Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
hierbart

How u like the new patch?

234 posts in this topic

I question the veracity of this statement. I cannot imagine that CRS's INTENT was to slow down the map outside of US prime time. It may have been an UNFORESEEN side effect. I see plenty of action during low population times it is just difficult to make the map move when there are not many on. That is the way it should be anyways. There are still battles and skirmishes they simply do not overly impact the game in the strategic sense.

To make the claim that CRS deliberately set out to do what you state or to make a change specifically to give one side a greater advantage such as Allies is just plain wrong and disingenuously presents a picture just to foment displeasure with the patch and CRS and the game in general.

I get that Axis has some issues with the new patch. Frankly I do not think they can point to one specific thing. Populations shift, real life timelines such as holidays conflict. Some old patterns and methods of playing the game are obsolete. Habits are hard to break. Please if you have a legitimate complaint that you can back up with evidence and experience then please make it.

All this post does is create a false impression of the development team and causes players to possibly falsely believe this claim and possibly leave the game or play less. And simply repeating your claim in different ways makes it no more valid. I validate your feelings but they are expressed wrongly in this case. At least from my point of view.

Rats did say in Rat Chat that one intention was to slow down map movements and make the campaigns last longer. Don`t sue him :rolleyes:

Edited by actonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a little history lesson about game changes.

When this game switched over to the MSP I was axis. The Allies at the time embraced the MSP. The Axis where skeptical for the most part.

The Allies however.. back then it was the 23rd Armored and the Anzacs had put up a plan to execute how the MSP would work to the best benefit an attack.

Axis pb had some seriously outspoken anti MSP threads at the time. Defensive MSPs where not in the picture yet, nobody saw their potential the first few maps.

We had (Axis) had a very hard time adjusting and consequencly lost something like 3 maps in a row. A few Allied Vets switched sides and a few Allied HC did the same. The Axis where slow to understand how the MSP worked best... that was with the ZOC. But when they embraced it and took charge the Axis started to whoop our butts. The lesson is that the Axis KNOW how to set up a great ZOC, they have the weapons to do it.. but they need to embrace it again and log in. Some of the best maps I have played as an Axis player came after the negativity stopped and the MSP was mastered.

All the negativity about the MSP by a lot fo the Axis players in the forums has already been done. Its a very retro argument but the history of the MSP just does not play out badly for the Axis. It never has, the worst part about it is that the negativity about the MSP, fuels the lack of moral to work it through or even log it.

I know I am going to get hammered on the subjects history but its a fact that the Axis had a hard time adjusting. I think we see the same now.

I know it sucks to lose ground. There are a few allied players who have LOST more towns by a large margin then they have taken. I am one of them, Its the allied TZ3 crew. I can tell you when I get to take ground, I am loving it. BUT as a allied TZ3 crew dealing the FRU and 3:1 odds with sometimes it being 5:1. It was not about just losing the town, it was about running 2 or 3 sorties before the town was hard camped and you could not leave the cps. When numbers are that bad, one side is just not getting to play much game, we get to push spawn in and despawn buttons... not much shooting at that point. Now with the MSP, I see old Tz3 player names playing TZ3 again, I see more then 5 ppl on in that TZ. Hell we have a constant 15 or more TZ3 ppl on now... and I know the night we took Brussels we must have had 30 or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a little history lesson about game changes.

When this game switched over to the MSP I was axis. The Allies at the time embraced the MSP. The Axis where skeptical for the most part.

The Allies however.. back then it was the 23rd Armored and the Anzacs had put up a plan to execute how the MSP would work to the best benefit an attack.

Axis pb had some seriously outspoken anti MSP threads at the time. Defensive MSPs where not in the picture yet, nobody saw their potential the first few maps.

We had (Axis) had a very hard time adjusting and consequencly lost something like 3 maps in a row. A few Allied Vets switched sides and a few Allied HC did the same. The Axis where slow to understand how the MSP worked best... that was with the ZOC. But when they embraced it and took charge the Axis started to whoop our butts. The lesson is that the Axis KNOW how to set up a great ZOC, they have the weapons to do it.. but they need to embrace it again and log in. Some of the best maps I have played as an Axis player came after the negativity stopped and the MSP was mastered.

