• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
dfire

Need Opinions Please

90 posts in this topic

the stgub  grey shoud  be mitary  grey not  battle ship grey.... :(  ( who knows were this  came from ;)   in all seruisnes it is hard to ballance eqiup with the ever changin numbers on each side, Teh rats  are trying the best they  can, and i thank them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, SCKING said:

unfortunately some will not be happy until there are axis matildas and allied tigers and will still probably yell biased when they get blown up.

This is a problem.
We only see matildas (practically in God mode)
for 4 tiers ...
Before you talk about 3H, I'll laugh..

S!

Share this post


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

This is a problem.
We only see matildas (practically in God mode)
for 4 tiers ...
Before you talk about 3H, I'll laugh..

S!

Fought matties for years, been there, done that and will do again, we won and continue to win our shares of campaigns. That new excuse sounds like a poor little pink millenial bunny that just gets denied for his first time ever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2019 at 10:22 AM, ian77 said:

Another of the "axis always fight to the bitter end" crowd who have melted away when the going got tough.......

...I shed a tear.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, csm308 said:

3: HC officers will not engage in rudeness or other insulting exchanges in the forums or in game. Rants, flames or whines are not allowed while you represent the HC. Public complaints about the game or CRS are incompatible with membership. HC officers shall utilize the Chain of Command in reporting complaints about the game players/customers, HC members or CRS employees to their immediate superiors. HC officers shall be positive in public and not post in a way that would lower the morale of their community even when faced with aggressive or abusive behavior.

VR

Section 5 amendment 89 in book 12 of the rats rules and regs says csm must remove his speedo and walk backwards while singing its raining men in spanish whenever an ahc officer is out of line

3 hours ago, csm308 said:
Edited by Jsilec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, enemytank said:

My opinion and your opinion.
My goal is to have a balanced game, yours seems to be on the CRS staff.

S!

I get the attempt at an insult.  Truth be told I'm not qualified to be on the CRS staff.  I could code this game if it needed some Apple basic inserted...  Perhaps scrolling (with flashing no less)  "Quit whining (insert applicable side depending on who is winning maps)!!!" But that's about the extent of my coding abilities...  So like Johnson in '68 "I shall not seek, nor will I accept..."   In short, you're just wrong on that point.

My goal is to have as historically accurate game as possible, and I make no apologies for having that goal.  The Battle of France in 1940 is a unique time in history, where a country attacked some other countries and won in short order despite not having the best tanks, best air to air fighters, best artillery, or best ATGs.

Your goal of having an artificially balanced game is a valid goal.  It was 2001 when I started asserting that artificial game-balancing would end in failure.  My message is the same whether it seems to benefit 'my side' or not.  Some agree and some do not.  I wish more did (agree), with me far earlier in the game's development, as it would have freed up a ton of developer time that in essence was completely wasted on constant attempts to artificially balance gameplay.  Time that could have been spent doing more equipment models when CRS had ample developers.  Know that the game can NEVER be truly balanced until a red v blue scheme is decided upon.  Given that won't happen, we are again left with the choice between historical accuracy and artificially balancing gameplay, one of which had over a decade and a half to show itself to be the utter failure that it is destined to be.  One of which hasn't even been fully implemented as yet, if ever it will be.

We don't have the Ju-88 (it's being worked on now, but should have been done years and years ago), because CRS 1.0 wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

We don't have more ships for the folks who prefer naval stuff, because CRS 1.0 wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

We don't have parachuting sheep, because CRS 1.0... Wait, parachuting sheep aren't really all that important.

We don't have the B-25, B-17, Lancaster, Wellington, and anything resembling an Italian plane, because CRS 1.0 wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

We don't have the Panther, the Jagpanzer 1, and a slew of other vehicles to include a Jeep for cripes' sakes, because CRS 1.0 wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

Hell, we might have full-blown artillery by now if CRS 1.0 hadn't wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

So yes, guilty as charged on being one of the folks who prefer going in a historically accurate direction.  It's not a new direction for me, and it is not side-biased in the least bit.  It's not a wish to do a recreation of WW2's actual events, either.  I fully believe that given a historically accurate set of equipment, accurately modeled, in historically accurate spawn ratios, that it would be completely good gameplay to let the players decide the outcome, and I have no doubt it would be even more fun in-game, with less wasted time on BS issues such as the list we dealt with just during the last campaign.

Imagine players accepting, as they do in each and every other WW2 game, that some of their equipment is going to work better than the other side's, and some of it isn't, without constantly worrying and/or accusing the game developers of somehow being on one side or the other...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2019 at 8:18 AM, ian77 said:

Start in different towns, move the front line after 18 years please.

