Augetout

Free Play Account
  • Content count

    784
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Augetout

  1. Agreed. I was referring to the laden variety of Stukas in the early days----why am I suddenly thinking of Monty Python's 'Holy Grail'?? Thanks, Saronin, for the timeline on the arrival of the .88----perhaps me not playing the german side clouds my memory----or perhaps it was all those times my poor little R35 would spend 1/2 hour puttering off-road, only to get waxed by one of those damn things. June to October surely flew by back then. For the record, Zimmer, there were a lot of really well-run german units back in the day, and if memory serves a few (less) well-run Allied units, (and yes that was ever so slightly painful to admit). It pains me more to see less of that now. It seems that the game has always depended on players to organize ourselves, whether in squads/units or at the high command levels. I mean no disrespect---it is a decision I agreed whole heartedly with at the time, and would again, if conditions allowed. In year 16, though, that core of dedicated players is a shell of its former glory. I see some of the original folks---BMBM, for example, but even amongst the vets, most are not part of that original core. Without that dedicated playerbase, I worry that whatever CRS' current lineup comes up with will be doomed to mediocrity at best, as the game needs all of the new things---and the optimistic players who are willing/able to do all of the community things that the rest of the game depends on (and had back in the day). I am not busting on the non-day 1 folks---I wish to be clear about that. Not noticing, though, that they are a wholly different bunch than the 'originals', does us all a disservice.
  2. It was tough on the Allied side tonight for sure, Dropbear----wherever I spawned in was surrounded by Panzers and Kraut troops----frustrating to be sure. As tough as it would be, I believe AHC has to (again) make a push to recruit for low-pop times. Perhaps giving spawners a reason to spawn Allied will outweigh the natural instinct (of some) to spawn to the side where it looks easier at a given moment. Actually, looking at the AHC roster, it looks like they should spend some time filling their ranks---THEN make a plan to recruit for low pop times. I would imagine the AHC officers are a bit overworked these days.
  3. "The 88 was not present in the early years."----Zimmer I was a day 1 patch download, (thus technically a day 2 player), and I cannot for the life of me remember the 88 not being ingame. I do remember 31st Wrecking Crew, Windhund, and 1st Totenkopfs (whoever it was) lining those 88s up hulldown on hills and just laying waste to whatever spawned. Kinda glad they have forgotten how to do that... I do agree the game is different, in that it is (at least in the early stages of a campaign) much closer to what I imagine CRS' original vision to be. Perhaps to the delays involved in the game arriving at this point, it seems unit cohesion is almost nonexistent.
  4. Agreed. This can only be more necessary with the influx of steam players giving the game a 'try'.
  5. lolol. I love the old 'we were better' line of reasoning. I seem to recall 1 opel 1INF map runs in your 'early days', and when that ceased to be effective/allowed you had to depend on stukas that could go air to air (while loaded no less), superior numbers in off-American hours, and so on. Perhaps you forgot about the .88 in your 'we did not have good atg' lament. Having said that, I have been against game balancing from the beginning. Proper equipment modeling, in relatively historical numbers/ratios, would do the trick imho. And I agree----warping into a CP is complete crap.
  6. With all due respect, balancing by forcing players to play for 'the enemy' is a horrible idea. Many of us play strictly for 1 side, and would simply log out if forced to play for 'the enemy', thus the solution would solve nothing. Additionally, folks who continually find themselves being forced to log out due to being forced to play for 'the enemy' would be at great risk of leaving the community, causing other significant issues.
  7. It appears as if this campaign has been a good one. Realizing that one's credibility is at least in part related to their number of posts, please note that not all is as it appears, i.e. undoubtedly some veteran members have made their way back into the game without reclaiming their old personas. I haven't seen many trucks with troops, though... It seems the 'new' way is to set up an FMS, which I would submit makes for trickle-in attacks, but perhaps I just haven't been logged on at the right times as yet.
  8. These guys used to annoy the heck out of us Allied players. Too bad they've left.
  9. Folks, PCGamer just had a 'best of' list online today: Most historically accurate games Commenting that WWIIOnline should be on the list might help. 1 new guy was recruited (at least) on the basis of one comment. More would help.
  10. The Free French Army relied on lend-lease equipment, so the French are covered, jeep-wise. It would be nice to see the trucks not being needed/used for scouting duty, having been replaced (at least part-way through a campaign) by Jeeps, Things, etc.
  11. From 1942 onward, the Free French Army utilized Jeeps.
  12. I am not sure this topic is still up and running, but here's my $.02: The 1940 Battle for France and the low countries provides the foundation for a 'balanced' game. As has undoubtedly been said a thousand times: Model the equipment accurately, provide accurate spawn ratios, and let the chips fall where they may. German equipment was not better, nor in most cases was it more plentiful than their Allied counterparts. The germans, then, did not win because their equipment was better or more plentiful. The germans won by focusing their assets in areas where the Allies had not, and by moving quickly enough that the Allies could not/did not react promptly or properly. In a gaming sense, this would require pre-campaign planning by AHC and GHC officers, placing their initial assets as they saw fit. Sometimes this would result in the germans picking correctly, and sometimes (one would hope) the Allies would pick correctly thus allowing the initial german push to be blunted, with the Allied intent being to last long enough for better (and more plentiful) equipment to start arriving. Depending on deployment choices, we would see Allied towns being overrun with little if any chance at holding. We would see the encircling of Allied forces that would run a risk of decimating their equipment numbers (forcing evacuations of large pieces of territory to keep the army intact). We would see counterpunches from the Allies landing against german forces ill-equipped to survive, causing a risk to german forces and necessitating GHC choices on how to react. In short, we would see a higher degree of variability in the combat types, and results. Every campaign would conceivably be completely different than the one before, thus increasing player retention. This was a goal of many of the original core of players that was screwed due to (opinion) poor modeling based on biased research. This is not a rip on the RATS. My belief is they were given biased data from original sources who turned out to be less than worthy of RATS' trust. Most of that original core (of players) is presumably gone by now, but my bet is that many of them would still be here, and many would return, if things were based on the model I have put forth, for the low low price of my $.02.
  13. I think having too many players ingame is a problem I would love to see on a regular basis.
  14. Congratulations on having made it to your sweet 16th. I hope the game survives another 16, at least. It looks a little different than in 'the old days', to be sure.
  15. I hear this Lafayette Federation was a pretty slick unit it its day.