Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by augetout

  1. The French campaign of 1940 offers a unique opportunity to have a game that is both historically accurate and has balanced gameplay. The available equipment was about even both in numbers and in performance. Yes, this weapon system was better than that weapons system, but in this early part of the war we are still able to see the different design styles different countries came up with, i.e. there were tradeoffs. (matilda heavily armored, but slow, pzII fairly fast, but not a lot of punch for its main gun, and so on). From there, which is tier 0, it becomes a bit more messy to figure out how to proceed. CRS botched this sort of thing in the early days, imho, but having said that, the 'add 1 for axis and 1 for the Allies plan, given historically accurate models and performance, is a pretty good ideal to stick to. The players should decide if one side is going to be massively outproduced, in the form of strategic bombing, (and perhaps later, via naval blockade, or even U-boat blockade, who knows). We all know that modeling everything just isn't feasible. Picking a good representation, and adjusting numbers so as not to screw up the game in later tiers, is the best we can hope for.
  2. Agreed. I play Allied only, and hell, I don't even fly anymore, but if stuff is wrong with the DB7, then please fix it. Historical accuracy should be the goal whenever possible.
  3. That is ridiculous, Eagle. Fixing a game flaw (please re-read what Xoom posted) on ALL LMGs is NOT 'nerfing' the german side. The MG34 is, and should be, an awesome weapon----------even if used properly. Nobody credible is arguing for a 'nerf' to your precious LMG. I can appreciate your concerns, and greatly enjoy you believing the axis 'are underdogs always!'----I can point you in the direction of plenty of Allied players who believe the exact opposite, especially when tier 3 arrives (nothing seems to take the joy of getting to play as Americans out quicker than a Tiger appearing, lol). Your espirit de corp is high, and that is great to see, (even from an Allied only player). The fix will effect all LMGs, not just the mg34. I realize that some Allied soldiers clear rooms with rambo-LMGs also----that will end if the flaw if fixed. Your opinion means as much as mine does, Eagle. Please know that. My hope is that everyone can take a breath and see this PROPOSED fix for what it is: Another effort by CRS to make the gameplay a bit better, and a bit more realistic, for ALL of us.
  4. Then be a leader, and make sure those who would be falsely inclined to see this as an anti-german 'nerf' are made aware of accurate facts. Please be aware that I practice what I 'preach', and can be seen ingame most any day making sure that the Allies who are [censored]ing about how the game is tilted against them are not left unchallenged by facts, and that I mean no offense in asking you to step up and do your part to ensure this en masse unsub you predict does not occur. In the end, I need germans to shoot at in order to make this game fun for me, and you need Allied soldiers to shoot at in order to make it fun, for you. Anything that gets in the way of providing more german/italians ingame, and/or more Allied soldiers ingame, hurts us all. False hysteria regarding the fix of a problem we ALL know to be significant falls securely under that umbrella.
  5. It is ridiculous to take that attitude about something that is fixing a part of the game that is completely out of whack. Given that it will effect Allied weapons as well, what in God's name would make you suggest that axis players will unsub en masse? Does your side require the rambo-lmg in order to take flags? No. I spend a good deal of my time guarding flags, and your SMGs clean my clock far more often than I would prefer to have happen. If the german SMGs aren't as accurate as they should be, and that IS another subject, then they should be fixed in the upcoming small arms audit, right? I would suggest 'going to the film' though, as undoubtedly Merlin51 will have a video showing the dispersion on all SMGs. I will say the French mas38 is a pile of crud, so if the german SMGs are anything like the mas38, I feel for you. We all know an lmg-wielding soldier should not be able to run in and clear a room/bunker. Threatening to unsub en masse if a flaw in the game is fixed is weak. For the record, I wouldn't support it if Allied players demanded photon torpedos under threat of mass unsubs, either.
  6. I posted on their forum: augetout 3 minutes ago Peemo68W: Should any in your group decide to give WWIIOnline a try, feel free to hook up with my unit: Lafayette Federation. We are an Allied-only unit, and have been around for almost 18 years. WWIIOnline is a combined arms FPS, that differs from the rest of the games out there in that it is a persistent environment. There's no 'shoot at each other for 10 minutes than reload the map' stuff. In WWIIOnline, if your group takes a town, it is that side's town until the other side manages to take it back. Campaigns can last months. Infantry, Armor, air to air, air to ground, anti-tank and anti-air----all available in a gameplay world that does not limit the number of players. Battles can involve thousands of players. and Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas I'll let you know if/when I see an influx of these folks coming into the game.
  7. CRS has asked for everyone's input, and this would effect an entire weapon class, not just the germans/axis. Even if it only effected the mg34 at this time, which I don't believe is the plan, it would effect Allied LMGs as they are introduced into the game. It is correcting a flaw, not 'nerfing the germans'. I don't see the gripe. We ALL know that an LMG-wielding soldier should not be able to run into a room and clear it. It's not what the weapon was designed for, is not even close to what it was used for in the actual war, and it should not be effective being used that way. Both sides have SMGs perfectly capable of doing significant damage in CQB situations. Fixing the rambo-LMG deal improves the game.
