drkmouse

CALL to ALL WW2 online players

115 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Randazzo said:

Every time we let an attack or defense go in order to save Twerp. 

What a load of drivel....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, gavalink said:

Morale is everything. From an axis perspective, when the allies lose Antwerp and Brussels they see themselves as defeated. How many times has the axis been backed up to Frankfort and Essen only to fight back and win the map? It's why I fight on the axis side. Even when morale is at its' lowest we never give up.

The fact that the allies had never pushed back was a reason i switched to allies more specifically the 23rd many years ago...bout 6 months later oj and thetic ran a 23rd para op that bounced all 4 twerp abs simultaneously and for the first time we recapped antwerp and rolled the map...sometimes going the more challenging route is alot more satisfying then staying with what’s comfortable 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

What a load of drivel....

No i saw us lose the towns that encircled brussels because we barely held onto antwerp south...so basically we just delayed the loss of bruss and twerp but ensured it being trapped later by not responding better....not much could be done  

2 people like this

Share this post


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

What a load of drivel....

You're entitled to your opinion but perhaps you're taking it too personally.

Share this post


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

I'm sure there is a core of axis diehards that never give up, just as there is a core of allied players who don't either.

I was here for an axis meltdown. Don't pretend it does not happen.

Oh, I remember. We were down, lost many key players but eventually came back and the Allies can too. Remember Campaigns 101-06? Straight Allied victories.

Share this post


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

Morale is everything. From an axis perspective, when the allies lose Antwerp and Brussels they see themselves as defeated. How many times has the axis been backed up to Frankfort and Essen only to fight back and win the map? It's why I fight on the axis side. Even when morale is at its' lowest we never give up.

This feeling of always having a chance is a direct consequence of the Axis having more players on their bench since day one.

 

Conversely, the Allied feeling of not always having a chance is direct consequence of that same fact.  

 

If the Allies drew more players as a matter of course, it would be the Allies who developed the more resilient of the two side's cultures over the past 2 decades.  That's just the way that cookie crumbles.  

Share this post


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

This feeling of always having a chance is a direct consequence of the Axis having more players on their bench since day one.

And again, it makes the entire operational level of the game moot. 1 Brigade could attack 10 and win, if the 1 Brigade spawned every single unit at once (or simply a suitably large number of players), and the 10 brigades spawned a small number of players at a time.

Spawn delays are not enough, because the paradigm "sustains the battle" by sustaining the relative overpopulation.

Share this post


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

No i saw us lose the towns that encircled brussels because we barely held onto antwerp south...so basically we just delayed the loss of bruss and twerp but ensured it being trapped later by not responding better....not much could be done  

 

For the sake of argument. According to this thread a good number of the Allies raise the surrender flag once we lose Antwerp and/or Brussels. So - by that reasoning, wouldn't it make sense to defend Antwerp from a direct attack in favor of a town connecting Brussels?  Or - are we saying that Brussels is more important than Antwerp by several degrees? To me - it seems like a push really, damned if you do, damned if you don't. We are talking about having to choose between defending two vital areas at the same time apparently. Sounds just like more 2nd guessing to me - probably the opposite argument could have been made if they turned out and took Antwerp before Brussels.

Edited by choad
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

the tiger tier was the difference when it came to attcking because we literally had noone defending the cps at our d1s 

I call it Tiger Derangement Syndrome

Way too many allied inf will run 1500+ meters outside of town just to sap a Tiger while their cps and town crumble around them. It seems many allied inf would rather get a kill credit on a Tiger rather than saving their town

Not a good way to play the game or to try and win a campaign for that matter

Personally I think this whole thread stinks and is very unproductive. If I was a 100% allied player I would not want the help and side switchers...solve the problems and make some changes and quit logging off just because you lose certain towns. This campaign was freaking awesome the first few weeks and had the chance to best one of the best all time and then allied side loses Pville and then the campaign was boring as heck

Big deal you lose one town; you still have 3 full divisions to navigate, full town supply, still owned the most strategic AFs, was winning the rdp war etc

I just don't get it, allied side has some of the best inf players, best tankers, definitely best bombers but still have issues...I really think most of it is mentality...and when they would rather sap a tiger 1500 meters out and not recap cps, its all i need to see/know.

