Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Green Tag

1 Follower

About wockawocka

  • Rank
    Monthly Hero Builder
  • Birthday April 27

Profile Information

  • Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
  1. Usually when playing wwiionline, I usually build a cautions FMS, then if people show up directly, i choose not to despawn my truck. Mostly in hope that I could move the FMS a couple of meters closer, or even better, if my grunts take a depot, I could move in much closer to the city limit (because the depot could allow it) So I tried this with the Garrison, and maybe I did not wait long enough after a capture of a town, but suddenly I realized that even when the friendly Garrison showed up, my FMS was still up. Does this mean I could just start overstock my new front town, by that same FMS? Probably not, and did not see any numbers change in the new town... but just wanted to be sure, , because this still gives an interesting new way of playing. Because if I guess this correctly: If driving a dFMS from a backline Garrison, then that FMS of course stays up BUT what happens if the attacked supply is used to despawn at the dFMS (if possible)... hm... so much to test, or just make me stop by giving this vet some more complicated implications with this new Garrison supply (because as you see, I will probably try all the sneaky variants soon myself anyway... )
  2. Sparre: I uninstalled my old version... and did a fresh install. Also connecting from Sweden, so it is not what is causing your problem...
  3. gah , found it... my bad
  4. In the builders part of the forum you write that you should go to the "beta forum". Can't find any beta forum. Probably I have been away to long to understand the download and install instructions.
  5. I don't think madrebel understands your post, but I do. And want to repeat the concept that is booming these days: "Last man standing". In PUBG you get one life, and you kind of enter the game with the knowledge that only 1 of 25 teams on the map will survive. Personally I was so surpriced that this kind of game type got to be popular, because there is a lot of grinding equipment, and still quick death where you never saw your attacker. So I believe in the original posts idea of making wwiionline a bit less about grinding a brigade. Even if I love that HC could win games by checking stats of the supply, it is BORING for the players to attack an AB where enemy always can spawn 30m from the target, while you have to run at least 400meters. And something I am adding to this discussion is I would like to change game mechanics so that a battle won't last more than 30min (on average, for example a bigger town with more brigades should be allowed to last for 3x30min). To only allow spawns once per mission (or with well placed delay) could actually be just that automatic control not to prolong battles over that 30min line. If implementing "one spawn per mission" we of course need to address some of the worries shown in this thread: in real life: soldiers were waiting a lot, waiting for the bigger guns etc, due to being afraid of dying -> then do not allow artillery more than once as well, oh wait: We do not have arty in this game. and as jwilly said: overpowered weapons is a completely different discussion in the topic of realism fb defence will be near impossible -> again: not really, if you really want to guard a fb, then you need dFMS:s anyway... like in real life having patrols also: If a defender dies, that person could call for help (which is already in the game) and all the players rushing in have one fair chance. if the fb is by then camped, then you loose fb, period. The guard has not done its job. wont this keep players from heavy populated areas? (where the action is) mission descriptions will be more important, because if you don't have intel of what you are suppose to do, then just wondering towards sound of action will get you killed. in a way we have the wiretap features that collect deaths already: Just give all missions from heavy loss of life a higher "difficulty level", and if a mission leader complements that with a description we have a great way of giving the players "the correct expectation". Like in PUBG: You know that you only have 4% chance of winning (4 player teams), and 1% chance of surviving. If you survive longer, that is a win, and entertaining. even today events like "tank columns" fail, due to bad communication, which kind of proofs we already have this mechanism for other equipment. A 2min limit on infantry missions will force a player to get more intel "where was that guy who shot me?", what can I do when I spawn in, in 2minutes? in a way you get the time to reflect of what is really happening. If AB is being capped, then you lost that town in an earlier stage. We have over 500 towns to play in. Next! battles will be "snipe and scout" valid point, this one has to be addressed. how about IF seen by AI-towers then that AI-tower is making markers on enemy movement that is about 50m accurate. then at least that lone ninja can be washed out. or make this mechanism more aggressive, like PUBG, that forces a player to move after a period of time. Not proposing a circle, but a marker that will be more and more accurate on where your whereabouts are. We wanted realism, right? A town is full of people, the people will give you away eventually Some adjustments have to be made to all timers controlling "start of battles", because battles could end faster, and we need to give the quick dying players a new battle (like shorter AO-timers, etc). And in a way this new function will give this game the same requirements like other games: Game population need to be above a "lowest level" to be able to start next battle. For example in PUBG that lower limit is 100 players, because a game needs 100players to start. This function of "only allow one spawn" could IN WWIINLINE be something that only kicks in if amount of players on your missions is less than a certain threshold. (but personally I would even vote for closing the entire arena if pop goes under a value, no matter how many times you can spawn. "low pop back towns" is something that is not fun for the high pop player, seeing your town being re-taken during low-pop)
  6. For me no other game has yet been able to mimic what happens in war when scale increases. Yes you can rush that depot, but have you considered why that machine gun suddenly stopped firing suppressing fire? *evilgrin* This game has so many tactical layers... and increasing with amount of players.
