lemkeh

Registered Users
  • Content count

    361
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Green Tag

About lemkeh

  • Rank
    Advance Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
    Army
  • Preferred Unit

Recent Profile Visitors

701 profile views
  1. With a subheading - Capturable bridges. As I wrote in the previous topic “Engineers' missions” LINK about the high cost of such an asset as a bridge, the question may arise, what can the high value of bridges give to the game? And i can give a simple answer - the gameplay. But i will try to explain more. As you could understand from the subheading, i talk about capturing of the bridges, what might add to the game much more different gameplay, than their simple destructing (what too sometimes might to happen, by serious reasons). But how to make such capturing more interesting to participants? You need to make it more complex. I suggest a such scheme - at both ends of bridge will be a sentry's Box. With road blocks on the road bridge and signs on the rail bridge. Now, in these boxes will be AI-sentinels. I understand that many is against adding new AI. But who have been in the Army and at times also as a sentinel, knows that this is a very boring job. You can't compare it even with guarding a CP, because in CP is high chance, that someone will come and try to kill you. But you know how many are in the game the bridges? There will be much less chances to see any visible movement, not to mention an attack to a specific bridge (which could be bypassed by the enemy during advance somewhere else). How i see this AI-sentinel. He would be a man with a rifle, with a bayonet attached. Also he should wear a greatcoat. Most of time he would be in a sentry box (guard shack). When he are in this box, he will be invisible from outside. Here he would be in relative safety. How? Because in situation of an overwhelming danger, he can (supposedly) hide in a bunker, which you can see on 1-st picture. What isn't unusual. That's mean, air attack can't kill him, if he are in this box (shack). Also you can't kill him, shooting from afar, through doorway. He (supposedly) can sleep, semi lying in one corner (which too isn't unusual..). But of course you can kill him, when he are outside of the box. He may be a little tougher than players, but one rifle bullet in the head or two bullet in the torso should kill him. His movement (visible) would be very limited. He could have move out of the box and move again in to the box, no moving over the bridge or around. But would be good, if he would be capable to shoot from standing position, from kneeling and from lying position, depending by situation. On 2nd picture you see its possible shooting area. Of course, he cannot see 360 degrees at the same time. There is needed some solution, where he will see on 90 degree at one time (as example), and that might change on clockwise or counterclockwise every 1-2 minutes. From box he will see less, but not much less, i suppose. As you have read, he would be a rifleman. I guess a better than average rifleman. Not a sniper, and even not a marksman, but nevertheless. I guess, the trigger to turn him to be alerted, will be something 500 meters for infantry and 800 meters for armor. In case of the armor it will be simple (it's very visible, noisy, more distinguishable, and very danger) he will give immediately alarm to bunker (by field phone), and in bunker is sitting (supposedly) a supporting platoon. That's mean, here will be opened mission with spawning in the bunker, where the players can to spawn, to have to play role of this "supportive platoon". Also this alarm will sended to the HC (or to OiC or to the squad leader or who else will be responsible for this territory and the bridge). Who can then give order (missions) to air players, to attack this armor. In case of the infantry, this need to be more tricky. He's unsure, whom he see. The time between being alerted by infantry and to the time of sending alarm must be delayed. Maybe something around 2 minutes (with shooting it may be shorter). But of course, he must act. After being alerted, he will quit from a shack and aim the rifle at assumed enemies, with with a loud order to stop. If they don't stop or they will open fire, he begin shoot them. You have not forgotten, that on one bridge will be two sentinels? As you see, a task of eliminating of two sentinels and preventing of large spawning from bunker will be very hard. Involving of at least two good snipers will a little simplify this task. But even then, a battle is almost inevitable. But that's what the infantry and armor are for. This don't prevent a large group from capturing a bridge, but can prevent to do this to a small group if they don't play very cunningly. What isn't unusual. Why such intricacy? If you were watched the movement of hands, you already understand, where I'm going. Yes, we have paratroopers in the game. Such tasks is for them. Also they have ability to land on both sides of river and attack both sentinels at same time. That's great advantage. Can a sentinel see their landing? Of course, if they are already on the bridge. And he wll begin to shoot them. If they are yet in air, then i am not sure (maybe when he will be outside of shack). But what will alert him for sure, it will be an airplane, what will