Plus get outta the freaking forums complaining and log into game 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, kazee said:

I call it Tiger Derangement Syndrome

Way too many allied inf will run 1500+ meters outside of town just to sap a Tiger while their cps and town crumble around them. It seems many allied inf would rather get a kill credit on a Tiger rather than saving their town

Not a good way to play the game or to try and win a campaign for that matter

Personally I think this whole thread stinks and is very unproductive. If I was a 100% allied player I would not want the help and side switchers...solve the problems and make some changes and quit logging off just because you lose certain towns. This campaign was freaking awesome the first few weeks and had the chance to best one of the best all time and then allied side loses Pville and then the campaign was boring as heck

Big deal you lose one town; you still have 3 full divisions to navigate, full town supply, still owned the most strategic AFs, was winning the rdp war etc

I just don't get it, allied side has some of the best inf players, best tankers, definitely best bombers but still have issues...I really think most of it is mentality...and when they would rather sap a tiger 1500 meters out and not recap cps, its all i need to see/know.

Plus get outta the freaking forums complaining and log into game 

 

The campaign was awesome because of the WBS event bringing numbers into the game. Believe it or not, those of us who are still here would have loved those numbers to stay up but we have absolutely zero control over those people who left. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

The campaign was awesome because of the WBS event bringing numbers into the game. Believe it or not, those of us who are still here would have loved those numbers to stay up but we have absolutely zero control over those people who left. 

We do have control over that though.  People come to try the game for X,Y, and Z reasons..... but they stay for the community and fraternity.  This is why I think the most important thing to change is the rhetoric..... if I was new, or a returning vet, and all I heard in chat was how awful and negative everything is ..... I doubt I would stick around long enough to put down roots community wise.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When people feel they are contributing to something bigger....... they try harder and invest more of themselves..... psyc 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing has changed from previous 150 campaigns. It's cyclic and happened on both sides : numbers attracts numbers, the opposite doesn't. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

We do have control over that though.  People come to try the game for X,Y, and Z reasons..... but they stay for the community and fraternity.  This is why I think the most important thing to change is the rhetoric..... if I was new, or a returning vet, and all I heard in chat was how awful and negative everything is ..... I doubt I would stick around long enough to put down roots community wise.

You're making assumptions based on side blindness. WBS was pretty positive and there was a huge push by squads and even CRS to get those vets engaged and sticking around - but they didn't. Then things got pretty nasty when numbers fell off again.

You simply weren't there, but your narrative is convenient for your rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, kazee said:

Personally I think this whole thread stinks and is very unproductive. If I was a 100% allied player I would not want the help and side switchers...solve the problems and make some changes and quit logging off just because you lose certain towns. This campaign was freaking awesome the first few weeks and had the chance to best one of the best all time and then allied side loses Pville and then the campaign was boring as heck

Big deal you lose one town; you still have 3 full divisions to navigate, full town supply, still owned the most strategic AFs, was winning the rdp war etc

I just don't get it, allied side has some of the best inf players, best tankers, definitely best bombers but still have issues...I really think most of it is mentality...and when they would rather sap a tiger 1500 meters out and not recap cps, its all i need to see/know.

Plus get outta the freaking forums complaining and log into game 

 

Agree with quite a bit of what you said here!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came for WBS, and I'm thinking of staying, but I'd really like to see things change.

Side switching can obviously help at any given moment, but the reality is that if side switching to even teams is to be encouraged, the entire game paradigm should change, since the whole idea of a "campaign" by its very nature encourages exactly the opposite. The larger world is there to encourage a sense of belonging to a bigger picture, and to the extent it works at all, people won't switch sides to even teams.

