dragoz

Possible fixes for some “Major” issues

26 posts in this topic

1) Lag: when you shoot someone and the blood spatter, but they don’t die, ever. Fix: lower the death threshold for energy transfer, that way, when some one is hit, they will die more often. At the same time, when you are wounded, a timer starts, you have a fixed amount of time before you die.

2) Axis LMG: it is just not credible that anyone can fire an entire magazine from the hip with any kind of accuracy at all. Solution. When not on bipod the weapon can only fire 5 round bursts. When the magazine is spent, like the real weapon, you must change the barrel, resulting in an extended reload timer.

3) Perception of CRS. It’s a big one, so I’ll address only two points here: 

     3.1) .reports : you should encourage CRS report workers to respond to dot reports, all they need say is “thank you” or “looking into it bud” “or actually tell the player what happened if you can figure it out. Contrary to your current policy, directly responding, even with just a thank you will MASSIVELY improve your reputation and greatly ease feelings of CRS bias and involvement.

     3.2) Game Monitors should watch chat, and when they see some one having a difficulty understanding how the game mechanics work, explain it to them, on side or chat. For all to see. Eg: yesterday “why are my rounds disappearing from sight before they hit that tiger, but I can see him firing.” If a GM simply explained the game mechanics this would never have escalated like it did. You just need to be able to interact with players openly and honestly, with a touch of humor.

Share this post


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

2) Axis LMG: it is just not credible that anyone can fire an entire magazine from the hip with any kind of accuracy at all. Solution. When not on bipod the weapon can only fire 5 round bursts. When the magazine is spent, like the real weapon, you must change the barrel, resulting in an extended reload timer.

This simply needs to stop being a side biased thing.

If you only play allied you have probably never seen it, but plenty of Brens and FM24/29s
also make dashing entrances into bunkers or depot offices and spray the place mowing everyone down.
The only real difference is the MG34 carries more ammo while doing it, but the MG34 never had a smaller ammo loadout than a 50 round belt.
Everybody with Anything automatic goes running up the stairs, finger on trigger, not just the axis.
Try the M1 thompson some time, it nearly matches the MG34 in firing rate and at point blank both have overkill stopping power.

Also, one does not have to change the barrel every X rounds, on any machine gun, unless we are talking every XXXXX rounds.
It's a factor of how many rounds you are firing continuously, and the weapons firing rate.
Some simply fire too slow to ever need to bother under normal circumstances.
You could take an MG42, and fire 2000 rounds down range on the same barrel without issue if you fire them in small bursts with time in between the bursts.
(Same with 30cal, or M2, or Vickers etc)

Or you can try to blast through all 2000 rounds in continuous fashion and heat the barrel to the point the gun will no longer work and misfires etc.

You can take a bren and a stack of magazines and accomplish the same thing by continuously jacking them in and ripping through them.
For that matter, you can do the same to an M16 to the point it is non functional anymore.

Under continuous fire, the MG34 as it exists in game, is out of ammo about the time he would be changing out the barrel.
He only carries 250 rounds, and he has to reload solo every 50, which means a short dissipation time.

The Bren also has a quick change barrel

The FM24/29 you have to get a wrench and unscrew the damned thing, which isnt convenient on the battlefield
hence the french recommendation of pausing every 100 rounds or you have to find a wrench or wait 20 minutes for the barrel to cool down


No one should be running while firing any MG no matter what country owns it.
walking ok but not optimal
crouching and walking better
standing still definitely
Has nothing to do specific to the axis or mg34

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@merlin51you are correct, the same solution could apply across the board easily. And would introduce even more balance. However, we have to exclude smg s from this discusssion. They are designed to be fired from the should and the hip. One might argue for the French LMG to be fireable from the hip, as that was part of its original design purview. Never the less. Any fix has to take into all sides and weapons in the class. So ya, it would be certainly balanced and realistic to include the same limitations on all LMG. There is certainly a bug with the axis lmg that I have observed on the allied lmg. Axis lmg can be deployed on the bipod instantly it seems, much faster than an allied rifle can be shouldered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also want to make clear that CRS staff and volunteers are doing a fantastic job of keeping the game alive and pushing it forwards. This game deserves to advanced and improved, and CRS is battling an uphill battle with amazing resolve. I only hope to help improve issues that are currently causing players to leave the game, or threaten to leave the game. I also hope to start a discussion that focuses on solutions, or at least ideas for solutions. They don’t need to be perfect, they just need to be workable. Yes, I’m an allied player, and I can only point out things that I see from the allied side, so please, allow some leeway here. We don’t need acrimony, we need to be together, helping find ways for CRS t retain players, whether new ones or old ones. Together I am certain we can come up with solutions, and refinements rather than arguments. After all, we all love this game or we not still be here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, dragoz said:

