aismov

Registered Users
  • Content count

    4,477
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

aismov last won the day on February 28

aismov had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

450 Salty

About aismov

  • Rank
    WWII ONLINE BUILDER [bronze]
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. I would be interested to know as well, don't remember it being addressed in the rat chat.
  2. I think this would be a good idea. It gives the "builder" types something to do, abd gives players the choice to get more ammo at the consequence of not moving as fast.
  3. Dunno but if you get snuck up on by an infantry that had to cross half a kilometer of open terrain... Is it really the games fault? Just saying.
  4. Inutero great to see a familiar name back here. Like BMBM said these days you can get great performance for a fantastic price. The fact you don't plan on any other PC gaming helps tremendously. WWIIOL is primarily a CPU-limited game, rather than a GPU-limited game. So if it comes to choosing where to invest bs cutback generally go for the better performing CPU rather than a video card (which is the exact opposite of what you would do for most games). I would recommend a 4+ GHz CPU, Intel vs AMD makes no difference. RAM would recommend 8 GB (game uses only about 2.5 GB). Graphics card can do a last gen mid-range and get great performance. Would recommend a Nvidia GTX 1060 (or GTX 970). A monitor I highly recommend a 1440p monitor. My system for example is a Intel i5 8700k, 16 GB RAM, GTX 1070ti, SSD and I run the game at 1440p, max settings and 4x AA enabled and get 200-250 FPS when behind the lines and 125 FPS in heavy battles.
  5. Not really sure what that graph is showing? (no labels on either axis... assume that X is campaign number and Y is?)
  6. Essentially with 1.36 we are going back to how WWIIOL was played back in 2006. Every town in the map (in 1.36 now towns along the frontline and 1 town behind the lines) will have supply of everything (infantry, ATG, tanks, etc). When one side captures the town their own supply starts moving in automatically. There will also be a few small brigades that HC can move around which serve to augment the town-based spawnlists at the discretion of the HC. I like/support the system as it has several advantages: Players/customers can spawn the unit they like the most from any town on the front If you favorite unit is not there you can resupply it or bring it from a behind the lines town No longer dependent on HC moving in flags Attrition becomes a real factor again and you can't burn through supply like there is no tomorrow and simply warp in a new brigade No more soft capping HC can focus on organizing/leading battles and not moving flags and checking fallbacks Sets the stage for proximity AOs and giving squads more operational freedom for squads nights, etc.
  7. While I agree that in theory players would spawn in to sink it if it got spotted or reported, but the issue is in the reporting business. You need people to be flying constant air patrols over the Channel (not that I am against this BTW). It because a risk-reward question. If the only think you risk is one TT ship for a potentially huge reward people would simply game the system by spamming TTs out of every port they could and seeing which one happens to slip through. Its not that hard to set up a 2nd account, map your throttle, set a course and simply walk away for 45 mins. The reality of how games are played is that more of this scenario would happen than of actual thoughtfully planned out mission/operations. It would be the equivalent of moling England... keep on spamming TTs and see if you get lucky because a pilot happened to log off to run to the bathroom and didn't notice your TT slip by. By forcing players to have more skin in the game (the load-on, spawn out principle) you would see less of the above nonsense and more actual operations since players will think twice about draining supply with senseless suicide runs across the channel. I think the idea is a good one, but it just needs more work to eliminate some of the obvious exploits the army-out-of-a-box model has.
  8. Transport aircraft shouldn't be dropping resupply crates as that is pretty bogus. If you want to resupply your pilot should have to land. Large scale air-drop resupply didn't exist in WWII, all this was done by landing the plane and unloading it. Only in desperate times such as when the Germans lost their resupply airfields when they were surrounded in Stalingrad did they resort to dropping supplies from the air. And in that situation the defenders folded pretty quickly since the amount of supply that could be air dropped was negligible.
  9. Heh, don't disagree with you on the current system Just saying that the days of HC-picked spawn lists really weren't all that fun.
  10. Don't agree on this one. I remember what it was like and it was poisonous. Usually one branch would get sacrificed (mostly Luftwaffe for the ground guys) which generated a lot of bad blood. The playerbase also didn't like numbers being cut down for campaign victory purposes at an expense of fun gameplay purposes. Its not really the fault of the HC... it is their job to work to win the map and use all the tools at their disposal. So if that means selling off every Panzer II and piece of scrap metal to squeeze 1 more PzIIIH into the spawnlist they would rightly do it since their job was to win the map, and not necessarily to make the game fun for new players needing those crappy tanks to rank up, or niche players who maybe enjoyed Panzer hunting with the wacky laffy.
