• Announcements

    • B2K

      Forum Upgrade - 7 Jun.   06/01/2020

      The initial phase of the forum updating has been completed.  We will now be moving onto Phase II: Software update:   The current forum software is in need up an update to current version.  We have been testing the newer version, and are ready to update our live forums.    Themes: The Current WWIIOL Theme will be retired as part of the forum update.  It is non-compatible with the newer forum software.  A new WWIIOL Theme will be added after upgrade (as part of the upgade if everything goes smooth).   Once the update is completed the forums should look the same, but perform significantly better.   We will also be able to potentially expand functionality to include features and add-ons that are not available with our current version of the forum software.   There will be a few hours of downtime beginning on 7 Jun in the the early evening Server Time. 
a3ist

F2P feedback - why I wouldn't pay for this

156 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, brady said:

I get it's not something some people will want to see be done away with, but as I mentioned before it was by no means typical.

and I am on the fence myself about it.

it is super cheesy though no matter how  it's rationalized.

I think if it were acknowledged that it was super cheesy but kept because it was fun that would be one thing but to rationalize it  as normal operational behavior is quite another.

supposedly the mandate from on high is the move towards more realism, the present usage of the lmg is not  particularly realistic, and rationalizing that  based on all the other unrealistic weapon uses is also not particularly constructive, they themselves need to be re-examined.

 

You can't just apply the realism thing to the one thing you don't like.  Re-read my other post. You wanna do away with rambo LMGs? Well we wanna do away with DACs and pans slaughtering axis armor, acting like Rambo tank executioners when they were recon vehicles that were supposed to avoid combat. 

 

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

You can't just apply the realism thing to the one thing you don't like.  Re-read my other post. You wanna do away with rambo LMGs? Well we wanna do away with DACs and pans slaughtering axis armor, acting like Rambo tank executioners when they were recon vehicles that were supposed to avoid combat. 

 

 

And therein lies the problem.   The equipment can be modeled spot on accurate, but how players use them in a game will be different that how they were used in WWII.  One could make a compelling argument that none of the equipment is used in game as it was in the war.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

You can't just apply the realism thing to the one thing you don't like.  Re-read my other post. You wanna do away with rambo LMGs? Well we wanna do away with DACs and pans slaughtering axis armor, acting like Rambo tank executioners when they were recon vehicles that were supposed to avoid combat. 

 

 

There's a difference between something being used in a particular way but was possible and another thing being used in a way that wasn't possible.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply put. Give Allies laser accurate LMG as the Axis LMG is. Up to a range of 800m.

Let us have it for 5 campaigns. This is about 1/2 or less the time the Axis have had it.

Then after that, assess the comments in the forums as to what needs to be done.

Allow a fair usage for Allies for a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My god what a post, and XOOM responding  as well, to a 1 SIDED allied whine about AXIS equipment and actually going to discuss it internally, wish axis would get this kinda treatment when they have something to whine about, REALLY ALLIES you don't think the axis has any whine's about allied equipment or the modeling of there own equipment, there are many things wrong with the axis stuff and sure many on the allied side, but to JUST single out 1 piece and make a counter for that piece doesn't sit well in my eye,  you know an EYE FOR AN EYE, and if that starts then  WHERE DOES IT STOP?  BE CAREFUL FOR WHAT YOU WISH FOR.

Edited by xcas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B2K said:

And therein lies the problem.   The equipment can be modeled spot on accurate, but how players use them in a game will be different that how they were used in WWII.  One could make a compelling argument that none of the equipment is used in game as it was in the war.

Exactly, so you can't go around changing one piece because you don't like it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, gagsy said:

There's a difference between something being used in a particular way but was possible and another thing being used in a way that wasn't possible.

So you think a guy couldn't fire an Mg34 like that? Even in an emergency?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Supposedly the mandate from on high is the move towards more realism, the present usage of the lmg is not  particularly realistic, and rationalizing that  based on all the other unrealistic weapon uses is also not particularly constructive, they themselves need to be re-examined.

