Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Augetout

  1. Your attempt to hijack this thread is duly noted, ian77. I'm not sure judging a campaign a few hours after the campaign was finished is the best time to decide whether or not 'huge battles' are happening. Having said that, I logged in at circa 9pm my time (11pm server time) last night, and there was a german attack that had double EI EWS, double armor EWS, and as a bonus the sky was literally filled with Stukas, He111s, and 109s (or 190s, was busy on the ground). The attack lasted for 2 hours after I logged in before we (the Allies) were finally able to lib the town and get the offending FB under control. It might not have turned out that way for the Allies, had not axis troops decided not to guard the FB, or spawnable they had captured. It was a fun battle full of tank on tank, air on (our) tanks, Inf vs Inf, ATGs, AAA guns. Other than naval units, it was pretty much the entire game stuffed into a battle for a town, (it was inland, hence no naval units) I'll leave it to CRS to explain 1.36 spawn lists, but given the huge step forward that 1.36 has been, it is only natural that some tweaks to the spawn lists would be (and might continue to be) necessary. I understand your frustration. As one can see from the original intent of the thread, I'm just trying to be a (small) part of the solution. I understand your skepticism, but I hear the same thing during battles in-game on a daily basis, and it solves nothing, whether it is the next prediction of the game's failure, or the next prediction that a 'town is lost' before it actually is. Nothing is gained by being a prognosticator of doom, imho. I'll be one of the folks who will continue to fight for this community, and this game until we either get it fixed, or they turn the lights out. The community, and game, are both worth my efforts, as they are worthy of yours.
  2. w00t!
  3. AEF is a valued squad within the Allied community.
  4. I believe yellow tags (green tags actually---I feel your shade intolerent pain), are new players, and I do not believe they are adjustable. My advice would be to submit a ticket to support and see if Pittpete @PITTPETE has a solution that I am unaware of. While you're at it, Lonepilgrim, stop by the unit website and see about Randazzo and you cooperating to get you a Lafayette Federation sig!
  5. I'm very glad to hear you are kicking cancer's [censored]! Well done. It couldn't have been an easy fight, and I'm glad you're winning.
  6. A small thing, but I wish if folks are griping about GHC that they'd say GHC. AHC has been working our tails off trying to make sure we have an MOIC on 24/7, and we're pretty close to being perfect at this time. We could use more folks to sign up for AHC, though, as it would lessen the burden on some of the Officers who are on when there aren't a lot of available Officers in-game.
  7. I would advise adding a @OHM to your post, so you can be sure he'll see it. If it's an error he'll fix it. If there's some intention behind it, he'll explain it.
  8. I don't know who I was talking to in CRS, but he explained that some people, say in Texas, are going through X amount of stops before hitting the server, while people in other places, say Spain, are going through X plus Y stops before hitting the server. It's not a huge difference, but it is enough of a difference that it sometimes adversely affects the level of 'lag'. I do know it happens on both sides, and that it tends to happen when players from certain countries are in-game. From the Allied perspective, there are times when the 250s are damned near invisible at times. I do know that CRS is working on some solutions, although what those look like are way above my non pay grade, and technical ability to know anything about. If it tends to be a specific person, or group of persons, my advice would be to continue doing .reports not so much in an accusatory 'they must be cheating' way, but as a help to CRS in reinforcing their conclusions as to the causes, thus allowing for better fixes to be implemented.
  9. Whew! Lucky I'm not 9 years old, or that statement would have run a risk of accomplishing what you seem to wish to accomplish, i.e. distracting from the main point: There has been no exploitation of the town ownership portion of the game by AHC, and if there was, it would not be tolerated.
