Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by augetout

  1. ANZAC is a great bunch of Allied players. Back when I was in AHC, I could always count on ANZAC to hold the left flank of the (at that time separated) French Army, from the BEF side. Good luck on the rebuild, and I hope to see more ANZAC in-game!
  2. Welcome to our newest members: Captron, Lonepilgim, Madcyka. Lafayette Federation locked down defense of Ninove as much as numbers allowed tonight. Soon, we'll have the numbers to resume denying objectives to the germans-----i.e. they won' t be able to take a town when Lafayette Federation is present.
  3. That is not an accurate statement to make. CRS' efforts have led to positive changes in community member numbers, to be sure. Not up to 'the old days' yet, but certainly trending in an upwards direction for the past year-ish. Any changes to the LMGs will not be 'nerfs'. Tankers and Panzerplayers will continue to have access to their chosen units. There is a significant percentage of players who have enjoyed the recent changes, and there's a significant percentage of players who are in favor of moving more towards historical accuracy. It is clear that CRS will not do so at the expense of gameplay, while reserving the right to give some things a try here and there. Some changes will work, and some will not, but be honest with yourself---if the game today was the exact same as it was 15 years ago you'd already be gone. Getting more players is a goal, but not by turning this game into red v blue or a pale version of COD, etc. Getting more players by improving that which makes WWIIOnline unique in the realm of MMOs, MilSims, FPS, etc., is the path forward. Mistakes will be made----and will be rectified. A lot (my opinion only) of the issues we have ingame right now would not be significant issues if more players were in-game at any given moment. This new version of CRS is better, imho, and I hope you stick with it as I will, to see how things progress.
  4. Clearly we disagree. Perhaps I am wrong, though. One never knows for sure on these things. Perhaps you are correct in sitting on the sidelines, not playing the game, throwing constant darts at those (CRS) who are working towards returning the size of the community back to previous levels. Maybe constant attempts to put your .02 in as negative a way as humanly possible doesn't have a negative effect on the community. Maybe Post Scriptum, who charges $29.99 for the game and an additional fee for 'renting' a server, is not a direct competitor, thus your 'all our competitors are F2P' statement isn't pure poppycock. Perhaps World of Tanks is a direct competitor, despite all evidence to the contrary. Perhaps the best way to effect change in a game's development is to not play the game, and not volunteer to help, but to sit on the forums and continuously attack the credibility and skill level of the game developers.
  5. It would help if you would ease up just a tick on the throttle. CRS is working to improve efforts in the Steam area, and you incorrect in suggesting that any effort to 'pull one over the customer(s)' has been made. If you do not wish to pay, but wish to play, you can be a rifleman and (depending on the campaign) use other equipment as well. If you don't wish to pay a subscription, but do wish to use equipment normally reserved for subscribers, there is DLC available that doesn't require a subscription. It's not a difficult concept, and saying otherwise is disingenuous at best. The games you normally throw in our faces here as examples of 'great games' have charges associated with playing, do they not? At last look, post scriptum charges $29.99 for the priviledge of fighting in a non-persistent environment in 40v40 'battles'. And from the looks of forums, they are not nearly as communicative with the community as CRS is in WWIIOnline. I haven't seen it, but perhaps you are spewing negativity on their community forums as well? I would agree that CRS has lost the opportunity on hundreds of potential customers, but not by ignoring the F2P community. Maybe efforts with the F2P community are a work in progress, i.e. are not perfect yet, but for the love of God please stop with the baseless charges in the simple effort to get CRS to go with 'your way' of doing things. There are more productive ways of helping-----you could volunteer, for example, and thus allow CRS access to your brilliance in the game marketing field. You could work to help via lobbying without resorting to being so constantly negative. Speaking as someone who has been in the community for 18+ years, I can tell you that negativity does not garner positive results in this community---ever. Threats to leave the game, even if empty, have a negative effect on others choosing whether or not to stay as a subscriber. Constant negativity on side channel in-game chases people away from this game far quicker than CRS could. There are plenty of decisions CRS has made over the years that I have disagreed with. Some turned out to work better than I would have thought, and some had the crappy results that I figured would happen. I would invite you to look at the glass as being 1/2 full (or whatever percentage you deem proper), as opposed to being 1/2 empty.
  6. Would love to see topographic maps.
  7. @Pittpete I sent you a message on slack regarding getting lonepilgrim back onto lafayette's roster without having to wait for a time when we both happen to be ingame.
