Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by aismov

  1. There is a very long technical reason as to why but I gets down to the CPU. For the past 10+ years CPUs have been going multicore and programs have been written to take advantage of them. WWIIOL was created when we all had single core CPU. So if you only have 1 core the way you increase performance is clock frequency. A 4-core CPU @ 2.5 ghz will run this game slower than an older single core CPU running at 3 GHz. If you want top WWIIOL performance always go with a fast CPU. The graphics card for this game is of secondary concern. You would be fine with a cheap GTX 1050 or GTX 960.
  2. Yeah it's the same idea but more tiers so historical introduction dates make sense since right now you can have weapons that were late 1942 coming in Tier 2, with the system they would come in tier 2.5 and so on. For example the 109F2 is currently T0, but it came late 1940. With half tiers it is: T0: 109E4 T0.5: 109F2 T1: 109F4 Ohm said that the tiers unfortunately won't be able to correspond to the years anymore (tier 1= 1941, etc) since the database can't do decimals. Would personally still like it if we could have decimal tiers displayed ingame just to make things make sense due to the coincidence of tier numbers and year numbers.
  3. Sounds like setting AI supply routes, timing, and organizing players to attack/recon or defend would be something that could be done by the HC, or if we go back to the day of squads controlling/watching their designated sector of the front something they could do. But one thing we learned with HC over the years is that you have to have a system that can function well on it own while running on autopilot. Last thing we need is a system designed in a way where it becomes a second job for the poor HC guy assigned to monitor the supply lines. Something simply where you can designate supply to only go at night or at some other point in time.
  4. I realize that we aren't supposed to cross-post messages, but it was done in good intention to stimulate debate since few people visit the harbor forums. There were some good ideas that were bounced around by jwilly and myself in that thread. Would it be possible to rather have it moved or merged and not outright deleted. I just lost a rather indepth reply about naval spawning mechanics/travel time and wanted to get jwilly's opinion
  5. Great post! Thos is very similar to the original plan CRS 1.0 had regarding the supply system when the game was first designed. Like you rightfully said, this would expand the game and give players more things to do, different ways to "support the war effort," and potentially open up this game to also be played on mobile with a portion of it being more of a 2D "logistics simulator" that could be controlled by HC types who enjoy these types of things. There are enough people managing virtual sports teams and other browser based games where this could potentially work. Sone points: Truck convoys need their own EWS and have positions you can spawn into immediately to defend. It won't work if a player has to drive from the nearest town to defend. In effect the truck convoys would function as both a moving mobile spawn point as well as a persistent polycrewed "vehicle" with say 4-6 SPAA positions you can spawn into. That way players man the AA guns to shoot down planes, but the AI convoy still does the driving. Heavy equipment should be transported by rail and not by truck. Rail yards need to be seriously well defended. Kamikaze attacks. This I think is the elephant in the room. If truck convoys are negligible in affecting the overall campaign, players won't attack them. If they are very important abd can determine which way the map goes ppl will attack them at all cost and you will see gamey suicide runs on convoys. I really have no idea how to address the suicide attack issue outside of a personal spawn point system where you are penalized for KIA abd rewarded for RTB. Any ideas?
  6. I would be willing to pay $5 for something small like a camo helmet or a small emblem on a tank. I would be willing to pay $10 for a camo skin on a tank or plane nose/tail art, and if it is something very special or unique like some of the Tiger skins I would probably too out at $25 if there are lots of bells and whistles. Advertise your squad on the ingame billboards? I think $5/month per billboard rental is pretty reasonable. I think there are only 1-2 billboards per small town anyway. Physicial things like renaming factory CPs or street names... Maybe $100 per year? And then you have first option to renew it next year, and if not, opens up for other players to claim. Got squad compounds? Probably in the thousands as this would be the ultimate show-off item to have. But it also requires some RPG elements. It could fit example be used to display squad war trophies (like players do in Skyrim). The compound could be expanded to have gun ranges for training. EDIT: I could see this expanding to let squads have something akin to the old Offline Trainjg location which is in the SE part of the map (wound be far behind the lines so that it doesn't affect the actual campaign) For a fully custom and unique squad patch? I don't know... Hundreds/Thousands? There is a fixed amount of video memory so we cant go crazy and have thousands of fully unique patches otherwise we'll never load then all into the GPU frame buffer.
  7. Dunno, I think there is actually a huge untapped market for this. As far as memory goes WWIIOL uses next to nothing, IIRC on my system it used 2 GB of system RAM and 1.5 GB of video RAM. I have no clue regarding art and how much a texture takes up in memory, but lets say it was the 5 MB that someone here mentioned. Lets be generous and double it to 10 MB, that is 100 textures for a bump in 1 GB of video card RAM. Based on the steam hardware survey as of 1/2019 ~84% of gamers have a GPU that has 2 GB or more VRAM, with 60% having 4 GB or more. And for system memory 95% have 4 GB or more, with 80% having 8 GB or more. I'm no game developer so I don't know how things like texture usage really works, but games like GTAV push 50GB+ so I think we have a lot of headroom to work with. Decals and skins are a bit more challenging I guess since they can pop up anywhere in the game world so you can't for example have one set of textures reserved for certain geographic areas to facilitate smooth loading. But to stop my rambling, I think there is actually a lot of interest in this.
