Augetout

Free Play Account
  • Content count

    784
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Augetout

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. @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.
  9. 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.
  10. Excellent point.
  11. Sorry to see you take a break, @ojsimpson. The Allies will miss your relentless aggression.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Hmm. I think that makes sense.
  17. I suppose. Of course you are still basing this entire conversation on an incorrect assumption that I have attempted to make sure didn't continue or escalate. I'm less than pleased that your response is to call me a liar, but it makes sense, as it is far easier than simply admitting that you read my post incorrectly, (or if you would prefer, I wasn't clear enough). Again, I didn't mean to convey anything other than that I was unhappy someone was unsubbing. I keep saying I didn't mean to imply what you think I meant to imply----and I'm saying it that way as I have no idea what you think I was implying. I gather it is negative, and I've attempted to clarify that isn't the case. If/when you have a problem with how I've worded something, you should feel free to contact me and ask for a clarification which I will be only to glad to provide. If you would prefer to continue making false accusations based on not understanding my post(s) and/or not believing me, that is your deal. If I had done something wrong, I would have apologized for it. I didn't, thus I haven't, (apologized).
  18. The discussion that you're attempting to have with me is based on a false assumption of yours. At this point I can offer a clarification, but given your willingness to assume the worst I'm not sure it will help you. Suffice it to say that I am not happy that someone is choosing not to re-sub, and it has nothing to do with whether or not they play Allied, Axis, or a mixture of the 2. I am not implying what you seem to think I was. In the future, should you conclude that your ability to read between the lines has given you special insights on 'what augetout really was implying', and when compared to the AoC it doesn't look good to you, I invite you to ask for a clarification. I think you might find it less time-consuming and more useful than a false accusation.
  19. When believing someone becomes a violation of the code of conduct I will be sure to stop believing folks? When being sad that someone is not going to resub becomes a violation of the code of conduct, well then I just don't know what I'll do.
  20. Oh I know what I'm disappointed in, and it isn't Allied reactions. I think your assimilation to the axis side is complete, Kilemall. This thread's root cause is not based in fact, and I'm not sure communication fixes that one bit. That the ROF and turret speed was changed in May of '18 to reflect more historically accurate research/data was in the readme. That it slowed the ROF for French tanks has been (now) fully explained, and yet despite all of it I am to believe that a bunch of german tankers have (and allegedly will contintue to) quit the game because the ROF on French tanks was slowed despite their conclusion that it wasn't. At some point ridiculous has to be called just that. When the water is wet and a bunch of folks think it isn't, I'm not sure what fixes the issue. Twist and turn and attempt to morph it into a bunch of whataboutisms and you know betters, but at its root, I ran an Allied unit that had over 250 members, and long after turning the reigns over to more active players but still being involved in the squad, I watched them melt away from the game, and have had zero luck in getting them back into the game despite concerted rebuilding efforts now lasting almost 2 years. You want to claim knowledge over what happened to the tankers in my unit because it fits your narrative better which is understandable, but in this instance you are overstepping, as you weren't involved in the squad discussions that I was involved in despite not being in the game, even as you were still in-game. As for the constant whining regarding the 88 from all kinds of folks, I can only say that it's the best ATG in-game by a wide margin, and the inability to make it 'a factor' is based on choice. Argue about how many there should or shouldn't be, but the very second the reasoning behind it starts in the direction of the false logic that it is ineffective, just stop, as it isn't an argument that holds any water. The Flak 36 (88mm) has killed over 662,095 thousand Allied armored vehicles, at a 2:1 k/d. 627,956 thousand have been Allied 'tier 0' tanks. Leaving out the k/d for a moment, that is 205,264 more kills on armored vehicles than the 2 pounder and French 47mm combined. If memory serves, CSR doesn't take into account the earliest days of WW2Online, when the 88 was even nastier to run into due to the Allies simply not having figured out anything resembling a counter at that time. Ineffective? Pishtosh.
  21. Sadly, I believe you when you say you'll only resub when 'playing axis only is fun again'...
  22. Well I don't. My unit had 40+ members who were dedicated French tankers. I haven't been able to convince them to come back. It's not funny at all.
  23. I sure hope this settles things.
  24. I can appreciate you 'getting a bit ticked off', and hope you can relate to the hundreds of Allied tankers who dealt with inaccurate performance modeling in the area of ROF and turret speed for who knows how long, who left before the audit fixed the issues found, (in ROF and turret speed). I hope you can wrap your brain around the concept that the ROF and turret speed changes that were made were based on reems of research, and that you have presented nothing to refute that. Your 'tip of the iceberg' evidence is not compelling, imho. Thus I am left with 3 choices: Accept that the audit that took months and months and months was based on good research, accept your at best incomplete evidence, or dive back down the rabbit hole myself and do my own research. Currently, and with no anger towards you, I am going to go with the first one, as it fits more in line with what my own, previous research (that I can no longer cite directly, having lost my library in the divorce years ago and having not reconstituted it as yet), found---which allowed for the conclusion that the Somua's ROF was not as adversely affected by the turret situation as some have concluded, as the radio operator could double as loader, thus bringing the task-load down to a point where it didn't significantly affect the Somua's ROF. There was research showing that French tank crews, having not been under fire before, had some issues in maintaining their bearing during their baptism to enemy fire, which did have an adverse effect on ROF---although that cannot and should not be modeled into the game, as it is not a performance measure. If/when presented wtih compelling evidence that even with the radio operator doubling as loader the Somua's ROF was significantly slower than what is modeled, I will accept the evidence, and whatever changes that need to be made to rectify it. I will not threaten to leave, and I will not stomp my feet. I will be a bit bummed out, no doubt, but I have been and will remain dedicated to the principle that this game should: Give us what was there, in historically accurate spawn ratios, with accurate performance modeling. Please note that I am not speaking of the Char, because I didn't do a lot of research on the Char.
  25. You know better, Kilemall, in that you are well aware that I am all for accurate performance modeling, and have been for 18 years, regardless of whether doing so 'helps the Allies' or not. I do not believe that Allied tankers, who presumably have been taking it in the shorts for who knows how long before the May of '18 audit, will react poorly. Not to mention it might entice some of the Allied tankers who left during the 'take it in the shorts' period of time when the performance modeling was less accurate, to come back.