Ltarflak

2018 road map

280 posts in this topic

18 minutes ago, jwilly said:

A lot can be done with modifications and combinations. :)

The question for me is, do you all value us doing this, or is it considered a wasted effort? 

I don't want to feel like we're spinning our wheels for the sake of doing something. I want our ROI to be worth it so our team can be more successful and our customers happier.

But if a new Panther is what you want, or some other brand new vehicle (such as a bomber for example), that we are unclear of doing and cannot 100% commit to it, then I think there's an issue. It's not that we cannot model it, it's all the other specific dev components that go into making it functional that is excruciatingly difficult (and unknown). I wish I could make it more understood as to the why, but I don't personally venture into the program (not my discipline at all) and everyone who I trust and consider competent is telling me it's tough as hell.

Share this post


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

The question for me is, do you all value us doing this, or is it considered a wasted effort? 

I don't want to feel like we're spinning our wheels for the sake of doing something. I want our ROI to be worth it so our team can be more successful and our customers happier.

But if a new Panther is what you want, or some other brand new vehicle (such as a bomber for example), that we are unclear of doing and cannot 100% commit to it, then I think there's an issue. It's not that we cannot model it, it's all the other specific dev components that go into making it functional that is excruciatingly difficult (and unknown). I wish I could make it more understood as to the why, but I don't personally venture into the program (not my discipline at all) and everyone who I trust and consider competent is telling me it's tough as hell.

I can’t speak for anybody else, but getting new toys to play with is [censored] huge, and the shortest path to that end is the one that I would advocate above all others to be taken, any talk that I personally engage in  regarding newbuilds like the panther are in my mind way down the road, all the vehicles are on the list  seem to me to be good choices  they will add content and depth  to the toybox without disrupting anything Play balance wise.

 There are number of variants of existing vehicles that would greatly enhance both the allied and axis kit bag.

 Variants that could be used to create an actual tier 4

hertzer

panzerjager IV

M36

mobilwagen or ostwind

to name but 4

 

Edited by brady
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the present plan is good.

Certainly you and we hear lots of current-subscriber voices saying lots of things...build a steady flow of new modification-content, don't build any modifications because it's overridingly important to tackle projects like the Panther even if they absorb all the resources for a long time during which there's nothing else new, don't build new content at all until you fix everything that's less than perfect, don't do anything with the existing game because a new engine must be the first step, and other viewpoints. 

You can't do all of those plans at once. And, the one you pick has to draw in new subscribers and retain recent subscribers.

I don't know if the "build new content" segment of the current subscribers is the biggest. My understanding of what's been said recently and over the recent years, though, is that the build-new-content pathway has the largest total appeal to current subscribers plus new subscriber-candidates plus recent subscribers.

That's what matters...total appeal, because what's needed is total revenue growth.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


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

Absolutely none of that is relevant to the comment stankyus made that I was replying to.

Some how i missed that one line.
Yep, he stepped in poop there

Share this post


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

The question for me is, do you all value us doing this, or is it considered a wasted effort? 

I don't want to feel like we're spinning our wheels for the sake of doing something. I want our ROI to be worth it so our team can be more successful and our customers happier.

But if a new Panther is what you want, or some other brand new vehicle (such as a bomber for example), that we are unclear of doing and cannot 100% commit to it, then I think there's an issue. It's not that we cannot model it, it's all the other specific dev components that go into making it functional that is excruciatingly difficult (and unknown). I wish I could make it more understood as to the why, but I don't personally venture into the program (not my discipline at all) and everyone who I trust and consider competent is telling me it's tough as hell.

bug fixes then improvements would be preferred over tanketts, obsolete units, and hangar/garage/barracks queens.

 

with the panther a allied counterpart would be nessesary.

if making a Ju-88 for axis: a he-111 equivalent is questionable when there are other more attractive bombers and a incomplete American air force to work on.

 

just go and ask the guys in game, PM em:

"would you like a panzer1 a panther or bug fixes/unit improvements or"

"would you like a wellington, a american bomber (or fighter) or bug fixes/unit improvments"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2018 at 5:22 PM, XOOM said:

It's interesting to me, to see the same people demanding a WWIIOL 2.0 looking at these other games asking us to be more like them. The interesting part being, that their game design is inherently different, as if their minds are not made up as to which one they want.

