• Announcements

    • XOOM

      Volunteer PHP Developer wanted to revive the Gazette!   07/24/2019

      We're looking to properly revive the World@War Gazette and need a solid PHP developer to help take some work forward. If you have some skills with PHP and are looking for some experience and to bring important home page news / recognition for individual players back to WWII Online, I'd like to hear from you! Submit an inquiry to jobs@corneredrats.com with some details about your experience. You will need at least 10+ hours per week to contribute to the team. The Gazette's current status can be found here: https://www.wwiionline.com/resources#gazette
dfire

Allied Stratty

90 posts in this topic

11 minutes ago, Augetout said:

I won't treat you like a moron, @kazee as I wouldn't appreciate it anymore than I appreciate being accused of being a liar and/or a cheat by others.

24 hours ago the webmap shows 11 French, 13 Brit

12 hours ago the webmap shows 13 French, 14 Brit

6 hours ago the webmap shows 13 French, 18 Brit

3 hours ago the webmap shows 12 French, 18 Brit

A little while ago the webmap showed 11 French, 18 Brit

 

As I said in an earlier post, most of the time the Allied Officers (myself included) don't bother changing town ownership at all, leaving it to whatever country's forces gets credit for taking the new town.  The ratios over the past 24 hours as shown on the webmap are not out of whack, and are indicative of the axis taking a couple of French towns while the UK took a few axis towns.  Some towns may have been changed to put UK forces in the south, but it was not done nefariously, and it was not done in the extreme.  I have asked CRS (and they have answered) as to whether or not there is a tool that would allow me to see how many frontline towns were changed manually.  Given their answer (not possible) and given my discussions with Allied Officers, I am confident in reiterating the point that changing 'all' or 'nearly all' of the frontline towns to UK ownership is not part of our strategy, nor would it be tolerated if it was done in the extreme as has been accused in this thread.  A couple towns in the south were made British to allow for some British equipment to appear in the south, which is well within our instructions from CRS.  The Officer(s) in question did not do so to 'exploit' the game, and in fact only a small number of towns had their ownership changed.

Had the frontline towns been changed as part of a diabolic plan to exploit the game, then by definition disciplinary action would be necessary.  I am not one to allow cheats/exploits just because the game hasn't figured out how to stop them.  Honor matters in this community, and it is one of the reasons I am still in this community, as well as being a reason why I either haven't gotten into or stayed in, other gaming communities, (I'm looking at you, SOCOM community members...).

Changing ownership should be a part of the game.  Understand that in the fantasy world some believe we operate in whereby only the 'invincible' matildas are behind the Allies taking ground, an inability to change town ownership would result in a frontline made up entirely of British flags.  Perhaps later in campaigns it would result in nothing but U.S. flags.  In either event, neither of which will happen btw, people who prefer a different country's equipment would be left out in the cold, which CRS would frown heavily on.

As far as I'm concerned, this matter is closed, and AHC has been absolved of any guilt relating to the inaccurate accusations regarding any exploitation of the frontline towns' ownership.  I have communicated with AHC that any such exploitation will not be tolerated, and I am confident that no such thing occurred.

S!

Image result for move along nothing to see here gif

VR

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I'm not sure what went wrong with all this historical accuracy, national flavor, realistic into dates. etc.

But something has completely gone off the rails.

Game play must come first, and balanced game play second.

Variances should be no more than 5 to 10% - and completely justified by historical reasons.

If a side doesn't have a piece of gear, then it gets substituted by a lower piece that is somewhat similar.

B2K, Scotsman, HATCH, and XOOM were very clear: gameplay is not a factor... the only reason we don't have 1/2 auto's for allies and no panzers is the massive backlash, they're just concessions.

 

i don't think they've accepted gameplay at all since the "hardest campaign ever", looking at the lists from a gameplay-balance view; i agree it is completely off the rails.

in $$$ land i guess those 88's and 2cm flak's are balanced, but spawned in it's a different story.

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, dfire said:

Every campaign since 1.36 you see 4x as many British frontline towns as French. Just counted a bit ago for example and there's 20 or 21 British frontline towns and 4-5 French frontline towns. Basically the strategy seems to be changing as many frontline towns to British as possible. I noticed it too when I played that side. Most backline reserve towns are then changed to French to "beat" the rule. It seems to happen every campaign now. The most obvious example was 4 or so campaigns ago when all the french factory towns were changed to British owned. It has been going on since 1.36. Axis and Allies both know brit equipment is generally better. (mattys, Sherman fireflys, achilles m10, better semi auto, etc.). I'm not saying this because axis are losing (I also made a post about it as well when axis were on a 4 campaign win streak and when I myself was playing a campaign as allied and losing). Some of the allied hc guys seemed upset that some of their other HC guys were doing this, but it still happens every campaign. If OHM wants it to be like this, then fine, I don't mind, ill live with it and not threaten to unsub like others. I just want him to briefly explain what the rule is or isn't regarding this.