fly low. And he will alarm the bunker , HC and whom else. Therefore the pilot of airplane, who want to aid the paratroopers to accomplished mission of capturing of the bridge, will be fly high, something over 1500 meters and in cloudy weather only over clouds ( i don't remember which weather system is currently in game). Which might to make this mission more difficult, but at same time more interesting and demanding of skill. As a rough example, there might be mission of capturing the bridge with two airplanes, in first plane would be a scout (or small team of scouts), who lands firstly, but on some distance from the bridge. And he (they) will begin to watch at bridge by using the binocular (to see, is here someone besides sentinels or not). If not, he will give this information (by presumable radio station) to second airplane, who flies around here and wait a good moment. But even for them it shouldn't be so simple. Where's hidden a trick? In the bunkers..They wouldn't be only as place to (supposed) hiding of a sentinel from the aerial bombing. And the places to spawn to "bridge guarding team". But they would be also places to make "inspection missions". What is that? In my vison they would be so - any player in officer rank from side of the bridge owner can do an inspection mission (though maybe is needed that players, who want to make such mission, should to play during a campaign only on one side). How this mission will look? Officer will be spawn in one bunker and will make a walk over bridge to another bunker. If here is nothing strange, he will quit from mission and mission will be accomplished. His gamename stay in log. But if there is something strange, or is there an attack on the bridge, he can raise the alarm and die like a hero. A little bit about the bunkers. As you see on 1-st and 2-nd pictures, they will laid relatively close to the bridges. Also their doors (doorways) will be always pointed to the bridge. Why? That's mean, doorway are under control of sentinel. Second. If bunker on one bank are captured by enemy, that mean, you don't own anymore this bridge (owning a bridge implies owning both ends of the bridge). Therefore your main interest (as owner of the bridge), will be defeat attacks of enemy, which come from outside. Also as you see, around bunkers will be some anti-tank obstacles and barbed wire. On 3rd picture you see approximate layout of inside. The main point is, that from doorway you can't shoot and kill who freshly spawns (there will not be the direct view from doorway to spawn). This green pentagram will be a place to spawn. And this red dot will be a spawning switch. If enemy's soldiers reach this point, then spawning function in this bunker to owner soldiers is disabled. But in another bunker they can spawn. How long...there is needed a trigger, because if you lost one end of bridge, that mean you isn't anymore an owner of bridge. Now, bunker, what were captured by enemy, will become to a no-man's-bunker (what belong to nobody, and where nobody can't spawn). After some time, if defender don't capture this bunker again, whole bridge become a no-man's-bridge, with all its consequences. If attacking side will captured both bunkers, then there is needed some time to become as owner of the bridge. And on 4rth pic you can see a possible appearance of these bunkers. I haven't touched one theme, how you can destroy your own bridge, if there is serious reason for this. This might be tricky. Because if this bridge belongs to you, then your soldiers guard it, defend it. You can't just bomb it into ruins with them. That would mean a tribunal. Also not all bridges were mined by defenders. That isn't so foolproof solution. There might happened accidents, or enemy's saboteurs can use these explosives. OT. IIRC, i read somewhere, that during invasion in Low Countries Germans paratroopers was at least once capable to extinguish a match cord, which was set in fire by the bridge defenders. But then again, not all bridges were mined. Therefore i guess, if you are a commander, who are responsible for that bridge, and you have serious reasons to destroy it, then firstly you need to evacuate own people from there. You will make a mission or give order, to evacuate the sentinels (and supposedly also the guard platoons) from bridge. From the road bridge presumably by truck, from the rail road bridge maybe on something other. What benefits will this bring to the game. Need i something to say else? You will have many new battles in the countryside (where is most of the bridges). Because in cities is also the bridges, this will add some new tactical maneuvers to battles for cities, new zest. The paratroopers will finally have proper missions to do. You don't forget number of bridges in game? That's it. But. There might be one big problem, as we know. A task to make a proper AI-sentinel might need much time and effort. Though he might be useful to replace also old AI. If this will be a problem, then i suggest Plan B. Plan B might be: Make these sentinel shacks. Also the road blocks, signs and the bunkers. That's mean, all objects and features except AI-sentinels. This might work even in so truncated variant. Of course, not so good, but at least something will be where to develop in the future. IMHO. ......................... ... ... ... .......................