@merlin51you are correct, the same solution could apply across the board easily. And would introduce even more balance. However, we have to exclude smg s from this discusssion. They are designed to be fired from the should and the hip. One might argue for the French LMG to be fireable from the hip, as that was part of its original design purview. Never the less. Any fix has to take into all sides and weapons in the class. So ya, it would be certainly balanced and realistic to include the same limitations on all LMG. There is certainly a bug with the axis lmg that I have observed on the allied lmg. Axis lmg can be deployed on the bipod instantly it seems, much faster than an allied rifle can be shouldered.

It is not really the firing from the hip, all countries had doctrines for unsupported firing positions
Bren gunners and MG34 gunner both had shoulder straps to help with stability in what the british might refer to as marching fire.
It's also not encouraged as a do it all the time thing, because in real life there are only certain situations where it is helpful, and it is mostly a surpression
thing

But none of it entails moving dangerously at a fast pace.
In real life, you have to worry about where those bullets go, you have mates nearby, you have your own face to worry about etc.
Not to mention when you are trotting or jogging or whatever we would like to call it, your body and everything hanging on it has its own inertia going on
that isn't terribly conducive to trying to shoot at things, that's another source of inertia that's not in harmony with the symphony you are trying to conduct
without falling down.

If we went into the really real world, we would find that even SMG's which are light and do not tend to have a lot of self induced inertia going on
are still not used in that kind of manner.
You can hit up CNN for lots of combat videos showing how guys move when using or expecting to have to use fire in motion.
it's all modern weapons, but the basics are the same.

They dont become a terrible problem in the game as yet mostly due to not having the instant stopping power of the LMG's
You might pop a guy with an SMG and he puts a rifle round in your head, and limps around the rest of his spawn.
You bust in like a maniac with an LMG and usually anyone you hit simply dies, which is what is supposed to happen when hit by an LMG
just not the maniac part.

 

The bipod deploy, i am not sure if it is much different in 1st person.
It may appear different in 3rd person animations? I am not sure i have ever lived to see an enemy LMG deploy :) 
I am not sure though, i have not taken them side by side offline to compare.
If you do that and find something that seems way off, report it too @OLDZEKE
If it's messed up, he will document it and get it to dev to be looked at

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think that the simplest fix is just to allow LMGs to be fired from the hip while standing, but not when moving.

3 people like this

Share this post


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

1) Lag: when you shoot someone and the blood spatter, but they don’t die, ever. Fix: lower the death threshold for energy transfer, that way, when some one is hit, they will die more often. At the same time, when you are wounded, a timer starts, you have a fixed amount of time before you die.

2) Axis LMG: it is just not credible that anyone can fire an entire magazine from the hip with any kind of accuracy at all. Solution. When not on bipod the weapon can only fire 5 round bursts. When the magazine is spent, like the real weapon, you must change the barrel, resulting in an extended reload timer.

3) Perception of CRS. It’s a big one, so I’ll address only two points here: 

     3.1) .reports : you should encourage CRS report workers to respond to dot reports, all they need say is “thank you” or “looking into it bud” “or actually tell the player what happened if you can figure it out. Contrary to your current policy, directly responding, even with just a thank you will MASSIVELY improve your reputation and greatly ease feelings of CRS bias and involvement.

     3.2) Game Monitors should watch chat, and when they see some one having a difficulty understanding how the game mechanics work, explain it to them, on side or chat. For all to see. Eg: yesterday “why are my rounds disappearing from sight before they hit that tiger, but I can see him firing.” If a GM simply explained the game mechanics this would never have escalated like it did. You just need to be able to interact with players openly and honestly, with a touch of humor.

(1) is titled Lag, but the problem description has nothing to do with lag and neither does the solution. There's work underway pertaining to infantry injury/death energy, so it may make sense to wait on this until after the infantry patch. In any case, having a fixed timer for wounded-to-death would be unrealistic. It would treat a low energy fragment to the arm the same as a rifle bullet through the thigh or a high energy fragment to the torso.

