jwilly

Registered Users
  • Content count

    23,856
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    58

Everything posted by jwilly

  1. Actually, yes. CRS would have to sell or give the game operation to a new nonprofit company organized as a 501(c) 3 under the IRS Code. The new company would have to be organized to accomplish a charitable or public service goal. Section 501(c)(3) is the portion of the US Internal Revenue Code that allows for federal tax exemption of nonprofit organizations, specifically those that are considered public charities, private foundations or private operating foundations. I'm not sure how a game would be defined as a public service, but that's how lawyers make their money. My understanding of CRS history is that profits have been scarce over the past decades, so the "nonprofit" part isn't a stretch. My further understanding, though, is that one reason the current owner keeps the business going is in the hope that eventually the game will be done enough and good enough to break through to the big time. It seems to me that that hope would have to be set aside if the game became a 501(c) 3.
  2. Just sort of making conversation here...you have all the expertise considering what you experience, and I'm just some internet guy: Anyway...from an engineering and biomedical perspective, I think if your taste buds and nasal receptors were truly done and non-functional, you'd get no taste sensation at all. Instead you're getting lots of bad taste sensation. That means that something is working. Not very well, and not at all how you want it to work, but sensory action is occurring. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, and maybe you've been told otherwise, but it sure sounds to me more like chemo taste or radiation damage than permanent radiation destruction. That, it seems to me, might be seen as very encouraging, because it means the mechanisms for improvement over time aren't ruled out. If taste buds are damaged, that maybe is temporary, because they renew even in normal circumstances. If nerve fibers are damaged, they can mend. I met a woman a few years ago that had been in an auto accident that caused an odd concussion-like closed head injury in which her nasal and tongue sensory nerve bundle was almost severed. No other lasting injury, but she was struggling with slow recovery of the abilities to taste and smell. Recovery was occurring, though. Each bit of recovery was a small victory. https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-doc-fight-lymphoma/donate
  3. My understanding is that cochlear implants get better all the time. There's quite bit of info online regarding persons with CIs that have returned to being musicians, commercially or for fun and aesthetic satisfaction. That's something you could consider for the future. Your doctors are the experts, of course, but I've been told that individual taste bud cells are replaced much more frequently than most other cell types, and most patients who experience loss of food taste and "chemo taste" do get normal food taste back, beginning quickly and completing in a few weeks to a few months. Not in any way to make light of the travails you're going through, of course.
  4. Not sure. I never heard details of the original plan. One could guess though that Morale was an unfinished development element from the pre-release difficulties. The summary posted above was from a discussion in the Design/Beta forum, around the time that Rapid Assault was being worked on.
  5. Another idea from the old-CRS days: Create a quantified-morale/fear-of-death system. Higher morale improves your aim steadiness and your ATP, your susceptibility to brief automatic suppression by close enemy fire, and how long that suppression affects you. Higher morale (the opposite of fear of death) is a "carrot". You have it when you're close to your tactical leader. You can get even more by being close to other friendlies that have higher morale than you. You have it when you're close to a medic, or a source of supplies for your primary weapon. If you're infantry, you get more by being close to a tank or AT gun. Your baseline level increases the longer time you spend at a high level, and because recent missions have been successful. Your morale decreases (fear of death increases) when you're too far from your tactical leader. Ditto the rest of your unit, and supplies, and a medic. It decreases when the morale of soldiers around you decreases, and when you're under enemy fire. It significantly decreases when a friendly near you is injured or killed. OTOH, that latter morale loss is offset to the positive if a wounded friendly is stabilized by a medic near you. In a quantified-morale system, unit cohesion isn't forced. It's just motivated by morale. You want to stay near your tactical leader and your squad/platoon because that makes you much more gameplay-effective.
  6. Huh. Sounds like tactical unit cohesion. Nah, couldn't be. No one would play a game that worked that way.
  7. OK, fine. What are the "carrots" in real soldiering? Well, orders and training. But those are secondary, in place for other reasons. The "other reasons" are tactical lethality, survivability, and mutual supply. All of these are greatly superior in the real worldfor a cohesive tactical unit than for an equal number of disassociated individuals. This is a game with challenging limits on programming resources, and a need to make gameplay progress fast. If the end goal is cohesive unit gameplay, what's the advantage to CRS of complex modeling of the individual performance factors that cause real armies without exception to train and order their soldiers to operate cohesively, compared to just coding the game so that cohesion is built into the movement system?
  8. Kilem's concern could be addressed by the addition of a concept that the game needs in other respects as well: required infantry unit proximity. Infantrymen shouldn't be free to run around the battlefield far from their tactical commander and unit. It's wildly unrealistic for infantrymen to be Rambos, dashing around on their own with no attention to squad mates, supply, tactical command, unit mission and so forth. Specifically for ATG gun crew, allow them to get 15 meters away. At that point, no movement command causes them to move farther away from the gun. Instead they just go prone.
