james10

Registered Users
  • Content count

    675
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by james10

  1. Hello campbell26, how are you? You can remap the keympper to suit your actual keyboard, mouse and joystick. The ONLY caveat is the hardware must be fully setup and functional within the OS otherwise WWIIOnline cannot map to the hardware. If you do remap the (numberpad 6) key the remapped key will show in the tutorials. Also the "Default" keyboard setup is for a Full 104 key US International keyboard. Cheers james10
  2. Hello delems how are you today? First of all I must point out that "Over Pop" or "In-game Population Imbalance" and the issues presented within/as a result of TZ3 are NOT related. To assert they are is misleading at best. Yes within TZ3 there are times of In-game Population Imbalance BUT In-game Population Imbalance is NOT limited to ONLY TZ3. As you indicate: The side experiencing the SD and the 300% capture penalty has fallen into the category of being over pop at that point regardless of time zone. This condition can occur within any time zone. The biggest issue presenting within TZ3 is that of low population and how the low population time zone impinges on the map state for the other 2 time zones. Simply put, map movements resulting out of TZ3 tend to be larger than those resulting out of TZ1 or TZ2. As you should see, In-game Population Imbalance and TZ3 issues are unrelated. Asserting they are is an unsustainable starting premise for any discussion. Fix In-game Population Imbalance. This for WWIIOnline would be “the Pot of Gold at the end of the rainbow”. As you do state: Well why does WWIIOnline permit such a thing? It is very simple. WWIIOnline permits “choice”. In a sport or game there are specific limits on who can participate. Each side can only be comprised of a fixed number of players and they are only permitted to enter the limited sized arena for a fixed period of time. In football a sport, each side is made up of 10 players all occupying the pitch for 40 minutes per half for a total playing time of 80 minutes. In World of Tanks (and the like) a game, 10 (I think) players per side are permitted in the sandbox arena until one side has captured the flag, for however long that actually takes. Each prospective player joins a list and is assigned a place in an upcoming matchup. Once a side has captured the enemy flag that match up is completed and the after the battle results are posted. Players can leave but no additional players can be added for the duration of the matchup. In WWIIOnline a player can select a side to play for. The only restrictions are the potential initial side lock and the SD you have already mentioned. They then select a mission or possibly even create one, choose a weapon from those available to them and then enter the world. The world existed before they entered and will exist after they leave, all things being equal. Their actual time in the game world is only limited by their ability to avoid being killed, requiring a re-spawn. If SD is unacceptable then being outright prevented from entering the game world due to current In-game Population Imbalance would be unbearable. Most solutions presented include variations of that methodology. Other solutions involve removing players ability to choose by forcing them onto the underpopulated side. The unfortunate results of that methodology is, they choose to play something else. All players are players and their very presence enhances the WWIIOnline experience. No playing player is a bad outcome for WWIIOnline, regardless of their subscription status. As to a Fix for “In-game Population Imbalance” well without removing players ability to choose practically speaking there are very limited options. Also worth considering, if WWIIOnline did remove players ability to “choose” that would be a quantum shift in the character of WWIIOnline itself. A good or bad shift would be open for some serious debate. Without changing the character of WWIIOnline potentially the better course would be to mitigate the immediate effects of being on the wrong side of In-game Population Imbalance. One form of mitigation that has been implemented is the “300% capture penalty” you have also mentioned. From your posting this too seems to be unacceptable. The ultimate quandary, possibly the reason that “after 18 years of this game” it’s still causing forum discussions at least. There is certainly no reason why something shouldn’t be “done” to address the issue. The real sticking point is “How” to address the issue, so it continues. . . Cheers James10.
  3. Just a little note: Both the Old and New installers offer the option to create a desktop shortcut. Straight out of the box this option is un-selected so to have the desktop shortcut created that option must first be selected. The option itself is presented at the top of the list of options, along with the options to install the DirectX and VC runtime components. Cheers.
