sgthenning

The New Road map You have got to be joking on #7

62 posts in this topic

11 hours ago, merlin51 said:

ok, they still have 0 factories of their own which was my point.
Italians inevitably will though eventually as well as home territory

Even more reason to split the Axis forces into AG/A and AG/B and add more Axis factories... then funnel the Italian supply 50/50 through those factories.

IT would be cool also that a AG/A and AG/B had some unique equipment apart from on another.  MB AG/A had Pumas and AG/B had Pak/43s... don't get caught up on the choices I put in there they could be anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, sgthenning said:


You know I am going to vent here because I have watched and been part of this game for 16 years longer that most of the current rats. But it has and always been Bias towards the Allied side and it is getting old. Allies seem to always get top tier equipment before Axis ever do and when we do get our equipment its been totally nerfed or doesn't work. The last top tier item that Axis got was the tiger and you guys nerfed it. You gave the Allies the US forces they already had the French and British but their supply comes out of 2 different pools with 2 different sets of Factories. You finally give Axis the Itallians but they don't get their own factories or their own supply pool. they come out of our German supply pool. They get all these new tank variants and Axis gets crap Italian inf with a smg and another rifle woop de do.  We should have had the Ju88 years ago the me262 the king tiger the Jag tiger and several other weapons that we should have had already before the Allies had anything comparable. Apparently you never studied History Because Axis had better equipment than the allies Had for the first 3 years of the war. But what really upsets me is #7 in your road map you may as well kiss this game good by if they are allowed to be changing ownerships of towns whenever they want. I cant even believe this is being considered.

 

This will be achieved by:

  1. Enabling garrison supply across the frontlines, and one town to its rear.
  2. Enabling the continuation of move-able flags that are supplemental (not the standard).
  3. Refactor how players spawn in to simplify the user interface.
  4. Make the movement of garrison supply based on automatic conditions according to map outcomes.
  5. There will always be a frontline with garrison supply, regardless of how the lines are presented on the map.
  6. There will always be a rear town with garrison supply behind and adjacent to the frontline town.
  7. Allied forces will be capable of changing ownership of their towns (US / FR / UK) via HC options commands 

As per #7 I would doubt that changing hands would just be a willy nilly thing at any moment.  I don't want that either.  I don't want a allied faction erased from the map due to faction bias.  IE I would bet that there will be limits in percentage of ownerships so that cannot happen.  I mean you could eliminate all the French Airforce so we have more H2Cs... but personally I like flying the p38 and DB7. That would make me somewhat upset.  However in order to simulate with TBS a pass through of faction side you have to allow for a mechanism so we avoid the old problems with who caps the spawn and who caps the bunker.  However in T3 I personally would like for the majority of the allied assault force to be US and Brit especially in light of the Firefly and Achillies and the elimination of the CH7s armor leaks. And a reduction of the French forces.. it would be more historical that way.  The Axis will have the same issue once the Italian set is ready for full deployment.. it would suck to have them eliminated from the map due to equipment bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe so it isn’t all American or all French or all British on the front, why not have a minimum percentage of frontline towns each faction must have, like make it so no faction can have less than 25% of frontline towns and the game wouldn’t allow it to go under that number. The 25% USA theoretical number that can be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ch0ad said:

Sometimes i think this would be a better game if there were no user forums.

It’s not the forums, it’s the users :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, brady said:

It’s not the forums, it’s the users :)

Don't blame the gun, blame the shooter..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 10:40 PM, sgthenning said:

I will be playing Allied next map so don't think I wont have a list of stuff that's bugged on the allied side as well

 

Crap who else am I going to kill over and over again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2018 at 11:00 AM, stankyus said:

And a reduction of the French forces.. it would be more historical that way. 

But is only historical in a reenactment perspective.
Historically france surrendered, and the free french took quite a while to get finally reformed and reorganized
and back in country with the help and supply of the US and British forces and in much reduced numbers from april 1940.

But in game that may not be the case, france could be doing well, taking ground etc which would be an odd precedent for their sudden mass reduction in mid fight.

