Forums

  1. COMMUNITY SUPPORT

    1. COMMUNITY TECH & BILLING SUPPORT

      Players Helping Players. Windows & Mac trouble shooting in here. Billing Support contact forum.

      111,018
      posts
    2. GAMEPLAY SUPPORT/TRAINING

      Tips and Tricks to make you a machine of warfare in WWII Online. This is where your gameplay questions will be answered.

      983
      posts
  2. QUALITY ASSURANCE

    1. TESTING AND BUG REPORTING

      Repository for reports from pre-release testing and live game bugs.

      46,414
      posts
  3. DISCUSSIONS

    1. 925
      posts
    2. 1.36 (HYBRID SUPPLY)

      1.36 (Hybrid Supply), the return of town based supply (garrisons) on the frontline with moveable brigades. Any and all questions and discussions can be discussed here.

      909
      posts
    3. SQUAD RECRUITMENT

      Squads are the backbone of the game - JOIN UP! Axis & Allied squads who are currently recruiting.

      50,922
      posts
    4. GENERAL DISCUSSION

      General discussion for all players of WWII Online. Includes Premium, Starters and Free Players.

      42,077
      posts
    5. PLAYER AWARDS

      Player to Player awards! Whether you're Allied or Axis, check this forum to see who has been recognized for outstanding effort!

      970
      posts
    6. FREE PLAY SUPPORT AND INFO

      New to Battleground Europe? Here's a great place to learn more. (trial or premium subscription required)

      1,682
      posts
    7. GAME IDEAS / SUGGESTIONS

      Help us make WWII Online better with your ideas / suggestions!

      13,114
      posts
    8. SPECIAL EVENT FORUM

      WWII Online special events.

