• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Attention Soldiers Operation Fury Needs you!   02/20/2020

      Attention All Soldiers, Operation Fury needs you.  You need to choose a side and sign up.  
      For more intel on Operation Fury Please click HERE Please go to Special Event Forum (here), And sign up for allied or axis.
      This will be a CRS Lead event on both sides.  Xoom will be heading up the axis side and Heavy265 will be heading up the Allied side. This will be for bragging rights.
      Why are we asking players to sign up you ask. We are trying for a role play experience.   We want this to be a true realistic event.  
      So get up and sign up and let's make this the best event ever!!!!!!!!!!
      Give me your war cry, grrrrrrrrrrrrr
      Heavy265 **out**
vasduten1

Switch to UR4

176 posts in this topic

7 hours ago, brady said:

Tunisia and the Surrounding area would probably be best, it’s more densely populated so there are more towns and the Americans could be added

There was no way for the Axis side to win in 1942-43, and the fighting was nothing like the popular notion of "Afrika Korps" fighting.

The late 1941 fighting around Tobruk, OTOH, was very balanced. Either side could win, tactically and strategically. And, the map could be large enough for air involvement, but small enough to be readily developable.

My perception is that the keys to development of a second campaign will be practical construction of the map/world, and marketability. I think probably "Afrika Korps" still has more wargame buzz value than any other two word construct.

Map development would be all about the tileset. I think I have a bit of an understanding of how the existing tileset was used to build the existing game map. My view is that a tileset for a Libya/Egypt map would be highly practical to create.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, saronin said:

It would be a good idea to have an extra theater in game. It would help split up the overwhelming population numbers. 

First one theater, than the other. 

Boredom with an infinitely repeated map is an enemy of continued growth of subscription numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I don’t think whether or not they can realistically win from historical perspective is relevant because nothing about our match ups is really all that  historical.

 Tunisia would provide a much more varied terrain  and enable The United States  France United Kingdom Italy and Germany to be modelled in game.

  It could be argued however that modelling  Libya and Egypt would be easier given the relative Dirth of terrain features present but I think that fighting over that kind of country that would be devoid of cover would be tedious.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, brady said:

It could be argued however that modelling  Libya and Egypt would be easier given the relative Dirth of terrain features present but I think that fighting over that kind of country that would be devoid of cover would be tedious.

It's not true that the historical fighting area was featureless. In fact, it would be much rougher terrain than the current game map. The reason there were so few forward airstrips in the North African campaign is that there is so little flat ground.

The coastal escarpments are complex and up to several hundred meters high. Inland escarpments are tens of meters high. The ground varies from flat-on-average but with considerable local modulation of several meters, to rolling terrain with elevation changes of ten to fifty meters. There are a considerable number of dry riverbeds cut into the terrain from long ago when the area was rainy and possibly tropical. Vehicle movement is highly limited to only long-defined roads and "tracks", because it's simply not possible to drive a vehicle up or down a rapid ten meter exposed-bedrock elevation change. 

Here's a set of 1:100,000 topo maps from the 1940s that includes the proposed fighting area: https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/cyrenaica/

Here's the overview map of the Tobruk area. If you go to the link above, this is sheet 19, and there is a very-much-zoomed-in view available. The dotted lines are five meter contours.

txu-oclc-6540189-19.jpg

The tileset would have to be built to allow development of a reasonably evocative simulation of this kind of terrain, when laid over the 800 meter elevation grid. I think that can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 By dirth if terain features, I was not just referring to the  topography but to vegetation, built up areas i.e. towns, farming, Rollinghills,  terain more akin to what we’re  Fighting on now, arguably more arid, and with an entirely different collor palette of course.

i think I have just spent to many hours pouring over period photos of the area your advocating not to think that it would be not so much fun for infantry and way to much fun for 88s.

i suppose the rats could take a bit of  poetic license and make it more playable, but why not just model Tunisia.

The only reason I’m very keen on Tunisia,  and the surrounding area is as I noted above all the factions could be  included in historical setting that would be appropriate and from the beginning of the campaign you could have the US in.

You see in my mind  I am thinking that the game would rotate maps we would switch back and forth between North Africa and  Europe, but North Africa would have just one fixed tier.

it would be smaller and play quick, in time they could perhaps expand it and include earlier tiers...

 

 

Share this post


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

i think I have just spent to many hours pouring over period photos of the area your advocating not to think that it would be not so much fun for infantry and way to much fun for 88s.

North Africa in late 1941 involved tanks primarily as a way of cutting the supply line of opposing forces.

It involved AT guns primarily as a way of defending against opposing tank movements toward your supply lines.

Tanks were almost always ineffective at attacking opposing prepared infantry. 

