• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Attention Soldiers Operation Fury Needs you!   02/20/2020

      Attention All Soldiers, Operation Fury needs you.  You need to choose a side and sign up.  
      For more intel on Operation Fury Please click HERE Please go to Special Event Forum (here), And sign up for allied or axis.
      This will be a CRS Lead event on both sides.  Xoom will be heading up the axis side and Heavy265 will be heading up the Allied side. This will be for bragging rights.
      Why are we asking players to sign up you ask. We are trying for a role play experience.   We want this to be a true realistic event.  
      So get up and sign up and let's make this the best event ever!!!!!!!!!!
      Give me your war cry, grrrrrrrrrrrrr
      Heavy265 **out**
sublimesw

Unreal 3 / 4 Engine?

98 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, minky said:

There is no excuse at this point for non working HE and poor damage modeling. 

Saronin, the HE is not "non working"
The infantry are simply ignoring it, to put it in simple terms.
Nobody realized they would ignore proper HE, because no one realized that they had been programmed to basically not interact with anything
less than a brick hitting them in the face.

They are getting hit right now by lots of frags. They, the infantry, just are not having the proper reaction as they were programmed to work within the limitations
of the single core 1ghz CPU era, when generating anything more than a few brick sized frags would practically halt the PC.

If you want to apply some coding skills to speed things up, we'd be happy as hell to have the help

 

30 minutes ago, aismov said:

Actually friendly fire is easy to implement and during one early intermission in I think 2001 or 2002 it was (didn't end too well).

I seem to remember some very heated erm discussions? to say it politely?
It is fun, in a levels based game where you can just replay the level etc, but it's more play for keeps here, and people are less forgiving.
And of course you always get someone who goes full retard, and the damage is already done, even if you ban them.

 

34 minutes ago, aismov said:

in WWIIOL you could be 25 m from a bomb and miraculously survive, while another guy at 50 m gets hit by shrapnel and dies,

Want to know something crazy?
You could actually be the unlucky slob to be 600m away from a large bomb, and each the wayward frag that was still traveling at near bullet speed.
You probably wont be, cause dispersion, but there is always that unlucky day :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Friendly fire is modelled in wwiiol and is just a checkbox to be activated by Ohm. 

The game even has the capability to activate negative rank points for friendly kills as well.

I would love to try it out as well during an intermission. I believe it's like spying or AB camping: spooks from the past preventing to embrace audacious changes. 

We would need a shared chat warning message as a .votekick command though 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be all for Friendly Fire, but I'm a simulation guy. People will learn to ID target before firing very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be all for giving it a try. The negative rank points is actually not a bad way to prevent griefing along with .votekick. The biggest issue is that it only takes one idiot to machine gun everyone defending a bunker right before an enemy cap to real sour the entire playerbase. Which is what happened last time, although I should note it kinda devolved into parody since everyone was just "trying it out"

Share this post


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

The negative rank points is actually not a bad way to prevent griefing along with .votekick. 

Only if all players are paid subscribers, with "skin in the game", so to speak.

With easy-come, easy-go F2P, the player type that enjoys being disruptive becomes a factor. Per the extensive experience of the original CRS group at game creation and management, the creativity of such disruptors exceeds the ability of game managers to keep up. Friendly kills, for instance, are not always the actual fault of the shooter. Sometimes the shooter had no visibility on the killed friendly, even though that friendly is irate at being killed. Sometimes the killed friendly intentionally moved into another player's fire.

The negative rank points concept is a management nightmare in practice, because good customers are vocally complaining that they were penalized for something that another player caused, and if no GM witnessed the event there's no good resolution path.

.votekick also can be a management problem. Any such mechanism will be taken advantage of, to get rid of an unwanted player that wasn't actually griefing...a non-member disruptor on a carefully planned squad operation, for instance. How do the game managers handle complaints that that's happened?

Until the game can have enough GMs to be everywhere at once at all times, FF=on is just commercially non-viable.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no to FF except for over the horizon HE and bombs - perhaps even grenades.

 

Reason I suggest this is these types of weapons can be used to create zones of invulnerability and without FF its really face roll simple - just spam. This community can't handle the concept of two accounts and potential spying - enable FF and the fallout would be ... well just don't do it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with FF griefing is extremely real.