  4. Hello waky, how are you? WWIIOnline no longer uses any references to Battleground Europe BUT as you have seen there may still be references to Battleground Europe within your computer. A successful uninstall will remove any the game client uses, however the system also creates references to the various programs that are run on the system. Battleground Europe / WWIIOnline is no different there. For the most part they can be deleted. You can delete them outright but a safer (more recoverable) method of removing them would be to change the name of the “Battleground Europe” key to possibly “Battleground Europe_”. This will retain the key for restoration but anything that might be using it will not be able to locate it due to the change. If your computer appears to be unaffected then you could safely delete the key after that. It’s up to you. The current install of WWIIOnline however no longer references anything titled Battleground Europe. The “Old settings” it is referring to are the user configurable game settings. Things like key mappers and configeration settings. These are located in the “User/<your-user-name>/Documents/Battleground Europe” folder. The installer doesn’t touch this folder so it appears you still have one on your computer. Some players have extensive modifications to the “Default” keymappers so the functionality to copy them to the new location “User/<your-user-name>/Documents/WWIIOnline” was provided. Both the Mac and Windows clients use similarly name locations. Just a little note for the Mac it stores the actual keymapper files within the Preferences folder on the drive. If you answer “yes” it will copy the contents of the Battleground Europe folder (Windows and Mac) into the WWIIOnline folder where they will be available within the current game. Be aware the copy process OVERWRITES any identically named files within the WWIIOnline folder. Then it renames the Battleground Europe folder to something like “Battleground Europe_Copied_20190830-052421”. The numbers will be different but they will be in that format. Once again a recoverable option presented. The renaming also prevents the copy functionality from locating it again. The renamed folder can be safely deleted is you wish to. You are also able to just delete the folder “User/<your-user-name>/Documents/Battleground Europe”. Until the Installer (Windows) and all the game clients (Organic and Steam / Windows and Mac) are unable to locate the folder “User/<your-user-name>/Documents/Battleground Europe” you WILL be presented with the option to copy the Old Settings at EVERY launch. I hope this helps. Cheers James10
  5. Hello how are you doing? You are aware that is that location where ALL of your Game Preferences are stored, keymaps included among other things. The Game files are located within C:\Program Files (x86)\CRS\WWIIOnline. Cheers.
  6. Hello jwilly, has your day been ok? Anyhow I would have to say categorically NO in the case of the German recovery vehicles. Why you might ask. Well if you look at ALL of the obvious bulldoser vehicles the doser blade is attached to the front of the vehicle where it can be used in a forward direction. Additionally the vehicles driver can see the blade and how it is preforming and make adjustments to the positioning of the vehicle. This is not possible if the driver is in the front and the blade is in the back, as is the case with the recovery vehicles. No amount of communication can overcome the inability to "See". The two German vehicles that do have the appropriate configuration are likely based on a Snow plough but are probably used to clear roads of debris in built up areas. As for powered equipment we are talking of the 1930's - 40's. Steam Shovels and rollers were rife. Also manpower, especially in the army, is easily available and abundant. I would be very surprised if "lots of shovels" were not the norm. Powered earthmoving equipment for the most part was rare during this period especially anything other that steam driven. I would suggest the US would have had the lead in this area however. Yes the US did have diesel powered caterpillar bulldosers, they even had armored ones they used in the Pacific predominately for airfield construction. Cheers.
  7. Hello jwilly how are you? Just a couple of corrections. The image at the top is of the berg panzer variant of the Hetzer (Pz38t). The earth moving blade as you have described it is actually a towing anchor blade used by the vehicle to recover damaged vehicles. The blade is dug into the ground to give the vehicles winches more purchase to prevent the vehicle being pulled back while attempting pull the recovered vehicle out of bog or up an incline. Its presence allows the Hetzer vehicle to pull vehicles that are heavier than itself without slipping backwards. There is a limit to what it can pull however. The "Mounting plates for an earth moving blade:" description of the visible attachments on this Bergpanther are actually fitted to allow the vehicle to push other vehicles. They are necessary due to the shape of the Panthers front hull. Additionally the "Front mount for a winch for a lift/lower earthmoving blade...removed while the engineer vehicle is used for tank recovery:" is actually an AAMG (possibly up to 20mm) mount fitted on this Bergpanther, You can just make out the pushing plates on this vehicle as well. Just a little note the winches for both vehicles are located in the superstructure within the original fighting compartment. The Bergpanther has a box structure around the area in question while the Pz38t (Hetzer) appears to have supports for some weather protection. The last two images would be the closest the Germans come to a " bulldozer". An additional note the Bergpanther also had a towing anchor blade mounted on its rear like the Hetzer shown. Google "Bergpanther" to get some images as I dont seem to be able to post any here. Cheers james10
  8. Hello kgarner how are you? Just a little necessary correction here. The Allied equivalent to the German FG42 is the ubiquitous M1918A2 BAR, yes the current American LMG, in-game NOW with the US. Both weapons are functionally identical, in-game and actuality. So the correct response is: Cheers James10.
