Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
odonovan1

Comments on 16 September Rat Chat

71 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, SCKING said:

I think that would be great but we would need a new model for each capture location.

Why?

Place a table with flag in a random position once per campaign start.

Share this post


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

I don`t understand why they always say `magic` supply movements. Anyone who knows or has played wargames is familiar with flag / counter movemets as being integral to the strategic layer and a realisitic simulation of miltary movements, deployment and logistics. It`s not `magical brigade warping` its WARGAMING, lose that and the game loses its raison daitre.

I agree. At one time you had a fully functioning HC from brigade on up that could respond even without moveable flags. We did it with external web based AHC and GHC player managed command structures. But sometime after I left, all the hard work Gryf and I put into designing and filling the "Order of Battles" that pretty much managed themselves, got undercut by artificially limiting AO's instead of giving one each to every Bde/KG, or at least a Division, which made any HC position outside of that AO useless. And then instead of fixing it, the battles and squads were continually throttled further, which in my opinion was a large part of the catalyst that ran off the squads, and let the HC's atrophy from the ever-present, vibrant and responsive, command lines able to move as needed in charge of their own fights, to the current small group of map coordinators for each side, TOO responsible as single individuals to everyone, and having no choice but forcing everyone to one spot with so few AO's.

To little operational and strategic mobility. Too much responsibility in too few players hands, forcing too much of the fighting in too few areas.

In my view, that is the anathema to what WWIIOL was ever supposed to be. Its supposed to be a wide open map. Its supposed to be usable in a myriad of different ways so that the possibilities of spearheads, flanking maneuvers, surrounding, and tactical support maneuvers like Patton's push to Bastogne were all possible. That made it so that no battle ever had to be the same.

I think we have to be VERY careful about purposefully pushing or funneling battles into single small areas. That is no different than any of the "shoebox" games that we wanted to get away from in the first place, and that we STILL have to compete against today, always with WAY better graphics. Why the heck do we want to implement the same thoughtless small box rambo play that can be found in any of them when we are the only option to date that can break a battle out over hundreds of kilometers for thousands of people at the same time and on the same map?

Anyways, that's my position. And while I think the current state of the HC (no offense to the great guys currently in it, but see old HC structures and operations here: GHC ArFr BEF. Hopefully you'll get your chance and tools to operate as before) and some could argue player population, mandates 1.36, we are in-effect, starting over closer to the "open" battlefield we had before. I think that 1.36 is the opportunity for re-growth all the way around. While we can work at coding "balance" we should never code in too many automatic restrictions or place the entire ORBAT for either side under too few individuals that the rest of the playerbase (by vote of their respective AHC/GHC Squad/Bde/KG/Division/Corp/Army representatives) didn't nominate and vote on themselves, and on the outside chance is unavailable, cannot manage "on the fly" themselves.

If as I believe, this will over time by word of mouth and good promotion, entice those back that relish the freedom of a more open battlefield and the freedom to move around that naturally and organically promoted squad growth and the natural leaders that we filled the HC's with back then when the map was wholly open, enable us rebuild it all again. We'll see. Alongside the ongoing game improvements, and not ignoring the engine and graphical improvements we all wish for and will implement as more player support allows, (or possibly some unforeseen deal with another more modern engine provider that might accelerate that part of the equation), I am optimistic. Like Rome, not "built in a day" but hopeful long term outlook.

#WARGAMING-INDEED!

4 people like this

Share this post


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

I agree. At one time you had a fully functioning HC from brigade on up that could respond even without moveable flags. We did it with external web based AHC and GHC player managed command structures. But sometime after I left. All the hard work Gryf and I put into designing and filling the Order of Battles that pretty much managed themselves, got undercut by artificially limiting AO's instead of giving one each to every Bde/KG, or at least a Division, which made any HC position outside of that AO useless. And then instead of fixing it, the battles were continually throttled further which in my opinion was a large part of the catalyst that let the HC's atrophy from the ever-present, vibrant and responsive, command lines able to move as needed in charge of their own fights, to the current small group of map coordinators for each side, TOO responsible as single individuals to everyone, and having no choice but forcing everyone to one spot with so few AO's.

