• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Hells Gate   03/24/2019

      Break through the lines, and enter Hells Gate!!! This will be the next CRS organized event.  Lead by the High command from each side.
      Free Premium Access for the event
      Date: 3/30/19 Time: 11:00 AM Server time/ 12:00pm EST/ 1600 GMT
BMBM

Starting Monday: The Hardest Campaign Yet

324 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, minky said:

I play a lot of WWII games.  It is a mistake to think that WWII Online now has a corner on the realism market.  I was beta testing Hell Let Loose the other day.  My squad was moving to a capture point together and got in over its head.  I had to use my .30 Cal machine gun to suppress while the rest of the squad disengaged from contact.  At one point I heard one of the guys actually say "I up, they see me, I'm down" while doing short sprints to move away.  That experience happened exactly 0 times in 16 years of playing WWIIOL.  I actually end up talking to a lot of ex WWIIOL players because I use the same game name in all the games (not this game name, the other one that was perma banned completely from the game and the forums for arguing on said forums).  I have had the "post mortem" discussion on WWIIOL many times with people while playing other games.

Understand this because it is important.  WWIIOL is a sandbox shooter.  It used to be bigger than the shoebox shooters of old but it is no bigger than any modern sandbox shooter.  You don't really have a monopoly on map size anymore in a practical sense.  You can talk about the scale map of Europe all you want but the fact of the matter is that most battles take place in a relatively small area around the FB and Town of an attack objective.  Nobody drives from AO to AO on the ground.  In some cases the battle space is actually smaller than a lot of modern shooters.  Different AOs are really just like playing different "maps" in any other shooter.  Why do I as a player care that I could technically drive from that AO in Antwerp all the way down to that other AO in Dinant?  The map is essentially empty and useless between the two AOs.  I know that and you know that so for the most part neither of us are venturing there.  Newer shooters are providing, in many cases, a larger practical play area with more varied terrain and a more realistic infantry experience.  A lot of them are providing much better squad play and small unit tactics.  Even when squads work together in WWIIOL they are not using very sound small unit tactics.  One of the major adjustments my squad had to make was that we had to use more realistic tactics while playing other games. 

There are a lot of inbred ostriches who bury their head in the sand and refuse to look outside of family for answers around here.  WWIIOL does a lot of things really well but fails to capitalize on them and it could stand to learn a thing or two by evaluating other games.

This is a big part of why I'm pushing the NAO concept, along with consistent combat, less HC overhead- to generate the Big Battle.

Share this post


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

Something much overlooked.
You can multi crew the 88 (any ATG really), and that commander has a range finder with good binocs.
While the gunner is blasting things, the commander can very accurately spot and mark the incoming targets
so the gunner has only to set range, aim and fire.

If you are trying to take out the 88, use HE
You have to kill the crewmen, and with AP if you miss thier bodies a bit, they will just deploy and fire back.
If you are having to hit it frontally, try and hit the gun body, that way the frags will spray out behind the gun shield wounding the crew.

Bofors are an overlooked rangefinder tool, use them in conjunction with the big ATGs that don't have rangefinding and you can improve their to hit.

 

Or tanks.

 

Share this post


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

I play a lot of WWII games.  It is a mistake to think that WWII Online now has a corner on the realism market.  I was beta testing Hell Let Loose the other day. 

...

Understand this because it is important.  WWIIOL is a sandbox shooter.  It used to be bigger than the shoebox shooters of old but it is no bigger than any modern sandbox shooter.  You don't really have a monopoly on map size anymore in a practical sense.

 

This is only half true (barely). I have *also* played Hell Let Loose beta (I was on their email list and followed development since the very first public announcements). The same with Post Scriptum (I already have 200 hours+ play time with PS).

These games have maps large enough to encompass the largest land battles in WWIIOL; yes, absolutely true.

However, WWIIOL is *NOT* comparable to HLL or PS, and calling WWIIOL a "shoebox shooter" is utter garbage. Neither HLL nor PS has realistic visual distances let alone engagement ranges; engagements in both games take place at 100-200 m, and the maps are very deliberately crafted to block or obscure views much beyond these distances (HLL is worse at this and much less realistic than PS, but it's going more for raw visuals and immersion rather than for the same milsim feel anyway).

Again, this cannot be stated emphatically enough. Understand this because it is important. Neither HLL nor PS have the sort of realistic visual distances or engagement ranges that WWIIOL has, and that matters. A LOT. Up until a month or so ago, I was unsubbed from WWIIOL (free play only); this past year, I'd mistakenly assumed that as a die-hard inf player in *this* game, HLL and PS could *finally* scratch that itch better than WWIIOL. I was wrong. PS comes much closer than HLL to the *perfect* WWII experience I've been waiting 20+ years for (HLL is more like an arcadey-BF-type game, just with more authenticity added).

