• Announcements


      Need help for incoming players.   04/29/2017

      With the looming Steam release, we are anticipating many new players to the game. This is great for all of us, and it's important that we retain as many as we can. With that in mind, we'd like to enlist players to help with the inevitable questions asked in the forums. Ideally, gameplay questions are asked and answered in-game, but it's not always easy or convenient to answer questions while playing. A Gameplay Support Forum would be a good place for those who want to help. We are now accepting volunteers for the Rat Patrol, who will provide correct and consistent info to new players in the Forums. The more new players we retain, the better it is for the game and the biggest hurdle in player retention is grasping the complexities of this game. If you are interested, send me a PM.  
    • Dodger

      Squad Leaders Contact GVONPAUL OR Dodger for Squad Forums   05/18/2017


      We are seeking Squad Leaders to volunteer their squads to help us test the upcoming Squad Forums system. This system will integrate squads who wish to participate into a self-sustained "forum within a forum." You will be able to add members to your squad, assign permissions, and create forums/calendar events on your own. The idea behind this system is part of our commitment to support squads as a integral part of our community. This service will be offered free of charge to all squads of World War II Online upon launch. Our goal is to offer all of the services a squad off-site forum can offer but free of charge and tied in to our existing forum service. So what do you need tested? We need willing volunteers to test the whole system - make forums, post threads, assign permissions, etc. The idea is to have several squads giving it a test run to point out any flaws before we launch it publicly. What are the requirements? We are ideally looking for medium to large squads - Ideally ten people or so plus, but smaller squads feel free to apply - and a willingness to use our platform. It's important to note (as of now - these may be included at a later date) we are unable to convert posts from a private forum if your squad previously used one, and you (or your XO's and recruiters) will need to assign individual members permissions. It is entirely possible that in the future this system will be automatically linked to the game's squad roster, but as of now developer priorities are elsewhere (1.37 and steam, w00t!) How do I sign up? PM me ( @Dodger ) on the forums, or email me at dodger@playnet.com - Please indicate your squad name and how many members you have. I will get back to you with more instructions.


Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


jwilly last won the day on May 6

jwilly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

143 Salty

About jwilly

  • Rank
    WWII Online Builder [GOLD]
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. Fight avoidance has been a major gameplay theme since the game's early days. Some players strive to capture without fighting. In a low-pop situation, one can capture ground much faster that way. Other players of course want fights. The tension between these two gameplay approaches is a key design concern.
  2. It could be fixed by CRS deciding to increase their bandwidth per peak-load player, and their server power, and by them re-structuring the packet size and/or frequency so that there are more bits per second to work with, so that displayed trajectories can be higher precision.
  3. Every position and angle in game is described numerically using some number of bits. Obviously, the more bits, the more precision. The game's client-server-client communications are so many packets per second, and so many bits per packet. The data rate directly drives CRS's data costs. It also directly determines how many players can be supported by a given server/network system speed and power. Those bits are allocated to everything that's happening in-game...your own position/angle/speed/stance/weapon type/weapon-status, the position/angle/speed/stance/weapon type/weapon-status of every other unit on your interaction list, the position/angle/speed/type of every projectile fired since the last packet, and so forth. Everything has to fit into X bits per second. As part of the original design, it was decided that the limitation on bits per second required that the data for the angular precision of rounds fired at you, that your client uses for displaying their tracer-trajectory, would be medium-precision instead of high-precision. That medium precision data is sent up by your client to the server, then by the server to every client that can see that trajectory. I think that design-data-rate has been increased twice since then, but it's still finite. There's a specific number of bits per second. The limitation on your vis list isn't some specific number of other players, because it also depends on what elese is happening within your vis range and view. Lots of projectiles, for instance, likely means a smaller vis list. Note that this has nothing at all to do with whether the round hits. Your client calculates that using the position of the target provided to it by the server, and high precision calculations of your aim. If you hit, your client sends a "hit, and where, and arrival angle, and energy" message to the server to send to the target. There's no medium precision anywhere in that process. The actual projectile path and the displayed trajectory are independent of each other, just as the rest of the game's visuals are independent of the game's projectile-and-collider models. My understanding when Oliver was playing around with that data is that he was either using an experimentally increased packet size or frequency, or he had experimentally decreased the vis list.
  4. Except in rare instances, naval personnel with an existing ship were not used as infantry. Naval bases close enough to enemy ground forces to potentially come under direct attack either were defended by armies, or were abandoned by the naval forces, who after all could sail away as long as the crew existed. Fritter away the skilled crew as infantry, though, and you were guaranteed to lose the ships as well. German naval infantry units toward the end of WWII no longer had ships. They were formed into infantry units because they were available manpower. And, they wore normal infantry combat uniforms.
  5. I'd be very happy to have my opponent in a blue uniform. WWII Fusiliers Marins: Narvik: Re-capture of France: Naval officer:
  6. A key requirement for realistic tactics is individual fear of death. Tactics often involve suppression, and the essense of suppression is your enemy wanting to stay alive, therefore keeping their head down. This game doesn't have fear of death, at this point anyway.
  7. The AI AA and ground emplacements have been in the same places for 17 years. It's not that they aren't well mapped. You want to be able to do a paradrop within range of known enemy AA defenses and ground defensive emplacements, and not be shot at? Xoom has told us a bunch of times lately that CRS's marketing stance is that this game is intended to be realistic. So, you might want to not do para drops within range of known, mapped enemy defenses. That's sort of the implication of realism.
  8. If CRS wanted to get a little bit what-if, the Sherman-with-90mm-T26-turret ("Persherman") could have been in Europe in 1943, sooner than the T26E3 due to having fewer elements to debug and fewer production aspects to bring up to speed. In the past, the planned next tank set was to be Firefly; Panther; and M36B1. The latter was an M36 turret with 90mm gun on a Sherman hull, providing Sherman-like power turret drive and Persherman-like gun performance but with minimal turret armor. A later set was to include Comet, Tiger II, and T26E3 / M26.
  9. Maybe "good" if CRS can afford to value the vets a lot more than the noobs. And, maybe that's correct economics if the vets mostly subscribe and most of the noobs will play for free. But if enough of the noobs eventually would subscribe to economically outweigh the vets, then forcing the noobs to play a side that they don't want to play would be economically foolish. It would decrease their game enjoyment, which would tend to cause them to leave. Everything needs to be about increasing eventual revenue.
  10. It's been noted that the different squads have various "styles". Some are serious, disciplined and accomplishment oriented, others are just here to have fun. Some new customers are going to fit right into one of those two squad types, or some other one. Other new customers aren't a good fit for any squad--either because they like solo gameplay and don't want a social context, or because they don't have the maturity or social experience to fit well into adult gameplay. There are lots of other variants. Maybe one useful step would be to provide every new player with a list of the squads that are willing to consider new players, with a brief characterization of the "type" of the squad. No bragging or declarations of being the best. Just plain factual information as to what kind of player would find that squad to be a good fit. That kind of directory would be useful not only when players are ready to consider joining a squad, but also when they first arrive and know nothing about the gameplay culture here, to inform them of what kinds of gameplay are "valid".
  11. And if there are enough of you, or if you get to a threshold number by temporarily or permanently combining with another squad, you get an AO to place. Makes sense to me.
  12. There could be other details...maybe a green tag could be invited to an op by a squad. I assume the mechanism would need to be more selective than all-green-tags-can-join-squad-AOs. Whatever their orientation (laid back, adult-serious, military-serious, often drunk, whatever), squads need to be able to assure that they don't have incompatible green tags on their ops so that the squad members can reliably have fun--which is essential to achieve the OP goal. Some mechanism for evaluating the "type" of a particular green tag player would be needed.
  13. I probably don't know all the details, but in the Old Days several large squads dominated gameplay. For various reasons, CRS made changes to the game that made squads less dominant. Eventually AOs were added, I think originally as a continuation of that business determination that CRS needed to have a greater degree of control of gameplay. One reason was so as to assure more-even delivery of game fun to squad and non-squad customers. There's been some thought since then that while the delivery of game fun became more even, there was a negative business impact. Since then, there have been maybe a hundred posts here suggesting that squad gameplay would be more fun if squads could set AOs, so as to have a greater degree of control over what their members do. It strikes me that those posts and the OP may be talking about the same problem as seen from different vantage points. Perhaps CRS could set a squad or group-of-squads membership-logged-in threshold of X subscribers, at which point the highest-level logged-in player on a submitted list of leaders for that squad or group-of-squads would get to set a that-squad-only AO. I'd think that benefit would motivate squad joining, increase turnout for squad nights, and ultimately motivate subscriptions.
  14. Side bias is never my intent. The particular point above was in regard to ACs. The German one has a stability issue that everyone agrees needs fixing, but aside from that has realistic firepower (i.e. not much) and way too much mobility. The British one has realistic firepower in a technical sense (a lot), but then it's super-multiplied because it's combined with the way-too-much-mobility problem. My point was and is that if a given game modality like ACs is realistic but unequal, that's the way the game should be designed. Both sides need to have superior and inferior weapons to get to overall side balance. In this instance, they're not realistic because of the mobility situation. When something in-game is unrealistic and aggravatingly unequal, it shouldn't be fixed by adding a corresponding unrealism to the other side. It should be fixed by dealing with the unrealism, which in this case is the fantasy off-road mobility for all wheeled vehicles.
  15. Usually when the Allied gear doesn't appear in a discussion of the problems of modeling equipment superiorities, it's because there are relatively fewer instances of early tier Allied gear that was superior to a significant extent compared to the German equivalent, other than sometimes quantity which is mostly irrelevant in game terms. That's just the facts. The grease gun is an excellent example of a game management mistake, IMO. It's game-superior not because it was historically superior like the MG34/42, but because it's parameterized unrealistically, I assume to achieve a lethality-balance need. That's not the only instance of the designers putting their thumb on the scale in parameterization so as to achieve balance, but it's the most recent, most obvious one. Obviously the Garand doesn't belong in British hands...it was a tiny presence there relative to the .303...unless that move is justified as "what if", in which case there are a number of other technically-realistic-what-if game moves I'd be happy to see. I don't know, but my guess is that Scotsman's ordnance submissions include smoke for the 75mm L/24s at least, and probably for the German vehicle long 75mms as well. I've never defended not having realistic cannon smoke in-game already. Various of us were proposing smoke ordnance additions in the design forum a decade or more ago. The challenge from CRS's perspective is figuring out how to keep the game tactically balanced if smoke works realistically. Something will have to be done for the early tier British and French or the tactical game will go way out of balance, and there are historical, gameplay and resource constraints on what that something could be. I don't want to see the equivalent of a grease gun solution to early tier Allied smoke, i.e. something way out of chronology and with unrealistic performance.