Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

Mosizlak

Reducing auto supply...

Recommended Posts

Merlin51
27 minutes ago, mrgarand said:

Merlin I understand what it is but it should be in LW ground and Paras only, (maybe replace 1 brig in a couple existing divisions as LW ground?)  In my opinion, or put MP35 in french supply they had them to which they acquired from Spain, better than shooting the MAS which you fire a full clip at 1-2 meters and miss lol, still learning to shoot that weapon lol.

Your sugestion of cutting them in Heer sounds a reasonable suggestion as per the game. Being as they have good supply of both MG34 and FG42 i believe not real sure but easy for me to look.

Well, the MAS needs both some Hatch time and some art time
I use it a lot, cause i like playing french T0, and i swear i always hear Yoda in the background telling me to "See with your mind"

 and yes the french did confiscate a number of SMGs off the spanish
but if i recall correctly, they were not able to employ very many because they did not have the magazines.
Ammo was no problem, but lack of something to put the ammo in was.

It would be neat from an aesthetic point of view, even though the quantity would probably be silly small
But aside from a visual aspect, it does not gain any killing power really.
I mean, it does in a per bullet sense, more caliber so more KE, but the MAS can hit the other guy a lot more times quicker
Provided of course that Yoda smiles upon you
Getting time to look at the MAS so you dont need Yoda on your shoulder would probably be more bang for the buck.
To me anyways.
"no need eyes, see with your mind, let the force guide you"
Well thank you Mr Yoda, that helps immensely :(

By the way, if you are trying to learn to use it
Go offline, fire it a lot and study the bullet patterns, and literally do your best to ignore the art/animation entirely
and try to visualize the bullet patterns and maintain an awareness of view center, and maintain your sanity at the same time.

Then try doing it repeatedly

Without beer :)



We can't at least currently, separate parts of the LW, which we know the LW did in fact do so in real life
In a way they are kind of confusing a bit, paratroop forces that become ground troops, AA guns that become anti tank weapons and move with the ground forces etc.
With the mechanics in place, they only way i can see to try and reflect that would be giving the 88s to the army as we already do
(as we have no AA version yet, and the LW can do absolutely 0 with them at a typical AF)
And giving the Heer a very small group of the FJ units, but keeping the lions share in the FJ, inside the LW
and you will just have to air drop them if you want lots of them (lots in a relative sense).
At least, unlike real life, you are still allowed to air drop them.
Or technically you can land them and truck them etc.

Perhaps at some point in the future, it could be done better with some kind of system where you can like assemble a unit/garrison/insert name here
semi custom like where you could say ok pull out this Heer block, add in this FJ block
But for now we have to work it out the best within the mechanics we have and can manipulate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minky
19 minutes ago, choad said:

I did watch a video on YouTube where someone did successfully fire it from the hip solo w/o getting planted on their rear. Took all 260 lb's of him though. I also saw a video of a Sasquatch one time, it was pretty cool - a little grainy though.

 If they modeled a 260 lb Axis soldier - than I'm all in for the hip fire. Not sure how fleet afoot he would be though.

The M60 machine gun is 23 pounds and change.  The MG 34 was 26 pounds and change.  At 18 years old and 160 pounds soaking wet I managed to fire an M60 just fine from the shoulder.  I don't think an extra 3 pounds would have made a difference.  In fact it probably would have helped me manage the recoil better.  That's why they are called LMGs or light machine guns as opposed to HMGs or heavy machine guns like the .50 Cal.  They can effectively be handled by one person to include shoulder and hip firing even if it is not the preferred method.  This idea that it's somehow impossible to handle of weapon of that nature is ludicrous.

Where WWIIOL gets it wrong is in the same place it gets it wrong with every weapon.  Running or jogging and engaging with a weapon is a very difficult task... with any weapon.  People who do so tend to miss a lot even at close range.  Top it off with the unrealistic reload times the game has and it's almost comical.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrAnit

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merlin51
27 minutes ago, choad said:

 If they modeled a 260 lb Axis soldier - than I'm all in for the hip fire. Not sure how fleet afoot he would be though.

Probably about 170 / 180 pounds?
Our trooper is about 6 feet tall, and they are all rather lean.

