XOOM

Plans to expand the Zealand Islands area

55 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, stankyus said:

I don't know but I have never noticed that NE of Den Haag is a large city layout on the map.  Is that a new city in the works or has it been around for a while?

It has been hanging out up there empty for a long time.
Unfinished ghost of rats past.
You mean the big grey blob of concrete at the east end of the river channel to the north right?

You can find a few things like that dotted throughout the map, some more obvious than others.
Some more humorous than others.

If that big grey blob is in the correct location and is the correct size etc, it may remain and become the town it represents.
If not, bulldoze it and plant marsh grass.

And no, it will not have a red light district 

Edited by merlin51

Share this post


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

I don't know but I have never noticed that NE of Den Haag is a large city layout on the map.  Is that a new city in the works or has it been around for a while?  I would also be in favor since we are going back to a town based supply adding some small air fields, not air dromes but small air fields with less supply on them. MB they are only supplied with fighters and fighter bombers.  Secondly I love the fact that the Zees will be flushed out.. given that fact we will be going back to a TBS model, will we have the ability to ship tanks to the towns again in the Zees from the mainland?

Yes it's been there for awhile, and its isolation has been intentional to preserve the Naval game. Without, Navy would cease to exist.

Adding more Airfields is now an option and we have plans to definitely add more, particularly in the Zealand Islands.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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



And no, it will not have a red light district 

Bugger!  It's the best reason to go there. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Memoi said:

Bugger!  It's the best reason to go there. :P

A 19 month campaign because both factions got to amsterdam and just decided to remain there is no fun 

Share this post


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

A 19 month campaign because both factions got to amsterdam and just decided to remain there is no fun 

LoL, that and the coffee shops...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2018 at 2:53 PM, XOOM said:

Among many of our other advancements with the Terrain aspect of the game, going further in other directions, whether it be building up more of France or building up the Zealand areas, there is valid reason to believe that adding more play-able areas is going to remove a lot of the stagnation or repetition of the existing Campaign.

In the near future, we’ll be sharing some information about what we’ll be doing to try and revitalize the relevancy of the naval game as well as Zealand island fighting, which at present, is crushed rapidly by map movers who are cutting these areas off with limited fighting.

We’re also planning some fixes for our existing navy content that is directly causing issues for players using those vehicles.

I’ll be announcing some more in the very near future, but the ability to add in new towns and terrain elements is back in tact, to the point where we’ll be seeing very many fixes across the map globally resolved. This includes several existing town lay-outs being re-worked. This also includes as mentioned the addition of several more towns to WWII Online.

In the future, that means the starting lines of the campaign will also need to be updated. This is really important again because our more experienced map strategists know the exact routes of how to take down certain areas in sequential order.

Are you looking forward to these possibilities? Tell us your thoughts.

I like it. Some randomization of map dynamics would be nice too. No more "experts", make every map a new problem to solve by trial and error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are going to beef up the navy. I really think adding a boat to shore ms system should be a priority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, black5 said:

If we are going to beef up the navy. I really think adding a boat to shore ms system should be a priority. 

and manned shore batteries.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we raise the water level on the rivers?  Most of the time the FMB are in a Valley and makes the 3 pounder kinda useless to combat tanks. 

It really holds true when the dock is close to a bridge , then the FMB is almost useless cause Tanks will get the drop on them in a heart beat cause they need to drive down river 1st before they can even get some use out of the 3 pounder.

 

Also add a torpedo tube to the FMB , bump up the speed and only let them spawn in deep ports , for an added unit for the Navy and make it a little harder for the DDs to just float to a dock and camp everything.

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2018 at 2:53 PM, XOOM said:

Are you looking forward to these possibilities? Tell us your thoughts.

And:

Quote

We’re also planning some fixes for our existing navy content 

But Ohm said:

Quote

Please keep in mind that all these changes does not mean everything gets increased in damage power...   Some stuff may have change to be  less damaging.     We went for realism.

Realism is a good thing. So how about getting the Fairmiles off the rivers, since they were too wide and tall to fit through the locks or under the bridges..?

Or were they just airdropped...?

