lipton

Opinions on KE/HE Patch?

83 posts in this topic

I've only played with a few units, but so far everything "feels" better.  Keep up the good work CRS.

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DFire, It is part of the game, everyone does it without even knowing it,  I was just saying why I started to mortar you instead of putting myself out there to get killed.

Share this post


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

Yes, I've been on missions with swiftcut; gotten 20+ kills with mortar while camping MS, barracks, depot, etc.

The question is: are mortars *better* or *worse* after this patch? As far as I can tell, they are *worse* against AI (presumably bug); just to be clear, tower AI *cannot* be killed with mortar fire now, even by direct hits on top of the tower (NOT expected functionality; tower AI could always be killed by direct HE mortar rounds on top of tower). Can't say for sure against EI, but I mortared Paal barracks during the most intense action last night and never even got a damage despite the fact that EI were spawning like mad (which seems unusual to me, but that's just one anecdote). Also anecdotally, tank/gun-fired HE seems subjectively *better* to me (I was wounded by such HE on multiple occasions yesterday).

 

Overall, I'm really digging the KE/ballistics; I've gotten kills on daimler and panhard with ATR that I know for sure would have done nothing pre-patch. No more rifle rounds as AP is also a very good thing. As far as the HE, I'm honestly not sure at this point... The change in effectiveness of indirect HE vs AI is presumably a bug.

I tested German mortar against ai a few hours ago, took out a tower and atg pit. Mortars are still being looked at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chasing some issues right now...again thinking is that its the data for the human body thats the issue...not the munitions...stay tuned 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What little I can say so far is this....when we had few large fragments traveling at ordnance velocities...the energy transfer to the trooper model was massive and overwhelming....now that the munitions are where they are supposed to be accuracy wise theworld is different...we have things like .7 gram frags traveling at 800 m/s (mortar frag there) and those frags seem to be interacting with the trooper target differently. Hits are being recorded, but the frags arent transferring energy to the trooper target in the manner is which they should. Generally speaking, 80 joules worth of frags to an individual will create a disabling wound and anywhere from 110-200 would stand a very good chance of dropping them. Lots of testing going on now...but I'm guessing our issue is with the way the frags are bleeding velocity on impact and doing their energy transfer. stay tuned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, scotsman said:

Chasing some issues right now...again thinking is that its the data for the human body thats the issue...not the munitions...stay tuned 

i've studied this a bit but am by know means an expert. from what i understand though ... the neck bone is connected to the  ...

 

 

;-) you guys are doing great work scotsman ;-)

Share this post


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

What little I can say so far is this....when we had few large fragments traveling at ordnance velocities...the energy transfer to the trooper model was massive and overwhelming....now that the munitions are where they are supposed to be accuracy wise theworld is different...we have things like .7 gram frags traveling at 800 m/s (mortar frag there) and those frags seem to be interacting with the trooper target differently. Hits are being recorded, but the frags arent transferring energy to the trooper target in the manner is which they should. Generally speaking, 80 joules worth of frags to an individual will create a disabling wound and anywhere from 110-200 would stand a very good chance of dropping them. Lots of testing going on now...but I'm guessing our issue is with the way the frags are bleeding velocity on impact and doing their energy transfer. stay tuned. 

Medic! Let us bleed to death with these little fragments 

Share this post


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

 

@lipton This isn't in the game yet (AFAIK). Waiting on dispersion audit for that (not the same thing as KE/HE audit)....

 

 

 

Hmm. The original post about them adding it was in July of 2017, and said it would be implemented soon after the Steam release.  I guess I just assumed it was going to be part of this patch. 

Well, I just hope they don't end up killing the inf game by trying to make everything "historically accurate" to the point that the game becomes a joke, no one wants to play.  It still needs to be fair. 

If 2 guys with rifles are shooting at each other at 300 meters, each player should have a reasonable chance of coming out on top. Same goes for 2 snipers at 600 meters. 

And, although I don't have any l33t mouse shooting skillz... There are a lot of guys here that do. I hope they don't add too much programming to the mix, just to try and make historical dispersion more ... historical.

People play video games to show off their l33t skillz. Take those skillz away from them in the name of programmed historical dispersion, and CRS will never get out of this nose-dive they're in. 

Edited by lipton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere, all rifles now fire ball ammo except the BAR? Is this right?

The Garand used Armor piercing ammo in Europe. They used Ball ammo State-side for training. 

According to what I've read, it would go through 9mm of armor at 90 degrees. 

Correction. I found it was 10 - 12mm of armor. 

Edited by lipton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, lipton said:

I read somewhere, all rifles now fire ball ammo except the BAR? Is this right?

