Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Augetout

  1. and congratulations, Kool. Well deserved.
  2. The need to protect against griefing outweighs any benefits, imho.
  3. Thanks for the advice. Support should be getting me what I need within 24 hours (I seem to be being stopped at the enter url step, not sure why, might be the .org?). Anyway, I'm on the case. and thanks for the support. Pointing me in the direction of an air unit willing to work under the Lafayette Federation banner would be a huge help. It's how we built the original Lafayette Federation, actually (hence the Federation portion of the name). Air unit leader runs the air unit, and so on. At the time of the original unit formation, I just wanted to handle the Infantry stuff, but was advised by Luminary and Bmbm that allowing for armor and air would help recruit members. The path I chose (then) was to recruit 2 units: Lafayette Escadrille, run by Turo at the time, and Task Force One, run by Ironmike. That covered the air arm, and armor assets. Thus Lafayette Federation was born. Anyway, sorry to piggyback like that, but I wanted to explain why recruiting an entire air unit is the goal.
  4. Agreed. Folks swinging those things around like they are smgs is ridiculous.
  5. Flushy, it is perfectly ok to switch sides. Many of us (myself included) choose not to, but it is fine.
  6. Blitzkrieg is fine. The way it is being implemented, however, is gamey. Just as opels with 1 infantryman running amok 5 towns behind the lines was called 'blitzkrieg' in exhortations of german strategic superiority in the very early days... I won't make excuses for AHC---I wasn't there day 1 of the campaign. (this is not a tacit damnation of AHC's conduct, either---I really wasn't there on day 1 so I don't know whether things were botched or not). In my time back, though, it has struck me as odd that towns IN FRANCE are being cut off by towns being taken to their north, and west. Do any of us believe that southern France shouldn't be utilized as a supply source, in a nominal sense? (in other words it does not have to be modeled in order to act as a source of supply)??? A nominal Paris should be used as a supply source to every French city not cut off from Paris, just as every German city should be nominally supplied from Berlin unless cut off from Berlin, i.e. totally surrounded. This bs where the edge of the map does the work that should be done by players (on either side----I am sure during Allied victories this kind of crap has happened once in awhile), should be stopped. The blitzkrieg, especially as it was utilized in May of 1940 (actual), was a huge (calculated) risk on the part of the Germans. It worked, but those of us who have studied the campaign know that France was not doomed the day the battle started. Ingame, this risk inherent in any deep thrust type of assault, is seemingly nonexistent. When one 'goes deep' looking to cut off enemy supplies and/or troops and/or territory, there is a significant risk that they themselves will end up being the ones being cut off. This cutting off of French towns (or on the flip-side, German towns) can be fixed. One small additional gripe: The germans spent much of their national treasure developing the weaponry needed to conduct a 'blitzkrieg' campaign, and most of it shows up ingame. The French spent much of their national treasure on the Maginot line. Being scolded for 'not understanding the concept of blitzkrieg', I note the germans avoided the maginot line, because the treasure they spent on blitzkrieg weapons would have been wasted attempting to breach that line. While I do not expect the maginot line to be fully modeled, perhaps some restraint on the part of GHC in their willingness to take advantage of its absence would be a good thing for the game.
  7. COMING SOON!!! OUR NEW WEBSITE WILL RESIDE AT: In the coming days I will try my hand at building a website, I guess, lol. Should be a rewarding challenge.
  8. I believe each town along the front (2 towns deep) should have nominal defensive capabilities regardless of whether there is an HC-run division/Brigade present----perhaps (to scale) battalion-sized, most likely INF and towed weapons only. This would allow for more attack AOs, give freedom of manuever to both attackers and defenders, increasing replayability and variability of map moves in the bargain. I also think Division/Brigades' getting their full numbers back should be tougher, to make costly attacks have an actual cost/consequence/risk. (Perhaps that is a different discussion, though). As much as I understand the risks involved in allowing a partial return to the 'old days', the current gameplay is almost wholly a series of battles of attrition----WWII was also a war of maneuver---deep thrusts, and counter-thrusts that the current iteration cannot truly account for.
  9. Thanks for the info---it might end up being the way to go at least for the short term.
  10. Rebuilding Lafayette Federation is going to be a bit of a project. Please be patient---we'll get a website up and running, and so on.
