jwilly

Registered Users
  • Content count

    22,792
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

jwilly last won the day on April 14

jwilly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,301 Hero

1 Follower

About jwilly

  • Rank
    WWII Online Builder [GOLD]
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. Not sure. I never heard details of the original plan. One could guess though that Morale was an unfinished development element from the pre-release difficulties. The summary posted above was from a discussion in the Design/Beta forum, around the time that Rapid Assault was being worked on.
  2. Another idea from the old-CRS days: Create a quantified-morale/fear-of-death system. Higher morale improves your aim steadiness and your ATP, your susceptibility to brief automatic suppression by close enemy fire, and how long that suppression affects you. Higher morale (the opposite of fear of death) is a "carrot". You have it when you're close to your tactical leader. You can get even more by being close to other friendlies that have higher morale than you. You have it when you're close to a medic, or a source of supplies for your primary weapon. If you're infantry, you get more by being close to a tank or AT gun. Your baseline level increases the longer time you spend at a high level, and because recent missions have been successful. Your morale decreases (fear of death increases) when you're too far from your tactical leader. Ditto the rest of your unit, and supplies, and a medic. It decreases when the morale of soldiers around you decreases, and when you're under enemy fire. It significantly decreases when a friendly near you is injured or killed. OTOH, that latter morale loss is offset to the positive if a wounded friendly is stabilized by a medic near you. In a quantified-morale system, unit cohesion isn't forced. It's just motivated by morale. You want to stay near your tactical leader and your squad/platoon because that makes you much more gameplay-effective.
  3. Huh. Sounds like tactical unit cohesion. Nah, couldn't be. No one would play a game that worked that way.
  4. OK, fine. What are the "carrots" in real soldiering? Well, orders and training. But those are secondary, in place for other reasons. The "other reasons" are tactical lethality, survivability, and mutual supply. All of these are greatly superior in the real worldfor a cohesive tactical unit than for an equal number of disassociated individuals. This is a game with challenging limits on programming resources, and a need to make gameplay progress fast. If the end goal is cohesive unit gameplay, what's the advantage to CRS of complex modeling of the individual performance factors that cause real armies without exception to train and order their soldiers to operate cohesively, compared to just coding the game so that cohesion is built into the movement system?
  5. Kilem's concern could be addressed by the addition of a concept that the game needs in other respects as well: required infantry unit proximity. Infantrymen shouldn't be free to run around the battlefield far from their tactical commander and unit. It's wildly unrealistic for infantrymen to be Rambos, dashing around on their own with no attention to squad mates, supply, tactical command, unit mission and so forth. Specifically for ATG gun crew, allow them to get 15 meters away. At that point, no movement command causes them to move farther away from the gun. Instead they just go prone.
  6. Because this is in a forum read by players who don't have the long customer background of some of us, a bit of a clarification: It's not that CRS doesn't know where it's headed. It's only that they have customers who especially like each kind of gameplay, and because of CRS's customer focus, they've tried over the years to market a game that -- they've hoped -- appeals to both customer types. The challenge these days as seen from one long-time customer perspective is whether that middle path is working, or whether instead the game might be more commercially successful...which it needs to support ongoing development...by communicating a commitment to one direction or the other.
  7. Xoom responded, in part: The question, I think, is where is CRS's design boundary. Would the above quoted suggestion fit into the "more work to be done" category...not with a commitment for immediate accomplishment, but nonetheless something that customers could consider a goal, by which they could be motivated? Or would it be disallowed from that category in line with the below quoted thoughts: which other customers, preferring the game-style as discussed, would prefer?
  8. My non-Xoom, non-CRS's/Playnet's-owner perspective is that at some point CRS will have to decide whether to continue competing with the giant game companies in the fantasy/unrealism-but-fun/sci-fi market slot, or instead commit whole-hog to the realism niche; and clearly communicate that decision to the marketplace. Over the past eighteen years or so, CRS has failed to retain thousands of customers who wanted fantasy/unrealism-but-fun/sci-fi gameplay, and moved from WWIIOL to one of the giant games because they have better graphics and more toys. CRS also has failed to retain many hundreds of customers who wanted realism, and concluded CRS wasn't sufficiently interested in going there. It's hard to convince customers what you are when you can't make up your mind, or feel you have to keep pretending to be multiple game-types at once.
