• Announcements

    • CHIMM

      RAT Chat Sunday 12/8 3pm server time!!!!   12/07/2019

      CRS is working overtime preparing and setting up the NEW SERVERS at the Portland colocation. This Sunday, December 8th, at 3:00 pm CST/9:00 pm GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). XOOM and the RATs are hosting a live chat discussing the move, and what services will be temporarily impacted in the process. Live chat link will be provided in discord channels when available. We look forward to chatting with you!
goreblimey

THE AMERICANS ARE COMING , well some of them

207 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, lipton said:

 I'm NOT participating. Rifles are almost useless in city fighting and trying to capture or clear a CP.  The Smg and the Semi-Auto are King. Well, and the Axis LMG of course, but that's different argument. 

Rifle is the best weapon to clear a CP :lol:

Share this post


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

Rifle is the best weapon to clear a CP :lol:

Only when the rifle isn't swinging around like it's in the hands of Benny Hill on speed. Which is never on the allied side...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, merlin51 said:

I do not know about the initial brigade deployments now.
They were picked by HC in the past, but maybe that is no longer

I haven't been asked for deployment input for years even though that's part of my official HC job title.  However, afaik we still have control over initial deployments.

 

What we don't have control over is how the brigades are changed up when the Americans arrive.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2018 at 4:47 AM, delems said:

Why did you add 120 when USA has more in HQ and ARM ?
Maybe add 100?

 

Anyways, yes, lots of items to review - but it is important that the numbers not be too far apart.

And good job getting it closer.

 

Your math is correct. However 100 extra semi autos is a bit bloody much isn't it? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, catfive said:

Your math is correct. However 100 extra semi autos is a bit bloody much isn't it? 

According to most Axis, it made no difference.  It was superior comms and tactics.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, lipton said:

Who in their right mind would want to try and engage in a city fight with house to house fighting, where one side gets 50 semi-auto rifles and the other gets 100? In what world would that be a fair fight? 

I guess the honest answer would be, the Real british army?
They have Thompsons and Stens though, so it may not really be as bad as it sounds?

Share this post


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

I guess the honest answer would be, the Real british army?
They have Thompsons and Stens though, so it may not really be as bad as it sounds?

lol... what does that mean?

They have Mp40s, Mp34s, Italian SMGs, MG34s and FG42s... if you really want to make a defense.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, stankyus said:

lol... what does that mean?

They have Mp40s, Mp34s, Italian SMGs, MG34s and FG42s... if you really want to make a defense.

It's just blind CRS defense.  Ignore it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stankyus said:

lol... what does that mean?

It means exactly what it says, and not one word more.
Stop reading your own thoughts into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Capco thats only Merlins opinion and not CRS' stance on matters 

Just an FYI

I would bet $$$ that things will be different at the start of the next campaign.

If it isn't then i assure you it will be remedied quickly.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pittpete said:

@Capco thats only Merlins opinion and not CRS' stance on matters 

Just an FYI

I would bet $$$ that things will be different at the start of the next campaign.

If it isn't then i assure you it will be remedied quickly.

Okay.  You have me sold on next campaign.  I'll be there.  

 

I hope you're right buddy!  S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

It means exactly what it says, and not one word more.
Stop reading your own thoughts into it.

I trying to figure out why even bring it up in the context of things.. what point does it make? I seriously not reading anything in to it then whats already implied.. and if that I think you are implying is not the case, I'm just tying to understand. Mb I missed something.

 

Share this post


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

 

I would bet $$$ that things will be different at the start of the next campaign.

 

!S Pete,

You see that is the problem, or atleast how I see it...let us know what will be different beforehand and let us the playerbase decide if thats what we want or not, if that is not done once again and changes put in place...we will be in this same stage of people upset over changes that were made but maybe not the changes that are popular or even wanted.

A few things I would propose is:

1. Let the Allied HC decide on what divisions are placed where and which divisions are removed once American divs come to map. Now for the record my plan is not to allow French divisions and BEF divisions to be rotated from south to north but to allow say the BEF 1st Division in Breda to be replaced by American 1st Div. in Breda then that BEF division is removed from map all together. 

