voinic

Registered Users
  • Content count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About voinic

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday
  1. Bit of a necro, but this should probably be un-stickied; don't want to give people the impression it doesn't work on Windows 8. It works on my Windows 8 64-bit system with no problems.
  2. I'm running it on Windows 8 64 bit. No problem at all. I do also recommend a dual boot install, though. Older games that don't have 'digitally signed' driver files and whatnot can fail to work thanks to obnoxious built-in security features (at least, I think that's what happens). Gothic 3 would not run at all. Also had to use compatibility mode for Virtual Pool 3 (and that gives **** performance). Haven't tried a whole lot of other games yet, although M&B Warband does work.
  3. You can also try reducing the number of corpses that are left. That was really killing my FPS. It seems dead infantry use more resources than live infantry for some reason... at least, the ones in the offline server do. Certainly in game it helped a bit.
  4. Randomly, stuff works fine today. Still got the t:0 error message when launching but no problems. I can also access CS&R which I couldn't do yesterday.
  5. I'm getting the same error, and router reboots aren't helping. I login, select the main server and launch the game. It fails at the first loading step, selecting network connection, and gives the timed out message. Only once did I get past this; it got to about 40% through the load bar then it said it had timed out connecting to map server or something. I didn't have any such problems yesterday. I also occasionally get this t:0 error, although it hasn't stopped me playing. The first few times I tried to spawn yesterday I failed to spawn, but after that had no issues. It's nice to come back a year after 1.34 was released and see all connection annoyances have been fixed... I should add that I've tested my connection for packet loss, and it's showing up as perfect.
  6. Actually, allowing lower ranks to make missions would have no impact on infantry or tank supplies. Equipment is still rank restricted so they'd still only be wasting the lowest tier stuff, and they can and will do this anyway on other people's missions. It'd not like there's ever no infantry missions anywhere. The fact that it's their mission makes no difference, although it's true we don't necessarily want a ****load of missions, particularly when defending, since it hampers communication and makes it harder to see friendlies on the map who aren't close to you. It would make it a bit more likely that people will waste air supply (and naval supply but that takes longer and isn't likely to be a problem). If they can make their own mission even when nobody else is flying then they can crash into trees at any of the airfields to their heart's content, or go off on their own and get wtfganged by experienced enemies. Still, I doubt it'd make a major difference, and there's nothing to stop them 'learning' to take-off on other people's missions or going off on their own to die; happens all the time currently. In the old days you had limited points to use to create missions, maybe we could return to that system for the lower ranks. Above rank 5 or thereabouts you can make unlimited missions, below this you can make so many per day depending on your rank. Air missions could cost more so a recruit can only make 1 per day, infantry could cost less so they could make 2/3, and navy should be cheapest.
  7. I think if a brigade has no active missions then anyone should be able to create one.
  8. It's hardly going to keep me awake at night, but I think it's pretty clear that the Allies should be awarded a victory for this campaign. Announcing new victory conditions just 2 and a half days or so before the end was ill-advised, not to mention the difficulty of actually achieving those conditions. Really, the only way the Allies could have taken the towns listed in such a short time period would have been if hardly anyone on the other side logged in, particularly considering the Germans knew exactly where we needed to go. It's clear that we'd already established a very strong beachhead, we took an enormous amount of towns, in spite of losing an enormous amount of supply and having numerous attacks ruined thanks to server crashes. How can 3 towns be so key just because they have airfields? Oostende would have been better as a final victory condition since it's a port town and was near Dunkerque - realistically it would have mattered to take it since it threatened our supply. It would have been difficult to take, but much more fun to try and at least it would have made sense. Alternatively, how about Arras? It was one of our earlier objectives, and I think the only one we didn't manage to take. On the whole, though, you shouldn't change the victory conditions mid-campaign without good reason, especially not near the end. At the start you said something like it'll basically come down to who 'kicks the most ass'. Giving us nearly impossible new victory conditions meant that the whole thing boiled down to the last few days and our earlier efforts counted for nothing. It struck me as a cheap way of giving the losers something to hold on to, but that's a rather hollow concept, especially when it disenchants the other side. Perhaps what you should have done was add new objectives which would decide whether the victory was total or only partial, since there wasn't really a doubt as to which side was winning generally. It's a shame there were so many server problems, because this event could have been fantastic throughout, and we'd have reaped the benefits for years to come. Many of the battles were truly spectacular; too many others could have been if the server hadn't crashed. I'm sure you guys have been burning yourselves out trying to fix things. Hopefully things will soon be resolved and you can relax a little.