Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


jwilly last won the day on May 6

jwilly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

247 Salty

About jwilly

  • Rank
    WWII Online Builder [GOLD]
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. I don't disagree on the M3. Clearly it's needed for American forces. Old-CRS said several times, though, that they'd learned their lessons from prior mistakes and would never introduce partial sets again, except in the context of fixing earlier partial-set intros. Now that the Americans are in, sets that will be in-game from T2 onward have four elements, not three. I of course don't know that new-CRS thinks the same way. Often though it's wise to learn from prior mistakes even if it wasn't you that made them. Eventually as the Italians are more completely introduced, sets will have five elements. That's just the nature of the game. +++ It's true that there were several interesting German variants, but there also were two interesting French variants. Just as it will be desirable to revisit the existing SdKfz 251 model and add a closed-top version as the basis for variants, and build the M3 model with a different-sides version as the basis for the M16, so will it make sense to build the 39L model with a 37L variant as a gun tractor and supply hauler. And, the 37L was fielded in 1940 in a variant mounting the long 47mm AT gun. Not a lot of them, but they were factory built rather than field expedients, so they're game eligible.
  2. The viable alternative for the French of course is the Lorraine 39L...historically just in production as of the armistice having replaced the 38L on the production line, with a few units in the field already--thus game-eligible. Ahistorically making the French Army a fantasy-hybrid American Army by arming them with American weapons wholly without rationale in the context of a game-progression in which no armistice has occurred and French forces would have been using their own kit, would be dumb marketing. A key distinguishing difference between WWIIOL and its mega rivals is this game's claim to historically realistic equipment and weapons. I don't see a justification for discarding the game's marketing differentiation.
  3. That scenario could be addressed by requiring an AO/DO for bridge destruction, and some other form of order for bridge repair. No repair order, no stealth bridge repairs by "visitors" from the other side.
  4. WWII at a tactical level was fought over crossroads, bridges, ports, supply movement lines that connected them, places of economic value, and towns/cities that function as both crossroads and places of economic value. Sometimes the fighting occurred in the suburbs of a town/city rather than in its center. Rarely was there fighting in the middle of nowhere, unless the defender was trying to block movement along a road or rail line. That's because armed forces can only advance along a supply line. Supplies move by train or truck. Trains obviously operate only on rail lines. Supply trucks only operate on roads. CRS's design error was in making towns/cities the only key capture points, and not making non-town bridges at least as important. It was realistic, not a design error, for CRS to not include reasons to fight in the middle of nowhere.
  5. There used to be two Unity engines just in wargaming, and others in other computer realms. CRS/Playnet was involved in a lawsuit a number of years ago, regarding someone else using "Unity" for their wargame engine after CRS/Playnet was using that name. Did the one you looked up pertain to CRS/Playnet?
  6. AA

    I don't disagree that it'd be good to have a light-caliber SPAA set added, in addition to fixing the FlaK 30. The comment is in regard to the repetitive posts. CRS has had a long-standing plan for modeling a Laffley S25TL with Hotchkiss naval-pattern CaMle 40J, the M16 (quad Browning M2HB .50 cal) and the SdKfz 7 with FlaK Vierling 4x20mm. They've told us that about a bazillion times. The original plan also was to include a modified Morris 4x4 flatbed truck with a Bofors, but since they are putting the Bofors on a Crusader chassis instead, my guess is that the light SPAA set instead would have that truck with a 3x Oerlikon 20mm. We know from a decade of experience that CRS won't be modeling more than one weapon per combatant nation in a given category. So, unless their planned set is technically unsuitable, there's not much point in re-suggesting it. It's fine to post to "cast your vote" as to the priority that should be given to a particular modeling plan. To the extent that CRS has multiple plans and wants to decide between them per popular opinion, though, no doubt they would care about how many people hold relevant views. I rather doubt that they would count how many times the same person has expressed the same view in a short time period.
  7. AA

