Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


jwilly last won the day on December 4

jwilly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,571 Hero

1 Follower

About jwilly

  • Rank
    WWII Online Builder [GOLD]
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. The coming waypoint technology, providing recommended destinations and reference locations for human players, is a good development. Could a similar technology be used to provide required sequential destinations for NPO objects? For instance, a series of waypoints could provide a course for an AI freighter that would deliver coal from the River Tyne mouth to a port near Greater London, or deliver iron ore from the map edge nearest Narvik, Norway to Bremerhaven or some other port in northwest Germany. Modified towing code could turn that course-guided freighter into a convoy, with other freighters and escorts following.
  2. Progress toward three spawn-in choices of bomb weights/numbers for each bomber is great, as will be extending that to fighter bombers. Fighters were mentioned as well. I don't know what ordnance choices will be provided for them, but it's good progress whatever it will be. Does this project's scope extend only to bomb weights/numbers, or will other ordnance choices be developed? Rockets for fighter bombers. Torpedoes for those aircraft that historically could carry them. Delay-fuze heavy case bombs for effective bombing of naval and factory targets. Instant-fuze thin case bombs for effective bombing of personnel, soft vehicles and town buildings. Smoke for masking. WP for anti-personnel, incendiary and masking.
  3. It's all a complex balance mechanism. Has been since the beginning. So "fixing" the designed visual disadvantages of Axis units would remove game elements that (in the designers' judgements over the years, presumably based on statistical data showing game effectiveness of different unit types and weapons, taking average population and possibly different player psychologies into account) factor into balancing the game. For sure the game would look better if it worked visually more like real life, i.e. non-moving infantry and some equipment types could effectively hide in foliage or shadows, but see out just fine. During WWII that was just as true of the Germans' uniform and equipment colors as it was for those of the Allies. But, what would be the replacement balance factor?
  4. No, it's not. The key reason a majority of customers play games like this to get kills. They also like staying alive, but that's finessed with respawning. If the game was designed to allow players to hide effectively, a majority of customers would hide, and there'd be many fewer kills...thus conflicting with the get-kills imperative. All PvP shooters are designed around that principle. Of course it's true. What other sensible explanation would there be for the game environment being designed as it is, when it as easily could have been designed so that all unmoving land units blend invisibly into the foliage at medium distances and beyond?
  5. Radical new mechanics, map development and a new game concept for time/distance would be required to add movement and occasional fighting in the Atlantic. But the most critical naval supply movement for England's economy was off its east coast, mostly through the North Sea. The moved resource was coal, from the River Tyne mouth to Greater London. Stop those convoys, and England's ability to arm itself and many other economic functions would stop. And, the most critical naval supply movement for Germany's economy was from Narvik, Norway to northwestern Germany. The moved resource was Swedish iron ore. Stop those convoys, and Germany's ability to arm itself would stop. Those coastal convoys, and opportunities to attack and defend them, could be added to the existing game with, by comparison, much less development.
  6. It's fundamental to the game's design that the more lethal a unit is, the more killable it also is, usually by means of visually standing out from its environment.
  7. For the British (T0) and the French (T1, i.e. second part of 1940). But, no HEAT sapper charges for either of them. And everyone's non-HEAT sapper charges have a 25% chance of setting a medium/heavy tank alight if placed on the engine deck, or a 75% chance for a light tank or AC. The Germans get a less capable T0 version of the HEAT sapper charge, and no HEAT RG.
  8. Keep on plugging, Doc. I'm retired, but if I had a job to get done I'd hire you.
  9. How far away do you render other ships/boats? Object classes each have a greatest interaction distance. My understanding is that's the maximum distance at which they render for others that are capable of seeing them at that distance, as well as the distance at which they can render the others if they're capable of doing so. For an interaction between two different classes, the rendering limit-distance is the lesser of the two classes' maximum interaction distances.
  10. I was following the premise of Dre21's OP that the Fairmile's in-game role should be AA protection, i.e. --noting that in real life the WWII US and British navies went away from 20/25mm AA and toward 40mm for AA because it had more-effective stopping power against bombers, and the historical Fairmile B's "gunboat" armament-version and the most comparable armament-versions of the German R-boat and the French "Normandie" class patrol boat similarly were armed with autocannons for AA and anti-coastal-vessel fighting.