As I have posted a few times, the way to balance the sides has to be to actually tie the larger units on the map to the way people spawn, otherwise overpop always wins.

It doesn't help that the game has a minimum number of defenders requirement for any reasonable chance to work. That minimum is 1 guard per CP, 1 in the bunker, and at least a few floaters (some inf, maybe armor/ATG). That's not even remotely ideal, that's a minimum.

My suggestions:

Increase EWS range, at least if a Brigade is present in the town (those units would have patrols, etc). Perhaps substantially, perhaps tied to relative population. In the latter case, attackers might not have any sense of where they can be to avoid detection. Perhaps EWS range is in fact randomized, and changes day to day, town to town. Some are 250m, others are 2.5km.

As I said above, cap spawning with any Mobile Spawn or depot so that total attacking units mimic the relative strength of the units with AOs vs DOs, compared to the number of defenders spawned in. Ie: 2 Brigades attack 1 Brigade, respawning limited such that the attacks cannot spawn from depots or MS from the attacking Brigades if their current numbers exceed 2:1. Overpop players can STILL spawn, but they have to spawn at the FB, join para attacks from distant fields, fly air operations, etc. We're still stuck with overpop, but if by some miracle the 2 guys defending against 20 (in 2 Brigades) manage to kill 16 of them, the sides are now balanced to the relative unit strengths after a fashion (those 16 of course can pile in a truck and attack old school).

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
23 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

You're making assumptions based on side blindness. WBS was pretty positive and there was a huge push by squads and even CRS to get those vets engaged and sticking around - but they didn't. Then things got pretty nasty when numbers fell off again.

You simply weren't there, but your narrative is convenient for your rhetoric.

No... it seems you are the one blinded by side bias.  The negative rhetoric effects both sides and my point is valid regardless of side.  The statistics of absorption for any promotion are between 1 and 10% .... and I highly doubt either side subverted the laws of statistical variance during WBS.  Many came.... a few stayed..... on both sides.  Negative rhetoric only compounds and exacerbates the problem........ we all agree there is a problem.  I am only interested in solutions..... anything else is a waste of time typing.

I was "there" for the whole WBS and did my best to entice some to say...... I know dasei88 stuck around and subbed...... a few others.  The point is positive effort needs to be made to curb the numbers issue...... simply ignoring it, yelling in the forums about it are one thing........ but negative rhetoric actually increases the problems...... and that is one thing we can all personally make an effort to stop for the good of the game.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

The campaign was awesome because of the WBS event bringing numbers into the game. Believe it or not, those of us who are still here would have loved those numbers to stay up but we have absolutely zero control over those people who left. 

Well that might be partly true, however 3-4 weeks ago for 3-4 nights in a row usa primetime, allied side was kicking some serious butt

They had some excellent momentum going on and were rolling towns. A couple of those nights they were capping towns and even before the town switched hands, they had another town prepped and things in place for another attack, it was actually a thing of beauty and I gotta tip my hat to them for that.

So they have proven time after time it can be done...my main point and i think a couple other replies in here, is...once certain towns fall their numbers just disappear, is it side switchers or allied pb not logging in after certain towns fall ? I dont know but its been this way for a long time and the mentaily must try to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as a side jumper  ( well maybe those who change mid map to the "winning side"

the game is open for EVERYONE to play the side they think they can enjoy the most wether that is a stug/ spit or can CONTIBUTE the most to the health of the game

the attitude "you player the oppostion go away" only hurts your side even more and is in a way backstabbing your fellow players on your side by driving away player who want to try your equip/ help your side/ Or even just aviod  SD.

allied players play axis all the time : axis player play allied all the time  it is just when you see a BIG pain in teh ***** name for yuoin game( aka kills u a lot)  you Tell them to shuv off.  funny part  those  who are the biggest pain ot you can be your biggest  asset i fyou welcome them over.  

