Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by sorella

  1. On 5/16/2019 at 2:40 PM, knucks said:

    There's the proof. Thank you.

    So you're saying CRS and we subscribers should become drug dealers then? I mean, those of us who aren't already? Kind of proves the old rumours of where all the money went doesn't it? 

    Image result for hookers and blow posters  


  2. The idea of 'regional' or area AOs is a good one and has been outlined in detail in Kilemall's 'New AO' (NAO) system thing. There's a lot of posts about it around. 

    The other stuff, yeah its irritating or tiresome but I'm not seeing the 'make a mission' issue (tho there is a new one about missions /spawning from one - but rarer now if not gone) - and some are cosmetic. Would imagine some of this is being dealt with by Rats 2.0  + Volunteers as they can get to it. 

    Log in more: your side needs you at that FB right now. 

  3. 1 hour ago, madyuden said:

    I'm returning to World War II Online for the nth time since the original release date in a box off the shelf.  I have a few questions and feedback, looking at the game afresh:

    1) Immediately encountered difficulty streaming using Nvidia GeForce Experience.  It behaves the same way Novalogic's Delta Force 2 does when I try to stream it.  In other words, I am unable to edit the title of the stream or click any of the GeForce Experience buttons.  This also means that button presses that are supposed to manipulate the GeForce Experience overlay instead perform actions in the game.

    2) Clicking Escape begins the despawn process.  It does not bring up a menu where settings can be tweaked.  Is there another intuitive button to bring up such a menu, or can Preferences only be adjusted out of the game engine?

    3) Preferences have a limited number of options.  Where do I adjust Contrast, Gamma, FOV, anti-aliasing, etc.?

    4) There needs to be a proofreading pass on all publicly displayed text.   It's just good business.  A professional presentation ought to mean more players, which we know means more fun in-game.

    I'm looking forward to experiencing once more a full-spectrum battle in a town.  World War II Online / Battleground Europe is still #1 at this.  Heroes & Generals might be prettier, but its gameplay looks like arcadey chaos.  I didn't even bother with it.

    wb S! no clue about the GeForce tech stuff.

    Preferences tab can be reached on any screen -  Persona / Active Battles / Mission Select / Unit Select  - via upper right tab mouse click other than when actually spawned into the game as a unit. 

  4. 21 minutes ago, Jsilec said:

    Stay humble and enjoy your victory in pville we been trying to get the allies out of the depo because this side is abundant in window snipers so a guy like mata is more then welcome

    S! pville not a victory. stalemate, like a lot of battles these days on both sides. window snipers? also abundant on both sides- its where new players hang out. just need to make the windows bigger and give'em time to learn how to get out without dying, and what to do or where to go once they out.  

  5. 38 minutes ago, Jsilec said:

    Your matamor hate is least matamor has switched sides to help out trying to fix the allied side which according to you has been a mess for 2 years right?...or is it still ez mode and you caught on with the hard axis mode?....yall’s can put your $ were your mouth is 

    don't hate anyone. just pointing out certain long-term fixations. we are humble, ordinary, get-stuff-done if you can, run of the mill player-people and  switched sides a while ago; nothing to do with mess or not; had to do with play style preference - just like yours, your squad's or matamor's. it takes all kinds, on all sides to make the game work. but the allied style then, and still, seemed absorbed with self-absorption and personal success rather than side success. which is fine, its every player's choice. but as you say -  you get what you play for. 

    been around long enough to have seen that ez-mode goes in waves and switches sides every 2/3/4 or 5 campaigns and goes in cycles. and our all's $$$ is where it belongs - subscribing to the game. 


  6. 11 hours ago, enemytank said:

    sincerely ....
    You do not know what you want.



    +10/ half wanted what we've got, the other half wanted what we used to have and the the third half wanted something different than the first two halves. now the 4th half wants what they wanted, only different, because what they wanted in the first place didn't turn out to be what they wanted at all. 

  7. 1 hour ago, matamor said:

    Too much TOEs stills and too much garisson supplies, WBS has ended.

    Got 103 kills and 58 kills in Phil yesterday and today and they keep spawning auto's and armors. Insane.

    more like not enough STATS mate. you killing the wrong stuff and not enough of it and in the wrong place. we got 2 fb kills at Pville yesterday.  seemed to make y'alls go away. 

    33 minutes ago, Jsilec said:

    Yep the toes in pville were very much like the old toes

    defenders at pville feel the same way. attackers had endless inf and tanks to spawn from 4 garrisons and 4 spawnables.  maybe  y'alls want it so the defender supply exactly matches the number of players? 5 rifles, 1 mortar, 1 smg, 1 lmg per garrison? kill them off and win?