(3.1) is an excellent idea. I don't know what changes it would require in CRS's workflow, but every customer that complains wants an immediate acknowledgement by a human that at least they've been heard.

(3.2) another excellent idea, but I doubt if there are anywhere near enough resources to implement it.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I also think that the simplest fix is just to allow LMGs to be fired from the hip while standing, but not when moving.

From the many available videos, a person that's competently preparing to fire a full auto rifle-caliber gun braces themself, perhaps by setting their rear leg back and leaning onto the front leg.

I'd call that "standing deploy".

Require a player intending to fire an LMG to standing-deploy at the firing position. It'd be a new stance. I'd propose that it take one second for firing from the waist, or two seconds to fire aimed. The shooter can rotate but not walk/jog/run. 

Rotation for this and all other weapon positions should take into account the weapon mass and the distance from the center of mass to the center of rotation. The greater the rotational inertia, the slower the rotation is to begin and to stop.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I call it “lag” because that’s what everyone in game calls it, when in fact it appears to me to game mechanics issue. There will always be cases when actual network lag comes into play, but I’m betting that what we actually seeing is an energy transfer issue. Perhaps some rounds pass through the infantry model without transferring the correct energy. Perhaps that code simply needs an audit. However, in the mean time, a hot fix may be to simply lower the threshold. Of course CRS will have to balance the change with our concepts of injury vs mortal wound. And they could probably setup the timer with its own energy threshold.

lets look at finding ways to fix things, tweak ideas that may make them work. Or present alternative fixes. I really don’t want to have yet another flame war or negative nanny thread, we’ve had way too many of those.

I get it, my solutions are just ideas. 

@jwilly

ya, good suggestion to not treat all wounds as eventually mortal, but perhaps they can find a threshbetween injury and eventually mortal, since I doubt there is a game mechanic for wound type, it is most likely an energy transfer model.

@Zebbeee

that is a good suggestion.

@merlin51

lots of good points and lots of food for thought. As to the ultra fast deploy, I’ve seen it frequently, very frequently. It happens, it is clearly some form of bug, the only fix for that has to be audit of that code. Not fun. But if you have any ideas for how to regulate these “issues” I for one would love to hear them.

Share this post


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

lots of good points and lots of food for thought. As to the ultra fast deploy, I’ve seen it frequently, very frequently. It happens, it is clearly some form of bug, the only fix for that has to be audit of that code. Not fun. But if you have any ideas for how to regulate these “issues” I for one would love to hear them.

The question though is, are you seeing the deploy first hand via yourself, or 3rd person, watching the other guy?

If it is watching the other guy, it may not be as it appears.
The game tends to drop animation parts in 3rd person, probably so as to keep you up with what the guy is doing now and not
what happened in the packet that got lost somewhere.

If you hang around at a busy AF you will notice some guys landing gear will do the same thing, just poof gone, or an atg that just kind of suddenly is deployed
somewhere the "is deploying" got lost and all i got was the "is deployed" state.

Now if you are seeing it happen in 1st person, something is a bit buggy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2) Oh, finally someone is bringing up the Axis MG34. I thought we'd never have this discussion! Now we can bring up perfectly new arguments nobody has heard of before.

This is the 10³th thread regarding this topic. In all of them an allied player brings up the axis MG, and the axis MG only. Comedy wants it that in each and every thread he is not complaining about the 0.5 seconds reload time of a belt fed weapon - which is not possible to achieve at all - but that this weapon can be fired on the move - which is not only possible but well documented. I guess we don't have to bring up everything once again.

Look at this thread:

http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/256108-dont-allow-lmgs-to-fire-while-jogging/

or this thread:

http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/417517-people-complaining-about-axis-being-hip-firing/

or this thread:

http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/417946-feedback-top-3-game-breaking-bugs/?page=5

The good thing seems to be, that all other weapons, especially some wondrously well perfoming allied ones (like the thompson or the lee-enfield) are seem to be modelled perfectly fine and need no rework at all.

3.1) Totally agree. I guess most people stopped reporting bugs etc because you just get no feedback. If you really want people to report stuff and if you want to make them think that things are getting noticed and worked on, don't just send them an auto-reply message.

