Ltarflak

2018 road map

280 posts in this topic

51 minutes ago, XOOM said:

As long as you guys are here giving us your support via subscription, we're going to last the test of time and keep going. That is the single largest identifier of whether we'll go on or not, and has been for the lifetime of this product. I pray we're doing our part to further gain your confidence and trust, to where this year we might see some direct funding goals set for our team at CRS specifically.

I'm going to say it some more, if I had the ability to get another full time dev, or even two, things would start going on overdrive and delivery of things better (fixes and features).

Set up a UBER hero account, I pay for two full accounts now, many others do as well, I use them both all the time in game, make it 40 bucks a month.

or do another funding drive link it to something specific like new kit, something that’s tanagable like that might be an easy sell, that way you could free up an existing resource to focuse on the important behind the  scenes work .

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, some road map considerations:

Where is the Stug IIIG mg?  When is the 7/2 bofors artwork going to be replaced?  Where is the Flak 38?  Where is the 231?

How easy for simple FPA truck SPAA?  Flak 30/38 on opel and similar for allies?

Where is the Flak 36/37/43 in towed form?  (removing some of the bofors maybe)

Is the US infantry kit finished (paras, 60mm mortar, etc.)?

 

Regarding new gear, I'd say, put in whatever is easiest to create;  And to the heck with worrying about triads.

Get lots of easy stuff in as we can; and agree with work tier 0 items first, then tier 1 etc.  We play in those tiers far more often.

Can balance by numbers, or if something so great, just give 1 per flag, limit it.

 

Regarding the Italians, make their own independent Italian flag on map.  Yep, 1 or 2 flags. (or 1 division I suppose)

If it only has rifles and SMGs, fine... then make similar allied flag/divisions with just rifles and SMGs so supply is equal for each side.

Don't go mixing italy with germany, they deserve their own flag.

Do not intermingle italy with germany imo inside flags - terrible decision; create new persona and flags - even if just limited gear.

italian flag(s) covers south flank maybe?

 

If new gear, obviously JU88 first and Pz Jg I maybe, to help tier 0 axis armor - though not sure that will really help much.

(allies need nothing air wise as it is at least twice as over powered as axis atm)

A triad of new light tankettes be fun I think for tier 0 too, very early french, brit and Pz I, if not that hard to include.

And of course the allied HT vehicles for their proper tiers.

 

And the biggest missing item.....

NOTHING for squads?
No squad ranks, grouping, missions, PPOs, flags etc.  Nada?
 

Continue to not support squads and continue to languish.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

For a time, until it can be done properly. At least as properly as you can do in the games constraints.
You'd have the tiger appear in T2, but it would not be a garrison level unit at that time, it would be limited to existing in a heavy armor unit of which there would be
only a very few, like maybe 2 for example.
They would of course not be limited to 2 or 3 tigers because they are limited in how many places on the map they could exist at any one time

It would migrate out to garrisons as tiers progress.

You could perhaps even use this as a means to put some pak38's into T0 in some heavy infantry units or something like that.

Might possibly even suit the Matilda II rather than a low global spawn amount?

That is something the hybrid system could facilitate very well

Didn't think of it like that.  Good points!

Share this post


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

Didn't think of it like that.  Good points!

Imbalance is not bad per se, imbalance provides challenge, can provide oh sh*t moments, and dramatic effect.
With something like that, you get to have your imbalances, but they are localized and that is something you can play against.
Especially if movement of these kinds of things is done well, you will come to know them by name and track them and plan.

That is the downside to what we have currently, if you have the tiger it is everywhere, if you have the matilda it is everywhere
and to make sure it does not break things you have to hard limit it, it deny it its proper tier etc.
Xoom's idea could well be a way to be able to set those things right in a way that does not  break the game and make it unplayable for a side in a given tier.

If it is T0 and you are axis and 8 matties roll into town, its Oh crap!
If it is T0 and you are axis and 8 matties roll into every town, it's wtf? how am i supposed to play this? i cant even get anything going against them because there is 8 everyplace.