  10. Use of an exploit is cheating in my book. Just because a game allows it doesn't mean it is right to do so. I just looked at the webmap, and I get a count of 10 French 14 Brits. I'm not sure how you are getting 5. I understand your insistence on sticking to a humble opinion despite what the facts show. The towns were not changed as part of a strategy to exploit the ownership portion of the game, and if it had been, I would have disciplined the Officer(s) involved in a loud and public manner. I can only go off what I can see on the Webmap, and what I've seen while in-game. Unlike you, I never once implied that anyone, let alone Dfire, was lying. I respect Dfire as a player and as a community member, and I hope to earn that respect in return. I based my investigation off of what I saw on the webmap, what I saw while in-game, and in discussions with various AHC Officers. Again, I am confident that nothing nefarious was going on, and I am confident that none of what actually has happened matters to you unless it fits into your preconceived and yet wholly inaccurate notions. Keep searching for the magic elixir that will somehow make you correct, @csm308 Clearly it gives you enjoyment, and the more time you waste fruitlessly searching for a nonexistent bogeyman the more vindicated I feel that our efforts on the Allied side are making positive progress.
  11. I won't treat you like a moron, @kazee as I wouldn't appreciate it anymore than I appreciate being accused of being a liar and/or a cheat by others. 24 hours ago the webmap shows 11 French, 13 Brit 12 hours ago the webmap shows 13 French, 14 Brit 6 hours ago the webmap shows 13 French, 18 Brit 3 hours ago the webmap shows 12 French, 18 Brit A little while ago the webmap showed 11 French, 18 Brit As I said in an earlier post, most of the time the Allied Officers (myself included) don't bother changing town ownership at all, leaving it to whatever country's forces gets credit for taking the new town. The ratios over the past 24 hours as shown on the webmap are not out of whack, and are indicative of the axis taking a couple of French towns while the UK took a few axis towns. Some towns may have been changed to put UK forces in the south, but it was not done nefariously, and it was not done in the extreme. I have asked CRS (and they have answered) as to whether or not there is a tool that would allow me to see how many frontline towns were changed manually. Given their answer (not possible) and given my discussions with Allied Officers, I am confident in reiterating the point that changing 'all' or 'nearly all' of the frontline towns to UK ownership is not part of our strategy, nor would it be tolerated if it was done in the extreme as has been accused in this thread. A couple towns in the south were made British to allow for some British equipment to appear in the south, which is well within our instructions from CRS. The Officer(s) in question did not do so to 'exploit' the game, and in fact only a small number of towns had their ownership changed. Had the frontline towns been changed as part of a diabolic plan to exploit the game, then by definition disciplinary action would be necessary. I am not one to allow cheats/exploits just because the game hasn't figured out how to stop them. Honor matters in this community, and it is one of the reasons I am still in this community, as well as being a reason why I either haven't gotten into or stayed in, other gaming communities, (I'm looking at you, SOCOM community members...). Changing ownership should be a part of the game. Understand that in the fantasy world some believe we operate in whereby only the 'invincible' matildas are behind the Allies taking ground, an inability to change town ownership would result in a frontline made up entirely of British flags. Perhaps later in campaigns it would result in nothing but U.S. flags. In either event, neither of which will happen btw, people who prefer a different country's equipment would be left out in the cold, which CRS would frown heavily on. As far as I'm concerned, this matter is closed, and AHC has been absolved of any guilt relating to the inaccurate accusations regarding any exploitation of the frontline towns' ownership. I have communicated with AHC that any such exploitation will not be tolerated, and I am confident that no such thing occurred. I realize this answer might not satisfy those who may have a preconceived notion that either myself or other AHC Officers would be inclined to cheat, but in the end those folks are going to reach that conclusion no matter what I say or do.
  12. Again, if it was up to me there would be a return to the Namur demarcation line of BEF in the north and ArFr in the south. While I was away from the game, I guess that became an untenable deal, so the 'u guys' you are referring to isn't me. It is, however, most of the Allied player base, and CRS, who prefer a 'mixing' of the 2 forces.