Just look at how toxic even other wargames are with it. World of Tanks and World of Warships has always had a large community of people teamkilling over frustration or committing suicide so that their teammates wouldn't win. Their solution in those games is to allow for some FF that might be accidental and then cause any additional inflicted FF damage either (WOW) instead be done to them or (WOT) place them on a separate team where anyone in the game gets additional points for killing them. In World of Warships, player names are also highlighted in a different color for several games so other players know to watch their back; after showing some good behavior they will lose that highlighting, or after additional poor behavior their account may be suspended or banned.

A game like Squad, on the other hand, has dedicated servers run by different groups that have 0 tolerance policies and just blacklist your account. Squad isn't F2P though so people who might be grief-prone think twice. Even if someone does grief, though, the most you could ruin in a match that takes place over a couple hours if it's a big one. In WWIIOL, a critical griefing moment could result in the loss of an entire town, ending a battle that could have taken anywhere from half an hour to several hours or even days of constant attrition, and the loss of that town could cause a major loss of morale or an entire front to buckle.

As unrealistic as wading through friendly mortar explosions, grenade fragments, and MG fire is, completely removing the possibility for FF (except when destroying a building) has helped keep WWIIOL clean from that kind of community and players away from that environment. Even then we occasionally have people griefing by switching sides, throwing smoke, or shooting a lot to alert the enemy of a friendly spawn location. Opening up FF in addition to that might be the straw that breaks the back of the entire playerbase. It'd be easier to handle with a lot more GMs constantly online to monitor things.

 

Perhaps one intermission or maybe on a training server or something it could be turned on to try it out to see if the community can handle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the very least I would support HE FF, firing HE into a building while infantry advance into it at the same time isn’t the most realistic. And that goes for CAS on top of friendly units as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2018 at 2:27 PM, chaoswzkd said:

The issue with FF griefing is extremely real.

Just look at how toxic even other wargames are with it. World of Tanks and World of Warships has always had a large community of people teamkilling over frustration or committing suicide so that their teammates wouldn't win. Their solution in those games is to allow for some FF that might be accidental and then cause any additional inflicted FF damage either (WOW) instead be done to them or (WOT) place them on a separate team where anyone in the game gets additional points for killing them. In World of Warships, player names are also highlighted in a different color for several games so other players know to watch their back; after showing some good behavior they will lose that highlighting, or after additional poor behavior their account may be suspended or banned.

A game like Squad, on the other hand, has dedicated servers run by different groups that have 0 tolerance policies and just blacklist your account. Squad isn't F2P though so people who might be grief-prone think twice. Even if someone does grief, though, the most you could ruin in a match that takes place over a couple hours if it's a big one. In WWIIOL, a critical griefing moment could result in the loss of an entire town, ending a battle that could have taken anywhere from half an hour to several hours or even days of constant attrition, and the loss of that town could cause a major loss of morale or an entire front to buckle.

As unrealistic as wading through friendly mortar explosions, grenade fragments, and MG fire is, completely removing the possibility for FF (except when destroying a building) has helped keep WWIIOL clean from that kind of community and players away from that environment. Even then we occasionally have people griefing by switching sides, throwing smoke, or shooting a lot to alert the enemy of a friendly spawn location. Opening up FF in addition to that might be the straw that breaks the back of the entire playerbase. It'd be easier to handle with a lot more GMs constantly online to monitor things.

 

Perhaps one intermission or maybe on a training server or something it could be turned on to try it out to see if the community can handle it.

you don't have to kill to have 'friendly fire'.

 

What if friendly HE instantly drains stamina?

What if HE knocked you off your feet?

What if HE made you drop your weapon?

What if (insert other non lethal 'crowd control' mechanic here)?

 

Doesn't have to be a kill, just needs to be a deterrent that gives a tactical reason to avoid doing it. We tried the shell shock thing - it ended up just sucking IMO. these things need to be given a bit more thought as you don't want to make the experience suck while trying to make it both more realistic and deliver an interesting mechanic. IMO.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there's any daylight between the boundaries of "no significant effect, why bother" and "enough of an effect on gameplay to fully encourage griefing". 