But if there is only say 2 places that can field 8 matildas, Yea we can do this.
I will be hard but yea we can do this, we can organize something and have a chance.
And if we are really lucky and can route that heavy armor unit?  Bye Bye, See ya!
Maybe could be awards even or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Didn't think of it like that.  Good points!

Wouldn't this be much like giving axis 4x Stug IIIB flags, each with 6x Stug IIIB?  (640, 659, 660 and 665)

And then having no Stug IIIB in any other flag.

OR- just allow the 4 pz divisions to have have them (arm flag).  1.3, 2.3, 3.3 and 4.3 would each have 6x Stug III.

But I like having Stugs in their own independent flags at first thought.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

As long as you guys are here giving us your support via subscription, we're going to last the test of time and keep going. That is the single largest identifier of whether we'll go on or not, and has been for the lifetime of this product. I pray we're doing our part to further gain your confidence and trust, to where this year we might see some direct funding goals set for our team at CRS specifically.

I'm going to say it some more, if I had the ability to get another full time dev, or even two, things would start going on overdrive and delivery of things better (fixes and features).

do something about the mobile spawn situation and you wpn't have to pray as hard

Share this post


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

do something about the mobile spawn situation and you wpn't have to pray as hard

Can you point me to something that gives me better understanding of what you're referring to? Don't have enough context to understand with this information.

Share this post


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

Alright I just read through all of the forum posts and as I mentioned there, I'll need a couple of days to absorb this. I can see the point(s) trying to be made here and I'll communicate with some of our team members to discuss some approaches. Thanks for pointing this out. S! 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks XOOM for replying to my comments regarding a "foundational" WWIIOL 2.0. Just to be clear I don't envision CRS copying Hell Let Loose or Post Scriptum, but rather focusing the development into a highly detailed package limited enough to deliver in a reasonable amount of time. Unless things change, I don't see 2.0 being a one for one copy of 1.0 right out of the gate. And a better question is, would you want it to be? 2.0 and Wing 2 will give CRS a second chance to rebuild WW2OL from the ground up. I believe if done right it will have much greater potential than anything that can be done to the old engine at this point.  (Understanding I am not the one writing the code)

Maybe a Wing 2 specific idea/possibilities discussion is in order when its ready for that. 

Off topic, but I believe Post Scriptum is the simulation style wargame to watch, provided they stick to their commitment to delivering on historical accuracy. I expect great things from it, and maybe there will be lessons there that can be applied to 2.0. Nothing to stand on as I make these statements, just something to watch. 

Raptor341

Share this post


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

do something about the mobile spawn situation and you wpn't have to pray as hard

You could get in a truck and set an FMS, that would be doing something?

you drove 3 bedfords
1 laffly
2 opels
3 251's
and 1 HT
the entire campaign out of over 200 missions.

You can't complain too much about FMS if you arent willing to set them, right?

 

 

Share this post


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

You could get in a truck and set an FMS, that would be doing something?

you drove 3 bedfords
1 laffly
2 opels
3 251's
and 1 HT
the entire campaign out of over 200 missions.

You can't complain too much about FMS if you arent willing to set them, right?

 

I used to, now I'm fricken done. So is most of the playerbase. Go in game and give everyone else [censored] too if you think the current status is the players fault.

 

I honestly don't mind the driving and death; it's the fact that its soo futile now and the map is dead that I'm complaining about.

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


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

Alright I just read through all of the forum posts and as I mentioned there, I'll need a couple of days to absorb this. I can see the point(s) trying to be made here and I'll communicate with some of our team members to discuss some approaches. Thanks for pointing this out. S! 

Ternuzin level battle x3 every day with enough activity to kill off 2divs a day would be great.

 

At this point i think generating activity without organization or leadership is acceptable, or at the expense of them. I mean at the current activity levels organization and leadership are nonexistent.