  2. A little revised variant of a post, what i previously deleted. At first i guess, the Scout need to have at least sergeant rank. Also he may be a profession in some different branches. A infantry scout, a navy scout, a pilot scout, a paratrooper-scout, maybe even more. In my vision his loadout (if he acts alone) might look so (exception for the pilot-scout) - a dagger (a little more lethal than a knife and maybe with possibility to kill AI too, though this need other AI). Pistol and its ammo. Some different grenades. Submachine gun and ammo. Yes, a submachine gun as their main weapon. They don't need to fight at long distances. Even more, they need to hide and try to avoid to be noticed. Also the rifle, as a more bulky weapon, will detain the scout, when he overcome obstacles and crawling. And as self-defense weapon in an emergency, SMG is superior. And this will be not against history too. But, if he is not alone, and there will be a group of scouts (even a mission with some target), then will be good to have possibility for different loadouts (maybe one carbine or a sniper rifle per 4-5 men, explosives, time bomb, a small inflatable boat, suitable for carrying by one person, a wire cutter, a mine detector, light vehicles etc etc.) Of course, then is needed also a lobby, to form such missions. What kind of missions the scouts can perform? In my previous topics i gave some examples, as the photographing of some objects, to give a data to HC. Or searching important objects etc. Before implementing them is very difficult to bet. About marking of important objects. (Again with exception of pilot-scout, which work will be different and need different approach) . Many of us remember old times, when the marks was need approving by mission leader. If similar nightmare we don't want to repeat, then we need to avoid situation, when other soldiers can demand from the scout to mark something (what he actually don't see). How? Then we need to recall, that in WWII soldiers already used field cameras (to take photos and selfies etc.). And even some pre-war cameras had the rangefinders. Now, if we compile these facts, we can to make so, that to place an accurate mark on something, the scout need take a photo of this object from a certain distance. When he take a shoot, there might be atleast two options - to place a mark, or save the picture but not to place a mark (as a placeholder for advanced gameplay in the future). Now, who will see those placed marks? I suppose, they will be visible for all, who have same target or object to defend (there is needed one clarification, these targets might be in same area, not exactly same CP etc). But i suggest to make these marks visible for pilots in another form. One example. The map will consist a grid, every side of square will be 100 meters. If the scout place a mark, then sides of square, where is this mark placed, will be colored to red on the pilot map. Something so.. That means an approximate place.
  3. Update. These were some old (and not very old) texts, which i wanted once to post, but wasn't sure, because of reducing of strategic layer in the game. But i will post them nevertheless, maybe they will be useful in future, when plans will change. That will become three topics, which are somewhat tied to each-other, though not very tightly. Mostly about the bridges. Many of us have some posts about bridges, even i. Such strategic points cannot be ignored, but they have been ignored for a long time. I understand, that some moments will not be welcomed by some other players, but that's my vision. .................. Now I'm going to go a little further. A little more specifically about bridges repairing missions. But before it, i want to touch theme of destroying of the bridges. We all know, that bridges had high value for logistics in the war. For the army, a bridge could have more valuable than a village or even a small town behind it. To repair a bridge you will need many men, resources, etc...and time. And sometimes the time have highest value in this list (especially on the war). Therefore high commands from both sides in the war very carefully looked at destroying of bridges. Logically, there was such circumstances, when meaning of bridge was much more important to your enemy, than to you, then you have all reasons to destroy this bridge. But even then, this required planning and preparations. Displaying those circumstances in the game is very difficult, almost impossible. But the game can try. I suggest such a variant - pre-AO (or pre-Destroying objective/target). HC (or volunteer OiC or who else will be responsible for a particular sector of the front) will give the pre-AO mission. The mission will be to photograph a certain bridge on enemy territory or on no-man's-land. Now mission will be visible in the pilot players missions tasks. Who of them will be interested, will take this mission, and it becomes inactive to others (until this player will fulfill its mission or perish in battle). If player don't fulfill this mission by any reason, it become again active to others. To sadness we