 

@XOOM @OHM

I posted about this problem before 1.36 was out ... and ofc ppl said NO NO NO ... THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN !

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real issue isn't the fact that there are more brit towns ultimately.

Though, they prolly should be in the 50/50 range, not 80/20.

 

The issue is the messed up supply lists that make brit flags have way more supply.

I'd make every town brit too if I knew I had 56 SMGs in them and 23 light ATGs at FMS; and my enemy only had 34 and 8.

This has partially been remedied, but it needs to be completely solved.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, dfire said:

I appreciate all the thought provoking replies and arguments and counter arguments.

 

My final thoughts are simple... Agree on a general ratio of towns per faction and have hc just take a 30 second glace over the map once or twice a day to make sure the ratios seem correct to the eye. No need to count numbers up or any bs. Who gives a [censored] if one side owns a few more than another, because obviously it's probably not intentional. Nobody will probably bat an eye. 

I'm not going to get involved in the equipment toe, faction geography, blame game, etc. arguments that spawned because none of those were the point of this post, and I dont have an issue with anything involving those personally.

With that said, I rest my case here

Well okay then.  At least you aren't a liar.  You were just, ahem, "inaccurate."  Makes all the difference in the world that.  There weren't 20 UK and 5 French frontline towns.  You were, ahem, "innacurate."  You might want to post that screenshot you said you took.  You certainly don't want to go around being, ahem, "innaccurate."

And at least we now know just how much the "town conversion" capability can be deliberately abused.   Apparently 60/40 UK/French is just fine with the Allied leadership in their fantasy world.  How very gracious of the Allied leadership to not too severely exploit their brand new capability.

Do any of the Rats see anything wrong with this? No? Anyone?

VR

Share this post


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

as I wouldn't appreciate it anymore than I appreciate being accused of being a liar and/or a cheat by others.

no one is accusing anyone of a cheat, town ownership flip is available so it can not be a cheat

 

27 minutes ago, Augetout said:

24 hours ago the webmap shows 11 French, 13 Brit

12 hours ago the webmap shows 13 French, 14 Brit

6 hours ago the webmap shows 13 French, 18 Brit

3 hours ago the webmap shows 12 French, 18 Brit

A little while ago the webmap showed 11 French, 18 Brit

Lets keep in mind my post from page 1 of this thread...I did cap that Liege NE ab yesterday to flip town ownership to French. If I did not do that, there would only be 5 french towns on the current front ( i just logged on and counted) That Liege flip from yesterday gave u an extra 3 (liege, vise, sprimont) as of now. If i didnt cap that ab, you would only have 5

The main issue for me is not the town ownership flip, its the glaring supply issue that is titled to the bef...we know it, you guys know it and thats why the towns are changed in the first place imho.

32 minutes ago, Augetout said:

Some towns may have been changed to put UK forces in the south

Thank you for stating I was correct all along

 

33 minutes ago, Augetout said:

As far as I'm concerned, this matter is closed,

No, its just getting started...fix the bloody supply issues with the bef and then I wont care if u change ownership 

Share this post


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

 

36 minutes ago, Augetout said:

Some towns may have been changed to put UK forces in the south

Kazee replied:  Thank you for stating I was correct all along

 

Must be nice to have insta pop equipment overmatch without having to move a single unit.  That is why it was done wasn't it?

Do any of the Rats see anything wrong with this?  No?  Anyone?

VR

 

Share this post


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

no one is accusing anyone of a cheat, town ownership flip is available so it can not be a cheat

 

Lets keep in mind my post from page 1 of this thread...I did cap that Liege NE ab yesterday to flip town ownership to French. If I did not do that, there would only be 5 french towns on the current front ( i just logged on and counted) That Liege flip from yesterday gave u an extra 3 (liege, vise, sprimont) as of now. If i didnt cap that ab, you would only have 5

The main issue for me is not the town ownership flip, its the glaring supply issue that is titled to the bef...we know it, you guys know it and thats why the towns are changed in the first place imho.

Thank you for stating I was correct all along

 

No, its just getting started...fix the bloody supply issues with the bef and then I wont care if u change ownership 

Use of an exploit is cheating in my book.  Just because a game allows it doesn't mean it is right to do so.

I just looked at the webmap, and I get a count of 10 French 14 Brits.  I'm not sure how you are getting 5.

I understand your insistence on sticking to a humble opinion despite what the facts show.  The towns were not changed as part of a strategy to exploit the ownership portion of the game, and if it had been, I would have disciplined the Officer(s) involved in a loud and public manner.