Yet, time and time again, I find myself coming back to *this* game instead of PS or HLL; I resubbed a month ago when it became obvious that neither game does what WWIIOL does.

Again, I'm an infantry-only player. I don't give a crap about planes (or tanks). If a game comes around that gives me a better, more realistic WWII infantry experience, I'm all for it. HLL and PS are fun for what *they* offer, but they are NOT offering the same thing that WWIIOL does. WWIIOL's realistic visual and engagement ranges make a world of difference (so does the combined arms, despite the fact that I'm inf only). The superior realism (despite incomparably worse graphics, warpy inf, far less immersion, etc etc) is what makes the experience for me.

A much better comparison would be a game like ARMA, which does indeed offer the realistic infantry engagements that I'm looking for. However, even the many good WWII ARMA mods still don't come close to offering the variety that this game does (aside from the fact that there's basically no PvP in those WWII ARMA mods).

Trust me, I was fully prepared to potentially throw in the towel when it came to WWIIOL, and merely continue to watch its development from the sidelines. After nearly half a year with PS and HLL, it is now obvious that they are shoebox shooters that don't offer the same thing that this does.

For now, WWIIOL continues to stand alone in terms of the gameplay it offers.

Edited by xanthus
4 people like this

Share this post


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

This is why I posted it for future clients upgrades. Few years ago we were able to see infantry at larger distance. Thanks

I'm for a longer render distance ... will poll the folks and see how far it can be pushed reasonably. 

Share this post


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

I'm for a longer render distance ... will poll the folks and see how far it can be pushed reasonably. 

Preferably, within the context of 64bit (more RAM usage).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, scotsman said:

I'm for a longer render distance ... will poll the folks and see how far it can be pushed reasonably. 

Yeah. With the 8th and 9th iCore7 generation becoming affordable, I think we can move forward. Might wait for the 64bits client for that maybe.

Share this post


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

 

This is only half true (barely). I have *also* played Hell Let Loose beta (I was on their email list and followed development since the very first public announcements). The same with Post Scriptum (I already have 200 hours+ play time with PS).

These games have maps large enough to encompass the largest land battles in WWIIOL; yes, absolutely true.

However, WWIIOL is *NOT* comparable to HLL or PS, and calling WWIIOL a "shoebox shooter" is utter garbage. Neither HLL nor PS has realistic visual distances let alone engagement ranges; engagements in both games take place at 100-200 m, and the maps are very deliberately crafted to block or obscure views much beyond these distances (HLL is worse at this and much less realistic than PS, but it's going more for raw visuals and immersion rather than for the same milsim feel anyway).

Again, this cannot be stated emphatically enough. Understand this because it is important. Neither HLL nor PS have the sort of realistic visual distances or engagement ranges that WWIIOL has, and that matters. A LOT. Up until a month or so ago, I was unsubbed from WWIIOL (free play only); this past year, I'd mistakenly assumed that as a die-hard inf player in *this* game, HLL and PS could *finally* scratch that itch better than WWIIOL. I was wrong. PS comes much closer than HLL to the *perfect* WWII experience I've been waiting 20+ years for (HLL is more like an arcadey-BF-type game, just with more authenticity added).

Yet, time and time again, I find myself coming back to *this* game instead of PS or HLL; I resubbed a month ago when it became obvious that neither game does what WWIIOL does.

Again, I'm an infantry-only player. I don't give a crap about planes (or tanks). If a game comes around that gives me a better, more realistic WWII infantry experience, I'm all for it. HLL and PS are fun for what *they* offer, but they are NOT offering the same thing that WWIIOL does. WWIIOL's realistic visual and engagement ranges make a world of difference (so does the combined arms, despite the fact that I'm inf only). The superior realism (despite incomparably worse graphics, warpy inf, far less immersion, etc etc) is what makes the experience for me.

A much better comparison would be a game like ARMA, which does indeed offer the realistic infantry engagements that I'm looking for. However, even the many good WWII ARMA mods still don't come close to offering the variety that this game does (aside from the fact that there's basically no PvP in those WWII ARMA mods).

Trust me, I was fully prepared to potentially throw in the towel when it came to WWIIOL, and merely continue to watch its development from the sidelines. After nearly half a year with PS and HLL, it is now obvious that they are shoebox shooters that don't offer the same thing that this does.

For now, WWIIOL continues to stand alone in terms of the gameplay it offers.

