jwilly

Registered Users
  • Content count

    21,768
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    40

Everything posted by jwilly

  1. Here's a more modern one:
  2. If a field vehicle spawn were to be added, maybe it could look like a field maintenance/repair unit's work tent. Not all such units had such equipment, of course, but you can't do reliable work on electrical systems, engine internals or anything related to bearings or precision fits when exposed to rain/snow/dusty wind. This particular tent is US, and I think is about the 1970s iteration of the Lightweight Maintenance Enclosure concept. More modern ones are quite different, with more framing and semi-rigid panels instead of canvas. I think this design is substantially what was used by US forces during WWII. My guess is that all armies had something like this, if they expected to do maintenance and repair in the field. This tent is 24' x 32' x 14' high at peak. A larger unit could set up several, and/or two in a row for longer work.
  3. I do wonder what the game would be like if there were no fixed spawn points, therefore no place to camp.
  4. It's important to note that the goal isn't to nerf the weapon, or those who play with it. The goal is better realism. And yes, there are other things in the game that are realism-challenged. They'll get their fixes ASAP.
  5. Huh. I recall recent discussions of production cost as a balance mechanism, in which there was vigorous pushback against an argument that what's actually needed is side fighting-effectiveness balance, not just equal cost of weapons. Equal aggregate cost of weapons doesn't result in side fighting-effectiveness balance if the population is unbalanced for any reason...possibly including that they subjectively, correctly or not, see an advantage to one side's kit.
  6. CRS has been doing this for a living for going on twenty years. Marketing is entirely about understanding customer psychology. Old-CRS wasn't especially good at "getting" that. It's readily observable that a large percentage of CRS's customers want to play for the winning side. In very basic marketing, that's called "bandwagon". The fact that that doesn't apply to you, and maybe didn't apply to anyone from old-CRS either, is irrelevant to the need to understand the psychology of the overall customer base. Not to put too fine a point on it, it's CRS's job to develop ways to make the two sides equally fighting-effective irrespective of population imbalance...at least if you want to maximize product success. You're trying to market a game, not just a simulation. Games need two sides that think they have a good chance of winning. Perceived difference in fighting effectiveness balance is a key driver of population imbalance. If the game had dynamic mechanisms that kicked in within a given campaign to increase the fighting effectiveness of the lesser-pop side, that underlying driver of the bandwagon effect would be neutralized. So would the imbalance-causing effect of large squads changing sides for gameplay variety or any other reason. Or, you guys can stick to static spawnlists, and we can have another hundred and fifty oscilating-population campaigns.
  7. The problem with spawn interdictability is that by and large it doesn't model anything real. In 99% of WWII fighting, defenders were already in the defensive line, which was substantially secured by some combination of effectively continuous observability/fields of fire and mobility-preventing terrain, so enemy forces were not free to just drive around behind and attack. Attackers came at them from the front; defenders were not able to drive around behind the attackers either. Spawn interdictability is the most unrealistic mechanic that old-CRS created. Other games have it right. WWIIOL has it badly wrong if realism is a goal.
  8. Monetization. There should be no competitors to that. Job One. Business coding, and object development where particular classes are too shallow to support the monetization plan.
  9. It's a terrible idea to add capabilities to F2P before all the planned alternate monetization means are in place and proven to work better than the subscription model. It'll just move more current subscribers to playing for free, and starve CRS of $$ to pay the bills and develop the game.
  10. Hip firing must be allowed, as it's historical. Whirling around spraying bullets is ahistorical. So, for all LMGs (MG34, MG42 once modeled, M1919 all versions, Vickers once modeled, French and Italian LMGs once modeled): 1. Create two new "deployed" positions, "standing deployed" and "walking deployed". Same length of time to enter and exit as prone deployed. 2. For both the "standing deployed" and "walking deployed" positions, the gun is held at the waist. 3. Eliminate the ability to shoulder-fire all LMGs while ordinary-standing or moving. 4. Increase the climb of LMGs in both "standing deployed" and "walking deployed" positions, compared to prone-deploy. 5. Limit the rotational speed in both "standing deployed" and "walking deployed" positions.
  11. Historical France/Belgium (the current game) wasn't contemporaneous with historical Balkans/Greece, or with Germany's involvement in historical Libya/Egypt. The original CRS vision for the world strategic game would only have worked if the player community was willing to accept alternate historical events subsequent to outcomes and timelines that didn't match history. In forum discussions of that issue over the past years, the general weight of community comments has been insistance that outcomes must be historical so that subsequent theaters can be fought per their history as well. That forced-outcome approach of course would prevent the simulation from being a game. In discussions in the old Design/Beta Forum, it was clear that CRS hadn't particularly thought through how to handle individual-theater outcomes different than historical, and there wasn't actually a plan for how to make a workable world strategic game. But, individual theater games would work, without an interconnecting concept or dependent linkage. My understanding from CRS discussions was that if/when they eventually were able to add a second theater, that likely would be how they'd handle it. The backstory for a Libya game could be structured exactly like the backstory for the France/Belgium game, i.e. all history for that particular theater before that game's start date remains in place., along with contemporaneous events in other theaters not significantly affected by events in the game theater. Actions and outcomes in the game theater do determine history there. For a Libya game with a nominal start date of June 1 1941, that'd mean that the Germans won France/Belgium, no invasion of England occurred, the historical Balkans/Greece events prior to game-start (including Crete) have occurred, and Malta remains in Allied hands.