You know, we could much more easily (time and resources) create something like that, perhaps even if we were to call it as a "foundational product" to an eventual 2.0, laying the ground work for a proper launch and demonstration of what is to come. Despite that logic, I am sure we would still get resistance. Or would we not? shrug

I think that a small pilot project, along with stay a Kickstarter to get it off the ground, it the best way forward for WWIIOL 2.0. Personally, a smaller, more focused, highly detailed map of part of 1940 France is the place to start. Does not require naval battles, RDP, or anything of the strategic level. Keep it focused on the operational level to start, possibility even centring on a specific battle. This could lead to things like visible supply and intense fights over dominate terrain and out of the city flag only model that we have now. Campaigns would naturally be shorter but have an operational and tactical focus to them that we just do not see in the current 1.0. As some have said, what is the point of a massive map if no one is there? Not that it can't move in that direction. 

In short, I believe that a smaller, more focused WWIIOL is the way forward, and as long as it at least has an operational level would still capture the campaign feel of WW2OL. I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand. 

Oh, and the CRS commitment to historical detail and modelling of course, that goes without staying. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, raptor34 said:

I think that a small pilot project, along with stay a Kickstarter to get it off the ground, it the best way forward for WWIIOL 2.0. Personally, a smaller, more focused, highly detailed map of part of 1940 France is the place to start. Does not require naval battles, RDP, or anything of the strategic level. Keep it focused on the operational level to start, possibility even centring on a specific battle. This could lead to things like visible supply and intense fights over dominate terrain and out of the city flag only model that we have now. Campaigns would naturally be shorter but have an operational and tactical focus to them that we just do not see in the current 1.0. As some have said, what is the point of a massive map if no one is there? Not that it can't move in that direction. 

In short, I believe that a smaller, more focused WWIIOL is the way forward, and as long as it at least has an operational level would still capture the campaign feel of WW2OL. I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand. 

Oh, and the CRS commitment to historical detail and modelling of course, that goes without staying. 

But just a copy of post scriptum or hell let loose may be not enough to let it succeed 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

But just a copy of post scriptum or hell let loose may be not enough to let it succeed 

Fair point. What do you think of it as a foundational product though, the next step to the larger game that we are all seeking to build? We have to be pretty brutally realistic with our capabilities. I think Raptor's POV on that is actually pretty logical with the mostly volunteer team that we have (competent awesome dudes, top shelf). Our goal is the big boy and proper 2.0 (just wanted to make sure that part was clear).

What does the road look like from your perspectives? How would you support us moving the ball forward?

One thing that is slowing us down is not being able to pay for several of them so they can invest their time here, and at this point there's no real clear way for that to happen at the current rate. If we had that, we'd be getting way more stuff done, here and now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, major0noob said:

with the panther a allied counterpart would be nessesary.

They already exist.
Sherman M4A3 76mm and Sherman M4 Firefly
also M10 and Achilles

M18 and M36 can come later
M18 is basically just a stuart with an M10 turret, so all that is lacking from what we have is some speed, we already have the gun so can work with that fine
(I dont mean literally i mean light and fast with M10 turret i know its not a stu chassis)
M36, yea is cool, but we can work around it

The shermans and the M10s CAN fight the Panther
You will need to work together and fight it smart or patiently hunt it and mind your angles, but you can fight it
Those units are primarily what they fought it with, those and atg's and ground attack planes
no other super miracle allied units needed because there werent any.

Share this post


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

One thing that is slowing us down is not being able to pay for several of them so they can invest their time here, and at this point there's no real clear way for that to happen at the current rate. If we had that, we'd be getting way more stuff done, here and now.

the FMS is killing the game... experiment with spawns and subs will increase

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XOOM I know that soon two types of Italian infantrymen will come out, but by 2018 will we also see some airplanes or tanks? For example, by creating a Semovente m40 75/18, it can be updated to 75/34 ----> 75/46. I do not think it's a lot of work or am I wrong? The game needs more variety on AXIS side)))

 

 

ps i'm sorry for the text size

Edited by gters

Share this post


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

Fair point. What do you think of it as a foundational product though, the next step to the larger game that we are all seeking to build? We have to be pretty brutally realistic with our capabilities. I think Raptor's POV on that is actually pretty logical with the mostly volunteer team that we have (competent awesome dudes, top shelf). Our goal is the big boy and proper 2.0 (just wanted to make sure that part was clear).

What does the road look like from your perspectives? How would you support us moving the ball forward?

One thing that is slowing us down is not being able to pay for several of them so they can invest their time here, and at this point there's no real clear way for that to happen at the current rate. If we had that, we'd be getting way more stuff done, here and now.

When the game first came out, the map was massive but the actual number of towns was fairly small. It was the area around the river line between Ciney and Philipville. 