3.2) As I go into rage & whine mode myself from time to time I'd have to say you will never be able to moderate all the BS in the chat. It escalates quite quickly. Don't take it to seriously, but let's stop people getting abusive while dropping names.

If someone really has a question - the playerbase normally tries to help him. Once in a while everybode jumps on the hate train though to blow off some steam. I think this has  a (sometimes needed) cathartic effect. Just don't let the train run from a cliff.

 

giphy.gif

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The .bugs are looked at by @SCKING and his team daily. Tickets are created for devs to fix. Some are long standing as the issues can effect other systems.with in the code and require more time.

The next two patch cycles are for bugs.

.14 will be for terraign issues (ai rebuilds, clipping issues at spawns etc)

.15 will be other bug issues 

As I get more information I will pass it along.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really good post and valid points dragoz fully agree with all points, especially the GM responses 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, BLKHWK8 said:

The .bugs are looked at by @SCKING and his team daily. Tickets are created for devs to fix. Some are long standing as the issues can effect other systems.with in the code and require more time.

The next two patch cycles are for bugs.

People who are reading forums and CRS news know and aprreciate this. But a big chunk of the playerbase just logs in and plays without looking to much into further information. So all they get after .reporting something is an auto-reply.

Edited by vanapo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BLKHWK8

Appreciate the update blkhwk8. I know you guys are working on possible fixes for a [censored] ton of stuff. I also know that most of you are volunteers, and that I'm sure, blows everyone's mind considering how much has been done in the last couple of years.

Personally, I can't wait for some of the terrain bugs to be fixed, woot!

Keep up the hard work, and keep up the updates, even if they are just "we are working on stuff" :D They are TRULY appreciated by most!

It also gives us something to pass along to other players in game who don't bother with forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two reporting functions.. There is .report that only goes to the GMs and Rats that are in game at that time. They are for pressing game matters (cheating, etc). Then there is .bug which is recorded and sent to the entire QA team for review. Those are for actual bugs (not rants/frustrations/opinions).. Many treat it like a suggestion box though, and that should be for the forums as my team is only interested in the bugs. 

The bulk of bug reports we get are already in our system to be fixed (some scheduled, some in a depot waiting to be scheduled).

As Blkhwk8 mentioned, our schedule, we set out in February/March, was to have .14 to be for terrain and .15 is aimed to be a maintenance release. Depending on time, we may have to slip 64-bit in there somewhere. Terrain initially has hundreds of fixes (trees clipping, berms in buildings, collider issues, disappeared AI, missing FB tents, missing CPs, etc) and a few redesigned towns. This will be our first foray into the terrain system with the new team so it’s been a very big learning experience. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possible thing regarding 3.1: I know there are a lot of bogus reports, and that's just as a player reading side and target chat. "Omg this person is doing x thing I can't believe it report!!!1!1"

It's the kind of thing where an infantryman will report to an armored car where they hear a truck, and the armored car turns its turret, finds, and kills. Then those same players drive trucks that get wiped out by armored cars and go "HOW DID HE SEE ME HE TURNED AND LOOKED RIGHT AT ME HAXXXX" etc. Like they're not capable of thinking about it from the enemies' perspective and realizing that there are very simple explanations and that they do the same thing all the time.

So what's better for people responding to reports to do, in terms of alleviating cries of bias and crap like that? Ignore it, or be honest and tell them their report is bad and that they're wrong? I feel like the latter may not go over well, given how for example pilots have been recently reacting with "BIAS!!1!1!" to "actually, here's how bombs operated irl and here are all the facts and documents backing this up".

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I feel like the latter may not go over well, given how for example pilots have been recently reacting with "BIAS!!1!1!" to "actually, here's how bombs operated irl and here are all the facts and documents backing this up".

Tends to happen when poor game changes are made to one aspect of the game to cater to a crowd from another, particularly when those changes are not only simply stupid, but done mainly to counteract something which should've been handled differently. Add on that it only complicated an already very difficult task to do successfully about tenfold, and you have the end result. One thing that doesn't go over well is playing the 'realism' card while defending such a questionable change when this card doesn't apply to many other things functioning in this game.

Invalidating customer complaints is a classic move too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, gt3076r said:

Tends to happen when poor game changes are made to one aspect of the game to cater to a crowd from another, particularly when those changes are not only simply stupid, but done mainly to counteract something which should've been handled differently.

