a3ist

F2P feedback - why I wouldn't pay for this

156 posts in this topic

7 hours ago, xcas said:

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.

I think the reason these issues are not being treated equally (LMG rambo and armored cars cross-country performance) is because they are not equal in terms of resources needed.

 

By all accounts, terrain is one of the most difficult things for them to work with.  But they can and have been working with the infantry models for some time now.  My point is, when you look at the issue deeper, it's not simply an Axis vs Allied issue at CRS...

Share this post


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

Assuming CRS can't touch terrain

I'm not sure where this comes from.  Prior to about the last two years of the previous team, CRS had I think one seat of Multigen/Presagis Creator, same as now. During that period, numerous additions, corrections and other changes to terrain tiles and then to the compiled terrain were made. 

In the current instance, what I think is needed--CRS might differ--is an increase for all ground models and ground tiles to the existing Wheeled Vehicle Drag Factor parameter for off-road movement. 

I think that parameter is set per vehicle. If so, its value should be based on combat-ready ground pressure. If it can only be set for each tile, it should be set to provide realistic off-road movement (i.e. slow) for all wheeled vehicles.

The SdKfz 232 having 8 wheels would benefit from a per-vehicle approach. Its ground pressure was high due to the weight of the large body, but still much lower than for the Daimler with its much heavier primary weapon and ammo load, and only four tire-patches. So, the SdKfz 232 would have slow off-road mobility, the Panhard also would be slow, and the Daimler would be very slow. All of course would remain fast on roads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jwilly said:

I'm not sure where this comes from.  Prior to about the last two years of the previous team, CRS had I think one seat of Multigen/Presagis Creator, same as now. During that period, numerous additions, corrections and other changes to terrain tiles and then to the compiled terrain were made. 

In the current instance, what I think is needed--CRS might differ--is an increase for all ground models and ground tiles to the existing Wheeled Vehicle Drag Factor parameter for off-road movement. 

I think that parameter is set per vehicle. If so, its value should be based on combat-ready ground pressure. If it can only be set for each tile, it should be set to provide realistic off-road movement (i.e. slow) for all wheeled vehicles.

The SdKfz 232 having 8 wheels would benefit from a per-vehicle approach. Its ground pressure was high due to the weight of the large body, but still much lower than for the Daimler with its much heavier primary weapon and ammo load, and only four tire-patches. So, the SdKfz 232 would have slow off-road mobility, the Panhard also would be slow, and the Daimler would be very slow. All of course would remain fast on roads.

When truck-based FRUs were introduced, there were a lot of calls to add new features to the terrain to make out-of-town battles more appealing, especially for infantry.  Iirc, Xoom stated that no such work can occur until WWII 2.0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those were requests for rougher terrain i.e. steeper maximum slopes and smaller features, I think.

Those are set by the tile size, which is fixed. Changing that would require an entirely new terrain system, even if it remained based on Creator code.

But my understanding is that editing a tile parameter in Creator is relatively simple.

 

Share this post


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

Those were requests for rougher terrain i.e. steeper maximum slopes and smaller features, I think.

Those are set by the tile size, which is fixed. Changing that would require an entirely new terrain system, even if it remained based on Creator code.

But my understanding is that editing a tile parameter in Creator is relatively simple.

If so, then such appropriate editing should be done ASAP.  

Share this post


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

But my understanding is that editing a tile parameter in Creator is relatively simple.

I do not have a clear answer on this right now but I will find out. I would not make any assumptions that doing anything with terrain, or Creator to be considered as relatively simple. Both of those things are pretty complex and take time. It may be possible, but certainly not simple :).

To be continued...

Share this post


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

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?

No one is saying it isn't modeled correctly, what we are saying is it isn't being used correctly. (aside from the blazing speed offroad which is terrain based botched modeling) 

They were recon vehicles, not tank destroyers. They were not solo panzer executioners. That's the way they are being used in this game. 

Same argument with the MG34.  I doubt it was used very much at all in real life like it's used in this game, but what are you gonna do? Gimp one while leaving everything else untouched in this game that is used differently than it was used in the war? 