WWIIOL combat does not spill out further the size of the maps in those games generally.  It is confined around the towns.  If it does, it is very rare.  

Regarding engagement distances.  The military qualifies even today at 300 meters and in for the most part.  Why do you suppose that is?  I would guess it's because your average infantry engagement is 300 meters and in.  HLL has two maps,  St. Marie Du Mont and Hurtgen Forest.  Bocage and Forest.  Exactly what type of engagement distances do you expect in bocage and forest terrain?  Even where I live right now, if I walked out of my house I would be hard pressed to find something that I could engage 400 meters away.  Engagement distances are heavily dependent on the terrain you are in.  WWIIOL essentially has very little terrain wise. I once had a no bush bug and the whole game looked like a giant treeless golf course. There really isn't much by way of terrain variation other than strategically placed bushes and trees to block sight lines.    

Share this post


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

I play a lot of WWII games.  It is a mistake to think that WWII Online now has a corner on the realism market.  I was beta testing Hell Let Loose the other day.  My squad was moving to a capture point together and got in over its head.  I had to use my .30 Cal machine gun to suppress while the rest of the squad disengaged from contact.  At one point I heard one of the guys actually say "I up, they see me, I'm down" while doing short sprints to move away.  That experience happened exactly 0 times in 16 years of playing WWIIOL.  I actually end up talking to a lot of ex WWIIOL players because I use the same game name in all the games (not this game name, the other one that was perma banned completely from the game and the forums for arguing on said forums).  I have had the "post mortem" discussion on WWIIOL many times with people while playing other games.

Understand this because it is important.  WWIIOL is a sandbox shooter.  It used to be bigger than the shoebox shooters of old but it is no bigger than any modern sandbox shooter.  You don't really have a monopoly on map size anymore in a practical sense.  You can talk about the scale map of Europe all you want but the fact of the matter is that most battles take place in a relatively small area around the FB and Town of an attack objective.  Nobody drives from AO to AO on the ground.  In some cases the battle space is actually smaller than a lot of modern shooters.  Different AOs are really just like playing different "maps" in any other shooter.  Why do I as a player care that I could technically drive from that AO in Antwerp all the way down to that other AO in Dinant?  The map is essentially empty and useless between the two AOs.  I know that and you know that so for the most part neither of us are venturing there.  Newer shooters are providing, in many cases, a larger practical play area with more varied terrain and a more realistic infantry experience.  A lot of them are providing much better squad play and small unit tactics.  Even when squads work together in WWIIOL they are not using very sound small unit tactics.  One of the major adjustments my squad had to make was that we had to use more realistic tactics while playing other games. 

There are a lot of inbred ostriches who bury their head in the sand and refuse to look outside of family for answers around here.  WWIIOL does a lot of things really well but fails to capitalize on them and it could stand to learn a thing or two by evaluating other games.

Well I have to say I think you are missing the forest for the trees. Not sure I agree with your definition of sandbox. You're talking about infantry combat and not a hint of air play or combined arms. IL-2 has 100s of km on a side (400?) but miserable ground play..mostly modded. I play lots of other games and I know too well the limits of some current game engines and what their devs have had to do to get around them. We could go over each title in turn.. looking at strengths and weaknesses. I looked at post scriptum and wasn't really impressed to be honest. The vehicle kill mechanics were pretty poor. We could talk war thunder or any others but it's a big mistake you think other titles aren't evaluated for strengths and weakness.

the original game had a global vision... Im going to push to realize that original dream such as I can. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I'm for a longer render distance ... will poll the folks and see how far it can be pushed reasonably. 

I would guess the vast majority of players now have rigs that would support longer render distances.

Share this post


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

I would guess the vast majority of players now have rigs that would support longer render distances.

Agree - the only question is how far. Increased render distance will alleviate many ills. As for range the average engagement range in WWII was around 600-800 meters for armor... so 300 and below is decidedly point blank for average combined arms engagement in the ETO. 

What would be the biggest pull for new players? A new theater not modeled in other titles? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just for the record.. the number of complaints about a 300 meter m-4 carbine facing 7.62mm and larger weapons at range in Afghanistan are many... 300 meters is ok for urban combat or close quarters... not so much so where longer engagement ranges are possible. 

Share this post


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

And just for the record.. the number of complaints about a 300 meter m-4 carbine facing 7.62mm and larger weapons at range in Afghanistan are many... 300 meters is ok for urban combat or close quarters... not so much so where longer engagement ranges are possible. 

As I recall, the Apaches and Specter gunships that we actually used to kill them had no problems with the ranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heavy weapons when you were discussing small arms? I'm talking apples to apples - infantry firefights. 