Agreed. "Other things are unrealistic, so this unrealism should be accepted too" is never a valid argument.

Quote

You can't just apply the realism thing to the one thing you don't like.  

Agreed again. We know that not everything in WWII can be modeled, but everything that's modeled should work realistically.

Quote

And therein lies the problem.   The equipment can be modeled spot on accurate, but how players use them in a game will be different that how they were used in WWII.  One could make a compelling argument that none of the equipment is used in game as it was in the war.

This is fundamental: if an item of equipment is commonly used in an identifiably unrealistic way, it isn't modeled accurately. CRS should pay attention to unrealistic use, take that as an indication that the original modeling was inadequate, and adjust the modeling to eliminate that use. 
 
ACs are used as rambo cross-country ACs because the game doesn't apply a ground pressure based drag factor to off-road movement by wheeled vehicles.
 
Bombers fly aerobatically with bomb loads because the flight model doesn't sufficiently take wing loading into account.
 
LMGs are used like SMGs because the infantry models don't account for weapon weight and inertia; collisions between the weapon and the walls of a closed space; and how to one-man-reload when it takes two hands to support the weapon.
 
Many kinds of sound detection ranges are much too great. Others are irrationally related among sets and between object types, apparently so that different game elements can be identified by sound instead of only by sight. The latter goal should not override sound-distance realism.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

So you think a guy couldn't fire an Mg34 like that? Even in an emergency?  

it should fire more like a laser pointer randomly sweeping around instead of 3m groupings from a 1in barrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

So you think a guy couldn't fire an Mg34 like that? Even in an emergency?  

Down the path of "even though history indicates this action was not common, it was physically possible under ideal conditions and ignoring the risk of death to oneself, so it can be done in-game" is the loss of CRS's #1 marketing anchor, which is that the tactical gameplay is realistic.

If I were CRS, I would want to avoid that.

And this shouldn't be about the differences between the individual LMGs, any more than about the differences between the ACs or bombers. If any element of a set is commonly used unrealistically, there's a design problem that applies to all of the set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jwilly said:

This is fundamental: if an item of equipment is commonly used in an identifiably unrealistic way, it isn't modeled accurately. CRS should pay attention to unrealistic use, take that as an indication that the original modeling was inadequate, and adjust the modeling to eliminate that use. 

And this is where you are wrong.   

In Game ALL of the 'Scout' class (for example) is modeled accurately (ish) (yes there are some issues with stability for the 232) based on manufacturer plans.  So they ARE modeled accurately. 

What isn't modeled is player usage/behavior.  

In WWII ALL of the scout vehicles operated under an Observe and Report order set (differing degrees based upon the country).  This was due to crew survival ability and mission.  Could a panhard engage and destroy a Pnz - in certain circumstances - definitely.  Did they as a general rule?  Nope 

In WWIIOL stats tell you how often players try and fail.  Though some do succeed.  

Are LMG's able to be hip fired (the ones currently in game) Yes -- are any of them nearly as accurate when hip firing (in game) - nope.  Realistically when taking an unaimed hip shot, unless you are really familiar with the weapon, most will miss with the first few rounds as they walk the LMG onto the target.       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, B2K said:

In Game ALL of the 'Scout' class (for example) is modeled accurately (ish) (yes there are some issues with stability for the 232) based on manufacturer plans.  So they ARE modeled accurately. 

The "accuracy" of a model depends on how it interacts with its environment. The terrain tiles have separate drag factors for off-road movement by wheeled and tracked objects. The wheeled object drag factor is much too low...zero for non-replacement tiles, AFAIK...and is not applied in an individual-vehicle-ground-pressure way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jwilly said:

The "accuracy" of a model depends on how it interacts with its environment. The terrain tiles have separate drag factors for off-road movement by wheeled and tracked objects. The wheeled object drag factor is much too low...zero for non-replacement tiles, AFAIK...and is not applied in an individual-vehicle-ground-pressure way.  