 

Share this post


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

No one is saying it isn't modeled correctly, what we are saying is it isn't being used correctly. (aside from the blazing speed offroad which is terrain based botched modeling) 

They were recon vehicles, not tank destroyers. They were not solo panzer executioners. That's the way they are being used in this game. 

Same argument with the MG34.  I doubt it was used very much at all in real life like it's used in this game, but what are you gonna do? Gimp one while leaving everything else untouched in this game that is used differently than it was used in the war? 

 

The only thing that makes sense to control is the physics of the weapons and making them as realistic as possible.  That should make their use as realistic as possible. Gaming weapons so the 'are used like they are supposed to be used' is a very slippery slope.  Some game mechanics/game-play is already unrealistic from the get go, but it has to be to make it enjoyable.

Share this post


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

No one is saying it isn't modeled correctly, what we are saying is it isn't being used correctly. (aside from the blazing speed offroad which is terrain based botched modeling) 

They were recon vehicles, not tank destroyers. They were not solo panzer executioners. That's the way they are being used in this game. 

Same argument with the MG34.  I doubt it was used very much at all in real life like it's used in this game, but what are you gonna do? Gimp one while leaving everything else untouched in this game that is used differently than it was used in the war? 

I get what you're saying.  But what can be changed (aside from the terrain thing) that would keep people from using them as such?  In the case of the LMG, the code can be changed to prevent hip firing.  

 

The only thing I can think of would be to drastically reduce Allied AC supply while offsetting that decrease with an increase in armor supply.  

Share this post


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

I get what you're saying.  But what can be changed (aside from the terrain thing) that would keep people from using them as such?  In the case of the LMG, the code can be changed to prevent hip firing.  

 

The only thing I can think of would be to drastically reduce Allied AC supply while offsetting that decrease with an increase in armor supply.  

 

I'm saying you can't go around gimping 1 thing that's not being used like it was historically and leave every other thing in the game alone, which is basically everything in the game lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have continued our internal discussion regarding this topic and the general consensus is to look at how crew-served weapons were functioning in the war. An obvious determination has been that the probability of someone hip firing an LMG while physically possible, would likely not be standard operating procedure. A funny comment I heard was, "Yes it's possible, but someone's NCO would bust their ass right upside the head for doing it."

CRS remains committed to making the game an authentic representation of World War II. As we continue down the route of restoring as much realism to the game as possible (HE, Ballistics, and Armor audits) we have to look at other factors of game play too.

If they are inconsistent with reality and have a potential to take us away from our realism focused niche, then adjustments will likely be required.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mosizlak said:

I'm saying you can't go around gimping 1 thing that's not being used like it was historically and leave every other thing in the game alone, which is basically everything in the game lol. 

 

So, you're saying leave the LMG alone if we can't gimp the way the ACs are used?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, XOOM said:

... would likely not be standard operating procedure.

Along that same line of thinking, as Moe said, the Allied ACs were likely not used as tank hunters in historical standard operating procedure.  

 

But like I said previously, I'm not quite sure how to curb that behavior.  

Share this post


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

 

So, you're saying leave the LMG alone if we can't gimp the way the ACs are used?  

I'm saying you can't screw over one side while leaving the other side's un-historical advantages alone. Almost EVERY weapon in the game is used in a way that it wasn't used in the war. Single sappers charging tanks? Cmon. I'm sure that happened every day lol. Single RPATs stalking tanks?  Single tanks attacking a town? Etc, etc, etc.  

So you wanna single out the one you don't like?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mosizlak said:

I'm saying you can't screw over one side while leaving the other side's un-historical advantages alone. Almost EVERY weapon in the game is used in a way that it wasn't used in the war. Single sappers charging tanks? Cmon. I'm sure that happened every day lol. Single RPATs stalking tanks?  Single tanks attacking a town? Etc, etc, etc.  

So you wanna single out the one you don't like?  

I really don't want to single out the LMG gripe.  I'm trying to come up with a viable solution for the Axis gripe with Allied ACs.  