      9,853
      posts
    9. 4,489
      posts
    10. MINI-CONS

      Listing of player hosted Mini-cons

      634
      posts
    11. WAR STORIES

      Player-written stories from the virtual battlefield

      2,861
      posts
    1. Squads

      Player created squads

      21
      Squads
  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Posts

    • Let's get this drilled into everyon'e wonky noggins.   GAME.  Using SIM ACCURATE EQUIPMENT.  To PLAY A GAME OF WWII EQUIPMENT COMBINED ARMS COMBAT.   It's NEVER GONNA BE LIKE THE REAL THING.  EVER.   Best we can do is use shortcuts and a bit of theatrical misdirection to get a FEEL of WWII combined arms combat, not recreate it.
    • The GPS and universal comms and data sharing make this a sci fi game, might as well dump the ww2 weapons, and make scifi weapons where we get no more complaints about balance, because they can simply make up balanced units, and give the UP side cool super blasters to make up for lack of numbers. Adding fog of war makes the game better, not worse. Ninja caps go away by not allowing them in the first place. That's an arbitrary game mechanic that can be changed... arbitrarily. Make it take 5 guys to cap. Make EWS more specific (we are after all serially representing just a handful of hundreds of guys presumably deployed in and around town---EWS is not magic, it's what the guys in the outpost we don;t have are telling us they see (if they have a radio/telephone), or saw (if they sent a runner). If the capture mechanics required linked facilities, and on-sides spawning, then we have a better sens e of where the enemy is. If AI someplace is shooting (or just blown), then missions near that AI should float to the top (or be auto created for defense---you're asleep in the barracks, then you hear MG fire). Fog of war helps because you can set up a defensive position, or offensive base of fire, or even an ATG or tank, and not instantly have the position marked with accuracy for instant removal.
    • Who cares who wins? Everything resets and you know what? You get to do the same war with sitting in the same building with a flag on it all over again. Time to stop worrying about the mentality of winning and losing a game that has little competitive parameters. This is a simulation. It's about the battle, not the war. If your side is losing, you can't control it unless you play 24/7 and dictate who plays what side. Why for the love of God does everyone make a big deal about winning or losing a map that lasts weeks or months just to feel good about winning a map that has no reward or progression system? Just play whatever side you want. I for one only play axis. I prefer to play German equipment in every game I play. I think allied side is boring. That's just my preference. In turns out that most the axis dedicated players have always been more skilled on average in this game than your average allied player. That's just how it happened when this game hit the shelves. No need to quit playing or change sides just to even the amount of times a side wins or loses. Most of all, changing the effectiveness of equipment with the objective of side balance should not be happening either. This has nothing to do with my side bias. If I was an allied player, I would be equally disgusted if I could be invincible in a Matilda or fly a bomber that takes more hits than a tank. It's a simulation. Not an e-sports match. I think that a lot of the vets being dedicated to axis throughout the history of this game is purely in spite of the fact that it's the harder side to play.  That or, they are like me and are complete wehraboos. More experienced and better organized squads rolled the map in early wars on the axis side? The reaction was to nerf rather than improve the gameplay. That was the mentality of early CRS. They thought that the allies winning more campaigns would make for a better gaming experience. But in return, it angered the player base over the years and has pushed people away because you are not simulating battles realistically, you are just trying to please people who get caught up on a trivial aspect of the game. My fond memories back in the early day was being a rifleman in the open terrain with Section II and staying alive for hours, I really never cared about winning or losing the map. I just logged on to have fun with my squad and employ good tactics when I played.  Several years ago when XOOM took the helm, I had hoped that direction of side balance would change to improving the immersion and simulation of the game, but I'm not really sure the direction has changed. But it's not over yet, the mindset can still change and we can make it happen. Just need to flip the script and be our own game instead of trying to compete with games we can't compete with. I really do feel for the current CRS. As someone who thinks in the real world of business and marketing, I know it's rough. I am very thankful to all the hard work and labor of love the volunteer staff puts into the game as well as the subscribers and builders that support it. I know negativity comes out more than praises, but hey we are men with testosterone in our blood and we are playing a game packed with adrenaline. Anger is usually our first emotion. I just think that CRS as a whole going back to the early days lost sight of how to captivate the magic of this game. I mean, Post Scriptum is a beautiful and competitive version of this game on a small scale, but if you look at their servers, they are hurting in population themselves. There just ins't a big market for hardcore WW2 FPS. Hell Let Loose pretty much betrayed their backers and are trying to make it even more casual so far to attract that battlefield crowd. People cried that they had to walk too far, so they added more spawn points. People cried that there were too many objectives, so they made it linear. People cried that suppression was too much, so they made it non-existent. Gamers like us are just a dying breed. You gotta go against the grain and just embrace it. Be your own game. Let the soy boys play their fortnite.  The grand strategy of pushing the map is just meant to roleplay the immersion of tactical play directed by a given strategic situation when the player logs into the game. Yeah it was pretty fun when I played HC. It was fun to move flags around and simulate armchair general in a way. But even that has taken a step back. Now this garrison system has made it even more stale in terms of being a high command officer. If I joined HC, what would I do? Switch an AO and sit in a building with a flag on it. When I can't capture that building with a flag on it fast enough, I just change the AO hoping to rush a different building with a flag on it quicker than the defender is able to react. Most the time it just comes down to a zerg rush mentality and spawn camping. Like I said, the current objective system is more fulfilling on other game titles than this. But, it's the scale of the game and the fundamental system of a sense of realism that gives us an advantage. It just needs to be improved upon and made the focus.  Honestly, winning or losing the war has no effect on my ability to get out there and have fun. I mean, look at the German operations of Citadel and the Watch on the Rhine or the allied operations of Overlord and Market Garden. Germany was already fighting a losing battle, but these battles that happened late war are some of the most fascinating and fun experiences to simulate. When the map is almost over and you are defending one of the last german towns with a panzershrek trying to kill as many shermans as possible, it's like you are some volkgrenadier somewhere on the Siegfried line just prolonging the inevitable. You likely won't win the map, and who cares? But you are playing and fighting a fun simulation. At least that's how I think of it. Yes I'm a competitive gamer. You put me in a match of Post Scriptum or Hell Let Loose, yeah I'm going to try to win. But those are timed matches with sensible parameters and the battle only lasts a couple of hours at most. They are different games than this. WW2OL can never be those games. It's not meant to be those games.  We could focus more on just having fun battles and simulating them if we abandoned this stale objective system and made the game more about tactical situations rather than giving a damn about who wins or loses.  But who am I kidding? Even if anyone agrees with some of the points I've made, the ship has probably sailed and from a developmental standpoint, making changes now is probably impossible. CRS does what CRS does and the rivalry and endless bickering over who wins the maps will probably never end until the server shuts down for good. I'll still continue on. I'll get emotional, praise the good, rant about the bad, and contemplate whether to play or not on a daily basis. I just hope that whatever keeps the game alive and enjoyable is found because yall are okay in my book whatever the outcome. It's just a game. 