To little operational and strategic mobility. Too much responsibility in too few players hands forcing too much of the fighting in too few areas.

In my view, that is the anathema to what WWIIOL was ever supposed to be. Its supposed to be a wide open map. Its supposed to be usable in a myriad of different ways so that the possibilities of spearheads, flanking maneuvers, surrounding, and tactical support maneuvers like Patton's push to Bastogne were all possible. That made it so that no battle ever had to be the same.

I think we have to be VERY careful about purposefully pushing or funneling battles into single small areas. That is no different than any of the "shoebox" games that we wanted to get away from in the beginning, and that we STILL have to compete against today, always with WAY better graphics. Why the heck do we want to implement the same thoughtless small box rambo play that can be found in any of them when we are the only option to date that can break a battle out over hundreds of kilometers for thousands of people at the same time and on the same map?

Anyway. That's my position and while I think the current state of the HC (no offense to the great guys currently in it, but see old HC structures and operations here: GHC ArFr BEF. Hopefully you'll get your chance and tools to operate as before) and even some could argue player population, mandates the 1.36 where we basically are starting over closer to the "open" battlefield we had before. I think that 1.36 is the opportunity for re-growth all the way around. While we can work at coding "balance" we should never code in too many automatic restrictions or place the entire ORBAT for either side under too few individuals that the rest of the playerbase (by vote of their respective AHC/GHC Squad/Bde/KG/Division/Corp/Army representatives) didn't nominate and vote on themselves, and on the outside chance is unavailable cannot manage "on the fly" themselves.

If as I believe, this will over time by word of mouth and good promotion, entice those back that relish the freedom of a more open battlefield and the freedom to move around that naturally and organically promoted squad growth and the natural leaders that we filled the HC's with back then when the map was wholly open, enable us rebuild it all again. We'll see. Alongside the ongoing game improvements, and not ignoring the engine and graphical improvements we all wish for and will implement as more player support allows, (or possibly some unforeseen deal with another more modern engine provider that might accelerate that part of the equation), I am optimistic. Like Rome, not "built in a day" but hopeful long term outlook.

#WARGAMING-INDEED!

Great to read as I 100% agree with and it was the baseline that brought us to the debate of EWS-triggered AOs. You just better explained it than I could do :)

I believe that this AO overhaul could have been done years ago with the current flag supply System, as there is already an OIC-volunteer command.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all. Amazing job Rats and thank you because of your dedication!

Now. Garrison is going to be implemented. We have new barracks too.

Would it be possible to design a destroyed barrack and make them a target for bombers?

The idea is that when the barracks get enough damage, one of them is destroyed, we need the rest of them as a spawn and the garrison numbers is slightly decrease up to a maximum of let's say 10%.

This way we get:

- additional ground target for pilots.

- it represents the typical attrition taken place before and attack usually done with artillery or aviation.

If garrison has, lets say 100rifles plus 10 lmg.

Losing 10% means losing just 10 rifles plus 1 lmg. 

Garrison is still functional but attackers get a slightly advantage and we get the two points listed above.

My two cents.

Thank you.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dropbear said:

I cannot believe that ANY  game developer in 2018 would knowingly introduce non mixing of bdes in this case. You know it was broken before TOES. You FIXED it with TOES.

I am sure CRS won't jeopardise the games future with a short sighted system this time...it's make or break time CRS.

What do you mean with "non mixing of bdes"?

You'll be able to have a British brigade in a French town that has a French Garrison, and vice-versa.

There just isn't a feasible way for the game to handle a garrison with mixed units inside it, at least not at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dropbear said:

Why?

Place a table with flag in a random position once per campaign start.

To my knowledge, the game currently can't handle dynamic capture objects.

So each model would have to have its own capture area, which means separate models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the heck do we want to implement the same thoughtless small box rambo play that can be found in any of them when we are the only option to date that can break a battle out over hundreds of kilometers for thousands of people at the same time and on the same map?

 

we are in-effect, starting over closer to the "open" battlefield we had before. I think that 1.36 is the opportunity for re-growth all the way around

 

S! That's the way to Victory S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SCKING said:

 But with the struggle to get HC participation in all time zones, we need an alternative to take care of the issues seen when no HC are on. 