  11. If squad leaders chose not to buy in, as you say, and I have no reason to dispute that, the questions of 'why', and 'how can we fix that problem' still exist. I would say that AOs and Brigades were implented due in large part to HC Officers asking for it to happen----ending town-based supply was a goal of much of AHC from day 1, (myself included), as it was impossible to stop 1 opel with 1 INF from wreaking havoc on the map. Town-based supply made battles largely unnecessary from a german point of view, thus their blitz-opel-krieg was decisive more often than not. I am sure some german vets would want me to point out that not having very good counterparts to Chars and other such issues had something to do with dictating the opel-krieg tactic, but in the end, it made for poor gameplay, i.e. a lack of good battles. As much as it was intimidating to see 10-20 panzers descending on one of our Allied cities, it was far better than watching german flags pop up 3 towns behind the lines and spreading from there, as at least it meant there would be an actual fight.
  12. "Thank you for taking my post seriously, and giving a considered sensible reply. Personally I have never understood why squad leaders, by and large, failed to join/remain in HC and lead through that mechanism. I recall at the time of HC being introduced there were a lot of toys threwn out of the cot, and several squad leaders at the time made some ill-advised statements of opposition to the HC system they subsequently felt unable to publically retract. However, I do not assert that this was entirely problem born out of this attitude. CRS were equally culpable in my view for the failure by: Not making HC training a two-stage process whereby players could, after HC training, shadow a serving HC officer to understand what he did, and why, and why he didn't make certain map-moves. This would have led to a more gradual change between HC training and moving Brigades, as well as providing HC with willing hands on the ground who could communicate back up the chain of command with feedback on the status of attacks/defenses. Instead there was a sudden responsibility for hundreds of players, and if mistakes were made, a tirade of confected abuse from squads who "could have done it better" - but never did. The other failure, was, as I said, the utter absence of ability for transmission of orders on the map. I'd suggest: A different coloured set of "friendly" orders icons. These would be placeable by an attack or defense OIC, and would shew "where he wants" tanks/atg's/fms's etc. These could be changed in realtime by the OIC. ML's would have the ability to make a mission to one of these, and on deployment, if within (say) 300m of it, then the "order icon" would change to MSP icon". Similarly ML's could set "where they want stuff" but their "order icons" would only be visible to players on their mission. Orders set by the OIC would be visible to all ML's, but not to all players."---------Fidd I feel at a bit of a disadvantage, (and a bit ashamed, I guess), in that my experiences ingame come (mostly) from that early period of 2001-2004. I fear that entire 'generations' of players came in after I left, with many of them leaving before I came back. Having said that, and being well aware that my experience with THIS particular version of wwiionline is as a rifleman trying a free account to see if the game is worth coming back to full boat, my goal in this discussion is to see what happened (and I think that a general consensus has appeared on that note), and what if anything can be done to make it better. The early AHC, of which I was a part, adhered to CRS' then dictum that our job wasn't to order folks around the map, but to help facilitate some semblance of organization without stepping on anyone's toes----basically an untenable position for most officers, I realize now, especially when (it turns out) our friends on the german side were basically ignoring CRS (which may or may not have been at least a part of the reason they stomped us so regularly back in the day). Organized OPs required AHC Officers to communicate with squads, along with other Officers, in order to (first) 'cover the map', and then make positive gains wherever possible. It was a bit of a dance trying to keep squads happy but it was possible. I would say the early versions' ability to 'instaspawn armies' basically ruined the honeymoon period, at least for many of the hardcore Allied players. Anyway, now there's tools that seem to need improving, but squads have basically gone away (to other games, or to lonewolving, or whatever). Quite the conundrum. Being an HC Officer required a bit more and a bit less than during my tenure. Certainly we didn't have to train Officers on how to do AOs, but by the same token we definitely had to find a way, without many ingame tools, to get folks onboard with whatever strategy needed to be implemented. This bred a few classes of Officers who were better at communicating and (perhaps) tactics. Now Officers have to be more skilled at strategy, but as they control AOs, less skill is required in getting folks onboard with whatever is going on. Having that in between group---squad officers, might help today's version of HC Officers even more than they helped 'my' generation of Officers, I dunno----I believe that would be the case but it's tough to say for sure, and until/unless squads are rebuilt it is nothing more than an untested theory. I do know this: When squads were more involved/present, members were proud of their individual units, along being proud of their Regiments, and Corps. One need look no further than the forum sigs from back in the day to show this to be the case. That 'espirit de corps' is missing now-----getting it back, whether it be via rebuilding squads, or making the units within the AOs matter, needs to get looked at. Whereas before, I could message someone ingame and know by their Corps where they normally fought, how they normally fought, and what they were better (and worse) at, now that is no longer the case----I doubt anyone really pays any attention to which OrBat unit they are fighting for on a given mission. I'll end the rambling, sorry.
