Forums

  1. COMMUNITY SUPPORT

    1. COMMUNITY TECH & BILLING SUPPORT

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

      110,484
      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.

      821
      posts
  2. QUALITY ASSURANCE

    1. TESTING AND BUG REPORTING

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

      45,295
      posts
  3. DISCUSSIONS

    1. 696
      posts
    2. GENERAL DISCUSSION

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

      30,718
      posts
    3. PLAYER AWARDS

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

      626
      posts
    4. FREE PLAY SUPPORT AND INFO

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

      1,564
      posts
    5. GAME IDEAS / SUGGESTIONS

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

      10,866
      posts
    6. SPECIAL EVENT FORUM

      WWII Online special events.

      9,841
      posts
    7. 4,473
      posts
    8. MINI-CONS

      Listing of player hosted Mini-cons

      630
      posts
    9. WAR STORIES

      Player-written stories from the virtual battlefield

      2,825
      posts
    10. SQUAD RECRUITMENT

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

      50,700
      posts
    1. Squads

      Player created squads

      18
      Squads
  • Upcoming Events

  • Posts

    • Tow a few ATG's along with the truck to protect the FMS.
    • Just yesterday I was personally involved in a battle on a planet involving ships, vehicles, and infantry.  It seems to me that the interplay between the three is now modeled given that I took part in the action.  What you are talking about isn't that difficult to model.  Many games do it already.  Many better than WWIIOL in fact.  Many games have much better hit feed back, ballistics, and graphics with a combined arms setting.  What WWIIOL has going for it in theory is scale and a persistent campaign.  But given the current game population, most PUBG servers are more populated than the scale map of Europe in WWIIOL so it's kind of a moot point to speak of scale anyway.    If Chris Roberts meshes the servers and creates an MMO,  he will have done it on a massive scale with much better graphics and far more features than WWIIOL.  Persistence of objects for example being one of the biggest SC is attempting to achieve.  I can leave and object, say an unmanned ship, on a planet and it will stay in the persistent universe until it's destroyed or someone moves it again.  When is the last time you left an unmanned 88 in the field and came back the next day an manned it again in WWIIOL?  The fact is that WWIIOL has a much simpler world than SC in terms of that type of persistence.  Everything is either extremely time limited or has no type of unmanned persistence at all.  Again, there is no real comparison between what the two games are doing.  WWIIOL's aging engine just won't stack up if Chris Roberts pulls it off.   
    • This. Can't be bothered to coordinate with a tank or ATG team to keep the FMS clear?   THEN DIE STUPID.
    • I disagree about your characterization of interaction.  I'm not talking about jumping in and out of vehicles, plenty of arena games do that already.  I'm talking about the frame of reference problem where ships that can shoot at inf that can shoot at ground vehicles that can shoot at ships and they are all on the same area.  SC planet and station fights will require this. Jumping in and out of vehicles is not fighting. Most of the time the play will be out in 'space', computationally a far simpler thing as all you have to do is manage displaying and calculating other ships' image and position accurately,  That's one frame of reference, operating at ship speed/distance.  Ships in SC are functionally equivalent to our planes, both in relative speeds and maneuver.  But mixed interaction is going to be very difficult and WWIIOL's engine already does it. Yes, the art assets are reused in WWIIOL.  Price of no stutter/load. I think Chris Roberts' isn't going to get it done, but that's another discussion level.  The relevant point here is that doing what WWIIOL does and SC is trying to do is not trivial and amenable to 'just switching to another engine' approaches, and does require a lot of resources to get the combined arms fidelity we have come to expect.
    • In my experience the dividing line with the mle34 has been about 300m for a good chance at success for 30mm armor flanks. The 4D has 20mm in which you can kill at about 500m.  IIRC the StugG has 20mm lower flank armor so a fuel shot will burn him. Its like sticking a needle in a pin cushion so accuracy and knowledge of what to hit is paramount.
    • Harder to do in a Stug but it's very rewarding
    • Kinda like this . Just sub the Matilds Tank for the Russian Tank.     There are 2 things that speak for the PnzJgr1  and it doesn't matter that ei can kill them easy , I give you the Laffy15 ( been using it with success so I don't see why the PnzJgr1 would be much different,  in the hands of any Stug player it be a deadly weapon. ) and the M10 both Allied both killable by Axis EI . 
    • True. It's even possible that the 88s  had zero Matilda kills there, and all of them were by the 105 battery. We do know from the corps battle journal that the 105 battery saved the day. It was commanded by a very junior leutnant, fresh from OCS, who correctly evaluated from troops running away in the streets the panic due to the British tank attack, and in the absence of all the other officers who were at a staff meeting across town, took the initiative to order the artillery unit to load up and follow him to what turned out to be a perfect flanking-fire location at the edge of town. We also know that the 88 battery deployed at one side of a field on that side of town was a Luftwaffe unit detailed to Army...not Wehrmacht and attached to Rommel's division...and was deployed and prepared to provide high altitude AA fire. That fact explains why that unit's officers and men were all in their trenches as British MG bullets whizzed around and the tanks advanced across the field toward the AA guns. Per training and orders, dealing with enemy tanks wasn't a Luftwaffe AA unit's job. Rommel and his adjutant ran to that unit through that MG fire to get the unit to go into action whether they wanted to or not; Rommel's adjutant took an MG bullet through the chest and died on the spot, and Rommel ended up pinned down by the tank MG fire. Maybe some of the 88s went into action, but maybe not. The story that it was the 88s was German propaganda, created in 1941, long after the actual battle. We don't know what part of that story was true. We do know that the British, during and after the battle, didn't understand that the 105s were firing AP at them, and in the confusion and smoke thought their progressive tank losses were due to the 88s. We also know that the Germans later recognized from Afrika Korps prisoner interrogations that the British had developed a substantial fear of the 88mm. The German propaganda may have been just a clever management of the enemy's perceptions of the earlier battle to increase that British fear.    
  • Popular Contributors