choad

Are you enjoying this campaign?

55 posts in this topic

I kind of enjoy starting a campaign in the final tier. I think it may be something to consider doing 1 out of every 4 or 5 campaigns in the future. Interested to hear what others think.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am, despite feeling a little unnecessary guilt over not having 'earned' the Shermans, etc.  As folks get more used to the move towards historically accurate spawn lists, the start date could theoretically be moved around quite a bit.

 

S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fun. I think each campaign it should start in a random tier so it's never the exact same as last. Variety is the spice of life. Some people would dislike the idea, but i'd be all for it as would some others I can think of.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a small change in starting lines would be welcome instead of fighting over same towns at map start every campaign...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much, starting 1944 feels like an extended intermission.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its ok once in a while to change the tier starting times.  

But I still prefer to have almost all the campaigns start in T0 and go though a chronological order and play with all the equipment.

And my comment above is coming from a player who hates the Allied matilda imbalnce at the start of every campaign lol!

3 people like this

Share this post


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

I think a small change in starting lines would be welcome instead of fighting over same towns at map start every campaign...

This is definitely something we've discussed. I'd like to see some updates to it as well to avoid monotony. 

Perhaps even, we can consider who ever won the last campaign, might start a little behind their normal starting line (not excessive, but a little). Regardless, we definitely want to keep things enjoyable and not too routine.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, XOOM said:

This is definitely something we've discussed. I'd like to see some updates to it as well to avoid monotony. 

Perhaps even, we can consider who ever won the last campaign, might start a little behind their normal starting line (not excessive, but a little). Regardless, we definitely want to keep things enjoyable and not too routine.

Breaking up Ant and Brussels has changed the ebb and flow of the initial parts of each campaign. When might we expect Lux and Liege to be deconstructed into smaller chunks?

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Breaking up Ant and Brussels has changed the ebb and flow of the initial parts of each campaign. When might we expect Lux and Liege to be deconstructed into smaller chunks?

Not currently on the books. I don't really want to break up all of the big towns, we did want to add some variety for others however. Can't really provide much detail beyond that. Right now I am more concerned with getting the US Forces their own set of factories in terms of terrain development.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Not currently on the books. I don't really want to break up all of the big towns, we did want to add some variety for others however. Can't really provide much detail beyond that. Right now I am more concerned with getting the US Forces their own set of factories in terms of terrain development.

It’s a shame Lux isn’t planned for a break up. Lux always proves a strong point in the far south that inhibits more interesting activity in the area. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

honestly i think they just want to test later tiers

fighting IIIL's with S76's feels dirty

Share this post


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

It’s a shame Lux isn’t planned for a break up. Lux always proves a strong point in the far south that inhibits more interesting activity in the area. 

It is very difficult to break up the existing towns, there is no actual tool for doing it, and we are still getting feedback on the separation of antwerp and brussels
a lot of people dont like that they are sectioned or how they are sectioned etc.
Sadly, so far i actually have not gotten any good feed back on it, only bad.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I am enjoying this campaign, except when I get my *** shot off LOL.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the breaking up of antwerp but the edds living in front of the sab while town is split owned is a bit annoying 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Not currently on the books. I don't really want to break up all of the big towns, we did want to add some variety for others however. Can't really provide much detail beyond that. Right now I am more concerned with getting the US Forces their own set of factories in terms of terrain development.

Huh?  The US Forces their own set of factories? 

What do you mean by that?

They way I read that it makes no sense, the US had no factories in Europe .

 

 

Now back to topic,  if I would be an Armor DLC customer I would feel cheated , in all aspects of the game my opinion.  Unless the DLC upgrades as the tiers progress which I don't think they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 'US Factories' should be large receiving warehouses/oil tanks farms at a couple of ports (one in England and one in France) and an interior staging base at in  France.

Edited by GrAnit
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

It is very difficult to break up the existing towns, there is no actual tool for doing it, and we are still getting feedback on the separation of antwerp and brussels
a lot of people dont like that they are sectioned or how they are sectioned etc.
Sadly, so far i actually have not gotten any good feed back on it, only bad.

Many Allied players believe it was done was to help the Axis cap them over time rather than all at once.  There were no Allied players complaining about Antwerp and Brussels being "too big to cap".  

 

Breaking up the 2 most important towns at map start for the Allies without doing it to any Axis towns was perceived as a slap in the face.  I don't think that was the intent, but that's definitely how it's been perceived.  

3 people like this

Share this post


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

Many Allied players believe it was done was to help the Axis cap them over time rather than all at once.  There were no Allied players complaining about Antwerp and Brussels being "too big to cap".  

 

Breaking up the 2 most important towns at map start for the Allies without doing it to any Axis towns was perceived as a slap in the face.  I don't think that was the intent, but that's definitely how it's been perceived.  

What Capco said...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that Brussels and Antwerp are broken up into smaller pieces.  It lessens the impact of the inevitable mole attacks, allowing the respective HCs to continue with normal operations as opposed to being required to devote all resources to mole hunts.  Finally, it lessens the ability of low-pop/TZ3 players to take huge towns in quick fashion, thus (I presume) improving the chances that folks logging in the next day won't see the entire map screwed up while they were sleeping.

 

S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO breaking up the large towns makes it much much easier for low pop times to take a large town. They take one part of it ... move a flag in, and are well positioned to take the next piece, where their armor and trucks only have to drive a small fraction of the distance. Plus .... fewer flags for attackers to cover. Defenders really only need to hold certain key points to keep the town from changing hands., whereas attackers need to keep all that they cap regardless of it is some pointless cp.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dre21 said:

Huh?  The US Forces their own set of factories? 

What do you mean by that?

They way I read that it makes no sense, the US had no factories in Europe .

I meant that the Americans need a factory equivalent of some sort, could be a depot or warehouse facility. Point is, something like that needs to exist so we can more appropriately integrate them into the total campaign experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly enjoying, but simply to hard to get battles going.

Antwerp was fun, constant action.

Cap times atrociously bad- and last night something was very wrong with SD; allies had double EWS to both their AOs, attacking hard and we barely hung on, and yet we had SD?

 

And, I just checked TOE for both USA and British infantry divisions in WWII, neither had tanks...... so why do they get tanks in our game?  Seems some double standards going on here.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, choad said:

IMO breaking up the large towns makes it much much easier for low pop times to take a large town. They take one part of it ... move a flag in, and are well positioned to take the next piece, where their armor and trucks only have to drive a small fraction of the distance. Plus .... fewer flags for attackers to cover. Defenders really only need to hold certain key points to keep the town from changing hands., whereas attackers need to keep all that they cap regardless of it is some pointless cp.

That seems to be the case. The hopeful intention at the time of introducing this was to make the fighting much more difficult and bring action closer, to aggregate more people in tighter zones so they could see each other instead of walking around all of Antwerp on foot without seeing a whole lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.