And how about re-visiting the Fairmile forward armament? Fairmiles never carried an anti-tank gun. The "two pounder" that CRS originally thought was the AT gun, in reality was the Vickers belt-fed AA gun. It had no AP ammo, only HE and HE tracer.

 40mm-39mkviii-8.jpg

And the current 3 pounder was a WWI-vintage leftover, a pile of which were found in an old warehouse and stuck onto anti-submarine boats during a gun production squeeze. Again, no ammo capable of penetrating tank armor.

So how about re-arming the Fairmile realistically, with the Vickers "pom pom" per above?

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


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

So how about getting the Fairmiles off the rivers, since they were too wide and tall to fit through the locks or under the bridges..?

Or were they just airdropped...?

They have been a stand in for 17 years, was only semi suitable boat modeled for inland use. (meaning it fits in the rivers kind of)
Wasn't exactly a plethora of naval units that got added, that area kept getting shelved.

I will take an FM-C though with QF-2PDR MK II and RR MK XIV
And the mix of vickers 50 and 303 and Oerlikons

 

Could replace them for river use with something like this, later of course
Dragonfly Class
2 4" guns
1 3.7" gun
8 machine guns
HMS_Locust_(1939)_IWM_FL_001677.jpg

Or insect class?
HMS_Ladybird_Port_Said_1917_IWM_SP_00056

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A4wR0T8.png

Who knows, might look something like this, maybe
FyX9BYV.png

Edited by merlin51
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

They have been a stand in for 17 years, was only semi suitable boat modeled for inland use. (meaning it fits in the rivers kind of)
Wasn't exactly a plethora of naval units that got added, that area kept getting shelved.

I will take an FM-C though with QF-2PDR MK II and RR MK XIV
And the mix of vickers 50 and 303 and Oerlikons

 

Could replace them for river use with something like this, later of course
Dragonfly Class
2 4" guns
1 3.7" gun
8 machine guns
HMS_Locust_(1939)_IWM_FL_001677.jpg

Or insect class?
HMS_Ladybird_Port_Said_1917_IWM_SP_00056

Ummm. Above Namur, the bridge clearance in 1940 was such that river vessels had quick-folding upper superstructures. The allowed rigid height was, IIRC, ~ 2.5 meters, i.e. around 8 feet. And, there were several fixed dams bypassed by locks; I believe the allowed vessel width was about 3 meters. French-Belgian canal river barges were very long, narrow and low.

This is a key four lane road bridge in Liege, quite far down-river, after bombing in 1940. Note the height of the walkway safety railings, which typically would be about a meter high; the clearance over the water evidently was about 3.5 meters in 1940, even that far down-river. As far as I know, there was no canal bypassing Liege such that this bridge's clearance would not be determinative of river traffic maximum height.

Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-127-0385-04A,_Bel

Bridges down-river have more clearance now, though still not nearly enough for a naval vessel like either of those you show above. Note in this modern photo though, that river barges still are built very low, due to the width of older locks and clearance under older bridges...particularly above Namur.

20100729_liege08.JPG

Share this post


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

I will take an FM-C though with QF-2PDR MK II and RR MK XIV
And the mix of vickers 50 and 303 and Oerlikons

Later marks of the B actually had better armament for game purposes. 

Note generally for naval vessels of all sizes that the term "QF two pounder" refers to this family (including earlier versions):

40mm-39mkviii-8.jpg

and not the towed two pounder AT gun currently used in-game. The two guns shared nothing but part of their names. They could not fire each others' ammunition, and had no other technical relationship.

The "QF-2PDR MK II" was an obsolete WWI AA gun with low MV (585 m/sec); a low rate of fire (200 RPM) due to cloth belts that tended to have stretch problems; and an effective service ceiling of 1000 meters.

The Mark VIII single-barrel shown above was the "high" velocity upgrade with a faster ROF, steel link belts and a much lighter mount.

Generally though not always, the low velocity guns did not have flash hiders and the "high" velocity guns did have them. 