 

That might be a good place to start again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some time ago as part of a prior exploration, a game system was considered that would operate much like I think probably is the eventual intent for Post Scriptum and Hell Let Loose, in which all game fighting occurs on a small map, maybe eventually tens of KM square, with high detail. There were to be many of those small maps, linked to each other via a "campaign matrix". There was to be a scoring system for each battle, possibly five-state. The next battle fought, the forces available to each side and the map entry points for that next battle would depend on the outcome of the last battle. 

My view at the time was that the approach being investigated, and that I think is the marketing intent of both Post Scriptum and Hell Let Loose, had a very great potential to appeal to ground fighting players because of the vastly greater potential for detail, complexity and variety of terrain and world objects. Very complex damage and modification models could be used for that terrain and those world objects, and very high bit density textures, because the world database for a given map would have so much smaller a geographic extent. Instancing would be used to permit multiple simultaneous campaigns, operating asynchrnously, if the customer population desired. 

Of course, some air-game functionality would have to be spun out to a separate but linked game, and air would work differently in the primarily-ground game. There's no way to achieve everything in a single product. And, the naval game would have to be separate, probably with its own air component. The latter is a requirement for a realistic naval game anyway, though...certainly the naval game here in WWIIOL cannot be realistic due to its misfit with the ground game's requirements.

Quote

What do you think of it as a foundational product though, the next step to the larger game that we are all seeking to build?

I was in favor of the prior-explored system because I thought a ground-fighting experience like Post Scriptum or Hell Let Loose, set in a many-map matrixed campaign context which I think probably is the intent for those two competitors, would be highly marketable. That's still my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think making a proof of concept map for the next generation 2.0 game and then using it to work the bugs out and simply scaling it up might be smart.

................

6 hours ago, merlin51 said:

They already exist.
Sherman M4A3 76mm and Sherman M4 Firefly
also M10 and Achilles

M18 and M36 can come later
M18 is basically just a stuart with an M10 turret, so all that is lacking from what we have is some speed, we already have the gun so can work with that fine
(I dont mean literally i mean light and fast with M10 turret i know its not a stu chassis)
M36, yea is cool, but we can work around it

The shermans and the M10s CAN fight the Panther
You will need to work together and fight it smart or patiently hunt it and mind your angles, but you can fight it
Those units are primarily what they fought it with, those and atg's and ground attack planes
no other super miracle allied units needed because there werent any.

Thier us no allied counterpart as u say to the panther, thier is no allied counterpart to the tiger.

all you need do is look at the stats for tier 3 to see that, the M36 is a mod of an existing vehicle that and the firefly are the best the allies are going to get to combat tier 4 axis tanks.

thier are plenty of great AFVs that we can model now as variants before we delve into something new like the panther 

Edited by brady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M26 and the Comet are the only comparable Allied units to the Panther and Tiger.  

 

"Based on the criteria of firepower, mobility, and protection, R. P. Hunnicutt ranked the Pershing second, behind the German Panther medium tank, but ahead of the Tiger I heavy tank."

Comparable tanks[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing

 

 

Forcing the Allies to fight Panthers with M10s and Shermans is lunacy.  

Edited by Capco

Share this post


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

The M26 and the Comet are the only comparable Allied units to the Panther and Tiger.  

 

"Based on the criteria of firepower, mobility, and protection, R. P. Hunnicutt ranked the Pershing second, behind the German Panther medium tank, but ahead of the Tiger I heavy tank."

Comparable tanks[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing

 

 

Forcing the Allies to fight Panthers with M10s and Shermans is lunacy.  

And I think it's lunacy to expect the Axis player base to use the 1942 Tiger vs late 1943 early 1944 Achilles and 1944 Firefly.  

I don't even call for the Panther , CRS has issues modeling new stuff makes sense , well then give us the Tiger II in limited numbers. 

Like I said before and will again the  statement by a former Rat " learn to Flank " must only apply to the Axis player base. 

 The M10 was never designed to go head to head with Tigers or Panthers but are scoot and shoot ambush vehicles , just like our Stugs are . 

It even says so on the page about the Achilles that they were brought in to repell , Axis attacks after they took German positions till they had time to bring up the bigger ATG . But I'm sure in game you guys want to use them as main battle tanks. 

Now if CRS fixes the instadetrack and the sorry I sneezed degunning issue on the current Tiger ,I might be willing to overlook the above mentioned. 

Just for the record I'm glad and it's nice to see that things do move forward in game.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Forcing the Allies to fight Panthers with M10s and Shermans is lunacy.  

It would be still not as lunatic as fighting a Panzer IV agaisn't a churchill and even a tiger.. REMEMBER this the panther is pretty tall and has basically no side armor(40mm) that means every allied tank on the game can kill a panther at a good range.