  13. Inaccurate, @kazee Looking at a flag does not prove anything, hence why I am seeking information on how those towns got the flags they got. As stated above, CRS actually suggests mixing up the town ownership, which may end up being the reason if it isn't simply because a british unit took the town in question. I'm from 'Merica, where we're innocent until proven guilty, which hasn't happened. I cannot be forced to prove a negative. I have said I will look into if the frontline towns have had ownership changes, and if so how and why. I appreciate your generosity in regards to disciplinary action, but if it happened and I find out who did it, disciplinary action will be forthcoming, and will be based on a 'knowing' vs. 'doing' problem. If they didn't know, then they'll be instructed, and we'll move on. If they knew and did it anyway, they will be disciplined thusly. We got here based on an accusation that is not substantiated by factual evidence, so my humble bet is nothing really needs to be addressed, although I will reserve final judgement on it until I have all the facts involved.
  14. It is interesting that despite having not proven that said 'abuse' exists, you have already concluded that the 'abuse' will not result in disciplinary action. I'm about done with being accused falsely by you, @csm308. I'm not sure what your definition of honorable conduct is, but it falls well askance of my own. I don't cheat, and I don't put up with cheaters in my unit, or on my staff in AHC. Thankfully it's been a long long time since anyone who was a cheater decided that joining Lafayette Federaton was a good idea, and to my knowledge I have ZERO Officers who have given so much as an inkling that they might be inclined to cheat. Maybe they are just 'really good' at hiding it from me thus far, but I highly doubt it. I also don't cruise around the forums falsely accusing others of lying, and/or cheating. You are working off an inaccurate assumption, @kazee When I accepted the position of Allied CinC, I actually dreamed of going back to the Namur demarcation line for BEF and ArFr forces, but was advised by Allied Officers and CRS that the game's intention is to stay away from that sort of thing. Something about the BEF and ArFr's past failures to cooperate resulting in poor gameplay for all players... Thus, having UK towns well south of the Meuse is not only acceptable, but suggested by CRS.
  15. I did a rough count and got 10 French 19 UK, currently. I am seeking access to information on whether any frontline towns were swapped. As promised, I have posted in the AHC slack area that switching all frontline towns to the UK will not be tolerated. I will be only too glad to report back whatever findings I end up coming up with. Accusations about AHC abusing this rule are as yet unsubstantiated by factual evidence, and no, counting the towns is not evidence of foul play. Given the Allies' habit of NOT changing frontline town ownership, the percentage of UK vs French frontline towns is most likely a function of which country got credit for taking the next town. As stated earlier, we typically do not change ownership, and thus on some days, (when we push with French units), more of the frontline will be French. On others, (when we push with the British units), more of the frontline will be made up of UK towns. In the far north, for example, the cut of the Zees was accomplished with a French Division, hence the plethora of French towns in the far north. The axis then sought to relieve the cut, and in the process beat up the French Division to the point where we ended up pushing with British units, which is why it may look like those far north frontline towns were 'swapped' to the UK, when in fact that is not the case. Having said all of that, and to repeat myself: It is NOT Allied 'strategy' to abuse frontline town placement. All axis accusations to the contrary, there are plenty of us on the Allied side who prefer French equipment. I've even heard a rumor that the Allied CinC runs a French unit that until the breakup of the BEF area and French area, fought almost exclusively in the 'dirty south' with French equipment, for the glory of virtual France!!! If it is found that an Officer (or Officers) have failed to get that message, they will indeed be disciplined.
  16. @dfire you are seeing that because of your dedication to defending FBs colliding head-on with Nc0gnet0's dedication to taking them down. For the record, you are both really good players, and if/when you come back to the Allied side, will be fast friends. Of that I have no doubt.
