Many of the things in WW2OL that happen, you cannot see. The High Command forums are like another world, and Gods of War (The pseudo-forum that only the Senior Commands of both sides see) show a trend of increasing control over their High Command volunteers.

It also shows the worst case scenario: CRS meddling, directly, with campaign outcomes and the Chain of Command as well as censoring/ignoring my concerns when it comes to Trainers, the official CRS backed, well, trainers who hav more or less been left to rot.

Campaign 72 is the worst campaign in the history of the game, it is the map that may cement my departure as being permanent. That is because Campaign 72 was given to the Axis by CRS, now that statement usually comes at the end of a butthurt campaign loss, however, there is actual evidence of this:

Long time, veteran Allied players being told by CRS to go Axis and/or join their High Command.

GMs handcuffing Allied map moves, disregarding the chain of the command to allow the Axis to take Ramsgate and march into England.

Reduction in spawn lists of Allied Bombers.

Allied High Commanders being censored unbashedly on the forums and being censured in-game.

CRS wanted Axis to win and they got it. Now normally, I'd keep this as yet another skeleton in the High Command closet (Sort of like Mattwitt's attempt to start an  Axis High Command mass resignation because of a GM decision or Vondoosh-led flooding of Allied High Command e-mail addresses that was OK'd by CRS) but this show of overriding control goes against the spirit of the very mechanic that they harp about makes the game unique.

 The battlefield sandbox now has overprotective parents poking into it, telling you what you can and cannot build, it is no longer fully run by the players.

CRS having dictated a campaign outcome has ruined any credibility left in the game there was. It's a slap in the face  to the Allied High Command to dictate how they run their side. It's a slap in the face to the Axis High Command and players to just hand them a win.

If you are curious about this game or High Command, let me tell you right now: Don't subscribe to the game, show them that this meddling will not be tolerated, for non-HC players this means that everything you did in this campaign was literally for naught, as the outcome was going to be predetermined no matter what you did.

It's a disgusting turn of events.

For the last two Axis map wins I had noticed alot of vet Allied players were playing Axis. I thought it was there choice.

Didn't realise some were actually told to play Axis. So what was the deal "play Axis or else?" 

Originally posted by Dam0

For the last two Axis map wins I had noticed alot of vet Allied players were playing Axis. I thought it was there choice.

Didn't realise some were actually told to play Axis. So what was the deal "play Axis or else?" 

The win before 72 was legit as far as I know and I don't know the exact wording of which was used with them as I was not asked. I simply know people were asked to go Axis and, because they actually like the game and the balance of it, did. 

Which of course is great when it happens organically and has before. But when CRS sticks their fingers in it out of fear and mistrust of its userbase, every time somebody prominent switches to the other side will  be questioned about their true motivation. One of the beautiful things about the game is tainted.

Originally posted by Solono

GMs handcuffing Allied map moves, disregarding the chain of the command to allow the Axis to take Ramsgate and march into England.

This situation has officially boiled over, the Allied CinC has been banned from the Teamspeak server and fired by the same GM trying to cover his ass. Other Rats are covering his ass for him and are trying to sweep this under  the rug.

I will reinterate: Do not sub to this game if you want actual player freedom and strategic gameplay because there is none now, the Rats will just force you to do what they want or they'll force you out. You're nothing more than a dog when you're in High Command now as well.

Thats sad if true. But then again this is the problem that arises when you put to much power in to few hands. Though I must admit CRS manipulating there own creation is telling  to some extent . It screams that something is really unhealthy with the game and they know it.

Originally posted by Zbus

Thats sad if true. But then again this is the problem that arises when you put to much power in to few hands. Though I must admit CRS manipulating there own creation is telling  to some extent . It screams that something is really unhealthy with the game and they know it.

The only thing unhealthy with it is their meddling with campaigns outcomes. In all my time in HC there only a couple instances of incompetence and the majority of those were due to inexperience.

The game is extremely unhealthy right now, CRS knows it but their course of action only serves to make it unhealthier by contradicting their own mechanics and rules they laid down then covering it up and taking the extreme route in doing so.

Speaks volumes about how decisions in CRS are made and the noise it makes isn't a pleasant one.

You don't cover something out, go into damage control mode and begin censoring left and right because you have done something right.