Remember, history also dictates that the axis would lose their italian allies and actually wind up fighting against them.
 It would be very odd for the axis to be moving on Amiens and suddenly their Italian contingent suddenly jumps allied because the tier kicked in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Substantially the entire German army...all the first line divisions...was deployed against France, Belgium and Netherlands in 1940.

If the game were a re-enactment, roughly 80% of German forces would disappear from the present map in Fall of 1940 to get ready for North Africa and Balkans/Greece, then Crete, then the Soviet Union.

And if it were a re-enactment, the Allied side additionally would start with the Belgian Army, roughly half as large as the French Army. They were poorly commanded and supplied, and badly equipped regarding AA, but they were just as brave with a rifle as the other modeled soldiers. 

A game can't be a re-enactment. It'd make no sense commercially to build in the conditions that historically resulted in one side losing, and ignore the conditions that could have resulted in that side winning.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 10:37 PM, brady said:

233 way better choice since it could be had much earlier 

Siz6ame.jpg

And it’s s variant of an existing vehicle 

WTH is that MG on the top?!?

 

What is that thing?!? 

 

 

The most iconic machine gun ever invented is suspiciously absent from a game that prides itself on being an accurate sim of the Battle of France, sort of.

 

No MG42 in 17 yearzz of operation.

 

Failure.

a2RhYNk.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, vasduten1 said:

WTH is that MG on the top?!?

Actually it carries an MG34 :huh:
Dont you see the Patronentrommel 34 on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

Actually it carries an MG34 :huh:
Dont you see the Patronentrommel 34 on it?

Dude... that's an MG42.

No MG34 ever had the squared barrel guard.

It's a 42.

m53-039529_2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, vasduten1 said:

Dude... that's an MG42.

That's a model

1st ones built IIRC had MG34, Sfi. Z. F. 1a scope, and 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24 main gun
Ammo loadout of Gr38 and Sprgr 34, not sure on the counts.

MG42 went on lots of things later, except turret mounts, possibly because of barrel change issues, and the 
Schwerer Panzerspähwagen 7.5 cm Sd. Kfz. 233 got used for the duration of the war.

sd.kfz.233-8-rad-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I see one thing for squads in this roadmap?

I don't believe I do.... :(

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, xanthus said:

What new roadmap? And where's the 1.36 Q&A?

The Q&A is pinned to the top of this very forum... look up.  The road map can be found in the HQ news feeds forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, delems said:

Do I see one thing for squads in this roadmap?

Yes, but not perhaps what you are looking for as far as internal ORBAT.
Squads will be freed from being tied to flags and will be able to maintain their areas and lead from the battlefield again.

I agree the squad ui could use some basic things, like subdivide groups, assign a leader to each group
i know the UI itself as a whole is being looked at, maybe that is something that would be more doable after the UI is revamped?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 5:28 PM, sgthenning said:


You know I am going to vent here because I have watched and been part of this game for 16 years longer that most of the current rats. But it has and always been Bias towards the Allied side and it is getting old. Allies seem to always get top tier equipment before Axis ever do and when we do get our equipment its been totally nerfed or doesn't work. The last top tier item that Axis got was the tiger and you guys nerfed it. You gave the Allies the US forces they already had the French and British but their supply comes out of 2 different pools with 2 different sets of Factories. You finally give Axis the Itallians but they don't get their own factories or their own supply pool. they come out of our German supply pool. They get all these new tank variants and Axis gets crap Italian inf with a smg and another rifle woop de do.  We should have had the Ju88 years ago the me262 the king tiger the Jag tiger and several other weapons that we should have had already before the Allies had anything comparable. Apparently you never studied History Because Axis had better equipment than the allies Had for the first 3 years of the war. But what really upsets me is #7 in your road map you may as well kiss this game good by if they are allowed to be changing ownerships of towns whenever they want. I cant even believe this is being considered.