I like that idea, as it would vary the gameplay in the initial phase of a campaign.

S!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, enemytank said:

Even before the "audit" that changed tank ammunition, Stug B and 4D killed matildas.
3H kills but very lucky.
Today I find it kind of impossible
They really found a way for allies to win campaigns.. 

4 long tiers (decreased in the last campaign) with matildas (almost mode God) and spawn list with historical data and not for a balanced game.

Imagine, we had to fight them with no sappers and never a stuka would have been able to bomb one.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

 

Even before the "audit" that changed tank ammunition, Stug B and 4D killed matildas.
3H kills but very lucky.
Today I find it kind of impossible
They really found a way for allies to win campaigns.. 

4 long tiers (decreased in the last campaign) with matildas (almost mode God) and spawn list with historical data and not for a balanced game.

I'm going to ignore the first part, as it is my understanding is that the ammunition audit was needed because of CRS 1.0's failed efforts at artificially balancing gameplay...

.88s kill Matildas at a 1.64 ratio, historically.  My humble advice would be to get some folks who are willing to use that weapon, if Matildas are a concern.  It's not that the Matilda isn't killable, it's that folks on the german side aren't using the weapons that easily kill it.  I'm not sure how that could possibly be anyone's fault but the players who are choosing not to spawn the 88s that kill Matildas.

S!

Share this post


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

I'm going to ignore the first part, as it is my understanding is that the ammunition audit was needed because of CRS 1.0's failed efforts at artificially balancing gameplay...

.88s kill Matildas at a 1.64 ratio, historically.  My humble advice would be to get some folks who are willing to use that weapon, if Matildas are a concern.  It's not that the Matilda isn't killable, it's that folks on the german side aren't using the weapons that easily kill it.  I'm not sure how that could possibly be anyone's fault but the players who are choosing not to spawn the 88s that kill Matildas.

S!

88s need to be towed btw

11 minutes ago, matamor said:

Imagine, we had to fight them with no sappers and never a stuka would have been able to bomb one.

Allies keep the Matildas moving in towns contiuously so sappers cant fix HEAT charges and it has limitless MG ammo

Edited by actonman

Share this post


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

Allies keep the Matildas moving in towns contiuously so sappers cant fix HEAT charges

Just watch me in this one

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We trained a few hours today on killing matildas with stugs/4ds and sappers...bottom line is its a tough piece of equipment to kill but it does have its weaknesses and we have a few options to use on it without going head to head which is a losing proposition everytime you try it....i guess we will see how it goes when we fighting them in map 167

Share this post


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

We trained a few hours today on killing matildas with stugs/4ds and sappers...bottom line is its a tough piece of equipment to kill but it does have its weaknesses and we have a few options to use on it without going head to head which is a losing proposition everytime you try it....i guess we will see how it goes when we fighting them in map 167

You will give up in the first week like the rest of us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maney fear it with no reason they try going head to head straight forward and die then say its unkillable and log.....whiners

acton always gives up first day now i geuss he gives up before start

I dont give up acton

Edited by flong139
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, flong139 said:

maney fear it with no reason they try going head to head straight forward and die then say its unkillable and log.....whiners

acton always gives up first day now i geuss he gives up before start

I dont give up acton

He really doesn't (give up).   In 165, he almost single-handedly made the battle for Frankfurt last hours longer than it should have via his efforts at an FB, and in running supplies to Frankfurt.  If the Allies had more like him (we have some, but I'm greedy) we'd never lose a map.

S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

You will give up in the first week like the rest of us

Who exactly is us because i see alot of axis who are hungry for some winning next map....looking forward to working with those WHIPS guys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be hella fun to play a campaign with axis factories and frontlines switched to allied and allied factories and lines switched to axis. Axis need to push east and allies need to push west. I think it would make me dizy looking at the map, but it would be fun/hilarious/different. 

It would never happen and too many people would be against it, but just imagine haha. :)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would make a good event tho.

See how allies try to take england lol

S!

Edited by flong139

Share this post


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

It would be hella fun to play a campaign with axis factories and frontlines switched to allied and allied factories and lines switched to axis. Axis need to push east and allies need to push west. I think it would make me dizy looking at the map, but it would be fun/hilarious/different. 

It would never happen and too many people would be against it, but just imagine haha. :)

It did happen a loooooooong time ago we had a reverse map

 

 

Edited by Jsilec

Share this post


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

unfortunately some will not be happy until there are axis matildas and allied tigers and will still probably yell biased when they get blown up.

