jwilly

Registered Users
  • Content count

    23,725
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    58

jwilly last won the day on January 18

jwilly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,671 Hero

1 Follower

About jwilly

  • Rank
    WWII Online Builder [GOLD]
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. Breaking tracks and gun barrels is a simulation of the limited ways that less-powerful weapons could disable, and thus effectively take out of a battle, more powerful tanks. In that regard, it's historically based, even though the users of those powerful tanks would like to be impervious. And, the game's play-logic depends on it. If the game contains weapons that cannot achieve even sustained disables, those weapons are no longer as playable. That breaks the logic of tier progressions, and noobs having access to only older/less powerful/lower tier weapons until they rank up. My guess is that the proposal would not be a sensible use of limited development resources, which instead could be used toward new weapons, new combat or movement mechanics, or new map development.
  2. So you want to model the tank/truck recovery process? And use combat engineers to conduct long repairs on recovered items? That's a lot of non-combat gameplay. What percentage of customers would play it? Would CRS generate more revenue using the same development resources to add more combat gameplay instead?
  3. The functional equivalent of the StuH 105mm.
  4. Having that mechanic also will need multiple types of bombs...another loadout selection...to be selected before takeoff. Thin case bombs have maximum blast destruction and maximum fragmentation lethality against soft targets. They always have instant fuzes, because the case cannot withstand full-deceleration impact against something solid, i.e. a steel or concrete object. Against ships, they cause topside damage (to AA crews, etc.) but no hull or propulsion damage. Against tanks, they sometimes break suspensions if they explode immediately alongside, or damage the engine's support systems if they explode on the engine deck. Against factories, they explode against the easily rebuilt roof, instead of penetrating through the roof structure and exploding among the difficult-to-replace production machinery. Thick case bombs are able to penetrate through strong objects and structures before a delay fuze operates. They are used against factories, steel ships, tanks and fortifications. They have significantly less blast volume and fragment count than thin case bombs. A delay fuze bomb that hits dirt will bury itself before exploding, resulting in a geyser of dirt and a crater but minimal or no blast and case-fragmentation damage.
  5. Or anywhere but in a front line infantry unit in an active part of the front. Being a quartermaster somewhere away from the front, or an AA gunner almost anywhere, or a clerk typing away in a commandeered hotel-used-as-an-office-building in Paris, was pretty safe too. Fighting infantry, not so much.
  6. If this game was real life, everyone here would be dead in combat. You don't get to respawn in real life. Be glad it's just a game. Note though that in many respects it's the most realistic game out there. Not implementing historically non-factual folk tales doesn't make the game less realistic.
  7. In factual history, the dry storage Shermans and the PzKpfW IVs were equally likely to burn after penetration. As Doc notes above, the later wet storage Shermans were less likely to burn. That was determined after the war by analysis of after action reports. But, folk tales often are not based on fact.
  8. I hope it's obvious that we all appreciate your work.
  9. Seems like if something was going to be ticketed for a fix, it would be the reported condition...whether new, or always-been...that a tank player can avoid a KIA by despawning after the attack but before its results are resolved. It's not good game design to have despawning as a tactic.
  10. I understand that this is totally a gameplay issue. However, the game "HEAT satchel" weapon was inspired by an actual Germans-only infantry AT device. The late-1940/early-1941 first version of that weapon had a four second pull fuze. It wasn't until the 1942/43 third version that the fuze was changed to seven seconds. That's as long as it ever was.
  11. Bulge...US: 1944 Canada...Canadian units understood winter and snow fighting: US winter anorak...essentially identical to those issued by the Brits: During the Bulge fighting, the initially present American units were poorly equipped for winter because that part of the front was considered a backwater. Within the first day or two of fighting, basically all the white bedsheets from every house within Allied lines were purchased, bartered for or stolen so that those American soldiers could survive. Later-arriving troops wore the kind of gear shown above, as did many of the German troops.
  12. The deciduous tree/bush models all would be leafless. Evergreens would have snow on their branches. Most wheeled vehicles would be completely immobile off-road. Movement on roads would be slow, with lots of slipping and sliding. Infantry in many cases would be wearing winter-white gear...bedsheet ponchos if nothing else. Tanks and other front line equipment in some cases would be whitewashed or repainted. The weather would be mostly fully cloud-covered, so ground attack air action be minimized. And, some of the time it would be snowing...which decreases visibility much more than rain, and also greatly decreases how far sound carries. River swimming is already on the game's (regrettably long) list of absurd features. Doing so in the winter usually would result in death in the water, not on the far side.
  13. The problem isn't that there wouldn't be enough computing power. It's that the interaction circle is directly related to how many objects the client and server can manage in the database that runs the game, and that database and all of the code related to it would have to be rewritten to handle more objects. That's the deepest layer of both the client and the servers.
  14. Hmmm. 1940...SS-11 ATGMs...hmmm.
  15. The ultimate reason for inaction was not the mechanics. Those could be modified to make everything work. The reason, game-historically per old-CRS explanations over the years, was that the game is designed around a conceptual linkage between being able to kill and being able to be killed. The kill potential of a player must be proportional to the risk of being killed. Both long range artillery and high altitude bombing were judged likely to provide some players with a large kill potential and a small risk of being killed. So, old-CRS never prioritized them, because resources instead could be used for other game development actions that it was felt would affect gameplay in a more consistent way.