The Garand used Armor piercing ammo in Europe. They used Ball ammo State-side for training. 

According to what I've read, it would go through 9mm of armor at 90 degrees. 

correct.. everything is using ball except the BAR.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SCKING said:

correct.. everything is using ball except the BAR.. 

Bummer. That's not historical. 

And the BAR used the Same armor piercing round as the Garand in Europe. 

Amazing where and how CRS decides to follow historical guidelines and when to blur them.  Poor Allies this time. 

Edited by lipton

Share this post


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

up killing the inf game by trying to make everything "historically accurate" to the point that the game becomes a joke, no one wants to play.  It still needs to be fair. 

If 2 guys with rifles are shooting at each other at 300 meters, each player should have a reasonable chance of coming out on top. Same goes for 2 snipers at 600 meters. 

And, although I don't have any l33t mouse shooting skillz... There are a lot of guys here that do. I hope they don't add too much programming to the mix, just to try and make historical dispersion more ... historical.

People play video games to show off their l33t skillz. Take those skillz away from them in the name of programmed historical dispersion, and CRS will never get out of this nose-dive they're in. 

 

I really hate to go on and on about Post Scriptum on these forums (I think WWIIOL could learn a lot from that game), but what you describe is exactly what happens in Post Scriptum: programmed historical dispersion where guys with l33t mouse shooting skills are as much affected by factors like historical dispersion, lack of steadiness while ads (aim down sights), and suppression effects. The game is getting very high praise and generated huge excitement, and having played it over the past weekend, I can confirm; it richly deserves that praise. The lack of ability to reliably hit targets and the end of 1337 mouse shooting skillz is an incredible relief; those things are NOT what make you a good player in Post Scriptum (things like effective suppression and solid teamwork are what make you a good player).

Not being able to reliably hit targets is what sets that game apart; you are NOT effective as a solo 1337 gamer d00d. You just can't play the game that way, PERIOD. In fact, other than Squad (on which it's based), it's hard to name another game where that's true. Again, I mention PS because none of this is hypothetical; that's a game that does what we're talking about (and if you doubt how hard it is to hit someone, watch some youtube videos where "1337 youtube streamers" find out that their weapons are no longer laser beams). Now, I admit, not having the other gameplay mechanics in place (suppression, the need for teamwork, the way capture works, etc) might frustrate some players here in WWIIOL (as it is, WWIIOL's gameplay mechanics make it feel more like an airsoft match but with capture buildings and spawn camping). Regardless, it will ultimately make for better gameplay.

Edited by xanthus

Share this post


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

 

I really hate to go on and on about Post Scriptum on these forums (I think WWIIOL could learn a lot from that game), but what you describe is exactly what happens in Post Scriptum: programmed historical dispersion where guys with l33t mouse shooting skills are as much affected by factors like historical dispersion, lack of steadiness while ads (aim down sights), and suppression effects. The game is getting very high praise and generated huge excitement, and having played it over the past weekend, I can confirm; it richly deserves that praise. The lack of ability to reliably hit targets and the end of 1337 mouse shooting skillz is an incredible relief; those things are NOT what make you a good player in Post Scriptum (things like effective suppression and solid teamwork are what make you a good player).

 

I just said I hope they don't add "TOO MUCH". Games are still supposed to be skill based. Not luck of the computer-programmed draw. These guys are working with a Model T. Not a brand new Porsche.  You can only do so much, before it WAY too much. 

But I do, really like PS's suppression effects.  Very, VERY cool. 

Edited by lipton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, lipton said:

I read somewhere, all rifles now fire ball ammo except the BAR? Is this right?

The Garand used Armor piercing ammo in Europe. They used Ball ammo State-side for training. 

My understanding has been that the US Army logistics system in Europe provided "ball" (soft steel core) cartridges as part of the standard load for all .30-06 weapons except the BAR, for which the standard load was black tip AP.

Garands, and for that matter various machine guns, certainly could be loaded with AP. Units could requisition AP with a sufficient justification. No doubt there were times when infantry sargeants traded something they had extras of, for another unit's extra AP ammo so as to increase their unit's punch against some target types. But, the standard loads were as stated.

Quote

Bummer. That's not historical. 

And the BAR used the Same armor piercing round as the Garand in Europe. 

Amazing where and how CRS decides to follow historical guidelines and when to blur them.  Poor Allies this time. 

What is your source?

Because of his pre-retirement career, Scotsman has access to primary source material. My understanding is that he's said what's stated above regarding standard loads in western Europe through 1945.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chasing our frag issue gents... definitely related to the Infantry model...not munitions performance. Some fixes already being tried. 

