caydel

Registered Users
  • Content count

    456
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Green Tag

About caydel

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. Ok... Do you have a suggestion for defending the supply lines? In reality, vulnerable infrastructure would have AA crews on the ready to defend them. In game, we can't expect players to man positions 'just in case' (when a given spot may not be attacked for hours or days), and given the speed of the planes, way too much damage can be done before ground-based human players spawn in to react. And when they do, the attacking planes can just move a km or two further up or down the road until the defence shifts, then move again. The only other option is to make that behind the lines defence completely dependent on friendly air until such a time as persistent multicrewed SPAA can be coded in to travel with the trucks. But again, sufficient air population would be needed to defend, and the friendly air would have to be proactive rather than reactive - you can't give an attacker 2 minutes of tearing up the supply lines before friendly fighters arrive up. They would have to intercept the attackers reliably somewhere near the front lines - if the attackers get past and can shoot up supply, then they've earned it. Even that strategy would we strongly impacted by air population imbalance - the side with a few extra pilots can easily slip a few past and tear up supply at their leisure. The only counter that I see is AI AA, which would blunt the advantage that overpopulation brings. Finally, I'm not a pilot, but I don't see the problem with a pilot using friendly AA to his advantage. I'm sure it happened in reality, though so did friendly fire...
  2. Possibly... The Red Ball Express didn't, AFAIK, have SPAA travelling with it although that was very much due to Allied air superiority at that point in the war. My biggest concern is that persistant polycrewed objects don't yet exist in game, and that would add another large coding task to the projects. I'd rather see better AI AAA concentration near towns, bridges and road junctions to provide some level of defence, along with a good way of alerting allied aircrews about threats to the supply line. I think having AI work as 'Spotters' to track enemy aircraft over friendly territory is a viable alternative to the current AWS system, though with a certain level of 'communications' delay to help obscure the exact positions. That would help to intercept threats to the supply system before they get there. Long term, I agree, but trains would provide more difficult in figuring out the routing. You can't just re-route a train to where it needs to go - it can't just turn around at a blown bridge! Furthermore, and so it sits... I would keep the trucks spread out, so that a kamikaze can only take out one or two - and make the supply value carried by those trucks be less than what is consumed by the loss of the plane. Make it a losing proposition to sacrifice a plane for a truck?
  3. I'm curious what the Rats' thoughts are on visual supply someday. I think it would bring back a big chunk of the air war, but would need some real thought as it would essentially require the introduction of a small 'supply economy'. I see it something like this: Supply Trucks These are the primary manifestation of visual supply. They represent supply travelling from the factories to the front lines. We can use existing truck models for this. Supply Depots Supply depots exist 1-2 towns back behind the front line - far enough that the drive is 10-20 minutes. Their positions are unmapped and random so they need to be found by enemy reconnaissance / scouting. They would spawn alongside an existing road. They are well-protected by AAA AI, have have a smallish spawn-pool that allows them to react to ground attack. Supplying front line towns A supply depot facilitates supply into flags in nearby towns by running AI trucks along the road network into the nearest AB of a town with depleted flags, where they despawn (and spawn lists then increase). Let's say a truck leaves the supply depot every 1-2 minutes, and 'carries' a certain number of replacement units, dispatched in the order those units were killed out of supply. Destroying the truck destroys those units, and they need to be dispatched from the Supply Depot again at a later time. This would change the ground war into giving incentive to attack / defend the supply line into a flag. I would make it so that HC can stop supply into a surrounded flag / AB, to avoid destruction of the en-route supply until the supply line can be secured again. For attacking flags, I would see AI trucks running from the town AB to the FB to replace units that have spawned. Factories Supply travels from factories to Supply Dumps via supply trucks. These trucks don't carry specific units so much as 'supply tickets'. When a truck reaches a Supply Depot, those 'tickets' are converted into units (ie, Riflemen, ATGs etc.) that are dispatched via supply trucks to the front. By interdicting the flow of supply tickets to a Supply Depot, you restrict the amount of replacement units the supply deploy can generate to forward on to the front line flags. We can use the existing damage / resupply rate to determine how fast tickets can be dispatched from the factories. Defending the supply line The biggest flaw with this type of idea is that there is nothing stopping a lone wolf from driving out into the middle of nowhere with a SPAA and stopping the supply network for an hour. To that end, we would need some sort of EWS and even somewhat vague area-based 'automarking' of nearby enemy units to help defenders (likely air based) locate and destroy the attacker. Bridges would become critically important, and require extra defences to protect against air attack. A downed bridge at a critical junction could cause a delay in supply as en-route trucks need to reroute themselves 'the long way around', or even a supply blockage if all bridges into an area without land access are cut. The routing AI will need to be able to accommodate these situations and make decisions as to whether a specific blocked truck should try to re-route, or perhaps carry it's tickets to another reasonably close supply depot that *is* accessible, or even turn back to preserve the supply until a route to it's destination reopens. Islands Islands, such as we have in Zeeland, do provide a hitch in this plan. I presume we would need to have supply transports performing a similar role to supply trucks, with the port towns having attached supply depots to dispatch the the supply to it's destinations. Implementation I see a few main requirements here: A model for the Supply Depot Logic to dynamically select a location and spawn Supply Depots Truck navigation logic - can be pretty simple - they would have to be able to identify roads and bridges, and take the most direct route to the destination that stays 1-2 town back of enemy flags The ability to create non-player units in game (like on the training server) EWS and automarking logic Figuring out how supply should flow through the resupply network - how do you prioritise active AOs and DOs vs resupplying depleted flags on back towns? Maybe set default rules that HC can override? What are everyone's thoughts?