All the negativity about the MSP by a lot fo the Axis players in the forums has already been done. Its a very retro argument but the history of the MSP just does not play out badly for the Axis. It never has, the worst part about it is that the negativity about the MSP, fuels the lack of moral to work it through or even log it.

I know I am going to get hammered on the subjects history but its a fact that the Axis had a hard time adjusting. I think we see the same now.

I know it sucks to lose ground. There are a few allied players who have LOST more towns by a large margin then they have taken. I am one of them, Its the allied TZ3 crew. I can tell you when I get to take ground, I am loving it. BUT as a allied TZ3 crew dealing the FRU and 3:1 odds with sometimes it being 5:1. It was not about just losing the town, it was about running 2 or 3 sorties before the town was hard camped and you could not leave the cps. When numbers are that bad, one side is just not getting to play much game, we get to push spawn in and despawn buttons... not much shooting at that point. Now with the MSP, I see old Tz3 player names playing TZ3 again, I see more then 5 ppl on in that TZ. Hell we have a constant 15 or more TZ3 ppl on now... and I know the night we took Brussels we must have had 30 or more.

I was in HC for Axis at the time we mastered the Allies in MSP days and we never embraced ZOC, zoc only works with zerg which was 23rd and ANZACs cup of tea.

ZOC is actually a myth ( like `Antwerp can`t be capped` - rember the myth of Antwerp?).

Axis didn`t do ZOC we just learnt to defeat Zerg but that took a lot of hard work training the PB and a big Squad and HC roster.

To tow atg guns out early, assign OICs to all DOs and AOs, use HTs and 88s, cover the link CP, kill the 4 compass corner msps, set def msps, scout out, hit fbs on the DO, anticipate air quake, conserve supply pre TZ1, hold in TZ2, gain in TZ3, KGW nights, standing order `Hold at Breda`, .fallback etc etc..

We only managed to defeat the Zerg (which has returned) because we hated it and loved the game, which it was killing. Allies tankers took so many spankings they eventually gave up and Chenea also came Axis as elite infantry.

Like I said then 23rd will Zerg the game to death ( with all due respect).

Edited by actonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me ask a question, as I recognise genuine concern and consideration in a post when I see one - do you think the situation above is in any way different to how Allies felt last map? I remember having the exact same thoughts, the exact same feelings sat in towns stretching from Aalst back to Ashford.

The points you're making above are an entirely accurate depiction of what WWIIOL feels like when you're losing.

Last campaign it was us feeling that way, now it's you. That's the way this game, where only ony side can win works

Revisionist history. Axis won the last map, but the Allies rolled the previous two maps. I guess the Axis can't be permitted to win two maps in a row? is that what you're saying Silky?

VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
even,

I keep seeing the drum beat message that the Axis can't compete in US prime time and that the only way they ever begin to move the map is on TZ3. The story seems to go that the Axis win in TZ3 until they break Allied morale, then they move the map west in all time zones. If that is in fact the truth and this patch has in fact adjusted the balance of TZ3 then I wouldn't worry about it.

If the above is true then it will reveal itself in time and the Allies will roll several maps. At some point, CRS will adjust the situation.

As for being playable at all times maybe some suggested solutions would help. Like for example, maybe cap timers could be adjusted based on server population for time zones where you simply can't bring 8 people with you into a CP. Maybe you adjust the maximum cap speed down to 4 people. I don't know. What I do know is that suggestions can't hurt.

saronin

You're patient enough, and I'm patient enough to wait it out, though its getting harder and harder to log in. I'm a defender by nature though...most of the offense types have already swapped sides or stopped playing in disgust.

The trouble with waiting for "several maps" is that you've lost anyone outside of US prime time, completely destroyed morale on one side, and driven off players we NEED.

You understand, as I've seen you point out how we need every player we can get.