  9. Hello All, Many moons ago in a fit of enthusiasm, I created a document expounding my then considerations for WWII Online. It is published in these very forums if you wish to search for it. It was written before I had a couple of stints in Axis HC as well, so some of it is plainly wrong. However there is still a lot of stuff covered in it that is still valid. One of the issues I addressed was the forced AFV crew bail out. The proposed solution was as follows: Upon the first recorded “kill” (under the same definitions as a kill in use currently) the AFV crew have a chance of bailing out based on the personas current rank. To be clear all persona ranks have a chance of bailing out. Having said that a Green Tag crew (E-1) are more likely to bail out than maximum ranked persona (O-5), excluding the extended HC ranks. On the second recorded “kill” ALL crew bail out regardless of rank. The second recorded kill can be an already “killed” component. I.e. Driver etc killed for the second time. The major requirement is that the vehicles armor is penetrated to achieve the “kill”. On average this would exclude the Double Tracked and Main Gun kill. As a bit of finesse, only the First Kill may have armor penetration requirement with the second being any. As an adjunct to this implementation an animation of the Commander (yes he could actually be killed at this point) bailing out of the vehicle would be played to show the crew abandoning the vehicle. The animation should also be played while the despawn countdown is in progress if the vehicle in question has no other obvious signs of impending disappearance, i.e. on fire, exploding etc. Ships should also be exposed to a modified “Forced bail out” as well. Aircraft are more susceptible to battle damage preventing them from staying in the air, while one hit on average, kills infantry targets. As an aside, I would like to see the removal of the Knife’s ability to “Kill” gun crews (AA and ATG). Yes Gun Crews ARE infantry targets but there is usually more than one person manning a “Gun”, two from a mechanics perspective. Even for the smallest in-game gun (French 25mm ATG) the crew is likely to be at least 3 with the Bofors and 88’s having approximately 12+ “crew”, all with personal weapons handy. So for a single man to be able to “Knife” a gun crew is just well, a little bit farfetched really. Cheers James10
  10. Hello Ian, how are you? I am aware this game is not a 1940 French Tank sim. It, as far as I'm aware, aspires to be a Military Grade Combined Arms Combat Simulation on the Western Front from 1940 - 1945. I made suggestions to the way it could be changed to better represent the outright design flaw suffered by most French tanks. Although to be consistent with the apparent aspirations, then it probably should be changed. It really depends on what this game is. The keyboard commands would provide the same functionality regardless of any macros setup. The purpose is to prevent the performance of functions, that for the single man turret were impossible to do simultaneously. It did also include a revision in a similar area that the more common multi-man turrets in regards to the currently unimportant loader crewman. I am wholly in favor of getting more people to play. It is a question of attracting the right players for this game. Who are they? Well maybe you can answer that one. Cheers James10
  11. Hello All. In relation to the issues with the French Single Man Turret design, I only have only one problem with the current implementation. In-game NOW it is possible for the affected French vehicles to fire the main gun, reload the main gun, fire the co-axial mg, reload the co-axial mg and traverse the turret to locate the next target "at the same time". Even the typical 3 man turrets would have difficulty completing those tasks "at the same time". I don't feel increasing the reloading times adequately represented the issue inherent in the single man turret design. An interesting little piece of information, the S35 actually has 3 crewmen. Driver, Commander/gunner and radio operator/purveyor . In the vehicle the purveyor (observer) sits to the left of the Driver. Believe it or not. . . ! The functions in question: * Traverse the turret to seek new targets, Fire the main gun / co-axial mg. * Reload the Main gun. * Reload the mg. A Solution: For single man turrets; Limit the Commander/gunner to being able to preform a single function. This would require the setting up of suitable keyboard commands to initiate the reloading of the main gun or the mg. This function would no longer automatically occur and would temporarily move the player to an internal view for the duration of the reloading process. It would also halt turret traverse/elevation changes that may be in progress at the time. For multi-man turrets; Make the reloading of the main gun and the mg sequential (player defined - default = main first). If the Loader is killed the reload times for both the main and mg's should be extremely long (obnoxiously so even). In actuality I do feel if the vehicles loader was killed, the vehicle in question would actively seek to disengage rather than be posthumous recipients of their countries bravery awards. This has been an issue that has been around for quite a long time. Just because it has been incorrect for a long time, doesn't make it any less incorrect. Cheers James10