  12. Libya, 1941, British and various allies vs. Afrika Korps and Italian Army. Lots of relevant object modeling already done. http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/415906-switch-to-ur4/?do=findComment&comment=6305727 http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/415906-switch-to-ur4/?do=findComment&comment=6305876 http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/415906-switch-to-ur4/?do=findComment&comment=6305960 http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/415906-switch-to-ur4/?do=findComment&comment=6305996
  13. Isn't the limiting factor the processing of the interaction list? In a heavily populated area (not that we have had many of those lately), rules must be run to select the max-interaction-list number from every unit within the interaction radius. If the interaction radius is increased by ~40% in an environment with evenly distributed units, the number of units that must be priority-processed is doubled. It's hard to write rules that sensibly "know" whether to include infantry at 1200 meters or other enemy units at only 750 meters. Or is the proposal to also go to the next increment (presumably doubling) the max size of the interaction list?
  14. Realistic movement only works with realistic vegetation to disappear into, or cover-objects to duck behind. If you're "down" on terrain that mostly provides zero concealment and very little cover, you're a bullet magnet. You definitely don't want to use realistic tactics on unrealistic terrain.
  15. That's the only way to do a reasonably marketable naval-vs-naval/air game...because realistic naval action requires solutions for interaction radius, interaction list prioritization, water terrain, night functionality, etc. that are incompatible with what's needed for the ground game.
  16. US forces didn't replace 85% of French involvement and responsibility. US forces were an addition to the Allied force pool, not a replacement for (only) the French.
  17. But not if not defeated...which is the relevant history for the game, 99% of the time. An undefeated France should get those non-French weapons it placed POs for.
  18. I think effort toward FTP is a death spiral for CRS. Resources will go into development of monetization functionality instead of toward gameplay content, the only proven attractor of customers. There's no evidence that there are any customers out there that will financially support this game instead of one of the mass market shooters. Certainly the Steam community didn't find this kind of gameplay to their liking. There's no evidence that FTP is a stepping stone to subscribing. There's a ton of evidence that present subscribers will go FTP if it's cheaper for them. What evidence is there that aggregate revenue won't *decrease* after all that expensive development is done?
  19. Geeze, dude, if you like other games so much ("better in every way") and dislike this one so much, why are you here? All you do is tear down the game, and CRS's carefully considered work. If you think you're being helpful...well, IMO that's not a correct analysis.
  20. It's notable that almost all of the voices calling for the game to be entirely free are players that aren't paying anything now, and want more for nothing. It'll take a bunch of resources to add monetization mechanisms, with no assurance that they'll work for this game because so many of the "free to play" customers actually want the game to be free for them. What hooks players is the gameplay. Those same resources could be used to add even better gameplay. Explain to us again why free-with-monetization is a good plan? Would it make sense to go back to organic growth by attracting players that are actually looking for this kind of gameplay, and understand that nothing good can really be free...?
  21. Speaking of FTP, it makes total sense for FTP folks to be able to read these forums, but...except for help and tech support...why can they post? Over many years, lots of customers have felt the forums are a valuable part of the game experience. Why does CRS give away that value?
  22. There's no way to coexist with potential customers who are committed to the concept that everything should be free. It's a mistake to market the game to people who can't understand the simple math of how many hours of fun you can get a month here for the price of one movie ticket or a couple of cups of fancy coffee, versus how much fun you get for that same money somewhere else. Eliminate "Free To Play". Their PTW accusations only make sense to people who think like them, that everything should be free. It's hopeless trying to explain otherwise to them.
  23. I'm not defending Bmbm's and CRS's TOE choices, but in fairness he's told us that those T0 TOEs are based on production numbers for the whole year of 1940...possibly in the upper 300s per an earlier Minky post...rather than the pre-May-1940 production of 22 or 23 depending on source.
  24. RTRs are not "HQ troops" in some unitary administrative sense. They were combat units with hierarchical structures, intended for deployment in support of infantry formations. There were times in Libya when 4 or 7 RTR were attached to multiple infantry formations squadron by squadron.
  25. In the context of a practical game structure, the Brit arrangement is OK. RTR elements (infantry tanks) were assigned to operate and coordinate with infantry divisions at Arras, and in North Africa many times. Just think of the British Infantry Brigade structure as an infantry element with an attached RTR element.