  9. Because this is in a forum read by players who don't have the long customer background of some of us, a bit of a clarification: It's not that CRS doesn't know where it's headed. It's only that they have customers who especially like each kind of gameplay, and because of CRS's customer focus, they've tried over the years to market a game that -- they've hoped -- appeals to both customer types. The challenge these days as seen from one long-time customer perspective is whether that middle path is working, or whether instead the game might be more commercially successful...which it needs to support ongoing development...by communicating a commitment to one direction or the other.
  10. Xoom responded, in part: The question, I think, is where is CRS's design boundary. Would the above quoted suggestion fit into the "more work to be done" category...not with a commitment for immediate accomplishment, but nonetheless something that customers could consider a goal, by which they could be motivated? Or would it be disallowed from that category in line with the below quoted thoughts: which other customers, preferring the game-style as discussed, would prefer?
  11. My non-Xoom, non-CRS's/Playnet's-owner perspective is that at some point CRS will have to decide whether to continue competing with the giant game companies in the fantasy/unrealism-but-fun/sci-fi market slot, or instead commit whole-hog to the realism niche; and clearly communicate that decision to the marketplace. Over the past eighteen years or so, CRS has failed to retain thousands of customers who wanted fantasy/unrealism-but-fun/sci-fi gameplay, and moved from WWIIOL to one of the giant games because they have better graphics and more toys. CRS also has failed to retain many hundreds of customers who wanted realism, and concluded CRS wasn't sufficiently interested in going there. It's hard to convince customers what you are when you can't make up your mind, or feel you have to keep pretending to be multiple game-types at once.
  12. Yes, agreed. And as you said elsewhere, some players think that defending is fun, but others on both sides want to attack, so both sides need to be capable of attacking...even when the total population is small to moderate and it's unbalanced. In classic 1940s warfare, defenders had about a 2:1 lethality advantage. Analyzing across much of WWII's history, operational-level engagements...all else equal...were about even fights when the attacker had a 2:1 force advantage over the defender, because of the lethality advantage of the defense provided by their emplaced weapons, dug-in positions, mines/wire, tactical planning of fields of fire and the like. Attackers had to have a 3:1 force advantage before they gained an advantage in likelihood of prevailing. The current game mechanics are just beginning to touch on those factors...though CRS is mostly modeling them to not actually be lethality multipliers, which makes the whole exercise pointless so far. But, CRS presumably could change that. The relevance of this to the discussion topic is that defensive lethality multipliers are always directional. Game mechanics that inherently result in attackers coming from everywhere eliminate all possibility of the game having working defense. Instead every battle is a chaotic hodge podge of a meeting engagement. That, fundamentally, is what screws the smaller-numbers side. Without sensible defense based on realistic defensive lethality multipliers, the numerically smaller side has no chance of having both an adequate defense and enough concentratable forces to mount attacks. That cuts into their gameplay attractiveness...which tilts the numbers even more against them. This is all about the intersection between gameplay mechanics and marketability.
  13. I haven't fully absorbed all the thread yet...maybe someone else said that, but I didn't say that and don't mean that. Both sides should expect to have some areas where they're defending, and others where they have concentrated forces and can attack. That's how 1940s warfare worked.
  14. Partly historically correct, partly just wrong. The French did have continuous defensive lines behind the Meuse. They failed to cover the footbridge over the dam near Dinant. And, their forces disintegrated after Ninth Army was unable to move fast enough to counter their tactical defeats near Dinant and of course Sedan. But elsewhere they maintained lines. The Belgians had a continuous line along the entire Dyle River. The French from Namur to north of Dinant had an effectively continuous line, wherever the Meuse was bridgable. And after the fiasco of the first weeks of the campaign, WWII fighting was about defensive lines. Actions occurred due to someone breaking through the opposing defenses, or...in Libya and Egypt...going around a hanging flank. Attacking an enemy position from all sides simultaneously does not in any way relate to how WWII worked. A game that includes that functionality isn't about WWII.
  15. 800m x 800m. The tileset is about 62 custom designs, I think, not counting the plain land tile and the plain water tile. If you want to see the full range of tiles, you can readily work it out by reviewing Five's maps, some of which have the tile grid superimposed on them. Tiles don't have any elevation built into them except for riverbanks. The world creation engine "stretches" the tiles to fit the corner heights created by the DEM (satellite height) data, which...not coincidentally...is per an 800m x 800m grid. Tiles do have roads/railroads/bridges, rivers/riverbanks and forests built into them. City/town buildings, berms, ditches, walls/fences, individual trees and all bushes/bushlines are separately placed.