 

Also, in all your examples (including with ACs), the major factor is all the same:  the lack of a fear of death.  In the case of the rambo LMG, the major factor is the outright physical limitations that are being exceeded.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Xoom if you are going to nerf the LMGs capping abilty, then don't forget to give the LMG better suppression fire when its properly deployed.  

Otherwise no one will hardly use the weapon anymore and it will be a wasted piece of equipment in game.  Give the LMG its proper role in game if you are going to change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just double checked the hip firing and the FG42 isn't like a random laser pointer, got it mixed up with its awesome ADS automatic spread and another games hip firing.

 

i'll get some videos and try to look for books then add hip firing to the "infantry data" thread tomorrow. also pistols.

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


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

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

So in game the mg34 guys are in an emergency situation 24/7......I see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gagsy said:

So in game the mg34 guys are in an emergency situation 24/7......I see.

If it could be done, it could be done. 

End of discussion, unless you have biased concerns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not pay for the game it is not mg34 or bren or mle all are not rambo gun but here they are.

i am agreement to the op.

 

other unit are  odd use, but when capturing cp and man run in you die then see lmg run around after it is no good.

simple line in code to stop lmg run shooting but all are one man show like DAC  and tank. game not real life but some are worse

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Axis players keep saying CRS can't screw of one side by changing the way the LMG is used when hip firing. 

I'm not sure how this affects one side if they are going to do the same to ALL LMG's on both sides.

I think what you're really saying is... "We know our LMG is WAY better at doing something that is completely and ridiculously unrealistic, but we want to keep it that way.

Again, they are planning to fix ALL LMG's so NONE of them can be fired from the hip and reload... while running around like some Olympic track star. 

How exactly does this show bias to one side or the other?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why you have cutters and nades. I'm assuming the gripe is in close quarters at CPs of course. If they're out in the wilds they are just sniper/rifle fodder normally and easily removed. Cutters will usually attrit all nearby LMGs running to the cp. Even 1 SMG cutter will get a couple as a rule. The axis LMG is the ultimate CP defence weapon but if you play smarter instead of everyone in the cp you will deal with them. 

When the first EI is killed or aware of your presence, the next will often be an LMG. One of you wait, two ideally to crossfire him when he comes charging back or out.

Sorry it's not meant to be a lecture, just a heads up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, xcas said:

Really allies?  allied players twisting  words to get THERE point across to get YET ANOTHER axis piece nerfed-- my god, next will it be our puny pitiful pak36 that cant kill anything other then trucks and light allied tanks (dac -pans occasional s-35) well the allies SMALLEST ATG can kill even axis mighty tiger FRONTALLY, OR the smg that that fire 1 burst of 3 shots at me yesterday at 800 meters and killed me? 5/7/17, all this thread is about, is that allies getting rolled this map and people are whining about in balance here in balance there,  happens on BOTH SIDES when game lopsided and your team is losing ( axis as well as allied)  SO this thread is NOTHING but HOGWASH,  TAKE THE GAME FOR WHAT IT IS, play the game for fun. IT IS A GAME, if you want real life stuff go join up and serve, see how many respawns you get there, I believe CRS is trying to make it as realistic as possible , but just think about it , it just isn't black and white fix a tile here fix a tile there, make a tire dig into the ground deeper than another tire, you just cant make a few happy so the rest have to suffer  so the few can be happy-----THIS POST IS HOGWASH------ GET BACK IN GAME AND PLAY

Don't forget the ca mle 25mm aa gun is considerably better than the axis equivalent, flak 30.

Share this post


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

Axis players keep saying CRS can't screw of one side by changing the way the LMG is used when hip firing. 

I'm not sure how this affects one side if they are going to do the same to ALL LMG's on both sides.

I think what you're really saying is... "We know our LMG is WAY better at doing something that is completely and ridiculously unrealistic, but we want to keep it that way.

Again, they are planning to fix ALL LMG's so NONE of them can be fired from the hip and reload... while running around like some Olympic track star. 

How exactly does this show bias to one side or the other?

The Axis LMG is the most crutch infantry weapon in the history of the game.  Nothing else even comes close. 

 

Even if this fix will be applied to both sides equally, it will disproportionately affect the Axis.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.