currently don't have the scout planes. Therefore, developers could take any weakest aircraft and add to it the possibility to photograph ground targets (it will become a scout variant of this airplane). To no have dependency only on pilots, might be possible to distribute these missions also to players in some other branches. Example, this mission can be accomplished by pair of paratroopers, who could be landed relatively near to this bridge, make a risky tour to close to this bridge, take a photograph of it and return to home front. And such variants could be more. It will also be useful to introduce a reconnaissance specialist (a scout) into the game, who may be part of the infantry, parachutists (and, as mentioned, part of the aerial branch). Who will make this trip to enemy's bridge on foot, on truck, on car, on parachute, or maybe on boat etc. After that HC (or volunteer OiC or who else will be in charge) will have 'important data' about this bridge and he is ready to call to destroy it. Also this variant allow to detach 'attack objective' from 'defend objective', for the bridges. This mean get rid from automatic DO, if enemy had put on the bridge an AO. You will have visible activity of enemy (circling airplane, small group of paratroopers etc) in your backyard. If HC have an experience, he will made right decision, which again don't meant that he is forced defend it). As you see, with relatively small details you can add more content to the game. Now about repairing of the bridges. This was every now and then mentioned, that repairing such objects as big bridges is a very difficult task, not mention about it in wartime. Of course, in game, where factories can repaired in several hours, is hard to make repairing of bridges more complex. How then to keep 'virtual importance' of bridges and at same time not to put 'living player' into work for many hours? I suggest, that engineer would spawn with engineer's truck, would go by truck to the bridge and places there a PPO of a construction site. Yes, a PPO with looking like construction site and maybe even with sounds of repairing, which can stay there for hours until bridge get repaired. In my humble opinion, such repairs should take significant time, maybe even a couple of days. And of course, such repairing activity can be interrupted by enemy. You may ask, why i suggest to make it so difficult and long? Then it WAS very difficult and time consuming. Also this will add reasons to implement into the game the pontoon-bridges. As i will expect, their placing will be take several hours (and not days, as for the repair of the destroyed bridge), IMHO, also by using construction site PPO and might be interrupted by enemy. There may be questions why no auto repair? IMO, firstly there might be some tactical circumstances, why BOTH sides might be occasionally interested by that a bridge stay destroyed. And secondly, destroying of bridges may be less frequent than currently and therefore it would be like some kind of notable event. And now we are faced with a logical question: why is needed to make them to be destroyed less frequently.... I will continue this in next topic - Guarded bridges. LINK ....................
  4. If a hedgerow allow to place them in such configuration, then why not. Because this "trench" isn't mean to be as obstacle to enemy' soldiers or tanks (though maybe to wheeled transport). If such "a hedgerow trench" will have same color as terrain, and have another shape than current hedgerows in WWIIOL parks...Sadly, soldiers can't lean on them, to be capable to shoot. Also they supposedly isn't bulletproof. But as placeholder, to find something more better in future, these hedgerows-trenches maybe might work. Yes, i know, that making holes in current terrain is no go. That's why i suggested such a "trench-wall". Is there a way to use a rag-doll physics to place such a large object, or a chain from several parts, which together will make such an object? Which later will become a STO, until it disappears?
  5. I expected that the terrain can be an Achilles heel. But there are extenuating circumstances. This object isn't meant to defense, which needs more careful placing on landscape. Occasionally yes, but its main task is to offer to spawned soldiers moderate concealment, disguise, to give a little time to gather strength, to be ready to attack together. Imagine, that to attack one big city, there would be several such trench-FMS's. And when ordered to attack, given by the one mission leader or OIC, all these men will rise and run into the attack. With fighting cries and shouts of curses in the voice chat.That's the area, where WWIIOL can beat most of shoebox shooters. If you do not use even such opportunities, then what else? About more simplicity. It IS simple. Technically it would be a short wall, which has shape of trench inside, and a mound outside. Bottom will be terrain, as it is. That yellow area on picture are there only to show schematically, where soldiers can be half-lying and shoot the enemies. All textures can be same as currently has infantry's foxholes. Even