As so many others, I too was an early player - and dedicated quite a few years to WWIIOL. I persisted thru the growth in the size of the map, the introduction of
TOEs and AO, the 'Hail Mary' introduction of the Tiger and US equipment, committed to HC (formerly known as Sprouto), formed and managed my own squad
(16ID), and saw all the good and bad that this game has to offer. After about 7 years, it was the inability of the previous management team to deal with this very
subject (imbalance) that drove what had been a truly vibrant community, into the ground.
I've looked very hard for something to replace that, and without going into detail, I never did find anything as encompassing as this. No shoebox game has ever
come close, and the powers that be know that I've given most of them a good shot.
With the Steam release, and an influx of potential subscribers, a number of the ugly old problems have really raised their profile and come back to haunt this
community with vigor. It has to be addressed very quickly as the opportunity to retain these players will fade quickly.
Any solution that involves impeding a player from playing their chosen side, at any time, will not gain any favor.
The answer must come in the form of incentives, and in the use of those tools that CRS already has at their disposal. These appear to include;
- tools to manage the flow of the playerbase (side to side, spawn to spawn, but may also include unit to unit to allieviate 'piling on')
- tools that may manage the effectiveness of AI units in range, accuracy and durability (to better deter pre-camping)
- tools that might alter the range or trigger level of EWS based upon population
- rule changes that may alter the number of units in any given town (simulating frontage) perhaps based upon # of ABs
- garrison supplies for un-occupied towns ( to address free capping and partly address absentee HC )
As for incentives for the players, that is somewhat more subjective, as there isn't time to come up with anything new, existing mechanisms will have to be re-
examined. Certainly, something to do with capture timers would be dynamic and flexible and would not change the fundamentals of the game.
With regards to the hardware in the field, someone earlier in this thread made a good point about hardware that is under- utilized, on both sides, and the need to
re-assess it's place in the game, but that too might require more time than is available before this brief window of opportunity runs it's course.