• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
Ltarflak

2018 road map

280 posts in this topic

So I read the 2018 road map today and I got butterflies in my stomach reading about the ETA on some stuff, and under the list of "New vehicles" I noticed there is no AA. 

wheres the AA??? if you guys are considering to add MORE planes what do the AA gunners or ground guys have to combat it besides LW? yeah,yeah,yeah I know you guys just got done releasing a AA gun recently and that's nifty but its still 1 barrel. If you want to make a change in the game for the air and ground, add multi barrel AA guns such as; Quad 20mm's, dual 37mm's, ostwind, whirbelwind, quad 20 on a half-track...we just need multi-barrel AA to combat the air-quake. 

thats all! 

S! ---Ltarflak

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cause any capable aaa will utterly and completely destroy the infantry... it's a damn miracle we still have a game with the 20/25mm.

hell it's amazing the navy hasn't ended the game with all their dual mounts and gunsheilds

 

truly a wonder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AA already "destroys" infantry.. with the spaa coming out everyone thought they were gonna lock down AF's and guess what they didnt 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at a lot of axis movie reels, they do fire AA on ground targets, a lot of ground targets for the smaller AA.
Someone had a video up earlier, that had some quad 38's shredding some buildings towards the end.
Dont see anything wrong with that per se, AA cant see infantry past 700m, and inside 700m infantry can hit the AA back through various means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, merlin51 said:

If you look at a lot of axis movie reels, they do fire AA on ground targets, a lot of ground targets for the smaller AA.
Someone had a video up earlier, that had some quad 38's shredding some buildings towards the end.
Dont see anything wrong with that per se, AA cant see infantry past 700m, and inside 700m infantry can hit the AA back through various means.

I was the one with the footage. its multi barrel AA (footage) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ltarflak said:

So I read the 2018 road map today and I got butterflies in my stomach reading about the ETA on some stuff, and under the list of "New vehicles" I noticed there is no AA. 

wheres the AA??? if you guys are considering to add MORE planes what do the AA gunners or ground guys have to combat it besides LW? yeah,yeah,yeah I know you guys just got done releasing a AA gun recently and that's nifty but its still 1 barrel. If you want to make a change in the game for the air and ground, add multi barrel AA guns such as; Quad 20mm's, dual 37mm's, ostwind, whirbelwind, quad 20 on a half-track...we just need multi-barrel AA to combat the air-quake. 

thats all! 

S! ---Ltarflak

Our list is already pretty full, I didn't want to add anymore to it at this time. Doesn't mean it's not an option in the future.

Immediate solution (if it becomes a problem, though unlikely): Add more supply to the spawn lists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think novelty plays a big role in the brain for creating excitement. I suggest to keep the current momentum until 2.0 is finished, it would be beneficial if not a necessity for the game to create new towns, improve existing towns and terrain, adding more nations and more weapons, to have a constant stream of updates. I don't know how many people have resubbed to check out SPAAs, but if it's significant, i would suggest to spread out all terrain, nation and unit updates more evenly throughout the year, maybe one thing every month. But you guys doing a great job, despite my sarcastic posting i still believe in the game. I don't get some of the negative veteran steam reviews, the ww2ol concept is still unique and probably always will be. 

ebert100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit disappointed that 1.36 and 64-bit is expected later in the year. Personally i'd rather have those done first, than have more content. 

Regardless, i wish you the best of luck. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are cutting the 64-bit adoption date very close for Mac users.

From Apple Developer News:

As a reminder, new apps submitted to the Mac App Store must support 64-bit starting January 2018, and Mac app updates and existing apps must support 64-bit starting June 2018. If you distribute your apps outside the Mac App Store, we highly recommend distributing 64-bit binaries to make sure your users can continue to run your apps on future versions of macOS. The last macOS release to support 32-bit apps without compromise is macOS High Sierra.

Share this post


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

I'm a bit disappointed that 1.36 and 64-bit is expected later in the year. Personally i'd rather have those done first, than have more content. 

Regardless, i wish you the best of luck. 

The issue is that they are two different departments.. production (which creates vehicles) has very little to do for 64-bit or 1.36 and development (which will have the bulk of the work for 64-bit and 1.36) has very little to do with vehicle production. 64-bit is on the highest priority for the dev team due to the deadline set by apple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dog3 said:

They are cutting the 64-bit adoption date very close for Mac users.

