jwilly

Registered Users
  • Content count

    20,233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

jwilly last won the day on January 26

jwilly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

332 Salty

About jwilly

  • Rank
    WWII Online Builder [GOLD]
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. For many of the weapons modeled in-game, cartwheel sights were a backup. Much more accurate optical sights with target-speed-based predictive functionality were provided as primary. But setting that aside, real cartwheel sights were located close enough to the shooter's aim eye that at the greatest recommended engagement range, with a target flight path normal to the gun-to-target line resulting in a maximized rate of angular aim change, the target's present location would not be outside the outermost ring to achieve hits. The game cartwheel sights are modeled as if they're about four to six times too far from the shooter.
  2. AFAIK, never mobile-mounted. Mostly a late-war naval mount. Not until T4. A few in T4, more in T5. All these calls for new models are misguided. What the game is missing is realistic gunsights. The idea of an AA gun having a cartwheel sight that's intentionally designed to be far too small for the game's flight geometry is grotesque.
  3. Actually both could have the M49 MG mount.
  4. A key variant of the American HT will be the quad M2HB SPAA vehicle. The M3 was the basis for the M16, used by US Army. The M5 was the basis for the M17, the entire production run of which went to the Soviet Union.
  5. M3, not M5.
  6. Concepts like this would require ripping out and rebuilding the strategic ownership/capture logic. CRS has said before that that's the deepest layer of the game engine, and they don't have the resources to change that core because it would require building the game code all over again. It'd be great if it were practical to do so. CRS also could consider changing the game to be about capture of river crossings and a few other supply movement pinch points...which is really what WWII strategic ground actions were about...instead of town centers, which in the absence of a river, large forest, rough terrain or other natural movement barrier were trivially easily bypassed in western Europe in WWII due to the density of the suburban road net.
  7. An ability to increase X would mean a decrease to Y. A increase of X would be enjoyed by some customers, but not by those customers that prefer to play with Y. It's necessary for CRS to manage the weapon mixes in order to assure that all customer gameplay preferences are met with a supply level scaled to demand, and to eliminate weird if-they-choose-A-then-we'll-choose-B ways to win the game that depend on analysis more than on competitive gameplay. As alluded to above, this idea was tried a number of years ago for a few campaigns. It made a few customers happy...those that got to make the command decisions for the sides that won...and a lot of customers unhappy. Commercially, it was very unsuccessful.
  8. Multi-crewed, with torpedoes.
  9. Everyone wants the unit they prefer to play to be either more lethal, more damage-resistant, or harder to spot... And, the units they play against to be less lethal, less damage-resistant, and easier to spot.
  10. Having been lead moderator here for a while a few years ago, and being an amateur student of internet psychology, I'm pretty confident that some folks enjoy arguing and espousing controversial or contrarian viewpoints.
  11. This: per Killer is exactly this weapon, modeled more simply...the historical Haftholladung HHL-3: So the HEAT Sapper Charge is not at all a mish-mash of lots of capabilities. It's exactly one historical weapon. The problem is that that weapon was German only, and that version of it was fielded in 1943. There was a slightly less effective version in 1942, HHL-2: And the original HHL-1 version, with adhesive attachment and a less well designed HEAT charge, which I think was first available in late 1940 but probably wasn't used in combat until the Germans next faced enemy tanks: A better way to do it would be to model the HHL-1 for the T0 Germans, the HHL-2 for the T2 Germans, and the HHL-3 for the T3 Germans. The Germans also would get their mediocre HEAT RG in T1: And a better HEAT RG in T2 (upper image): Meanwhile, the T0 British would get their HEAT RG: And the French would get theirs in T0 as well: but neither the French nor the British would get a HEAT "sapper charge".
  12. Well, actually they're fairly realistic for the T3-and-beyond Germans. And the Germans had a precursor weapon (nowhere near as much penetration, usable only on horizontal surfaces) in T0 or 1. But the British and French and Americans...nothing like that at all. The British and French OTOH had moderately effective HEAT RGs in T0. The Germans had a poorly effective one in T1, and a moderately effective one in T2. Unfortunately it appears CRS intends to give the Germans a moderately effective one in T0. Just more unrealism so that everyone has comparable weaponry.
  13. This thread is about superstructure and weapon changes...not all new vehicles. The latter are not development-eligible at present. PzJg I would be all new. So would Jagdtiger and Jagdpanther. Hetzer at least would fit the thread theme, i.e. it would be a superstructure-and-weapon change from an existing model.
  14. The Hetzer would be fun, but would have less lethality and much less survivability. The Jagdtiger would be a gross mismatch for game conditions, i.e. sightlines are never long enough to take advantage of its armament, its speed and maneuverability were terrible, and it'd constantly be flanked or attacked from above. It'd go unused for sure, due to players trying it a few times and quickly dying each time.