  12. An interesting discussion but one that is filled with mis-information and unrelated clutter. Here is the overriding reason for the changes to the capabilities of all the weapons in the LMG class in WWII Online. It is simple and should be easily understood: This is not a new issue but an issue and appears it was part of the original implementations for these weapons. Why is this relevant? WWII Online has at its cornerstone “a military grade combined arms combat simulation” it would be remiss not to address the original error. If you have been keeping up on the various forum postings there are a lot of “corrections” being worked on. The “Rambo LMG” being one of many. As one poster indicated the “109 flop” was also one of the “corrections”. Could this correction be seen as a “nerf”? The generally accepted definition of a “nerf” is: I would say as the original and for the moment, current implementation effecting ALL of the weapons contained within the LMG classification were “Buffed” (the opposite to nerf) in the first place, so the proposed “correction” is consistent with the WWII Online’s cornerstone. Just because it has been incorrect for a long time does not make it any less incorrect. What kind of Game is it you wish to play? On the BAR and the FG42 discussion. There is a lot being made over the weight disparities between the two weapons but both being classified as an Automatic Rifle. Yes there are significant differences in weight. M1918A2 = 8.8kg (19lb). FG42 Ausf G = 4.95kg (10.9lb), however both easily qualify as Automatic Rifles. One poster mentioned Battle Rifle, which both would qualify for as well. The reason for their weight difference is also simple. The original M1918 (prototype) had its design work commencing in approximately 1917. It would be designed and constructed using the then current best practice for weapons. Weight was NOT a design consideration for the BAR. Design work for the FG42 on the other hand was initiated following the Crete assault. The battle for Crete commenced on 20 May 1940. Weight considerations WERE a significant part of the design specifications for the FG42. This is the reason for the weight disparity. The difference in weight has little bearing on the type of weapon. Neither weapon would have been a good LMG. Fortunately for the US the M1 Garand was in general issue as America entered the war in Europe. The M1 Garand was semi-automatic and largely offset the very underperforming M1981A2 that was forced into the LMG role. Battle Rifles is a post war term but is no longer used. Both the BAR and the FG42 would easily fall into this classification. Examples of Battle Rifles are the US M14, British L1A1 SLR and the German G3. These weapons are still in use but have largely been replaced by the 5.56/5.54mm firing Assault rifles. Cheers James10
  13. Hello all, All guns suffer from barrel overheating. Mind you, you really have to work hard to significant overheat a rifle barrel. Semi-auto and then automatic weapons suffer the worst cases of barrel overheating. Submachine guns are no exception. Most if not all WWII Online SMGs fire from an open bolt. On average in-game LMG's do as well. The open bolt is where the bolt is held back by the firing shear at the rear of its stroke. The next round is still sitting in the magazine lips and has not yet been chambered. The advantage of this is it allows airflow through the barrel to help in cool it. Additionally the round is held out of the potentially hot chamber reducing the chance of a cook off. The disadvantage is that when you pull the trigger to fire, there is a significant weight shift as the bolt closes, collecting and chambering the round on it forward passage. The net result is a shift of aim. If a SMG desires first round accuracy they will generally fire from a closed bolt. The act of pulling the trigger releases the firing pin to strike the primer and fire the round. No weight shift. A closed bolt weapon is more likely to suffer from a cook off as the round is chambered. As an aside Open Bolt firing weapons are generally easier to manufacture than the Closed Bolt counterparts, as they have a fixed firing pin. The simplification is, there is no need to separate the extraction and loading cycle from the firing cycle required by Closed Bolt firing weapons. Cheers James10