North Africa in 1941 was an infantry fight. Tactics were all about cover and concealment, fire and movement, same as always. The forms of cover and concealment involved rocks and rugged ground more, buildings less, but the principles were the same. 

***

Structural aspects of the historical fight being simulated do matter. Germany had the Tiger in Tunisia. USA had no 76mm tanks there.  In real life, that mismatch was offset because tanks spend most of their time trying to cut enemy supply lines, and US tanks vastly outnumbered the few German Tigers. In-game, CRS has experienced the negative marketability that results from even one or two Tigers vs. a substantial spawnlist of Shermans when there aren't enough tank-players to man enough of those Shermans at once to achieve their theoretical ability to dominate Tigers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd be wrong IMHO to base any future NA theater, both in terms of gameplay and in terms of CP numbers, on the premise of the currently modelled area and on the nature of current features. Our Blitzkrieg arena would play out very different indeed if we had the missing 300-ish CPs, the nonexistent Maginot, Siegfried and Belgian defense lines, the many missing waterways and the radically game-changing non-navigable terrain (e.g. polders, woods) that are required to flesh out the world. 

FWIW, since 2001, this game has run 149 iterations of a very limited operation with a very limited toolset. To call these iterations "campaigns" is quite misleading. We are essentially still in beta. Our "campaigns", when they are not decided by numbers and morale, are decided by the hard edges of the map: if you can swing around and secure the edge, or pin the opponent against it, you win "the war". Imagine a campaign without map edges – when we get there, we have truly ascended.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M10’s  were in NA, and I kill tigers often enough with the Sherman, particularly in close country.

The brits of course have the 6 pounder and should get Sherman’s as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, brady said:

M10’s  were in NA, and I kill tigers often enough with the Sherman, particularly in close country.

The brits of course have the 6 pounder and should get Sherman’s as well.

The Tunisia fighting began in November 1942 and ended in May 1943. The first few M10s arrived in late March 1943, and were used against German tanks once due to the fighting being substantially over. The last significant battle in Tunisia was the battle of Wadi Akarit in the first week of April.

CRS of course could ignore history and provide M10s at the same time as Tigers, but I'd think they wouldn't want to, because game marketing history indicates that some of CRS's potential customers would perceive CRS as having ahistorically increased the Allied anti-Tiger capability to balance the game.

Obviously in my view it'd be better to start with a campaign that had balanced weapon capabilities in the first place.  

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


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

The Tunisia fighting began in November 1942 and ended in May 1943. The first few M10s arrived in late March 1943, and were used against German tanks once due to the fighting being substantially over. The last significant battle in Tunisia was the battle of Wadi Akarit in the first week of April.

CRS of course could ignore history and provide M10s at the same time as Tigers, but I'd think they wouldn't want to, because game marketing history indicates that some of CRS's potential customers would perceive CRS as having ahistorically increased the Allied anti-Tiger capability to balance the game.

Obviously in my view it'd be better to start with a campaign that had balanced weapon capabilities in the first place.  

Well, their were still more M10’s in theater than there were tigers.

tier three presently is a gross exaggeration in many ways, what with a largely 44/45 Sherman pitted against a 42 Tiger.

my thinking is that in Tunisia if we must have the tiger it should be limited in the way the Matty is at present, and M10’s would also be very limited.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ra wasn't bad. It brought in the US forces! People were stupid to jump ship on it so fast... It brought a lot of good to the game and kept the company alive... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of these new maps or ideas will be possible using the current engine or code.

 

Sure, post pretty maps all you like, but this turd just CANNOT be polished any more.

Gerv... squad play was gutted leading up to RA, and it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Oh, and some at CRS got caught making an African campaign map on the sly, which caused a lot of tension, too.

@saronin remember that?

Ha!

Same guns, same infantry models... all being secretly stuffed into a new game.

 

Some of those responsible for it are still here.

Whatevs.

The game as we know it cannot survive, not even for a one time fee.

After paying in for an extra year once the 09 fix came, I can no longer see this platform working.

Time to partner up with developers that have access to newer 64bit code, or compete directly with them and lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, vasduten1 said:

Oh, and some at CRS got caught making an African campaign map on the sly, which caused a lot of tension, too.

I was a community development volunteer during the RA period. I moderated the forum where RA testing was managed, and any such North Africa work would have been discussed. If "some at CRS" is intended to refer to Rats, I don't think that's true.

No campaign game NA map, and no RA NA map either. Didn't happen.

The 3D artwork of Kasserine Pass was much earlier (6-8 years?), and was visual only and that one battle-location only, not an actual game map which necessarily has code associated with it. And, it had no relationship to the RA terrain development capability.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Some of those responsible for it are still here.