    2 people like this

  8. 5 minutes ago, major0noob said:

    i'm talking 10x the $$$ of the previous crowdfunds



    at least 300,000$ is needed, likley 600,000. these are funds that the existing PB is not able to provide; they will need to draw from outside the fanbase. with that in mind, just look at their steam reviews and the game itself (it's clearly in 2000-03)

    I'm trying to talk without fan bias, this is a serious $$$ project.

    go in game and ask if people will be willing to fund 1000$ each and subscribe to the new game. try to sell the game to the random masses, 60$ plus a sub.

    we all understand this.  WWIIOL 2.0 would be a big project that would take tons of money (way more than $600k) and a long time - Shroud of the Avatar (Garrett) started in 2013 with $1.9M crowd-sourced, another $1M investors, and $400 one time subs to contribute new art assets - its still basically in FTP with micro-xactions beta.  Iron Harvest CS'd $1.5M; Wasteland3 CS'd, $3M+; ShenMueIII $6M+; all still unreleased. 

    keeping 1.0 alive (or floating or on hold) whilst trying to move towards a crowd-sourced 2.0 - would be a difficult, literally game-changing, high stakes, long-term, big deal decision for CRS and the volunteers. but hey, as they say in NYC, yanevahknow. 

    and congrats, major, on the somewhat positive, forward-looking, in-your-heart-you-love- this-game-post. keep 'em coming. 

  9. 52 minutes ago, major0noob said:


    look at it from a outside perspective


    CRS has a game already, it's on steam with "mostly negative" reviews

    they also have a proven reputation of not updating a game, it was beyond their control but it doesn't matter. it's in their history now



    not trying to be negative, but you have to look at this critically, the above 2 points are instant dealbreakers.

    dear debbie downer: you are trying to be negative, you are nothing but negative but you are anything but a critical thinker, to wit:

    • any subscription game surviving today is essentially, prima facie,  crowdfunded 
    • CRS 2.0 has had a least three if not more successful crowd-funding campaigns to improve and update aspects of the game already 
    • whatever one chooses to think of CRS 1.0/ the 2.0s have  updated the game, physically, technically and with new gameplay elements and units more in the last 2 years than the previous 10 ten  years

    not trying to be indelicate, as you might say, but with all the things wrong with the game, CRS and some subscribers are tying to move ahead to make it better - will it work? who knows. its adapted and overcome so far, longer than most other games. so one can only urge you to step up, subscribe and join the crowd, or as a non-paying, holier than thou, endlessly repetitive critic with no substance, just STFU - because so far, you contribute nothing of value - no ideas, no insights and no money.  


    6 people like this

  10. 36 minutes ago, Merlin51 said:

    Kilemall is not exaggerating when he says the game simply did not move, we had lots of big armored engagements, with very little infantry involvement.
    It was during that time, that you would see axis and allied people cooperatively set up otherwise pointless infantry skirmishes out between fbs in some fields or forest areas
    just to have some kind of infantry thing going on that you could actually get the infantry to.
    And there were rules, you did not kill the trucks, and no tanks, but ultimately someone would find out and bring a tank and end it.
    That would not have survived 1.5 years of campaigns.

    Somehow through the mists of time, those pointless infantry skirmishes seemed exciting at the time. I remember my main role was sitting in the truck (later ms) hidden behind an edge of the 'hard forest' describing the crowded action in chat like it was a massive pond hockey game gone wild with rifles and grenades. 


    2 hours ago, Kilemall said:


    It's very important, at least to me, to get this sort of detail correct so we can derive the right conclusions about what happened and what is likely to happen with other changes.  Some things are surprises, but most things that are readily done have been tried, have to sort out the strings though as each change happens in a matrice of rules, numbers, modeling, culture, spawning, capturing and supply.



  11. 7 minutes ago, choad said:

    I think you under-estimate just how much they mean to a lot of people. I dare say .... if stats were completely removed the game would bleed a good number of players. Maybe even collapse as we are not flush with subs these days.

    I can understand that stats do absolutely zero for a good many players. I respect that. But i would say for an equal (likely greater) percent of players it is what keeps them coming back. To be the best <whatever> and have your enemies know your name, etc. 

    I look at the names of some of the veteran FTP accounts and i can promise you that stats move the needle for them.

    agree with this. if one made the game all stats only, with NO FTP STATS, subs would go up. publish weekly stats on the home page. publish daily stats for all categories, both sides, on loading pages. weekly ai generated medals for stats published on site, on loading pages. unlock units for stat achievements each tier or campaign. adapt ingame rank icons to show stat status instead of rank. let subscribing players earn Stats Points as kind of a 'Stats Loyalty Program' for use in micro-transactions or to buy DLC content. like that. 