I don't think FF=on can possibly work in a game with a F2P option.

Old-CRS, well before F2P, said there would be enough dysfunctional player behavior that the game would be messed up.

Old-CRS also said experience in other games showed them that they'd need at least an order of magnitude more GMs in game at all times than the peak number they'd ever had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-11-05 at 11:17 PM, Zebbeee said:

 

Friendly fire is modelled in wwiiol and is just a checkbox to be activated by Ohm. 

The game even has the capability to activate negative rank points for friendly kills as well.

I would love to try it out as well during an intermission. I believe it's like spying or AB camping: spooks from the past preventing to embrace audacious changes. 

We would need a shared chat warning message as a .votekick command though 

LOL. I can just see it in intermission. Squaddies trying out the new feature. Bang your dead....no....bang you are dead. Hours of fun.

:)

No really it would be hilarious fun for about an hour. Sniper battles from distance. "You got me...crap...how did you do that?"

Intermission...click that button for an hour or two.

Now.....where is Loonie.... (maybe not...i would die too much lol)

:)

S! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2018 at 0:17 AM, Zebbeee said:

 

Friendly fire is modelled in wwiiol and is just a checkbox to be activated by Ohm. 

The game even has the capability to activate negative rank points for friendly kills as well.

I would love to try it out as well during an intermission. I believe it's like spying or AB camping: spooks from the past preventing to embrace audacious changes. 

We would need a shared chat warning message as a .votekick command though 

Hmmm...

I would really love to see this in the game as an experiment...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there folks, I still keep an eye on the grand ole game...

Strengths:

Overall Gameplay, supply model, ability (albeit its rarely relevant in recent times)  to host LARGE combined battles, and Persistent campaign are WWIIOL's stongest assets. 

In particular the ability of every person, and every sortie contributes the the campaign outcome in some manner, is a huge selling point.

 

Weaknesses:

The dated engine, clunky UI, inability to jump in/out of vehicles is what hurts it hard... Also the population level too, as the gameplay is designed  to have a critical mass of probably about 100 a side at all times of day, which is waaaaay below what we see these days.

You can argue the subscription model, is also a turnoff for some, with younger gamers (under 30's) , in many cases just not willing to fork out subs for anything...

---------

WWIIOL still has the best balance of gameplay and mechanics I have seen for a persistent combat world anywhere,  and others have all failed some way or another.... If it gets the engine upgrade, it should be great again, it is simply that dated, that far behind now, it cant compete on it's strengths alone....

 

New Engine:    There is no silver bullet amongst the shelf of modern engines, and its simply not financially practical in this day and age under most circumstances to build your own.

Some concessions will need to be made, and straight up I see accepting instancing at an area level, is probably the most significant and simplest concession that may need to be made.

 

Id be open to considering utilizing a series of  "area based instanced maps" (each holding perhaps 2-4 towns and surrounding terrain)...  Using that 20km x 20km size already available from the newer engines as best possible... 

-- I concede this would change the air game considerably though, as air access points would need to be provisioned for, where an airfield is not present. Tricky balance to get right...  

-- Spawnables, FB's and Central Supply Management, are all issues to work through, but with some thought (cross instance talk needed), I don't see how that could not be done, to make it pretty similar to how it is now.

-- The hardest challenge I see, is still is going to be the network code, and getting that large scale 200v200 type battle capability.   These modern engines, simply don't do that out of the box, and just don't appear to have the capacity to provide that, (at whilst maintaining a standard of immersion in the environment)

-- Rear town supply, also trickier, but its been missing from the game for so long, it can probably just be ignored, and solved perhaps at a far later date.

I know the above model is -similar- to what H&G offers... but H&G made some terrible mistakes with their supply mechanics, a decision to use a progressive based XP/currency unlocks system, a ping-sensative matchmaking system, and most specifically, a stupidly low number of maps, that are used everywhere, instead of modelling real terrain.  It has made for a quickly boring scenario of repetiveness, where you see the same town over and over, limited field battle, and a grind... OMG the grind... to unlock basic tools needed to perform.... 