 

I have a proposition - delete HC.

Create something that does not require people to be logged at all times, or make the game work without HC at all.

While HC is a good idea in theory (or in real life) - it's not a good idea for a video game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about deleting the live map so we all login to the training server with no capture capabilities, no HC, fixed frontline, free spawn everywhere and unlimited supplies and free full access for reservists?

Nugx you are genious!

:popcorn:

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Zebbee you do know that at start of the game back in the day, there was no high command.

I was part of the AHC pre-AO. It was offline but it was there and more powerful than post-AO. I was one of the first to use .hc commands as the commander uniform. I must have an old screenshot on an old drive to prove it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saying, but HC is for a select few, that if are offline, the rest of players suffer - and apart from AO and brigades what else HC do ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, rotsechs said:

As killable as current Allied armour. 

No concern to me. 

Just waiting for the tank that suits me. 

Personally I was hoping for a Panther G. I can see why they only did the panzer 4 because it’s base asset is already in but the panther to me is more exciting than the tiger.

Share this post


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

Just saying, but HC is for a select few, that if are offline, the rest of players suffer - and apart from AO and brigades what else HC do ?

Not saying you are wrong on the baseline. But suppressing the idea of accessing side-wide tools and privileges is a huge drawback. The issue is just that the ingame HC didn’t reflect the offline HC orbat  that worked very well.

Removing what’s left of HC and I am not sure that in 2018 people will step up through offline tools again.

Just look how awful squad websites are. Can you point me any offline squad webpage that has modern look? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Panther D, then Panther A, THEN Panther G. All in due time.

For sure! As I said even historically the panzer 4 was the real workhorse but damn the panther is a sexy beast. Couldn’t die without its final drive failure though ;)

Share this post


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

The issue is just that the ingame HC didn’t reflect the offline HC orbat  that worked very well.

 

 

Exactly, that's why orbat or similar system should be made instead of current HC.

 

In-game orbat where squads would attach themself to a super squad, and single players would attach themself to squads. - I'm all for a system like this, because it leaves everything in hands of players and not  'high command' that is offline......

Edited by nugx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes time to course correct. The first major step will be 1.36, with then will need to evaluate from there. I have been playing this game since Sept 2001 and was here pre-orbat, then pre HC and now today. I was a member of several squads and the one thing I learned is no one likes Change when it happens but everyone thinks change is the necessary component.

This new team has a great representation of players and are constantly reaching out to gain feedback, and not just in this forum either but actually in game.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2018 at 7:08 PM, HATCH said:

Agree. As soon as everything dies properly, that's where we go next...
 

Going to have to disagree with you there...

Technically that was the same for the P39's. Hard to find Free French P39 in Europe as well... Interesting situation as A) its not easy to find ANY American P-40s actually IN northern Europe, and B,) it IS near the end of the P-40 service life in the European/Mediterranean Theater. However, I think we are relatively safe with these markings as C) the 325th,  along with the 33rd, 57th, 79th all participated in the Salerno operation. That's considered ETO, and therefore close enough to Europe for me. As well, after transitioning from P40's to P47's and later P51's, they moved to Italy and flew bomber escort missions to Regensburg, Berlin, Vienna, and hit other targets such as airfields, marshaling yards, and communications targets in France, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia. Maybe they never flew their P40's farther north than Italy, but the squadron itself ranged all over Europe. So if we can give the French 322's and Bell 14a's that they never actually received, I think we're safe with allowing a squadron that DID range all over Europe to do so with a plane that they were transitioning out of during the Italian campaign. If the Allies had progressed faster on that Southern front before the P38's and P-47's were available, who's to say the 325th might have had to hang onto those P40's a little bit longer...

So we're going stick with what we have

 

The 325th only flew P-40s from North Africa, when they were assigned to the 12th Air Force.  They did participate in attacks on Sicily (ending on 17 August '43) and Sardinia, but those were from their base at Mateur, Tunisia.  The group did not participate in "the Salerno Operation" (starting 9 September '43).  During that time, the 325th was only flying missions against the island of Sardinia.  That ended on 21 September '43 when the group stood down for resupply and training with their new P-47s.  The VERY FIRST mission the 325th flew against any target on mainland Europe was the first one they flew with their new P-47s, on 14 December '43, after having been assigned to the 15th Air Force.  This is from the official website of the 325th FG, 325fg.org, on webpages archived under the domain name checkertails.org.

