• Announcements

    • PITTPETE

      NEW Career Subscriptions now available   06/08/2019

      The all new highly anticipated / requested "Career Based Subscriptions" are available through www.WWIIONLINE.com/account only, starting at $9.99! There are three new subscriptions being added; 1) All Infantry at $9.99/mo, 2) All Air Forces at $9.99/mo, 3) All Ground Forces (Army Persona) at $12.99/mo. Continue reading to learn more and get back into the fight now! View the full article on battlegroundeurope.com
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
roner

Who are the Axis?

56 posts in this topic

I´m reading all these posts about "the axis" ...and im a bit confussed:

Who are the "The Axis"?

Players switch sides all the time,except just a few...so...who are the axis guys you are all are talking about?

There is no side-lock at this game...so in reality the "Axis" side is...imaginary.

Whats happening? Lot discussions about, but nothing clear.

So i was thinking about this philosophical question and something hit mi mind:

What if the problem is precisely...

There is no real axis or allied side!

What if the game needs a real side for a campaign?>

Side-lock!

Ok...this allways was in mi agenda, just find a new way to bring it back to the table.:D

Salutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side lock won't fix the problem. A gun to the heads of the people who stop logging on will fix the problem.

Did I just say guns can fix a problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophically speaking, the Axis are whomever is playing Axis at the given moment of time in which the statement is made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philosophically speaking' date=' the Axis are whomever is playing Axis at the given moment of time in which the statement is made.[/quote']

Fine...sounds logic, but how a "side" can have problems if the people is the same?

Balance problems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are Axis?

I'll try answer that as clearly and succinctly as possible: The squads and players who have committed to a full campaign or more at the present time. The core of Axis is the dedicated Axis only squads, a few hardcore lone wolves and the high command.

People come and go. Some of us cycle more rapidly between sides than others. Others leave the game and come back often. Some of us can't get enough.

Personally, I consider myself a community member first and side player second. Others will feel differently and there is room for all sorts of points of view on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who are Axis?

I'll try answer that as clearly and succinctly as possible: The squads and players who have committed to a full campaign or more at the present time. The core of Axis is the dedicated Axis only squads, a few hardcore lone wolves and the high command.

People come and go. Some of us cycle more rapidly between sides than others. Others leave the game and come back often. Some of us can't get enough.

Personally, I consider myself a community member first and side player second. Others will feel differently and there is room for all sorts of points of view on this.

Hi Todberg, good answer, i know it.

But mi point is that those people sometimes arent enough to keep this thing going.

Thats why i sometimes think we need a certain side-lock to make a real side for a campaign, and not only rely in some dedicated players.

I dont see side lock like a gun at peoples head. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind a sidelock, but I think many would...

Maybe at least make it so that you have to chose each week or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And...im going make a premonition:

Suddenly,any day,any momment at middle of some campaign, not far away... lot players going start logging Axis, just to turn this upside down, and the allied side going be in chaos...is ciclical,and has no sense. :cool:

Edited by roner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And...im going make a premonition:

Suddenly,any day,any momment at some campaign, not far away... lot players going start logging Axis, just to turn this upside down, and the allied side going be in chaos...is ciclical,and has no sense. :cool:

This is really the crux of the balance issue and is what the CRS sticky is all about. Believe it or not, the equipment is relatively balanced.

The problem is that the game itself never truly balances out. All that happens is the imbalance shifts from one side to the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't mind a sidelock, but I think many would...

Maybe at least make it so that you have to chose each week or something like that.

Full agree a week lock will be nice. Maybe if on side gets more than 60% of map you cannot change to winning side.

But this can effect players not logging in anymore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would support the following:

1) Subscribers (exl F2P) have the option to commit to side each campaign. Once they have chosen a side they cannot play the other side until next campaign, where they chose again to opt in or opt out. Those players are automatically given Axis secure, a points bonus and the ability to create missions in any branch, regardless of rank (rank still applies to equipment -- has to be a reason to grind). Perhaps a special decal could appear on their vehicles, like the builders, "Hard core Axis" or "Hard core Allied" with a fancy crest an in game icon with their sides symbols? This lets other players know straight away who they are. I'm sure others can come up with other incentives, something better than my ideas perhaps, but something to make them stand out and want to commit to a side. Something to give them pride. CRS, care to chime in here?