If H&G or War Thunder, had done their games right, I think a lot of us wouldn't still be here... But they didn't so there is still a hole in the market to fill, that a rebuild of WWIIOL could capture those players, amongst others who drifted off to other niche failures back in a full re-release. 

My 5c on Cash:

-- Id be selling any rebuilt game up-front again too of course. Full premium price $50 plus to recoup costs

-- Add a cosmetic unlocks cash only model for a trickle of cash

-- New Toys come in DLC packs, for intermittent cash boosts. (Sure most of the existing player-base gonna hate this, but its how the world works now, accepted next-generation gaming practice)

-- If subscription is retained, it needs to be a fraction of what it is now, to keep the younger generation subbed up.  (Youngsters simply won't cough up more than 5 bucks a month in most cases, due to their "entitled" millennial hard coding)

-- Could use Spawn Delay to make any F2P  gamer's suffer SD penalties, whilst a sub removes it.  A SD "whilst you wait "window, also throws up -LIMITED- advertising to squeeze a little more cash maybe.  Lots of ways it could have minimal intrusiveness applied, e.g  5 spawns ins before you get a 2 minute timeout with a "whilst you wait"    -- Hell, that could be put in the current game for free to plays now, would have the added side benefit of making them play smarter too...

 

Kare

Share this post


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

Hi there folks, I still keep an eye on the grand ole game...

Strengths:

Overall Gameplay, supply model, ability (albeit its rarely relevant in recent times)  to host LARGE combined battles, and Persistent campaign are WWIIOL's stongest assets. 

In particular the ability of every person, and every sortie contributes the the campaign outcome in some manner, is a huge selling point.

 

Weaknesses:

The dated engine, clunky UI, inability to jump in/out of vehicles is what hurts it hard... Also the population level too, as the gameplay is designed  to have a critical mass of probably about 100 a side at all times of day, which is waaaaay below what we see these days.

You can argue the subscription model, is also a turnoff for some, with younger gamers (under 30's) , in many cases just not willing to fork out subs for anything...

---------

WWIIOL still has the best balance of gameplay and mechanics I have seen for a persistent combat world anywhere,  and others have all failed some way or another.... If it gets the engine upgrade, it should be great again, it is simply that dated, that far behind now, it cant compete on it's strengths alone....

 

New Engine:    There is no silver bullet amongst the shelf of modern engines, and its simply not financially practical in this day and age under most circumstances to build your own.

Some concessions will need to be made, and straight up I see accepting instancing at an area level, is probably the most significant and simplest concession that may need to be made.

 

Id be open to considering utilizing a series of  "area based instanced maps" (each holding perhaps 2-4 towns and surrounding terrain)...  Using that 20km x 20km size already available from the newer engines as best possible... 

-- I concede this would change the air game considerably though, as air access points would need to be provisioned for, where an airfield is not present. Tricky balance to get right...  

-- Spawnables, FB's and Central Supply Management, are all issues to work through, but with some thought (cross instance talk needed), I don't see how that could not be done, to make it pretty similar to how it is now.

-- The hardest challenge I see, is still is going to be the network code, and getting that large scale 200v200 type battle capability.   These modern engines, simply don't do that out of the box, and just don't appear to have the capacity to provide that, (at whilst maintaining a standard of immersion in the environment)

-- Rear town supply, also trickier, but its been missing from the game for so long, it can probably just be ignored, and solved perhaps at a far later date.

I know the above model is -similar- to what H&G offers... but H&G made some terrible mistakes with their supply mechanics, a decision to use a progressive based XP/currency unlocks system, a ping-sensative matchmaking system, and most specifically, a stupidly low number of maps, that are used everywhere, instead of modelling real terrain.  It has made for a quickly boring scenario of repetiveness, where you see the same town over and over, limited field battle, and a grind... OMG the grind... to unlock basic tools needed to perform.... 

If H&G or War Thunder, had done their games right, I think a lot of us wouldn't still be here... But they didn't so there is still a hole in the market to fill, that a rebuild of WWIIOL could capture those players, amongst others who drifted off to other niche failures back in a full re-release. 