  16. Realistically, there should be "front lines" across the entire front, with the two sides dug in and facing each other a km or so apart. It should be impossible for a bunch of infantry or an armored car to just drive around an opposing-side position to attack it from the back. There aren't enough players to simulate the defensive lines at towns, let alone the lines between towns. We know that CRS's original game-concept was that fighting would be at and immediately adjacent to towns. Why shouldn't there be pairs of impermeable, undefeatable AI "front lines" between the front line towns, stopping say a km or two out, to channel the fighting where it belongs? Then there'd be no need for location-aware rules on where spawn points could be set up...at least for vehicle based ones. You could set one up anyplace you could get to. The enemy would do the location limiting for you.
  17. A game system that allows attackers to observe where the defenders are, then attack somewhere else, amounts to a perversion of " a large map of immense scale". It's fine to utilize the big map as long as the attack is where the defenders are concentrated and ready. The existing game, in which defenders arrive after the attackers and are never fully ready, is junk. It bears no relationship to realism.
  18. Seems as if the marketing logic would be that subscribers...paying customers...would get less, or maybe no, spawn delay.
  19. Fundamental to realism, unless there's a specific reason why there wouldn't be a manned front line to either side of a target town. Should have been part of the game from the beginning.
  20. Across the whole war, there were three versions of an 88mm SPG, not counting those on tank chassis. The first was an 88 mounted to a heavy unarmored halftrack. A test batch of that design was ready for France/Belgium. It however proved ineffective because the frame of the halftrack was not sufficiently strong, and firing the gun at low angles to the sides twisted or broke the frame rails, making the vehicle undriveable. Also, the relatively low weight of the vehicle and its lack of jacks, spades or other stabilizers plus the high mounting point of the gun relative to the vehicle's narrow track-footprint caused the vehicle to rock heavily up onto one track when fired to the side at low angle. In one instance, a vehicle fired a practice shot that way, and rolled sideways off the road and down a hillside, resulting in the gun being wrecked. A third fault was that if the gun was fired forward at low angle, the muzzle blast was strong enough to break exposed vehicle features. A fourth fault was that if the gun was fired rearward at low angle, there wasn't room between the breech and the vehicle cab to serve the gun, and hot shell cases ended up in the cab where they burned things. That first design did work for high angle AA use, but was judged unsuitable as a multi-purpose mount which was a key goal of the program. No more of that design were built, and the surviving units after repairs were allocated to panzer divisions in Russia as high-mobility rear area AA. The second version was similar, but built on an armored heavy HT with a reinforced gun mount. The thinking was that the key issues would be overcome. That however proved not to be the case; the vehicle still was too light and not wide enough for low angle firing. No more of that design were built either, and the test batch also were allocated to an east front panzer division for rear area AA. The third version was completely different, built on a specialized truck chassis. It was intended only for high altitude AA use, and performed adequately for that purpose. If CRS wants to model an Axis gun to be effective for low angle firing, the historical best candidate IMO would be the Italian Ansaldo 90mm L/53 gun mounted to a Lancia 3Ro heavy flatbed truck. 1804 guns of various land mount types (not counting naval guns, of which this was a design-cousin) were ordered, with the first deliveries in 1939. 539 were delivered before war events halted production. The Lancia-mounted version had heavy stabilizers fore and aft on each side, ample working room around the gun resulting in 19 rounds/minute, excellent AP performance (120mm @ 1000 meters, 830 meters/second muzzle velocity), and excellent HE performance as well. This is the same gun that was used on the Semovente 90/53 tank destroyer, but that vehicle was produced only in 1942 and IMO isn't a high priority either for the Italians (because they need T0 stuff) or the Axis side overall (because other SPG choices are available that could be fielded much sooner). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannone_da_90/53
  21. I thought the rod HEAT rounds for PaK 36 and other infantry cannons were 1943...? As opposed to Kilem's 1942. Terrible weapon. Very short range, considering how hard it would be to maneuver and hide. I fully agree that the JgPz I would provide better gameplay.
  22. I think Merlin recently, and Old CRS folks in prior days, have said that much of the world...not all object types, but most, except for those we currently call PPOs...are placed using Creator-related tools and compiled into the game world. If that's a correct understanding, then some fundamental changes might be needed to make those types of objects into PPOs with the same functionality. And, it's similarly been said over the years that there are game-functionality limits to a given locale's polygon density and object density, related to server memory and processing power. Those limits are managed by the CRS world creators. If that's a correct understanding, presumably the Super Engineers/Farmers/whatever they'd be called would have to learn the applicable constraints and obey them.