a tree or two, that could remain at the bottom of such a trench would not be a problem. Though maybe will be a problem, if tree will be through wall. That's why i guess, these trenches need some algorythm to place, because, sadly, ML can't quit from truck to place it better. What about this wooden hutch. Yes, it is the place to spawn light AT and AA weapons. But why not build it together with whole trench? My opinion is, that sometimes ML need just quick attack, without attracting an attention from enemy (what such weapons can do). If ML completed some of its first assignment, then he may allow to engineers build one or more such objects inside trench. Or may not. With this you will give to ML some tool to have different outcome of the attack (different objects needs different approaches). PS. I've read, that trucks still have loud audio. How that is possible? This problem was pointed years ago, i remember it mentioned in previous year, when i played game. And nothing had changed? I don't get it. I remember sitting in defense, reading text in chat, that someone seen enemy's truck. Then some luckiest kills this truck. At first it's an funny moment. At second time you say "OK, maybe next time we see fight too". At third time it get boring and you start to search to some another AO/DO (or quit). If i came to play a war game, then i don't want to hunt a helpless truck. I want to see on the sight of my weapon the guys who can shoot back, who can outsmart me, and whom i can outsmart too. I want to fight. And such "feature" like hear the truck from long distance is a flawed game mechanics, which only interrupts the battles. If it's because of the difficulty of working with audio, then that might be understandable (but not during years and constantly declining numbers).But if it is intentionally by the devs...Then it's a disappointment. Second. Here and there is posts about that even nowadays is possible to place FMS in enemy's rear, and spawn from there a small army. Which too is far away from realism. Again, there were several suggestions years ago, (#metoo), that the game needs some kind of "frontline", when you can set the FMS only in "your" zone. And this zone would change due advancing of your (or enemies) side. Something like if your side will captured a CP, then its surrounding will be also in this zone, where your side can place a FMS. And so on. IIRC, I even posted some maps on the forum about it. But the suggestions did not bring any attention.
  6. Since I mentioned in one theme a trench with a length of 30 meters as one possible FMS, I took the time to draw an approximate scheme. How in my vision this can work. A mission leader (or team leader) came by truck to the place, where he think to make FMS. He will place its FMS there, and this FMS will be only a trench. Players from its team will spawn on bottom this trench. If they don't move and lie on bottom, they don't see what is around trench. Also they are relatively safe (until close distance). If they crawl on on yellow area, they can see and of course to shoot enemy. If they will stand on their feet on the bottom of the trench, then i guess they can shoot too (i'm not sure about location of eyes of avatars in current game). Now, an engineer, who will spawn in this trench, can place a wooden construction (which is similar to current FMS) INSIDE of this trench. From this wooden hutch will spawn light AT and AA guns. As you see on the scheme, to leave this hutch, they will use some kind of wooden walkway. Not sure about direction of leaving of these guns from trench. Maybe this will be ML or engineers decision. I guess in one trench might be maximally 2-3 such hutches. If there will be a road, where ML want place such FMS, then this trench will be split on two (together they will be ~ 30 meters long). Maybe will be possible somehow get around trees (with a little bit of geometry change). About deleting this FMS by enemy. Of course if enemy's soldier put its foot on this trench, this will disable its functionality as spawn point (forever). What will be other triggers, which will make same, i im not sure, this requires "field trials". I guess, even after eliminating such FMS, the trench might to stay at some time. And will disappear after some time. Until then, there would be a sign which shows, that this object is disabled (maybe some sign on language of this side, who destroyed this FMS. If Germany, them something like "Achtung, minen!". Now, what benefits will this give to game. I think, this will give to infantry much more realistic option to advancing to target. They will be more spread (at least in first stage), which will bring in more feel of that they attacks a target from a trench (which was quite usual in ww2). With new grass this would be even more spectacularly. In addition, on last stage of destroying of this FMS, might be happen some good skirmishes, which too wouldn't be redundant for game. Also, such FMS will give a better opportunity to soldiers to wait to its comrades, to attack the target together, in proper formation and maximally effective. etc. imho.