My 5c on Cash:

-- Id be selling any rebuilt game up-front again too of course. Full premium price $50 plus to recoup costs

-- Add a cosmetic unlocks cash only model for a trickle of cash

-- New Toys come in DLC packs, for intermittent cash boosts. (Sure most of the existing player-base gonna hate this, but its how the world works now, accepted next-generation gaming practice)

-- If subscription is retained, it needs to be a fraction of what it is now, to keep the younger generation subbed up.  (Youngsters simply won't cough up more than 5 bucks a month in most cases, due to their "entitled" millennial hard coding)

-- Could use Spawn Delay to make any F2P  gamer's suffer SD penalties, whilst a sub removes it.  A SD "whilst you wait "window, also throws up -LIMITED- advertising to squeeze a little more cash maybe.  Lots of ways it could have minimal intrusiveness applied, e.g  5 spawns ins before you get a 2 minute timeout with a "whilst you wait"    -- Hell, that could be put in the current game for free to plays now, would have the added side benefit of making them play smarter too...

 

Kare

Thanks for your input!

If H&G or war thunder didn't take our path it's because of related costs for sure

Either chose one or another; both (powerful server and single-sales) is economicaly almost impossible to achieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On November 20, 2018 at 5:41 AM, karellean said:

Hi there folks, I still keep an eye on the grand ole game...

<S> Nice to see veteran players!

I agree with most of what you said with the exception of instancing the map. As a pilot I am naturally biased, but as a squad players I was very much an all-around player and I think I may have actually more ground time in the game than air time in the game. But I digress. One of the, if not the, most important things that always drew me to WWIIOL was the huge zoneless map. I think that if you instance the map it will completely ruin the immersion of the game. For example the 31st used to stage something called the Cannonball Run where we would do Opel Races that usually crossed the front lines at least 2 times; that is something we wouldn't be able to do without a zoneless map. Same thing for paratroopers. or RDP. Or the naval game. I firmly believe that WWIIOL lives and dies on its zoneless map. It was great forthsight when CRS designed it initially at a time where game designers thought it essentially impossible, but it has been their strongest asset.

As for the financial side of things I agree with you 100%. A WWIIOL 2.0 should be a standalone game with full retail price. Although I'm not a fan of microtransactions and DLC that is the direction gaming is going and it is a revenue stream CRS should not ignore. Decals, choice of period-realistic armor skins, squadron nose art on planes, hell even buying a set of buildings in game to call your "squad HQ" is all stuff that CRS can monetize.

Some token subscription likely will be required for server upkeep (say $5/month), but new vehicles like you said could be sold as DLC packs. Naturally I don't like DLC, so I would prefer to also have a "premium subscription" model which is closer to say $15/month but will give me all new updates automatically without having to buy DLC even if it costs more (essentially the system which we have now and I'm happy with). I personally don't want to be bothered by DLC nonsense but I realize that for many younger players this may be an important draw (or at least the only system they know which makes them automatically averse to a subscription).

Edited by aismov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2018 at 5:18 PM, XOOM said:

We know for sure, out of the box, we can obtain 20km x 20km maps at a minimum, and we believe (and are attempting to validate) we can work up from there.

Note that a realistic naval game requires a much larger map at minimum. The current naval game's thousand-meter engagements are comically unrealistic.

WWII 5 inch class guns had a range of 15km or more, and engaged at those ranges. 8 inch class guns had a range of almost 30km, and engaged at those ranges. The longest range WWII torpedoes had ranges of greater than 20km, and got hits at those ranges. In good weather, search aircraft could spot ships at 20km range. A 20km map size for a naval game would not allow realism...at least not for daylight operations.

Share this post


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

Note that a realistic naval game requires a much larger map at minimum. The current naval game's thousand-meter engagements are comically unrealistic.

WWII 5 inch class guns had a range of 15km or more, and engaged at those ranges. 8 inch class guns had a range of almost 30km, and engaged at those ranges. The longest range WWII torpedoes had ranges of greater than 20km, and got hits at those ranges. In good weather, search aircraft could spot ships at 20km range. A 20km map size for a naval game would not allow realism...at least not for daylight operations.