    • No, but the defenders were not asleep in their beds, waiting for the enemy to show upin the barracks to decide to leave the building. Your notion of surprise is perfectly correct as long as every single unit in a ww2ol spawn list is on the battlefield (meaning in the game now, manned by a player), waiting for combat in every area it is deployed.
    • Or the spawn lists could not let people spawn what they want all the time. Standard units until 1943 had 1 SMG per section/gruppe. In 43 the Germans moved to 2-3 SMG/gruppe, UK rifle sections stayed the same (1 bren, 9 rifles). French were 1 MG, 11 rifles (1 a grenadier), but anythign after summer '40 is counterfactual, so I'd let them change to 1 SMG, 1 LMG, 8 rifles, 1 gren as a standard squad. US never had SMGs as standard equipment, it was 1 BAR, the rest M1s (3 had grenade projectors which were easy to move, so all could have that capability as an option). The extra units would be in specific platoons within a company, some might have 1 sniper per platoon, other platoons might have a mortar squad. Front lines != trenches. It means elements operating in the field, deployed in intelligent, defensive positions (or for offensive action, offensive, jumping off positions). Most combat was done during the daytime, so the units would bed down where they were (foxholes, or wherever they could find a place to sleep) with people on guard just in case. That is what the "front lines" were. Were they a few hundred meters from each other everywhere? No. Would they always be centered on towns? Mostly, yeah, but more because that's where the roads and RR stations were (meaningless in ww2ol, sadly). The big problem is that just like the towns, the terrain is globally to porous to everything. Forests you can zoom through at max truck speed, all the time, sans roads. No real terrain imitations at all. So units deployed in the field would be more discrete than a ww1 front, but within the places they were, would be more what we think of as lines. So miles between units, sure, but along the ways that the enemy could drive? Many would have men dug in, even if just for the night. That's what we are getting at, temporary positions, not trenches. Massing of forces that are actually out in the world. For real maneuver warfare, much more thought needed to be put into the roads (we need many, many more of them), and what units can use the roads. Logistics also matters, if things are going to move fast, logistics needs to be a thing, but the game doesn't care about bridges, and they are also far, far, far too easy to rebuild. Maybe this can fix some of the OP issues. 1. Bridges stay down unless a side holds both sides for some long time period (real life days). Alternately, fixing them requires a HUGE PPO (it can look like parked rows and rows of trucks, and it takes XX truck-hours to rebuild, and killing trucks means you need to build a new PPO) near the bridge be maintained for some large number of hours---reset if it gets bombed out (and not that hard to kill). 2. If a side can run around past real units (make garrisons smaller), that's fine, but their supply can't catch up, and then the players have to manually drive trucks forward to resupply units (from a few towns back). Not just 1 truck and warping, like figure out how many trucks it would take to move a ww2ol brigade as a reference. Have the trucks actually then each contain X% of what they are moving, and if destroyed, it's lost. OP side then at least needs to have guys do chores to move forward at high speed (and a few aircraft can then harm that in a non-trivial way). 3. Because bridges are hard to replace, blowing a bridge matters. It can stop the enemy advancing for Allies, but makes counterattack very hard. 4. Obviously FRUs go away, because you can't swim across a river and spawn an army out of your butt.      
    • Why strive to make the game less accessible and fun? This is a game for pleasure/fun, not a chore. Guarding etc is bad enough without adding the inability to know where your team are and where the enemy is. You want to see more ninja town caps? Get rid of marks etc and only let squad COs and HC communicate. Sheesh it is herding cats to get peeps to spawn on D or AO as it is, you think they will obey orders and just sit and cover their assigned section of town like good little soldiers? You think squads will get off discord and not jump to other channels to share intelligence?  The allies have enough communication issues (and so do the axis) without it being hard coded. We dont need this GAME to become even more hard work and unpopular with the subscribers that are left paying and praying it continues to survive.   Ian 
    • Or we could just have all the units activated and not have to jump off the depot roof until we got SMGs back into supply? 
    • That was WWI not The Battle of France 1940. The campaign we supposedly are fighting was one of maneuver and rapid action, and it starts after the breaching of the Dutch and Belgian frontiers, there were no static lines and strategic bombing. The static lines in France were bypassed hence we fight in Holland and Belgium, pushing down into Lux and N France. The initiative rested with the attacker, and they did not send a message to the defenders; " I say old boy, how about we fight this morning at 10:30AM? Will that give your chaps long enough to have had their breakfast and positioned their ATGs? It will. Oh super!"  After the initial Axis assault and breach of the frontiers, the allies were in an almost constant state of disorder, re-positioning sometimes several times a day, and always going back towards the next river and the channel in the BEF case and towards N France for the AoF. Battalions within the same brigades had no idea where their sister units were, never mind their higher echelon HQs and support units. They did not retreat a town or village at a time, they pulled back from one outmaneuvered riverline to the next. IIRC the Matildas fought just one action, it was "a draw", but they were once again outmanouvered to their N ans S, and the British retreated abandoning the few Matildas that had survived the action. This is a game not a recreation of actual combat. I doubt many would want to "play" a game where you spend hours terrified, witnessing the death and horrendous injury to your brothers, images that will never leave you. This is a GAME not real warfare, and you are not real warriors so give up claiming it isnt "realistic". Of course it isnt.   Ian 
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      ian77
      ian77
      25
    2. 2
    3. 3
    4. 4
    5. 5
      choad
      choad
      20
    6. 6
    7. 7
      Capco
      Capco
      15
    8. 8
      XOOM
      XOOM
      14
    9. 9
    10. 10