From Apple Developer News:

As a reminder, new apps submitted to the Mac App Store must support 64-bit starting January 2018, and Mac app updates and existing apps must support 64-bit starting June 2018. If you distribute your apps outside the Mac App Store, we highly recommend distributing 64-bit binaries to make sure your users can continue to run your apps on future versions of macOS. The last macOS release to support 32-bit apps without compromise is macOS High Sierra.

Personally, as a Mac user, I hope that Dev makes good headway on 64-bit as I typically like to run beta macos so that means my deadline will probably be july otherwise I won’t be able to upgrade to the macos beta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the wing2 production be tested in the current live world  ? (objects, infantry models, weapons, buildings...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Zebbeee said:

Will the wing2 production be tested in the current live world  ? (objects, infantry models, weapons, buildings...)

Our current proprietary rendering engine? Unlikely, because it won't translate over very well. All of the fine detail you see will not be capable with what we currently have.

Production with Wing 1 will continue with our current effort and people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xoom and other Rats.  First thanks for getting the game heading in the right direction.  I know it's been a challenge.

Now, to business. I really like the idea of integrated comms.  Our experience in 2nd Rangers since Steam has been very frustrating in dealing with noobs.  We have a semi-standard spiel we type in squad chat or PM to tell them right away to get on Discord.  80% never respond in any way.  10% will make an effort to get on Discord, but we have to hold their hands and it ends up failing.  5% get on Discord and we find them to be......shall we say, unsuitable for our squad?  Leaving us with pretty much one guy new to the squad since Steam, who's been a really great addition.  The point of all this is integrated comms will alleviate a lot of that problem since we should be able to get two-way voice comms from the start.

But integrated comms carries some different issues for us.  I understand there will a squad channel and a mission channel, along with others.  The mission channel is the one that scares me.  I'm afraid we're going to have a never-ending string of noobs or of a**holes jumping on the mission channel and causing mass confusion.  The #1 solution to this is squad only missions.  I know it's been suggested many times and you guys can't/won't do it.  OK.

The #2 solution then becomes an absolute must: in-game overlay.  Since you switched us to Discord, my overlay has worked about half the time.  Since Discord did an update about a month ago I have not had an overlay.  Discord's response to my ticket on the issue was to tell me this game is not white-listed, so have a nice life.  (That last part was my interpretation; Discord was actually very professional.)  So I've given up on having an overlay.  I know the voices of my squaddies, but when we have non-squaddies join us it becomes very difficult to manage the game.

Please tell me there will be an overlay included with integrated comms.  And if there will be no overlay, will there be a way to turn off comms?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously missing the Flak 38, an easy change parameters - don't have have to change model; though that would be nice.

Also, missing the 231 - (ala 232 w/o antenna); another simple change.

And, where is the Flak 36/37/43 artwork in this?  Love the Sd Kfz 7/2 - but it needs the proper gun artwork.

Finally, no mention of squad tools: ranks for members, grouping, PPOs, mission control, squad flag, etc.

Last, why no mention of removing the grease, sten and garaand (earlier tiers)?  Those all need to be remedied too.  Not like ya can't do infantry weapons.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

Xoom and other Rats.  First thanks for getting the game heading in the right direction.  I know it's been a challenge.

Now, to business. I really like the idea of integrated comms.  Our experience in 2nd Rangers since Steam has been very frustrating in dealing with noobs.  We have a semi-standard spiel we type in squad chat or PM to tell them right away to get on Discord.  80% never respond in any way.  10% will make an effort to get on Discord, but we have to hold their hands and it ends up failing.  5% get on Discord and we find them to be......shall we say, unsuitable for our squad?  Leaving us with pretty much one guy new to the squad since Steam, who's been a really great addition.  The point of all this is integrated comms will alleviate a lot of that problem since we should be able to get two-way voice comms from the start.

But integrated comms carries some different issues for us.  I understand there will a squad channel and a mission channel, along with others.  The mission channel is the one that scares me.  I'm afraid we're going to have a never-ending string of noobs or of a**holes jumping on the mission channel and causing mass confusion.  The #1 solution to this is squad only missions.  I know it's been suggested many times and you guys can't/won't do it.  OK.

The #2 solution then becomes an absolute must: in-game overlay.  Since you switched us to Discord, my overlay has worked about half the time.  Since Discord did an update about a month ago I have not had an overlay.  Discord's response to my ticket on the issue was to tell me this game is not white-listed, so have a nice life.  (That last part was my interpretation; Discord was actually very professional.)  So I've given up on having an overlay.  I know the voices of my squaddies, but when we have non-squaddies join us it becomes very difficult to manage the game.

