Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Augetout

  1. +1 for PPO FBs replacing current FBs.
  2. and congratulation.
  3. and congratulations
  4. If we're going to cherry pick, at least explain the significance of map 100 as opposed to any other starting point you could have chosen, please.
  5. I am fine with folks having opinions that differ from my own. You should point out, however, that your assertions are opinions. There may have been 'nothing wrong about the old ToE' from your viewpoint, but from others there sure was. Your opinion is that 'the only imbalance is a $$$ value...' that YOU believe is 'completely irrelevant to the game world'. To others, it is relevant. Aside from the obvious fact that most players do not bother to post in these forums, overall the reaction to moving towards more historical spawn ratios has been positive, or positive with need of tweaks. Those who believe as you do, (and this doesn't make you anymore incorrect or correct on this issue) are not the majority. I mention this to bring context to the point that while your opinions matter, they really should be stated as such as opposed to having them pose as facts, and you should understand that most folks are in favor of historical accuracy wherever possible, thus you and others should be mindful of who falls under the umbrella that you and others are seeking to dismiss and/or insult into submission. Your statements regarding the 88mm are accurate, provided the axis side just parks one in the middle of nowhere with no intentions regarding combined arms----when used as anything resembling an actual combined attack (or defense) the 'every unit is a counter' falls askance of accuracy, as most of said equipment has no prayer of wading through the sappers, ATGs, and Panzers that SHOULD be in between the 88s and whatever we are hoping to use to kill it/them. The stug's model isn't conducive to cutting a depot. None French tanks are conducive to hasty defenses. None French tanks are capable of beating their german counterparts to high ground, or hull down positions outside of towns. These 'issues' listed have been issues since the very beginning of the game. Folks who didn't like it were told "it's historically accurate that your tanks are so slow, figure out a way around it". Now, our French tanks are still slow, as is accurate, and the side that wins the vast majority of campaigns thinks life is too hard because their Infantry brigades don't have enough panzers with MGs, despite it being an accurate depiction of 1940 german Infantry brigades, (less the horses). The 232 works well in covering depots, provided the 88s and Stugs, etc., (in an Infantry brigade) have taken care of the Allied armor in that area. Not having more panzers in your Infantry brigades does not preclude the axis from using combined arms, so your assertion that the axis wanting more panzers in Infantry brigades is due to the wish to use combined arms, does not match the facts. I get that you're bent on insulting anyone who disagrees with your point of view. Your definition of simulation being different than mine is duly noted. Your opinions on why the Allies lose the majority of campaigns, and have over the entire time of the game's existence, (other than I guess for a period of time when I was not in-game, sadly), is also duly noted. It's hard for me to believe that from the early days of this game the german side 'just has better players', but who knows, you might be right. I've been hearing different variations on that (what I and I hope others would consider to be false) idea for 18 years now, and I have yet to see the folks who subscribe to this theory come over to the Allied side and 'show us how it is done'---at least not successfuly.
  6. I'm not sure why you feel the need to go full 'fox news' on this by attempting to characterize a move by a wwii simulator towards a more accurate simulation, as being 'hysterical'. Also not sure why you would think it proper to accuse anyone in this community of being "at best, silly, at worst, down right stupid". We're all adults here, and should be expected to act thusly. The goal is to provide historically accurate performance modeling---when it's wrong, CRS works to fix it. The goal is to provide historically accurate spawn ratios, or as close to it as is possible. When things are nastily out of whack, CRS works to fix it. You're not asking for a fix, though, as much as you are asking for a ahistorical advantage to be returned. Try for a second to think of this from a different point of view, say from an Allied player: You have an advantage in tank speed, and (with the stug and/or 88s) have the ability to pound Allied bases with impunity from a range where the Allies don't have many good counters. You already win the vast majority of campaigns, and somehow still manage to portray the axis side as being 'the underdogs' with straight faces. Now you want more tanks in Infantry Brigades. Could you understand why a good share of Allied players might conclude that all arguments to the contrary, what you folks really want is a game where you always have what you want to spawn exactly where you want it, in ways to ensure that you always win? Maybe I have it wrong, but how much of an advantage in equipment do you need in order to be happy? It will most likely never progress to a point where everything is completely accurate spawn ratio-wise, as the axis certainly would not to be outnumbered everywhere they went (in later tiers). So, if you could take a step back and take a look from a less angry point of view, you might see that the axis is already deriving an advantage by NOT having to deal with being out-produced in later tiers. In early tiers, the axis has to be careful with where they place armored brigades--the Allies have to be careful as well.
