jwilly

Registered Users
  • Content count

    23,738
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    58

Everything posted by jwilly

  1. The bulk of the Kriegsmarine's destroyers were already sunk before the game starts. The Kriegsmarine from 1940 onward through the war was wholly incapable of fighting either the Royal Navy or the Marine Nationale at the destroyer-and-above level. The Marine Nationale had the most powerful destroyers in 1940...none of the German 1936 Type dual-turret ships were ready at game-beginning. At any point through WWII, the Royal Navy had more powerful and seaworthy destroyers than the Kriegsmarine, and several times as many of them. Plus, destroyers were rarely used as convoy escorts. They were much too valuable for such use, and their boiler firetubes tended to carbon up if they were run for very long at freighter speed. To make a balanced game with reasonable historical realism, the game's combat vessels should be motor gunboats...the Fairmile B is such a vessel, though the currently modeled armament is a poor choice...and motor torpedoboats. Most of the surface fighting that occurred in the Channel and North Sea involved MGBs and armed trawlers serving as convoy escorts, and MTBs serving as convoy raiders.
  2. Breaking tracks and gun barrels is a simulation of the limited ways that less-powerful weapons could disable, and thus effectively take out of a battle, more powerful tanks. In that regard, it's historically based, even though the users of those powerful tanks would like to be impervious. And, the game's play-logic depends on it. If the game contains weapons that cannot achieve even sustained disables, those weapons are no longer as playable. That breaks the logic of tier progressions, and noobs having access to only older/less powerful/lower tier weapons until they rank up. My guess is that the proposal would not be a sensible use of limited development resources, which instead could be used toward new weapons, new combat or movement mechanics, or new map development.
  3. So you want to model the tank/truck recovery process? And use combat engineers to conduct long repairs on recovered items? That's a lot of non-combat gameplay. What percentage of customers would play it? Would CRS generate more revenue using the same development resources to add more combat gameplay instead?
  4. The functional equivalent of the StuH 105mm.
  5. Having that mechanic also will need multiple types of bombs...another loadout selection...to be selected before takeoff. Thin case bombs have maximum blast destruction and maximum fragmentation lethality against soft targets. They always have instant fuzes, because the case cannot withstand full-deceleration impact against something solid, i.e. a steel or concrete object. Against ships, they cause topside damage (to AA crews, etc.) but no hull or propulsion damage. Against tanks, they sometimes break suspensions if they explode immediately alongside, or damage the engine's support systems if they explode on the engine deck. Against factories, they explode against the easily rebuilt roof, instead of penetrating through the roof structure and exploding among the difficult-to-replace production machinery. Thick case bombs are able to penetrate through strong objects and structures before a delay fuze operates. They are used against factories, steel ships, tanks and fortifications. They have significantly less blast volume and fragment count than thin case bombs. A delay fuze bomb that hits dirt will bury itself before exploding, resulting in a geyser of dirt and a crater but minimal or no blast and case-fragmentation damage.
  6. Or anywhere but in a front line infantry unit in an active part of the front. Being a quartermaster somewhere away from the front, or an AA gunner almost anywhere, or a clerk typing away in a commandeered hotel-used-as-an-office-building in Paris, was pretty safe too. Fighting infantry, not so much.
  7. If this game was real life, everyone here would be dead in combat. You don't get to respawn in real life. Be glad it's just a game. Note though that in many respects it's the most realistic game out there. Not implementing historically non-factual folk tales doesn't make the game less realistic.
  8. In factual history, the dry storage Shermans and the PzKpfW IVs were equally likely to burn after penetration. As Doc notes above, the later wet storage Shermans were less likely to burn. That was determined after the war by analysis of after action reports. But, folk tales often are not based on fact.
  9. I hope it's obvious that we all appreciate your work.
  10. Seems like if something was going to be ticketed for a fix, it would be the reported condition...whether new, or always-been...that a tank player can avoid a KIA by despawning after the attack but before its results are resolved. It's not good game design to have despawning as a tactic.
  11. I understand that this is totally a gameplay issue. However, the game "HEAT satchel" weapon was inspired by an actual Germans-only infantry AT device. The late-1940/early-1941 first version of that weapon had a four second pull fuze. It wasn't until the 1942/43 third version that the fuze was changed to seven seconds. That's as long as it ever was.
  12. Bulge...US: 1944 Canada...Canadian units understood winter and snow fighting: US winter anorak...essentially identical to those issued by the Brits: During the Bulge fighting, the initially present American units were poorly equipped for winter because that part of the front was considered a backwater. Within the first day or two of fighting, basically all the white bedsheets from every house within Allied lines were purchased, bartered for or stolen so that those American soldiers could survive. Later-arriving troops wore the kind of gear shown above, as did many of the German troops.
  13. The deciduous tree/bush models all would be leafless. Evergreens would have snow on their branches. Most wheeled vehicles would be completely immobile off-road. Movement on roads would be slow, with lots of slipping and sliding. Infantry in many cases would be wearing winter-white gear...bedsheet ponchos if nothing else. Tanks and other front line equipment in some cases would be whitewashed or repainted. The weather would be mostly fully cloud-covered, so ground attack air action be minimized. And, some of the time it would be snowing...which decreases visibility much more than rain, and also greatly decreases how far sound carries. River swimming is already on the game's (regrettably long) list of absurd features. Doing so in the winter usually would result in death in the water, not on the far side.
