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


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


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



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


    1. 1,059
    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.


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


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


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


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


      WWII Online special events.

    8. 4,494
    9. MINI-CONS

      Listing of player hosted Mini-cons


      Player-written stories from the virtual battlefield

    1. Squads

      Player created squads

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Posts

    • Short memories here the map back in February-april was only moving in lowpop for weeks at a time with an occasional town cap here and there in euro and us tzs because offense minded players get frustrated with the sheer amount of players who are sitting at light ews do’s and were not helping or even participating on setting and sustaining ao’s/ was ugly and i dont think its a good idea to get back to more defense and less fog of war
    • If sustainability was commonplace in regards to real zoc’s then i wouldnt mind a change to ews but with people rushing to defense at the slightest hint of ews the game will be come stale and boring with light ews on the aos while both sides wait for the other to get lucky on a spawn cap or do a good para mission which is definitely not common....if we cant set an ms within 1k without defense getting a headstart then your just feeding the camp monster
    • While I confess to not being online much one thing I think would be useful would be the ability for mission leaders to be able to limit the troop types or numbers used for a specific mission. allow an experienced mission leader prevent valuable units from being burnt on a camped defense or a mission just to do a fb bust that only needs a handful of units and some support.  this does have potential to be abused but if default missions have no restrictions would allow some limited control. A more radical and potentially dangerous option would be to allow missions to be locked to squads or specific people. while i think this would be nice i could see too many people being cut out and not in the best interest of the game. People like myself that are in a fairly quiet squad would often not be able to join the more active squads missions unless you could add multiple squads. The aim of this is to get reliable teams for complex missions that require coordination or compliance.   Back to mission tags if you can add a comment that is visible that states for people to group up and wait for minimum numbers or other more complex instructions. defend the building, defend the direction. approach from the tree line. watch for the x. if these are too cluttered on the screen a highlight or asterisk that show there is more the the comment map note. I do like the idea to make deaths more meaning full however the downside of this would be people that play grunts like myself that get mowed down by tank machine guns on a regular basis would be down graded and people that park in said tanks could float to the top in the ranks. Do we really want armoured to be in charge. I have cited tanks as an example however you could apply this to other classes.  you could balance it with equipment types after looking at the statistics.  
    • We'll cross that road when it's time that we have AI columns to work with. As I said in the Rat Chat, we are HUGE fans of AI columns for shipping as an example to simulate lend-lease/resupply / RDP efforts from USA to England. I think that would greatly promote naval warfare by having a real incentive.
    •  We gave waypoints on our maps.   I don't think we need them in the game environment too.
    • Points. Here's an old idea related to ML tools, missions actually being a thing, really (since they are not now, most times, just spawn points). The entire rank system should be scrapped. Old timers want to have their officer ranks, etc for the forums? Sure, whatever. Make the ranks matter more, and make the way to rank up earning points. Not points you build up forever (what we have now), but points that either drop to zero when you die, or take a large hit when you die (lesser hit when you MIA, even lesser hit with a RES, no hit RTB). Say everyone starts a Pvt (most militaries had ~5-6 enlisted ranks). HC people can be commissioned officers, but any given spawn which might change (2dLt, Lt, Cap, Maj, LtCol, Col). In both sets of ranks, you start at the bottom, and you gain points for capping, kills, guarding, etc. Reward what we want with more points. Related to ML tools, officers/noncoms who use the ML tools get some points (reward using the tools you just made). People also get added points for doing what the ML tools suggest. If you set a target as a CP, then they get points for capping/guarding that (as they would any CP), but they get extra because their mission says to. Maybe the Pvt and Pfcs get rifles, grenadiers, mortars, to pick from, Pfcs add LMG, ATR. CPLs add SMGs and sappers. Sgts add engies and snipers (I'm making all this up, some leveling to get more rare stuff is the basic idea). Maybe all can crew a vehicle, or drive a truck or use the basic ATG. Other vehicles, etc have a rank requirement to spawn. When you get killed, you lose a substantial number of points, such that you can get busted a few ranks. The system would allow excess points, however. So if you ranked up into Master Sgt, and had loads of excess points, you might be able to die a few times and still be a Sgt. The penalties for death matter at some level. The idea is some sense of rank in the game (anyone with a higher rank than you has at least lived longer in a streak recently than you have, so follow them!), but not have the penalties too draconian. Maybe a ML power could scale to rank as well. let a ML give "attaboys" to people, instead of "gj" in chat, you do .gj jwrona, and the chat shows "gj" and jwrona gets a number of points scaled to the rank of the ML. Not enough to rank anyone, but a bonus. Another ML power could be to open some weapons to lower ranks. Sgt Major @jwrona makes a FB bust, and since he's a max rank noncom, he can free X engies for his mission (and the beleaguered town they are trying to save only has those engies, because pvts could not spawn the few engies to get slaughtered in the AB since they lacked the rank). HC people would have similar spawn limits, but with officer rank instead of enlisted rank, but they get access to everything at a lower step as a perk for being in HC (say they get everything by Cap or Maj). Tying all this to ML tools in some way (more points for the same action in a mission, vs doing what you want) strengthens the use of the tools. Might also spread out the availability of desirable kit.
    • The coming waypoint technology, providing recommended destinations and reference locations for human players, is a good development. Could a similar technology be used to provide required sequential destinations for NPO objects? For instance, a series of waypoints could provide a course for an AI freighter that would deliver coal from the River Tyne mouth to a port near Greater London, or deliver iron ore from the map edge nearest Narvik, Norway to Bremerhaven or some other port in northwest Germany. Modified towing code could turn that course-guided freighter into a convoy, with other freighters and escorts following.
    • Say the AO rules were modified as I suggest (relative balance of attacking vs defending forces is matched to OP status). Also, the smaller Garrisons. The BDEs still matter more, which is the HC problem @delems just mentioned. I suppose squads of a certain size could be simply given a BDE (or more than one). The allowable number of AOs would always be decent, because since most towns just have Garrison forces, if you are 3:1 OP, all you need to do is find a town linked to 3 towns to attack. Perhaps all towns available for AO at a given moment are an alternate color, and the player pop can simply vote on AOs (else the server picks one that is allowed, randomly). Ie: you have a dot command like overrun, .AOv Sedan (v for vote). Friendly chat gets a spam asking if that AO is OK, then chat .y or .n (assuming that is possible). It counts submitted yes vs no, so anyone ignoring it doesn't care.
  • Popular Contributors