But you dont have to be 260, though more body always helps counteract inertia :)
You do on the other hand, have to adopt proper stance, and dont over fire what you can compensate for
Mr 260 pound guy might be able to maintain control and rip off a 100 round belt, Mr 150 pound guy might have to do it
in several bursts recovering his position in between.
Assuming that both are trying to maintain some semblance of shot placement.

IRL, it is not a highly used tactic, it's wasteful on ammo, and it is risky.
Mostly used as suppressive cover when having to hastily pull your guys back out of an area, but could
be employed to try and support / keep up with a very fast moving advance in desperation.

Problem is, you are standing still when you are doing it, and everyone else is moving.
You can guess whose head is now easier to shoot off.
@Bmbm would probably slay his company for doing it outside of dire emergency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob

they always have a good hand with running/shooting but go all in on the hip-fire...

 

they could argue for shoulder fire for interesting gameplay but it's nerf this nerf that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minky
40 minutes ago, choad said:

Would you believe there were maybe improvements in recoil and gun mechanics over the 25 years of seperation? Just maybe? 

The M60 was designed in the early 1950s and fielded in the mid to late 1950s. Its design was a knock off of two earlier guns. The MG 42 and FG 42. Those weapons were the advancement. Some would argue the MG 34 was arguably the better weapon though with its precision milled parts. Just maybe the Germans were well ahead their time given that MGs to this day still follow closely to their designs. Just maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob
1 hour ago, choad said:

No problem with technical hip fire like you. Moving and shooting with accuracy is questionable.

it's anything but accurate, it has a screen sized cone of fire.

that along with it's rate of fire and ammunition capacity make it a grenade in cqb, not a shotgun, not even a sawn-off double barrel has the spread of the hip-fire guns in game

 

i brought it up in the small arms audit thread, every auto needs a smaller cone of fire while fired from the hip.

all LMG's could benefit from ADS (the mg34 the least cause of its RoF), but ADS has taken a side line after the "nO hIP FiRE!11!1!" BS

 

it's a shame, LMG ADS was talked about and planned...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob
4 minutes ago, choad said:

Just maybe. Perhaps it was one of the rare instances were there was no "advancement" in technology. I guess if it suits you. Begs the question, why would've the design made it off the factory floor if it had zero benefit to a carbon copy of something 25 years earlier. I guess they didn't want to pay the [censored]'s royalties ............ oh wait.

1934 to 1957.

I know you can say early 50's on the M60, but you can also fairly say 1930, late 1920's on the MG34 if that you are going for the date it was conceived in design.

Wish they would've cast aside their suborn arrogance and just adopted a tried and true weapon design rather than try to improve perfection. Just maybe someone got fired over that .....

the modern MG3 is a MG42 (which was basically a MG34) is still in service today. there's no question the German LMG's were excellent weapons, arguably an equal or better than the M60 in many ways

it's totally a 30's weapon, but it's still a excellent weapon even by modern standards.

 

the US military had a unofficial "US-only weapons plan". it's famous for rejecting the .280 FN FAL in favor of the M14, as well as other weapons. IMO, there really wasn't much advancement in service gun tech between the war and 90's, other than the assault rifles. most of the advancement has been focused on cost, weight, and reliability. even the amazing russian AK-107 has not been selected for service. so even today WW2 and inter war small arms are still relevant.

 

you can find modern MG3 information that applies just as well to the MG34/42 in support of hip-fire and shoulder firing (ADS). it's not difficult, and you'll see there's hip-fire as well as shoulder fire techniques.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ian77

I doubt there are many who would be able to hold onto a rifle, firing and cycling the bolt action as they run around a room/in town, without either damaging fingers/hands/elbows, or turning around to pick the weapon up off the ground after it has flown out of their hands - however this is a game, and we have unrealistic quantities of weapons and unrealistic performance to some extent of men, machines, and weapons - and NO FEAR OF DEATH (who would run onto the roof of a 3 storey depot and jump to the ground and run to a building filled with enemy infantry, other than in a game?). This is a game - we should get on with it, and enjoy what we have to play  with, and not worry about how some players choose to use the equipment they are able to spawn. 