Share this post


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

@major0noob has posted about this before, and he isn't the first. There have been threads on this going back 10-15 years. The 1st-person camera position is off and always has been (despite nothing but non-stop denials by the old CRS team). One obvious give-away is the perception of the *small* size of the tanks relative to the infantry height. Play a game like Post Scriptum (where 1st person camera height is 100% perfect) and notice how large the tanks are, and you'll see immediately how WWIIOL is off. Regardless of the height of our mini go-kart tanks, the camera position issue causes problems when someone is shooting at you through a berm or behind some other cover, yet only the tip of their helmet is visible. This is a terrible problem that AFAIK has gotten zero attention since release 17 years ago.

One of our Devs spent a lot of time looking into fixing this issue and you would be surprised how "just move the camera back" turns into so much more. Everything from clipping to being unable to get into or out of tight places were effected...it's still a work in progress but it is on the list.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SNIPER62 said:

One of our Devs spent a lot of time looking into fixing this issue and you would be surprised how "just move the camera back" turns into so much more. Everything from clipping to being unable to get into or out of tight places were effected...it's still a work in progress but it is on the list.

excellent-14291105.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that folks in a nutshell is the curse of any developer - two veteran players with opposite views of the same issue. 

On a more positive note we made a test change on the human modeling and the initial results look very positive.

Share this post


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

And the BAR used the Same armor piercing round as the Garand in Europe.

AP rounds exist for most all the rifles, Kar98 Enflied Garand M1903 Liebel etc
Existing and being standard issue are not same thing though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything I'm reading is saying... As of '43, AP was standard issue for the Garand. There was still Ball ammo around, of course. But the infantry would be originally issued, and preferred AP, ... and were issued AP beginning in '43. 

I'll keep searching, but between videos, forums, and pictures of infantry loading up for the D-Day with HAND-FULLS of AP 30-06 ammo... I'd say, what I'm reading is fairly reliable. 

There's even an old WWII infantry training video showing GI's how awesome there AP ammo was going to be on the battlefield in Europe. 

I don't know how to post pics and such on these new forums. I could on the old forums, but have never been able to figure it out on the new ones... or I would post this awesome pic I found. Very cool. 

It took me all of about 10 seconds to find this information guys. Google is your friend. "Standard Issue Ammo for the Garand in WWII" is what I started with. 

Edited by lipton

Share this post


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

Everything I'm reading is saying... As of '43, AP was standard issue for the Garand. There was still Ball ammo around, of course. But the infantry would be originally issued, and preferred AP, ... and were issued AP beginning in '43. 

I'll keep searching, but between videos, forums, and pictures of infantry loading up for the D-Day with HAND-FULLS of AP 30-06 ammo... I'd say, what I'm reading is fairly reliable. 

There's even an old WWII infantry training video showing GI's how awesome there AP ammo was going to be on the battlefield in Europe. 

I don't know how to post pics and such on these new forums. I could on the old forums, but have never been able to figure it out on the new ones... or I would post this awesome pic I found. Very cool. 

It took me all of about 10 seconds to find this information guys. Google is your friend. "Standard Issue Ammo for the Garand in WWII" is what I started with. 

Well by using your own thread...I'm sure you read this: http://forums.thecmp.org/archive/index.php/t-166792.html

Canfield's assertion on AP usage for the M-1 does not track with other wartime documents. I wouldn't argue that it was used on occasion and that the airborne folks and others actually preferred to have a basic load of it. For line infantry units? No...big difference between wanting and getting. Some might get it for a specific circumstance or situation, or have some tucked away for an emergency. (I did! ) Its simply economics. Hard core ammo is more costly than FMJ ammo....andbelieve me the bean counters ALWAYS win...frequently even in war time. 

I served in USAREUR HQ and had access to basic load information going back to WWII and also had info on what stock was available ammo wise at given points in time. Have to agree with the other comments in the thread above that the assertion it was used by rifleman across the board is an urban myth. 

I'm very open to adding AP back in for the K98 (where documentation exists for AP during the battle of France), the M-1, and other weapons at some point, once we have user selectable basic load capability....but until then...and as we can only have ONE standard basic load for a weapon to represent service during the entire time frame...I'm content to leave it parked as is. 

6 people like this

Share this post


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

Chasing our frag issue gents... definitely related to the Infantry model...not munitions performance. Some fixes already being tried. 

does the helmet do anything?

if... will it stop a knife?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, lipton said:

Bummer. That's not historical. 

And the BAR used the Same armor piercing round as the Garand in Europe. 

Amazing where and how CRS decides to follow historical guidelines and when to blur them.  Poor Allies this time. 

If you have documentation to support this feel free to post/send the source(s) in for review

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.