Heh. Hatch was a prior-Rat during the RA period. The only other old-Rat still here is Maypole, I think. Who is the "some of those responsible"? And why the accusatory tone toward folks who were struggling to improve the game? Is it criminal that they weren't following your development preferences?  :)

Share this post


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

I was a community development volunteer during the RA period. I moderated the forum where RA testing was managed, and any such North Africa work would have been discussed. If "some at CRS" is intended to refer to Rats, I don't think that's true.

No campaign game NA map, and no RA NA map either. Didn't happen.

The 3D artwork of Kasserine Pass was much earlier (6-8 years?), and was visual only and that one battle-location only, not an actual game map which necessarily has code associated with it. And, it had no relationship to the RA terrain development capability.

Indeed it was a terrain 2 visual demo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the game and also went through some negative feelings for it. That gradually went away as new vehicles were introduce. That being said, Vas I understand your frustrated, but you go back and forth with liking the game and then switching to wanting to give up due to the cost for what you get. Still I appreciate your opinion, but perhaps you need to take a couple month break and see what updates have come out since then. I know I've done that long ago.

Personally I would like to see XOOM come out with another fund drive. Say at $2,500 this is what we can do, $5,000 this is what we can do...etc..I think if people had more of an idea what they would get with their investment, they might contribute more. XOOM: has it been brought up again?

As for RA, I kinda liked it, but whenever I logged on there was no one to play against. Still, in the end I was extremely disappointed funds and dev time was diverted to that.

I could go for N. Africa only if it was in the area that has some foliage, not just sandy long stretches of flat terrain. Plus, besides the Italians it would basically be the same vehicles.

Personally I would like to see the Eastern Front introduced. Just keep it in the Ukraine where there was more foliage. Plus imagine all the new vehicles introduced...KV's..T-34's..Yak's..Mig's..PE's.. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a noob at gaming engines and only play WWIIOL, so hammer away if this is a silly question...
Would switching to Unreal build in some capacity to address several of the long term wants and needs of this game? Ae...Poly-crewing, Visual Supply, Ocean Depth that will allow subs, limitations on bomb tracking that makes high altitude bombing useless, etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

poly crewing has more to do with attaching players to vehicles. various game engines over time have had multiple players per vehicle. I think the oldest working version was starsiege tribes. i'm probably wrong there but that game did have 'multi-crew' vehicles in ... 98?

visual supply - you might be able to argue for indirect help just by way of the vastly superior rendering engine making full use of modern GPUs allowing for longer visual ranges. our current engine in theory should be able to handle visible supply however, lots of stuff would need to be written for this under either engine. 

ocean depths ... i forget the exact why on this. I know we don't have it but I didn't think it was a hard engine limitation just that it wasn't delivered at launch. that said, unreal owns here. tons and tons of middleware with fluid dynamic water, accurate reflections etc. UE4's engine as it relates to water is light years beyond what our current engine can do. 

bomb tracking is less about the graphics engine and more about not wanting to kill squishies that never saw, heard, nor even saw the bomber that dropped the bomb. Meaning in a high activity AO the individual infantry player's client is trying to track everything around him and organize that into a 'visual list' - or - the list of things the client actually allows you to see. In a hot AO, if a bomber is flying at 4KM, that infantry guy will NOT have the bomber in his visual list. 

 

is it really ok then to kill that infantryman when he had zero knowledge or warning? my vote, bombs do need tracking but we should NOT track infantry - only vehicles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2018 at 9:10 PM, jwilly said:

There was no way for the Axis side to win in 1942-43, and the fighting was nothing like the popular notion of "Afrika Korps" fighting.

The late 1941 fighting around Tobruk, OTOH, was very balanced. Either side could win, tactically and strategically. And, the map could be large enough for air involvement, but small enough to be readily developable.

My perception is that the keys to development of a second campaign will be practical construction of the map/world, and marketability. I think probably "Afrika Korps" still has more wargame buzz value than any other two word construct.

Map development would be all about the tileset. I think I have a bit of an understanding of how the existing tileset was used to build the existing game map. My view is that a tileset for a Libya/Egypt map would be highly practical to create.

 

i dont disagree completely, however, it should be noted that Rommel was vastly over rated. He was a one trick pony and essentially if he couldn't bash down the front door then he wasn't going anywhere. In Africa, Rommel rushed head long into heavily fortified positions, and kept throwing his forces at said positions over, and over, and over blaming all his failures on the Italians. 