 

7 hours ago, Augetout said:

Not an accurate assertion to make.

First, you are presuming, falsely, that previous efforts to artificially balance the game were without perils of their own.  You are also presuming that previous efforts to artificially balance the game had achieved said balance, which is also incorrect.

Second, you are presuming, falsely, that the game is paying a heavy price.  There are lots of variables involved, and while it may seem convenient to pick one and call it 'the one', it isn't accurate.

Summer sees our community doing things in what I like to call, the 'outside' world.  In-game population goes down at this time of year due to this wacky obsession on the part of some of our community members to 'do stuff with their families', or 'go on vacations' and other such nonsense!  (We all know they should be in-game, right?) ;)

S!

did you guys forget the reaction to "the hardest campaign ever"?

1 hour ago, Augetout said:

I get the attempt at an insult.  Truth be told I'm not qualified to be on the CRS staff.  I could code this game if it needed some Apple basic inserted...  Perhaps scrolling (with flashing no less)  "Quit whining (insert applicable side depending on who is winning maps)!!!" But that's about the extent of my coding abilities...  So like Johnson in '68 "I shall not seek, nor will I accept..."   In short, you're just wrong on that point.

My goal is to have as historically accurate game as possible, and I make no apologies for having that goal.  The Battle of France in 1940 is a unique time in history, where a country attacked some other countries and won in short order despite not having the best tanks, best air to air fighters, best artillery, or best ATGs.

Your goal of having an artificially balanced game is a valid goal.  It was 2001 when I started asserting that artificial game-balancing would end in failure.  My message is the same whether it seems to benefit 'my side' or not.  Some agree and some do not.  I wish more did (agree), with me far earlier in the game's development, as it would have freed up a ton of developer time that in essence was completely wasted on constant attempts to artificially balance gameplay.  Time that could have been spent doing more equipment models when CRS had ample developers.  Know that the game can NEVER be truly balanced until a red v blue scheme is decided upon.  Given that won't happen, we are again left with the choice between historical accuracy and artificially balancing gameplay, one of which had over a decade and a half to show itself to be the utter failure that it is destined to be.  One of which hasn't even been fully implemented as yet, if ever it will be.

We don't have the Ju-88 (it's being worked on now, but should have been done years and years ago), because CRS 1.0 wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

We don't have more ships for the folks who prefer naval stuff, because CRS 1.0 wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

We don't have parachuting sheep, because CRS 1.0... Wait, parachuting sheep aren't really all that important.

We don't have the B-25, B-17, Lancaster, Wellington, and anything resembling an Italian plane, because CRS 1.0 wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

We don't have the Panther, the Jagpanzer 1, and a slew of other vehicles to include a Jeep for cripes' sakes, because CRS 1.0 wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

Hell, we might have full-blown artillery by now if CRS 1.0 hadn't wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

So yes, guilty as charged on being one of the folks who prefer going in a historically accurate direction.  It's not a new direction for me, and it is not side-biased in the least bit.  It's not a wish to do a recreation of WW2's actual events, either.  I fully believe that given a historically accurate set of equipment, accurately modeled, in historically accurate spawn ratios, that it would be completely good gameplay to let the players decide the outcome, and I have no doubt it would be even more fun in-game, with less wasted time on BS issues such as the list we dealt with just during the last campaign.

Imagine players accepting, as they do in each and every other WW2 game, that some of their equipment is going to work better than the other side's, and some of it isn't, without constantly worrying and/or accusing the game developers of somehow being on one side or the other...

"the hardest campaign ever" went all in on this...

guys need to start being clear: if they want a game, or a mil-sim and start using the preferred term.

Share this post


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

We trained a few hours today on killing matildas with stugs/4ds and sappers...bottom line is its a tough piece of equipment to kill but it does have its weaknesses and we have a few options to use on it without going head to head which is a losing proposition everytime you try it....i guess we will see how it goes when we fighting them in map 167

Stug B?

How many matildas did you kill with stug B?

 

With sapper matilda is a easy kill...  

 

Edited by enemytank

Share this post


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

I get the attempt at an insult.  Truth be told I'm not qualified to be on the CRS staff.  I could code this game if it needed some Apple basic inserted...  Perhaps scrolling (with flashing no less)  "Quit whining (insert applicable side depending on who is winning maps)!!!" But that's about the extent of my coding abilities...  So like Johnson in '68 "I shall not seek, nor will I accept..."   In short, you're just wrong on that point.

