and (as you did, if my recollection is correct) I didn't think player-controlled RDP was going to be anything but a disaster. You and I disagree on the effects of historical-based spawnlists, clearly. It's not a false narrative, as (my opinion) the efforts at artificially balancing gameplay at least in part guided what was modeled, and when it was to be modeled. Instead of me having to prove that a system not yet even fully implemented (if it ever will be) works, can't we just deal with the fact that artificially balancing play lists, and modeling choices, hasn't worked? The axis crowd was happy when they had the ability to clear a room with MG34s---the Allies weren't. Now, the Allies are happy that there's one less gamey part to the game, and there's a bunch of angry axis. The ROF on Allied tanks was changed way way back in the day for a reason I am unaware of, (it might have been a mistake, or it too might have been done to balance gameplay, I really don't know) undoubtedly making Allied tankers happy, and axis tanker unhappy. The ROF for Allied tanks was downgraded/fixed awhile back, undoubtedly making it rougher on Allied tankers, and (hopefully?) making axis tankers happy that a flaw was located and fixed. Just when has a non-historical change to the equipment set, or spawn lists/numbers, resulted in positive vibes for all concerned? Is it even possible? I could end up being completely wrong in my zeal for adhering to the mantra of: Give us what was there, with historically accurate modeling, in historically accurate spawn ratios, but can there really be any doubt that not bothering to try it has showed itself to be less than successful? My lord, get that the coding joke was directed AT me (by me) and not at others.
  14. I'm not going to hurl any abuse at you. I didn't when you were part of the development team and won't start now. For the record, I'm not that good at riding horses, so acquiring a 'high horse' has never been part of my goal set, as the extra altitude makes falling off just that much more painful. For the record, my assertions were stated as opinions, and any within the playerbase should realize that by definition our opinions have to be based on incomplete information. I understand the pressures involved in the business end of things, and from before day 1 have been a voice trying in vain to get more folks on board with a simple mantra that I believe would have resulted in: Better gameplay, more new equipment, and a maintained high level of interest from the original players, and those who entered the community later on. Now that resources have been lessened, the mantra hasn't changed, and I still believe it will result in better gameplay, which should result in more players, which in the long run will result in more funding, more developers, and thus more new equipment. Give us what was there, with historically accurate models, in historically accurate spawn ratios, and let the chips fall where they may. Substitutes, and allowances have to be made for non-modeled equipment, and/or gameplay issues such as our current reliance on a CQB style of capturing territory, but other than that, the quest for a 'balanced' game is a fool's errand that will never satisfy more than a portion of the players at any given moment. That is my opinion. It is based on not having the same amount of information as you had back in the day, and it is accepting of the fact that business concerns outweighed developer concerns on a most likely regular basis. It is thus my opinion that moving towards a more historical model, (which has not been perfect thus far), and away from a way of doing things that has proven itself to be less than effective, , will be a better solution than what went on before, with all apologies for lumping pre-CRS 2.0 into a less than accurate CRS 1.0.