As to suggestions, its been a pretty standard thing for a while now that any suggestion that might do anything for Axis is swamped by voluminous Allied postings against. Goebbels had nothing on some of the guys here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rats did say in Rat Chat that one intention was to slow down map movements and make the campaigns last longer. Don`t sue him :rolleyes:

And that's a good thing. But they did not say or imply that this intention was to eliminate the game for a whole TZ of players. Intentionally losing customers would be pretty stupid of a desperate company, don't you think?

Look, I know the TZ3 crew is gonna have a hard time adjusting to the fact that they will no longer be a major decider of map outcomes. But if 10% of the total player base is responsible for 10% of the map movements, that is a good thing people! I don't see how anyone can argue that a smaller group should have a disproportionately large effect on the outcome of a campaign.

And it's not like map gains are completely nonexistent in TZ3. TZ3 still has a disproportionate effect to the outcome of campaigns, it's just not nearly as exaggerated as before.

I keep seeing the drum beat message that the Axis can't compete in US prime time and that the only way they ever begin to move the map is on TZ3. The story seems to go that the Axis win in TZ3 until they break Allied morale' date=' then they move the map west in all time zones. If that is in fact the truth and this patch has in fact adjusted the balance of TZ3 then I wouldn't worry about it. [/quote']

This is such a sad narrative by the Axis. You can't be proud saying "the only time we can defeat our opponent is when we take advantage of TZ3 and defend in all other TZs until we break the Allied will to resist by capping towns when they are asleep. Otherwise we will lose."

I also believe that this "Axis cannot attack outside of TZ3 mentality" is just that: a mentality! But eventually perception becomes reality, and this reality becomes a hard thing to change.

If the above is true then it will reveal itself in time and the Allies will roll several maps. At some point' date=' CRS will adjust the situation.[/quote']

Yep. If this "story" is in fact true (that the Axis are completely inept outside of TZ3), after a while there will be Allies who switch Axis and help you out.

We love this game just as much as you do and if you need advice or population or squads to switch or whatever to make it work in the other TZs, we will end up helping you rather than see the game die. Mark my words that this will be the case.

What are you flipping out about? The map moving when low numbers are online and consistently reversing the gains made by US prime time has been one of the biggest sources of complaints over the years. Like a lot of other changes to the game this was meant to address it. Simple as that.

There's going to be fewer instances of this now, but there will probably be other problems like a drop in participation and enthusiasm in off-prime hours.

You really do come off like you have an agenda. Just curious, are you the same david from JG51?

Revisionist history. Axis won the last map, but the Allies rolled the previous two maps. I guess the Axis can't be permitted to win two maps in a row? is that what you're saying Silky?

VR

Don't take the bait Silky ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And that's a good thing. But they did not say or imply that this intention was to eliminate the game for a whole TZ of players. Intentionally losing customers would be pretty stupid of a desperate company, don't you think?

Look, I know the TZ3 crew is gonna have a hard time adjusting to the fact that they will no longer be a major decider of map outcomes. But if 10% of the total player base is responsible for 10% of the map movements, that is a good thing people! I don't see how anyone can argue that a smaller group should have a disproportionately large effect on the outcome of a campaign.

And it's not like map gains are completely nonexistent in TZ3. TZ3 still has a disproportionate effect to the outcome of campaigns, it's just not nearly as exaggerated as before.

This is such a sad narrative by the Axis. You can't be proud saying "the only time we can defeat our opponent is when we take advantage of TZ3 and defend in all other TZs until we break the Allied will to resist by capping towns when they are asleep. Otherwise we will lose."

I also believe that this "Axis cannot attack outside of TZ3 mentality" is just that: a mentality! But eventually perception becomes reality, and this reality becomes a hard thing to change.

Yep. If this "story" is in fact true (that the Axis are completely inept outside of TZ3), after a while there will be Allies who switch Axis and help you out.

We love this game just as much as you do and if you need advice or population or squads to switch or whatever to make it work in the other TZs, we will end up helping you rather than see the game die. Mark my words that this will be the case.

You really do come off like you have an agenda. Just curious, are you the same david from JG51?