  7. and congratulations. Well earned. I certainly prefer rolling up on an enemy FB with dfire, as opposed to against him...
  8. Given that CRS does not release in-game numbers to all but a select few CRS people, I wouldn't think that any graph not provided by CRS would be of much worth, for in-game population.
  9. I don't know who would be saying the Sherman 76 and Firefly are in-game for 'balance' purposes. Maybe that happened before I came back. It being a 'historical fact that the german tanks were far superior..' is at best a debatable topic, and would dependant on which theater at which time period within the war you are referring to. Certainly you weren't referring to May of 1940 in France... I am a huge fan of the move towards more historically accurate spawn lists, even as I note that the game will most likely never factor in the huge production advantage enjoyed by the Allies once the Americans were fully involved.
  10. It's my understanding it is likely to be part of the patch this week, assuming the collider issues are ok and all that. Hey Moz, I was at an enemy FB yesterday, and decided to attempt to mess with their AO a bit---to no avail. I couldn't place PPOs anywhere near the spawn entrance. Guess they fixed that issue.
  11. I am for any/all fixes that take the game towards more historical accuracy. As always, the goal should be (my opinion): Give the players accurately modeled equipment, in accurate spawn ratios (with allowances made for stand-in vehicles/weapons), and let the players decide the outcome. I do not believe increasing the load time on applicable French tanks would decrease Allied numbers---and I do not believe that game development decisions on fixes of inaccurate models should be made only if CRS thinks the community will be in favor of it. This game is not COD, or Post Scriptum, or any other pretender to the crown of most realistic WWII wargame. As such every effort should be made to continue and improve upon that which sets this game apart from the rest: No battle-size limitations, and historically accurate performance models. Allied tankers rolling in R35s and Chars know we're getting into the slowest, least likely to kill enemy tank, tanks in-game. If they've been playing under the illusion that these tanks match up well with german tanks, slowing down the reload times won't convince them otherwise, and if they are of the mind to leave because these tanks don't match up to the panzers very well, odds are they are already long gone from the game.
  12. I think that might be a good thing.
  13. I like the idea. I'm not sure on what/how much work it would take (not my area). It even meshes well with my favorite 'wish': Current FBs going away, and being replaced by FB PPOs.
  14. It should be possible for you and I to disagree without you having to make things up as you go along. You don't have to request me to be honest, as it is a given. Had I realized that after 18 years I would have to produce a list of players with the specific reasons they left in order to make the point that many left due to the game drifting away from historical accuracy, I probably still wouldn't have wasted the time to do it. If you wish to be credible, then please stop asking for proof that water is wet. You are asserting that less players the last 3 campaigns is caused by the new spawnlists, but I'm not convinced the evidence exists to back that claim. Other than the first part of 158, in the 'omg my Infantry units do not have enough panzers thus all axis tankers have quit or are about to' scenario, the Allies should be overpop all day every day, right? I mean, isn't it safe to assume that the Allied players benefitting from the axis side's Infantry brigade not having enough armor would not be part of the 'crowd' leaving the game? We all want more players in-game, and I have zero problem with people trying to lobby CRS to make the game better, myself included. Let's not allow reason to be blotted out by frustration. If there are less players in-game, and the Allies aren't constantly overpop, then it really doesn't follow that there are less people in-game because german tankers are peeved about historical spawnlists. I understand frustrations borne of game changes, and some changes have caused me much frustration, too. Finding actual solutions is a worthy goal, but requires the location of the actual problems, and their roots.
  15. You should know better than to speak before your brain is engaged, Mos. Perhaps you can convince new folks, or veterans with poor memories that I am some 'sycophant' of CRS, but those with good memories know you are speaking directly out of your sphincter. While I have never been as rude as you have been when disagreeing with CRS, I have and will continue to disagree with CRS----every time they move towards a red v blue setup, as I have since before the game went live some 18 years ago. I know, 'ancient history'...
  16. You are reaching conclusions not based in fact. 1. Posting in these forums is not required, and (newsflash) most players don't post very often if ever, here. 2. You are presuming to know the 'pulse' of the players, but are doubtful that this game lost hundreds of players due to a lack of historically accurate spawnlists, etc----it doesn't do much for your credibility on this issue. 3. You are ignoring the poll results, that sat at around 75% being for historically accurate spawnlists (including those who like the historically accurate spawnlists but are of the opinion that they still need tweaking, myself included). That poll wasn't 'a long time ago', by the way, as it ended less than 10 days ago. 4. You are presuming to know what CRS is basing its decisions on, when that simply is not the case. See you ingame.
