Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


piska250 last won the day on June 5

piska250 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

67 Vet

About piska250

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/01/1974

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
  1. First of all. Amazing job Rats and thank you because of your dedication! Now. Garrison is going to be implemented. We have new barracks too. Would it be possible to design a destroyed barrack and make them a target for bombers? The idea is that when the barracks get enough damage, one of them is destroyed, we need the rest of them as a spawn and the garrison numbers is slightly decrease up to a maximum of let's say 10%. This way we get: - additional ground target for pilots. - it represents the typical attrition taken place before and attack usually done with artillery or aviation. If garrison has, lets say 100rifles plus 10 lmg. Losing 10% means losing just 10 rifles plus 1 lmg. Garrison is still functional but attackers get a slightly advantage and we get the two points listed above. My two cents. Thank you.
  2. IMO, the main thing is not the arming timers but the fact that we need more ground targets for airplane bombs other than tanks. PPOs, FBs, radar, supply stuff, bridges, trains, whatever.....
  3. Come on Guys! This is just a game. It is always sad to lose players but those willing to unsub or needing a rest are more than free to do it and maybe and hopefully they will be back. Those willing to "fight", please try the game and not the forum. Morale is something you work from the very basis and a starting point is here in the forum. Respect. Please. Something that helps is: make a nice bunch of mates or squaddies and just have fun. Then you don't care about cuts, automatics, Matilda's or whatever.... PS: Lipton, who's gonna ambush us in our bunker rush when u are gone??
  4. I've been playing this game for 14 years now and I've seen all kind of changes, patches, bugs or whatever that would affect one side or the other depending on the situation. If seen winning strikes on both sides, "imbalances" of all sorts or whatever... So I'm not going to discuss about the facts provided in this topic BUT ....in the end I've found just to kind of players. Those who keep on playing no matter what or those who easily gave up or switch sides as soon as their side losing. (Both Allied and Axis). Whining is never an option to me. There have been complains since day one on both sides about nearly any change implemented or nearly any equipment. Saying that, this "pool thing" needed to be addressed and solved but I see no point in blaming Rats (who desperately want this game to survive and evolve) Pointing out problems helps. Providing with alternatives helps. Campaign is NOT over. Have fun and see you in the battlefield.
  5. Good job mate! Anything to make this game more known is welcome.
  6. Their Characteristic "Cuack" identifies them as of American origen. It seems to be a kind of migratory and invasive bird. We urge Axis to protect local fauna. The Hunting season will open Soon TM
  7. Gj mate and congratulations!!!!
  8. Indeed I was thinking more about pool and brigade level. That the speed of pool recovery or the speed of brigade movement would be affected by crossroads or bridges ownership or status (up or destroyed). But I get you point...
  9. Wow!! Thank you for that explanation!
  10. Just recently the RATs have announced that they may be able to increase the map, add new towns or even modify huge ones. So is the time to makes this suggestion/pledge. INTRO: In real War, railroads, roads, crossroad and BRIDGES were essential in the strategic developing of war. Nowadays, in our game, owning those have nearly no impact. Additionally, 99% of the fight always takes place around towns. Suggestion: Would it be possible to make some of the most important bridges as if they were a small village? I mean, you could take a bridge, add a few bunkers and small buildings at both sides as if it was a two depot town. and we are good to go. - You cap town A and before been able to target town B you are first to own bridge - or if you cap bridge from another link or if you destroy it and bridge is between A and B that belongs to the enemy, then the enemy can not move brigades from A to B or viceversa. Those Bridge would have a small garrison. BENEFITS This way you get to combat outside towns. Try to imagine setting FMS both sides of the same bridge.... A new Target for Aerial or paras. Adds a little bit of depth to the strategic game.. This could be valid for Huge crossroads or similar. and thats it.....
  11. +1
  12. First of all Thank you Rats. Every step is more than welcome. Secondly, Come oooooon! We haven't seen it yet and already complaints?! Let's wait and see... BOTH sides get new toys. The opponent will need to deal with them. For those complaining about stug H Reading about it, It is meant for close range. Now, thinks what it means close range in this game, without turret and lmg. Take it easy!!
  13. 1. Clipping 2. Collider. Ups those feet..... 3. Sometimes, when deploying lmg on a window, then you try to shoot but all the bullets hit the lower window frame (maybe it is not a bug but me in my usual useless mode)
  14. I first posted this here -> http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/411697-f2p-lock-to-underpop/?page=10 But was pointed to this Subforum so here we are..... Would it be possible to implement "LINKED MS"? - From the FB you set , lets call it, Main MS (MMS). This minimum distance to AO Should be greater than the present MS ones. You need a vehicle to set it. - From this MMS, by using engineer or ML (make them distinctive with uniforms) you can place the usual MS. The MS CAN'T be farther away than an specific distance from the MMS. Another limitations could be: - that you can't not place the MS before X minutes after setting the MMS or / and - unless no less than XX players did spawn in the MMS (to represent enough friendly support and avoid lonely/ninja actions and / or - MS can't be set until X minutes after the AO. Benefits: 1. MMS more open to survive because you place then farther away from AO. Nowadays we need to risk getting close to minimize the distance infantry is to walk. 2. This system, IMO, It better represents the infield progression. 3. You avoid rushings, specially in an unbalanced situation. The attackers won't be able to place fast and close MS. It takes longer given enough time reaction for defenders. 4. If the MS is camped and you need to close it or destroyed, it is not over, you can still keep on spawning at the initial MMS and try to push again. You are not falling back to FB. I would make it that while the AO is on, Fb is not to be damaged, this way attackers would only need to defend MMS and MS. It would be ideal if the external appearance of the MS and the MMS could be different and that you would need different amount of damage to destroy them. And thats it.....
  15. Ahhhh and "Friendly Foe" or "Mention for execution" number of friendlies killed when you blow a building "Suicide Instinct" number of times you die because of falling from a transport