  14. Hello again. Re semantics: The MG34 was designed to be usable in the "role" of a LMG when used with its integral bipod. When it was placed onto its tripod, Lafette 34 (bipod still attached) it could be used in the "role" of MMG. The MG34 was not designed to be a LMG or MMG but to be capable of being used in both of those roles. The BREN and the FM24/29 were designed to be a LMG from the outset and were also destined to be used in the role of LMG. At the time the MG34 was introduced it was a New class of weapon. This new class would eventually become known as a GPMG. This designation however is a post war designation so would be in appropriate to apply it during the WWII time period. Within WWII Online the following weapons fall within the usage "role" of LMG. US M1918A2 BAR, FR FM24/29, UK BREN and the DE MG34. ONLY the BREN and the FM24/29 are actually designed to be "true" LMG's. The M1918A2 BAR was pressed into service in the "role" of LMG for the US forces. A role at which it preformed poorly. Fortunately the US forces were also equipped with Semi-auto M1 Garands which made up for their under preforming LMG. The M1918A2 BAR is classified as an Automatic Rifle, very similar to the DE FG42 in many aspects. The German MG34 is a new class of weapon and did significantly influence the post war period with its ability to be used in the "role" of LMG firing from its bipod and MMG firing from its tripod. Same weapon, different mounts, different "roles" So from a Symantec point of view the MG34 was not designed to be a LMG. It was designed to fulfill the "role" of LMG within the German forces. It was also designed to fulfill the "role" of MMG as well. Cheers James10
  15. Hello All. Something that has been omitted from this discussion is the fact that the M4A3E2 Jumbo was a Close Support Vehicle (CS). It was intended to be used to support an assault on an enemy defensive position. Enemy armor in the vicinity would be dealt with by other units leaving the Jumbo to support the assault. This being the case its anti-armor performance is very likely to be very limited due to its ammunition load out. A common feature among all CS vehicles. The M4A3E2 Jumbo would however be a worthy addition to the Allied TO&E within the CS vehicle set in limited numbers. Cheers james10.
  16. Hello merlin, how are you? The KwK36 and the FlaK18/36/37 are effective the same weapon. That being the case performance figures for the KwK36 and/or the FlaK18/36/37 would apply equally. Both weapons have a barrel that is 56 calibres long and they all use the same ammunition. There are differences between the two but the differences don't effect either guns performance. Therefore the performance will be pretty well identical. The KwK43 on the other hand is completely different and is related to the Pak43 and also the FlaK43, I think it was. The KwK43 has a barrel that is 71 calibres long and uses different (larger) ammunition. Cheers James10
  17. Hello Ltaralex, how are you doing? Just a couple of observations: While your proposal does outwardly appear to have some merit, there are a couple of issues that need to be considered however. In September 1939 everyone pretty well had very similar AA defences. How does this relate to World War II Online? WWIIOnline commences a little after the start of the German attack into France and the Low Countries in 1940, approximately 6 months after the commencement of WWII proper. I am unsure of the exact start date of WWIIOnline but it was not the very beginning of the German Campaign in the West either. Please note, the Germans are at the doorstep of Antwerp, so Holland probably hasn’t as yet fallen. Here is the situation from a historical perspective, in relation to the AA defences at the commencement of WWIIOnlone: 1: The capabilities of all of the major combatants were ostensibly identical. The exact equipment was different i.e. the Germans had the 88mm, FlaK 18/36/37 while the British used their 3.7” QF 3.7inch AA. Off the top of my head I am unable to remember that the French heavy AA gun was but I’m pretty sure they had one. Heavy AA guns were barrage fired by battery and controlled by a central director. All sides also had various light AA guns, all direct fired and locally optically directed using either open sights or other. All of these weapons are represented in-game now, although the in-game heavy AA gun model for the Allies is the British 3.7”. 