Why can't I use my ally's Aircraft Carrier? Both of us can use each other's airbases and airstrips, how is this any different? Let's see what excuses you people make up this time.
Please log in to post a reply.
That's like saying that building a recruitment center is useless because people aren't buying any troops.Commander Schleicher wrote:
but often times they can barely be used by their own country since many I have seen don't make any more planes other than the singular interceptor that spawns by default
No, it's really not
I think it’s because there’s not enough devs on the forum to begin withCommander Schleicher wrote:
Why do the devs never check things like this that people actually want? Maybe we need some kind if pinned message or thread that gets added on to with notable suggestions that are viable and the majority wants.
Freezy checks the forum semi-often, but the upvoted suggestions I see are usually not recognized. I think there should be a monthly pinned post that compile all the most liked posts and then the devs consider adding them instead of only looking at the most recent threads.
The devs don’t have an official way they communicate with the player base, though. Freezy is only coming here from his own good will, Bytro doesn’t make him do anything and doesn’t try anything.
They need to make this.
The mods tell everyone that the devs are only on the forum so this is it I think besides maybe Discord.
I think the biggest issue with this suggestion is what if your ally puts all their planes on your aircraft carrier, but you want to use it, and he won’t move them. You have no way to kick them out, unless you cancel SM with them.
I have said it before but that's an issue that is prevalent for every aspect of the game. If your ally won't move the planes then just don't move the aircraft carrier, and that situation is unlikely because any war he needs it for is likely for mutual benefit. Also skill issue if you failed to notice your ally betraying you.
It is not about betrayal, it is (for example) about going inactive and occupying your carrier space.
An option to auto kick planes and force them to fly to the nearest airbase? Same thing if they are on a carrier.
Maybe that would workCarking the 6th wrote:
An option to auto kick planes and force them to fly to the nearest airbase? Same thing if they are on a carrier.
Still kinda a skill issue that can easily be avoided by having decent allies or just getting their Discord to communicate. And generally by the time someone has an aircraft carrier, the active players have been decided from the inactive players.
That’s not always the case. And still, this doesn’t prevent players from just being a d!ck.Commander Schleicher wrote:
Still kinda a skill issue that can easily be avoided by having decent allies or just getting their Discord to communicate. And generally by the time someone has an aircraft carrier, the active players have been decided from the inactive players.
100 active on the forum over all threads in perhaps a month or more time. any given thread is lucky to have a dozen contributers.K.Rokossovski wrote:
just a group of MAX 100 active people talking here, with millions playing the game
millions playing the game? Perhaps a few million created an account, joined a game or two and never returned.
my speculation is that there are less than 10,000 who have played more than 100 games. Never know for sure, since that number would be considered a trade secret.
Back to the original suggestion:
the technology, armaments, communications, and logistics in general did not permit allies use of carriers in WWII. I am not aware of it being practiced even today, although there are very few countries left with aircraft carriers.
Still you don't get what kind of audience Bytro is aiming for... strictly in THIS GAME terms, they may be stupid, they may be morons, they go inactive all the time, and they don't have the first clue about WHY their infantry gets killed by RA. They land their planes on some carrier in this game, then lose interest and go do whatever their current thing is. They don't LOVE the game, it is just one (not very important) thing they are doing in their full and busy and complicated life. Bytro wants to blow with the wind of "casual", because that's the mainstream, even if their entire framework of the game doesn't fit with that. The game requires attention, it requires commitment, it requires care; but those words aren't in fashion in the "how do we attract teenage attention in the Big Arena of internet things" of everything companies want youngsters to have attention for. So the company plans for people leaving without bothering other players; they're just inacives now who can just get killed.Commander Schleicher wrote:
Still kinda a skill issue that can easily be avoided by having decent allies or just getting their Discord to communicate. And generally by the time someone has an aircraft carrier, the active players have been decided from the inactive players.
But yeah, I don't understand either, when you're competing in THAT arena, how you expect people to commit to your game if it requires attention at least three times a day.
From a business perspective sure, but again it's not a difficult thing to avoid. You can tell easily if a player will be inactive, and if they are then it's unlikely they will ever put their small air force on your carrier.
I think you are wrong there. Not moving their troops for a while is an indicator for sure; but you wouldn't want to feed the people who seem reasonably active, then get a few adverse results in battle, and are never seen again.
Honestly skill issue, that's applicable to many other parts of the game. Just don't be allied with people who are gonna be inactive. Anyone with half a brain can effectively do that.
Please log in to post a reply.