Don't take the bait Silky ;)

It`s not about TZs it never was - any battle is equally brutal regardless of time of day. 12 guys fighting over a field is just as deadly serious as 3000 guys fighting a campaign or 300, ooo invading a country.

War is about scale that`s why army`s are designed to scale, squad, platoon, company, regiment, brigade, division etc. It`s still about killing and being killed at the individual level.

A guerilla army in Afghanistan or Vietnam defeats a superpower nobody tells the Taliban or Viet Cong what hours they must fight because its `TZ3` in Washington.

This is a battlefield simulation first and foremost, historically and today it goes on 24/7 on a perpetual map, globally.

As soon as CRS lose sight of its roots it`s over.

Like so many things on the internet MySpace, Napster, Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, they are over and die as soon as they pander to the masses or lobbyists.

This game is from the same era and pedigree and still survives because it does not change.

Edited by actonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is such a sad narrative by the Axis. You can't be proud saying "the only time we can defeat our opponent is when we take advantage of TZ3 and defend in all other TZs until we break the Allied will to resist by capping towns when they are asleep. Otherwise we will lose."

I also believe that this "Axis cannot attack outside of TZ3 mentality" is just that: a mentality! But eventually perception becomes reality, and this reality becomes a hard thing to change.

This does not appear to be an Axis only narrative as you just stated TZ3 has an inordinate effect on maps in your own post. The implication there is that if not for TZ3 the Axis would not win. My point was that if Axis can't move the map in U.S. Prime time CRS will do what is necessary for balance.

Yep. If this "story" is in fact true (that the Axis are completely inept outside of TZ3), after a while there will be Allies who switch Axis and help you out.

We love this game just as much as you do and if you need advice or population or squads to switch or whatever to make it work in the other TZs, we will end up helping you rather than see the game die. Mark my words that this will be the case.

You speak as though the only way the Axis can win in US Prime time is if you provide some sort of benevolent charity service/win. That kind of talk is nothing but condescending dribble that adds nothing to the discussion at hand. It may serve to stroke your ego and make yourself feel superior, but it does not address the concerns of the players who regularly play the Axis side.

Wouldn’t a more effective way be to address some of the concerns the regular Axis players have? That way they can stand on their own two feet? If I were CRS (which I am clearly not) that is the way I would go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This does not appear to be an Axis only narrative as you just stated TZ3 has an inordinate effect on maps in your own post. The implication there is that if not for TZ3 the Axis would not win. My point was that if Axis can't move the map in U.S. Prime time CRS will do what is necessary for balance.

I didn't say it was an Axis only narrative. I said it was a sad narrative. The Allied narrative of the same situation is "we desire to defeat our opponent during the hours in which the game has enough population to be played in the way it was designed (massively multiplayer). As long as we can hold our ground in TZ3, we stand a chance to win."

That is entirely distinct and lacking any semblance of being "sad." I draw pride from the fact that when my team wins maps, more ground is taken during the TZs where the game functions as designed. As an Allied player, I generally don't owe my campaign victories to 15 guys who gang bang AI.

You speak as though the only way the Axis can win in US Prime time is if you provide some sort of benevolent charity service/win. That kind of talk is nothing but condescending dribble that adds nothing to the discussion at hand. It may serve to stroke your ego and make yourself feel superior' date=' but it does not address the concerns of the players who regularly play the Axis side.[/quote']

You speak as though I'm the first one to make such comments. I'm only reiterating the general sentiment of the Axis TZ2 playerbase. Ask them and they'll tell you how desperate their situation feels (regardless of how desperate that situation actually is).

I don't buy it that the Axis cannot get anything done in TZ2. There have been so many times where the Allies were very underpop in TZ2 yet we were the only ones attacking! Both Axis AOs would have zero EWS for hours on end because they knew TZ3 was right around the corner. Meanwhile, the Allies would at least try to create content for both sides by setting AOs, which lead to some extreme Allied burnout during TZ2.