Ammo also was not interchangeable between the two AA designs because the chamber size was larger for the "high" velocity version.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as we're discussing ways that the naval and land games interact in the Zeelands area:

Since the game's beginning, it hasn't been possible to have a realistic set of ship models for all countries. The ground and air games are more heavily played, so the naval game generates a smaller part of CRS's total revenue. When CRS has had modeling resources available, they've had to be focused on game-elements with a more assured economic return. Also, ship models involve lots of polys, and model count and file size used to be a key client limitation.
 
This negatively impacts the game, not just because the naval game has no new "toys" to attract and retain customers, but also because the 1940-armed naval models become progressively less combat-capable as the air game evolves through the tiers. 
 
This latter "intermodal-balance" factor has the potential to become much more dramatic as the Development Roadmap's project to add new aircraft versions and ordnance types is pursued. The addition of ground attack rockets to high speed fighter-bombers, for instance. would make all of the current naval models unsurvivable.
 
Historically, the British and Germans each introduced an improved destroyer family at roughly one year intervals. Many of those new designs included progressively enhanced AA capabilities. It's reasonable to assume that the French would have proceeded similarly beyond their known plans. Motor-gunboats were not so standardized, but their AA armament also significantly increased as the war proceeded. In their case, their mission also included fighting other motor-gunboats and similarly sized motor-torpedo-boats, and those more powerful AA weapons were also optimally suited for that surface mission.
 
We need a way to be able to introduce upgraded-armament ship models for each tier, with nationally specific armament for each model. 
 
It'd be great to actually model a bunch of historically accurate ships and boats, but given availability of resources and the lesser revenue contribution of the naval game, I think it's a reasonable step forward to continue to use the single original models as sufficiently-generic templates, re-implemented with nationally specific weapon upgrades. To avoid over-stretching available development resources, Phase 1 would be a copy of the motor-gunboat model for each tier for each nation. Destroyers could similarly follow in Phase 2.
 
To implement this, CRS would build only the gun models and UIs as needed below. The existing destroyer and motor gunboat template-models would be modified to provide a large enough space at each weapon location to mount the largest weapon type for that location.
 
For practicality, the weapon sets are coordinated with present and planned ground-game artwork/models where possible. The weapon sets are intended to be nationally evocative and iconic, rather than literally representative of particular historical ships or classes. Most ships were unique in at least some ways and the game goes through dozens or even hundreds of ships loss-wise, yet the models for a given nation and tier must all be uniform. So, there is no logic to having the ship models be of a single specific ship. To the extent that the weapon sets and the single hulls/superstructures deviate from history to minimize modeling at present, this can be improved when more modeling resources are available.
 
Motor Gunboats. T0: 

German: 2x 20mm single autocannon (forward and amidships). 1x 37mm single autocannon (aft).

British: 2x Vickers "two pounder" (40mm) autocannon. (No amidships weapon.)

French: 2x 20mm single autocannon (aft and amidships), 1x 75mm gun (forward, pintle mounted).

T1: 

German: 2x 20mm single autocannon. 1x 37mm single autocannon.

British: 2x Vickers 40mm autocannon.

French: 1x Vickers 40mm autocannon (aft), 1x 20mm single autocannon, 1x 75mm gun.

T2: 

German: 1x 20mm single autocannon (amidships). 1x 20mm dual autocannon (forward), 1x 37mm dual autocannon (aft).

British: 2x Vickers 40mm autocannon, 1x 20mm single autocannon (amidships).

French: 1x Vickers 40mm autocannon, 1x 20mm single autocannon, 1x 75mm gun.

T3: 

German: 1x 20mm single autocannon. 1x 20mm dual autocannon, 1x 37mm dual autocannon.

British: 2x Vickers 40mm autocannon, 1x 20mm single autocannon.

French: 1x Vickers 40mm autocannon, 1x 20mm dual autocannon (amidships), 1x 75mm gun..

T4: 

German: 1x 20mm single autocannon. 1x 20mm dual autocannon, 1x 37mm dual autocannon.

British: 2x Vickers 40mm autocannon, 1x 20mm dual autocannon.

French: 1x Vickers 40mm autocannon, 1x 20mm dual autocannon, 1x 75mm gun.

***

Because not every nation has weapon changes in every tier, there are only eight different boat models here.