  11. It is a resources issue which is why things are rendered the way they are. Things that move fast like planes are rendered farther out than things that move slow. I personally don't think its a huge issue (although I would like the viewing and fog distance increased substantially) because in this game we also lack good concelment for infantry. The ground is flat except for berms and there is no grass or places to hide in for infantry. So I see it as a gamey tradeoff (infantry don't render) to compensate for another gamey issue (infantry if they did render would have nowhere to hide).
  12. 10/10 You said that perfectly. I like the new weapons, I like the attempts to have some historical introduction dates, but at the end of the day when you are in Tier X, the spawn lists each side have should be balanced in their capacity and capability. It worried me when we are told that for example the Allies "only have" turning as an advantage in airplanes, because it is the advantage to have, the trump card in WWIIOL combat because action in this game, unlike real life, happens low on the deck (please note that I personally feel that this is completely OK as the Spitfire was historically an excellent plane, I'm using it more of a point regarding my concern how I feel that the theory of WWIIOL game design doesn't line up with WWIIOL gameplay reality). Similarly it worries/ied me that the Allies had a woeful number of SMGs to fight with against greater Axis SMG numbers and the gameplay implications weren't thought through. To me, it speaks to a fundamental disconnect between spawnlist theory and gameplay reality/design where we are so driven by the hard data, that we don't realize the sky is blue because the data is telling us it is red. I realize that hindsight is 20/20 and when you are looking at spawnlists 100+ units long with numbers spread and changing across all three tiers it can be a herculean task. But many of the criticisms being posted in these threads and real world gameplay examples aren't particularly esoteric or small fringe issues. I have been here since the start, and I can't remember a time when there has been such a clear agreement between both sides regarding a decision that CRS has taken. I don't think we should necessarily see this as a PB vs. CRS situation because that infers that we are somehow against each other. We have the same goal to make the game bigger and better, but just have competing visions. We all help in the way we can. Some like BMBM, Ohm, Heavy, Pete, Merlin effectively work a second job, others post their thoughts and opinions on the forums. We all get passionate but I think its important we always stay respectful to one another. And regarding what @riprendsaid regarding the finances, I agree. I am more than happy to further support the project since I believe in the uniqueness of the game.
  13. Since I feel we are hanging up on BMBM a bit here and he is in the thankless role Doc was, want to just say And thanks for all the passion and dedication to the game. We all have it as evidence by this thread, but hats off to you for taking this many steps farthur for all of us! My comments are directed to the general gameplay design by CRS, and not you, although you happen to be in this thread and caught in the crossfire. I think a major concern players have is the different between absolute capacity and relative capability. Do the Axis have the ability to bring in weapons to suppress infantry spawns? Yes they do, we indeed have 251s, LMG, and a host of other weapons with the capacity to do that. But in "real life" that is WWIIOL the relative capability to fulfill that role is night and day different between doing it with an LMG or abd 251 and a Vickers. It's becomes the classic example of where production cost/value diverges from WWIIOL value since 1 Vickers is worth probably several 251s due to its survivability. But I supposse that due to the Vickers being a small tankette it's cost likely won't be that different from a 251. Yet some how the Axis need to find ever more innovative ways to fight in WWIIOL rather than simply spawning an MG-armed tank. Im glad all these vehicles are modelled, and they should be in the game. I just think that the spawnlists should be made to give both sides the same relative capability. If there is a weapon that doesn't have a counter such as Allied heavy tanks or the Axis 88, then decrease their available spawn numbers to make sure the weapon doesn't dominate the battlefield. But I think the current system of having assault guns that can't do much against infantry relative to what an MG-armed tank can do is just poor game design, even though if it is the more historically realistic option.
  14. Another thing to monetize: slogans on the side of your tank. The Eastern Front alone as far as the Red Army and Russian players are concerned would make a killing.
  15. Just bringing this back to everyone's attention. Wonder if there has been any progress. @HATCH @markec?