  14. The problem isn't that there wouldn't be enough computing power. It's that the interaction circle is directly related to how many objects the client and server can manage in the database that runs the game, and that database and all of the code related to it would have to be rewritten to handle more objects. That's the deepest layer of both the client and the servers.
  15. Hmmm. 1940...SS-11 ATGMs...hmmm.
  16. The ultimate reason for inaction was not the mechanics. Those could be modified to make everything work. The reason, game-historically per old-CRS explanations over the years, was that the game is designed around a conceptual linkage between being able to kill and being able to be killed. The kill potential of a player must be proportional to the risk of being killed. Both long range artillery and high altitude bombing were judged likely to provide some players with a large kill potential and a small risk of being killed. So, old-CRS never prioritized them, because resources instead could be used for other game development actions that it was felt would affect gameplay in a more consistent way.
  17. Second half: light AA (i.e. up to 40mm autocannons) very often was deployed immediately behind the depth of the front line at which heavy weapons were located, to provide them with AA protection. In many cases where terrain allowed for the possibility of enemy mechanized attack so the defense had to include AT guns, that was only a short distance behind the infantry main line of defense. An AA defense several miles behind your defensive line would provide no protection to it. At even a quarter mile in all but Libyan-desert terrain, the protection provided against fast fighter-bombers would be minimal.
  18. AA autocannons, particularly SP since they could relocate more quickly, were frequently used against soft targets when there was no enemy air activity to defend against.
  19. So presumably you can drive a sufficiently tall tank carefully over the edge into a wide zone, and achieve a fully hull-down defending location...? For infantry, though, such a wide open zone would be a mortar shell death trap. All new game options are good, but it remains the case that the game encourages attackers to arrive before defenders, who in theory would be a sole users of such a prepared-defense capability.
  20. And of course Doc is still around, though with retired status.
  21. Maypole?
  22. The game should include more ground targets and ways for aircraft to attack them effectively, at greater risk from ground AA fire. That's just good game design. More lethality, more risk.
  23. Right. The "30 years" bit was making me feel really old.
  24. AFAIK, yes in a few one-off instances on other heavier vehicles, but neither the SdKfz251 nor the Opel. In both instances the payload capacity and frame strength weren't large enough. There are ~1941 historical photos of single FlaK 38s mounted to Opel flatbeds. Late in the war, multiple mounts (doubles, triples) of guns with less weight than the 20mm FlaK 38 were fitted to SdKfz 251 class vehicles. A key limitation of the FlaK Vierling gun system was the amount of loading activity and therefore room it required at the sides of the gun rig. For a reasonably high four-guns-firing RoF beyond the six seconds of ammunition in the 20 round magazines, each gun mount required two loaders per side. That's a lot of crew room, plus either aim-affecting rotating mass if the loaders ride the gun platform, or loss of reload efficiency if they're on the platform base while the platform rotates away from them to acquire and track its target. Normally this was addressed in combat use by firing two guns at a time...one per side. The gun mount was equipped with two triggers to support this use. This allowed one loader per side to keep up, so that the gun mount could achieve close to continuous two gun fire until its thermal limit point. In some multiple-aircraft attack circumstances that require more than six seconds of aggregate firing time, the FlaK Vierling design...whether fired four guns at once or two guns at a time...had about half the throw weight and therefore much less kill effectiveness than competitive gun systems such as the British two-gun Oerlikon mount. The Oerlikon gun had about twice the inherent RoF of the German FlaK 38 gun, and utilized a 60 round drum instead of a 20 round magazine. The Oerlikon therefore had about nine seconds of ammo per gun, as opposed to six for the FlaK 38. With two guns firing, a FlaK Vierling delivered about half as many shells per second as a two gun Oerlikon mount for the first nine seconds, until the Oerlikon mount had to be reloaded. The FlaK 38's magazine could be changed in four to six seconds...and in two-guns-firing mode, this was done continuously...while changing the Oerlikon's heavy drum required anywhere from ten to thirty seconds. The FlaK Vierling when fired in four gun mode was about as effective as an Oerlikon two gun mount for the first six seconds. Reloading two guns per side with a single loader per side took about ten to twelve seconds, though, so that four gun mode was inefficient in longer engagements. Note that the mid-war British had many triple Oerlikon mounts, and some quads as well. Especially in short engagements, these gun systems had far more throw weight and lethality than the FlaK Vierling or any other German low-altitude AA weapon.
  25. My understanding is that the game-terrain-world doesn't exist as a freestanding conventional 3D model, able to be analyzed and manipulated using 3D modeling tools. Rather, it is created and rendered internally within Presagis (Multigen) Creator, starting with the grid of elevations above zero and resulting, after placement of terrain tiles and various world objects, in an outputted compiled model. So, there isn't a way to process that model per the "lay flat planes across" approach. In past discussions, it's been assumed that a separate simplified 3D model of the game-world would have to be created, consisting only of the grid of elevations with a corresponding surface. The "lay flat planes across" technique then could be used. One problem is that the game-world has sharp slope transitions at tile edges. Old CRS said that in their experimenting, that resulted in unrealistic-looking contour lines. One possible solution to that would be to mathematically process the resulting quite complex array of contour lines to add Bezier-curve filleting. My understanding is that one of the project stumbling blocks in the past was that no one was available with the math background to write that processing code.