But, going back to my quoted comment in your post, I'm not the one saying the Axis are in dire need of help in TZ2. It's the Axis who are saying it! So if in fact that is the truth, you will see the game's playerbase respond accordingly, just how it has in the past when one side gets into a rut. I wasn't being condescending in the slightest or stroking my ego but I understand how difficult it can be to fully communicate only via text, and perhaps I needed to do better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say it was an Axis only narrative. I said it was a sad narrative. The Allied narrative of the same situation is "we desire to defeat our opponent during the hours in which the game has enough population to be played in the way it was designed (massively multiplayer). As long as we can hold our ground in TZ3, we stand a chance to win."

That is entirely distinct and lacking any semblance of being "sad." I draw pride from the fact that when my team wins maps, more ground is taken during the TZs where the game functions as designed. As an Allied player, I generally don't owe my campaign victories to 15 guys who gang bang AI.

You speak as though I'm the first one to make such comments. I'm only reiterating the general sentiment of the Axis TZ2 playerbase. Ask them and they'll tell you how desperate their situation feels (regardless of how desperate that situation actually is).

I don't buy it that the Axis cannot get anything done in TZ2. There have been so many times where the Allies were very underpop in TZ2 yet we were the only ones attacking! Both Axis AOs would have zero EWS for hours on end because they knew TZ3 was right around the corner. Meanwhile, the Allies would at least try to create content for both sides by setting AOs, which lead to some extreme Allied burnout during TZ2.

But, going back to my quoted comment in your post, I'm not the one saying the Axis are in dire need of help in TZ2. It's the Axis who are saying it! So if in fact that is the truth, you will see the game's playerbase respond accordingly, just how it has in the past when one side gets into a rut. I wasn't being condescending in the slightest or stroking my ego but I understand how difficult it can be to fully communicate only via text, and perhaps I needed to do better.

Understood. You know as well as I do that there are those who post that think the only way they can make a point is to take a direct or off handed shot at people. Text does not often convey intended emotion or meaning.

I think only time will tell whether there are imbalances that need to be addressed. As I said before, I'm confident CRS will do so if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Understood. You know as well as I do that there are those who post that think the only way they can make a point is to take a direct or off handed shot at people. Text does not often convey intended emotion or meaning.

I think only time will tell whether there are imbalances that need to be addressed. As I said before, I'm confident CRS will do so if necessary.

Right. I'll bet my comment earlier about kchip lead you to believe I was potentially one of those types. I should have known better than to write that.

And I agree. Time will certainly tell the true story. I just hope we get enough time to see it for what it is.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are you flipping out about? The map moving when low numbers are online and consistently reversing the gains made by US prime time has been one of the biggest sources of complaints over the years. Like a lot of other changes to the game this was meant to address it. Simple as that.

There's going to be fewer instances of this now, but there will probably be other problems like a drop in participation and enthusiasm in off-prime hours.

Rats did say in Rat Chat that one intention was to slow down map movements and make the campaigns last longer. Don`t sue him :rolleyes:

It's the context in which you are placing it. "US Prime Time". CRS's intent was to slow down the map OVERALL not help a specific Prime Time. What CRS did was want to look how changing the spawn mechanic would affect the game. Something a fair amount of the player base wanted. "US Prime Time" cannot help that it is the peak time of the server. Only thing that really changes that is getting those other time zones more populated and infantry FRU's never really did that. I see more players on now during low server times than before.

I'm flipping out because the statement is basically false. The change does not slow down the map specifically OUTSIDE of US Prime Time, it slows down the map overall and those effects are magnified some during low population times.

So the real argument is if we want the map to move much when the majority of players are not in game. You say "US Prime Time" gains were reversed during what low server population times or during "Axis Prim Time". I'd say sometimes they were even obliterated. So this is "Axis Prime Time", same rules, same game. Make it happen during your peak hours.

Peak server population right now happens to be during "US Prime Time". You make it sound as if this was CRS prime intent. To make things better for "US Prime Time" alone. I think they just addressed the issue of low server population exploitation without even realizing it.

