jwilly

Registered Users
  • Content count

    23,188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    50

jwilly last won the day on September 7

jwilly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,477 Hero

1 Follower

About jwilly

  • Rank
    WWII Online Builder [GOLD]
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. Keep on plugging, Doc. I'm retired, but if I had a job to get done I'd hire you.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. "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.
  9. It's just historically accurate modeling of the until-now secret UK 1940-41 defensive plans. The war was to crash if the Germans invaded. All that bit about Bletchley Park's early computer capabilities being about code breaking...that was just an effective cover story. That was really just the server array for the war. If the Germans got too close to London, Alan Turing's real job was to pull the plug.
  10. Yay for bullets whizzing past. A great effect. I supported and still support area capture. Yes, it would be disruptive and no doubt the mechanics would require lots of evolution to get them right. It however is the way to better realism. The current mechanics are both too gamey and too game-normal for WWIIOL to break out as a commercial success.
  11. I like it. Maybe limit it to subscribers, as a further motivation for that? There of course will be objections that overpop players play to fight other players, not AI...but what they're really saying is they want to fight no one, or at best an inadequate number of underpop players, because it's easier for the overpop side to win that way.
  12. Heh. Two victories at once...beat cancer, and lose that extra weight. OK, that might be marketable. If you're writing a book about losing weight, maybe some of your medical bills and your new wardrobe will be a business expense. Not that you have big income right now to take expenses against, but some tax treatments can reach back to prior years.
  13. I'd guess if you wrote a diet book it wouldn't sell well.
  14. There wouldn't be any sense of accomplishment/"winning" psychological income for the underpop side, having towns handed back to them. Yes, they'd lose slower, but not through any accomplishments of theirs. And, the overpop side would just take the same towns again, over and over...and they'd be unhappy that they were robbed of their accomplishments. I think from a marketing perspective, that might be lose-lose. *** Among ideas that have been proposed before: 1. Scale the degree of difficulty of various accomplishments to the local pop ratio. You're locally down 2:1, it only takes you half as many personnel to accomplish a cap. 2. Give the locally underpop side some fire support i.e. virtual artillery. You're locally down 2:1, you get three artillery missions in the next hour.