  8. Very well said. Agree minus the jwilly giving up part I think he had a great point that if there are potentially large gameplay changes coming, and we know how partisan-player psychology works, that things should be offset. Especially when something that has been ingame for a longtime is going to be changed in a rather rapid and drastic fashion. As we saw in the other thread, there will be partisans on both side with one seeing the sky falling and massive protest-unsubbing while the others post faux-neutral "GJ CRS!!!" posts that are really backhanded comments in disguise meant to rub in the salt a little bit more. It doesn't help anyone, and like I said in the previous thread, it just breeds toxicity and a never-ending cycle of recrimination where one side is forever trying to get even for a gameplay change that was made however many years or campaigns ago. But something has to be done, and I think this is a good way to lesson the blow and not ignite and inferno in the forums and on ingame sidechat which as I type is still burning red hot.
  9. No thank you. I was just in an attack a few nights back and the Allies held the AB and some remaining CPs over a river and had the bridge well defended by both tanks and ATGs. Solution? Sneak a HC FRU across the river, spawn in and ninja cap the bunker :\ Should the Allies have been guarding the bunker? Probably, or at least checking it. But they also should have had a decent sense that if they have a well defended bridge, you shoudn't expect an entire army to spawn out of a bunch of boxes hidden in a shrubline. The FRU issue is the same no matter what the town, terrain, or type of attack. Its just that when it comes to rivers it is blatantly obvious how gamey of a mechanic it is.
  10. Back when RDP bombing was first introduced it actually did just this... affected the speed of tiers and not supply. During this time the CinC would also pick one weapon to be "prioritized" and thus enter the game world in larger numbers. It got changed because of the obvious argument that bombing factories shouldn't affect how quickly an engineer setting at his desk can draw up a new tank. The CinC picking the next weapon thing died a quick death since in both the Axis and Allied side it almost descended into civil war and turned the pilots and groundpounders into enemies within their own side (since usually planes were sacrificed in order to get more tanks).
  11. I agree with you as well as with Xoom. Side chat as a default needs to go, at least until the vocal minority can keep their emotions in check and not go on a never ending monologue of conspiracy and paranoia.
  12. Completely agree 100% on the toxicity. Its almost like a game of one upmanship with players on each side finding ever more clever ways to get back at the other side purely out of a sense of revenge. It's annoying to listen to and gives the wrong impression particularly to new players.
  13. Case in point of what I was saying. Had one side handled the situation with slightly more tact, it would have made it less likely that the opposite side would overreact and start looking for blood in other places to get even (and I'm not trying to be side-biased or blame one side, this is just a general comment which has swung BOTH ways many times in the past). Because whether we as a community like it or not, there are going to be a fair number of Axis players who are going to make it their mission to now "fix" the Thompson SMG and the way it is ahistorically used ingame (along with every other SMG, BTW). The endless cycle of revanchism is tiring, but for whatever reason both sides always fall into the same trap every time there is a new (usually non-)issue du jour. @jj506my comments weren't directed at you. Apologies if it seemed that way
  14. My response will be in 2-parts, one as a dedicated Axis player, and two, as a supporter of WWIIOL and the game we are trying to have here. For starters, I personally support this change. I would personally like to have firing enabled while walking, but its really not a big deal for me either way. I use the LMG pretty much exclusively with the bipod deployed. Now, I think there is no denying that players primarily on the Allied side have been pushing for this adjustment and at the same time have the most to gain for it as well. But at the same time, I don't think this is the disaster some are making it out to be as most CPs are capped by rifles and SMGs, and not by LMGs. I can understand that a few players really enjoy using the LMGs in this way and have gotten very proficient at them. But lets me honest here... the way that they were used was flat out gamey and immersion breaking. I honestly think it will do zero to affect the flow of battles, so just as Axis players are overdramatisizing the loss of this, the Allies similarly have made a mountain out a molehill regarding the effectiveness of the LMG turning it into the bogey man that caps all CPs and clears out bunkers stacked with 10+ defenders in one spray. Both are false. Now to give a further couple coins of opinion. In a general gameplay sense I think the most important is for both sides to just fess up to their feelings and move forward. Just like it is disingenuous for Axis players to threaten subs over an adjustment to one weapon, it is similarly disingenuous and smacks of condescension if Allied players now all of a sudden rush to the "its historical" argument and deny they have gotten the adjustment they have been asking for purely for gameplay reasons. The opposite side will see right through it and it will breed simply another cycle of recrimination (as can be seen in this post and other posts with Axis players now looking at Top Bomber stats, Top Fighter stats, and insert-your-weapon-du-jour to complain about here unit as well). We should all work to try to be more level headed with everything. Try not to see things with side-blinders on, and when something happens to benefit your side, just man up and admit it that you wanted a fix and it will benefit your side. Honesty may not heal all wounds, but it will at least make a more constructive atmosphere that a lot of the BS and faux ex post facto explanations we see on these forums.