 

Having generic USAAF markings for the plane does make a lot more sense than tying it to one particular fighter group which wasn't even in the 8th Air Force, the primary USAAF command in the European campaign.  The P-40 ingame is, in every sense, a placeholder for the P-47, which is what most US fighter groups used when they arrived in the ETO.  The paint scheme for either, at the time, was a standard green top with either green or gray underside, depending on time and location.

 

Curtiss-P-40F-1-CU-Pee-Wee-Serial-Number

 

DoubleLucky3.jpg

 

The roundel would vary with the time of the war, as in this diagram.

 

7b44f8bcb7cece8ce5262025906d45be.jpg

 

Actually, it would make more sense to have the first US planes be Spitfires, as the "Eagle Squadrons" of the 4th Fighter Group still flew their RAF Spitfires from the end of September '42 until January of '43, when they received their P-47s.  If I'm not mistaken, they were the first operational US fighter group in the 8th Air Force.

 

 

 

-Irish

 

 

Edited by odonovan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally saw the full vid on youtube and all want to say is that i am very excited with all this. For sure there are things that can be improved and modified but the most important for me is that the rats are editing stuff and have learnt how to add new models, have learnt to edit the terrain. For me these things are a very very important goal that finally we have acomplished with the software that we the community funded past 2016 IIRC.

So I will keep supporting this project.

GO RATS GO!!!!

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings,

 

I enjoyed the presentation. I have always thought that what has become the new development team, RATS, pulled off nothing short of a miracle so far. I stumbled onto the game right near the end or the new beginning, so that is my perspective. I am excited about the future if CRS continues to be funded properly by the dedicated few still around and the dedicated new that find there way into the fold. This is the time, right now, for an opportunity to be part of something special if it succeeds. We have a new team of many past players whom have lived through the old days and the new that is actually completely indie funded by a dedicated player base that they actually listen to and consider their ideas. What the heck is everyone waiting for. Get in here and support the project, even if your not playing a lot currently, if you can afford it.

I'm excited about the new textures and 64-bit. Many will be glad to see 1.36 come out and start rolling and adjusting. I'm glad to see the focus shift to the first iteration of 1.36. We all know it's just the first step towards better gameplay. The experienced player base and the developers know 1.36 will have to go through live campaigning in order to tune it properly. New models, I run around with a rifle or submachine gun most of the time, observing and getting shot most of the time. It will be nice to see them and get shot at by them in game. Terrain and Object additions and improvements have me stoked as well. Awesome work, must have been some wizard that pulled it off. ;)

 Anyway, it is unfortunate that creating variance with the CP models has apparent limitations. If I understand correctly, if the game wanted to use one of the building models showcased as a CP the the CP would have to be coded into the model. Would it not be possible to make some new models with CPs built in separately and start placing them in game when time allows. Or is it possible to duplicate the current models with a CP version, essentially creating two different models that appear similar and swap them out where needed. I'm guessing that historically most Command Posts where commandeered buildings as there were not structures in towns that we have currently in game representing CPs.

Something for the future maybe to think about or solve as I may not understand the blocking limitation fully.

 

S!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I don't  like any of the new textures or interiors. I don't think a lot of the stuff like cots and lockers etc are needed, just things to get stuck on while trying to get out, and most of the new textures look way out of place. The new city block looks great but I anticipate all this added stuff is going to kill frame rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/09/2018 at 0:25 AM, dropbear said:

I cannot believe that ANY  game developer in 2018 would knowingly introduce non mixing of bdes in this case. You know it was broken before TOES. You FIXED it with TOES.

I am sure CRS won't jeopardise the games future with a short sighted system this time...it's make or break time CRS.

I recognise the desire for garrisons but I’m concerned about the inflexibity of town ownership restricting country equipment choices. 

It seems that CRS recognises the need for flexibity for air units, so the question I’d pose is why, if air supply requires country flexibity, do ground forces not? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.