We need to stop using "historical accuracy" as a weapon to punish and restrict the other team, its a game, and fun is the object here. Obviously we want things to be somewhat realistic, but by and large fun needs to be the goal. Yes we all hate dying, and if it is to a lucky so and so hip shooting it is even more annoying, but when I started playing I was told this was a game with a tough learning curve, and I would die a lot while learning, and once I knew all the ins and outs, I would still die a lot! 

 

S! Ian 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mosizlak
On 12/5/2018 at 9:38 PM, XOOM said:

That's exactly correct. I can't help Mosizlak for having a moment, and I will not respond to it. We have bigger things to consider and being irrational reduces any influence on producing a positive outcome.

Call it whatever you want, but having less autos in the spawn list is ridiculous.  

Consider your player numbers when they have to use a bolt action rifle in close combat when the target looks like he's running through a disco strobe light. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capco
On 12/6/2018 at 7:00 PM, goreblimey said:

I hope this adherence to historisity carries thru when the US come in , only fielding the Garand as their base rifle , while the axis are limited in their use of semi autos ?????

 

good to see total numbers were messed up again

HA!  Fat chance.  

 

One look at the Tiger numbers is all you need to know about how CRS will view this kind of approach lol.  

 

I don't mind cutting out the grease gun until its proper introductory date, but when they can't match up infantry supply numbers for yet ANOTHER campaign I begin to lose a lot of faith in their ability to look at a spreadsheet...

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Call it whatever you want, but having less autos in the spawn list is ridiculous.  

Consider your player numbers when they have to use a bolt action rifle in close combat when the target looks like he's running through a disco strobe light. 

I think the point Moe is trying to make is that automatics befit the current style of nodal gameplay.  

 

If you want to change up the brigades to be more historically accurate you need to consider how that will affect gameplay in regards to other gameplay mechanics.  

 

The fact of the matter is that as long as we have the capture system that we do, automatics will always be the way to get things done in an enjoyable manner. 

Edited by Capco
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think, from what i have read, the smg disparity is intentional. Based on historical brig composition .... new territory we are entering with respect to how they fill out a brig's infantry i guess. 

So they want to give the Axis more historical advantages that they had early on, but once it gets to later stages of the war where the Axis are being massively outproduced THEN we gotta pump the breaks a little bit and think about gameplay balance?  I mean, we can't let the Axis fight the Americans without all those extra Tigers or the disproportionate amount of semi autos they get!

 

What a joke.  

Edited by Capco
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Augetout

I'm not sure, i.e. I'm not 'in the know' or anything, but from my observations it seems like CRS is moving towards an increasing level of historical accuracy within the bounds of their resources.  I used to rail about the opels w/ 1 INF taking towns 3 towns  behind the lines and being rewarded with an instaspawned army, so I get a lot of the concerns.  I just am getting a different vibe from CRS these days, i.e. that they are moving away from artificial play-balancing things as quickly as their resources allow.

 

We can probably expect some lag in one area, and things moving too quickly in others, but overall I truly believe we're seeing a move towards historical accuracy, which we should all welcome.

 

S!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raptor34
2 hours ago, augetout said:

I'm not sure, i.e. I'm not 'in the know' or anything, but from my observations it seems like CRS is moving towards an increasing level of historical accuracy within the bounds of their resources.  I used to rail about the opels w/ 1 INF taking towns 3 towns  behind the lines and being rewarded with an instaspawned army, so I get a lot of the concerns.  I just am getting a different vibe from CRS these days, i.e. that they are moving away from artificial play-balancing things as quickly as their resources allow.

 

We can probably expect some lag in one area, and things moving too quickly in others, but overall I truly believe we're seeing a move towards historical accuracy, which we should all welcome.

 

S!

I agree. Hopefully, that will include more accurate Sherman to Tiger numbers as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob

with the proposed nerf, the LMG's will be exempt from the current gameplay tactics.

 

soo many nerfs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Augetout
11 minutes ago, major0noob said:

with the proposed nerf, the LMG's will be exempt from the current gameplay tactics.

 

soo many nerfs...

I disagree with the terminology usage.  'Nerfing' in this game is taking something that is performing historically accurate (but too well) and downgrading its performance.  Fixing something that is performing ahistorically is NOT nerfing----it is rectifying a problem or modeling error.