Now its gets a bit tricky overtime because say a week or two later the AHC wishes to swap those divisions again, there needs to be some sort of time lapse in play and it should be probably 24-48 hours must pass once the command is giving to swap the different country divisions. It cant be done on the fly or in a matter of hours, that doesn't seem correct

2. Let AHC make a list of demands they want to see changed or put in place, propose it to CRS, let GHC  review the demand and then make some sort of deal everyone is in agreement with. However, AHC should not start asking for certain weapons to be removed or nerfed in numbers...stop doing that makes you look petty and complaining about issues that wont be removed. The mg34 is not going to be taken away, so just stop complaining about it. It was an uber weapon and should be uber in game. The germans made some freaking kick [censored] weapons during this time and we are trying to play a historically accurate game. Stop [censored]ing about it and spend time and focus on changes that can help you side, not remove from the other side. 

3. Maybe CRS should debate (a long debate) once again allowing the HCs to manually set their own supply list once again and having set values for each weapon with a max point total to spend. In alot of ways it removes these issues from appearing because CRS can just say...we have no control over it. The complaints would be within each side and not directed at them. Thats what I would do if i was running the show, why let my company and team take heat when I can direct it somewhere else thus allowing more control by the playerbase and HC

 

 

Edited by kazee
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kazee said:

!S Pete,

You see that is the problem, or atleast how I see it...let us know what will be different beforehand and let us the playerbase decide if thats what we want or not, if that is not done once again and changes put in place...we will be in this same stage of people upset over changes that were made but maybe not the changes that are popular or even wanted.

 

Well said. This has been a long time issue with CRS in terms of communicating. Whether its "behind the scene" changes or what happens during intermissions, maintenances etc. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When i say different im talking about inconsistencies in the spawnlists.

If theres an error or discrepancy it should be corrected as soon as possible..

Shouldnt matter if its Allied/Axis error.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not looking to open up a can of worms here, just make sure neither side is feeling slighted when it comes to human errors made at campaign start.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay my 2 cents here, (that’s probably all it’s worth). Let’s get the supply issue figured out and balanced (this includes armor amounts) prior to the next campaign. I would also like to see the the HE charge damages, and cap timers are also functioning properly (I know axis had a issue with HE charges, and Allied had an issue with timers) 

Just want a fair fight next campaign. 

What’s done is done and is in the past, can’t go back and change what has already happened. Time to fix it and move forward. 

If Allied has extra armor due to the Close Support tanks, take them off. I wouldn’t want our regular armor to be reduced for close support armor. 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

What’s done is done and is in the past, can’t go back and change what has already happened. Time to fix it and move forward. 

Good stuff..If theres an blatant abnormality, lets get it taken care of immediately.....

Share this post


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

Im not looking to open up a can of worms here, just make sure neither side is feeling slighted when it comes to human errors made at campaign start.

Totally agree there buddy, the last thing I want to see is someone feel bad about a mistake that was made. I know if I did it I would feel terrible and thats the last thing I want, is someone to feel that way. Thats not what we are here for, we all want to have fun and enjoy the game with our friends...thats about it...and maybe see some hot chicks in off-topic forum too :o

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, stankyus said:

I trying to figure out why even bring it up in the context of things.. what point does it make? I seriously not reading anything in to it then whats already implied.. and if that I think you are implying is not the case, I'm just tying to understand. Mb I missed something.

 

It says simply what it says.

question: who would be nutter enough to enter a door to door fight against semi automatic weapons, with out semi automatic weapons?

answer: the real british troops, but maybe not hopeless as it sounds as they did have submachine guns 

Share this post


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

It says simply what it says.

question: who would be nutter enough to enter a door to door fight against semi automatic weapons, with out semi automatic weapons?

answer: the real british troops, but maybe not hopeless as it sounds as they did have submachine guns 

Ok.. rgr. I needed context spelled out. Was not seeing it. You are talking about RL british troops. I had you in the context of the game where the Brits have the M1 in the supply pool.  I know you are a stickler for all historical equipment and thought it was another one of your equipment, date over balance/gameplay speels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, stankyus said:

Ok.. rgr. I needed context spelled out. Was not seeing it. You are talking about RL british troops. I had you in the context of the game where the Brits have the M1 in the supply pool.  I know you are a stickler for all historical equipment and thought it was another one of your equipment, date over balance/gameplay speels.