Originally posted by Solono

Originally posted by Zbus

Thats sad if true. But then again this is the problem that arises when you put to much power in to few hands. Though I must admit CRS manipulating there own creation is telling  to some extent . It screams that something is really unhealthy with the game and they know it.

The only thing unhealthy with it is their meddling with campaigns outcomes. In all my time in HC there only a couple instances of incompetence and the majority of those were due to inexperience.

The game is extremely unhealthy right now, CRS knows it but their course of action only serves to make it unhealthier by contradicting their own mechanics and rules they laid down then covering it up and taking the extreme route in doing so.

Speaks volumes about how decisions in CRS are made and the noise it makes isn't a pleasant one.

You don't cover something out, go into damage control mode and begin censoring left and right because you have done something right.

I wish I could say I really cared about whats going on in the HC's and the system of play that goes along with it. But being in honest here I cant HC and the AO system are to me a abomination that killed squad play/tactics/orginazation and population in one mighty swing of the Rats hand.

But like I said for the Rats to go out and manipulate the system they forced on so many is a bit disturbing. Anyway dont take my gripes about HC as a insult  Im a supporter of the previous system and large squads so it stands to reason I hate HC and everything it stands for. Im sure you are a good HC type and a great leader but the system has far to few of those to function on even the barest of levels. 

Originally posted by Zbus

But like I said for the Rats to go out and manipulate the system they forced on so many is a bit disturbing. Anyway dont take my gripes about HC as a insult  Im a supporter of the previous system and large squads so it stands to reason I hate HC and everything it stands for. Im sure you are a good HC type and a great leader but the system has far to few of those to function on even the barest of levels. 

I now feel I can empathize more with those who lost the squad-centric system because this seems to give the same feel to a lot of players I've seen and heard post about this disaster. But that aside, whether you like the HC system is another topic of discussion. This would be the same as CRS pressuring certain squads to let the other side win in that set of circumstances: Regardless of the system is a game-killing revelation that it's not in the players control, that CRS can and will meddle in map outcomes.

It does show that, philosophically, CRS probably wants to move to only RA in the future and skuttle the campaign as a whole. That offers them absolute control over everything, something that apparently they want to have now.

Wow Solono - really?

I'm not convinced Solono, unless you're in possession of evidence to the contrary, I'd say you're possibly looking at a sequence of events with a predetermined conspiracy theory and making it fit.

The Community Manager in question doesn't have a good relationship with many Allied players, simply because he's Axis and has a history of clumsy interference, but nothing more sinister than that. And I think I do believe him that his input to the Ramsgate line shift incident was - again - clumsy, rather than biased.

The Allied CinC in question wasn't well equipped to be CinC. Had the HC conveyor belt not been so speeded up by the previous CinC's departure and other retirements and resignations, things would have worked out differently I'm sure.

And as for vet players being asked to go Axis, well, if it's true, maybe its good for the game for veterans to assist the other side from time to time, it's not the first time it's happened. And I doubt whether the offer was 'play Axis or you're banned'.

The downfall of WWIIOL is that it gets the players fired up, and I suggest this incident is evidence of that.

Originally posted by Zanzibar1138

I'm not convinced Solono, unless you're in possession of evidence to the contrary, I'd say you're possibly looking at a sequence of events with a predetermined conspiracy theory and making it fit.

The Community Manager in question doesn't have a good relationship with many Allied players, simply because he's Axis and has a history of clumsy interference, but nothing more sinister than that. And I think I do believe him that his input to the Ramsgate line shift incident was - again - clumsy, rather than biased.

The Allied CinC in question wasn't well equipped to be CinC. Had the HC conveyor belt not been so speeded up by the previous CinC's departure and other retirements and resignations, things would have worked out differently I'm sure.

And as for vet players being asked to go Axis, well, if it's true, maybe its good for the game for veterans to assist the other side from time to time, it's not the first time it's happened. And I doubt whether the offer was 'play Axis or you're banned'.

 

The downfall of WWIIOL is that it gets the players fired up, and I suggest this incident is evidence of that.

1) Again, this information was learned through asking a lot of questions to a lot of different people, I did not predetermine anything. I am not going to cite because a lot of the players still actually play the game and would probably not appreciate being outed, not very fair to them given the circumstances.

2) The GM in question has pissed off people on both with his meddling and inappropriate behavior. And nothing more sinister? I know people who disagree, mainly because they were direct witnesses to the very events that led to the fiasco.

3) Of course an interesting hypothetical.