    Related image


    1 person likes this

  12. 17 hours ago, dfire said:

    Was a joke lol. 



    Seriously, Statsgruppen is serious and real. Ask Marcion5 the XO; he just booted me from STG ("Maximum Kills, Minimum Risk") for capping two cps in Beauraing yesterday instead of camping the depots.  I blame dfire though, because it was his idea to put in the '2 caps and out' squad rule. 

    Image result for STG logo


  13. 19 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

    Or area capture...? 

    Take the fight out of the CP and make the fight around the CP. 

    Only captures that should remain the same at AB/Docks/AF. 

    Just a thought. 

    area capture is one of the best possible solutions. there have been a few threads about it but don't know if the practicalities of coding and/or the difficulty of thinking through the concept and potentials flaws ahead of coding has/have been the roadblocks. 

    someone put forward that a possible way to start thinking about it is to utilize the existing air-only AWS alphabetical grid (or a smaller scale version) as a starting point  - i.e. simplistically - turn a grid square red with more than the enemy or a specific number of units (inf/arm/air) and its yours until the other side turns it red (or blue) for themselves to switch ownership.

    and/or tag a bunch of specific 'nodes' within a gridsquare (existing cps, bunkers, non-depot facilities, xroads, bridges, farmhouses, forest areas, elevations as 'capturable' (by time spent X players/units in near the 'node' like current cp cap mechanic) and then X% of nodes captured (50/75/all) defines 'area capture'

    and that then a captured or 'owned' area would unlock spawn points, or even the ability to place fms within the gridsquare,  and/or fb pop up or ppo fb capability within the area, etc. making the captured area or gridsquare a jump-off point into the next/adjacent 'neutral' or 'enemy' gridsquares/area. 

    like that. not much difference - but maybe more fun and certainly more use of the map/terrain - between having 1/5/12 players crammed in a cp to cap (or defend) than having those players in/near/on a bridge, hill, farmhouse, xroads to cap/defend. this does happen organically, sometimes (own/defend/block a bridge, hill, xroads) but not often enough and its certainly not essential given current gameplay and the singular focus on cp/town caps only. 

    or, conversely, eliminate 'capture' altogether and just give cps, towns, areas, and the whole campaign to the players with the best STATS. 

  14. 1 hour ago, lonepilgim said:

    ok..I get all that..I've been playing for a while..I`ve done all the training except armor and I guess that`s  next but I`m still I spawn in as infantry to do this as airborne ?  Is there anyway to train for this ?  Thanks

    no training required unless you want to practice (you'll need a friend/pilot) para jumps from the plane either on the training server or from a backline AF with practice jumps.  if you are asking (as it seems) is there (or why isn't there) a specific Airborne Training Tutorial - I don't know that there is actually. 

    SPAWNING: for a para mission in game you would have to spawn as an AIRBORNE INFANTRYMAN (smg , rifle, etc loadouts available AS A PARA) only from a  town with an airfield and a PARA/AIRBORNE GARRISON in that town. 

    go in game and try for yourself. log in. pick side. open map, look for town with airfield of that side (say, Bertrix, Montfaucon, Gilze for Axis or Antwerp South, Brussels for Allies) ; right click on the town name, pick Airborne Garrison from the drop down. Create or join an Airborne Mission (if there is one)  Enter world, spawn as a para at the para spawn in the middle of the selected AF. 

    as said above, there may not be an existing airborne mission at that particular AF. if you cannot create one due to rank/subscription status, then either ask on chat/help channel or watch chat channel in game for your side for ppl talking/typing (usually in caps) about ;   LOADING PARAS NOW  <mission/origin details> and go for it. 

  15. 2 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

    Well, have you followed the tutorials and spawned in the game?  If not, need to do that.

    You have to spawn into a mission to enter the game.  Someone, either you or another mission leader, needs to have made the mission, which in the case of paras will be from an airfield to a target town, usually either a town being attacked (with an AO or attack order on it) or rarely a town being defended on your side (with a DO or defense order).


    Problem with paras is that they are at AFs and will require a pilot.  So even if you make a mission, that doesn't get you a pilot to fly you there.  That sort of complication is why I strongly suggest you not push for a para mission, but listen on Ops channel for someone to make one.  That will mean they have a pilot lined up and a battle that paras can help in.