My goal is to have as historically accurate game as possible, and I make no apologies for having that goal.  The Battle of France in 1940 is a unique time in history, where a country attacked some other countries and won in short order despite not having the best tanks, best air to air fighters, best artillery, or best ATGs.

Your goal of having an artificially balanced game is a valid goal.  It was 2001 when I started asserting that artificial game-balancing would end in failure.  My message is the same whether it seems to benefit 'my side' or not.  Some agree and some do not.  I wish more did (agree), with me far earlier in the game's development, as it would have freed up a ton of developer time that in essence was completely wasted on constant attempts to artificially balance gameplay.  Time that could have been spent doing more equipment models when CRS had ample developers.  Know that the game can NEVER be truly balanced until a red v blue scheme is decided upon.  Given that won't happen, we are again left with the choice between historical accuracy and artificially balancing gameplay, one of which had over a decade and a half to show itself to be the utter failure that it is destined to be.  One of which hasn't even been fully implemented as yet, if ever it will be.

We don't have the Ju-88 (it's being worked on now, but should have been done years and years ago), because CRS 1.0 wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

We don't have more ships for the folks who prefer naval stuff, because CRS 1.0 wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

We don't have parachuting sheep, because CRS 1.0... Wait, parachuting sheep aren't really all that important.

We don't have the B-25, B-17, Lancaster, Wellington, and anything resembling an Italian plane, because CRS 1.0 wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

We don't have the Panther, the Jagpanzer 1, and a slew of other vehicles to include a Jeep for cripes' sakes, because CRS 1.0 wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

Hell, we might have full-blown artillery by now if CRS 1.0 hadn't wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

So yes, guilty as charged on being one of the folks who prefer going in a historically accurate direction.  It's not a new direction for me, and it is not side-biased in the least bit.  It's not a wish to do a recreation of WW2's actual events, either.  I fully believe that given a historically accurate set of equipment, accurately modeled, in historically accurate spawn ratios, that it would be completely good gameplay to let the players decide the outcome, and I have no doubt it would be even more fun in-game, with less wasted time on BS issues such as the list we dealt with just during the last campaign.

Imagine players accepting, as they do in each and every other WW2 game, that some of their equipment is going to work better than the other side's, and some of it isn't, without constantly worrying and/or accusing the game developers of somehow being on one side or the other...

While there is something to be said for the argument that trying to "artificially balance" the game was in the hearts and minds of some of those who ran "CRS 1.0" as you like to define it (there was in reality a CRS 1.0 ... 1.2 ... 1.3 ... 1.5 ... many changes in leadership and basic operating principle generated by those changes and much outside criteria that affected the team and it's ability to continue to function that were addressed in a variety of ways) ... which were constantly changing as the sometimes DIRE situation we were in had to be met by whatever would solve it and no one knew EXACTLY what that would be.

There were a thousand different ways it could have been done and who you were in the hierarchy at the time had a huge impact on both your ability to make the correct decision, and even the ability of those who COULD NOT make the decision when they were actually, in hindsight (or even foresight) the best equipped for the job. Really, 90% of the decisions and events that crippled us had nothing to do with "artificially balancing" of the game and are things you are not even aware of happening. You'd have had to be involved with running the company to actually know what those things were rather than just take a wild guess built upon your emotional attachment to "the mistakes we made" as you see them in an effort to make it seem you knew the answers all along but that we were too stupid to understand. So you are correct in one small part of what went on, although it is the ONLY part of the whole experience you are interested in hanging around their necks. There was a vast majority of other factors and influences of which you are not only unaware, but I suspect not even interested in being made aware of.

Well so be it. To those that have been to war and returned home belongs the memory of what it really was like. The movie makers will have their own version of events, but unless they are particularly rare movie makers, I wouldn't take their views as facts. Got to get bums on seats ... and believe me know one knows the implications of that better then those who have been to both worlds.

Employees and their families were relying on the business behind the game, and not much was done in the vacuum of "game purity" when the leadership in the top seats tried to further the business while those building the game just concerned themselves with the "purity of the game". Commercially viable companies do not operate in an atmosphere of "gamer purity" over dollars if the businessmen see the business not gaining more dollars (in fact losing dollars) even though without their realizing it, the business decisions were often in direct opposition to the "gamer" decisions when you wish to talk about how to preserve the purity of the simulation ... and you aren't paying the salaries. Factor in a bunch of other unfortunate events and "CRS 1.0" was fighting off the back foot from day 1.  The future the businessmen wanted was dead right there although it would take almost a decade to drive it's message through their hearts.