  8. Pittpete hasn't responded yet, so we're still in a holding pattern on adding you manually. I will let you know. In the meantime, I asked Chimm to add Lafayette Federation to the wwiionline servers, fixing the error I made by setting up our own channel outside of the wwiionline area. So, log into discord via the following link: then scroll down and look for the Lafayette Federation channel. Heck, in the next day or so I'll even be on voicecoms for the first time in years, lol.
  9. Welcome back, Shakabre!
  10. You are a member on our website. As far as the game I believe the fault/blame lies with me not being very good at the squad tools at the time when you joined, for which I apologize. I will contact Pittpete to see if I can have you added to the roles from outside of the game (pretty sure that can happen). The other way is to get auto-recruited while ingame, which is how you found us the first time. I will work on it right now. I'm waiting on a reply from Pittpete.
  11. To begin with, the poll itself is too small of a sampling. Those commenting with strong opinions on the thread are an even smaller sampling. In no way shape or form is the poll a fair indication of the overall playerbase. With all due respect to all comments, they are not fairly labeled as being indicative of the overall playerbase, either. Thus, it is not clear that the split exists at all, let alone it being between 'sim guys/gameplay guys'.
  12. That is a conclusion not based on evidence. You have zero idea of who the poll splits are consisting of, and should not assert otherwise, especially when it fits neatly into your narrative seeking to denigrate those who disagree with you as being 'reenactors' whenever possible. It is disingenuous.
  13. The campaign starts in a half hour or so, so if 5pm my time is 7 pm server time (texas time), that makes it gmt-6, right?
  14. No. B2k posted the new supply numbers in another thread.
  15. and congratulations to the latest Lafayette Federation members to be recognized by Allied leadership: Office of the DCoS would like to congratulate the following Allied team players for their overall and consistent level of contribution to the Allied cause. Raptor34 Axewolf Rain or Shine these guys come through time after time... Each of these Players has been awarded the Bronze Star. Wear it with pride gentleman, for you have surely earned it
  16. Well deserved.
  17. So I logged off just now, before seeing this, Merlin51, otherwise I'd have come to help you. Instead, I did a little testing as, (omg) a german... You know, it's been SO long since I logged in as a german... (How long was it?).... That I didn't even know they have different music until 1 hour ago, lolol. So when did the load up screens get the 'new' music? Had to have been a decade ago, at least. lolol
  18. Thank you, Copeman. Welcome to 2 of our newest members: RRogers, and Raptor34
  19. Well done, Axis.
  20. No. Please no.
  21. I think that anytime the game implements a change, some will like it right away, some will hate it right away. Of those who like it right away, some will eventually grow to not like it very much, and of those who hate it right away, some will grow to like it, or at least understand/tolerate it, adjust to it and drive on. I think there are some on the axis side who argued against having to face Allied tanks in every town they attacked, who perhaps did not realize that by arguing it wasn't historically accurate, and having the solution be a better approximation of historical accuracy, that there would be a potential downside to it, i.e. the GHC would lump all of their panzer brigades together, as opposed to attaching them in towns where Infantry brigades are also stationed. My point being it seems your anger is directed at the wrong folks. CRS didn't say armored brigades couldn't be stacked with Infantry brigades. Instead they said players/HCs could place them. Clearly you (and others) are not fans of where the HC placed the armored brigades. I understand and appreciate your concerns, as a tanker. To be clear, my memory of the numbers of tanks involved in the actual Battle of France tells me that 14 matties in a brigade might be too high, although truth be told I lost my library in the divorce some 9 years ago, and haven't reconstituted it as yet. I'm sure some community member who didn't lose their library will be happy to explain why there are too many, or too few, or just the right amount of Matties. My bet is it's too high initially, but about right as time passes within a campaign.
  22. As I mention frequently, I am in favor of getting rid of FBs completely, and replacing them with PPOs placed by players, wherever their hearts desire (within the confines of decorum, i.e. not 3 towns behind the lines). These PPO TOC areas would act as FBs, and would be brigade-specific (actually I've toyed with the idea of breaking it down to the regimental level so as to allow even more flexibility for player choices of deployment). Leaving some room for solo skill is a necessary evil, I agree. A lot of folks just really like the idea of being 'the hero'. I prefer being part of a team that does well but I realize there's enough room in this game for both viewpoints. I hated seeing those 40 enemy tanks, but damn, they were a sight to behold, and I couldn't help but be struck with awe whenever it happened.