  13. Indeed my initial post does presuppose that the dwindling of squads is an issue, and that looking for a solution is a worthy goal. I understand your association of a return of squads and the bad portion (or at least one of) of the old days---town-based supply (which I was never in favor of, I should add). It is my belief that squads added to the ingame population, and that squads helped with player retention, and gameplay, overall. For the record, a return of 'instaspawning armies' behind lines would be a horrible thing. I don't believe a return of squads requires a return to town-based supply, although I do believe there's a better way (not part of this discussion, though) to handle supplies and/or AOs (there's alwasy a better way, right?). Communication ingame has alwasy been a challenge, to be sure, and the game (I believe) is taking (or has taken) steps (finally?) to rectify some of them. Marking stuff on a I remember that in order to produce anything resembling an actual plan of battle, (phase lines, directions of attack etc) required the use of microsoft paint, photoshop, or some other out of game tool, and I also recall that getting that information to people wasn't as easy as it could have been, either. Ingame tools, especially the ability to mark stuff on a 'battleplan map' that others could see, would be helpful.
  14. "Hi, This statement I highlighted in red is very interesting to me. Are all of the people on the map considered "the map folks"? From my perspective the "folks" most on the map are the veterans and it is the veterans that are most likely to be more coordinated, reliable, informed and communicative. If "these map folks" cannot even stay in a bunker for 5 minutes how are they able to muster near a town for whatever the time it takes and trigger an AO. Could be the rule says it takes 10 or even 15 minutes, could even be 5 minutes ;-) for the AO to trigger, during which EWS is going off and the defense is hopefully being prepared. Heck the fighting could be going on before the AO even gets set. It represents one of the common arguments I see put forth. Call out some generalized group of supposedly inept players and use this figurative group as a foil to promote a viewpoint. It really is without merit and it's Ad hoc argumentation at best. The core veteran players are always what drives the game and the map. Let's stop worrying about this group of ne'er-do-wells as by definition they are relatively ineffective within the game and certainly we do not pretend that they can organize enough to make any kind of significant impact on any kind of critical mass or voting system for AOs. Let them be, hopefully they are happy paying customers. HC and the veteran base on either side would then be more organically organizing their side for critical mass deployment and activation or garnering the right votes for nominations and selection of an upcoming AO."----------Stonecomet I had forgotten how acidic some can be in these forums. For the record, while preparing your deluge you missed my point. It isn't about "ne'er-do-wells" in my opinion, it is about some people caring about the entire campaign, some not, and BOTH needing to be satisfied with gameplay. It's not about people who don't wish to guard flags being 'inept', it is about finding a way where that portion of the playerbase doesn't also adversely effect where the attacks end up happening. I'll also thank you not to lump me in with the 'common arguments' line of 'reasoning' that you have put forth. Take the time to understand what others are saying, and if that doesn't work ask for clarification---some will give it, no doubt. If what you say is true, "the core veteran players are always what drives the game and the map" then aren't you blaming a group of players (core veteran players) for poor gameplay while accusing others of 'calling out some generalized group..'?