The game is a comunity of one not evil vs good (cept in game then i treat who ever the other side is a satens spawn)

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, choad said:

 

For the sake of argument. According to this thread a good number of the Allies raise the surrender flag once we lose Antwerp and/or Brussels. So - by that reasoning, wouldn't it make sense to defend Antwerp from a direct attack in favor of a town connecting Brussels?  Or - are we saying that Brussels is more important than Antwerp by several degrees? To me - it seems like a push really, damned if you do, damned if you don't. We are talking about having to choose between defending two vital areas at the same time apparently. Sounds just like more 2nd guessing to me - probably the opposite argument could have been made if they turned out and took Antwerp before Brussels.

The more discerning MOICs have always understood Brussels was the key to Antwerp, and to use large cities as ubermoles to divide and finish stretched enemies.

 

Several ways to consider the map- Alliance (the player) had some of the most interesting perspectives, too bad he's not around to comment.

 

What is troubling to me when considering map affairs is that Antwerp and Brussels are subdivided but Liege and Aachen, their counterparts on the other end of the northern center,  are not.  It's not necessarily a side advantage/disadvantage thing, but they are different levels of hard to take/retake.  Could work for or against either side depending on the morale and skill side of the equation.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I call it Tiger Derangement Syndrome

Way too many allied inf will run 1500+ meters outside of town just to sap a Tiger while their cps and town crumble around them. It seems many allied inf would rather get a kill credit on a Tiger rather than saving their town

Not a good way to play the game or to try and win a campaign for that matter

Personally I think this whole thread stinks and is very unproductive. If I was a 100% allied player I would not want the help and side switchers...solve the problems and make some changes and quit logging off just because you lose certain towns. This campaign was freaking awesome the first few weeks and had the chance to best one of the best all time and then allied side loses Pville and then the campaign was boring as heck

Big deal you lose one town; you still have 3 full divisions to navigate, full town supply, still owned the most strategic AFs, was winning the rdp war etc

I just don't get it, allied side has some of the best inf players, best tankers, definitely best bombers but still have issues...I really think most of it is mentality...and when they would rather sap a tiger 1500 meters out and not recap cps, its all i need to see/know.

Plus get outta the freaking forums complaining and log into game

Pretty easy to say when you aren't dependent on tank firepower to make up for inf play and you aren't facing the stalking horse of a Tiger kiling any tank you try and roll out to fight back with.

 

On the other hand Allies are not appreciative of just how frustrating and many ways any Axis armor short of a Tiger dies, especially at the 500m or less assault/suppress range the urban capture paradigm demands.  I'm teaching myself how to use Axis armor right now, and it's a VERY different thing then Allied armor.  I knew prior to the switch from sneakwrecking so many Axis tanks especially as a dedicated Allied ATGer, but boy trying to actually use them through a full battle, it's a thing.  Fortunately I have less supply waste anxiety and more freedom to try, precisely because there are so many of the G green tanks available that no one spawns because the side considers them so broken.

 

I'm really looking forward to learning and using those IIIL/N tanks.  I think they could be something special in the right hands especially in the tight knife fighting split second dogfighting style they will demand.

Share this post


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

Nothing has changed from previous 150 campaigns. It's cyclic and happened on both sides : numbers attracts numbers, the opposite doesn't. 

Properly speaking, leadership determines numbers and effeciveness.  It's really that simple.  You have to convince skilled players to stick around and it's worth their effort to get the snowball effect you refer to.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, snipey said:

I'm not talking about historical deployment or equipment. This game will never be historical in terms of grand strategy or deployment. I'm talking about damage models and equipment.  Axis equipment has been nerfed since 2001. What I'm saying is the answer has always been to make this game balanced to help allies win more campaigns. You can't control who plays more or the quality of players that plays a side. In the old CRS days the answer was to always nerf axis equipment. Not much has changed in that regard. Same song and dance for years. The game should not be about winning campaigns. Should be about having equipment and simulation that makes sense in terms of what they did on the battlefield historically. 

Anyone who talks like this guy about constantly nerfed equipment for his side should be ignored out of hand. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.