2: The only combatants that had any indication of the need for significant AA defence capability in relation to what you are suggesting, was the British. This was due to their experience with the German Zeppelin campaign during WWI. Spain would potentially be the only other Nation that had experienced heavy bombing prior to WWII. China may or may not have at this point. Very few nations if any, had experienced what would eventually be called “Strategic or Terror Bombing” as it would eventually be known. At the start of the WWIIOnline campaign, Warsaw had been bombed from the air as Spain had suffered during the Spanish Civil War. Antwerp may or may not have suffered the same fate at that point. There may have been others smaller bombings as well. To your well known “fact” that is the basis for your suggestion: In a 1945 context this is partially true. Yes the Germans had “far more” AA defences that the Allies. Primarily because they had been subjected to sustained heavy concentrated aerial Strategic Bombardment for several years at that point. Initially from the RAF and eventually from the USAAF as well. At the commencement of WWIIOnline these events are in the future. Now as for “superior AA defences”. This is not true. The major combatants AA defensive capabilities in 1939, was not significantly improved by 1945. On that however, the Allies had developed a proximity fused AA round, while the Germans were developing AAGM (Anti-Aircraft Guided Missiles). From a WWIIOnline point of view there is another not insignificant consideration as well. The “AA defences” you are referring to are targeting a specific weapon, the Heavy Massed Strategic Bomber. These bombers (unfortunately, I might add) are not in-game. Historically speaking the Germans didn’t really develop an effective heavy bomber anywhere near as capable as the aircraft the Allies developed. Yes the Germans did build the He117 Greif and it was designed to be a Strategic Bomber. It did see service but not as a strategic bomber. Why you might ask. Well it was a decision. When the decision to invest in the heavy bomber was being made, for the Germans it appeared the war was “in the bag”. For the Allies, specifically the British, it was the most effective way to battle the Germans with the limited resources at hand. Once the US entered things were different but Strategic Bombing was an effective way to attack the Germans until the “Second Front” could be opened, D-Day. Even discounting the actual destruction and interruption directly caused by the Allied Strategic Bombing offensive, it had a significant detrimental effect on the German capacity to wage war. The Allied Strategic Bombing offensive tied up significant resources, manpower, guns, aircraft and material in the “Defence of the Reich”. These resources could have been utilised more effectively (from a German perspective) on the front lines. Thank you for reading. Cheers James10.
  18. Hello All. I would have to agree in regard to the M3 halftrack. The overall US listing should be filled out as a priority, which would include the M3 halftrack. All of the Allies could easily use the M3 halftrack so it would be a good "bang for buck" resource/utilisation wise. The US requires the addition of its own 60mm mortar as indicated above also. Other units for the US list would be potentially 2 different types of trucks (both new), the 37mm Light ATG (new), M8 Greyhound Scout Car (new) and probably the M3 Lee/Grant (also new). These additions plus the repurposing of the current US built, French aircraft would nicely fill out the American TO&E with relatively minimal New modelling. It would be interesting adding the Kubelwagon / Austin Tilly / Laffly V15R / Willys MB for some definite colour, however I don't feel the way the game is usually played their presence would greatly enhance the gaming experience. One current in-game issue is still the "over performance" of ALL wheeled vehicles off road. I am not saying don't add these vehicles, maybe keep them in mind for a later date. I do feel there are more pressing requirements i.e. filling out the US list for one. Thank you for reading, Cheers James10.
  19. Hello disi, how are you doing? Something to be aware of, when you despawn you can still end up back at the FMS. If you are too close to the FMS when you despawn that is where you will end up. When you hit ESC to despawn you will be presented with the despawn timer. Ensure the location displayed within the timer window is the intended CP. If it isn't cancel (you do have 10 sec so there is plenty of time) and move a little away from the FMS and attempt again. Sometimes the ML will place a marker on the map indicating the "RTB - Warp Depot" range. Cheers James10.
  20. Hello frantish, how are you? I am unaware who conceived the use of gliders for military purposes but I will stand by my statement: It is also worth noting the Soviets helped the German paratrooper and armoured forces by allowing German participation in Soviet programs aimed at improving both of those forces. Cheers James10.
