sorella

Registered Users
  • Content count

    10,526
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    55

Everything posted by sorella

  1. 1. girl civilians in major towns 2. lootable liquor in major towns 3. parachuting dogs 4. motorcycles 5. girl civilians on motorcyles 6. trains 7. girls on trains 8. girls on trains giving flowers to soldiers 9. soldiers on trains giving silk stocking to civilian girls 10. and so on
  2. area capture instead of capture the flag.
  3. sure, but except in the early 2001 no-campaign era, (axis weight) and arguably the british-french divide era, (axis weight/6 yearzzzz) the wins/losses during the MS, AO, HC, ToE, SD and mission leader FRU eras have been substantively even over the eras and within the eras: ie. over the last 10-11 years although there has been map expansion, new units and new mechanics introduced, unit tweaks, americans, etc. etc. all of which changed gameplay and required adaptability by all players and both sides, its still balanced as far as campaign wins. not sure what it means, or what the question is, but campaign win balance isn't the issue.
  4. sure. 1918 Notre Dame 10-1 2015 Notre Dame 10-3 you were saying?
  5. dear laughing david01: which data analysis would you like to use then to prove whatever your point is (which is very unclear - you say numbers don't matter but your example speaks of 50% more local numbers/unit superiority and the HP-based notion seems at odds with a campaign victory based measurement unless you mean singular k/d ratio measurement)? Some data could be: 15 years: 48/52 % axis 2007-2012: 50/50 (with 1 tie) 2013-2016: 50 / 50 we could of course analyze the game on a campaign by campaign basis which would give you oh, say, 100% allied wins this campaign, and oddly, 100% axis wins in, say, campaign 92. and so on , ad infinitum. the longest campaign win streak is 5. there are a few '4's in the mix since day one. there are 3 month campaigns and 3 day campaigns. so hmm... is the unbalance you perceive in player numbers? TOM? equipment and kit? player performance? % of sideswitchers each campaign? better, number of side switchers? number and quality of side switching players and squads? number and quality of HC? no HC? pre TOE? pre or post AOs? last week's patch? the patch before that? if you want to prove unbalance based on player performance, which player performances exactly? k/d ratio? caps? bunker caps? straight up kills or armour destroyed? fbs blown? ms/frus placed? other? if you want to prove unbalance based on kit> list the k/d ratio unbalances as you perceive them, unit by unit plz. (as many others have done many times) please choose your data, give us your data analysis. some other examples of what you call 'serious pvp games' and balance (other than red vs blue / same vs same) might help too.
  6. very cool. thx syd. the old ones (most of them) exist somewhere online at battleground tools campaign lists I believe. and maybe in SNIPER's player-driven WIKI http://battlegroundtools.com/documents/documents/documents/documents/campaign.php https://wiki.wwiionline.com/view/Main_Page
  7. wonderful posters. as always, these should be on the game site. is there somewhere online one can view ALL of Propa's posters and work?
  8. wait. is DOC writing a book about making money? or the Pacific Theatre? or hand-placing a billion tiles?
  9. +10 /thread. cap or be capped as Sir Drake1 always said.
  10. insightful and experience-based answer, gsc4free. thx. to OP > so in otherwords, usually pop wins. 1. see thermopylae, vietnam, italian invasion of greece (wwii); italian collapse in north east africa (wwii) for another, yet rare-ish point of view 2. also search kilemall's posts re "Pop Neutrality"
  11. squad missions are essential to expanding the game just like any other game with squads, guilds, clans, tribes, whatever. there is a simple blend that would be to the benefit of squads, CRS and new/lone wolf players: 1. allow unlimited squad missions, but squads pay for them (either per mission/micro-transaction, or a squad monthly/yearly fee or a specific squad/squad member sub). if squad missions are important to current and past players, we/they would pay for them as part of the trade off for exclusiveness 2. joining a squad would have increased value for new players since many/most would want to go on squad missions or be part of something larger 3. most, but not all, squads, at least on larger focused missions (ie. capping a town, not capping a specific depot or blowing a fb) would also see the benefit (or if they were gentlemen would do so anyway) of creating a non squad mission/fru (by one of the squad members) to aid, support, flank, or fulfill the overall goal. 4. some squads, or smaller squads might choose not to pay for squad missions and would be setting frus, running missions etc that would be open to all players 5. squad missions might actually add to the cohesiveness and immersion of the game (as it did in the old days) by enticing new players/lone wolves to actually join a squad and get involved and yes, pay their share of the cost.
  12. Railroad Tycoon 2 had a couple of military scenarios: Battle of Britain and Mother Russia. BoB was a short campaign - repairing Brit rail and supply lines during the Blitz. Mother Russia was very complex - the Russian player built, repaired, created and rerouted trains to supply troops and supplies to counter Barbarossa.
  13. you mean the chat would be in Flint?
  14. since upgrading to Windows 10 my second towing account now: 1. ctd's after 5/10 mins and/or 2. ctds on switching missions or cities anyone else have this issue and/or know of any settings or workarounds required for win10? never had issues prior with win7 or 8.
  15. thx for these answers. trying 'run as admin' slowed down the ctds but still happening. must be my computer. will try some other stuff and report back if solved.
  16. good question. however: since a 'long time ago' (aka 'old school days') bridges have never been able to be set as ground unit mission objectives (by original truck ms or frus or new truck frus) whether to repair, blow up or simply interdict the bridge. not sure if anyone actually remembers why this inability to mission target bridges exists. the workaround has always been to set the mission objective to the nearest to the bridge friendly or enemy facility (ab, dock, depot, even fb, whatever). don't think there is a bridge on the map that cannot be closely (ie. close enough for engineers/sappers to blow/repair) targetted in this manner. this mission targetting issue is different than the ability of HC to set AO (destroy) or DO (repair) objectives on bridges themselves.
  17. very cool memory page, frogdeth, thank you. should post it everywhere.
  18. prayers for you and if your time comes, say some for us from up in heaven mate.
  19. wb ceska. best rifleman in the game. ever. where is darkvex, jamieg, merek, okiemoe and bud4u?
  20. wtf? try to make a free account to sign up for premium for a friend and no activation notice? tried twice, two different usernames and email accounts? how to solve this? want my money > help me out!
  21. yeah well, try again from the beginning and this is what you get: unfortunately there are no email activations sent to any of the 3 different emails, under 3 different names I tried. This is all you see now when trying: Free Account Signup Request You have been sent an activation email! You must click on the link included in the e-mail to activate your account. Make sure support@playnet.com is added to your e-mail address book. I GIVE UP.