Please tell me there will be an overlay included with integrated comms.  And if there will be no overlay, will there be a way to turn off comms?

The overlay issue has been there since the start of integrating to Discord. While i don't use or need the overlay, i'm sure many do. CRS did mention way back that they are working with Discord to get the game whitelisted and get the overlay work properly. Where are we on this, CRS? It's been forever. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

JgPz IV/70

Mmmm
Jagdpanzer IV/70, hiding under a bush near you.
80mm of lovely slanted frontal armor

Panzermuseum_Munster_2010_0449.JPG

11 hours ago, dogface said:

Since you switched us to Discord, my overlay has worked about half the time.

Mine never likes to work.
Dont know if this would work for you, but i just started running discord on my phone instead, and i put it on its stand under the monitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, merlin51 said:

Mmmm
Jagdpanzer IV/70, hiding under a bush near you.
80mm of lovely slanted frontal armor

Panzermuseum_Munster_2010_0449.JPG

Mine never likes to work.
Dont know if this would work for you, but i just started running discord on my phone instead, and i put it on its stand under the monitor

All fine and dandy ,but if you don't know how to use the Stug the correct way you are going to suck with this too.

Also the whole platform needs to move cause of no turret . 

At least model the Tiger II then . All it needs is more armor if I'm not mistaken .   I do find it also laughable , Firefly and Achilles to a Stug3H . That makes 3 weapon platforms that are suited for defence on the Axis side but not Assault .  Now if CRS fixes the degunning and the insta pop a Track on the Tiger then it may come close to be beingsomewhat balanced.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, merlin51 said:

Mmmm
Jagdpanzer IV/70, hiding under a bush near you.
80mm of lovely slanted frontal armor

Panzermuseum_Munster_2010_0449.JPG

Wikipedia has the photo above misleadingly labeled. I believe that's the PaK 39 L/48 armed JgdPanzer IV version. The JagdPanzer IV/70 had a considerably longer barrel, and normally didn't have the very prominent cage-type muzzle brake. Here are some photos of the version made by Vomag, which was lower and better armored:

JagdpanzerIV_L70-Sofia-Bulgaria.jpg

Jagdpanzer_IV-70-Kubinka.JPG

Jagdpanzer-IV-70-Sofia-Bulgaria.JPG

The barrel support in the first and third photos may have been added after WWII.

There also was a version built by Alkett, which was design-modified for easier manufacturing but which was about 16 inches taller and was less well protected armor-wise:

Sd.Kfz._162-1_Jagdpanzer_IV-70(A)_Saumur

Note that the PaK 42 L/70 gun as used in the JgPz IV/70 usually was not threaded for a muzzle brake. The PaK 39 guns usually were threaded. Sometimes crews or their maintenance depots in the field would remove the muzzle brakes because they deflected some of the blast downward, which kicked up dust and gave away the vehicle's position. Such units are still recognizable because of the visible threaded section at the end of the barrel.

Here's the Vomag version from the side:

Jagdpanzer-IV-L70(V)_Ausf-H-late.png

And the Alkett version...cheaper and faster to build, but a lot taller and probably easier to kill:

Jagdpanzer-IV-70(A)-Ardennes1944.png

An easy way to distinguish them in otherwise-unclear photos is the roadwheel tires. The L/43 and L/48 gunned versions used the standard PzKpfW IV rubber tired wheels...at least, as shipped from the factory. Sometimes during field maintenance, whatever parts could be obtained from stock or wrecks were used.

Because the L/70 gun was so much heavier, the Vomag version used steel tired wheels on the first two axles...again, at least from the factory.

Because of the extra weight of the plates to extend the height of the Alkett version, it had steel tired wheels on the first four axles.

Edited by jwilly
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dre21 said:

That makes 3 weapon platforms that are suited for defence on the Axis side but not Assault . 

Near-term modeling capabilities are a reality, but that's a valid point.

I wonder how hard it would be to add the shurzen (skirts) to the late tier StuG III, PzKpfW IV and JgPz IV/70, tailored to provide them with additional protection in a HEAT environment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2018 at 0:06 PM, dogface said:

Xoom and other Rats.  First thanks for getting the game heading in the right direction.  I know it's been a challenge.

Now, to business. I really like the idea of integrated comms.  Our experience in 2nd Rangers since Steam has been very frustrating in dealing with noobs.  We have a semi-standard spiel we type in squad chat or PM to tell them right away to get on Discord.  80% never respond in any way.  10% will make an effort to get on Discord, but we have to hold their hands and it ends up failing.  5% get on Discord and we find them to be......shall we say, unsuitable for our squad?  Leaving us with pretty much one guy new to the squad since Steam, who's been a really great addition.  The point of all this is integrated comms will alleviate a lot of that problem since we should be able to get two-way voice comms from the start.