  4. Well, you'll be glad to know it's no longer needed. Install Mint Install Lutris Double click the installer I linked earlier Log in and start chasing sheep around the countryside
  5. The problem with this assertion (that you continue to make in multiple threads) is that the two main methods of MMOs generating revenue (advertising and microtransactions) aren't easily feasible without coding effort. Of the two of them, I can see having in-game advertising in the UI being the more feasible of the two, and I suspect the Rats have already examined this. Assuming: a CPM (Cost per thousand impressions) of $4-$6 100% impression inventory sold Only free players see it I would think CRS could see a few dollars per month per regular free rifle account player. I would think that may be enough to open up the free accounts to have more equipment, but they would still need to hold stuff back for premium subscribers who are willing to pay $18 per month.
  6. I haven't noticed much issue with placing truck-based FMS's even since the clipping change. Maybe I pick less complex spots than most? As for the HC FRUs... In most situations I don't have much of a problem as they only spawn rifles. However, using them to backdoor strong defensive positions (like a river with a defended bridge) is a bit gamey... but by the same token, I don't necessarily think it's unrealistic if, for instance, there is an undefended rail bridge 1km upstream the enemy could be crossing. Until such a time as code would allow checking if there are local bridges up and undefended, I would love to see the HC officer FRUs be very brittle - allow and HE round, grenade, bomb, cannon or satchel destroy them.
  7. Speaking as an allied player, I don't like the idea of detuning the side channel. Yes, there is some BS, but it's also where *all* the playerbase communications are - 911 requests, supply updates, mission requests ('Can someone run an MSP to...') etc. We don't have separate channels set up for this stuff the way Axis seem to. I'm sure if 'side' is removed, the allied playerbase will adjust and maybe start using ops (which most vets have probably detuned). However, I believe the noise level is less of an issue on the Allied side channel than it is on the Axis one.
  8. I'm a dedicated allied player here. I would support leaving the ability to fire while walking (slowly) with a dispersion increase. That said, I would also support reducing the amount of LMGs in supply significantly. One of the problems with the game having such volatile population levels is that when pop is low, the LMGs (and SMGs, for that matter) are very much over represented on the ground. At high pop times when a given AO / DO has a lot of players spawning, those units are exhausted at a reasonably speed; at low pop, a whole attack can run with 90% of players using an automatic weapon of some flavour. I would love to see the spawn pool size scale with the population of a given side, so that a similar balance of spawn mixture is maintained in all TZs.
  9. I wonder if anyone complaining about Matty numbers realises that 8 out of the 14 in the T0 and T1 are the CS variants. The CS Matties are decent anti-inf tanks, but are brutal against axis armor. Campaign Prior Campaigns Other Weapon Kills Deaths K/D Last Faceoff Kills Deaths K/D (DLC) Panzer III F 1 - Feb 09 17:40 2 - Bf 110C-4 1 1 Feb 05 16:55 1 - Flak 30 (20 mm) 13 13 Feb 13 14:05 87 2 43.5 Flak 36 (88 mm) 8 27 0.3 Feb 16 15:55 23 93 0.25 FlaK 38 (20 mm) 2 2 Feb 10 22:00 - He 111H-2 1 1 Feb 17 14:50 1 2 0.5 Ju 87B Stuka 2 2 Feb 13 20:05 5 6 0.83 Pak 36 (37 mm) 46 1 46 Feb 17 05:35 431 59 7.31 Pak 38 (50 mm) 22 17 1.29 Feb 16 13:15 134 92 1.46 Panzer 38(t) 3 - Feb 12 22:20 4 7 0.57 Panzer II C 1 1 Feb 07 00:55 1 3 0.33 Panzer III H 9 - Feb 16 16:50 1 70 0.01 Panzer IV D 8 - Feb 16 16:15 4 56 0.07 SdKfz 232 2 1 2 Feb 16 16:00 26 9 2.89 StuG III B 4 - Feb 12 22:15 4 34 0.12 For all intents and purposes, the CS tanks are like a harder-to-kill Vickers, not equivalent at all to the 'real' Matties.