  7. Call me old, but hey: average age for players of this game is high: How about activating the possibility to "upload and store attachments" on this forum? I mean, current setting is set for like 1gb per user... maybe a bit crazy high. Instead maybe 100mbyte per user is enough, and this added with limitation on size per attachment (like 1mbyte) would force people to not waste space. Often 150kbyte is enough for pictures and documents, if done right. Remote linking of pictures is not that bad, and is much easier to handle for sysadmins, but those links tend to get broken with time. Besides: Something we noticed in my squad lately when disbanding our old forum, is that some guides, and "squad material" would be locked to one user having a picture account, if you "just link it in". I mean: It is kind of even more oldschool if I would have to download all pictures/guides to my drive at home, to ensure that the "victory picture" is not lost that squad member x took. So sure: Squad could have a home page, where we link stuff from... but then again we need to pay for that, and hence removing the need to close our old forum down... Or maybe (the more I think about this) there could be a possibility for squads to have an attachment area? Or (if attachments got activated per user) have an option to "share with my squad", making that material available for a squad even if the user stops playing, hence stops using the forum.
  8. If I remember my technical history right, radar was very poor, and tech was very new at that time. At most radar could see a direction, but definitely not height. But just seeing stuff across enemy lines gave crucial time for counter planes to get airborne. Still I agree that the current AWS should only be "reports of enemy air by sound". Meaning that current system where I can see yellow squares far into enemy territory should be more limited than today or even removed. Of course we could have spies, and just parking an enemy truck on enemy ground should make the AWS visible area wider for a side, but all reports on other side of front line should be less updated, and not as accurate. And maybe all AWS reports over areas that have rain, should actually be deleted completely if plane is above rain clouds. Not having AWS under some circumstances could make it harder to find action as air, but it could also mean we get more comms between ground and air. Today a report of "plane type + alt + town" is helpful for air, even if they have AWS. Although as chaoswzkd pointed out: We could have ways of giving more precise AWS reports by "owning tech". Radar tech was under development at this time. And something that could spice this up is if any side somehow could get those more precise squares of AWS, or maybe even having intel deep into enemy territory (which makes it even more worth it if removing that intel as suggesting above). And again: Any way of bringing in "intelligence" and "scouting" to the world IS a way to get us more targets (which I think the original post wanted). But the intelligence part also brings in more ways of winning the war, and more stuff to do. Win-win if you ask me.
  9. To kill an AI, that surely must be possible today, and I can bet some veterans can confirm it was possible before. Although removing AI is almost the same effect, it would be to easy to kill AI, because YOU can fire at 700m, AI can not. Although if AI can be a Player Place Object (PPO), and that AI fires up to 700m, AND is killable with rifle. THEN we have a interesting combo. Still: Not sure if all this needs a new graphical engine (which 2.0 discussions usually means), especially because engagements will be on 300-700m with these robots. Oh: And more about AI: it has to get out of ammo (although much slower than a regular machine gunner).