 

(Let anyone make a spawn solo)

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


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

We know Vongters. We need to see how all of our current Roadmap develops and see how the player base reacts to the basic implementation of Italians, along with all of these other vehicles we're adding. If the reception is great, we'll invest more energy into it. If it doesn't have much effect, well what's the point? So it'll be up to YOU guys at the end of the day.

And just to be clear, this CRS has never committed to anything beyond what we've already said and what I am re-affirming here now, intentionally to help manage expectations. Not trying to come across wrong by that but to be sure I'm protecting our image and word so something doesn't go wild in terms of well we interpreted that as a whole new persona! 

S! 

YOU do not worry, you have been very clear and I understand that first you want to add the Americans, this is a game for us but for you a job and the Americans I think will bring many people to play it = more money available to you. But I also know that you are an honest person and I think you understand my point of view ... after 10 years I found the same panzers list with the addition of only tiger and spaa .. I think it is very little and I however I know it's not your fault. I am sure that the answer will be very good and that soon you will be able to work on some Italian vehicle to give on the  axis side a bit of variety especially to the old players. I wish you good work and as I did then, I will do everything to make people know the game.

Share this post


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

Alright I just read through all of the forum posts and as I mentioned there, I'll need a couple of days to absorb this. I can see the point(s) trying to be made here and I'll communicate with some of our team members to discuss some approaches. Thanks for pointing this out. S! 

Right on, Matt.  It's all certainly something to think about.  There are both merits and pitfalls to the current iteration of the FMS.  

 

In a perfect world, I would like to see the FMS as a hub from which at least one additional infantry-placed FRU could be set up to a maximum of 500 meters away from the FMS.  This INF FRU would be unable to spawn AT infantry (sappers, Zooks/Schreks).  This would allow FMS to deploy ~1km out of town while allowing infantry to infilitrate a futher 500m.  The main problem would be that infantry could still swim across rivers and place spawns.  

 

I think that would be a pretty big task, however, since you'd have to code this mechanic from scratch.  

Edited by Capco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see the same folks still holding firmly onto their bias' ...

 

All in all great news Xoom. I do have some small concerns.

 

Let me start by saying there is literally nothing CRS could model for this game that I want more than a fully rated 109-G2.

 

That said, don't add it to this game right now. All jabs at allied pilots aside, this plane in it's fully rate form trounces anything and everything the allies currently have modelled and anything you've mentioned is planned to be modelled. Even with an ETC-500 rack this plane will absolutely destroy the Spit9 we have in the game. The F4 already handles the spit9 in the right hands, add another 125 HP and more thrust from an improved prop and youve got a plane that out easily climb, out turns, and out speeds the spit9 we have currently.   

 

Now, because it is such an obvious choice for a variant based off the F4 ... how can we still add this plane but avoid balance issues. IMO, only one way to do that ...

... Add it as the the 109-G2/R6 aka the 2 x mg151 underwing gondolas. This configuration drops the top speed by 12KPH brining it just below the spit9s top speed at most of the altitudes important to the game. Above ... 6.2km if memory serves the 109 will start to catch our spit9.

 

However, now we don't have a new JABO for the Germans. Well, the roadmap also includes a 190A3. Again, simple variant. this one in fact needs no changes AT ALL to the model, all the changes between the A3 and 4 were minor cosmetic stuff. Engine and armament were unchanged, hence, performance in game will be identical. So I have to ask ... why? Just increase the number of A4s and you'd have literally the same effect. We need a JABO though to replace the G2. Turns out, the A3 was in fact the very first production 190 to have bombs slung under it. 

 

Further still, this configuration removed the outer 2 wing cannons. This variant then is actually different, giving the germans a lot more flavor I guess. They'd get a 109 with a different firepower configuration than anything else they have while not disrupting the 109/190 v spit9/p38 balance in T3 too much. They'd also get a new and uniquely different 190 platform. The real incentive to choose the 190 here though is the future of German single engine JABO is 100% 190 F or G. That is historically accurate. Yes, the 109 could drop a bomb but the 190 was as much a JABO work horse as the P47 and the Typhoon/Tempest were for the allies. 