Can the PZ IIIL kill the current church on the side? or the PZ IIIH? or our freaking scout car? not really so Don't pretend that isn't bias as sh##T!..

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


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

It would be still not as lunatic as fighting a Panzer IV agaisn't a churchill and even a tiger.. REMEMBER this the panther is pretty tall and has basically no side armor(40mm) that means every allied tank on the game can kill a panther at a good range.

Can the PZ IIIL kill the current church on the side? or the PZ IIIH? or our freaking scout car? not really so Don't pretend that isn't bias as sh##T!..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dre21 said:

And I think it's lunacy to expect the Axis player base to use the 1942 Tiger vs late 1943 early 1944 Achilles and 1944 Firefly. 

And what did the Germans have in Normandy 1944 do you think? The 1942 and the 1944 Tiger I are virtually the same machine (for game purposes) except for the cupola, the commander's AA mount and some additional roof armor. Yea, there were Tiger IIs in Normandy as well - a few companies worth all told.

Share this post


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

Straight from the road map.  I don't see the Panther in there.  Do you?  I see the Firefly though.

Tank Variants

  • Close Support
    • Matilda MkII CS
    • Crusader MkII CS
    • Churchill MkIII CS
    • Crusader MkIII CS
    • Churchill MkVII CS
  • Mk VI 15mm Besa
  • Stug H 105
  • Firefly (as pictured from the war below)
  • Achilles
  • Pz III L

Yes I read that.. I also read that Scotsman has mentioned surprises.. not exactly sure what that means except bonus material not specifically mentioned.

The CS models are simply HE and smoke tossing tanks.. not a threat to other tanks with the exception of mb the light tanks like the 2c and mb the 38t.

While I am perfectly fine as a allied player for having the Firefly enter sooner than later, I would be well satisfied with just the Achilles to contend with the TIger and StugG (I say Achilles because I am M10 bias). The BEF have a serious lack in long range mobile firepower. Also the 2 armor leaks on the Churchill have been identified and being corrected so that is great news.  Lets just see how this plays out.. TBH even if the BEF gets both with no Panther its not going to tip the balance to the BEF side, it would even the balance. If it did, which I don't think it will or if it does I will speak up.  I don't think it will and if it does it certainly will not be close to the balance problem the allies faced with just Cru3s and M10s vrs the Tiger but I have sympathy to those matters as a whole.  That being said I have no doubt there will be balance issues from the get go and will need to be sorted. Every triad introduction has had to face them.. This one is going to be even harder with so many numerous additions. So in no way do I think all is going to be well off the bat, it never is.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Forcing the Allies to fight Panthers with M10s and Shermans is lunacy.  

That is what they fought them with
It was not the Pershing, the pershing didnt even make it to the party until the tail end in 1945 only only saw a small amount of limited use.

The comet is a late to the party addition also 
the panther came 1st, they had to fight panthers before they had comets
I am pretty sure we can pull it off in a game where death only lasts 30 seconds rather than forever

In reality even the M36 was a response to the panther, not an initial contemporary.
We would already be sliding the Panther in technically a tier late because its initial FOO doesnt exist.

I'm sure we have plenty of allied tankers up for the challenge
But panther is a ways down the road as it needs a lot of hands on deck to create the all new beastie, no parts or data to beg borrow or steal from other units

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dre21 said:

And I think it's lunacy to expect the Axis player base to use the 1942 Tiger vs late 1943 early 1944 Achilles and 1944 Firefly.  

I don't even call for the Panther , CRS has issues modeling new stuff makes sense , well then give us the Tiger II in limited numbers. 

Like I said before and will again the  statement by a former Rat " learn to Flank " must only apply to the Axis player base. 

 The M10 was never designed to go head to head with Tigers or Panthers but are scoot and shoot ambush vehicles , just like our Stugs are . 

It even says so on the page about the Achilles that they were brought in to repell , Axis attacks after they took German positions till they had time to bring up the bigger ATG . But I'm sure in game you guys want to use them as main battle tanks. 

Now if CRS fixes the instadetrack and the sorry I sneezed degunning issue on the current Tiger ,I might be willing to overlook the above mentioned. 

Just for the record I'm glad and it's nice to see that things do move forward in game.

