ATTN: We need your help to support our game!Learn More


Your help is needed to achieve our funding “Stretch Goals” so that we can introduce the first new vehicles into WWII Online in almost 10 years, increase and purchase vital software to improve our team’s organization and produce additional vehicles!

This game would not be possible without you and your support!


Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

89 Vet

About jwilly

  • Rank
    WWII Online Builder [GOLD]

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. Yes. Often suggested. Could be done, but it'd provide only an incremental improvement. I'd guess it's likely that the Firefly would be modeled instead. Currently in game in towed form. No evidence that I'm aware of. The BEF used Vickers B and C in France, and A9/10/13, and a few Matilda A11/12. The Belgians had several T-series TDs/SPGs, some of which had Vickers chassis lineage, but none were armed with the two pounder. Perhaps the best modeling choice for the SAu 40 would be the gun SOMUA expected to use as of June 1940, the SAMle 1937 long 47mm AT gun. It's already modeled, and a pretty decent AT gun for 1940. Any other historical choice would require modeling. I'm all-in for any of the almost-produced, intended-to-be-fielded French tracked weapons of 1940-41-42...S40, R40, B1ter, Lorraine gun carriage, Lorraine 39 APC, Panhard 201, G tank. Ahistorical but similar, and practical to accomplish right now in time for the Steam launch, but modeling the FlaK 36/41 would not be. Our expectation is that later it'll be swapped out, once the modeling resources are available.
  2. IIRC, Scotsman has information that some of the ~50 units built were used in combat in the Italian campaign. This unit was the subject of discussions much like this one in prior years, and my recollection is that we concluded it was eligible.
  3. Under the original CRS rule, French equipment that was actual purchase order was game eligible.
  4. Per the old rules, the Russian 76.2mm gun isn't game eligible...if the Germans haven't won yet in France, obviously they couldn't yet have attacked wherever the same units that fought in France, historically fought for T2 availability, CRS would have to model the SdKfz 138 ausf. H model with the KwK 75mm gun. At least by the old rules, this design wouldn't be game eligible. It was only a single design exercise, and never fought. The designers realized halfway through that they could fit the same gun into an actual tank turret on the same chassis, so why build a much less protected gun carriage? Also, the six pounder isn't very comparable to the KwK 75 in the Marder. If it was acceptable to postpone the set until T3, the British vehicle could be the Archer...much more comparable in gun power to the KwK 75. This also would allow the German vehicle to be the better-protected, lower SdKfz 138 ausf. M. Or, in T2, the British vehicle could be the Churchill 3 inch gun carriage. This vehicle as well--the M8A1 Motor Gun Carriage with the low velocity 75mm gun, as opposed to the even lower velocity M8 Howitzer Gun Carriage--also wouldn't be game eligible under the old rules, since it was cancelled during development due to the M18 project offering much greater mobility and a much better gun. The M8A1 GMC would have been a very poor performing tank destroyer, with a completely unsuitable gun for that role. At the cost of having to model a new hull/chassis, the Hellcat would provide in-game performance much more comparable to the Marder and whatever the British would get.
  5. The game needs more simulation of fear-inducing, effectiveness-decreasing war-effects, not less. The present screenshake and momentarily blurred and multiple-image vision is mostly due to close blast exposure. Maybe it'd be more understandable to have infantrymen knocked down by such blast...? Combine that with a substantial loss of stamina. Someday the game needs to tackle psychological state as a character parameter, so that quantified fear of death due to nearby events and circumstances could have a realistic effect. The idea of an infantry game with no way to implement suppression is bizarre.
  6. For SPAA, the French could get a truck-mounted single Bofors and a truck-mounted CAMle 40J (dual) 25mm with the fast RoF. The British could get a truck-mounted single Bofors and a truck-mounted triple 20mm with 60 round drums. The Germans could get a halftrack-mounted single FlaK 41 37mm (fast RoF) and a halftrack-mounted quad 20mm with 20 round magazines. The Americans could get a truck-mounted single Bofors and of course the halftreack-mounted quad .50 cal HMG. At one point that all would have been acceptable under the CRS eligibility rules, and it'd be relatively lethality balanced.
  7. These would be new toys. There are lots of options for new toys. These particular new toys wouldn't work any differently, gameplay-wise, than what's already in-game. They'd arrive mid-campaign and would have relatively powerful guns, but minimal armor so they'd die to the first good hit. Same same. The question is: will a few new toys of this kind by themselves lead to an expansion of the customer base? My guess is no. What's needed to attract customers that aren't already here is game evolutions that add new dimensions to gameplay. New terrain with steeper grades, smaller features, and higher-bit-count textures would do that. Replacing the single-huge-damage-model building models with new models that have damage models divided up into sections about the size of the damage volume from a 75mm or 88mm HE shell would do that. Maybe adding flammability, fire weapons and fire damage to the game would do that. Maybe adding zoned weather to the game would do it could be raining and muddy in Dinant while it's sunny and clear in Antwerp. *** New toys are great. They however should be supplements, turned out with whatever resources are available after the Big Project of each patch.
  8. Armored cars should be subject to a much greater default Drag Factor on all surfaces that don't have a local Drag Factor nullification, to simulate their high ground pressure. Hatch and Scotsman both have said, I think, that modeling is hard but parameter changes are easy. I think an increased default Drag Factor should be just a parameter change. Once that's in place for all sides, remove the darn antenna.
  9. Nah. Not even visible to the big guys. Their design and marketing staff coffee budget is bigger than CRS's total subscription revenue at present. There's tons of room for CRS to grow before any of the big guys cares.
  10. Just wait for him and three others with similar skillz to set up somewhere as a flak trap. Spot one, come back with a fighter or fast bomber for a high speed run, oops.
  11. If destroyers rendered infantry at much longer range, destroyers couldn't be allowed to operate near coastlines. The number of renderable objects within their interaction radius could be so great that the destroyer client would bog down making rendering-prioritization decisions. This functionality is an unavoidable element of the game engine design, given the original decision to locate both short-visual-range and long-visual-range objects in the same gameplay-space.It's "something technical", not an "abomination" and "blatant infantry bias". Heh.
  12. Average of three 40mm hits to bring down a medium bomber flying aerobatically. Heh.
  13. Garand, for instance, has a muzzle velocity of about 2.66 times the sea level speed of sound. Other military weapons with full sized rifle caliber rounds were similar. Often the specified "maximum effective range" for a military rifle was the range at which a round fired in still air would drop to Mach 1.2. Between Mach 1.2 and Mach 0.8, rifle rounds tended to be less stable and to sometimes tumble, so it was/is inefficient to use them for aimed fire past that range.