 

IMO that is a better route to take.

 

Also, I'd personally like to see the P-38 slowed down and moved into tier2 as the E variant. base it off real world numbers for the period this time. Then, add a G or H back into tier3. again with performance numbers reflective of earth's atmospheric conditions. 

 

p.s. Allied tankers ... the panther can be pierced frontally by the m10 out to about 900m. With HVAP well past 1km. Panther has a great gun on a hastily thrown together chassis. Paper thin sides and no mantlet .. its not as BA as most claim it to be. 

 

p.p.s Xoom ... weth my Macchi?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

200, 202, 205, 206 (using 605AM instead of 603)

G55.I and II, G56

Re.2000, 2001, 2005, 2006 (using 605AC engine instead of 603)

 

Is what I'd do if i had endless resources. A more reasonable route if/when the italians get planes would be to use the Macchi line where it fits and plug holes with 109 variants. Italians flew  109Gs, Ju88s, Ju87s (R2s) ... Do217s, and a tiny amount of 110s. Without variants Italy could field an entirely Italian fighter force up to tier4. G56 ... would be out classed by itself in tier5 but it'd get the job done. Add a balanced Re.2006 and Mc.206 and Italy would be fine throughout the tiers with domestic fighter designs. They have significant gaps in their JABO fleet starting late tier3 when the Re.2002 just isn't fast enough anymore, in theory they have decent medium bombers, a decent heavy bomber design, and absolutely atrocious twin engined heavy fighters ... but their fighters are sweet! lol

Edited by madrebel

Share this post


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

202 ?

Most likely.  Would be a good contemporary to a 109 F4 and spit mk5.

 

I like Merlins idea in the sense that heavy armor should be allocated to only special flags.  That's much closer to how it would work irl and will make historical entries much easier to balance.  This way tiger cab enter in what would be 42 and the 76 Sherman, firefly, and Achilles can enter in what would be 44.

 

The air additions all look nice but are there any plans for ground attack rockets?  The allies made heavy use of ground attack rockets for cas (m8 bazooka, rp3, and hvars) and they would make cas easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gameplay in WW2online doesn't support long range armor combat, so adding in these late war units won't affect much. The average engagement outside of town is <600m and a lot of vehicle kills are <100m as tanks camp or attempt to storm the AB entrances. To add to that the game engine itself doesn't support long range combat, I mean you guys are arguing over late-war vehicles that have effective ranges of 3km or greater when projectiles stop showing at 2km-ish and kills are almost impossible past that range. I think the longest kill I ever made was 2.4km and that was years ago before engine tweaks.

 

Also simply adding more units in to the game isn't the right path to sub increases. Other games have a huge advantage in "content creation" and you're never going to catch up with them. For example War Thunder added an entire French ground tech tree in November of last year. Here it's been over a year and some variants of existing aircraft still aren't in game. The first ground units this game added in a decade, the SPAA units, haven't resulted in big sub or game activity increases. Much of the current spawnlist isn't used except as a last resort, and this gets worse as tiers advance when a side has literally 2-3 worthwhile units and the rest of the list is trash (p38ts and cruisers against S76s and Tigers). This is just sober analysis.

 

The best thing for the roadmap would be for someone to acknowledge that the current gameplay is bad, and that the average experience ranges from "boring" to "miserable". There has got to be a plan to fix that. Right now either nothing is happening and map is boring, or someone messed up and one side is forced to fight rifles vs tanks for a week until intermission and a new campaign. Like the lead dev is still wondering if the FMS has problems months after the Steam release bombed and I posted video all all his potential customers getting camped merciclessly. Nothing about the FMS is in the roadmap. A tactical FPS is on the roadmap though when they can't get spawning or other basic FPS mechanics right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, fufubear1f said:

The allies made heavy use of ground attack rockets for cas (m8 bazooka, rp3, and hvars) and they would make cas easier.