  10. I would be that user. I have an installer at https://lutris.net/games/world-war-ii-online/ that will work out of the box on any Linux system. I (of course) tend to agree that there should be some level of promotion to Linux users. I believe a 'native' Linux client could be built with a reasonable effort input by compiling against winelib: https://wiki.winehq.org/Winelib_User's_Guide. However, I think the benefit of such an approach is rapidly dwindling. At various times between 2007 and 2013 I advocated that this game could be a hit in the Linux community. At that time, the gaming options in Linux were Eve, a few ported Unreal engine titles, and a load of open source projects that were... meh. WWIIOL could have been a big fish in an (admittedly) small pond. Despite the small pond, I suspect that the type people who run Linux as their primary OS are are many times more likely to be the type of person who would *love* WWIIOL's gameplay (and less turned off by the graphics) than the general population who run Windows. However, in the last few years, gaming on Linux has advanced rapidly. In addition to more games coming with Linux support out of the box, projects like Steam's Proton have made it possible to run large swathes of people's older Steam games (including WWIIOL - see https://www.protondb.com/app/251950!) almost flawlessly. In the last few months, about 70% of the Windows games in my Steam library now run flawlessly under Linux. I think a significant opportunity was missed. At this point, I think it would cost almost nothing to 'unofficially' support Linux by linking to the current installer or mentioning the steam support via Proton from the download page, and opening a matching 'Community Support' forum. It may not lead to a lot of subs, but the costs for opening that door are small. I'd be willing to help define the language and monitor the Linux community support forum. I can say with 100% certainty that I am here and I have a sub because this game can run on Linux.
  11. We're glad to have you. I hope you meet enough good people to make a short term fling into a long term love affair with the better side!
  12. Well, looking at @choad's Population Balance chart, it looks like Axis are signifigantly overpop about 50% of the time. The remainder of the time, populations are balanced, or allies are slightly overpop (10% of the time). So, there's the answer, and the pop imbalance is just going to get worse as axis make progress. To me, it's the players killing the game. It's undeniable that there is typically Axis numerical superiority. If CRS is not going to *force* players to the underpop side, then I believe some axis players are going to have to do it voluntarily if we want to stabilise the game. This isn't just about allied or axis winning, it's about keeping the bulk of the playerbase engaged and logged in.
  13. Updating to 64-bit isn't going to solve too many issues in this game. The basic improvements would be: Allow the game thread to access more RAM. Allow for more precision in calculations in areas such as physics and object placement in the world. These things are important for the future of the game, but they aren't going to 'fix' many of the issues folks complain about.
  14. Ok, your solutions are potential options, but why don't I flip it on it's head? Why is solo rambo tanking without covering infantry ALWAYS the go to answer? zero historical justification of any kind for lone tanks driving around the countryside and perching themselves on hills without any infantry cover and expecting complete safety from enemy infantry. ZERO. Tanks almost always had infantry accompaniment.
  15. The big problem with tanking is that tanks need to be supported by infantry, and in this game, they aren't. The other night, I was in Arras (CSR link) and there were two enemy tanks (a IIIH and IIIB) that were camping the East AB from good hull-down positions on higher ground. Neither our armour or ATGs in town were able to fire on them effectively - everyone knew they were there, and they were engaged by many allied tankers and gunners, but to no effect as they weren't penetrating. Between the two of them, they killed 3 H39s, 5 S35s, 3 47mm ATGs and a Char while suppressing infantry movement in the AB. I was able to push out an ATG out of town from a depot, work my way around the ant trail of incoming ei to flank the enemy armour, and destroy the two camping ETs before they knew I was there. It took 20+ minutes to do, but it saved our AB for the time being, and it was the only thing we could do as by that time as our armour couldn't leave town without getting destroyed quickly, and nobody could engage them from in town. Yes, armour can't cap CPs, but they can dramatically cripple enemy operations if they have a good position. There *must* be some way for their opponents to respond when that happens. They had good positions, and controlled the town - the only way they could be defeated was for a lone wolf to get out there and use the magic bush tunnels. And really - had there been any infantry watching the tanker's backs, I probably would have been found out. The 47mm is not sneaky. On the flip side, I know the frustration from a tanker's position. I've rolled to within 1.5km of a town we were attacking in a tank, popped my commander out to scout ahead for a moment, and promptly gotten sapped by a well prepared lone wolf. Many, many times. It's frustrating to drive for 15 minutes or more sometimes to get sapped in the middle of nowhere. I'm sure many players have logged after sorties like that. If there was any concept of a 'frontline' in this game with prepared, manned positions, neither of these situations would happen. At least in-game, an ATG is big, slow, highly visible when moving, and tough to hide compared to a sapper or RPAT. I think the two infantry AT units play an important role when tanks venture into town, but I wonder if it's viable (if ahistorical) to disable them if they leave a certain radius from a spawn point - either a CP or a FRU. This would restrict their use to in town, and areas where there is an established infantry presence. It gives tankers reason to be cautious when venturing into town, but more safety if they hang back a reasonable distance. It would redefine a ZoC to be an area free of enemy spawns rather than an area free of enemy (from a tanker's perspective) - they only have ATGs to worry about, not bush-tunnelling infantry.