Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by jwilly

  1. 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.
  2. Seems as if the marketing logic would be that subscribers...paying customers...would get less, or maybe no, spawn delay.
  3. 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.
  4. Hope it is applied to the naval game, and works there. A polycrewed naval/air game with four-state modular ship models and more realistic damage would be unique, and marketable enough that it could attract customers as a freestanding product.
  5. 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
  6. I know the answer to that: Suggestions are germane when the implementor's organization is ready to plan his next work, and asks for them. Not before, because he/she should get them all at once for best organizational efficiency, so as to not have to store them piecemeal until needed. Also, suggestions ahead of work-need may become stale. And, not after, because he/she already will have the next work planned.
  7. Me, too. I also like this, though I'd implement it with victory points instead of supply slowdowns.
  8. A successful bombing mission (one plane's worth of bombs on target) is worth lots of victory points for your side. Shooting down an enemy bomber is worth the same number of points for the interceptor's side that that bomber would get for putting its bombs on target. A bomber plug-pull/lawn-dart/dive into target/any other version of no-RTB is the same score for the other side as if they shot down that bomber. So, the way for the bombing side to come out ahead is to escort as far as possible to get through without being intercepted before the target, and get bombs on target, and get back home alive.
  9. It was a strategic marketing mistake for Old CRS to make strat bombing subtract from gameplay fun potential for the bombing-recipient side. No form of gameplay should have a consequence other than loss of the units directly involved, and points toward victory for the prevailing side. CRS is a commercial game company. They always should strive to maximize fun delivery for both sides, right up to when one side wins. That means no subtractions from supply or delays in weapon arrivals.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. What's it take in the real world to flatten/scatter a dirt-timbers-and-sandbags fortification? Not small or even large cannon shells. Not enough sustained force. Not aerial bombs, unless they're direct-contact hits with short delay fuzes. There's plenty of force at the slightly buried point of detonation, but that force diminishes very rapidly with distance. In the real world, it takes either trained men with demolition charges and shovels to tunnel them into or under the object, or a bulldozer. So, allowed methods: 1. HE "sapper charges". 2. Bulldozers: Take an available medium tank. Remove the turret, and cover the hull opening with a flat plate. (Or get fancy and make the vehicle look like it's got a stack of square timbers on top, plus other engineering construction materials...rope coils, buckets of waterproofing tar, shovels and picks, etc.) Mount a basic earthmoving blade to the front, with a small ground clearance. No need for an up/down animation or anything fancy. There's no requirement to make such a vehicle an exact copy of anything. Every army had these, but except for the US they all were at least somewhat customized based on what tank chassis was available. For game purposes, just make sure that each nationality has such a vehicle in every tier. In every army but USA, the turretless tank often was a multipurpose vehicle used for earthmoving, snow plowing if needed, mine clearance, vehicle towing, carrying bridge materials, and other heavy support tasks. Drive the dozer into a PPO fortification, and it disappears in a cloud of dust. Mounting plates for an earth moving blade: Front mount for a winch for a lift/lower earthmoving blade...removed while the engineer vehicle is used for tank recovery:
  13. By coding, I meant a visual process of stepwise building of berms and other earthworks, as one would do with a dozer blade. Old CRS discussed the possibility of building a four-step-height berm in the old days, to provide cover for guns, tanks and infantry that set up with weapons at various heights. CRS can build model variants these days, but code is required for those model variants to interact with the terrain in not-already-code-supported ways. Allowing dozer models to build/destroy as you propose would be fine, of course. It'd add a layer of complexity and an availability limitation to what otherwise would be the same process as at present.
  14. Sure...that's been proposed before, many years ago when Old CRS was thinking about extending the game to marketing-encompass Builders as well as Fighters, and no doubt CRS had already thought of it, but it would take coding which obviously is in short supply.
  15. Yes, all true, but used for earthmoving as well, and snow movement too in northern areas. The Germans, no different than any other WWII military force, needed to move dirt to prepare defenses, and they used the machinery they had. The alternative would have been lots of shovels, which would be absurdly wasteful when there's power equipment available. In any case, the point of my post was to propose ways of modeling earthmoving capability for each game army without creating all-new object models. Yes, each army had other capabilities that were used for that purpose, but those other capabilities are not yet modeled and we need something that can be created as a variant.
  16. Now that CRS has inadvisedly turned on the disastrous freeloader pathway before having an alternate monetization system ready and without the programming resources to get such a monetization system done, I really don't see how they can correct the situation.
  17. Night-like-daytime was explained by Old CRS as required to allow all types of players to do all kinds of gameplay without waiting for the game-time to come around to daytime again--including those actions that historically couldn't occur at night. Unless that marketing need has changed, dark night would seem to remain a non-option. That of course means that the kinds of actions that historically occurred only at night...such as naval surface engagements in the Channel and North Sea, and most paratroop drops, and some kinds of bombing...can't be realistic.
  18. I've lost track of how many times CRS (old and new) has explained in response to cries of distress like Tater's above that the only aspect of WWIIOL that's intended to be historically valid is the weapon models...and in particular, that the gameplay isn't expected to be realistic.
  19. Are you/will you be working with a National Pancreas Foundation "Pancreatic Cancer Center"? https://pancreasfoundation.org/npf-centers-info/pancreatic-cancer-centers/ I'm sure there are good cancer centers that aren't on their list, but my understanding is that a lot of the most advanced work is occurring at those facilities.
  20. Yogurt is a good start though in regard to straightening out the population of gut bacteria, which is probably haywire like everything else. There's increasing research these days that the gut bacteria affect mood and other elements of psychological and physical health other than the obvious nutritional connection. For instance: http://isiarticles.com/bundles/Article/pre/pdf/154209.pdf That sounds like probably your sense of smell is haywire, too. Maybe at some point soon it'll be time to begin re-exposing your smeller to "good" smells, sanitized rather than from the outside world because of your hobbled immune system, and not necessarily in conjunction with things you're supposed to eat but just to get that sensory functionality up and running so that when you're ready for it, it's ready for you.
  21. I don't think spawning should be based on the 800m tile grid. The number of potential spawn points in a given locale would be small because tiles are so large, so spawn camping would just occur per the grid.
  22. It's too bad CRS can't develop a way of having territory capture gameplay without spawn camping, i.e. enemy-position-aware dynamic spawning on top of mandated small unit proximity. No action at all when capturing territory is pretty realistic. You're scared and nervous, you're expecting the enemy to be around the next corner as you work your way toward the objective, but inexplicably they're not there. Spawning into a camped situation, OTOH, would only be realistic in Bizarro World.
  23. I wonder if the psychological customer-changes brought about by FTP...with a sizeable part of the old customer base now thinking they can and should get the game for free...have destroyed the ability of CRS to conduct successful crowdfunding appeals.