Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


fidd last won the day on January 10 2018

fidd had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

33 FNG

About fidd

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

696 profile views
  1. I don't think linking them to AO's is the right answer. It's basically a truism, that by the time an AO is placed, a town is usually invested by MSP's and EI, so the hope of an engineer, or even several of them, to put in place a meaningful set of fortifications in that situation is frankly laughable. They may be able to build a handful of strong-points for short-term use. The whole point of persistent PPO's in "fortified" towns is to allow the HC's to build, in cooperation with players a degree of extra - and variable - resilience to the town, and to give the enemy - from time to time - a new set of problems to cope with, rather than the same old people taking the same old MSP's to the same positions in the same towns. But, owing to the time it takes to put meaningful fortitications in place, this is really a "behind the lines" job, well before the town is AO'd. Consider fortifying Antwerp or Koln. It'd take days of efforts by many players, even with persistent PPO's, to do it well. In practice, I think persistent PPO's would arise from initially separate strong-points being linked progressively over time. I do however like the idea of a the degradation rate of non-persistent defenses having situations where the degradation timer is "stalled". I would suggest that if a town is AO'd the timers of all PPO's, regardless of the side who put them there, are stalled unless manually blown up. And they don't restart until the town is no longer AO'd, and all the FB's to it are held by friendlies. Only then would the 3 hour timer (or whatever it is) recommence. A further AO before the 3 hour mark would reset the timer's to 3 hours. That might be the best way of getting rid of PPO's that would need to be tracked by players pc's, whilst keeping them relevant if there's active fighting in that area? Some thought will need to be given to aircraft, as it's foreseeable that fortified towns could become tricky in terms of frame-rate for pilots. I would suggest that if an aircraft is in the air, then certain classes of PPO are disregarded and not rendered by the players front-end to mitigate this. Specifically wire, and possibly fox-holes (as opposed to trenches) Once an aircraft is on the ground, wire - and it's colliders would be rendered. Which might lead to some fun with denying airfields with wire. Personally I'd like to see an airfield specific "crater" (and collider) caused by sappers, engineers or bombs, which would only occur on the airfield "square", and which would provide an obstacle to landing or takeoff. A 3 hour timer would be sensible here, but it could be higher...
  2. I confess I've not yet managed to try the new PPO's, but if "friendly" PPO's are materially constraining movement of friendly forces out from an AB, then there's self-evidently a problem that needs addressing, and promptly, before persistent PPO's can be implemented. There seems to be some agreement now as this being limited to a few towns, rather than across the map, with normal degradation rates of defense-works operating in the majority of towns. I think there needs to be some dynamic whereby friendly forces can destroy ill-considered PPO's, but this needs to be some form of collective decision of many players (especially in a fortified town), rather than a single one, because of the regrettable possibility of a griefer destroying defenses prior to his attacking the town with now reduced defenses. An alternative to the collective decision approach would be a decision by a player of superior rank to the person who placed the PPO. Clearly there's a balance to be struck here between PC performance, total number of PPO's allowable and total number of towns capable of being "fortified" with persistent defenses. If it's done right, then isolating a fortified town may be a better prospect than trying to attack it head-on. On the other hand, there are situations which should result in difficulty moving vehicles through a town or city, to whit, if it has been bombed heavily, (look at Caen after the bomber-raids in '44) In theory, a lot of defensive works would rightly have a similar effect. What needs to be scotched though, is the situation whereby all possible exits from an AB are closed due to "friendly" or indeed enemy PPO's. Lots to think about I think. Although I'm in favour of the notion of fortified towns, I'd suggest we're not quite ready for this, until the griefing or clueless application of PPO's is dealt with.
  3. I've just finished both turrets after 5 years effort. A new film with all new stills and footage, often from within the turrets, showing the sorts of views I'll be able to take footage from in the air, one day.
  4. Truly. It completely dumbed-down the armour game, as you now had armoured-cars and trucks able to cross 12' hedge-lines at break-neck speed to flank enemy forces, severely shortening typical engagement ranges for armour. It also "helped" to make towns much more porous to attacking infantry, a consequence of which was making ATG screens completely pointless, so easily could EI penetrate such screens. Before 1.26 one had to win the armour-game, before there was much scope for inserting infantry into town. I can quite see how the earlier rats fell into this trap, as initially more visual cover could not be supported by the graphics cards of the day could handle. That morphed into better gfx cards can handle more cover, therefore more and more cover must also be better. Which is of course fallacious. Although it "looked better", the effects on the game were grieviously counter-productive. In my estimate we need a range of different types and positions of cover, so that some towns are easily penetrated with attacking ei, and some the reverse. Above all, there should be a lot less visual cover for tanks, less in general for ei, and a change in collider types, to whit: "movement colliders" of different types to prevent an obstacle crossing if it's on foot, and/or a wheeled vehicle, and/or fully tracked. Also "fire colliders" capable of providing cover from small-arms fire, and or non HE fire, etc.
  5. I think persistent PPO's, at least initially, need to exist in a limited number of towns, and HC is ideally placed to nominate which those towns are. The reason for this limitation is that if, for unrelated reasons, the front becomes more static than normal, then were all PPO's persistent, it logically follows that this condition of a static front would become increasingly hard to move out of, as more and more frontline towns were increasingly heavily fortified. So, in my estimate, it would be sensible to limit the number of towns where persistent PPO's can exist; at least until the gameplay feedback suggests otherwise.