  17. Do you and Kgarner have a count on how many Allied players (and axis players) have left the game over the years due to the lack of historically accurate spawnlists? I bet not, but shouldn't that matter just as much as the current griping about 'stugs in Infantry brigades'? It's cherry picking to look at the sortie counts for the last 3 campaigns, while ignoring the thousands of posts from players asking for more accurate spawnlists and/or equipment modeling, and while ignoring the hundreds of our fellow community members who eventually gave up during the CRS 1.0 era of constantly trying to artificially balance the gameplay while taking the game further and further away from that which makes it the best wargame on pc. Folks who were here in the old days might want to take a look in the mirror, and remember how many times they drove 4 towns behind the lines to spawn a magical army, without a care in the world to what negative effects it had on the campaign-play, or community as a whole.
  18. Geez Merlin, I'm an advocate for PPOFBs. lessening the number of CPs was just a throw in to explore, which I guess is not necessary.
  19. I am (and have been) an advocate for PPOFBs. I believe they would add to the variability of battles and campaigns, as well as dragging battles away from the CQB-festivals the city battles require. It would improve the level of 'fog of war', as enemy troops wouldn't know where the PPOFBs were located until someone found them. In a 1.36 world, town garrisons would then be supplemented by (in my perfect world) Regimental-sized PPOFBs. Placed no closer than 3 or 4 K away from an objective town, they would have to be protected by players, as they could still be destroyed (or suppressed) by the enemy, thus drawing some of the battles away from the cities. As to whether FMS would even be desirable to maintain at that point, would have to be decided upon after play-testing, I would imagine. As to whether or not cities could then lessen the number of capturable flags would also, at that time, be something to explore, as PPOFBs might allow for tactical victory conditions to be based on destruction of Regiments involved, rather than CPs.
  20. Axis units take note: Lafayette Federation is coming to a town near you, and every day we are getting a bit stronger. Rebuilding efforts are progressing in a positive manner. New members: Please remember to register at our website: as it will help you to get to know your fellow squad members, and in addition we have some 'how to' stuff in our forums that will help quicken the pace of getting a handle on the learning curve for this game. As always, post any questions in here, or on our website, and I will either answer them or find someone who can. Welcome to 2 of our newest members: Wolfpawtec, and Soupfarmer (who has a friend who is also joining, I believe). and welcome.
  21. I like that Brussels and Antwerp are broken up into smaller pieces. It lessens the impact of the inevitable mole attacks, allowing the respective HCs to continue with normal operations as opposed to being required to devote all resources to mole hunts. Finally, it lessens the ability of low-pop/TZ3 players to take huge towns in quick fashion, thus (I presume) improving the chances that folks logging in the next day won't see the entire map screwed up while they were sleeping.
  22. and contratulations to all.
  23. I am, despite feeling a little unnecessary guilt over not having 'earned' the Shermans, etc. As folks get more used to the move towards historically accurate spawn lists, the start date could theoretically be moved around quite a bit.
  24. That isn't polite, nor is it accurate. Bmbm has clearly stated that: "I'm not saying the current budget disposition is final-there may yet be tweaks..." I wish everyone luck in figuring out how to quantify 'combat effectiveness'. I think it is an impossible task. I do not believe it is possible to come up with an accurate combat effectiveness system that can account for HOW the equipment is used. For Snipers, will it be based on the agave/nily/nkelly/tatonka crowd, who properly (I presume) sneak around, and fire from covered positions? Or will it be based on me (for example) who spawns a sniper when an AB bunker is in trouble and we're out of SMGs and LMGs, and I'm hoping I can help clear the bunker with the sniper's pistol? Perhaps it will be based on the new subscription folks who grab Snipers almost reflexively so that their 'spawn and stand in the spawn while shooting' theory is a bit more effective. My humble bet is that the 'in the weeds' sniper stats are going to be wholly different than mine or the new-guy depot snipers, and any mixture of the 3 will simply dilute and nullify the perceived 'combat effectiveness' value. How the weapon is used is going to be an important variable to control for, and I do not believe it is possible to do so accurately. Ironically, it is one of the reasons behind the mantra I personally have been advocating for since before the game came out: Give us historically accurate performance modeling, with historically accurate spawn ratios, and let the chips fall where they may, as any/all attempts to artificially balance gameplay will end with someone's group of players being peeved, and it may end up being very difficult to keep under control as more equipment is added.