  10. Ok, hope this post won't be a cultural clash, being a Swede, and we "nag" about everything I write to much so will try to brake it down into a list: Start time was communicated incorrectly, GMT does not exist during summer for example. Did not affect all, but some did get it wrong. Solution: Use services like https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html Channels to be used during operation: No info at all. At my discord channel we all heard different channels to tune in. -"it is channel 3". -"no! channel 6" etc... confusion. Solution: Don't solve it. This was immersion deluxe. As in war I had to tune several channels to get intel. EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE, that took part in my group (Brigade Knight, tank grp1) had the impression that Allied Gelb forces would meet Axis Gelb forces. That was not the setup. Our tank column were mostly driving around, trying to find a targets with some kind of resistance. But we never met any enemy with force. Instead we ended up attacking an Airfield AB, where 1) We had no truck to re-supply (we called for it a couple of times, no showup) 2) AB was never captured, not enough push by inf. (remember inf cap, tanks don't) 3) While waiting for a new target at airfield Antwerpen, at least my squad could not just see how map was rolled in Bruxelles, Haybes etc... With over 20online (we haven't had those numbers for a long time) there was work to do. And no central info coming in, we just left operation after 1hour. AAR for me: I fired one shot into a Tiger with a tank destroyer, max caliber at 300m. No kill. This in a server with 6 AO:s and massive battles going on. Everywhere else than where I was. Again: Immersion deluxe. But maybe a bit to much immersion. Lucky for you, I do not play fast paced games. Game showed itself at its best. Really. I have never seen a map where 3 big towns getting fully hammered, with both paras, and tank columns, making the action go so wide (due to destroyers, so that suddenly fights occurred randomly at rail bridge crossings etc. But I also know that only us veterans probably understand this. This is not visible for a normal player. Solution: A community officer need to setup some kind of commentator booth, live at youtube, or just a realtime chat/blog etc, that can show for a player what is going on (with some delay, for example not saying: Axis/Allied is soon going to attack x..) I think both sides reported the anxiety that "squads that are online now could just take any target on map where Gelb operation is not in progress, and hence just roll...". Good for the game, because it shows really cool aspects of game, where one side has a slight advantage of being organized for one target. Bad for the game: It totally messes up a campaign map. Hard fought advances could be wiped in hours. Chain of command - Lets face it: We have not had this kind of operations in years. It needs a good chain of command all the way from top down. A group leader need to be able to answer questions from the group members what is going on, and why we are taking a target or not, and give intel on expected resistance. Is there a time factor? Is our taking of target important to other groups? etc... And the summary of this operation is: Please re-make these kind of operations as often as possible! On a last note it is obvious that lot of resources are needed to set this up. Maybe this forum just is not enough in the long run (if doing this more often). An automated system for administering all groups would be nice. Like when signing up, then the system gives player an automated answer: "You are now in armoured group 1, your grp channel is 3, and your battalion overwatch channel is 2. Please report in at X coordinate with a tank model Y at time xx:xx (ZULU time zone), logged in on discord on channel Z" These operations are needed until all squads numbers and organisation gets stabilized. For example my squad had 25 online, but many still recruits, not responding, and we have [censored]load of work still to get the responsive ones organized, like "when are you online next time", does not exist yet. These new players are still to confused to even understand what we are suggesting when saying "big operation gelb on sunday". They think the game offers this every day, meaning they will not sign up, in hope they can only show up.
  11. Just to give perspective of HOW many are joining at the moment, and a practical problem that occures with these numbers, and probably why we need 15min timers to get "insta armies": Squad Recruit1: -"What's the plan?" Vet1: -"We are attacking S:t Truiden" Vet2 starts explaining how to get there, and which mission. Two other recruits are autojoined at last AO squad was working on (autorecruit on, and often people click that pop-up because they do not see action) Recruit 3: -"Hi all, you guys know how to deploy an ATG?" Vet2: -"... and then you highlight the squad player named..." Recruit 2: -"Can't find the mission!" Vet1: -"Don't worry recruit2, just listen to Vet2.. he will explain again" Recruit1: -"So what are we attacking? Should I cross this bridge?" At this point some 2-3 minutes have passed, and the AO:e town that squad is attacking already has two friendly spawnables up. Myself have created the squad mission which above try to spawn into, it is one of those spawnables, and the few recruits getting there are joyful, they love it. But still lot of the instructions given on Discord is still on how to get there, or what to do WHEN they spawn in. That spawnable depot was out of supply in 8min, and that was from a town with 2 or 3 full flags in. At least the recruits accepted squad leaving the attack after 15min, but much to the fact that we all vets constantly on radio said: "Target is X, because supply is out in about 5min". (Many recruits wanted to stay longer to attack other depots , but I tried to explain that other squads are already doing that, even if I had no clue. This was a big massive attack that just started with a 50player para drop. Just focusing one(my) squad on one depot was hard enough)
  12. or letus create subchannels where vets can hide... *grin* No, but ok: Could you list something that will make the coordination easier than have to bring up discord window, and mute people? Personally I think push to talk is good to have, because then players reaction stay back home, and with bigger chance that what comes through on channel is useful Best solution is of course to have open mike on all players when in-game, that is only heard as far as local chat (with positioning), and then after that have a "send button" that is push-to-talk on the active channel you are on. Or wait: Maybe there is an option to give new players push-to-talk, but then a CO could bump members up to be allowed to have mike audio detection on.