  17. There is no portion of the Allied strategy in regards to switching town ownership to the Brits. I'm looking at the webmap, and I'm not seeing the '80+% British towns deal folks are referring to. Perhaps it has changed in the past few hours. Goreblimey is correct in saying that most towns are not switched, i.e. whichever country's forces gets credit for taking the town, we leave it that way, most of the time. We do have a tendency, (currently) to exploit battlefield success by continuing to hit in the same general area, which sometimes ends up showing a short term higher percentage of UK (and at other times, French) frontline towns. At any rate, I would like to assure @dfire and others worried that AHC is seeking to abuse the rules (spoken and/or unspoken), that we are not doing so. AHC during my term as CinC will continue to be dedicated to beating the german side so bad that they might think they've been cheated, but we will not ever cheat to win, period. I want to win as much if not more than the next guy, but winning a battle, or a campaign, is not worth sacrificing my honor. A marriage or 2 maybe, but not my honor. I will also reiterate that point in the AHC area, in case someone hasn't gotten the message yet.
  18. Welcome to our 'newest' member: Dustyhc Yes indeed, Lafayette Federation is getting into the RDP business in addition to the other tasks we pay attention to, and Dustyhc will be heading up that section. So if you're a bomber pilot or want to be a bomber pilot, my humble advice would be to seek out some veteran bomber pilots to hook up with. You might even want to join the same squad they are in... Who knows?? and welcome, Dustyhc
  19. Excellent point.
  20. Sorry to see you take a break, @ojsimpson. The Allies will miss your relentless aggression.
  21. Attention to Unit Orders, 22 July, 2019 For their dominant teamwork as a squad in 165, AEF is awarded the Commander in Chief Unit Citation. This is the highest award that can be presented to an Allied squad. For superior teamwork and battlefield success in 165, 7th Army Allied Strike Team, ATEAM, ANZACS, 1st Rat Pack, Special Op’s, and 4 Wing Squadrons are awarded the Valorious Unit Citation. This is the 2nd highest award that can be presented to an Allied squad. For doing more with fewer members, The Pathfinders, and Lafayette Federation are awarded the Meritorious Unit Citation. This is the 3rd highest award that can be presented to an Allied squad. Please join me in congratulating these highly deserving Allied units.
  22. I would submit that WW2Online is not easily comparable to other MMOs, in that our players can't go off to a cave somewhere by themself and mine for stuff for days, and there is no special sword to be crafted at the end of the mining expedition. In WW2Online, in-game rank eventually is achieved/maxed out, and the satisfaction is based on whatever the battles or lead up to the battles causes enjoyment for the players. Back in the early days, my unit had a guy named Itza who almost always preferred to drive a truck. He brought troops to the battle, towed guns to the battle (and back sometimes), and once TOEs entered the fray, he either drove truckloads of Infantry from backline towns or he drove tanks from backline towns. It was a rare event that he shot at folks, as he was rarely in-game in anything other than an unarmed truck. And he had a blast, and was really well-known (actually kind of famous) in-game for his 'itzabus'. Last campaign I saw Bloodybill running around on the Allied side, picking off enemy FBs pretty much by himself. One wouldn't even know he was in-game until he'd post 'x fb is allied' when he was done. Different strokes for different folks, but far different from other MMOs, imho.
  23. I would submit that the quicker folks understand that starting a post by calling the people you want to have listen to you 'ignorant' or 'uncaring' is a bad thing, the quicker positive progress can be made. I'm not sure where you are getting your figures from, but there is a distinct difference between what you are saying and actual facts in regards to subscriber numbers. They aren't going UP as fast as any of us would prefer, but they are going up. As far as a slack channel etc. CRS has run many in-game, in forum, and on Facebook polls and changes made are reflective of the results. Additionally, a couple of months ago Xoom had an open meeting with any/all who chose to attend for a discussion on gameplay changes, etc. I don't recall you being there. Perhaps there was a scheduling conflict. 1.36 has resulted in a significant uptick in actual battles. The game no longer depends on HCs in order to function. CRS has fixed some long-standing gameplay errors. I'm not sure what you mean by 'incorrect game decisions'. Gameplay is miles ahead of where it was pre 1.36 I think if more people were aware of that instead of what they'll likely see on our community forums, a lot of the in-game population worries would die of their own accord.
  24. Not if you gave up cheese for Lent, but that would mean you were from Wisconsin, and very religious, as giving up cheese would be quite the sacrifice.