  15. I appreciate your reply, (as I do all the others). I've asked in replies what it was about the elimination of the squad missions, or the AO system, that caused squads to go away/dwindle in numbers. I wonder if the simple freedom of being able to choose one's own attacks is that big of a deal or not. I believe you are on to something with the lack of incentive to join a squad---with the AOs perhaps there is no ingame reason to be in a squad. I hope I am not 'the guy who shows up as the staff is cleaning up wondering when the party ended', but that is a distinct possibility. I took a look at both 'hell let loose' and 'post scriptum'----both 50 on 50 with 1 to 1 scale maps of (while larger than an average call of duty map) areas of around 16 square kilometers---big but nowhere near wwiionline. Perhaps I am in the minority, but part of the allure of this game has (for me) always been the sheer size of it all, along with the 24/7-ness of the game----no resetting to the same map every 20 minutes or so and all that. If that isn't a key for others, I would imagine other games will drag players away, but I truly believe that there's something to be said about taking a town and holding it until the other side decides to take it back from you, being miles ahead of the normal (or now-increasing in map size) FPS games.
  16. While there were some squads that really delved into the area of role playing the rank system and all that, by and large I would agree that 'organized' is a relative term. I don't wish to get into generational issues or non-issues, as I do not feel it is productive, nor do I feel the evidence leads to a conclusion that millennials are the problem.
  17. The timing matches based on what I'm hearing, but causality has yet to be established, although it seems a good area to concentrate on for the purposes of this discussion. Coming from my experiences in the early days of AHC and Lafayette Federation, I recall some units not wanting to 'play ball' when assigned targets by an HC----would then, the elimination of being able to choose squad missions have amplified this issue to a point where squads threw in the towel? If true, it sets up a challenging set of variables needing a fix in order to bring squads back----or perhaps it signals that efforts to bring squads back will likely fail. Then again, other factors may have caused the problem, and the timing match of the end of squad missions might be a red herring.
  18. What actual effect did that have on the squads? Was it a case of squads deciding that what the HCs were coming up with wasn't as effective as what the squads were coming up with on their own, or some other deal?
  19. Lonewolves have always been a significant part of the game, to be sure.
  20. "In the beginning there was no HC really, there were just squads. OKW was the first informal HC org to get going, the allied side lagged behind on getting anything going to help the squads organize together through a central org. condensed version probably missing many details"--------Merlin51 Our memories don't match up, although OKW, (the first incarnation of GHC I suppose), was well known to be far more aggressive in organizing players, whereas on the Allied side we tended towards following CRS' directives, which originally were to facilitate good gameplay by helping players to organize (emphasis on helping as opposed to actively running the show per se). "Not talking about HC, has 0 to do with HC, has to do with the squads themselves and even the non squaded players, but especially the squads. You didnt just show up for squad night and say "Hi guys, im going over here and spawn some tigers" Everyone got on and checked in, went over the battle plan got their assignments. If your assignment was to take an mle47 and cut enemy armor leaving this FB, thats what you did. If you were on bunker duty, thats what you did, and someone would come on schedule to relieve you because bunker duty was boring. It began really organized. When i first started playing with BKB, we knew who was doing what, who was what unit, who was spawning where, what route infantry was going to try to take into town etc. It was very organized. Not so strict as to be unfun, but orderly enough you knew who had your back and where. We had our assigned roles, we had assigned mission leaders etc. It was fun Not all lone wolves, but a good number of them would regularly attach to a squad and would actually try to follow with the plans. These were mostly the guys who were not squaded because they like to play allied on monday and axis on wed and flip a coin on the weekend. Heads, steak hoagies and axis, tails large calzones and allied, with a 6 of heineken just for logging in. I did that quite a bit for a good while, then food got too pricey... You could go the whole squad night and get but one kill, maybe you sat in a field for the entire evening, but if you were not there and the enemy started rolling through, no one would have been there to stop them and you knew that, so you manned your post cause it was important. Ever see the 31st wrecking crew* on a squad night? 100+ bodies signed in and organized enough to move probably almost all 100 people in a convoy in the games night (was dark then) into antwerp, without touching a thing, and stage for daylight in the basement of the main RR station. Tanks, trucks infantry and towed guns, and they pulled the kit from many towns. That does not happen without a lot of organization and everyone doing their assigned task."-------Merlin51 I understand you were not talking about HC-----I was, because it is a familiar frame of reference (for me) to the early days of the game---and my point was centered on the fact that there have always been lonewolves---plenty of them. As for 'squad nights', not all large squads had them. In Lafayette Federation, for example, we assumed we would have a significant presence ingame each and every day (and night). Occasionally we set up special squad activities, but for the most part every day was a squad night for LAF, thus we did not tend to have what would have amounted to daily (and nightly) battle plans----we tended to go wherever we felt we were needed most in the south, specifically the then III Corps area of operations. Whoever was OIC would work with AHC to figure out where best to use Lafayette Federation. People settled into roles rather than having them cast into them. We too had lonewolves who would attach themselves to us for a night, and we worked relatively hard to recruit some of them. Indeed I saw the 31st Wrecking Crew all too often, and in too high of numbers at times, lol. Not sure why you seem to have decided upon an antagonistic attitude here---it is easy to dismiss the lack of squads ingame as being the fault of a new generation of gamers, but that, like all simple/snap solutions, probably is not the case. I will say that the early days of AHC were a lot about 'herding cats', and what I see ingame now is not all that dissimilar, other than today's HCs do not have the squads to at least help with the herding. Perhaps I am seeing a problem where none exists, but on the outside chance it is an actual issue I (and no doubt others) have noticed, it is worth a discussion with the goal of seeing if as a group we can come up with some solutions that will help squads regrow, thus helping the HCs, thus helping the gameplay, thus helping the ingame population.