I really do not see one side "Allied US Prime Time" having to fight against AI and ghost towns as a result of this change. We have, as long as I have played, always had the low server population issues. This is not a result of the change. Someone in this thread even said that now new players will log in during low server times and because of the change it's much much worse at this time and will probably leave and tell their friends. We had that same issue for many years before and I'd bet it was even worse before than it is now. Now people casually try and make it a result of the change. That argument makes no sense to me.

I flip out when I see an incorrect and blatantly divisive conclusion stated out of a kernel of truth which in actuality has no basis on truth supposedly being expound. You just make it sound like the patch was for the allies benefit or simply for high server population benefit when I just don't buy that at all.

I'm not attacking you directly and I'm sure you have contributions to make. What I am attacking is the original statement and it's veracity. I hope I have given no one direct offense and apologize if I have. I thought I was being logical and reasonable even though I was dissatisfied greatly with the post in question.

Edited by stonecomet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is BS then' date=' gotta cater to the Allied player base. If that was the true intent then it's crap and should be removed. Every side does not always play at the same time or with the same strength. I guess we can't have the Axis ever get an advantage whether through luck or the fortunes of war.[/quote']

(It wasnt the intent of the patch)

But 'an advantage'...

Consistently ruining campaigns by cutting off divisions/capping impossible towns in a rediculous manner is not an advantage, it undermines the core of the game: the fact that its 24/7 with 14-100 days campaigns and your ingame actions can have longlasting effects.

Tz3 imbalance/lowpop has driven away loads and loads of players. I just can't graps the fact that there are so much axis players who do not acknowledge this. It doesnt matter anymore how much towns you capture in tz1/2 .. if tz3 is stacked against you you lose.

From the outside it also looks like there is a completely different mentality than when KGW/ASA ruled the wednesdays/sundays. People logging/unsubbing because tz3 isnt a walk in the park anymore. Aren't you here for the action? For organised attacks? 60+ players coordinating?

That stuff is impossible with ML frus yet noone seems to care.. noone seems to be wanting those multi-squad organised ops with zocs back.

On the other hand i acknowledge that there might be an issue with axis armor but you have won many campaigns with MSP's/UMS with tz1 captures... why was it possible then but not now? Just saying our armor sucks doesnt really help.. why is it now a problem yet (to me) it seems you did fine a couple of years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(It wasnt the intent of the patch)

But 'an advantage'...

Consistently ruining campaigns by cutting off divisions/capping impossible towns in a rediculous manner is not an advantage, it undermines the core of the game: the fact that its 24/7 with 14-100 days campaigns and your ingame actions can have longlasting effects.

Tz3 imbalance/lowpop has driven away loads and loads of players. I just can't graps the fact that there are so much axis players who do not acknowledge this. It doesnt matter anymore how much towns you capture in tz1/2 .. if tz3 is stacked against you you lose.

From the outside it also looks like there is a completely different mentality than when KGW/ASA ruled the wednesdays/sundays. People logging/unsubbing because tz3 isnt a walk in the park anymore. Aren't you here for the action? For organised attacks? 60+ players coordinating?

That stuff is impossible with ML frus yet noone seems to care.. noone seems to be wanting those multi-squad organised ops with zocs back.

On the other hand i acknowledge that there might be an issue with axis armor but you have won many campaigns with MSP's/UMS with tz1 captures... why was it possible then but not now? Just saying our armor sucks doesnt really help.. why is it now a problem yet (to me) it seems you did fine a couple of years ago.

Mons,

Again, the game environment was different when KGW ruled the world. Granted, I played Allied at the time. However, we seem to forget changes in the terrain (ginormous bushes) and 50 sappers x 4 charges per brigade. Forget hiding a FRU, you could hide a whole Opel plus the ant trail of EI coming off of it. I also remember sending in Infantry to sap the enemy's armor in the opening stages of attacks. Then running tank columns afterwards. Tankers were very upset with the game environment as I recall. I don't think it's a fair comparison to act as though the UMS/FRU is the only change from those days.

Edited by saronin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who ROLLED the last 2 maps. Axos are just pissed because they can't wi them ALL.

It's all about numbers. You'll have them again I'm sure.

So quit with the "rage quit" whines. Geez!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Revisionist history. Actually, we only won the last campaign. The Allies rolled the previous two maps.

