pvtpetey

Registered Users
  • Content count

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Green Tag

About pvtpetey

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. This worked well in battlefield 1942 I believe and I think it's a really good solution to make airborne more useful in the game.
  2. Anyone remember this game from 2000? Its got a bunch of cool features with worse graphics than what WWIIOL currently has. It has a complete management of bomber crew system with different positions from tail gunner, bomber to navigation crew making multi crew actually accessible an doable and the team management quite a lot of fun. Theres also a much better modelling of enemy strength - fighters and flak for different areas that changes as the war progresses. I guess you could call it kind of a silent hunter in the air in some ways. I thought i should draw attention to it as an example of what would be brilliant to be visualised in wwiiol with the minimum of expense given the quality of models etc. Id really love to see some implementation of AI in multicrewing that allows for full control if the user wishes and makes an impact on the players when crew are killed off or wounded.
  3. I get what you're saying Jwilly and i agree that wwiiol's long term campaign is what is it's real unique selling point (USP) - when RA was announced i thought abandoning this USP was a mistake because it lacked the vision that the main game offered of a common campaign. I also understand that CRS's resources are limited but if you look at other games out there such as SP HLL or star citizen they started from nothing as well. I think RA could've been better sold a bolder vision for the game with some proper concept art/graphics and a better elevator pitch. The approach of star citizen has been to split up the games development into different self contained parts such as fps combat, ship combat and the persistent universe. If WWIIOL did so to approach development in a divide and conquer manner for a ground war/air war/sea war released in different self contained parts it would allow accelerated development of higher quality models. At present CRS has stated that all new models would be UE4 ready but this way of doing things would be considerably slower than dividing and conquering the development of the game and pitching it (with better graphics/functionality/better scope for a USP) to a new audience. I guess people might say that's implausible or impossible but I'd say there's no risk to at least trying to re pitch the game to a wider base of players out there looking for an experience like WWIIOL.
  4. As above - tank and motorised/mechanised infantry should be able to move faster and further away (if not without any links) from their respective HQs to balance the game for the purposes of realism with the brigade setup to allow for spearhead offensives. Maybe a good idea or not?
  5. In my opinion Rapid assault was imho was a good stab in the right direction with a long term vision to cater to players wanting short term action over the long term action of wwiiol's campaign mode. What it lacked however was the kind of graphics capability of a modern engine like the unreal engine (combined with high quality models/artwork) and arguably the scope for hundreds of players participating in a single battle. Hell let loose and Post scriptum have both capitalised from cornering this section of the market so why not CRS? This may be wishful thinking but In my opinion much could be said for giving it another go to release an expansion with a similar focus of providing large scale operations (Dunkirk, Normandy etc) - nothing can be lost by at least giving it a go on kickstarter or patreon. The game would benefit by using high quality concept artwork or renders from unreal engine scenes over using a modified version of the wwiiol engine that looked poor even by the standards of its days. By taking this approach a lot more interest could be gained in the regular campaign and vice versa, the deficit in the artwork (ue4 standard high quality models/animations (artwork)) and technical (game programming, network programming, STOs) could be achieved light years sooner than the current iterative model of small short term changes to the main game over the course of a year (what i'd really like to see is more of a long term vision (more than a year) for the game). So in short change my mind :).
  6. I was thinking it'd be cool if there could be a raffle or lottery for a years subscription to the game as a way of generating money for the game and giving the opportunity for anyone signed up to the lottery or raffle? Just an idea i thought that zoom might approve of.
  7. Hi I'm going to the insomnia gaming event over the easter bank holiday in the UK and i wanted to see if anyone that plays the game would like to meet up. Details for tickets can be found here for the 3 day event. I recall from somewhere else xoom or CRS was offering business cards to advertise the game. That would be great so we can get some much needed fresh blood into the game.
  8. if automated resupply happens it would be better to maybe have players spawn a squad of infantry and have the players tell them to ride on a beddy or opel. That would be a good compromise between full automation and squads manually buffing supply.
  9. f1 through f8 are already taken - i'm not sure you can do shift f5 without it becoming cumbersome. Maybe the idea i hat for a chat wheel to appear has some merit - you just use mb3 to make it appear and then select a single channel to receive and transmit to imo.
  10. what we really need is reduced timers for the underpop side.
  11. if anyone could remember way back the rats had plan on release to simulate everything with ai and then you would just jump into the shoes of the AI - this applied for ships, tanks etc. I kinda like it if we could get the scale or grander of such a game where thinks like dunkirk could be simulated with ai - but maybe the player base doesn't agree anymore. At the very least maybe there could be some consensus on ai to help out tankers, planes etc maybe.
  12. i already posted on another thread a reciever: If CRS can model this then players can turn the frequency dial to tune into voice coms and then press a button to transmit on the given frequency. This could work in tanks as well if they just black out the periphery and show the dial. The above is a british receiver from WW2 British Army Battlefield Wireless Communications Equipment
  13. it'd be good to make it optional. Better yet it allows people to hear whether or not they are chatting locally or across the net.
  14. its probably best to just set a channel and receive from just that channel - even so f1-f5 are already allocated for text chat. so the question arises: do we keep f1-f5 for text chat or restrict it for voice coms.