  15. So far all you've been able to do is repost the same 3 things over and over, and make excuses when players who are actually working to enact positive change call you out on you're trolling. Nobody would have an issue if you had constructive criticism and actually back up your words with actions. Many of us, myself included, were unsubbed for years and came back because we saw positive change and have been working to bring about more of it. Sorry, but the ball is very far in your court.
  16. Agree. The reasons people leave are multifaceted and there is no quick answers or fixes. Saying people left because of boredom is like saying the Hindenburg crashed because of fire. It's an oversimplification and doesn't give any prognostic information on how to fix things. Its just quarterbacking from behind the chain link fence and criticizing the coach with having a the guts to step in and make a positive change. For all those ex-subs complaining here on a daily basis how about you step it up and help organize battles to reverse this perceived boredom of yours. How about you try to rally old squad members and actively work to recruit new ones? ask players like Augetout how much work that is. Has only here complaining of about CRS "abandoning" the Steam community spent the fraction of the time they blow hot air in these forums to engage the WWIIOL steam community? Nope, because me and Zeb and the only ones who post on those forums. There is a lot players can do to help the game that doesn't even require a subscription. But most seem to be more interested in trolling the forums with negativity without any constructive comments or seemingly any intention to do so.
  17. Honestly noob, at times I wonder if you live in an alternate reality. The FMS has been changed. You've beaten this dead horse down to the bone, and pulvarized the bones too. The Spitfire has been the same plan as it has since it was modeled. The new TOE has gotten a ton of developer feedback and player input, both ingame and in the forums. There have been several ratchats about it too. And removal of hip-fire? Nobody has every said anything like that.
  18. Have to agree with the sentiment. If you have a constructive opinion by all say it. If you don't like the game then by all means leave. But don't start a free account and lecture everyone else day-in, day-out on how this or that should be done differently, or else you aren't coming back. That is about the most selfish stunt you can pull.
  19. I voted 3 as well. Things need some tweaking here and there, but the general idea of historical weapon rollouts balanced by numbers available in the spawnlists is a good direction IMHO. If some cases its too big of a jump because we don't have full half-tiers yet, then we will simply have to fudge it the best we can.
  20. That's a great point actually. Limit side to actual important information and not the millionth Matty whinefest.
  21. Check my stats....
  22. It's not. Allies have their fair share of Rambo LMGs. It's just that the MG34 fires faster so it is superior to the BREN. Just like the Thompson fires faster than the MP40 and is the superior weapon. FWIW the way LMGs are used by all sides is gamey and we should tweak the model to be more in line with historical use. I think a lot of good fixes have been proposed: 1) decrease turning speed with LMG to model the heavy weight of these weapons 2) no firing gun when going from standing to prone (or drastically increase dispersion) 3) increased dispersion when moving and firing 4) allow hip firing 5) all undeployed firing And finally lets be honest, most kills are made by rifles and SMG. The LMGs may inflame passions, but their dominance is way overstated and usual more due to lag than the actual weapon.
  23. I couldn't disagree more. Turning this into red vs blue would drive away many players since the reason many of us play this game is to realistically recreate the weapons of the war with their national characteristics, in a balanced manner, but not foreshadow any inevitable result. If you follow your proposal to its logical conclusion that means we have to eliminate the Char and Matty from Tier 0. You then need to eliminate the 88 as well since the allies don't have anything equivalent. The Allies can't have the Lancaster or B-17 since the Axis didn't have a heavy 4-prop bomber. You can't model the Me262 because the Allies didn't have jets. We have to give up on the Navy since the Axis never fielded aircraft carriers. Also eliminate submarines since the Allies never fielded an equivalently advanced submarine. Essentially we end up with a game where all we have is Pz38t fighting A13s and H39s, with some Pak36 ATG against 2 pounders. Essentially what I'm getting at is if you go down the red vs blue rabbit hole you quickly eliminate WWII out of WWIIOL. Much better, IMHO, is to model national flavored as they historically came out but balance the spawn numbers so the weapon isn't too overpowering. So you don't give the Axis 24 88s or 14 Tigers, and similarly don't give the Allies 30 Chars. But keep the vehicles ingame, in reasonable numbers, to make it feel like the war, without necessarily requiring the same strategic outcomes as they happened during every year of the war.
  24. Are you ready to give up the Matty or Char in Tier0? Because if you follow your logic that is exactly what needs to be done. And when the Eastern Front is modelled the same logic has to be applied to the T-34 and KV1. And when Tier5 comes we won't be able to model the King Tiger because the Western Allies have no effective counter. Just saying that if you go down the road of "balanced triads" you dig yourself into a hole you can't explain yourself to the playerbase out of. Nobody is saying we shouldn't have balanced numbers. Quite the contrary essentially everyone wants exactly that. Nobody is advocated superior weapons Ono e side compensated by overpop on the other. This is a game after all, not a hardcore simulation of the Eastern Front circa March, 1945.