    These posts are a bit repetitive, yes?
  8. Huge dumbness on CRS's part. Suiciding needed fixing years ago. It's a subscription destroyer.
  9. Huh. I don't think you want to argue realism. There are three scenarios for something as substantial as a bridge being damaged: accident of war, intentional at the tactical level but without orders or contravenes orders, and in accord with orders. We can discount the first, because this game doesn't provide for accidents. Clearly we're talking about the second and the third. In the real WWII--that's the model for "realism"--an individual soldier, or the commander of a low level tactical unit on the battlefield, making their own decision to take down a strategic bridge without either orders from or inquiry to and then agreement by their senior command would be a court martial action. Imagine if some flyboy or an artillery unit had decided on their own to take out the Ludendorff bridge in February 1945, prior to First Army capturing it in March. The post-war dividing line between West and East Germany would have been several hundred miles farther west. There'd have been hell to pay for the person that took down the bridge. That didn't happen because American soldiers generally followed orders. CRS's original concept was that this game would have functional high commands, who would decide where attacks would be made and enabled. Lots of players have argued since then for the ability to be Rambos, individually deciding what's fun for them and empowered to go off and do it. Certainly it can be argued that the past and current High Command system isn't as effective as it needs to be. There however is no foundation for an argument that having a High Command structure that determines where attacks will be made doesn't make the game more realistic, and that instead making the game a Rambo-fest would be more realistic. You could argue if you wanted that CRS should throw out the original concept and intentionally make the game a Rambo-fest. I doubt if CRS wants to go there, though.
  10. Shipped from the factory, removed upon arrival, because they were horribly designed. Cramped, awful ergonomics, and no ventilation. The MG spewed fumes into the turret, which made breathing impossible for the gunner, and it was dangerously time-consuming to get to a place where breathing was again possible. No one wanted to use a system that seemed likely to make them a casualty even without enemy involvement.
  11. Agree that swimming is unrealistic. It doesn't adequately "stand in" for anything. It should be removed. Add a generic assault boat trailer to all armies. One deployed close enough to a water-edge creates a spawn point for 2-3 rubber boats. The trailer disappears when it has no boats left or upon taking too much damage. A boat appears at water's edge closest to the trailer after eight infantrymen have hit the J (join) key while proximal to the trailer. The boat model has eight rowers, four per side. No weapon use from the boat, but players on it can look around from an arbitrary eye point on one side or the other of the boat. The boat/rowers model has a very low damage threshold, i.e. eight bullets or fragments or one larger ordnance is eight kills and a destroyed boat. And, such boats are slow. In return for the fragility and slowness, and the greater degree of difficulty in use, successful landing of such a boat creates a limited spawn and re-arm point on the shore where the boat lands.
  12. Feature: set of late tier tanks, i.e. Panther, M36B1, Firefly. Fix: change the task allocation in multi-player tanks so that player 1 is driver and commander, player 2 is main gunner only. Player 1 to have a split screen UI with a control set that allows quick toggle between roles. Both players to have a common compass-ring so that the commander can call out targets to the gunner. And, increase the position switch time for single-crewed tanks, so that multi-crewed tanks have a game performance advantage...the idea being to create multi-crewing opportunities for noobs.
  13. A set of multibarrel AA (actually SPAA) is needed. Old CRS selected a set; my guess is that most of that set would still be done, with the British element changed due to the SP Bofors having been done already. Getting that set built will require creating four gun models from scratch, and 2.5 vehicle models. That can't happen now. Changing the existing towed FlaK 30 model into a towed FlaK 38 model by the expedient of re-paramaterizing the existing model would be easy. Zero new models. That can happen now, and it should. Scotsman told us the other day that he expects some re-balancing to be necessary as a result of the HE/KE audit changes. Therefore all other changes that may affect weapon lethality and that are quick and easy to do should be done now, so that all of the re-balancing can occur in a single evaluation-and-adjustment cycle.
  14. I didn't know the bit about the Naeder steering system oil substitution issue. He didn't note though that, if the system hadn't been leaky, and if the French logistics system hadn't been awful, there would have been no reason for tank crews to be scrounging castor oil in the field. He also didn't note the poor design choice of fixed aim for the hull machine gun.
  15. The M45 was regarded by US Army as hopeless ineffective compared to the Bofors.