  8. I disagree with the terminology usage. 'Nerfing' in this game is taking something that is performing historically accurate (but too well) and downgrading its performance. Fixing something that is performing ahistorically is NOT nerfing----it is rectifying a problem or modeling error. We all know rambo LMGs should not be the preferred method of clearing a room, as it should not work. It is not a side-specific issue, either. I'm sure Allied MGs are clearing rooms as well---not as effectively as the mg34, but the mg34 is simply a better weapon, which I do not begrudge the germans for having an advantage in, at all. But, it shouldn't be effective being hip-fired while running into a room swinging it to and fro------we all know that. Fixing that, is not 'nerfing' the weapons. How they fix it remains to be seen. I am in favor of increasing fatigue, and making the weapon's rounds climb on longer bursts than the 5-7 they should be using without a bipod if they wish to hit anything. I also disagree that LMGs would cease to be useful in the current gameplay tactics. Used in the defense, LMGs should be, and are quite effective. In offensive maneuvers, the LMGs can also be effective, provided the SMGs and Riflemen they are running with don't just run off solo style, as that will make the lmg less effective.
  9. I'm not sure, i.e. I'm not 'in the know' or anything, but from my observations it seems like CRS is moving towards an increasing level of historical accuracy within the bounds of their resources. I used to rail about the opels w/ 1 INF taking towns 3 towns behind the lines and being rewarded with an instaspawned army, so I get a lot of the concerns. I just am getting a different vibe from CRS these days, i.e. that they are moving away from artificial play-balancing things as quickly as their resources allow. We can probably expect some lag in one area, and things moving too quickly in others, but overall I truly believe we're seeing a move towards historical accuracy, which we should all welcome.
  10. Agreed. the MGs should 'climb' when fired for long bursts.
  11. It's a big deal, yes. I've been on the receiving end of a rambo lmg about 100 times too many----mgs should not be storming bunkers, and if they do they should not be effective at doing so. They are, and they are, currently. I've never played for the other side, so I dunno how life is on the receiving end of Allied LMGs---I assume they also are rambo-ing, and they should also be stopped from being effective at it. Increasing hip-fire dispersion, and decreasing their speed of travel (I never had an M-60 gun pass me or stay even with me while sprinting), while increasing fatigue, should go a long way towards fixing the issue.
  12. What do you mean by that? I can assure you that whenever I am moving on an objective and an mg34 lights up, I am suppressed as quickly as I can manage it.
  13. 1. People should be able to fire while moving, if they so choose. The price for doing so with an LMG, though, should be steep, as in wildly inaccurate. I realize there are films of people hip-firing MG34s, and the like. Having some experience in the Infantry, I can tell you that in anything resembling a combat situation, doing so would have to be an emergency, and would certainly be far far far less accurate than going prone, as is typically taught. 2. Increasing non-aimed (hip-fire dispersion) should happen. There's a reason MG gunners are taught short bursts---accuracy (well, and life preservation, given they are bullet magnets). In a prone/bipod situation, the first 5-7 rounds should be the most accurate. In a hip-fire situation, accuracy is not practicle for more than the first couple 2-3 rounds. I say that as someone who qualified expert on the M-60, and the ma duece, but made sure never to carry one (m-60)... lol (I familiarized with the SAW but never had to qualify on it----TLAT units didn't have SAWs at that time---Yes that was a while ago). We all know that MG gunners should not be who are rushing bunkers. We all know that MG gunners diving to the ground to go prone should take a bit of time (a second or 2 would be necessary even for expert gunners) before they can light rounds up with any accuracy.
  14. Lafayette Federation is all about team. We do whatever the Allies need us to do on a given day, at a given time. You might see us blowing FBs. You might see us guarding a bunker, or retaking a depot. You might see us running around rebuilding AI You might see us driving that truck to the river to fix (or destroy) that important bridge. Whatever the Allied team needs, Lafayette Federation members are there, as we have been since before the game went live. Join us.
  15. Instead of a cluster, perhaps (in the interests of enhancing teamplay) simply having more Engineers would do the trick. Right now Engineers, I have found, are kind of precious in a defensive situation and when seeking to control FBs. We want INF working together, and we want Armor working together. Why not expect the same of Engineers, by providing more of them.
  16. Like? It's not like you to throw a dart without posting the reason. Can't for the life of me understand why anyone would be against being able to attack whether or not HC is online. So long as the attackers don't get anything to spawn except what they brought with them, there will be no worries of instaspawning armies, and there will be increased freedom of action for squads without cutting into what the HCs are up to. It expands the usefullness of airborne troops. It enhances team play. It increases the variability of how the map moves in a given campaign. All good things, as I see it.