Understood. I'm not sure how realistically feasible it is to expect more than what we currently have in WWIIOL, at least for the foreseeable future. For that matter I'd be more concerned with finding ways to get naval game play more enjoyable and meaningful, as it currently sits there's just not a lot of content or significance surrounding it, which is a true shame given how important it was in the actual war.

Share this post


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

WWII 5 inch class guns had a range of 15km or more, and engaged at those ranges. 8 inch class guns had a range of almost 30km, and engaged at those ranges. The longest range WWII torpedoes had ranges of greater than 20km, and got hits at those ranges. In good weather, search aircraft could spot ships at 20km range.

While this is true, on average, i do not think that it would perhaps gain much mileage for the player in the actual playing of naval things aside from functioning as indirect artillery.
Ranged engagements like that, ship to ship, are rather complicated affairs and require an extremely high degree of diligence in the constant surveying of your surroundings
(not to mention the technical expertise involved in hitting a thing across those distances.)
Especially in a world populated by humans following their own ideas of orders, so a guy could appear anywhere, even a place he realistically should not.

I would think one might get more playability with more diverse unit types so you do not have so few units trying to wear so many hats.
And more strategic goals/targets that naval can engage to cause direct outcome on the campaign
And new mechanics that allow them to better become an actual part of the campaign, especially at a point when the map expansion makes it not only possible, but an outright necessity?

Edited by Merlin51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

While this is true, on average, i do not think that it would perhaps gain much mileage for the player in the actual playing of naval things aside from functioning as indirect artillery.
Ranged engagements like that, ship to ship, are rather complicated affairs and require an extremely high degree of diligence in the constant surveying of your surroundings
(not to mention the technical expertise involved in hitting a thing across those distances.)

Fun naval fact: where do you hide your battleship on the open ocean where there is no island or object to hide behind?

Answer: hide in plain sight behind the earth itself! Up until radar assisted targeting which came later in WWII, ships would routinely hide behind the curvature of the earth and thus be out of sight of the enemies ability to target them. Depending on how high your crows nest is this would be anywhere from 20-30 km away. WWII naval gunnery is very complex and takes into account many things including the curvature of the earth. It is nicely explained here: http://mathscinotes.com/2017/12/earths-curvature-and-battleship-gunnery/

 

GoodIllustration.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

While this is true (...) I would think one might get more playability with more diverse unit types so you do not have so few units trying to wear so many hats.

I'm not trying to influence how many unit types are modeled...at least in this thread.

It however is a fact that destroyers already are modeled.

WWII destroyers usually were armed with main guns of 4 inch to 6 inch caliber, and with torpedoes.

It also is a fact that WWII naval action was, one way or another, entirely and always about supply movement. 

During daylight hours, WWII destroyers regularly engaged targets at 15km range or farther. 

There would be no realism to a naval game that continued the current several-km-or-closer maximum daylight visibility and engagement ranges.

My hope is that, if CRS chooses to continue to offer a naval game, it will be revised to be at least moderately realistic in maximum visibility, engagement ranges, and in being about supply movement, i.e. coal along the English coast, iron ore from Norway to Germany.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


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

I'm not trying to influence how many unit types are modeled...at least in this thread.

It however is a fact that destroyers already are modeled.

WWII destroyers usually were armed with main guns of 4 inch to 6 inch caliber, and with torpedoes.

It also is a fact that WWII naval action was, one way or another, entirely and always about supply movement. 

During daylight hours, WWII destroyers regularly engaged targets at 15km range or farther. 

There would be no realism to a naval game that continued the current several-km-or-closer maximum daylight visibility and engagement ranges.

My hope is that, if CRS chooses to continue to offer a naval game, it will be revised to be at least moderately realistic in maximum visibility, engagement ranges, and in being about supply movement, i.e. coal along the English coast, iron ore from Norway to Germany.

Ok but with assisted aiming controls:

1.  Point with observer binocs, receive distance and movement correction. 

2. Right click a contact report to auto-set range calibration and gun orientation

edit: opened a discussion topic here 

 

Edited by Zebbeee

Share this post


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

There would be no realism to a naval game that continued the current several-km-or-closer maximum daylight visibility and engagement ranges.

I'm not sure if i'd call it several.
I can see you at like 7km?
I cant hit you for crap but that's my fault mostly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.