Share this post


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

As I recall, the Apaches and Specter gunships that we actually used to kill them had no problems with the ranges.

They are......  However having one on station when needed is a whole different issue. 

*nudge back on topic*

Share this post


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

Agree - the only question is how far. Increased render distance will alleviate many ills. As for range the average engagement range in WWII was around 600-800 meters for armor... so 300 and below is decidedly point blank for average combined arms engagement in the ETO. 

What would be the biggest pull for new players? A new theater not modeled in other titles? 

6.8 SPC FTW.

Share this post


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

What would be the biggest pull for new players? A new theater not modeled in other titles? 

Dunno about new players, but new map would bring a lot of old players back for a look. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By now we are really venturing into WWIIOL 2.0 territory. Better graphics, 64bit, new terrain, better fidelity. 

But tgat said I agree with what was said that WWIIOL is not a shoebox. Maybe now many battles are, but increase the server population and have town based resupply abd it's a completely different beast.

As a pilot I'm biased, but you simply can't do combined arms in a shoebox. You have to give planes the space they need otherwise it's a fake AI script or cheesy spawn in the air.

Good example was the fight at Sedan a few days ago. The fight covered reasonably 25 sq. km from the far N woods by the FB to the S ridge by the river with a fierce air war overhead that see-sawed from Bertrix to Montfucon. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bmbm With the new TOE ... is there any expectation of balanced total number of units (within reason)? Meaning .... for infantry i know that there will not be total parity in terms of weapon types (smg vs. semi-auto vs. rifle, etc) ... but added all up, should the head count be generally the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, blggles said:

Dunno about new players, but new map would bring a lot of old players back for a look. 

'paying attention'

Share this post


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

@Bmbm With the new TOE ... is there any expectation of balanced total number of units (within reason)? Meaning .... for infantry i know that there will not be total parity in terms of weapon types (smg vs. semi-auto vs. rifle, etc) ... but added all up, should the head count be generally the same?

Yes, bayonet/dismount numbers are roughly even give or take a few. Aircraft numbers are also nearly even. Tanks and at-guns are the exception as they are more susceptible to cost effects within the given budget. Infantry costs two digits, tanks up to five digits.

Share this post


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

What would be the biggest pull for new players? A new theater not modeled in other titles? 

Definitely something new in the environment - be it trees, bushes, anything to refresh the game really. New units and the new sounds are good, something new to learn and affect overall gameplay.

On that note, I saw a terrain update noted for the recent patch but in playing over intermission noticed nothing different? I did see the new grass which was nice. But terrain looked exactly the same. Was it implemented? Same for the HC uniforms thing, I didn't see any of those unfortunately.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bmbm said:

Yes, bayonet/dismount numbers are roughly even give or take a few. Aircraft numbers are also nearly even. Tanks and at-guns are the exception as they are more susceptible to cost effects within the given budget. Infantry costs two digits, tanks up to five digits.

Ok - you may want to double check the infantry numbers as they exist in the game. Not saying this wasn't intentional (obviously I have no clue), but in case it was not - here is what I saw:

Brit Inf Flag - 364 infantry 

Brit Armor Flag - 260 Infantry

French Inf Flag - 369 Infantry

French Armor Flag - 313 Infantry

German Inf Flag - 410 Infantry

German Armor Flag - 284 Infantry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read all but what do the changes mean for armour in later tiers? In terms of numbers. 

Only CRS need reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks choad, will do. Last I checked they were off +-10-20 bodies.

17 minutes ago, rotsechs said:

I haven't read all but what do the changes mean for armour in later tiers? In terms of numbers. 

Depends on how you define armor and whether you include the DLC tanks or not. The total is pretty high, but in terms of high-end vehicles there's 50-60ish decent tanks per armored brigade in tier3, somewhat fewer in tier2. Should be enough to support a really decent battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 44. Did play to uncountable number of games. This is the only I always come back since 2004.

Thing is, IMO, this game needs numbers badly. No matter what we do to the game, it won't work without enough players. Even unbalanced is not a problem anymore with enough numbers.

5 Vs 20 is same ratio than 20 Vs 80 but the in-game feeling changes radically.

The Question:

Do we aim for new players or we try to recover old.ones first?

Apparently Steam release was not as successful as intended. We do not retain enough players.

What do we do?

I'd say that We have enough stuff.

Enough inf, enough ATs or tanks.

I'd work on new mechanics like area capping or new way of deploying FBs.

I'd work on the interface, coms or so.

I trust the new team, at least they are trying and they are trying hard. I'd support any change even if I may internally disagree.

Keep going Rats

 

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.