 

This will be achieved by:

  1. Enabling garrison supply across the frontlines, and one town to its rear.
  2. Enabling the continuation of move-able flags that are supplemental (not the standard).
  3. Refactor how players spawn in to simplify the user interface.
  4. Make the movement of garrison supply based on automatic conditions according to map outcomes.
  5. There will always be a frontline with garrison supply, regardless of how the lines are presented on the map.
  6. There will always be a rear town with garrison supply behind and adjacent to the frontline town.
  7. Allied forces will be capable of changing ownership of their towns (US / FR / UK) via HC options commands 

Allied Forces are not able to change their supply, when ever they want, as you say. We're aware of the consequences of doing something like that in too rapid of time, but we do have to allow the Allies to modify their supply a little bit, otherwise we're going straight back to what didn't work with the old town based supply system. One of the primary benefits of this current brigade system is the ability to have diverse supply available and not keeping the allies locked down as it used to be. There will be limitations and restrictions, it will not be a hog wild "go nuts" type approach.

We'll provide some more information as things progress from a coding perspective. Make sure you've checked the 1.36 vital questions thread in the GENERAL DISCUSSIONS forum for greater details on what 1.36 will be.

In the interim Sgthenning, knowing that you primarily play Axis, you should know that both Axis and Allies health as sides are equally important to CRS and we are not interested in favoring one side or the other. It is incredibly unwise not only on a business level, but on a fairness level. We have a healthy internal representation of both sides and biased concerns are always considered and discussed.

I understand that you're venting, however your posts are routinely in favor of the Axis side specifically (because that's what you play, I get it). In this case I don't agree with your assessment or rapid movement to assumption / conclusion without asking questions.

Also, we're aware that you've been here for 16 years... I've seen several recent posts saying that, it really doesn't go to further legitimize your case or make your word better than someone else's, because all opinions matter on all topics. We are grateful for your longtime with us just as we are all of our other veterans, we're in this together.

S! 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something else to think about: Why did we lose so many pilots?  

AWS. (insanity to start with)

Weather.  (has no effect on ground forces other than noise clutter. Totally handicaps CAS)

Fishbowl haze. 

Fix that garbage and you'll get pilots back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AWS helps pilots find each other and thus creates the fights that people seem to prefer. It’s not perfect but it is better than nothing. Alternate suggestions welcomed.

Weather was intended to handicap CAS and provide variety from the eternal summer day. Works to spec. As a pilot, I kinda like it.

Before the fishbowl haze there was the fishbowl abrupt cutoff. I prefer the haze.

I think people left for a variety of reasons, chiefly because of greener pastures eyecandywise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a pilot, What is 'the fishbowl haze' ?

Is that where the game stops rendering, do pilots feel it's too close or what is the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, bmbm said:

AWS helps pilots find each other and thus creates the fights that people seem to prefer. It’s not perfect but it is better than nothing. Alternate suggestions welcomed.

Weather was intended to handicap CAS and provide variety from the eternal summer day. Works to spec. As a pilot, I kinda like it.

Before the fishbowl haze there was the fishbowl abrupt cutoff. I prefer the haze.

I think people left for a variety of reasons, chiefly because of greener pastures eyecandywise. 

You're the minority. 

Check the hangar. Dead. All the big name pilots are gone. 

 

All that's left is the pond scum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<grin>

I know it's depopulated. 

I'm the persevering minority. I don't blame folks for having lives, or getting bored, or finding other jollies, or wanting greener grass, or being disgusted with this or that... but blaming the GAME for every such reason? Take my peeve-du-jour and ragequit because of it? Nope. This game delivers quality fights. It still wets my armpits like none other. That is why I remain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We stick to the original concept : wwii fans gathered to simulate multi-arms battles with a squad organisation.

 

points where failure can occur :

- bringing people who are not wwii fans

- unability to gather people efficiently through marketing/community tools

- lack of gameplay feature avoiding a true simulation scenario

- a lack of multi-arms options

- a difficulty to bring squad organisations

 

and voilà you have 100% sources of complaints and ideas over the last 20 years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, bmbm said:

<grin>

I know it's depopulated. 

I'm the persevering minority. I don't blame folks for having lives, or getting bored, or finding other jollies, or wanting greener grass, or being disgusted with this or that... but blaming the GAME for every such reason? Take my peeve-du-jour and ragequit because of it? Nope. This game delivers quality fights. It still wets my armpits like none other. That is why I remain. 

Yes, I blame the game for AWS. For weather. For the fishbowl nonsense. 

All the ex-pilots I talk to quote one (or more) of the reasons I stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.