Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by aismov

  1. As others have said orders are already present prior to spawning in. Issue is that orders are rarely placed by Amal because from a gameplay perspective they are pretty useless (hence why nobody bothers). Not to hijack this thread, but the real solution is to junk the entire mission system and move to a geographic click facility > spawn model where all you look at is a map with a green bar over each facility/FMS/AB so you quickly know the number of players spawned from that area. What we have now is a legacy from the initial game design in 2001, and TBH it has neve worked and with FMS use now the problem are even more evident where you have no idea where the FMS that you are spawning into even is. It's the perpetual lottery of clicking on a new FMS abd hoping it not somewhere out in the middle of nowhere. Orders stating where the FMS is won't happen since we see now players already don't do that. An alternative system is needed.
  2. I agree with raptor here. You guys are grossly overestimating time to combat with fighters. I can fly from Den Haag all the way to the British gm factories and get alt in 30 minutes... In a He111! Edit: I would also agree limiting the flags to essentially only armor and a small number of support units. I think the number of flags is good right now abd wouldn't expand them farthur for the reasons raptor said. The same thing with planes, especially bombers which could make the RDP war a bit more realistic than the current one-way kamikazee runs (which I am guilty of as well). Infinite supply hurts gameplay IMHO, and I think we have already with garrisons seen a new approach to battles with players more careful about wasting supply.
  3. Perfect example of why the entire HC/brigade system desperately needed to cut down and simplified. There is a way to manually set fallback as well, but to be honest I forgot how to do it. Expecting HC volunteers to understand these arcane rules (which also are very poorly documented) is just bad game design. Another notch on the old CRS 1.0 post I guess.
  4. Jerry gonna be uber big on that screen when he shoots you!
  5. My understanding from the Rats Chats and the Forums is that the Unreal Engine work was just a very, very basic proof of concept. The main issue with using Unreal Engine is that you are limited in scale/map size based on what the game engine was fundamentally designed to do (i.e. designed for close quarters/small maps) and not huge open world games. This is similar to other commercial off the shelf engines out there (Unity, CryTek, Lumberyard). Although there are some companies out there that do large open-world type games like Star Citizen and use commercial engines (they used CryTek and now Lumberyard) but these engines are heavily modified. Others like Elite Dangerous created their own inhouse game engine. FWIW my own view is that a WWIIOL 2.0 (which I highly support and think we should really start making some strides to vis-a-vis crowd funding) will need to develop its own inhouse game engine to deliver the type of gameplay (large zonesless world combining air/land/sea seamlessly) rather than trying to fit a square peg in a round hole with a commercial engine. I think the Star Citizen experience is telling here where they dumped the CryTek engine after years of work and pretty much rebuilt it using Lumberyard (which itself is a CryTek derivative).
  6. I'll answer some of the stuff that hasn't been covered: 3) No, you can resupply from Dover to Antwerp if you are so inclined. I believe (but haven't tested) that you can also resupply into a pocket. 4) No, you can do any mission you want and resupply will still work. When you successfully resupply a unit, on despawning and backing out of the mission you will see the green text that says "Unit X Manually Resupplied to XYZ Army Base."
  7. Agree here. I think we have to be careful not to have AOs get used in a dominant fashion by the overpop side. It should be seen fundamentally as a way to give players/squads to play the game the way they want to outside of the confines of the HC system, but good overall playerbase gameplay should trump that. So for example if there is an overpop situation, the numbers needed to activate an AO should be dynamic. A lot of this is just guesswork since most of us don't know the breakdown of the actually Axis/Allies pop% during various parts of the day, but it seems obvious that the wheels begin to fall off big time when there is more than >15-20% overpop (so a 40 vs 60 scenario). The art here is to create a system that limits players from doing "bad things" from a gameplay wise perspective (too many AOs that swamp underpop defenders) without making it seem that said players are being limited (since they would probably get angry and log off). Wrong Way: Hard AO limits/maximums. A squad logs in for squad night and has 10 players, side is overpop, and are met with the "Total AO Maximum Reached" message... queue frustration and logging. Right Way: Dynamic AO Trigger Rules. A squad logs in for squad night and has 10 players, side is overpop, and are informed "Note: 12 players needed to set Proximity AO" (this can be done say by a .AO command or something that will inform you in real time what the requirement is). In the former case you create a system that feels arbitrary and punishing to players. In the latter, you have the same effective result, but give players incentive to get outside players involved in the game and partaking in squad ops. Yes, they may not always get it, but at least there is a feeling with this system that it is an achievable outcome, which makes a world of difference vis-a-vis hard coded limits. I will also be the first to say that this is an extremely tricky balancing act to get right! Yikes!
  8. Agree that cutoff pockets especially with loadouts could have a lot of extra design work go into them that can make some interesting fights and expand gameplay roles to transport pilots/trucker types. But like others have said it should be done realistic, if not in exact design due to this being a game, but at least in spirit. So as others have said limit it to things like small arms ammo, etc. And require the plane to physically land (or adjust supply numbers to make air attrition a real thing).