  17. Forcing folks to play for the other side is a non-starter imho, causing more problems than it would allegedly solve. I won't play for the axis. Ever. If the game forces me to, I will simply not log in until the game allows me to play for the Allies. I am not alone in this belief. There are those who play Axis only, and those who play Allied only. Overpop spawn delays proves, in my opinion, that many folks would rather wait than play for the other side. Oh, and where in God's name would Vicmorrow EVER spawn, if the sides were forcefully balanced? His side-switching is (his words/paraphrased) entirely based on wanting to play for the underdog side whenever he spawns in.
  18. I would not support this, given how the campaigns tend to run, i.e. the Allies push for awhile, then are pushed back as the tiers progress. If the game's mechanics supported a more historical flow, i.e. the germans push initially and need to finish relatively quickly lest they put their pending ops in N. Africa the Balkans, and the USSR on hold, then I would change my vote. For intermissions, I believe mini campaigns would be a fun deal, especially with a long intermission as we just 'suffered' through.
  19. I dunno, but if you go to the forums on the War of Rights game, my bet is you'll find someone who can help in short order.
  20. Hallelujah!!!
  21. Absolutely agree. People forget the absolutely huge battles that used to occur. People forget how riduculously busy the forums used to be. Sentencing this game to 'niche status' is selling the game far short.
  22. So, is it possible to have 1.36's hybrid supply also have a hybrid AO functionality? A squad getting 10 guys (or whatever is decided is appropriate) to the EWS of a non-AO town would then cause an automatic AO. It would seem the garrison supply protocols would allow for attacks to go back to happening all over the place, with no real danger of instaspawning armies appearing in the rear. HC would still be responsible for brigade/division moves, and leadership, but the leash on squads would be loosened a bit, hopefully allowing for more squad enthusiasm.
  23. I agree, Elfin. I dislike intermissions and much prefer to play when the map is 'at stake'. Having said that, during this intermission I decided to get to know weapon systems that I normally don't use (i.e. non-Infantry weapons), and thus (I believe) have become a better player/more useful to my team, and have had a blast (literally) putting tank rounds on Tigers, etc. Am looking forward to Tuesday, though...
  24. The Mission Leader mechanic is flawed from the get go, imho. Example: I create a mission, and spawn into a town with a rifle to get a look around. Upon spawning in, I see that the germans have already infested the town, so I make a call on side channel for help, and realizing that I'll need to clear buildings, decide to respawn as an smg. By then johnny and jill have spawned into my mission-----when I despawn and go to choose a different weapon, I have to back out, then re-choose the mission. In the process I am no longer the mission leader (johnny or jill is). So when I respawn into my own mission johnny or jill is now the leader---I've lost marking/deleting tools reserved for mission leaders, and anyone who spawns in has no idea who is actually running the mission. Chaos/unorganization ensues, and the 'actual' mission leader ends up being 1 or more folks who sound the most credible on the target text channel. Having been back for awhile now, I can say I do not consider the ingame mission leader until he/she is proven to be the leader via their actions/ingame texts, and if I am made leader I don't act as such unless it is clear the former mission leader has delegated the mission to me to command. On 2nd thought, maybe I do have something to offer as a solution: HC places brigades and/or divisions. Squads attack wherever the hell they want to, provided they have a sufficient number of folks to warrant it (I dunno, say 10 for the sake of discussion). If they choose to attack from a place where no brigades/divisions are sitting, then they have to bring their own supplies up from the rear----but they can attack regardless of where they choose. Communication between the squad leaders and HC may or may not result in a brigade/division being placed to support the squad's attack. When a town changes hands, it gets (just) the garrison supplies that come in on some sort of timer assuming a valid supply line (to ensure against instaspawning armies in the rear). Airborne attacks that are successful, say behind the lines, change a town's ownership, but cannot spawn anything until a valid supply line is opened, (though they could resupply via air drops of troops RTBing on the objective). Squads cannot make a 'name' for themselves being part of an AO placed by the respective HC. I remember the 31st Wrecking Crew's old slogan: We'll make you famous.... The game's mechanics say otherwise nowadays. Squads being allowed to attack wherever they choose is, imho, the simplest way of bringing squads back to the forefront, where they belong. I don't say that as CO of Lafayette Federation. I do say that as a former AHC Officer----and I can tell you that when I was an Officer I never looked smarter than when I was able to get 3rd Canadian, Lafayette Federation, and the wackadoodles in IV Corps to work together, while staying in contact with the BEF OIC to make sure our actions weren't hurting each other's. Now someone tell me why that can't happen...
  25. In the old/pre AO days, many of the squads were region-based, i.e. had normal areas of operation. For example, Lafayette Federation fought in the then III Corps area we called, the 'dirty south', which at that point encompassed Sedan, Charleville, etc. We could attack in our area, and we held responsibility for defending our area. AOs killed that, imho. I guess I don't really have a solution to offer. Not one that can be implemented, anyway. The solution is more players ingame, thus allowing units to go back to being region-based, and the end of AOs. With lower ingame numbers, AOs cannot be eliminated, though, so I do not know what can be done to help squads regenerate. It is not for lack of effort----I've been working to rebuild Lafayette Federation for months now, with very limited success.