• Announcements

    • GVONPAUL

      Need help for incoming players.   04/29/2017

      With the looming Steam release, we are anticipating many new players to the game. This is great for all of us, and it's important that we retain as many as we can. With that in mind, we'd like to enlist players to help with the inevitable questions asked in the forums. Ideally, gameplay questions are asked and answered in-game, but it's not always easy or convenient to answer questions while playing. A Gameplay Support Forum would be a good place for those who want to help. We are now accepting volunteers for the Rat Patrol, who will provide correct and consistent info to new players in the Forums. The more new players we retain, the better it is for the game and the biggest hurdle in player retention is grasping the complexities of this game. If you are interested, send me a PM.  
    • Dodger

      Squad Leaders Contact GVONPAUL OR Dodger for Squad Forums   05/18/2017

      Soldiers!

      We are seeking Squad Leaders to volunteer their squads to help us test the upcoming Squad Forums system. This system will integrate squads who wish to participate into a self-sustained "forum within a forum." You will be able to add members to your squad, assign permissions, and create forums/calendar events on your own. The idea behind this system is part of our commitment to support squads as a integral part of our community. This service will be offered free of charge to all squads of World War II Online upon launch. Our goal is to offer all of the services a squad off-site forum can offer but free of charge and tied in to our existing forum service. So what do you need tested? We need willing volunteers to test the whole system - make forums, post threads, assign permissions, etc. The idea is to have several squads giving it a test run to point out any flaws before we launch it publicly. What are the requirements? We are ideally looking for medium to large squads - Ideally ten people or so plus, but smaller squads feel free to apply - and a willingness to use our platform. It's important to note (as of now - these may be included at a later date) we are unable to convert posts from a private forum if your squad previously used one, and you (or your XO's and recruiters) will need to assign individual members permissions. It is entirely possible that in the future this system will be automatically linked to the game's squad roster, but as of now developer priorities are elsewhere (1.37 and steam, w00t!) How do I sign up? PM me ( @Dodger ) on the forums, or email me at dodger@playnet.com - Please indicate your squad name and how many members you have. I will get back to you with more instructions.

saronin

Registered Users
  • Content count

    1,128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

saronin last won the day on March 2

saronin had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

101 Salty

About saronin

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

323 profile views
  1. This is actually very good. There are already squads that operate this way with no real official functionality in game for it. BK and DDZ pretty much operate this way. It would be interesting to have the ability to create as hoc mega squads.
  2. WWII Online -- Because sheep need love too!
  3. I envision infantry running through HE that has no real effect on them as always. Putting in artillery without a good HE model is a waste of time.
  4. What about Allied LMGs? There was a reason it was common practice.
  5. Disagree. The times I've seen this game shine were when people were on voice comms actively communicating. Shoot. Move. Communicate. There is a reason that was drilled into my head. It's because it works. If you have people cutting a depot from the outside while people are capturing and everyone is talking things work well. Run into a cp by yourself you are highly likely to do the rifle dance. It was also common practice to issue pistols to those that carried LMGs at the time.
  6. The reason rifles are the most prevalent unit in game is because they were by far the most prevalent unit on the battlefield in WWII. The numbers as they are in game are an attempt at representing that fact. WWII Online has in the past made every effort to be a war simulation which is its niche. There were always things added in to facilitate game play but the basis was war sim. When WWII Online thought it would compete with games like COD and move the bar on realism to do so it got in trouble in a hurry. I would guess they they would lose far more people by adjusting units based on preference than on historically accuracy. Your history buffs who appreciate the war sim aspect probably make up most of the player base at this point. The others left long ago for games with better graphics where they can bunny hop with automatic weapons to their heart's delight.
  7. When the game first came out the UI was simple. Over the years it got more and more complicated. The system that HC had to deal with was more and more complicated as well. For vets it's no big deal because the system grew up around them. For new players it can be daunting and can turn them off quickly. 1.36 should see a return to the simplified UI that any one can come in game and immediately start using.
  8. I think it will be good for the game though. The UI is half of why getting people into squads has been so important for player retention. I can't count the number of times I've had to resort to just telling players to click on my name in the squads tab as the primary means of getting them to battle.
  9. Being down to rifles is one of the hazards of attrition and is something we should see more of in game. TOEs has made everyone spoiled and used to getting whatever equipment they want when they want it. As a result seeing some of the equipment in game is like seeing a unicorn on the battlefield. Less desired equipment becomes more of a novelty. The rifle was the basic and most prevalent unit of the war. And good simulation should reflect that.
  10. Just like at launch in 2001.
  11. I don't ever remember 10 - 12 active AOs but I do remember plenty of action during high pop times. Low pop has been an issue since at least October 2001. This game is not fast paced enough for kids and not easy enough for most people. The hope is that Steam will expose the game to more people in that small portion of the population that this game appeals to.
  12. It's only fair that the sheep have helmets given what Allied players do to them. They have it the worst in this game.
  13. Generally even then flash is only an issue at night. In day light weapon flash is not really a problem even for weapons without a flash suppressor. I would like to see flash kicked up at night and negligible during the day but I'm not sure CRS has the capability.
  14. I like it Frantish but I would like to see the Rats go with some of the ideas that were in the original 2001 game manual to augment the RDP game. I would like to see the supply tickets become visible in game entities in the form of ships, trains, and truck convoys. It would add a real use for the Navy in game and give the Air Force a whole new mission. Supply could be disrupted at a local level which would be a really cool thing to plan around when launching ops. Love the ideas but would like to see CRS think big in this area of the game.
  15. Visible supply in the form of trains and ships in the channel. It would give a new focus to the air game and give the navy an actual game.