  9. True but that was during peacetime... not wartime. Regarding air resupply it was a question of numbers, but also a question of plane capacity. The airplanes back then could only hold so much, and airfields at that time could only land so many planes at a certain throughput. I think that Stalingrad was actually a good example of this were a major limiting factor to resupply wasn't necessarily planes (though this was true as well), but actually turnaround time between landing, unloading, refueling, and leaving again. Only so much you can do without modern heavy lift planes and palettization that we have today.
  10. This is a laptop? What would help us is not the serial number, but rather the model number. It should be written on the front of it, or on the back on the sticker. Try this too:
  11. Lol can't please some customers
  12. This along with what Tatonka said is a great reason why we shouldn't have REAL TIME. Kill credit reporting. Firing a mortar blind flipping through the range settings and suddenly a waterfall of green names popup... Aha! Cha-Ching! You can imagine a whole much of gamey uses for it... Knowing you killed that tank hiding in the bush. Knowing that the EI running behind the berm is dead and didn't just duck down. I have nothing against reporting... But all that stuff should be in the AAR after you are either KIA or RTB.
  13. Yeah we saw that at Leuven Friday. Capped the bunker and everyone left thinking job was done. I had to do a .AXIS to get ppl to spawn back in and finish it off. Not to mention two more .AXIS for people to stay and defend the town to an Allied counter attack.
  14. My understanding was that if you lose the AB, all it does it shut down your ability to spawn tanks, but all the other CPs can still spawn the usual infantry/truck/ATG. Is this *always* the case and how do linked-CPs work? Example: today there was a long fight in Hastiere, lots of back and forth. But no matter what we did, there were still SMGs, sappers, etc spawning a solid 4+ hours into the battle. The ownership was thus: AB: axis City: axis Feschaux CP (axis spawnable): axis Givet CP (axis spawnable): axis Dinant CP: allied Flavion CP: allied In this situation does the supply first drain all of hastiere, and then when there is no supply left switch to the supply from the linked CP (in this case Dinant and Flavion)? If that is the case, its probably best to cap the AB last to not open up extra supply going into an otherwise exhausted town.
  15. Waiting for stugIII, but thinking of doing one with an 88 this weekend.
  16. Lol yeah been seeing that this map with RDP. Guys set autopilot and do stuff with second account. Overshoot target, turn around and bomb the factories.
  17. I think Delems feels like he just won the lottery lol Xoom and CRS impressive with fast fixes and close communication with the community. The naval infantry thing went from proposal+rat chat to implementation in just a few weeks. I'm sure MSK is happy about this lol
  18. 19 FPS? Geez! I get angry when I get less than 120 FPS in big battles. UPGRADE MY FRIEND! You can easily get 100+ FPS performance for ~$400 these days, even less probably if you go through eBay/second hand stuff. PM me and I can help ya design a system upgrade. Hell I'll walk you through the actually build process over discord if you have never done it.
  19. I guess it is a bit hard to explain why since I don't really have any technical understanding of exactly what WWIIOL calculates outside of hand waving generalities like "ballistics" and "physics." That said the most modern processor you have is the FX 8350 which is from ~2012 (based on my very cursory online search). Technology has changed a lot in those 6 years. CPU performance has stopped being defined purely by clock cycles (GHz) since roughly the mid-2000s due to thernal limitations when you get close to 5 GHz. A lot of the newer CPUs have better internal architecture so you get more computing power for a similar number of click cycles. Its the same reason why a 6.0 L V12 engine from 2018 completely outclassed the same engine from 1970. Both technically have the same displacement and cylinders, but the newer one has more efficient engineering to maximize available power. If you are upgrading I would highly recommend getting any CPU from 2017 or newer that running at 4.2 GHz+ stock (nonboosted/turbo'd). They are pretty cheap now and you will see fantastic performance gains. RAM not an issue, 8 GB will be more than enough even with multiple accounts.
  20. This happens when you have an old client version, it will sequentially install each patch. Best to do a complete uninstall and download the most recent full version.
  21. WWIIOL uses about 1.5 GB of system RAM, figure that Windows OS uses about 2.5 GB, so just multiple this by the number of accounts you are running and your available RAM. So with 8 GB RAM you can run realistically 3; it also helps to not have more accounts than CPU cores.
  22. I will also add that I have a 100% custom built rig that a designed myself. So I avoid a lot if the bloatware and hardware bottlenecking that you can get with prebuilt systems from the big guys. Oh and my GTX 1070ti also doesn't hurt to get the game running at 1440p (highly recommended btw). When high refresh rate 4K monitors become cheaper and lose the "gamer" design elements they have now I'll be upgrading to that next.
  23. Not surprising... the basic game engine is still running code from launch in 2001; so it still only uses a single CPU core and many things are CPU heavy (rather than GPU). Which is exactly why you see the same performance on a single core vs. a multicore. The best option is to get a more modern CPU that runs above 4GHz for best performance. I myself run a i5 8600k and get 150+ FPS in battles and 250+ FPS out in the countryside. The GPU isn't all that important as of now, a GTX 1060 is more than enough.
  24. Yeah agree with this.