  21. I'll have to read up on the changes being made to the current brigade/flag structure, so I can speak intelligently on that subject. If the HCs lose importance/relevance to the movement of the map, though, the game will most likely suffer. HCs, run by community members, need to be relevant, or we'll have a poor-graphics version of a battlefield game on our hands, and the game will die. Improving the gameplay is a noble goal, but solving a symptom (no HC on at a given moment, or boring AOs) won't solve root issues. For example, if the HCs were fully 'staffed' with timezones in mind, then the symptom of an HC member not being online would go away, and the HC would rise in relevance, not diminish. Whether I misinterpreted Fidd or not, let me state for the record that voting for AOs is a poor choice, imho. Even talking about entrusting the map to folks who cannot be counted on to stay in a bunker for more than 5 minutes is a recipe for failure. BMBM is on the right track with having upcoming missions showing, which would presumably require more pre-planning than is currently required of HC members (or others) but would alleviate some of the hopping back and forth across the map stuff that seems to happen these days.
  22. I certainly believe that all German units should be (kidding) The bigger the unit/squad, the tougher it is to manage, to be sure, but those of us from relatively large squads can probably point to a few times when having 30-50 members ingame was an absolute blast, rivaling those times when it is/was just 4-5 folks raising hell with the other side.
  23. None of us are 100% sure I suppose, or we already would have fixed the issue. The 'more individualistic play style' you mentioned intrigues me, as that was an issue even in the early days of AHC (and presumably GHC). I wonder if (assuming it has increased) it is indeed a shift in the type of players involved, or a result of squads not being more prevalent/involved. I remember the Itza bus very well... I understand your point about bunker/flag guards. In the 'old days' a lot of the HC duties were text-driven, thus once I got ingame I spent much of it sitting in bunkers multi-tasking. I would love to say that 'more folks followed battle plans' but I'm not sure if that is the case or not. Certainly the battle plans back in the day were more comprehensive than I've seen since I returned, but I'm not sure if that is a function of HC, or the game mechanics, or the lack of squad involvement. When AHC was planning an operation when I was in, I would have to take into account what the units in IV Corps were going to be willing to do, how much of III Corps would be present, along with figuring out what if any units we could lend or borrow from BEF----I would get in touch with the unit leaders for troops estimates and mission preferences, and make plans from there. I'm sure it will be difficult to get back the kind of squad I remember from (way) back... That, and the enjoyment derived from watching that rebuilt unit take it to the other side on a daily basis is part of the fun of it all I suppose. We had success (way back) with some of our members being on voice coms and some not----it takes unit leadership willing to communicate messages via ingame chat, but it can and has been done. I certainly feel older, Merlin51.
  24. Agreed on the 'just wanting to have fun' statement---I do think that some squads got a little too into dictating---an Army must be a dictatorship but in a game setting squads should probably have at least some elements of democracy. Voice Coms has always been an important piece of the recruiting pie. I do recall that with Lafayette Federation we even had tutorials sent out to new members so they could get on voicecoms (if they chose) and such. Community events are community-driven. If that ends up being a piece of the solution we'll have to be the ones to implement it, then.