  7. I will try to explain my view. Around WWIIOL exist (and was existed) many games, that described themself as simulator, and others not. Many people played them and at least theoretically many of them would find the way to WWIIOL and stay here. Because game call himself "best WWII simulation experience around" and theoretically have many strenghts to be attractive to these players. Low numbers say otherwise. Then where is the problem? I can't say, that "question about simulation" is the main problem. But because i touched it, i will try to describe this part. I'll start from afar - about infantry. We all know many games (and demos of those games), which recreate so called infantry battles in WW2. Most of them are(were) close combat battles, some of them have also more large maps to give more wide perceptions. What is here to simulate? Not so much, the environment of battle (AAA games advertise destructable objects), realistic buildings, beautiful nature, close to realistic sights on the weapons, normal movings of players' avatars, beautiful death to comrades, terrible death to enemies etc etc. This really not so much different from WWIIOL. But can we call these games as simulator? Doubtful. About infantry i will continue below. For now i will say a little about boundaries. Yes, even a simulator, which try to simulate something, have its limits (not only technical, but also as game logic). As an approximate example, if you want to play a WWII submarine simulator, then last what you want will be in game an occasional urge to pee for your avatar, when you are with your thoughts in battle. Or a drunken view, when you look through the periscope. Which don't mean, that people in WW2 didn't need to pee, or they were never drunk in battle. But then, what have almost all simulators? The missions. Yes, missions, where developers (and some modders) tried to recreate some situations, moments, battles, emergencies, surgery, harvesting of the trees etc, depending what they try to simulate. If we take a specific theme of WW2, then sims about it are trying simulate mostly historical battles, with their battle order, formations, obstacles, enemies, limited supply etc. Most close to this in WWIIOL were RDP raids by bombers. If we take another example, then spawn camping by tanks looks not as armor combat simulation. But what else they can do? If we return to infantry, then we all see its weakness in WWIIOL. Without proper formation and battle order, they run yes, like ants to the sugar...and die like flys. Ok, these are details, my main humble opinion is, the game need to look at game missions through eyes of players, who plays such simulation games with missions. If here is such players, then even better, they might to give some suggestions about preffered missions. And the gaming community might think how to recreate them here. Game have great potential and can offer to interested by it an opportunity of battles against living players, what might make such missions even more valuable. Will this kill other gameplay? I doubt. The gameplay with missions and the instant combat can coexists, if we finds proper solutions to linking them on a common battlefield. imho.
  8. OK. But i asked because you wrote that HC would be focused to attack only.
  9. You are right, that's not about direct combat zone. And i didn't mean that. Yes, one link behind frontline would be good. They all arrived (imaginable) to the station, and then go by the trucks to combat zone. It's like last link, which was simulated in previous game. And there were always a problem, imho. Soldiers and artillery guys should not look for transport to get to the battle. This problem was partially solved by spawning in FMSs, FRUs etc. But now the armor and artillery stayed without covering by infantry. (OT. Several times were suggested to give to the artillery a towing truck as part of the unit. I suppose, that CRS think, that they will lost money due that. But maybe is something other, what they may give to Heroes, maybe the bicycle or even a motorcycle, as a tool?). But what with the armor? Again, there were suggestions to split infantry to pure infantry (which can spawn in all these FMSs and depots. And the mechanized infantry, which spawn in same locations, where spawn the armor. Now, pure infantry will have the instant combat gameplay, like it is today. But mechanized infantry will be more like previous infantry from old WWIIOL. Though their transporting to combat need of better solution. Would be a good variant, if at least three armor vehicles is spawned, then there automatically spawn also a truck (or more), which will have a function to follow such a column. Maybe is needed a separate opinion exchange to find a best technical solution to do it. Of course, the manually driving trucks will stay, (like for the pure infantry), to have more maneuverability, when it is needed. Now, someone will ask, how this long s**t belong to theme of spawning in railroad station. But i guess, directly, because such mechanized infantry and armor can to spawn on the Rail station, and to drive to combat zone.Though here is also one problem. There is too few stations at all. Where is rural stations? They too is needed to implemented. Now you will have more variants to maneuvers, more different modes to play game etc. But as i said, firstly is needed to allow to spawn on captured station only for combat engineers/pioneers/combat sappers. I guess, nobody doubt that tracks and area needs a verification before using (this is needed to be as additional game play, not as annoying obligation). If there is a connection by rails, then on the imaginable rail road vehicle. If there isn't connection, then maybe by using a truck, or even an engineer's truck. Something like here Engineer's missions And one question, have someone a proper map of railroads in Europe in 1940 year?
  10. If already to do , then maybe a little more complex - after capturing of Rail station to allow there to spawn firstly only for combat engineers/pioneers (who supposedly will arrive there by using the railroad car or handcar), to preparing station to arriving all other soldiers and armor. To simulate the inspection of railway tracks and cleaning the area from the mines.
  11. I did not follow the development of the theme of the garrisons. Who will lead the defense and who will command the garrison?