  6. The idea of persistant PPO's, perhaps in key towns nominated by HC's, was an almost off-the-cuff idea which Biggles picked up on. After further thought, it might have a secondary effect, ie removing the need for the long almost boccage hedge-lines without colliders which ruined the armour game, and made ATG screens virtually impossible with the infamous "Vietnam" patch 1.26. The fact that I can still recall the patch number years later should give some indication as what a game-damaging patch that was! The other possible wrinkle that might be considered is PPO's which last for the duration on an AO. These would be particularly important for attacking infantry as they close with the town....
  7. Can't a friendly engineer or sapper already blow them up?
  8. ..and back to turrets! Today I fitted over 300+ assorted M1.0 nuts, machine-screws and "penny washers" (at scale) to the cupolas of both turrets, which completes those. (and left me with very sore fingers! Still to do is painting the mount for the cine-cameras in both turrets, with the new design of this mounting now correctly levelled when installed. I've also primed and sanded, then painted white (external) and British Interior Green (inside) of the front-turret tub. Still to do on that is another coat or two of the white, and then some general weathering, followed by fitting, probably on Monday, which will mean, after 5 years effort, the turret are now completed! The next task is to source some machined fittings for the joints of the geodetic channel, and some extruded channel, to make some uncurved test-pieces. Then comes devising and building the "bender" to curve extruded channel to specific curvatures in an MDF pattern, followed by a test-piece of curved geodetic structure. If that all works, then building the fuselage can commence! Pics/Films to follow in due course
  9. There are two reasons for doing this. 1. If defensive PPO's are well done, you can thank the player who did them. 2. If the PPO's are in effect griefing or ill-considered, then the player who positioned them can be trained or otherwise dealt with. The knowledge that PPO's you place will indicate you placed them, will help prevent them being employed for griefing purposes.
  10. I think Biggles makes a good point, making defensive works for a town already - or very shortly to be - under attack is pretty pointless. I also take your point about persistent PPO's being less onerous on the server. On the other hand, as the front moves, if all PPO's well behind the lines are still tracked, then the total number of persistent PPO's could in itself become unwieldly. So perhaps instead of giving PPO's a finite time they can last before disappearing, the persistence - or degradation should be position-based, rather than time-based. In other words, (say) within 5 links of the front line. So if your side advances a town, the PPO's in the town now 6 links back disappear, and the other side is now able to build persistent defenses one town further back than they were before they lost a town. That would keep the overall PPO's being tracked as persistent within a tolerable level, whilst giving players time to fortify important or vulnerable towns.
  11. I'd like to see a more nuanced approach to this. I gather that currently ATG positions disappear after 30 minutes, unless touched or occupied, and that other features such as "wire" disappear after 3 hours. First change: Any player can ask an HC'er to nominate a town or FB as "fortified". Once HC applies this with a command, any fortifications already made, or subsequently made are permanent, until the town changes hands, or until the .fortified (town) command is lifted. In both cases, such defenses commence disappearing 10 minutes after capture, unless the opposing side also then applies a .fortified (town) command to the same town. Of course HE hits on PPO's will cause them to disappear in the normal way. Second change: All defenses applied by a single player are permanent provided he is generally in the town or FB. The countdown to PPO's disappearing being held or restated when he respectively stays or leaves that town. This will allow engineers to produce a set of defensive features and then enjoy seeing them in use if that town comes under attack, rather than (as currently) disappear shortly after the enemy take the FB and start arriving at town. Third changes: Ability to link defensive items, I would suggest up to 5 times. Addition of marked, spoof marked, and hidden minefields, of AT or Mixed or anti-personel. Fourth change: Friendlies "mouse-hovering" over a PPO can see the name of the player who positioned them, and when (if at all) they will expire.
  12. ..I've also added some more recent pictures of the two turrets with the now glaxed turret cupolas on. Today I'm reworking hundreds of fixings which hold the window panels in by adding 3d printed scale "penny-washers" to these, which will improve the detail when filming outwards from within the turrets; and also working on painting and fitting the front-turret "tub". The new pictures can be found at (sorted by date taken) Note the addition of miniature "working" rotary ventilators. These were used to vent poisonous cordite fumes after firing.
  13. There are some errors on mine, which were either caught to late in the assembly to be viable to repair, or were simply too expensive to redo. Also, as no proper technical drawings exist of this (or indeed most turrets), it is necessarily an approximation, rather than an absolutely faithful copy. I'd be happy to help though, in principle. I also have .obj drawings of the FN4 (early 4 gun tail turret for Wellington Mk II (?) onwards) and the unlamented FN25 (mid-under) turret, only for early Wellingtons (Mk's IA and IC and only), Stirlings etc.
  14. On reflection, I think the Do217 would be a better fit for the A20/DB7 triad. The ju88 is closer to the Mosquito/B25 in terms of bombload I'd have thought... Cheers TexasJ. Today I painted 100+ scale "penny-washers" brass coloured for retro-fitting the inside of the turret cupolas in the next day or two. Also a lot of filling/sanding and painting of the "tub" for the front-turret. So near the end now. It'll be great to be able to make a start in the metal-work of the fuselage.
  15. It'll be amazing to have the "Wimpy" in game. I presume the Axis will get Ju88's? That said, It'd be really interesting to have aircraft such as the Defiant and Hampden in tier 0, before moving towards the Stirling and Lancaster/Halifax/B17 later on. The B25 would be a good earlyish tier aircraft for the US to use, with more tactical load-outs than the Wellington, but less overall load for RDP bashing. Thanks for the kind words.