  21. Hello All. I for one, believe the MG 34 as used in-game currently is unrealistic at best. Having said that however, I would not support the complete removal of stationary (read immobile) hip fire by the current MG 34 and the soon to be introduced US M1919A6 as a viable/valid option for both of those weapons. I have stated this in all occasions where the hip fire issue has been raised. Whatever is applied to the MG 34 should be applied in equal measure to the M1919A6 when it is introduced. My concern is, if the MG 34 has its functionality reduced to a more appropriate level (as it should be) this would result in a functionality imbalance between the Axis - Allies. The Allied would receive a weapon equivalent to the MG 34 in the form of the M1919A6 while the Axis would loose the functionality provided by the current MG 34 and available to the Allies by the presence of the BREN and the FM24/29. Please notice I am not referring to the FG42 or the BAR as both are present in their respective armies. A solution to the resulting functionality imbalance would be to include within the Axis TO&E a weapon similar to the BREN / FM24/29. Fortunately history does provide such a weapon in the form of the Czech ZB vz.26 or as it was designated in German Service the MG 26(t). Introducing this weapon, which was used by German forces during World War II, would redress the functionality imbalance caused by the necessary modification to the MG 34 usage in-game. Thank you for reading. Cheers James10.
  22. Hello All. The use of combat glider borne infantry forces was pioneered by the German forces. German DFS 320 Assault gliders were first used to assault the Eben Emael fortress guarding the Albert Canal in Belgium during the early stages of the Battle for France in 1940. Later the British and US used glider borne infantry forces to assist in the D-Day landings, Market Garden and other operations. The Glider pictured was the Waco CG-4A, a US built glider. The still on the video shows the remnants of a British built Airspeed Horsa. Another British glider was the General Aircraft Hamilcar. Other German gliders included the Go 242 and the largest glider being the Me 321 Gigant. Both of these gliders were eventually converted to transport aircraft by adding surplus aircraft engines to the glider airframe. In both cases that also included adding undercarriage as well. Adding Glider operations to World War II online I feel, would add a unique dimension to the in-game experience. Cheers. James10
  23. Hello all. While mostly correct some significant information is missing from the account. This is my understanding of the History (potted) of the weapon that ultimately defined infantry combat in the modern age. The Sturmgewehr 44, or StG44. At the beginning of World War Two the common infantry weapon was the Bolt Action Rifle, relatively heavy, single shot, metallic cartridge magazine fed repeating rifle. This was the service rifle of the age based on years of wars and a long history. The final development of the rifled musket of the Napoleonic era. All armies used this form of rifle during The Great War. It was only near the end of the “War to end all Wars” was there some other movement in relation to common infantry weapons. It was in the form of the Sub Machinegun. The basic concept the Bolt Action Rifle was an extension of the “Volley Fire” doctrines of the musket era, taken to extreme. A black powder musket in Europe was on average about .50 cal and had an effective accurate range of about 50 yards. A pre-WWII rifle was about .30 cal and had an accurate effective accurate range of in excess of 1000 yards. Not mention the sheer quantity of rounds a unit could put down range towards an enemy. At the commencement of World War Two all combatants relied in the Bolt Action Rifle as the mainstay of their Land Forces. And yes even the US as at September 1, 1939 was still primarily equipped with the Bolt Action Springfield Rifle. The bolt action rifle had the following advantages: Everyone had lots of them, mostly from World War 1 stockpiles. They were robust, resistant to fouling and easily maintained. Had a high rate of fire. Were accurate out to over 1000 yards. In close combat they were fitted with a bayonet. There were disadvantages, they were: The rifle was expensive to make as it used extensive machining which required skilled labour and machine tools to produce. It took time to train the troops to be proficient in the firing drills. It took time to train the troops to the level of accuracy desired with the rifle. Mostly it took training to allow an infantryman to utilise his rifle effectively in battle. The basic rifleman was supported by MMG’s in defence and LMG’s and pre attack artillery in assault. Everyone used similar methodologies. In relation to infantry weapons the most significant change was the increasing numbers of pistol calibre SMG’s in use by combatants. This was accelerated after the disastrous losses suffered by the Soviet Union. It took significant time to train a rifleman. It took almost no time at all to give a raw recruit a mass produced SMG and point him at the enemy. Enter the Soviet PPS and PPSh-41 SMG’s. Platoons of