raptor34

Registered Users
  • Content count

    885
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

raptor34 last won the day on July 24 2018

raptor34 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

80 Vet

About raptor34

  • Rank
    Advance Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    Canada
  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Air Force
  • Preferred Unit
    Spitfire
  1. Some of us like the historical supply, regardless of the complaint crew. I’m not against realism and or gameplay tweaks to get it right by the way. Keep at it CRS, not everyone is upset all the time.
  2. I’d like to see several different start options for campaign variety: 1. Hypothetical 1939 full-scale invasion of Germany. 2. With the upcoming map expansion - May 1940 with Germany starting on its boarder attacking into the Low Countries. 3. Standard set up 4. If Germans push back Allies from any of the up above, the option to reset the map for a 1943/44 Operation Overlord with US/UK forces being the main fighting force. (German armour is prevented from reacting right away to give Allies time to make a foothold) 5. Operations set ups that last a full week. Things like Operation Market Garden and or the Battle of Sudan, think a long running special event with no resupply and historical TOE. Track the wins and losses just like a normal campaign.
  3. Well that crowd needs to be shut down with clear posts and server messages that communicate why something is changing. Not changing something because some will complain is not the way to push forward. In this cause, I’d be fine with the Flak 28 being moved to air and navy flags only, and or in the very small ratios for army flags as explained by BMBM. I like the idea of captured equipment being available, but in realistic ratios. Glad to see progress is being made here, keep it up!
  4. Tier 0 is why I was interested in WW2OL when a I bought it years ago.
  5. I really like this idea, great post.
  6. Agree. It’s one of the reasons I find WW2OL so interesting, what other game (other than strategy games) covers the 1940s Battle of France? The French in particular are under represented. If it was up to me I’d model everything I could and do a proper simulation of the Battle of France.
  7. I'd venture that we don't have much to lose in the short term from trying impassible bush lines. Ideally, infantry would be able to cut through them slowly crossways and tanks able to push through them based on speed and mass. Until that day though, impassable lines would be the better of the two options. It would also cut down on trucks flying through the fields at full speed.
  8. By code I should have said activate and or create colliders for bush lines. Bush line phasinghas long been a pretty unrealistic element of WW2OL that I really and truly see no downside to fixing as soon as possible.
  9. Absolutely. How hard would this be to code I wonder?
  10. Where do I sign up for service in Africa?
  11. I support the idea of squads and teamwork being required. I will admit the solo sapper/ant trail of EI isn't really building any level of immersion for me, and it does not represent the tactics of the era. Games like Squad and PS with "squads" that are formed around an NCO with rifles/support weapons are the way forward. The same could be done with armour. Rather than say stop a player from moving if he is below the team limit I'd argue for some kind of spawning restriction or suppression effect to enforce team play. Of note is the US Civil War simulator War of Rights for how it penalizes both the player and the team if players go off too far off solo in order to enforce player groups. We have a few mechanics to update in WW2OL before we get there, like the squad spawn and UI, but creating workable teamplay is completely possible in my opinion. WW2OL 2.0 would require this from the get-go I'd argue. I know there are vets that really like the sandbox playstyle and would resist these changes, but I believe they would help create a much more authentic experience in the long run. Also, nothing is stopping players from setting up that long-range hilltop ATG position, the only thing is not you cannot do it alone. How much better would infantry fights be if they were centred around squads rather than a constant flow of single enemies? Play Project Reality to get a sense of how different it could be with the right mechanics. Still waiting for 2.0, I really hope we, the community, can make that happen in the future.
  12. If we hade a "frontline" mechanic, like Steel Division 1944, this likely wouldn't be an issue. FRU, FMS could not be placed behind the line of contact then without first pushing the enemy back. I voted yes with LMG, but there is the issue of rivers/bridges.
  13. I've like to see different starting points well. Could do a Dyle plan start point or a plan E start point, different historical deployment plans for 1940, at least from the allied perspective.
  14. Spot on.
  15. In the past I only tanked occasionally but in the last 2 campaigns I’ve done quite a bit more and I am starting see the issue of the “sapper”. It’s generally not ATGs theating Allied armour (speaking from my experience) but the lone sapper. In the past I’ve argued that the sapper is there to simulate the threat of infantry in built up areas but I’m no longer sure that the current sapper is the right approach. More often than not it’s sappers out hunting tanks in the outskirts of a town than in one. More to the point, as @madrebelpointed out, it should be groups of infantry working to disable a tank, not single sappers hunting tanks through the bushes (which need to restrict movement as well). Then there is also the issue of historical weapons in the tiers. Our HEAT satchels don’t do a good job of simulating the real AT weapons involved. I’m not an expert in this area yet but I believe an argument could be made to employ AT grenades and AT mines as the real life replacement for our one satchel does all HEAT charge. discuss Note: Will likely make a separate thread on this later.