  23. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. It won't help you make your case, @major0noob and it distracts from the task of making positive changes to the game. Did you enjoy when the IIIH was added to the game? I didn't, as the IIIH didn't arrive in Panzer units until well after the battle of France was over----at the time, I didn't accept that the in-game timeframe should progress as the campaign(s) kept going, and instead saw it as another dagger in the back of the Allied side. I wasn't wrong, but I wasn't right, either. It was a dagger in the back of the Allied side---it killed morale and chased many an Allied tanker out of the game. By the same token, over time the game added Allied equipment that also arrived after the historical Battle of France was over, and the IIIH, while still (to me) a constant reminder of bad times for the Allies, lessened in importance. I don't believe you or madrebel are wrong, or right. Taking Madrebel's statement that "if it takes a team to stop one solo infantry-its a problem..." as an example, let's follow the logic a bit: Does it really take a team to beat 1 solo sapper? Reading my statements you could reach that conclusion, and I do believe that teamwork should beat solo players 99 out of 100 times, but at its root what I'm saying is that in order to beat solo sappers someone has to be tasked with paying attention to solo sappers. It doesn't take a TEAM to beat solo sappers, but it does take someone focused on the threat they bring (which we agree is too powerful at the moment even as we might disagree as to the why). That isn't any different than folks ingame realizing that the LMG that is holding the AB bunker is not going to be taken out by a rifleman, as in cqb the rifle is no match for an LMG---so we send LMGs or SMGs of our own in there, right? No different with sappers. Our tanks are not good at defending themselves from sappers, solo or otherwise, thus we need to task someone else to help. I had great success tasking Infantry (rifles, even) with focusing on killing sappers. Others might have other ways, and that's fine.
  24. Everything in this game works better with teamwork being involved. Feel free to ask any of the solo (rambo-LMGs excluded) EI who think that capturing a guarded depot by themselves is a good idea, then compare their comments to the guys who storm depots (and AB bunkers) together. I would agree that all Infantry having binoculars is something that should be looked at, as it works against the need for teamwork. I would also agree that terrain improvements/impediments to Infantry will (it's on the list) improve gameplay. In the example I shared regarding the times when Lafayette Federation was at full strength equaling sappers being non-issues, I probably should have pointed out that at the beginning of attaching Infantry to tanks we went with a 1 Infantry for every tank ratio, but over time, as the threat of sappers went away we were able to task 1 INF with protecting 3 or more tanks, effectively. In that sense, the teamwork involved, when broken down to its roots, was task-based: Tanks looking to kill other tanks while other tanks looked to kill or suppress Infantry moving near the objective, Infantry taking ground (or defending ground), and other Infantry protecting tanks by ambushing those foolish enough to think running up to a tank when teamwork was involved was going to work. By the same token, in the days when I saw a line of 88s and tanks sitting on a hill overlooking the town I was helping to defend, I learned fairly quickly that sending Infantry out to deal with them was not going to work. I was going to have to send CAS, or friendly tanks/atgs after them, if I was going to displace them from that hill. It's always about teamwork beating solo players. So, if the game eliminates Binos, skilled sappers will still be able to kill tanks provided they are not working as a team. If the terrain was totally revamped, skilled sappers would still be able to get out early, set themselves up in hide positions, and kill tanks, again provided they are not working as a team. If, however, teamwork is involved, sappers disappear from the threat list, except in towns, where they will remain deadly (as they should be in urban environments) to tanks.
  25. You keep looking for an argument where none exists, major0noob. I am certainly not shrugging off problems, and have worked for years to help the game progress in a positive way. You and I disagree on the ToE being an actual issue, and that's ok---people can disagree. I believe that if the german side wants to see tanks at a higher percentage of frontline towns, thier first stop should be to talk with the GHC, who places the Panzer Brigades on map. I also believe that the changes to ToE addressed years-long complaints, from the german side, regarding having to face all Allied tanks at every town they chose to attack. What I'm referring to in mentioning player numbers should be self-evident, but I'll try to be more clear: When Lafayette Federation was at full strength, our tankers had Infantry support and enemy sappers disappeared from being a significant threat to our tanks. Now, with our numbers low, there are times when we don't have the numbers to detach Infantry to watch over the tanks, and we pay a heavy price from the sappers running around willy nilly. Thus, are sappers an issue currently? Sure. Would they be if my unit was at full strength? Nope.