troops armed with SMG’s could successfully attack the more conventional Rifle/LMG based platoon then in use by the German forces. As a direct result of the 71 round magazine of the PPSh the Germans introduced a modified MP40 with a dual side by side magazine holder. This gave the MP40, 64 ready rounds but it was unsuccessful due to weight and reliability issues. A problem waiting for a solution - Enter studies. Army studies showed that the average engagement range was between 200 - 300m. The Kar98k firing the 7.92x57mm round was accurate to over 1000m while the SMG firing the 9x19mm round was only effective to about 200m. Solution: Automatic Rifle. Problem solved. Well not really, as the FG42 demonstrated. Firing the full powered 7.92x57mm round was difficult to control on full auto but it was available. What was required was a longer ranged SMG. Enter the prototypes of the StG44. To solve the issue of the 7.92x57mm being too powerful for controllable full auto fire it was decided to reduce the 7.92x57mm to 7.92x33mm. A lighter propellant load, less recoil on full auto. Add a SMG style 32 round magazine and you have it. Not quite the StG44 but getting there. Enter Adolf Hitler. He suspended all new rifle development programs. He also ordered newer smg’s were to be built. To keep the Stg44 (not that it was called that at the time) on track, it was redesignated MP43 Machinepistol 43. I.e. a redevelopment of an existing smg (MP34, 38, 40 etc) to comply with the new orders. Eventually Hitler discovered the redesignation and halted the program again. Eventually he relented and allowed the program to recommence for evaluation purposes. The evaluation proved promising allowing for its redesignation to Machinepistol44, MP44. Eventually it received its final designation of Sturmgewehr 44 or StG44 and laid the ground work for a “New” class of weapon, the Assault Rifle. The advantages of the StG44 Assault Rifle: SMG rate of fire for close combat and suppression. SMG magazine capacity. Greater range than a SMG. Not as far as a full powered rifle but well within the common engagement ranges. Selective fire capable. Semi-auto for ranged accuracy and full-auto for close combat as required. Designed for “Mass Production” as a result of the extensive use of pressings and stampings. Very little use of machining. Something not to overlook as well. The ammunition being smaller 7.92x57mm vs 7.92x33mm and a lighter powder load, allowed for more ammunition to be carried. This is my understanding. Thank you for reading. Cheers James10
  24. Hello All. I do find this discussion very amusing. The Allies actually already have an equivalent to the FG42. It is in fact the M1918A2 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR). Both the BAR (which was introduced before the FG42) and the FG42 itself, are effectively the same type of weapon. They are both Automatic Rifles. The BAR was pressed into US service as a LMG but was very poor in that role. Fortunately for the American Forces in Europe the M1 Garand Semi-Auto was widely issued so the under performance of the BAR in its role of LMG was mitigated. What the Allies actually need is an equivalent to the MG34. Strangely enough the best candidate for that would most likely be the M1919A6. Even more strangely I believe there are well advanced plans to introduce the said same weapon into World War II Online for the Allies. Along with the StG44 (Axis) and the M1A1 Paratrooper Carbine (Allies as well). As far as the Johnson Machine Gun I believe it only saw service in the Pacific. Cheers James10
  25. Hello All. This is my understanding in relation to AA and Aircraft HE rounds in-game. All player controlled AA and aircraft mounted cannons in-game use contact fuses so you are still going to have to "Hit" a target to detonate the round. With the increased fragmentation count there is likely to be more damage inflicted on the target. e.g. the round hits a wing tip and detonates. Most of the aircraft will be affected by the greater fragmentation numbers generated. One would think that those kind of near but not square hits will be more devastating than they currently are. Just more fragments for damage stuff. I am aware that pretty well all Air/AA rounds from about 13mm (may be 15mm) and up in-game time out and detonate resulting in the puffs you see when firing at aircraft. This may actually trigger fragmentation. I would have to defer to one of the Devs for that information. The in-game AI AA on the other hand seems to be a bit unusual. Unusual in the way that they all appear to be firing time fused rounds. From a historic/real world perspective this should not be the case. The light (20/25mm) and medium (40mm) AA guns didn't use fuse setters and time fuses as they would directly engaged the target using contact fuses. The heavy (88's and 3.7") did use fuse setters but unlike the in-game versions did not directly engage individual aircraft. In addition I would suspect being too close to one of those "puffs" could be very unpleasant. I also suspect the range (post HE Audit) that will be "too close" will be significantly further than it is now. It will be interesting to see the results. Cheers James10.