But integrated comms carries some different issues for us.  I understand there will a squad channel and a mission channel, along with others.  The mission channel is the one that scares me.  I'm afraid we're going to have a never-ending string of noobs or of a**holes jumping on the mission channel and causing mass confusion.  The #1 solution to this is squad only missions.  I know it's been suggested many times and you guys can't/won't do it.  OK.

The #2 solution then becomes an absolute must: in-game overlay.  Since you switched us to Discord, my overlay has worked about half the time.  Since Discord did an update about a month ago I have not had an overlay.  Discord's response to my ticket on the issue was to tell me this game is not white-listed, so have a nice life.  (That last part was my interpretation; Discord was actually very professional.)  So I've given up on having an overlay.  I know the voices of my squaddies, but when we have non-squaddies join us it becomes very difficult to manage the game.

Please tell me there will be an overlay included with integrated comms.  And if there will be no overlay, will there be a way to turn off comms?

Yes integrated voice communications is extraordinarily significant to improve our retention of new users as well as improve the happiness of existing users while in the game world. I cannot wait for this to be done!

I think the appropriate time to consider Squad Missions once again is after the UI overhaul, where we'll be dramatically simplifying everything (1.36 time frame). Until then we're going to need the vets to pull through and setup missions that are accessible by all the new players who are continuing to come through on Steam.

A consideration of integrated voice comms is some form of overlay, we'll definitely be looking to add this and I'll need my team to spend more time deciphering exactly how that's going to be done. But yes it's certainly important and we understand the usefulness in knowing who is communicating and when.

There will also be a way for folks who chose not to use comms to disable it. Our primary goal with providing in-game comms is to cut through many communication barriers that are currently setup, whether you're currently in the game and using a VOIP program or not. Most of what we say today is a complete squad segregation in Discord (or Roger Wilco, TS1 / TS2 / TS3), with no end of it in sight. And it makes sense that people just want to play with their friends... however there are a variety of tactical situations where that could've proved very valuable to be in a position to communicate with nearby friendlies.

Integrated Voice Comms (IVC) will do a  tremendous amount of good to improve the health and state of our game and player happiness, truly excited for its potential. It's going to be a pretty decent challenge though :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at the road map and all I really see is awesomeness headed our way and some compete insanity if those new graphics actually become reality.  Those new graphics.. still have me in disbelief.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The roadmap looks great but for me the biggest issue the game has atm is thr population imbalances we have with the associated seemingly zero response from the devs. Throwing it into the too hard basket is killing the game, both short and long term.

Share this post


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

The roadmap looks great but for me the biggest issue the game has atm is thr population imbalances we have with the associated seemingly zero response from the devs. Throwing it into the too hard basket is killing the game, both short and long term.

Population imbalance is always a concern. I feel passionately that the design I've tried to laid out with our team about our approach on version 1.36 and Hybrid Supply is directly intended to improve this and the overall quality and health of the game. Population imbalances occur typically when one side is doing well and the other is not. The foundation of the game really relies upon exceptional leadership with a following willing to participate and execute the instructions from the leadership. As any organization goes, without that proper leadership in place or the tools to do the job, or the impossible odds being laid against them without the ROI being present, it can become quite wearing.

So at the end of the day giving the players a fighting chance and giving the leaders the ability to focus on leading the troops is going to be the real deciding factor of how balance is managed more so from my perspective. That's without doing any direct intervention to entice players to play one side versus the other of course.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Population imbalance is always a concern. I feel passionately that the design I've tried to laid out with our team about our approach on version 1.36 and Hybrid Supply is directly intended to improve this and the overall quality and health of the game. Population imbalances occur typically when one side is doing well and the other is not. The foundation of the game really relies upon exceptional leadership with a following willing to participate and execute the instructions from the leadership. As any organization goes, without that proper leadership in place or the tools to do the job, or the impossible odds being laid against them without the ROI being present, it can become quite wearing.

So at the end of the day giving the players a fighting chance and giving the leaders the ability to focus on leading the troops is going to be the real deciding factor of how balance is managed more so from my perspective. That's without doing any direct intervention to entice players to play one side versus the other of course.

 Just playing the devils advocate here, I can think of one thing that might be worse; 

 

 Stalemate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.