  11. The current FMB model already operates at about double its historical capability, or that of the French and German boats of similar capability and size that it presumably represents. Totally agree. The most historically interesting and game-useful version of the FMB had two pounder AA Vickers autocannons bow and stern. CRS doesn't have that gun modeled, so put a dual 20mm at the bow to match the existing stern armament. Or, put a Bofors at the bow and stern, but decrease its muzzle velocity by 25% to make it comparable to the Vickers. The original FMB model had .30 inch caliber class Lewis MMGs at either side of the deckhouse. Such MMGs are pretty useless in-game, though, against attacking aircraft. Realistically operated DDs wouldn't need any protection at all from torpedo bombers dropping realistically modeled torpedoes. When a game builds in unrealisms "to simplify things", more and more unrealisms are needed to keep things from becoming dysfunctional. Just fix the destroyers so they don't stop to fire, and model the torpedoes with realistic limitations, and destroyers will do just fine.
  12. Because you like playing infantry. Other customers like playing armor. Decreasing gameplay availability for the latter customer group would not be a good solution. An alternate approach would be to decrease infantry-armor interactions. Infantry would spawn in a manner that tanks could not camp, and vice versa. Infantry could hide from tanks much more readily. Infantry lethality toward tanks would be cut way back.
  13. Any acknowledgment that supply systems should be improved and offroad mobility made more realistic IMO should be addressed with a multi-part plan including filling-out vehicle-type sets as needed; addition of a secondary road network to the terrain tile set; and enough development time to sort out the inevitable map/terrain issues and the effects on players' accustomed gameplay.
  14. The RN had orders, and plans, and a full expectation of duty and willingness to do that duty, top to bottom, to attack and sink any German invasion and supply activity the first night, every subsequent night, and any time cloud cover or fog provided sufficient protection from air attack for the warships to get to the Channel. It's silly to think that the RN would have valued their own safety over defeating an invasion force. In any case, fast RN ships could sally from forward ports, attack, then get out of escorted-bomber range during the available hours of darkness. German bombers could only survive unescorted at night, and...in the real world, if not this game...bombers at night cannot effectively attack fast moving warships. As after Narvik there was zero chance of the Germans maintaining even contested control of any of the Channel via warship activity, German sea supply could only have happened during daylight and good weather. As noted, the Germans had enough makeshift landing craft for only one wave, and had no experience or plans for how to get those landing craft off beaches where they had been aground and exposed for eleven hours. Supply would have to have occurred via freighters into a harbor. As the British certainly would destroy any harbor equipment about to be captured...they already had placed charges all around the targeted area, and had troops guarding those charges with orders to blow them if in doubt of status or if parachutes were seen...the Germans would have had to land supplies from self unloading ships, i.e. ones equipped with heavy cranes. Even after captures from Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium and France, Germany had an insufficient number of such ships for their requirements. Their plans counted on capturing multiple fully equipped, undamaged ports. At night, the British using bombers and submarines would have mined the bejeebers out of any harbor and its approaches that the Germans were able to capture. The British had a large number of coastal submarines and coastal surface craft that were well suited for such mining and for attacking any German naval activity at night. After Narvik, the Germans had only a minimal capability to conduct anti-submerged-submarine warfare. They also had a far insufficient capability for de-mining. And, daylight and good weather is an ideal setting for submarines to attack slow moving freighters in a tight context like the Channel. The Germans had similar problems trying to supply their North African forces via the constrained harbors at Bengasi and Tobruk, even with help from the Regia Marina. They failed abjectly, and had to rely on landing supplies in Tunis harbor and expensively, laboriously bringing them eastward by truck and rail. Just as in North Africa and at Stalingrad, the Germans probably would have imagined themselves able to supply by air. Just as in North Africa and Stalingrad, certainly that effort would have failed due to far insufficient tonnage capability, even if the British didn't make any effort to contest it. About two thirds of the entire German air transport tonnage capability was destroyed during the attacks on Norway, Netherlands and Belgium, and their production rate was low throughout the war. It's almost certain that the Germans, had they actually gotten forces ashore in southeastern England, would have had to surrender those forces eventually due to insufficient supply.
  15. "Vehicle-impenetrable forest" should mean no supply for all force elements moving through that forest. Including infantry. Supplies move in trucks. Trucks move on roads. Individual ground force elements should not be able to move out of supply range. WWIIOL is most marketable against its bigger competitors when it offers realism they don't. The game's biggest ground unrealism is its supply system for ammo and vehicle fuel.