2) The rest of the player base can come and go freely as per normal.

I think this is a good compromise. It might be risky to apply side lock to all players from a business point of view, as some players love the freedom to play all the different equipment in a nights gaming -- option 2, and there are players that love the team aspect and want to play with the same guys all the time -- option 1.

What do we think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't mind a sidelock, but I think many would...

Maybe at least make it so that you have to chose each week or something like that.

Agree every single word from this post. I'm one of those who would like a full side lock for every player after chosing side at the begining of the campaign, but I'm also sure that we are a minority. Have never ever spawned a single time as allied during campaigns (only during intermission to know the enemy's toys). The proposal from Lob12 to lock sides weekly sounds more doable, hope CRS considers it seriously.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pop neutrality would mean each side has a chance to engage in meaningful combat, every day, and would break the cycle of suck, thus putting more players in play and superior consistent play wins rather then counting on a mechanic of morale defeat to settle campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I´m reading all these posts about "the axis" ...and im a bit confussed:

Who are the "The Axis"?

Players switch sides all the time,except just a few...so...who are the axis guys you are all are talking about?

There is no side-lock at this game...so in reality the "Axis" side is...imaginary.

Whats happening? Lot discussions about, but nothing clear.

"The axis" refers to a distinct group of gamers that no longer exists. Side loyalty used to be a huge thing, comparable to the way fans treat their sports franchises.

There are problems now because the game was balanced around several factors that no longer apply, one of them being that a large number of players would continue to log on to the axis side regardless of whatever else was going on.

The current situation is funny because just like how brigades eliminated real player resupply and replaced it with some lines of code , now that the real factions, the bizarre loyalty that developed from the community completely separate from game rules has been eliminated people want side lock to force player to choose an identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The axis" refers to a distinct group of gamers that no longer exists. Side loyalty used to be a huge thing, comparable to the way fans treat their sports franchises.

There are problems now because the game was balanced around several factors that no longer apply, one of them being that a large number of players would continue to log on to the axis side regardless of whatever else was going on.

The current situation is funny because just like how brigades eliminated real player resupply and replaced it with some lines of code , now that the real factions, the bizarre loyalty that developed from the community completely separate from game rules has been eliminated people want side lock to force player to choose an identity.

If thats the case then who are all those guys wearing grey that like to shoot me?....maybe they are a team of sweatshop chinese children making 2 cents an hour to play.....maybe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The axis" refers to a distinct group of gamers that no longer exists. Side loyalty used to be a huge thing, comparable to the way fans treat their sports franchises.

There are problems now because the game was balanced around several factors that no longer apply, one of them being that a large number of players would continue to log on to the axis side regardless of whatever else was going on.

The current situation is funny because just like how brigades eliminated real player resupply and replaced it with some lines of code , now that the real factions, the bizarre loyalty that developed from the community completely separate from game rules has been eliminated people want side lock to force player to choose an identity.

Oh man you're such a pita lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pop neutrality would mean each side has a chance to engage in meaningful combat' date=' every day, and would break the cycle of suck, thus putting more players in play and superior consistent play wins rather then counting on a mechanic of morale defeat to settle campaigns.[/quote']

Both sides already have the chance to engage in meaningful combat. It's a numbers problem that effects us atm. When either side gets too low on players ingame, the game is less playable. I think some other game mechanic should be introduced at critical mass. Spawn delay sucks, forced neutrality will suck just as much. What kind of game mechanic could make game play enjoyable at low numbers is the big question. Variable numbers of AO isn't the answer either. There has to be something else we can add for low total pop play.

Edited by Sudden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matilda is 43-0 against 3f this campaign. A k/d of 43. Historically it is at 7.14.

68-4 vs 4d (k/d 17), historically at 7.15.

So yes, something is clearly different from the past.

The Stug3b performs better than it used to back in the day. The Stug3b has performed well the last couple of campaigns.