  9. Yes, agreed. And as you said elsewhere, some players think that defending is fun, but others on both sides want to attack, so both sides need to be capable of attacking...even when the total population is small to moderate and it's unbalanced. In classic 1940s warfare, defenders had about a 2:1 lethality advantage. Analyzing across much of WWII's history, operational-level engagements...all else equal...were about even fights when the attacker had a 2:1 force advantage over the defender, because of the lethality advantage of the defense provided by their emplaced weapons, dug-in positions, mines/wire, tactical planning of fields of fire and the like. Attackers had to have a 3:1 force advantage before they gained an advantage in likelihood of prevailing. The current game mechanics are just beginning to touch on those factors...though CRS is mostly modeling them to not actually be lethality multipliers, which makes the whole exercise pointless so far. But, CRS presumably could change that. The relevance of this to the discussion topic is that defensive lethality multipliers are always directional. Game mechanics that inherently result in attackers coming from everywhere eliminate all possibility of the game having working defense. Instead every battle is a chaotic hodge podge of a meeting engagement. That, fundamentally, is what screws the smaller-numbers side. Without sensible defense based on realistic defensive lethality multipliers, the numerically smaller side has no chance of having both an adequate defense and enough concentratable forces to mount attacks. That cuts into their gameplay attractiveness...which tilts the numbers even more against them. This is all about the intersection between gameplay mechanics and marketability.
  10. I haven't fully absorbed all the thread yet...maybe someone else said that, but I didn't say that and don't mean that. Both sides should expect to have some areas where they're defending, and others where they have concentrated forces and can attack. That's how 1940s warfare worked.
  11. Partly historically correct, partly just wrong. The French did have continuous defensive lines behind the Meuse. They failed to cover the footbridge over the dam near Dinant. And, their forces disintegrated after Ninth Army was unable to move fast enough to counter their tactical defeats near Dinant and of course Sedan. But elsewhere they maintained lines. The Belgians had a continuous line along the entire Dyle River. The French from Namur to north of Dinant had an effectively continuous line, wherever the Meuse was bridgable. And after the fiasco of the first weeks of the campaign, WWII fighting was about defensive lines. Actions occurred due to someone breaking through the opposing defenses, or...in Libya and Egypt...going around a hanging flank. Attacking an enemy position from all sides simultaneously does not in any way relate to how WWII worked. A game that includes that functionality isn't about WWII.
  12. 800m x 800m. The tileset is about 62 custom designs, I think, not counting the plain land tile and the plain water tile. If you want to see the full range of tiles, you can readily work it out by reviewing Five's maps, some of which have the tile grid superimposed on them. Tiles don't have any elevation built into them except for riverbanks. The world creation engine "stretches" the tiles to fit the corner heights created by the DEM (satellite height) data, which...not coincidentally...is per an 800m x 800m grid. Tiles do have roads/railroads/bridges, rivers/riverbanks and forests built into them. City/town buildings, berms, ditches, walls/fences, individual trees and all bushes/bushlines are separately placed.
  13. Realistically, there should be "front lines" across the entire front, with the two sides dug in and facing each other a km or so apart. It should be impossible for a bunch of infantry or an armored car to just drive around an opposing-side position to attack it from the back. There aren't enough players to simulate the defensive lines at towns, let alone the lines between towns. We know that CRS's original game-concept was that fighting would be at and immediately adjacent to towns. Why shouldn't there be pairs of impermeable, undefeatable AI "front lines" between the front line towns, stopping say a km or two out, to channel the fighting where it belongs? Then there'd be no need for location-aware rules on where spawn points could be set up...at least for vehicle based ones. You could set one up anyplace you could get to. The enemy would do the location limiting for you.
  14. A game system that allows attackers to observe where the defenders are, then attack somewhere else, amounts to a perversion of " a large map of immense scale". It's fine to utilize the big map as long as the attack is where the defenders are concentrated and ready. The existing game, in which defenders arrive after the attackers and are never fully ready, is junk. It bears no relationship to realism.