Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by sorella

  1. Simplyfied:

    50 vs. 70 = 50 attackers keep 50 defenders in check while the op side has 20 free to do the background chores, err "tasks" like guarding FB / blowing FBs / running FRUs etcetc

    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"

  2. 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.

  3. A bunch of successful games focus on rail system operations and material movements. As far as I know, none have ever offered WWII-Europe gameplay, with other players who actually need materials, supplies and even combat units delivered, and complications such as blown-up rail yards and downed bridges to be overcome.

    Rear area truck-convoy logistics could work the same way. My take is that the rear area logistics part of the game should be operated by players, just as the combat part is.

    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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 is added to your e-mail address book.

    I GIVE UP.

  6. This has just been fixed , please have your friend try now.

    They may need to start over from the beginning.

    its not fixed.

    you can't start over from the beginning because the registration account page rejects user names and emails that have not been activated but presumably must be floating somewhere in CRS space.

    WHAT NOW, please?


  7. gifting is good > but another issue > I'm trying to set up a new paying account for a nephew and

    a) system won't accept my email current (wwiiol existing account related email) address as valid

    B) created TWO NEW gmail accounts for new account and neither has received authentication emails

    what's up?