Good thing for axis there are so few matildas that you never find one when you want it. We used to have more Matildas in our flags...

Edited by pulfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If thats the case then who are all those guys wearing grey that like to shoot me?....maybe they are a team of sweatshop chinese children making 2 cents an hour to play.....maybe

People still spawn but the population is much more freewheeling now. Fewer and smaller squads so less player investment in a faction. There is no drama about side-switching like there used to be, and far fewer players are bound by squad agreements to a side. So the player you're fighting against now might switch over in an hour.

I'm sure that some this is a good thing but I'm not arguing about that. My point is that the game is going to have to react to the less-committed, more transient population that exists now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People still spawn but the population is much more freewheeling now. Fewer and smaller squads so less player investment in a faction. There is no drama about side-switching like there used to be, and far fewer players are bound by squad agreements to a side. So the player you're fighting against now might switch over in an hour.

I'm sure that some this is a good thing but I'm not arguing about that. My point is that the game is going to have to react to the less-committed, more transient population that exists now.

I really dont think thats an actual problem in the game....what % do you really think are playing bith sides of the game during any day/week/map?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cannon fodder

Allies United Kingdom Heavy Tank 661 52 12.71 Feb 09 06:05

kchip,

I hate to be the one to break this to you but that is a historical reality for the Axis side. The Allied heavy tanks probably were superior to the thinly armored Axis tanks in tier 0. As DOC mentioned in a post on the Axis discussion forum yesterday, there were a number of factors that lead to a German victory in the Battle of France. Superior tactics, orbat, and comms in terms of tank battles. On a 1 to 1 note however, the Allied gear was probably better. In terms of the Matilda, however, there were so few of them in the battle they really hardly mattered. When the Germans encountered the Matilda they were forced to use the 88 on them. I'm betting the battle may have gone the other way if the British could have brought more of them to the fight.

A huge deciding factor in the Battle of France was probably air power. I asked DOC to weigh in on that as well and he stated pretty much what I have read. The Germans had air superiority in the Battle of France that bordered on air supremacy. The Allied air forces historcally did not compete well with the 109 E series aircraft during the Battle of France. The Stukas were highly effective in putting ordinance on target and were well coordinated with ground operations.

When this game first came out in 2001 the panzer 3f was the highest tier of axis armor. The char was in game and the S35 was added a little later. In fact, when the S35 was added the Axis got the flak 30, there was no stub 3b or panzer 4d. Even then the Axis tanks did not hold up well in direct combat against the Allied heavy tanks (French). The country who was really hurting at the time was the British. The Matilda MK II was not added right away and they were stuck with the A13. Eventually the stug 3b, panzer 4d, matilda were added. However, Allied armor has always been a bit tougher.

With all that said, there were some different game mechanics in the early years that allowed the Axis to dominate. Brit and French towns were separated north and south on the map and were totally separate. This allowed the Axis to run over the A13s in the north. In additon, and this is probably the the biggest factor, the 109 E4's dominated the skies. Spitfires were based only in England so the Allies were stuck with the Hawk 75 and Hurricane. Not to mention, the 109 E4s turned more effectively then they do now for the Axis. In fact, the Stuka handled very differently then it does now. I have the original two game box releases for this game. It's fun to install them on an old computer to see how far the game has come and get a feel for how things have changed. At some point the flight model was changed. I'm assuming to better reflect the historcal performance of the equipment. I recall the Stuka's bombs were incredibly effective as well. If the 250KG landed anywhere near a tank it was dead. I think that was the case for A13s with the 50KG bombs. I remember flying out in Stukas and coming back with 5 A13 kills.

Overall, the game mechanics seemed to be a disaster for the Allies in this game during its first few years. Unopposed Stukas with effective bombs were a much more nimble fighting force than slow armor that took forever to get to town. I don't think anyone wants a return to those days but it's good to remember the fact that at one point the tables were severly turned and CRS addressed the issues to balance the game. I understand you're frustrated. However, since this is not a red versus blue game CRS has a difficult task to balance this game. Remember that it is a game. Find ways to have fun and don't stess out about it. Do what you have to make it fun. If it's not fun then why play it?

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.