jwilly

Registered Users
  • Content count

    19,265
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

jwilly last won the day on February 22

jwilly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

102 Salty

About jwilly

  • Rank
    WWII Online Builder [GOLD]
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. The historical realism it might be considered to add would be appreciated by a small fraction of the customer base. It'd be unlikely to be the basis for addition of many new customers. When gamers talk about a game's realism, they don't normally mean economic realism. And, it'd take away a relatively invisible balance mechanism. Balance has to be adjustable in some manner, so a new mechanism would have to be selected...and it seems likely that it would be less invisible to (most of) the playerbase.
  2. Considered at great depth by Gophur a number of years ago. My understanding was it didn't happen then because of (1) the coding required and (2) an estimate on the part of CRS management that the game would retain fewer noobs if they had less early access to good stuff, in repeating quantity to offset their poor survivability against the vets. But maybe it's a good idea now, or could be sometime soon.
  3. There have been pitches before that the game would be more unique and maybe more fun if it more strongly promoted two-player gameplay, i.e. multicrewing. One way to implement that with tanks would be to give the commander player a different user interface that would allow driving, turret outlook and any hull mounted secondary guns to be operated all from the commander position. All ideas have to pass commercial-effect muster, though. The CRS pushback on multicrewed tanks used to be...I haven't seen any comments lately, but I'd guess it hasn't changed--that the development effort to make that code work right and then change the user interface of all the tanks wouldn't attract enough new customers to be cost-effective. The bottom line is, a development effort needs to end up with more and happier customers, or it's not a good use of resources.
  4. The question is not "what would be easy to implement", but "would the idea be good for the game?" Anything that makes tanks more effective would tilt the tank-infantry balance their way. By far the largest percentage of customers play infantry, so tilting the game balance in favor of another game modality has to be considered from a commercial perspective: would CRS be making a relatively smaller number of customers happier, and at the same time making a much larger number of customers less happy? If CRS had a tanks-only game, a different tank user interface would be obvious. In this game, my guess is no. I say "guess" because none of us players can see the actual numbers. CRS, though, has a ton of data from over the years on what players want and like, and why they join and leave. So they know what would be a good idea economically.
  5. Being suppressed is supposed to be an alternative to being killed. In a game, though, being killed is no big deal, and there's no way to assign a relevantly high cost to it. A game that gives players the "freedom" to act unrealistically, is...unrealistic. It's pretty straightforward. Sounds good. How would you do it, in a manner that would result in better tactical realism than what the game has now?
  6. Bullets passing overhead shouldn't subtract from your morale if you're behind cover. The whole point of a suppression mechanic is to motivate players to use cover, instead of just charging at a machine gun over and over.
  7. Courage as a parameter was discussed some in the old design forum. We called it Morale, which I think is a better description of how it needs to work. I completely like what's above, but it also needs Rank, Teamwork, Leadership, Unit Type, and Injuries. Rank: infantry gameplay would make a heckuva lot more systems-sense if the top ordinary-soldier rank (can use all weapons) was a top sargeant. Ranks above that can fight, but only with limited weapons and a light loadout. The main role of officers is to Lead...see below. (Of course, there'd have to be a mechanism for voluntary re-ranking of all the game's vets that are Generals, and the game would have to stop automatically promoting players out of the fighting ranks if that's not what they want.) Teamwork: spawning should be concepted so that every infantryman is part of an ad hoc tactical unit. If you're close to enough other members of your unit...within a few meters...and their morale is at least as high as yours, Morale damaging events have less of a negative effect on you. But, if you're close to another soldier with Morale significantly lower than yours, and you're not a Sargeant or officer, your Morale is more readily affected in a negative direction. Leadership: if you're physically close to a Leader that's part of your unit...say two or more rank levels higher than you...your Morale is much sturdier and recovers faster. But, if a Leader close to you is injured, your Morale takes a big hit. Unit Type: ordinary soldiers have ordinary Morale. Paratroops have extra Morale, and it's much sturdier and recovers faster as long as they're close to other paratroops from their unit. Soldiers in a unit with an uninjured Medic have better Morale. Half the time, the injury or death of a Medic raises the Morale of the unit's other soldiers. The other half, it lowers Morale. Injuries: when another member of your unit close to you is injured or killed, your Morale takes a big hit. However, if a Medic is able to get to them and stabilize them before they're dead, your Morale recovers more than it lost.
  8. So you're in a good position with an LMG and firing at the enemy. A friendly approaches you from the rear and (perhaps intentionally) runs past you into your line of fire, and you inadvertently shoot him. Should you be killed?
  9. It'll be even more impressive if after Scotsman's audit, one 40mm shell almost always takes down any currently modeled plane.
  10. There are ways to grief any possible approach to FF, whenever the shooter has a practical way to know of the presence in the target zone of a friendly. There is no way to design around the problems of FF, except by making FF have no effect on friendlies. CRS's stance has always been that FF can't be made to work in a distributed-client game that's built on teamwork-gameplay and must attract newbies that cannot be vetted before they play.
  11. Per many past CRS comments, I believe this is incorrect. CRS fully understood from their long collective game design experience that FF=on always is unmanageably griefed, so the game intentionally was designed for FF=off. As CRS has explained many times, one way of griefing then would be to run in front of friendly positions, thus preventing them from firing lest they kill you, or causing them to lose rank points (and therefore game morale and future combat effeciveness) when they kill you.
  12. This is a good idea. In fact, for realism, there should be a significant random chance of AI AA engaging any friendly coming into range. Throughout the war on both sides, many AA gunners followed the dictum "shoot first, identify later". The others are covered by Xoom's comment earlier in the thread.
  13. Previously discussed about a billion times. This might be one of those instances where the poster would be well served to do some research into prior threads.
  14. I assume that your "repair themselves" comment has to do with psychological repair. i.e. steeling your nerve, calming down after a fearful moment. Realism is a good thing, but fear is not a condition that a player voluntarily would model, and there is no mechanism in the present game to impose a fear state on a player. So, I don't think a new position would be used in that respect. Something like this might be good if eventually CRS adds such a mechanism to simulate fear and morale.
  15. There's always been a design tension between the product/experience desires of customers like Snappled and customers like Kilemall. CRS has always done their best to walk a tightrope between these two diametrically opposed views, and to please every customer to the best of their ability. But even so, the game can't be perfect both ways at once, and sometimes decisions have had to be made. In the early days, it was said by Rats a number of times that there were quite a few games out there offering the first gameplay-style, and only a very few (maybe just one) offering the latter. Many of the games from the former group are long gone. Maybe that design choice to be the best product in a niche instead of an also-ran in a crowded market-space isn't why this game is still here. Certainly CRS's survival appears to have been a close-run thing at times. My guess though is that CRS does think their design approach has been important to their survival.