I'm pretty sure players from all aspects of the game didn't like suicide bombing. Pilots may have reveled in being able to fly and bomb like an arcade game, but there are plenty of pilots that have commented that they were not fans of the way bombing was handled. It wasn't a side bias issue either, for plenty of players from both sides reported the problems. It wasn't a "favor one side or one area over the other", it was "prevent this issue negatively affecting the game by using something based in historical accuracy".

 

44 minutes ago, gt3076r said:

Add on that it only complicated an already very difficult task to do successfully about tenfold, and you have the end result.

Yes, people are upset that their arcade bombs are no longer arcade. They can't Hollywood/CoD Stuka from 200m off the ground anymore, and they can't satisfy their urges to kamikaze Tigers, Churchills, and Matildas. They are understandably upset.

47 minutes ago, gt3076r said:

One thing that doesn't go over well is playing the 'realism' card while defending such a questionable change when this card doesn't apply to many other things functioning in this game.

You might have a point here if the new CRS team wasn't making every effort possible toward historical accuracy and realism. You make this argument for bomb arming timers, but what about if damage model audits were first? The TOES revision @scotsman has mentioned? If that introduced imbalance, you could just as easily decry it by saying "Realism?? They can't play that card! What about bombers dropping from 200m or suiciding!?!?"

Change starts somewhere. New equipment, HE/KE audits, turret traverse speed audits, gunsight audits, infantry DM audits, equipment DM audits, TOES revision, etc. It's coming. Complaining about one step of the process because the other steps aren't here yet isn't the best argument to make.

53 minutes ago, gt3076r said:

Invalidating customer complaints is a classic move too. 

WWIIOL bills itself as a historical combined arms warfare simulator, favoring realism, like bullet velocity and bullet drop rather than hitscan, component and crew damage in vehicles rather than hitpoints, armor models with thickness true to life, explosions that actually send out frags rather than just deal AoE damage, etc.

It's not all the way there. No one says it is. But there's a very clear effort that's the direction the new team is taking it, or at least wants to take it. Some concessions must be made for gameplay, and for what's reasonably practical for the new team. But the equipment, loadouts, ammunition performance, all of that stuff is meant to be realistic and true to life rather than gamey.

If you don't like that, that's unfortunate, but I'm not sure you're going to convince enough people to change their minds about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chaoswzkd said:

You make this argument for bomb arming timers, but what about if damage model audits were first?

It would have made more sense to be implemented then, ideally both of those things together. However this is still a lazy solution to a problem which should've been handled by the GM team. Seriously gonna be a hard sell to try and claim it was too hard to police the few amount of people who suicide bomb out of the few amount of people who fly in the game out of the already low population.

7 minutes ago, chaoswzkd said:

Complaining about one step of the process because the other steps aren't here yet isn't the best argument to make.

And implementing one step before the other necessary step which should compliment it is not the best practice to keep people playing your game.

11 minutes ago, chaoswzkd said:

WWIIOL bills itself as a historical combined arms warfare simulator, favoring realism

Meanwhile you have French with grease guns running around in 1940, British with Garands, etc. to add to the fun or balance of the ground game. Selective realism is pretty lame. But continue to defend it while arguing against the complaints of players who don't actually suicide their bomber aircraft on a regular basis and normally play effective CAS. I'm sure they'll continue to populate the skies now that their job just became way harder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gt3076r said:

It would have made more sense to be implemented then, ideally both of those things together. However this is still a lazy solution to a problem which should've been handled by the GM team. 

It was being handled by the GM team. It's just now no longer possible, which means GMs are no longer burdened by those reports, and there's no longer any ambiguity as to whether or not a suicide bombing occurred.

2 hours ago, gt3076r said:

Seriously gonna be a hard sell to try and claim it was too hard to police the few amount of people who suicide bomb out of the few amount of people who fly in the game out of the already low population.

It wasn't too hard, but it couldn't possibly get everyone at every hour of the day. Now it's fixed, and it has the added benefit of making bombing gameplay more realistic by using a mechanism that was used in WWII for bombing.

2 hours ago, gt3076r said:

And implementing one step before the other necessary step which should compliment it is not the best practice to keep people playing your game.