 

11 minutes ago, csm308 said:

Well okay then.  At least you aren't a liar.  You were just, ahem, "inaccurate."  Makes all the difference in the world that.  There weren't 20 UK and 5 French frontline towns.  You were, ahem, "innacurate."  You might want to post that screenshot you said you took.  You certainly don't want to go around being, ahem, "innaccurate."

VR

I can only go off what I can see on the Webmap, and what I've seen while in-game.  Unlike you, I never once implied that anyone, let alone Dfire, was lying.  I respect Dfire as a player and as a community member, and I hope to earn that respect in return.  I based my investigation off of what I saw on the webmap, what I saw while in-game, and in discussions with various AHC Officers.  Again, I am confident that nothing nefarious was going on, and I am confident that none of what actually has happened matters to you unless it fits into your preconceived and yet wholly inaccurate notions.

Keep searching for the magic elixir that will somehow make you correct, @csm308  Clearly it gives you enjoyment, and the more time you waste fruitlessly searching for a nonexistent bogeyman the more vindicated I feel that our efforts on the Allied side are making positive progress. ;)

S!

Share this post


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

Use of an exploit is cheating in my book.  Just because a game allows it doesn't mean it is right to do so.

I just looked at the webmap, and I get a count of 10 French 14 Brits.  I'm not sure how you are getting 5.

I understand your insistence on sticking to a humble opinion despite what the facts show.  The towns were not changed as part of a strategy to exploit the ownership portion of the game, and if it had been, I would have disciplined the Officer(s) involved in a loud and public manner.

 

I can only go off what I can see on the Webmap, and what I've seen while in-game.  Unlike you, I never once implied that anyone, let alone Dfire, was lying.  I respect Dfire as a player and as a community member, and I hope to earn that respect in return.  I based my investigation off of what I saw on the webmap, what I saw while in-game, and in discussions with various AHC Officers.  Again, I am confident that nothing nefarious was going on, and I am confident that none of what actually has happened matters to you unless it fits into your preconceived and yet wholly inaccurate notions.

Keep searching for the magic elixir that will somehow make you correct, @csm308  Clearly it gives you enjoyment, and the more time you waste fruitlessly searching for a nonexistent bogeyman the more vindicated I feel that our efforts on the Allied side are making positive progress. ;)

S!

No, Dfire isn't a liar, he's only, ahem, "inaccurate."  Makes all the difference that.  But, hey, at least you still respect him.  Makes all the difference that.

VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, csm308 said:

Must be nice to have insta pop equipment overmatch without having to move a single unit.  That is why it was done wasn't it?

Do any of the Rats see anything wrong with this?  No?  Anyone?

VR

 

Nope. You'll have to push your retribution agenda elsewhere.

http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/423002-is-there-a-list-of-what-the-brigade-spawn-lists-are-by-country/?do=findComment&comment=6406103

1 hour ago, SCKING said:

The start of the map there is. Default towns have not changed for as long as I have played the game.. And from that point it all depends on how the towns were captured. Always was never on the table to my knowledge. I remember back in the day getting UK towns in the south because we would fly a couple UK soldiers down from the north on a JU52 (Pre C47 days) just to capture the AB to make the town UK..

CRS does not have any built in ruleset to deal with town ownerships for the allied side at this time. There was a basic ruleset discussed in 1.36 when it was being designed. It was not implemented in the initial design just due to the magnitude of the 1.36 rewrite. If the team decides that ownership has become an issue then we will revisit it and slide it into our development schedule (unfortunately it may kick something else out).   

 

Share this post


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

More deflection on your part.  We certainly can't have anything that will upset the current Allied apple cart now can we?

VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, csm308 said:

No, Dfire isn't a liar, he's only, ahem, "inaccurate."  Makes all the difference that.  But, hey, at least you still respect him.  Makes all the difference that.

VR

Whew!  Lucky I'm not 9 years old, or that statement would have run a risk of accomplishing what you seem to wish to accomplish, i.e. distracting from the main point:  There has been no exploitation of the town ownership portion of the game by AHC, and if there was, it would not be tolerated.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, csm308 said:

More deflection on your part.  We certainly can't have anything that will upset the current Allied apple cart now can we?

VR

You can close your eyes to hide if you want to, but we can all see you.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have locked this for Community Team review and cleanup if necessary.. Turning into a lot of name calling. If they feel its good to unlock, they can do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless it is coded in the game to prevent how many towns can be UK , FR or US there is not much CRS can do but ask to keep the ratio's  close to history.   We are not going to baby sit the map to ensure this happens every minute of the game. 

 what is the next topic the TREE;s a to bias to the winning side? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.