 

We all know rambo LMGs should not be the preferred method of clearing a room, as it should not work.  It is not a side-specific issue, either.  I'm sure Allied MGs are clearing rooms as well---not as effectively as the mg34, but the mg34 is simply a better weapon, which I do not begrudge the germans for having an advantage in, at all. 

But, it shouldn't be effective being hip-fired while running into a room swinging it  to and fro------we all know that.  Fixing that, is not 'nerfing' the weapons.  How they fix it remains to be seen.  I am in favor of increasing fatigue, and making the weapon's rounds climb on longer bursts than the 5-7 they should be using without a bipod if they wish to hit anything.

 

I also disagree that LMGs would cease to be useful in the current gameplay tactics.  Used in the defense, LMGs should be, and are quite effective.  In offensive maneuvers, the LMGs can also be effective, provided the SMGs and Riflemen they are running with don't just run off solo style, as that will make the lmg less effective.

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob

doesn't change the fact that it's focusing efforts on removing gameplay aspects instead of improving and building new ones


like this thread, less autos all round (with a slight advantage to axis). too much of the focus is on the axis having that slight advantage in a overall nerf.

Share this post


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

but once it gets to later stages of the war where the Axis are being massively outproduced

But are they?
Did you keep up RDP and bomb the factories down?

36 minutes ago, major0noob said:

soo many nerfs...

When you can do something you should not do, and it gets change to something more correct, that is not a nerf

31 minutes ago, major0noob said:

doesn't change the fact that it's focusing efforts on removing gameplay aspects instead of improving and building new ones

It does improve gameplay aspects, unless you happen to be John Rambo?
 

3 hours ago, raptor34 said:

I agree. Hopefully, that will include more accurate Sherman to Tiger numbers as well. 

Until the US faction can be properly factionized, the RDP advancement stops progressing at T3
which is always going to basically jack that area up, and both sides are going to complain.

And if it is made 100% to the historic numbers, there are going to be complaints.

Germany deployed the 1st Tiger I's in what you might call in game Tier 2.5
What would be facing them would be M3 Lee/Grants and 75mm M4 Shermans along with the other brit armor
and M5 stuarts.
We'd have to fill in the M3s with some shermans as we do not have them yet.

The Tiger I would have low numbers as compared to other things, just the nature of it's design, expensive and slow to build.

It's production would normally wind down to a lower rate around Tier 3 for the faster and cheaper to build panther
which is everything the tiger is not, quick, mobile, much lighter, has a nasty HV gun and a nose like a ramp
that rounds dont like to stick to, so like the tiger, it is not exactly easy to kill frontally.

The 76mm gunned Shermans would not hit RDP until the beginning of tier 4, and ramping up to nearly but not totally
replace the 75mm by end of tier 5 RDP cycle

The M10 does not actually enter into the picture until T3 RDP cycle, just in time to hunt panthers
Though the 75mm sherman can kill both tiger and panther, you have to rely on maneuver, preferably with coordinated help
or assassination by ambush.
Sure you can punch the Tiger's nose under 1000m, but the margin of error is so small, you are likely to get pwned over 90% of the time.
The Panther, i am thinking not so much with that wedge for a nose.

Then things would get a bit interesting as the M10 would quickly be taking a back seat to the M18
Which may not introduce a new super gun, but it introduces something else.
Something that haul arse and quickly wind up pointing at you in a spot that you dont really want it pointing at,
mean while the 76mm gunner shermans have begun to come on board, and the brits have rolled out their 1st sherman fireflys
and Achillies sporting 17 pounders as well as a few archers

Next RDP cycle
The M10 would then take a back seat to the M36, and the 76mm sherman would overtake the 75mm

And some place in that there would be a Tiger II, which considering the extremely low numbers due to a very very long build time and expense
would probably perhaps only exist in like a specific Brigade flag (post garrison world) Along with its friend, the the M26 pershing
(And no not the super pershing, there was one unit in all of europe that went on a few joy rides)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capco
1 hour ago, Merlin51 said:

But are they?
Did you keep up RDP and bomb the factories down?

What?  I'm not talking about RDP.  I'm talking about RL GDP.