Don't shift the goalposts.  I'm aware of how the model->terrain interaction works. 

Your argument was that if the equipment wasn't used in a historically sound way the modelling was bad. 

if an item of equipment is commonly used in an identifiably unrealistic way, it isn't modeled accurately. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a goalpost shift. The unrealism of the OP's point is not because a particular LMG couldn't be fired from the hip or the shoulder under ideal conditions. It's because when you put the weapon use into a game environment, i.e. how fast can you move and change directions and aim, and what happens when the barrel of the gun jams into a wall as you run by it, and how do you reload, the realism fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, B2K said:

Don't shift the goalposts.  I'm aware of how the model->terrain interaction works. 

 

So the terrain isn't modeled correctly, which allows wheeled vehicles to travel at speeds offroad that would be impossible.  

You're pretty much splitting hairs here, because the end result is the same: Stuff isn't realistic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, B2K said:

Are LMG's able to be hip fired (the ones currently in game) Yes -- are any of them nearly as accurate when hip firing (in game) - nope.  Realistically when taking an unaimed hip shot, unless you are really familiar with the weapon, most will miss with the first few rounds as they walk the LMG onto the target.       

it's behaving like it has a 1 inch barrel, killing everything in a circle ahead of the user like 50 different guns shot in the same spot

it should shoot like a laser pointer uncontrollably sweeping around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, major0noob said:

it's behaving like it has a 1 inch barrel, killing everything in a circle ahead of the user like 50 different guns shot in the same spot

it should shoot like a laser pointer uncontrollably sweeping around

For the record - I PERSONALLY think that the current dispersion on everything automatic is pretty bad.  

If using sights, the 1st round should be the one on target, then recoil related climb should start to take effect.  In game it seems to be random, as sometimes the 1st shot is way off.  

From the hip - none of the weapons should be 1st round accurate.  In my experience hip firing the M60 - the lack of stability, and lack of accurate aiming ability would make it act like many in game LMG's do when shot from the hip.  Can't hit 1 specific spot initially, but pepper a general area, hopefully taking the target down. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The presently discussed unrealism isn't going to go away by changing the dispersion. Interaction with the environment on the move is the core realism problem.

Quote

In my experience hip firing the M60 

I'm willing to be schooled here: did you think it was practical to run down hallways and around corners and up staircases while hip hand-holding an M60 ready to fire? Could you one-man-reload on the move? If yes and yes, then the discussion's over for me.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I don't want it to sound like I'm picking on the MG 34 because I do crazy [censored] with the allied lmg's all the time,  not this map so much but On previous ones,  so my view is a general one on lmg's.

bi-pod only might at least weren't testing, provided they had a side arm for on the move protection, for allied and axis...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a key point is being missed in this discussion.  The 'issues' people brought up with certain weapons are indicators of general modeling problems related to such things weight, inertia, stress (g-loading), friction, etc.  The real solution to fix the basic modeling problem across the board for all weapon types, similar to what is being done for HE; e.g., all infantry weapons are give the correct mass and inertia effects, wing stress level are calculated for all airplanes, etc.   Then differences in weapon performance will be more real regardless of how players try to use them.  

This is what I think everyone is looking for and what the Rats are trying to do.  Players have to be patient as these global modeling issues are resolved, because it tough to do based on the current code and the funding, and is going to take a while.  But I trust the Rats are going down that path and that is exactly what is needed, and they are doing a hell of a job so far!

So strap in, pay a subscription if you like to play this game, and go cap/kill something!

Edited by GrAnit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jwilly said:

The presently discussed unrealism isn't going to go away by changing the dispersion. Interaction with the environment on the move is the core realism problem.

I'm willing to be schooled here: did you think it was practical to run down hallways and around corners and up staircases while hip hand-holding an M60 ready to fire? Could you one-man-reload on the move? If yes and yes, then the discussion's over for me.