Enjoy it while you can. The Rats aren't going to do anything for the rest of this map no matter how badly the Axis are being beaten. Nothing, zip, zilch, nada.

VR

Edited by csm308

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CAPCO:

"I don't buy it that the Axis cannot get anything done in TZ2. There have been so many times where the Allies were very underpop in TZ2 yet we were the only ones attacking! Both Axis AOs would have zero EWS for hours on end because they knew TZ3 was right around the corner. Meanwhile, the Allies would at least try to create content for both sides by setting AOs, which lead to some extreme Allied burnout during TZ2"

Allow me to point out an alternate scenario here, just because it may shed some light.

"we were the only ones attacking" Umm, maybe because if during this time zone, we don't commit almost 100% to defense, we get rolled.

Do you really think that if we COULD be on offense, we wouldn't be? Everyone likes accomplishing a good town cap. No one is "waiting for TZ3". TZ3 just happened to be the time we could get back on offense, once the pressure was off.

Any time I play in TZ2 (like today! Berry Au Bac) there are axis people going out, setting up for AOs, and SCREAMING for people to come on offense. No one can/will, because when we do, the defense is gutted, and the AO is half-ass and fails, and we lose a town, and can't take one, and the Tank Zerg rolls onward happily.

We'd LOVE to be on the AOs, believe me. It will be interesting to see when it happens again, consistently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We'd LOVE to be on the AOs' date=' believe me. It will be interesting to see when it happens again, consistently.[/quote']

Same. I remember only a few years ago, the M.O. playing in TZ1/2 was "I'll trade X town for Y city any day." You rarely took towns outright without anything given up in return like is so often the case when either side is on a roll nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Revisionist history. Axis won the last map, but the Allies rolled the previous two maps. I guess the Axis can't be permitted to win two maps in a row? is that what you're saying Silky?

VR

I feel I should just repeat the previous post and I'll let others decide how you can see the below and interpret it as me suggesting Axis can't be allowed to win two maps in a row

Let me ask a question, as I recognise genuine concern and consideration in a post when I see one - do you think the situation above is in any way different to how Allies felt last map? I remember having the exact same thoughts, the exact same feelings sat in towns stretching from Aalst back to Ashford.

The points you're making above are an entirely accurate depiction of what WWIIOL feels like when you're losing.

Last campaign it was us feeling that way, now it's you. That's the way this game, where only ony side can win works

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Update: 23 Positive (58' date='97%); 16 Negative (41,03%)[/quote']

Update: 33 Positive (55,93%); 26 Negative (44,07%)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 for Negative - heres why:

"...

Going back to Truck-ONLY FRUs ie the old "MS/UMS" was a not so ideal move at this point in time for several reasons:

a.

Population: lower than 2010 when FRUS were introduced - before 2010 we only fought from truck-based FRUs but the games population supported that mechanism - the decline in pop ever since as well as the desire and goal to keep the action going would have forced CRS to introduce a new spawning mechanism anyway before the remaining population would have left as well on account of being bored to tears.

ATM the population levels are still NOT up to the point were truck-ONLY FRUs can be supported by the amount of players on the server at any given time EXCEPT US Prime Time - which, in turn, is kinda what Low-Pop was back before the introduction of truck AND infantry FRUs ie 2010 and prior.

b.

Equipment differences / Mentalities:

Axis always relied MORE on Infantry than Panzers due to the fact that Axis Pz stick out like sore thumbs in the field* - can be blown up/disabled by anything larger than 12.7mm, at distance too. In conjunction with point a (see above) this reliance on infantry over pz was less obvious / pronounced and therefore less noticable overall BUT it became more and more prominent over the last 4 years due to population numbers dropping.

Allied Tanks OTOH are INDISTINGUISHABLE from bushes if only halfway properly placed in-between them to the point where you can not see an allied stationary tank, until he either fires his gun / starts his engine or makes any noise at all, unless you flat-out run into him denting your helmet on his hull armor.

