Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Green Tag

About sascha

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 05/17/1970

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
  1. Seriously? I've submitted a support ticket for that thing ages ago and there were numerous threads on the board about it as well. Units affected are (IIRC): Both Stugs 88 DDs ..basically all units that use that "Range Setting"-info window instead of "in-gunsight" range adjustment. S.
  2. I agree that forcing players on the side-issue is a no-no. Still: Campaigns like the last two, where one side just pushes the other off the map due to vastly superior numbers are lethal for the game and for players' enjoyment of it. I know it frustrates me when I'm on the side that's getting seal-clubbed constantly and that it bores me to death if I'm on the side doing the clubbing. Here's an idea: Instead of "forcing" people to go with one side or the other, why not implement a "reward"-system for staying loyal to one side for the duration of the campaign? I think I've brought this one up numerous times in the past, but I'll gladly repeat myself. Under a new system, nothing would change for players who still want to be able to switch sides on a daily basis. But players who decide to stay with one side would get rewarded for their "loyalty". First time I log into a new campaign, the game would ask me if I want to play in "normal" or "loyalty"-mode. If I choose "normal", I would get the same or similar behavior WRT side-lock/spawn delay as I do now. But if I choose to play "loyal", my account gets locked to one side for the duration of the campaign. In return, I'd get rewards for choosing this option: - Access to otherwise limited equipment - or even slightly earlier access to newer equipment (get Tier1-stuff one day before it gets introduced "officially"). - Reduction/removal of side-lock and/or spawn-delay - Access to otherwise unavailable equipment for F2P-accounts (like to binoculars). To prevent new imbalancing issues, this would probably need to be limited in some ways, meaning that only a certain percentage of the total accounts that logged in during the first week of a campaign could be set to "loyal" and that loyal-accounts on both sides would have to be in some sort of balance. Wouldn't make much sense if one side was overpop already *and* had way more accounts set to "loyal" at the same time. Kinda like the rules that we have for AOs now where *both* sides need to have a certain number of players on (not just one side) for a 2nd or 3rd AO to become available. Of course: This wouldn't eliminate the issue of vastly imbalanced numbers, but it would: 1. Give CRS an idea of general player-balance at the start of a campaign, enabling them to implement other means of countering global imbalance. 2. Prevent (to a certain degree) the old "gotta-win" behavior (more people flocking to the side that's winning already) which usually makes it impossible to turn a campaign around once one side makes a certain amount of progress. 3. Give the underpopulated side a fighting chance if they have enough "loyal" players. S.
  3. Ceterum censeo .... and all that. *bump* S.
  4. This thread needs a *bump*. S.
  5. Easy fix: Make reinforced FRUs a different object than "normal" FRUs. Limit their availability per AO/DO (say you can only have one or two of them up at an AO/DO at any given time). If one gets taken down, a cooldown for *all* players on that AO/DO would start, forcing everyone to wait before they can replace the dead FRU. Not saying that this is what's needed - heck, the thing isn't even in-game yet. Just throwing some general ideas around. S.
  6. I'm curious to see how they'll implement the FRU - or more precisely its placement. Will it be available to attackers only? Or to both attackers and defenders? Will all trucks be able to place it? Or just the heavy towers? Will there be a limited number of "hard" FRUs per brigade/AO? Or a limited number of how many can be up at the same time for the same AO? And how long will the build-time be? Will there be a cooldown once it does get destroyed? If this thing is made too powerful, too "common" and too hard to kill, it's going to be a disaster for defenders. Perhaps make it "harder" against stuff like MG-fire, grenades or HE-shells, but make it more vulnerable against HE-satchels and/or bombs? Kinda like an "old-school mini-FB" Vulnerability against satchels would mean that a couple of smart sappers/engies could still take the FRU down pretty easily (if they manage to get close enough). S.