Nope - not even shoulder slung -  In general one doesn't clear a building with a LMG (in the real world).  In theory, you can enter and clear a room/building, and in some instances may even be effective.  However, realistically, you'd probably end up dead.  The LMG isn't designed for close quarters fights (even back in WWII) so it's not used that way in RL.  

In Game however because there is no ramification from using it indoors (rounds penetrating walls, friendly fire, etc), players use it due to the high volume of fire.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding LMGs:  please remember  if you are going to argue to stop people from running around and firing from the hip  because its not realistic,  then also remember that it is also not realistic to not model LMG 'suppression fire' in this game when LMGs are deployed in key strategic positions and covering fields of fire.

It would be kind of cool if deployed LMGs in strong defensive positions were more powerful in this game and could suppress entire squads in their field of fire  at least temporarily - kind of like AI towers do now.  But in this game its far too easy for 1 enemy infantryman to snipe out a deployed LMG in 2 secs.  

So I think if we are going to propose to weaken the LMG on 'realistic arguments' then we should also think of creative ways to make LMGs more unique and powerful for other 'realistic reasons.'

Edited by krazydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Suppression should be a fundamental part of a tactical ground wargame.

Possible mechanics for fear-based suppression have been discussed before.

But issues have to be addressed one at a time. The present one is LMG-as-SMG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, krazydog said:

Regarding LMGs:  please remember  if you are going to argue to stop people from running around and firing from the hip  because its not realistic,  then also remember that it is also not realistic to not model LMG 'suppression fire' in this game when LMGs are deployed in key strategic positions and covering fields of fire.

It would be kind of cool if deployed LMGs in strong defensive positions were more powerful in this game and could suppress entire squads in their field of fire  at least temporarily - kind of like AI towers do now.  But in this game its far too easy for 1 enemy infantryman to snipe out a deployed LMG in 2 secs.  

So I think if we are going to propose to weaken the LMG on 'realistic arguments' then we should also think of creative ways to make LMGs more unique and powerful for other 'realistic reasons.'

That's actually a really valid point. AI towers do an amazing job at suppressing players. Lmgs really should have something similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mosizlak said:

You can't just apply the realism thing to the one thing you don't like.  Re-read my other post. You wanna do away with rambo LMGs? Well we wanna do away with DACs and pans slaughtering axis armor, acting like Rambo tank executioners when they were recon vehicles that were supposed to avoid combat. 

I haven't read up on the DAC, but I believe the Panhard is actually modeled fairly accurately.  Just read the Wiki page for the "Pan-Pan" sometime:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panhard_178

 

Some key excerpts:  

  • "The ultimate design was very advanced for its day and still appeared modern in the 1970s."
  • "Rough terrain capacity was somewhat limited however: though all four road wheels were actuated, the leaf spring suspension confined the off-road speed to 42 km/h..."
  • "... the 25 mm SA 35 was chosen, a shortened L/47.2 derivation of the standard French antitank gun, the 25 mm Hotchkiss modèle 34. It was fitted with the L711 sight. To compensate for the shorter barrel, the rounds use heavier charges, giving even a slightly superior muzzle velocity of 950 m/s. The gun had a maximum penetration of about fifty millimetres when using a tungsten round."
  • "Experience showed that the type had several shortcomings: a weak clutch, slow turret rotation, a cramped interior, unreliable radio sets, poor cross-country drive and very noisy brakes."
  • "On the other hand, it was reliable, easy to drive on roads and the engine as such was rather silent."
  • "At the time the Panhard 178 represented one of the best armoured cars in its class in the world."

 

Not modeled in game

Modeled in game

 

Apart from the cross-country performance and 3rd-person brake audio, both of which aren't modeled for any vehicle universally, everything else is fairly accurate.  

Assuming CRS can't touch terrain, what would you like them to do to the Panhard that wouldn't be historically inaccurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.