It's a bloody miracle we who survived the drastic events and the changes they wrought upon the shrinking resource package we had (manpower and money)  to hold it together with, for the game to reach the Xoom era of it's existence. Were mistakes made ? Hundreds of them, no question. Fighting a 20 foot crocodile with your bare hands in the water has little guarantee of success let alone perfection of your dance moves while doing so. So I just want you to understand that "artificially balancing the gameplay" was a part of the problem ... but by far not the biggest. That falls to things you will in all likely hood never know, or be told about ... unless one of us writes the book to reveal it.

Just a perspective from inside for you. No assumption. No guesswork. From one of the first in and definitely the last to leave. I do not want you to think I would just "defend" those I worked with because I will not. I'm not even defending myself. We all screwed up at some point. Nobody was an expert at any of this "simulation as a business" although we did have a reasonable pedigree to learn real quick. Which we did. However, as the company grew you slowly became aware, when you pulled your head out of designing and fixing the game (which we doing at the same time due to the "businessmen" forced early release) ... you gradually became aware that those running the business were not those designing the game. Wow who would have guessed ?!? <- obvious sarcasm

And of course, then some of that would change. Sometimes for the better. Sometimes for the worse. a company like the one we found ourselves in, isn't what those on the outside might assume. I would never have guessed how it turned out. I had a totally different expectation. So I had a ton of learning to do too. We all did. Just like those of you who have stuck it out have. Pointing the finger is fruitless and often not even an vaguely accurate assumption. Better to be interested in moving on from here, without worrying about who made the problem ... or at least being interested in the actual turn of events and not the assumptions you are forced to make because you weren't there and nobody who was, is filling you in with specific details.

Or you could just hurl abuse at me for daring to put some of the record straight ... from some high horse you like to ride around on because (and I get why, high horses are awesome) it makes you feel good.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A genuine DOC style post of old - he really is on the mend! :) 

 

S! Ian 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night was my first night axis EU prime and US prime and it was a blast!

Numbers on the main Carignan attack were well over 30 for axis, minimap at one point was probably closer to 50 plus air. One axis vet stated at one point: "there must be 75 here!" and I'm fairly sure he meant only axis. There was zero defeatism, quite the opposite the players were motivated and the comms were positive. 

AEF absolutely love a tough fight and last map those fights were nonexistent many times so yeah we're playing a map axis but far from all of us, some still have side loyalties or kit preferences or whatever so there's around 10 of us I believe axis currently. We have no agenda, this is definitely not an AEF promotional tour or ego stroke. I do not anticipate us being the deciding factor as much that would look great as a recruitment tool haha. What we will do is play hard, try to work with others, use comms and never feed negativity because it is 100% pointless and self fulfilling. You can win this map as either side with the enough smart play, determination and comms as either side.

The axis have not given up whatsoever and in prime time EU/US you can expect some decent fights I know that much!

Great DOC post as usual and a lot of that was visible to anyone who thought about it tbh doc, I was always amazed to see the game still here after a break form it post 2011. Rats 2.0 have done an awesome job but I'm well aware a lot of what kept us coming back year in year out was the work done by Rats 1.0 to keep things alive too.  'Gamer purity' or 'vision of exact accuracy' is not going to keep the lights on ever. Gamplay may be of secondary interest to any purist but how many purists are there?

Nearly forgot, changing start tier or speed of tier advance is cool with me, nice to have a little variety 

We had a reverse map years ago and it was interesting yeah but a lot of manual work i believe.

Enough  yap, time to go fight :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ian77 said:

A genuine DOC style post of old - he really is on the mend! :) 

 

S! Ian 

Heh heh. You wouldn't believe it, I almost don't. Since I turned the "this garbage isn't screwing with your health anymore" corner (the end of treatment plus the "it will leave your body eventually" phase) I have experienced what seems a miraculously accelerating rate of recovery. The oncology team remarked in 1 week I went from below 10% health (near death) to somewhere in the 20+ % bracket. I'm taking aim at 60% by the end of the month. Frankly, it's astonishing and they were very keen to mirror my feelings on the subject. OMG. Am I back ? Thanks to you guys, you had a strong hand in this. Be proud.

 

Oh yeah ... the reverse map. Hand to be recoded/data rewritten on the fly during the changeover ... and it broke everything. It was akin to resetting the reset while you were resetting what you'd just reset. That was fun ! (not)

 

 

Edited by DOC
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.