 

The total GDP of the Allied nations far surpassed that of the Axis.  It's not even close.  And that's before factoring in any type of effects from strategic bombing.  

 

It's been argued quite definitively that the strategic bombing campaigns cost the Allies more to enact than it cost the Axis in damage from a straightforward dollar-to-dollar comparison.  The only reason why it was in any way practical for the Allies was because of the vast resources available to them;  they could simply afford to run their bombing campaigns at a net loss because even then it would still shorten the length of the war.  

 

I think somewhere around 50% of all British war expenditure during the war went to the strategic bombing campaign.  Germany spent around 40% of their war expenditures on air defense.  

Edited by Capco
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob
2 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

It does improve gameplay aspects, unless you happen to be John Rambo?

*indirectly*, while diminishing game aspects directly

adding shoulder fire or solving the deployed LMG's shoot me stance would directly improve aspects.

instead efforts are focused on second hand problems with underling broader problems, in this case the entire CQB gameplay is at fault but the LMG's are what's focused on.

 

there are better and bigger things that could be done.

the shoulder fire and deployed LMG's aern't my ideas; they're old, universally accepted, and 0 controversy ideas from the playerbase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BLKHWK8
1 hour ago, major0noob said:

*indirectly*, while diminishing game aspects directly

adding shoulder fire or solving the deployed LMG's shoot me stance would directly improve aspects.

instead efforts are focused on second hand problems with underling broader problems, in this case the entire CQB gameplay is at fault but the LMG's are what's focused on.

 

there are better and bigger things that could be done.

the shoulder fire and deployed LMG's aern't my ideas; they're old, universally accepted, and 0 controversy ideas from the playerbase.

There are a huge list of things that need to be done. We realize that, however there are limited resources and some of the stuff you mentioned require development resources that are assigned to higher priority area. For example fixing the prone issue would require coding, animations and sound effects to change. The changes xoom is proposing are more like levers that the values can be changed rather quickly and adjusted.

 

This next statement is not directed at anyone in particular so here it goes. The community asked us CRS for more transparency and communication. @XOOM has asked for thoughts (brainstorming) on how to fix a specific issue within the game for both sides. The playerbase then jumps to conclusions and starts arguing about side specifics and nerfs, instead of making alternative suggestions.

We have a major game play mechanic change on the horizon which requires a lot of changes to supply and role utilization of units. This needs to be tested in the live environment which is why supply has been changed for this campaign so it can be evaluated. The bombs we're another change as well (which I will be talking about soon)  which was to fix ahistorical performance.

Let's have a well thought out response with solutions other than, accusations of side bias and nerfing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob
24 minutes ago, BLKHWK8 said:

There are a huge list of things that need to be done. We realize that, however there are limited resources and some of the stuff you mentioned require development resources that are assigned to higher priority area. For example fixing the prone issue would require coding, animations and sound effects to change. The changes xoom is proposing are more like levers that the values can be changed rather quickly and adjusted.

you guys gotta understand i love ya and your game, we all do. we criticize and argue for the health of the game

we come up with ideas and are (justifiably) ignored due to the work involved to implement them. it's frustrating, but good to be grounded back to the reality of what can and can't be done to solve things.

 

the FB ping pong had a mess of solutions, we wound up arguing over things that were simply impossible to do. until a rat chimed in and told us what can and can't be done, the increased health idea worked, but it was buried under a heap of arguing fans.

 

my FMS talk gave me a hell of a bad reputation among forums, but most other ideas are outside reality. what i'm trying to say is, please ground us back into reality before we fracture into a mess of hate.

 

 

now that i know the sitting LMG can't be changed, as well as the shoulder fire LMG, i'll leave it alone.

but please understand, a nerfing attitude drive subs away in every online game, and to a greater extent so does boredom.

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BLKHWK8

It's not that it can't be changed it's on the list, however the list is pretty big. 

Like I said I'm not directing it at you but the community at large. 

This team has had some.major breakthrus with development and we are listening, we just can't respond to All the ideas and can't implement all of them either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aunghous

I am in no way interested in shooting a bolt action rifle. I cant hit anything when they aren't warping . Its spray and pray  or im out .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...