There are six weapons:

  • Single 20mm: use the existing single 20mm pintle mount from the Fairmile.
  • Dual 20mm, existing dual 20mm pintle mount from the Fairmile.
  • Single 37mm, new model.
  • Dual 37mm, new model.
  • Single Vickers "two pounder" (40mm), new model.
  • 75mm pintle mount, new model.

German early war "R-boat", 20mm forward and amidships, 37mm aft:

galle.jpg

French 1940 "Normandie"-class chasseur, 75mm forward, 20mm aft:

Ch_Bretagne.jpg

Same class after 1941 partial re-armament in Free French service, Vickers two pounder (40mm) aft, 20mms on wheelhouse, still 75mm forward:

chasseurs_en_patrol.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be mindful to consider that adding equipment without addressing the underpinning game mechanics is probably futile in anything except the short term. 

Adding naval vehicles is pointless without a meta game which uses the vehicles as actors. 

Share this post


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

Adding naval vehicles is pointless without a meta game which uses the vehicles as actors. 

Actually, we have 17 years and counting of a naval game-element with an insufficient meta game.

My point is: either find a way at acceptable resource cost to make the existing naval elements survivable as the air game progresses toward greater lethality, or just remove the naval game until it can be re-done better.

A get-our-coastal-convoy-through / stop-their-coast-convoy tactical meta game with instanced-battles-only, death-or-disengagement-terminated gameplay would be straightforward to build. The map would be all deep water, so no terrain building costs. The gameplay could involve air gameplay on one side in daytime scenarios. It wouldn't directly interact with ground gameplay, but that's historically correct and gameplay-sensible.

The existing naval game has survived for 17 years. A few more land-ordnance developments and the existing naval game will be dead.

Share this post


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

Actually, we have 17 years and counting of a naval game-element with an insufficient meta game.

My point is: either find a way at acceptable resource cost to make the existing naval elements survivable as the air game progresses toward greater lethality, or just remove the naval game until it can be re-done better.

A get-our-coastal-convoy-through / stop-their-coast-convoy tactical meta game with instanced-battles-only, death-or-disengagement-terminated gameplay would be straightforward to build. The map would be all deep water, so no terrain building costs. The gameplay could involve air gameplay on one side in daytime scenarios. It wouldn't directly interact with ground gameplay, but that's historically correct and gameplay-sensible.

The existing naval game has survived for 17 years. A few more land-ordnance developments and the existing naval game will be dead.

I would not consider the naval game alive. Or if it is, it is very, very poorly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, Silky said:

I would not consider the naval game alive. Or if it is, it is very, very poorly 

I think probably CRS views the naval game at present as a net negative for marketability. It attracts and retains few if any customers by itself, and most customers and reviewers even if not interested in playing it would see it as primitive and badly developed. It's nothing like realistic, in a game that's marketed as having design decisions based on realism.

The proposal above isn't enough to make it a good game. I don't think CRS can justify using resources for that right now. What's proposed is just a stop-gap to keep the existing naval game from entirely crashing as aircraft and ordnance are made more lethal toward it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask this, are Brest and Kiel deep water ports now?
 

My Zee list would include: (though not all Zees)

Add AB to Den Haag
Add town link from Staven to Brouwer
Move Kiel to correct location
Make Kiel deep water port and add AB
Add deep water port Den Helder with AB
Add deep water port Wilhshaven with AB
Add deep water port Haugesund with AB
Add deep water port Kristiansand with AB
Add deep water port Horten with AB
Make Brest deep water port with AB
Add Cherbourg deep water port with AB

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, delems said:

Add Cherbourg deep water port with AB

Some of this isn't very practical. It's 520 km by water from Cherbourg to Antwerp. At 20 knots (way faster than realistically possible for a Fairmile), that's still 26 hours of gameplay.

It's more like 40 hours for Brest.

It'd be different if France was terrain-complete back across the Seine; Dunkirk, Calais, Boulogne, Dieppe, Fecamp and Le Havre all were modeled as ports; and the French had the option of continuing to fight at least back to the Seine. But, there's been no mention of such a plan.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.