    Join the mission, and you will be spawning at a control tower building ON the AF (airfield).  If the pilot is still there, there will be a C-47 or Ju-52 on the field waiting for people to load in.  Get to the side of the plane near the door and press F- that puts you on board the plane. 

    You ride the plane, hope no enemy fighters find you, and when over the target press F again- that will cause you to jump, parachute autodeploys, and you float down until landing.  No need to pack away or cut off from your chute.  You can steer a little bit, but at WWII levels of maneuver not a lot of fidelity/acrobatics available.

    Where your pilot flies you matters, take stock of what combat environment you are dropping into and who if any are shooting at you on the way down or moving to kill you.  Avoid AI (automated MG towers and pits), and move to your objective/target.


    Para dropping is flashy but everyone on the battlefield knows where you landed.  You have to scramble fast whereever and however you land to get out of there and defend yourself and get in position to do damage.


    or what Kile said. S! 

  16. 47 minutes ago, lonepilgim said:

    Thanks but this is not what I was looking do I play para?  Do I spawn in as infantry?  How do I get a parachute ? Is there anyway I can train for offline training there is a para section but it is essentially the same as infantry training with the different guns and do I find a mission?  Thanks

    lone: basically you can't ' play' para on your own if you mean spawn in, get a chute. hop on a plane and jump into enemy territory.  how it works in game: 

    1. you spawn as a PARACHUTE inf (choice of weapons /load out in that list) from a Parachute Garrison brigade. Para Garrisons are always but only at frontline/close to frontline towns with AIRFIELDS.  Para Inf only spawn at the Para Depot in the middle of these airfields.  the Para Inf load out includes the CHUTE.  The chute auto-deploys (like a jumpline) when you jump ( f key) out of the plane.  once deployed and floating you can minimally steer the chute with q/e keys.   BUT

    2. you need a plane to get on, and a pilot for that plane. so a friendly player pilot will spawn a para carrying plane (usually a transport or a junkers) and usually pull up from the plane spawning hangar on your AF close to the Para Spawn. You walk up close the plane and hit 'f' to get on. (same for tank/truck/ht).  You are now seated on the plane

    3. the pilot/mission leader will yell and scream on game chat for more paras for the mission; they will get on the plane one or more will be seated across from you and  you'll be staring at their faces while the pilot finally takes off, flies from the origin AF to the target destination (close or far, 3 minutes or 10 minutes or more,  high altitude or low) and someone (usually Pilot or ML) will call JUMP!  You jump (f)  and float down (if your plane hasn't been shot down by enemy fighters) and i) land, pull out weapon and fight/cap/run to target if away from it  or  ii) get shot  while floating by enemy plane, inf on the ground or AI fire

    >. this is why as stated in the above answers  Para Jumps require multiple players and some organization so the mission has a purpose:  > an objective to attack, someone to set the Para Inf Mission (can be pilot or ground) ;  a Pilot to fly the plane, and multiple Paras else, you would be jumping as a solo para with a solo pilot (it happens, in fact, you can do it yourself with two accounts as pilot and para).  BUT

    > usually a PARA MISSION is called for by an HC, Map/Battle OIC, squad leader or player leader and includes mission creation, origin airfield/target objective (often a spawnable, a bunker or a fb bust) and a call (and wait) for multiple Paras to make the jump effective 


    there may be details I left out, better ways to do it and many other players could tell you more/better than the above, but that's the general idea - you don't need to train for it, you just do it in game. if you're totally ambitious you can/will set the para mission yourself and call on chat for more paras and a plane. 

  17. 1 minute ago, matamor said:


    that's not a stat, matamor, that's a game winning basket for the team. being from Toronto, no one is going to remember Kawhi's stats for that game - just the shot and the win, and the look of joy on his face.  if you really want to play the stats game ask CRS to change how the game works: say  10 kills autocaps a CP. 100 kills autocaps a bunker. the side with the highest K/D wins the game.  until then, stats are just a sideshow for those who like pulling down their pants. as an historical lesson, and as we've all boringly learned from the games Did You Know stats, the side with the worst K/D actually won WW2. 

    and as has been shown over 18 years -  its  usually the side with the highest TOM that wins the campaign (except for the last couple years where axis won 1 or 2 campaigns with lower TOM than allies).  to accomplish that, all the stats guys should just go hide in bushes and go AFK for the campaign = guaranteed win. 

  18. 39 minutes ago, kgarner said:


    S!these are the STATS that matter. 

     the awards should be mini-catapults and espresso machines. with an extra large espresso machine for Choad who put together these STATS. maybe with some cognac to go in the caffe corretto.