• Announcements

    • CHIMM

      Operation Burning Skies   09/17/2019

      All pilots scramble!  Strap yourself in for this months Community event - Operation Burning Skies! This Sunday, September 22, 11 am – 5 pm server time. In honor of XOOM and friends showcasing WWII Online at the Oregon International  Air Show – our forces too will battle for superiority in Operation Burning Skies. High Commands are on high alert to rally their forces to victory! Lift off, and see a whole new world of WWII Online… Fearless bomber pilots make the skies rain down fire – our daring fighter pilots are in pursuit of their prey- as western Europe erupts in war on the ground below! Rally your squads, rally your buddies - Combined arms are back!  …Under Burning Skies! SALUTE!
actonman

Lame End to lame campaign

53 posts in this topic

So Allied capped Essen in TZ3 with no bridges up and no Axis online, the last 14 CPs were capped with no opposition.

Please don`t ever complain about TZ3 again Allies.

Hopefully this is the end they just need to softcap Koln now.

Edited by actonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superior comms and teamwork.

 

Numbers helps too of course....

 

S! Ian 

Share this post


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

Please don`t ever complain about TZ3 again Allies.

Because it happened to you ONE time?

By those rules, I guess you can't complain about it either.

 

Edited by Randazzo
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been happening to us for years. Tis' frustrating .... feel your pain.

Stop acting all Allied and crying about it on the forums. Just swallow the bitter pill and soldier on, it is the Axis way.

S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt even get to login this campgain due to work and other stuff going on but Its clear something needs to be done to try and balance out the sides.

Seems only 1 out of 3 maps is somewhat even....Either Axis come and play Allied or vise versa to help the other side out when a steamroll occurs the previous map. 

Its not good for business.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Just swallow the bitter pill and soldier on, it is the Axis way.

S!

Related image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should not have to, PRIDE shall be enough to log in and fight.

S!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pretty sure the devs openly demanding that players switch sides is what made it lame

Share this post


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

Related image

This bodes ill for my sex life.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

How do you force people to log in when their side is losing???

Mocking is always an option.

 

Not effective, but an option.

 

Otherwise, it's a game about getting people to believe in the victory.

 

 

P.S. probably not productive to get our generals to commit suicide.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, david06 said:

pretty sure the players lack of sportsmanship and concern for the other side is what made it lame

FTFY.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allied side uses their advantages in a very effective and consequent way . Congraz ! I cant say that i enjoyed this campaign :) but that is the game.  Thank you for all brave axis who fought to the end - who ran against mattys - who tried to stop rolling allied with para sapper ...

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been always like that, when one side is low on morale the other side rolls on tz3.  The only way to fix it is increasing population...look on this tz3 population graphics how campaign 163 with WBS was the most balanced

 

nMrsgz7.png

DEe39uM.png

BdpgrGa.png

V5S0qI5.png

 

Edited by sydspain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Randazzo said:

Because it happened to you ONE time?

It is not the first time, I have defended a lot of towns on tz3 alone against 10-15 allies, it happens to both sides

Share this post


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

It is not the first time, I have defended a lot of towns on tz3 alone against 10-15 allies, it happens to both sides

Very true. 

Share this post


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

It is not the first time, I have defended a lot of towns on tz3 alone against 10-15 allies, it happens to both sides

It would be interesting to look at town losses as a function of total defenders vs total attackers. Both sides must have this problem at different times of day. It has always seemed to me that the real issue is when there are fewer than some nominal minimum number to have a chance at defense. A lone, or even small group can luck out if they can arrive soon enough to kill the trucks, for example, but that really is just luck for low pop (higher pop means more of a chance for random people to be spawned in where there is no ews just in case). Usually, though, you need at least enough people to cover the CPs and bunker (which is sometimes hard to get folks to do even with a crowd of them in town, lol).

Share this post


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

It would be interesting to look at town losses as a function of total defenders vs total attackers. Both sides must have this problem at different times of day. It has always seemed to me that the real issue is when there are fewer than some nominal minimum number to have a chance at defense. A lone, or even small group can luck out if they can arrive soon enough to kill the trucks, for example, but that really is just luck for low pop (higher pop means more of a chance for random people to be spawned in where there is no ews just in case). Usually, though, you need at least enough people to cover the CPs and bunker (which is sometimes hard to get folks to do even with a crowd of them in town, lol).

Which is why stopping at 50% mitigation isn't going to cut it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2019 at 3:42 AM, sydspain said:

It has been always like that, when one side is low on morale the other side rolls on tz3.  The only way to fix it is increasing population...look on this tz3 population graphics how campaign 163 with WBS was the most balanced

the tail end of campaigns are always frustrating to play, same thread pops up every few months.

the PB just wants a new campaign, squad mates on both sides very clearly state they log in less till the new map starts.

 

honestly wish we could vote a surrender. loosing for 3-6 weeks is pure frustration and winning; the victories start feeling cheap and unsatisfying

Share this post


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

Which is why stopping at 50% mitigation isn't going to cut it.

Yeah. Side balancing is complex, particularly in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, major0noob said:

 

honestly wish we could vote a surrender. loosing for 3-6 weeks is pure frustration and winning; the victories start feeling cheap and unsatisfying

+100/ best idea in your history of great ideas for the game. you must be into submission. maybe you want to just 'vote a surrender' before the campaign starts instead of waiting 3-6 weeks? that way, we would never have to  play at all.  and  how about  you lead by example and surrender from the forums? 

Related image

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-06-18 at 6:15 AM, gretnine said:

We had the secret weapon. 

 

 

Rans. 

No :)

Axis Players (the super secret, well not so secret ingredient)

Congrats to allied on the map win

:)

S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, major0noob said:

the tail end of campaigns are always frustrating to play, same thread pops up every few months.

the PB just wants a new campaign, squad mates on both sides very clearly state they log in less till the new map starts.

 

honestly wish we could vote a surrender. loosing for 3-6 weeks is pure frustration and winning; the victories start feeling cheap and unsatisfying

I agree in part. But people have choices. A choice in attitude, which doesn't mean a person won't get frustrated etc as you point out properly. 

However, the only actual freedom any human has, in finality, is to choose the attitude they will have even in the most desperate situations. (i.e. Viktor Frankel's, Man's search for meaning book and his concentration camp survival experience comes to mind, yes an extreme example, sorry)

..and we are far from that type of experience in playing this game.

I was on with Blitzkader last night as we tried to get Bergheim. People had LOTS OF FUN. People CHOSE to have FUN.

Yes some frustration but in the end that group got kills, caps, almost got the town, recapped FB's, organized, talked, chatted, we cursed our opponents by name (we love ya though) and their equipment etc.... but in the end this group and individuals CHOSE to be positive and  and HAD FUN despite knowing it was pretty well over.

I don't find end of map fighting depressing or frustrating when people group up. I like the challenge. Make the other team "work for it"

The point i guess is that people can take a positive attitude, find like minded individuals/squads and decide to have FUN.

When people end up on their death beds they won't be moaning about a game.

They may however, think a tiny bit,  about the friends they made and good times had through an experience like this community.

Just my 2 cents anyway...

S!

ps...I am not saying it's always easy to find positive meaning in things...but it's about the only thing we actually have any control over in the end S!

 

 

 

 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.