 

Not saying they could have won merely suggesting that had they attempted something other than belligerently trying to bash down a well defended door that Egypt may have fallen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, carlz said:

I'm a noob at gaming engines and only play WWIIOL, so hammer away if this is a silly question...
Would switching to Unreal build in some capacity to address several of the long term wants and needs of this game? Ae...Poly-crewing, Visual Supply, Ocean Depth that will allow subs, limitations on bomb tracking that makes high altitude bombing useless, etc?

Poly crewing has not to do with the graphics engine and more to do with networking and how our game does vehicles in that you are the vehicle
rather than it being a thing you run up to and take control of.

Visual supply also is not dependant on any particular graphics engine.
It is mostly a host side operation.
The game was to initially have it at inception, it was a victim of the post 2001 launch disaster, was one of those things that was never able to get off the back burner again.

Subs, there was something for that, but it was also a victim of bad circumstances that befell the old CRS and the hydromodel never got developed
Physical depth i would not think a major issue, biggest thing for submarines i would think is reaching a point where you can put all hands on a dedicated major
naval redo.
Just tossing in a submarine for the sake of a submarine would not be much fun due to lack of gameplay elements that would make sense for submarines
Convoys to hunt, methods of at sea deployment and what not

Bombing?
There is no limitation per say aside from an assigned one.
Planes move fast, a plane rendering infantry at 3km flying over a heavily populated area is going to suddenly start juggling viz tables
which will most likely be dominated by infantry avatars, which are not a terrible amount of importance compared to the things that can actually kill the plane.
plus the pilots game performance will suffer because he is moving fast and swapping in and out all these units.

That is not a rendering issue, no game engine can bring every player a gigabit fiber connecting with 15ms latency
and even the worlds best game engine has a physical limit on how many player avatars it can deal with before things go to hell, and that is something that wwii online has been pushing the envelope on for 17 years, and engines also have a limit on just how much world can you keep loaded at a given time.

If i drop bombs on you from 20,000 feet, by the time said bombs hit you, i wont even be close enough to you any more to know where you are.
Has nothing to do with the guy on the ground not knowing about it, he will know when bomb goes boom.
Has to do with that you can not keep that much area and players actively network tied to the bomber pilot.
It isnt a thing that various different game engines can magically solve in a huge open gameworld devoid of zones or instancing etc.

An STO system for the bombs is probably what will solve that, you release the bombs and pass the drop info to the server.
The server knows where EVERYONE is all the time, so server carries out the rest of the bomb drop based on the bombers drop trajectory
then it tells everyone in the blast zone that big bombs just landed here here and here, and this was the blast pattern and Hey i think you got a piece of bomb in your skull, you should probably die now.

It sounds a bit simpler than it is to set up, but an ordnance server will be needed for other things anyways, and there is already a small
example of the process running on mortars.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, madrebel said:

i dont disagree completely, however, it should be noted that Rommel was vastly over rated. He was a one trick pony and essentially if he couldn't bash down the front door then he wasn't going anywhere. In Africa, Rommel rushed head long into heavily fortified positions, and kept throwing his forces at said positions over, and over, and over blaming all his failures on the Italians. 

 

Not saying they could have won merely suggesting that had they attempted something other than belligerently trying to bash down a well defended door that Egypt may have fallen. 

Reading the history, it seems to me that his "one trick to win" was to surprise the unimaginative British generals he faced after the capture of Richard O'Conner. 

Rommel lost when he didn't have the resources to do something unexpected, or the British positions had no flanks and were sufficiently fortified and manned that there was nothing available to Rommel that the British weren't prepared for.

In 1941, he had the considerable advantage of equipment that was technically superior against British mobile tactics then in use.

But he was totally dependent on his logistics staff, who did miracles moving gas and ammo to his front line units and got no public credit.

Anyway, my point was that, unlike most of the other Germans-vs-Allies campaigns historically available to us, a pretty well balanced game could be crafted out of 1941 Libya without giving one side or the other a significant advantage or disadvantage they didn't historically have, or introducing a false time-scale.

Sure, if your point about Rommel's mediocre-ness is accepted and the British aren't saddled with bad generaling, the Germans would have an inherent disadvantage. I think though that such an inherent imbalance would be smaller than just about any other campaign CRS could choose to model...including France 1940.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2018 at 4:34 PM, saronin said:

Don't burst my bubble.  Hookers and Blow was the only way I could rationalize the M10 sight.  Don't ruin that for me.

For the record, I had a: nothing to with that gunsight and b: argued strongly against the rationale that saw it happen  PS: if there had been more hookers and blow there would have been half as many towns added to the map, my sacrifice was more supreme than might be believed ;)

Share this post


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

if there had been more hookers and blow there would have been half as many towns added to the map

More like if there had been ANY hookers and blow, there would be NO towns on the map still.
No time left after building towns, except to pass out for a minute or 3  ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.