First, just in case it needs to be said given your use of "your game", I'm not a member of CRS. I'm an uncompensated volunteer for development. Everything I've been saying is my own opinion on the topic, though I'm unambiguously supportive of the move CRS made with the bomb arming timers for how it has changed the game.

Second, which step needs to come first is mostly a matter of opinion, and not an entirely relevant one because CRS has a need to show its players that changes are being made and that it is responding to the community. The community reported many times about suicide bombing ruining gameplay experience. CRS has responded.

2 hours ago, gt3076r said:

Meanwhile you have French with grease guns running around in 1940,

Known gripe, can't comment on whether or not it will change, but the topic of accurate historical introduction of equipment is something scotsman has mentioned with the TOES audit. This was also something inherited from the old CRS team.

2 hours ago, gt3076r said:

British with Garands, etc.

The UK received M1 Garands as lend lease inventory. I don't know enough about the topic to fully comment, though I believe there were previous forum discussions justifying their use in the game by their actual use by British soldiers in WWII.

2 hours ago, gt3076r said:

Selective realism is pretty lame. 

Agreed, which is why all that crap is getting fixed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, chaoswzkd said:

So what's better for people responding to reports to do, in terms of alleviating cries of bias and crap like that?

So there are reports that don't need to be answered or acknowledged. Do we agree there would be reports that could be answered and acknowledged? Do you answer any reports at all?

5 hours ago, gt3076r said:

One thing that doesn't go over well is playing the 'realism' card while defending such a questionable change when this card doesn't apply to many other things functioning in this game.

Sorry, but I have to just laugh when allies calling it "playing the realism card" if you model the Loopbomber (DB7) more closely to reality and all of the sudden, they don't like realism anymore and want to stick to their beloved old game mechanisms. EXCEPT FOR THAT AXIS LMG, THATS JUST SO UNREALISTIC!!11112121340

4 hours ago, chaoswzkd said:

Yes, people are upset that their arcade bombs are no longer arcade. They can't Hollywood/CoD Stuka from 200m off the ground anymore, and they can't satisfy their urges to kamikaze Tigers, Churchills, and Matildas. They are understandably upset.

I think I don't see people complaining at all that the stuka or 111 are not as good as killing tanks. It's all about the DB7 being no TIE-fighter anymore.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRS can't compete based on its marketing budget. It can't compete based on its development budget. It can't compete based on its graphics. It can only compete based on its greater-tha-the-competitors realism, combined with its teamwork gameplay.

"X admittedly is unrealistic but it should be kept because Y is even more unrealistic" is not a good argument from either side. 

A much better argument is "now that the unrealism of X is being fixed, what's the timeline for fixing the unrealism of Y? And if there's no timeline yet, is it on a published list of things to be fixed?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gt3076r said:

And implementing one step before the other necessary step which should compliment it is not the best practice to keep people playing your game.

If one thing can be done in short term, and another will take a considerable chunk of time
Should the players be made to wait on the thing that can be done quicker, when the two can exist independently of each other?
Probably not

4 hours ago, gt3076r said:

Meanwhile you have French with grease guns running around in 1940, British with Garands

And axis with grenadiers that actually wont exist for 2 years, at all.
So grease gun and sten can both wander off to where they belong, axis grenadier can wander off to where it belongs.
Now for the garand, it isnt quite as easy
1) There is a cache of lendlease garands sitting on the island, shipped earlier in the war, with a standing offer of more.
2) 3 5 and 7 commando actually did use garands in action for a time, they were outfitted by the us army.
So one could definitely argue that their numbers should not resemble US numbers (would anyones? the US could have given the things out as door prizes and not missed any) The availability and use parts are a bit harder to argue against because both actually exist.
(Personally i dont mind non 1 to 1 equipment lists that are made to loosely reflect reality, makes things interesting)

Yes one could argue "But by D Day they had already returned to england, re-equiped with UK kit and boarded ships for invasion"
Which is true by the real life timeline of events, but the game only acts like that during scenarios, otherwise anyone that wanted a tiger would probably
need to drive one across the map from the eastern front, or drive an M4A2 up from down in Italy etc just to get the units into the theater, which would be very weird
since in our game the french and english have probably not failed at dunkerque , the axis have not failed in NA and Italy, and they are not bleeding to death on the eastern front, nor are they running out of fuel due to issues taking place off the map that they cant even do anything about.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.