4) Never alluded to that, as I said I don't know the details. I just know some were, the exact language, as I said, is unknown to me but I doubt it was done in a threatening manner. Yes, it is good for the game, it's the best thing an individual player can do, however, asking people to do so is just sticking fingers in the pie: It's naturally beautiful but you wreck it when you try to force it.

5) WWIIOL isn't special in that respect, anything someone or a group cares about will get people fired up. It's bad decisions, poor gauging of the PB, poor utilization of their own userbase to promote the game and legendarily bad marketing skills. 

Also, since you want evidence, here is evidence, all names and indicators of the squads mentioned are removed to prevent nonsense:

"The episode was thad allied had won 3 maps in a row and the next map started slow. After a few very well done allied operations the map rolled east and the map looked like a clear 4th win. What made me start wondering was when Monchen Gladbach with its factories was set up for the final assault... but then nothing happened. I remember squads and players begging for AO on MG but all I saw was silence. The allied advance stalled and I thing we sat at MG for about 1 week with no AO. Allied general morale/activity dropped and axis finaly started to move west and ended up winning the campaign. I found the lack of AO on MG most suspicious and got it confirmed while I was in [squad]: AHC was forbidden to put a AO on MG."

It is not directly related to 72 but it does show that it is nothing new.

Originally posted by Zanzibar1138
I've been in this game a while and have been at a reasonably high level and I'm sorry but I have to doubt that MG scenario you're reporting. My experiences with CRS just don't support that kind of direct instruction, and anyway it would be impossible to control across the TZ and various Map Officers. It's not doable without leaving some kind of evidence trail, either emails or PMs. I'm sure your source may have believed it to be true, but I can almost guarantee it wasn't.

They could not control events like that.

The two sources of that particular report( The person themself and the squad) aren't people who pull things out of thin air, especially the squad. I find it extremely unlikely that the squad who told him that fabricated any way shape or form.

So your seeing a cessation in front of MG as a deliberate attempt by CRS to nerf the Allied side?

Originally posted by Stug

So your seeing a cessation in front of MG as a deliberate attempt by CRS to nerf the Allied side?

Has nothing to do with sides.

I don't like HC because they are abysmal tacticians, so nobody follows them.  They think they can come in from Counter Strike or a real life military and actually be effective, uhhh no.

..probably because Nerf HC is about being a good logistician as much as a tactician.

Originally posted by Stug

..probably because Nerf HC is about being a good logistician as much as a tactician.

 

They are no better at logistics than they are tactics stug. In fact they pretty much suck all the way around. Wait thats not true there good at spamming p1 spawn spawn spawn

Originally posted by Stug

..probably because Nerf HC is about being a good logistician as much as a tactician.

 

there....is....no.....logistics

moving around flags is checkers, not logistics.  Logistics is.....Logistics!

So much false information in this thread it will be difficult to address all of them but I'll try.  Let me address Campaign 72 and the CinC issue first.  Since the position was created only two CinC's were relieved mid-campaign. Only two.  That should be a pretty good indication that 95% of the CinC's do a great job for the community.  It should also demonstrate that when we are forced to relieve a CinC there are good reasons for it.  It's true that sometimes we allow a CinC only one campaign but in most of those cases the CinC has to retire for personal reasons.

An individual GM doens't have the authority to fire a CinC.  This type of decision is made by all six members of the Game Management Team and only after long discussion.  That procedure was followed in this case.

During Campaign 72 a GM did have to step in and make some brigade moves but that was done as a result of some rather panicked moves.  Control was handed over to an HC officer as soon as one was found that was willing to take the map. CRS didn't want an axis win.  We don't care who wins.   

Not sure what this censure thing is all about but all players are bound by our terms of service.  Often a member of the Gods of War is exposed to confidential information and is asked not to share it but that's about it. 

Switching sides.  CRS doesn't aske or tell any player to switch sides.  Sometime they let us know they are but we don't encourage or discourage them.  They have the freedom to chose whatever side they want with not interference from us.

The removal of the CinC wasn't swept under the rug.  The reasons for his removal was providied by every member of the Allied High Command.  Some disagreed with the decision and that's fine but it was our decision to make.  Unfortunately we had to make it.  Nobody is covering for anybody. 

RA.  There are no plans replace campaign play with RA.  We've publically stated that that's not the case.  Ah, rumors.

If you are curious about the game then try it out for yourself.