  7. Teamspeak. Although the "no marks for you"-idea might work.. but that would be taking things a bit too far, I think. Whereas the reload-time and the one-man-turret thing is a perfectly valid point, IMO. Just like it's perfectly ok that a Stuart is faster than a Tiger - because it was faster in RL. Or can we have 100mm of frontal armor now on our IIIFs, too? I mean.. nobody likes to play Paper-Panzers in Tier0, either.. so we should make early war Panzers more attractive. I don't see why modeling deficiencies of certain units is ok when it's the other side's deficiencies, but not when it's on a vehicle on your side. It's a pretty well known fact that the one-man turrets that some French tanks had were a serious drawback. Heck, it's just a question of what's physically possible: One guy is looking through a gun-sight, then fires, then has to reload a 47mm cannon. And yet he can still keep looking through the sight while doing so *and* does it as fast as a dedicated loader on another tank? I guess the French commanders had four arms and two sets of eyes? Seriously though: All cannon could probably use a "reload-time" audit. I suspect that the Stug IIIG's cannon would take longer to reload than the puny 37mm on the IIIF for example. In-game, they all seem to take the same amount of time - except for the Char's howitzer which is *slightly* slower than all the other tank-cannon in-game. I'd also love to see CRS do something with the loader on the tanks that had them. When my crew member 5 dies (which I assume must be the loader), I don't suffer any negative consequences. But if you lose that guy, your reload-time should get quite a bit longer. Same goes for other weapons, too. I doubt for example that you could reload the MG34 as quickly as you can in the game. That's still a belt inside that drum, right? The Panzers' reload time for their MG34s is quite a bit longer and seems a lot more realistic. S.
  8. It's a glitch/bug that was "introduced" with 1.35. Not a deliberate change to the game. It should be treated as such and fixed ASAP. S.
  9. I don't think anyone would deny that. However: Whether planned or not, you can't argue with the outcome and the fact that the WW2 Wehrmacht achieved in a few weeks what the WW1 Reichswehr couldn't achieve in four years of bloody trench-warfare. Question isn't so much whether they planned it or not, but how and why they achieved this success and how much of it was down to what the defenders were doing. S.
  10. LOL.. yeah.. buuuuut: S.
  11. Sadly, yes. A single ping is often enough to render a 109 or even 190 (which was a much more durable plane than the 109 in RL) useless. This point is probably more important than any of the other "nerfs", "fixes" or shortcomings of our simulated equipment. One reason why the Wehrmacht "blitzed" the French was that they had much better communication. Starting inside the tanks where everyone could talk to everyone else over the intercom. While French tankers had to live with one-man turrets with overworked commanders and had to use flag signals to communicate with other tanks. Which leads to another point: One man turrets don't seem to suffer any penalties to their "effectiveness" in the game. Last I checked, an S35 or Char can reload its main gun just as quickly as a Pz III or IV. Considering that the commander had to command the tank, aim the gun *and* reload it between shots in the French tanks (while the German tanks had a dedicated commander, loader and gunner) this doesn't make much sense. At the very least, reload on one-man turrets should be slower and you shouldn't be able to keep looking through the sight if you want to reload your gun. And unlike the absence of radios, this is a shortcoming that could be modeled in the game rather easily. S.
  12. The StuG is actually quite a good example of how proper use of equipment will grant you success while improper use will lead to disaster and ultimately frustration and in some cases suspicions of "nerfed equipment" or even "cheaters/spies on the other side". Ever since I started running with Dandare (who is an excellent StuG driver), I've learned quite a lot about them and tend to use them much more like you *should* use them: As a stand-off weapon, maintaining a healthy distance to the enemy (like, 1300 - 2000m). Plus from a prepared position, meaning near your own (ammo-)FRU and preferably with a couple of gun-bunkers nearby to cover your FRU and your StuG's flanks. This way you maximize the advantages of your vehicle (solid armor protection at the front, powerful gun, good optics) while minimizing the effect of its weaknesses: The short clip isn't so bad with a FRU nearby. At long range, the limited gun traverse doesn't matter so much (you can cover quite a wide area with it at medium to long range). Plus if you do have to turn your vehicle to keep an enemy within your field of fire, the longer distance means you'll only need quick adjustments and that you'll still have enough time to re-acquire and engage your target. Ignore all that and use the StuG as a tank-substitute and most likely your sortie will end in tears. And you'll probably think it's a useless POS, too .. S.
  13. Yikes... rather weird choice of name for that one. St. Pauli is a district of Hamburg that's associated with (among other things) prostitution, so "St. Pauli Girl Beer" could very well be translated to "Hooker Beer" Plus the brewery that introduced it is actually located in Bremen. Kinda like a New Jersey based company making "New York"-style bagels, I suppose.. S.