jwilly

Registered Users
  • Content count

    19,660
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

jwilly last won the day on May 6

jwilly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

171 Salty

About jwilly

  • Rank
    WWII Online Builder [GOLD]
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. I'm with you that it'd add interest to the game to have more "weapon set changes" in a campaign. There's been various talk over the years of having six month tiers. That'd still require more CRS balance work, plus there might not be enough available weapons to have that many set changes. Maybe someday, though.
  2. The game must be overall-lethality-balanced every day of every tier, so that every player experiences a lethality-balanced-by-design game. iF that overall-lethality-balance can't be accomplished via weapon set design because lethality balance has to exist alongside intentional weapon set imbalance, there would have to be some other balance mechanism. No such alternate balance mechanism has worked over the past decade-and-a-half...and even if one existed, it'd have to applied. That's where the massive amount of work would be. One of the Rats once said that about a third of all their work, total since game launch, was related to game balance. Building a new game balance concept would involve doing that over again.
  3. Balance does need to exist "every minute". Each side must be lethality-balanced against the other side, for every tier, all the way through that tier. The "every minute" point, i.e. every day, isn't relevant in the current system, given that tiers have constant sets. It'd be highly relevant in the proposed approach. The design concept always has been that there must not be "Allied advantage" or "Axis advantage" days. Each tier must be overall-lethality-balanced, all the way through. Any "contradiction" might be at my end, or on the part of the reader. All that I'm trying to do is explain CRS's design concept, as they explained it over and over starting in the early days. Possibly I have to keep explaining it over and over because it's hard to grasp, or because I don't do a good job of it. That however doesn't make it untrue or invalid.
  4. For the massive amount of work involved, I'd rather have CRS develop some new weapon sets. I'd guess that'd appeal to 90+% of customers.
  5. Interesting, but it'd be massive amounts of balancing and play-test work. The game has to be side-to-side lethality balanced every day a new customer may arrive. Intentionally removing the ability to use similtaneous arrival of weapon sets would force development of another effective balance mechanism. In the past decade and a half, a number of alternate balance mechanisms have been tried, and all were ineffective compared to the balanced-tier-set-of-sets approach. When all the work was done, would 90% of the customers notice the difference? And e ven for the relatively few customers that know and care about the detailed history of WWII, this game isn't a re-creation once the campaign starts. Many WWII weapon development timelines were reactive, or dependent on some other decision-set by your side or the other side. If the campaign isn't exactly following what happened historically...which it can't, because the game really isn't anything like WWII once we move past the first day...then historical weapon introduction months make no sense, even for the few history-grognards.
  6. CRS's costs per player are not decreased based on that customer playing only one game-mode. CRS's need is to get $17.99/$14.99 per player. That's the way the numbers shake out. It doesn't matter what that customer plays. Offering a subscription-type at a lower revenue point would have the anti-CRS-success effect of decreasing total revenue from some existing customers, and causing some percentage of future subscribers to come in at a lower revenue point. I certainly understand why some customers would like a lower price. Everyone would prefer to pay less for the things they buy. Why though would CRS want to offer pricing below what will result in a survivable revenue level?
  7. CRS needs to look at such ideas from the perspective of how many customers would like it, and how many wouldn't. My guess on this one based on observation since about day 1 is that a few percent at most would like it, and the rest would be appalled. Collaborative gameplay would mostly end except among highly secretive squads. Willingness to assist green tags would be greatly diminished. The game would be about spying, not operations and fighting. The net result would be highly destructive of CRS's market survival ability.
  8. I thought this was going to be a command that would cause the enemy to always miss.
  9. It's well established that tip income, and "gift" income in return for services, is income taxable to the recipient. A passthrough handler of such funds can have tax obligations as well, including reporting how much was paid to who, and sometimes withholding. Consider how (legally compliant) restaurants handle tip funds that customers charge to their credit card as a part of the meal tab. It's possible that IRS might decide that, since CRS would receive a benefit from the service provided by HC, HC were (legally) employees of CRS. That'd have all sorts of consequences and effects, none of them good for CRS. But if there was a desire to do it, here's a system already set up. Of course, they take a cut. https://www.patreon.com/
  10. The point about tax consequences is valid.
  11. The point that Vas was making, maybe not gently enough, was that quite a bit of research was done on the various weapons, and almost all of them have sight reticules modeled from the historical ones. The not-being-able-to-fight-at-night limitation is realistic. WWII tanks basically didn't fight at night, or at least didn't fight at ranges that involved using the gunsight. Actually the gunsights are too bright at night...they're modeled as if their optical efficiency is 100%, which is impossible. CRS has included in the game a few adaptations to make gameplay easier. It's perfectly fine to offer your suggestions here. CRS is very very interested in attracting new players such as you, and while they probably consider for such suggestions whether the idea is consistent with realism--which is their marketing differentiation from the bigger competitors--and whether the idea is practically do-able within their development resource limits, they may also want to consider whether the idea would result in a net gain of paying customers. Maybe your current suggestion or another one would be important from that latter perspective.
  12. Don't remove anything. Just move them to the right chronology, and make them work realistically. And no, that won't automatically be balance. CRS has to be creative and work hard to get their game to statistical balance. But, they can do it.
  13. Small high velocity fragments like those thrown by an offensive grenade like the German potato masher without a sleeve , or a HEAT grenade used as anti-personnel, aren't going to be lethal for that distance. But, within three or four meters they're going to be very lethal. Defensive grenades like the American pineapple, the British Mills or the German potato masher with a sleeve, easily can be lethal out to that radius, but not uniformly. They throw a finite number of fragments. If you're standing between two fragment-paths a few meters out, you'll be fine. Someone twice as far away may be killed.
  14. Right. A single shell shouldn't flatten an entire building that's larger than a garden shed. Ditto for a single demolition charge. A large aerial bomb, now that's a different story. But the right modeling approach would be to have a 75mm shell destroy one module, and a bomb destroy say six. Then damage would scale.
  15. It might be beneficial to CRS marketing for more attention to be paid to the "British" army also containing Canadian and other Commonwealth elements. That'd also add realism. And, in the present instance, it'd provide a useful modeling option. The British Universal Carrier was an excellent vehicle, but had quite a small capacity. It could tow the six pounder on level pavement. Maybe instead the British army with Canadian participation could have Windsor carriers...one bogey wheel longer, with almost twice the man-capacity and more horsepower for towing of bigger guns. The Windsor would have a better correspondence between the man/equipment capacity and that of the German and American HTs plus someday the Lorraine 39 for the T0 French. The Americans also used a US-made close relative of the Windsor carrier as the T-16. It's worth noting that the 81mm/three inch mortar class really wouldn't make sense as a man-carried unit. The Germans had a version of the SdKfz 251 HT with an 81mm mortar. The Commonwealth had a version of the Universal with a three incher. I think it'd be quite reasonable to put a three incher in a Windsor.