Combined with the fact that each and every allied tank can kill any Axis PZ, even at distance, it is obvious why Tanks are favored on that side as opposed to axis.

Now combine the low population numbers WITH the Equipment differences AND a mechanism (truck-only FRUS) which worked ok-ISH during times when we had, on AVERAGE, 2x the # of players on the server at any given time and you can see, i hope, why it was not the best point in time to re-introduce this mechanism.

Axis weapon is/was primarily Infantry - Allied weapon is/was primarily Tanks

- To get a Axis FRU up you have to drive a loud, noisy, 3000m EWS vehicle towards the objective and deploy / secure / advance / eliminate threats

- Allied tanks are far easier to hide / ambush those loud, noisy opels trying to set up a FRU with, any axis panzers trying to accompany said opel attempting to establish a ZOC are the same easy prey for above-mentioned reason

- Every Axis AO, from experience, first unit spawned in allied DO was and now for SURE is: tank(s) before inf

-Result = hardly any FRUs and if it lasts 2-4mins TOPS before camped to death or destroyed and Attack is over 15mins in at the latest

Allied attack

- Drive Tanks to town first ("XYZ full ET EWS, single EI - 10 sherms and single capper inb!" - Running joke on Axis)

- Take advantage of superior camouflage and start suppressing defenders trying to intercept incoming loud, unwieldy trucks etc

- Set up Trucks in ZOCs established by Tanks

- start spawning inf

Since Axis primary tool of choice was and is Infantry over Panzers - the decision to make the object necessary to deploy that tool a vehicle and vehicle ONLY in combination with low population numbers and superior tanks as well as the mentality based around the deployment of said tanks on the allied side - was a poor one.

With Infantry FRUS you had the chance to dance through the ET skirt and set up a FRU and get an attack going, even during low-pop and/or underpopulated, so as to pull some attackers of the OP side back on defense - NOW all it needs is 2-3 players of the OP side to spawn a tank/armored car and sit around town towards the FB covering 270deg listening for the inb truck, then flock towards it and kill it/the FRU and nothing goes - that goes for both sides actually so im wondering why the "zomfg axis gangbanging 7:1" Low-Pop Brigade hasn't raised a crapstorm here by now.

Needed:

Infantry FRUS back in game - spawn list = depot spawn list & trickle, to simulate platoon sized skirmish/small unit engagement

TRUCK FRUS = full spawn list

*yes, even after the camo "update"

..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel I should just repeat the previous post and I'll let others decide how you can see the below and interpret it as me suggesting Axis can't be allowed to win two maps in a row

You were implying an equality of outcomes by how each side, ahem, "feels." I was pointing out that the outcomes haven't been equal, recently. That this current campaign turned around as a direct result of this patch makes the equality of outcomes, and how the Allies, ahem, "felt," last campaign, even less relevant.

VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, GSC mentioned the fru was introduced in 2010. I have no date or source to verify when it was introduced but my feeling is we have it for maybe 3 years now and that when I started playing in 2009 the truck MSP certainly was around for at least 2 years.

Anyone here know exactly when it was introduced and/or can provide the patch date ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All.

From my previous response within this thread:

Do I like there is a "New Patch"? - VERY Positive.

My comment from another thread:

My principal concern regarding this patch was the timing of its implementation. Specifically, making a significant game mechanic change Mid Campaign was a poor (possibly very poor) Business Decision. A significant shift in game play will have an effect. I do feel the Truck ONLY placed FRUs does pretty well qualify as a “significant shift in game play”. Is it good or bad for the game, only time will tell? I am prepared to give it a go and see, on that front although I did vote against it in the survey.

All I will say at this juncture is; the "Next Campaign" will be different.

Cheers

James10

Edited by james10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just curious, GSC mentioned the fru was introduced in 2010. I have no date or source to verify when it was introduced but my feeling is we have it for maybe 3 years now and that when I started playing in 2009 the truck MSP certainly was around for at least 2 years.

Anyone here know exactly when it was introduced and/or can provide the patch date ?

The wiki readme seems to be wrong here. I think it was 2011. Then some tweaks.. then kfs1 left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.