Rocket use wasn't high until D-Day really. The RP3 saw limited use in Africa with relatively poor results. Lastly the plane that made best use of these, well, the two planes rather aren't modelled. Those being the Typhoon and Mosquito. On the American side, only the P38 is in game as a candidate. P47 and P51s both made extensive use of the HVARs but we don't have them.

 

really its a tier 4 thing and requires planes we don't have. 

 

p.s. the germans had air to ground rockets too, used by the FW190 to attack ground targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see the 200/202/205, thier amongst my favourite planes of the war, throw in a Z 1007... and :)

Share this post


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

Rocket use wasn't high until D-Day really. The RP3 saw limited use in Africa with relatively poor results. Lastly the plane that made best use of these, well, the two planes rather aren't modelled. Those being the Typhoon and Mosquito. On the American side, only the P38 is in game as a candidate. P47 and P51s both made extensive use of the HVARs but we don't have them.

 

really its a tier 4 thing and requires planes we don't have. 

 

p.s. the germans had air to ground rockets too, used by the FW190 to attack ground targets.

I was thinking more M8 bazookas for the new p39N.  It's 37mm is giving to be pretty lack luster in the tank busting role.  Also the bazooka has already been modeled so in theory it wouldn't be too hard to implement for an aircraft 

 

There's no Typhoon or tempest so RP3 is out and Hvars were used on p47s and p51s so that's also out.

 

What were the German rockets?  I thought Br21 was for bombers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking of the Hybrid supply system and flags, I agree with the idea that the remaining "flags" should be based on armoured units. Without going into great detail, I envision a system where each town represents part of an Infantry Division holding a part of the line, and it would be equipped as such. What this would look like is mostly infantry with supporting units such as AT and AAA, along with transport and a few recon vehicles. The armoured divisions and battalions would be represented by the "flags", where each one is a historical named unit that contains mostly armour, but very little supporting units depending on the type. 

A quick example would be the  "7th Royal Tank Regiment" for BEF, containing Matilda IIs and supporting armour. For the axis, units simulating the separate STUG battalions and when tigers come along, separate Heavy armour units. 

In effect, this would allow for two things. First, infantry unit vs infantry unit fights would break out where there would be very little armour, creating more infantry based gameplay and cutting down on armour camping ABs. I think this would reinvigorate the infantry battle, and at least it would challenge leaders to think about how to make successful attacks without much in the way of supporting arms. 

Second, when the enemy HC masses armoured units near a town, you know that a heavy attack is likely coming, simulating the pivotal nature of armoured units in manoeuvre warfare. This would focus players efforts on AT defence or air interdiction in order to stop an armoured attack if they lacked armour of their own the sector in question. 

I believe this would be a better system for the "supply flags" rather than squad flags or just general supply. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2018 at 3:55 PM, stankyus said:

The StugB is far from paper armor in T0 and the PzH is no picnic.. Just ask any Stu or Cru2 driver.  The only Armor problem the Axis have is T-0 which lasts for 5-7 days. The Tiger lasts till the end of the Map.  I also guess I'm just not as good as you describe, I rarely have a easy time tanking in T-0 where I just point, shoot and tank goes boom.  That has not been my experience at all in any tier on any side.

The Stug is about the only one . 

The 3h unless I get a flak shot on the it , it's  the he shoots my gunner is dead scenario. One encounter is vivid in my memory I see STU let him come closer I'm on high ground let 4 shots fly all hits  , he shoots back once gunner is dead.  We both faced each other except that I had high ground and he was coming down a small hill.

One reason why I hardly ever use the 3f anymore , besides INF control or AAA cause the dual turret MG is deadly. 

The 4d is paper thin too usually 1st shot kills the gunner . 

I guess we all have different experiences in game . 

In my honest opinion that 37mm gun that the STU sports is way overpowered .  The impacts sound like the M10 is shooting at you.  But that could be just my perception. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.