The Germans DID fight 44 allied tanks with the 42 Tigers.. how is that lunacy? They where feared by the allies even in 44.  I guess you could do the 44 variant of the Tiger and get variable sights.. change the top armor and coupela.  Would that be satisfactory?  The lunacy was expecting the Allies to fight the tigers in this game with the M10 and Cru3.. I don't remember too many Axis speaking up about it, but instead of insisting they enter at 5 per AB and demanding the allies be patient until the CH7 enters and the M10 was fine.. They even where complaining about the choice of the CH7 because it was going to be "indestructible to the Tiger unless it was 500m from it".  Hardly the case as we well know.

In the game the tiger still pwns all it faces - usually a 4kd vrs the CH7 and a 2kd vrs the S76.  That's with all the "degunning" going on to boot.  I hardly play the CH7 anymore, but in my experience when facing the Tiger IM usually dead before being degunned, but I have often been degunned in about 1/3rd of my CH7  tank vrs tank "deaths".  Outside of that my biggest issue is being tracked in the first few hits on about 90% of my engagements in them with any tank carring the 75mm and up. So I hate the CH7 because 1. Slow, 2. undergunned, 3. Tracking, 4 the armor leaks that had 4Gs and Stug Gs killing me from 1500m frontally, and 5 being tracked on almost every engagement. To that I am not sympathetic at all for the "degunning" issues the Tiger drivers complain about because its often our ONLY method to taken them out.. its what I shoot at beyond 800m with anything. The only exception being is the 17pdr.

I am open to the consideration of going back to the M10 vrs Tiger IF and only IF the M10 is equipped with some specialty ammo that would put the Tiger in its place.  IF there is none, its a NO GO because we already know how bad that went already.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why you guys get to stack french brigades with BEF brigades.

Axis get to face both Armor if flags are stacked, you guys act like you have to go against the Tiger with BEF tier only.

Also like Merlin mentioned all the Allied Armor came to be cause they had to find an answer vs the Panther , I don't see it in the to do list do you?

And yes Tiger 2 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II

Sloped armor , Thicker Armor

Build 1943 till 1945 entered service in 1944 but again , Flanking only for Axis cause seems Allied players have issues with it if you can't kill it from the front then it sure doesn't belong in the Axis spawn list.

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

That is what they fought them with
It was not the Pershing, the pershing didnt even make it to the party until the tail end in 1945 only only saw a small amount of limited use.

The comet is a late to the party addition also 
the panther came 1st, they had to fight panthers before they had comets
I am pretty sure we can pull it off in a game where death only lasts 30 seconds rather than forever

In reality even the M36 was a response to the panther, not an initial contemporary.
We would already be sliding the Panther in technically a tier late because its initial FOO doesnt exist.

I'm sure we have plenty of allied tankers up for the challenge
But panther is a ways down the road as it needs a lot of hands on deck to create the all new beastie, no parts or data to beg borrow or steal from other units

The Western Allies also had a stupid numerical advantage when facing the Panther and Tiger along with air superiority (and eventually air supremacy). 

 

If you're going to introduce the Panther without equivalent Allied units in the form of a triad (like has historically been the case in this game), the only solution to the lack of equipment parity is "Shermageddon" (lots and lots and lots of Shermans and M10s).  Kind of like how the Axis get a whole lot more armor than the Allies in T0 despite the historical fact that France and Britain fielded more tanks (and better tanks) during the Battle of France.  

Edited by Capco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, stankyus said:

Yes I read that.. I also read that Scotsman has mentioned surprises.. not exactly sure what that means except bonus material not specifically mentioned.

The CS models are simply HE and smoke tossing tanks.. not a threat to other tanks with the exception of mb the light tanks like the 2c and mb the 38t.

While I am perfectly fine as a allied player for having the Firefly enter sooner than later, I would be well satisfied with just the Achilles to contend with the TIger and StugG (I say Achilles because I am M10 bias). The BEF have a serious lack in long range mobile firepower. Also the 2 armor leaks on the Churchill have been identified and being corrected so that is great news.  Lets just see how this plays out.. TBH even if the BEF gets both with no Panther its not going to tip the balance to the BEF side, it would even the balance. If it did, which I don't think it will or if it does I will speak up.  I don't think it will and if it does it certainly will not be close to the balance problem the allies faced with just Cru3s and M10s vrs the Tiger but I have sympathy to those matters as a whole.  That being said I have no doubt there will be balance issues from the get go and will need to be sorted. Every triad introduction has had to face them.. This one is going to be even harder with so many numerous additions. So in no way do I think all is going to be well off the bat, it never is.

It's all good. I'm excited.  The 2018 Road Map has launched some parallel initiatives on the squad side.  DDZ has one headed up by Vondoosh and Wolfpup called Flügel Zwei that has already revamped Teamspeak and Discord channels and is taking steps that should result in playing in the Unreal 4 Engine. 

 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.