  13. I would also love the ability to "change target as mission leader", while member still spawned in. Game is so much easier for newcomers if they do not have to despawn, and find out HOW to spawn in on next squad mission Although, we have some logical problems (hope I do not mess this up, being really tired): When changing mission target, what happens to stats? Does all get a RTB? If I would have a guess, stat database do probably not support multiple values in the field TARGET in database. Suggesting solution: Lock mission for 15 seconds (to let members spawn out that are in the midst of doing so), and do not allow despawn after 5 sec of those 15 seconds have passed. Reason is that each member on mission needs to get a RTB on old origin and target, and be reset to same ORIGIN, but new TARGET. Also we need probably 10 seconds to let server move all members (could be easy be 25 mission members). And even if the database IS faster: Not wrong to be nice to the database. Last thing we need is database lock when a super mission of 250 members are spawned in, and mission leader suddenly is changing twice every second (due to de-spawning mission leaders) and suddenly a mission leader gives the command for changing target... while despawning... -> hard to test, better to use locks (if possible) Multiple cell hosts. So what if some on mission are on one cell host, and some on another? Even if having a total interested in cell hosts, and how you can move players dynamically.. this is out of range of my knowledge of how it is implemented in this game. Now when having multiple cells online again... "recreating a mission while spawned in" needs a operation "transfer", to be able to move some/all players to new cell host. Squad missions: IF implemented with a limit of maximum of 1 mission per squad, then we need to be careful with the handover, because I have a feeling we could end up with a change in target could get registered as a duplicate, locking that squad out from having their mission Solution: Allow 2 missions, but only on same origin. In general though it should not be hard to implement as long as the mission system is stable, and no "fix" is hard coded anywhere that could spoil this "obvious" functionality.
  14. Think all has been said, just repeating the number here, which speak for themselves: A flag today has some 300 infantry, even if two flags attack a town (about 500 in reality, supply is not always 100%) then consider the average lifespan of a player today. I would guess 3minutes. Meaning, fight could be over in 10min, even if stacking up flags. IF and only if, a side chooses to spawn 500 players to storm a town. There would be no time to even stack those players into a depot. Someone now thinks: Hot drop with truck -> Nah, I say, even if only 50 players guard town, that truck will be shot down, and some lucky [censored] will get a ratio of 1:500 OK, so what if 3 towns bring down 6 flags to attack one town? Well, I actually love the idea, please try it. This would NOT go unnoticed if both sides has the amount of personnel I think they will have. I mean of the 2000 on your side, and with a front-line of average 22 towns, if only 1% of YOUR side chooses to patrol, you still have 20 players free to roam the woods of 20 of those 22 towns. With eyes on 100+ units moving between towns, that would attract ANY player to meet them out there. Nah, I say: Bring the steamers on! The map size is probably perfect, and if supply stays around current numbers the battles should be fun. Or at least more realistic. If you die the origin you used could be out of supply. You know, like in real war. You won't spawn in again, looking for that EI that killed you somewhere around that bush NW... You will start fresh in another town basically Only thing that worries me is AA-guns and tanks... their viz-list must keep infantry rendering to its lowest. I rather see tankers whining over invisible EI (that will not give them any points if killed), than tankers whining over a tank in sight they want to shoot (that do give points), suddenly vanishing because of client hitting a render-limit. And to get back to captcrayon's hopes of "seeing" 1000+ players (which could also mean new record in "Guinness World Records"): It is up to the client "filming" the action. Current client won't be able to show it all. Although something we should ask ourselves is: What is the rendering limit on the "CRS eagle" that can monitor the arena?
  15. I would like these kind of scenarios behind enemy lines. Still grumpy that I never saw that scenario that would mimic Pearl Harbour, and have a huge squadron of air trying to sink ships. I even got a placement in the scenario. A number that allowed me to sit in a transport ship. The AA-guns of those are amazing. Off-topic, but this thread reminded me of the possibilities this game has to make scenarios, so that we for a short while could get screenshots similar to the marketing departmen, but live. I mean today: We could even send the event live, have some newspapers commenting with experts from the era... etc...