That's what I took it as too.  Makes sense @merlin51.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, merlin51 said:

It says simply what it says.

question: who would be nutter enough to enter a door to door fight against semi automatic weapons, with out semi automatic weapons?

answer: the real british troops, but maybe not hopeless as it sounds as they did have submachine guns 

Maybe not as hopeless as it sounds cause the Germans had sod all semi autos as well.

oh what but they have heaps in this game , why is that , because they would all rage quit once the us came in with the M1 as their primary battle rifle.

We all know historical equipment numbers are a non starter. Otherwise Axis would never win. This is a cross the Allies bear in all phases of this game. Just like the latest cut off RL German army couldn't move that quick , the horses would all be knackered lol.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, merlin51 said:

question: who would be nutter enough to enter a door to door fight against semi automatic weapons, with out semi automatic weapons?

answer: the real british troops, but maybe not hopeless as it sounds as they did have submachine guns 

And a variety of things that explode violently, and could go in the door before the soldiers. 

Once grenades work right and WP is in-game, there may be more of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, goreblimey said:

We all know historical equipment numbers are a non starter. Otherwise Axis would never win. This is a cross the Allies bear in all phases of this game. Just like the latest cut off RL German army couldn't move that quick , the horses would all be knackered lol.

I mean, the Axis certainly don't mind having nothing to fight Matildas with, or waiting all the way until the last tier for 1942 equipment. Not at all.

That said, the supply discrepancy is a major issue. I'm not going to belittle the fact that it's an issue that needed to be addressed urgently. While I don't agree with 100% parity with everything, as I think the supply numbers can be gently tweaked for supply (-5 lmgs, +5 smgs for one side, -5 semi-auto rifles, +5 bolt-action rifles for another, etc.), I do think there absolutely must be 100% parity between total # of infantry bodies. Infantry caps, and due to that crucial mechanism, balance mandates that both sides have an equivalent number of cappers.

 

However, I don't think the Allies can blame this loss 100% on the lower infantry count in the American flags. The US was introduced on June 2nd, according to the corresponding post in this forum. According to the web map, this is what the map looked like on June 2nd, 16 days ago:

unknown.png

According to the web map, here's what the map looked like prior to the breakout, 6 days ago:

unknown.png

 

Even with this large discrepancy between US and Axis supply, the Allies were able to spend 10 days and completely bottle up Axis. The Allies in this instance should have had every advantage, except for infantry supply in one of its three country flags: more people, far superior morale, people more dedicated to finishing off the enemy, etc. The Axis was hemorrhaging people, constant cries of anti-Axis CRS bias, tons of [censored]-talking about WHIPS and side-switchers, tons of complaints about newbies, accusations about spies, etc. etc.

And yet, despite this, Axis takes a town, creates an opening, and surges for a cut, the Allies completely fold. AHC didn't even attempt to block Antwerp, Brux, or Laon with Army flags. They half-heartedly sent Paras, Air, and Navy, which, when faced with Army flags, were not able to withstand an assault.

For ten days, the Allies persecuted a swift campaign, rolling town after town from the Axis, right to the doorstep of Axis factories, despite this huge infantry discrepancy. But now that they're cut, it's suddenly Definitely The Reason Why We Lost Guys I Swear ­ ™, and It's Not Allied HC's Fault We Didn't Move Back Flags To Stop Axis From Cutting ®.

To be clear, I don't know what the story for Allied HC is. I don't know what issues they were dealing with, if there were time conflicts, personnel conflicts, lack of communication, or what. It's very possible that there were issues preventing them from doing the right thing, and very possible those issues are system-related that CRS needs to fix. But it was AHC's job to contain the breakout, and they did not, and no amount of supply difference changes that.


The Allies had every opportunity, every advantage EXCEPT infantry supply issues for US flags, to end this campaign with a decisive victory, and just... gave up, and are now pointing fingers to reasons why.

Some of those reasons are valid, and legitimate, and CRS should absolutely look into it and fix. But saying that they're directly responsible for what's happening right now is just being dishonest.

Edited by chaoswzkd
Fixed images
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.