  12. Thanks you for taking part in the discussion. OK, as i heard, there was one vasduten1 post, which was supposedly removed, and where was something about choosing wrong game (don't know details). I can admit, that maybe i chose wrong game.Though like i stated earlier somewhere, i came to WWIIOL due other things, like more hard mode settings than in most other shooters, the large scale, the spirit of strategic warfare and relatively slow pace. You must agree, that game is changed in its core (i don't mean graphics). Also i was under impression, that soon we will see in the game visible supply and logistics etc. Of course it could be false imagination, because such large map gives so many possibilities, that you can fantasy much more, than developers had intention to make. But now grow impression, that game might reduce even those uniqueness, which were in previous versions. We will see. A side note. When i talk about new possible clients, then yes, that might be wishful thinking. But as you understand, currently their voices can't be heard on forum, because they are only potential customers. And my imaginations was based more on these facts, that many single and cooperative shooter games had represent of such soldiers, who made diversions, sabotages etc. But you can't implement such activity into game, until the game haven't such objects and of visible logistics. Or the game want compete only with another online shooters, and don't want to find clients also from other subdivisions of wargaming, like single games and the mission-oriented co-op games? Isn't that too shortsighted vision? And there was a thought, that such a large group of players (larger than developers' team) have the will and experience, to give thoughts and suggestions to devs about current health of game and possible ways to gain players.
  13. I haven't posted much in general forum, maybe is time to add also here a topic. I mean a discussion, where anyone can give his own vision about main goal of the game ( i mean a wide view ). The game had long time such goal - to make large, combined arms battles. And all other stuff like logistics, visible supply, activities behind enemy lines and so on seems to be categorized as unimportant from perspective to gain new customers. I must admit, that most of my posts were unsuccessful attempts to suggests such activities like logistics, activity behind enemy lines etc. Were such things in some controverse with the main goals of the game? From my view not, but therefore a wide discussion would be welcomed. Well, it was more like a preamble. I make a such topic due many regrets in several themes about too few players in game. Most disputes are about balance and who have a larger gun. But what do you think is preventing this game from becoming one with the largest playerbase? I will begin. Aside lack of one biggest part of real ww2 - logistics, supply etc. i see also a problem in attempt to describe itself as simulation and realism. That mean you want gain an interest by true hard simmers. What want true hard simmers? Obviously, true hard simulations. If we talk about combined arms warfare, then in days of ww2 this was far far more complicated. Yes, you can simplify it to nowadays standards, but you will lost big chunk of true hard simmers. Of course exists also casual simmers and even players-to-fun. Focusing on them needs a little different advertise, imho. But what about simulation part of the game..This topic isn't about my suggestions, i would like to see here some sort of discussion, but one deviation i might to do is this - that every branches in game (i mean developers) could have its own patron (guardian angel), who would worry first about own branch (technics, guns, MISSIONS etc), and only secondly or thirdly about, how a branch, which patron he is, will cooperate with other branches on battlefield. Will this bring in more customers in the future? I guess yes. IMHO. But again, it will be better if it is like a discussion.
  14. One logic tweak would be prolonging rails from RR stations to the near airfields and ports (if there isn't such objects, then to the nearest Army base). And to put there warehouses. Because the Rail stations will became important junctions, they will be bombable and need protection. Simplest way will be fixed trains with AI AAA. As unmovable objects, which belong to the Rail station (if they will be unmovable, then maybe is possible to allow to players spawn on such trains with own AAA). Same to warehouses on end of the rail lines, which will be prolonged to ports and airfields (also to some army bases). More complicated way would be to make something like suggested here, but due lacking the HC in the game, seems this will need too much management in current game. Trains as PPOs Impact on other branches.. I guess, this will a little reduce importance of Army bases to pilot players, because will give them a few new targets. What about the moving trains, i always supported implementing them into game, even if they would be ugly like in very old Aces High.
  15. As i understood, AO is here to stay, also HC. As many people had stated, in game is sometimes problems with availability of the HC. But exist such feature as OiC. Now, if i recall correctly, OiC needs to be nominated by HC. How, if HC at the right moment is absent? Maybe is possible to make "Corpus of OiC", of people, who don't preffer High Command gameplay, but can play such role, if the situation is desperate. Which criteria should such people fulfill? Officer rank? To play on only one side during whole campaign? Using of Discord and good communication skill? Something other?