• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New job posting.   02/23/2019

      The Community Management team is looking for war correspondents to provide news stories or after action reports to be published on our website and our Steam forums.  Player correspondents imbedded with a squad is fine along with reporters overall who might want to produce stories about the campaign, a piece of equipment, a battle or a skirmish - all stories are encouraged and welcome.  If intertested in a volunteer war correspondent position apply at Tman@corneredrats.com
BMBM

Your idea of Fun

281 posts in this topic

Seriously the first AAR was against 3 german tanks whos crew were dismounted and seemingly drunk. Its this report that is as close to spot and stalk as you get. But, it was a chance encounter really with a ton of artillery fire and fog leading to a chaotic happenstance. Ffs it even says the patrol didnt hear tanks or anything and it was like 7 dudes all lugging ammo with only one dude likely having binoculars.

All the rest were defensive in nature firing on tanks that were attacking positions and or rolling by. Also a significant amount of 'fired with no effect' reports.

Not seeing anything that supports lone rambo sapping, also all your reports indicate vegetation being significant as obstacles ...

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

CRS screwed the pooch this last campaign when they gave the Axis double the SMG supply as the Allies, and yes the imbalance was laughable.  

 

I don't think they will be making that mistake again.  

I don't know,  they seem pretty convinced they had it "right"

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Yes, Rambo gameplay is nonsense. None of the guys in the article you posted was operating independently, entirely away from his unit. It's unit physical cohesion that's missing from infantry gameplay in WWIIOL. RPAT use is entirely good, as long as it occurs in the context of cohesive unit operations. Rambos running through the countryside by themselves is bunk.

So is single tanks operating by themselves. All game combat elements should operate in units.

Thank you,   getting rid of "Rambo" action is a worthy  goal. But why is it limited to sappers and anti tank personnel  ?   I can drive a Sherman or a Tiger out into the middle of no place ALL ALONE and kill the hell out of stuff but I cant be hunted down in the same manner ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, david06 said:

Because a unit's game performance here hardly ever matches its historical dollar cost.

Right. It's odd that CRS thinks there's sufficient evidence that real world cost is correlated to game world performance...even though there's plenty of reliable objective evidence from CRS game systems (kill ratios, K/Ds) of the opposite. 

It's almost as if they've forgotten that the modeling here is very simplified, with major elements of real combat missing (artillery, deformable terrain, visually complex terrain with much greater hideability, much less off-road mobility, realistic weather, realistic night, proximal unit operations, friendly fire, Fear of Death, mines, morale, capture meaning, and so forth), resulting in game combat being very different in many ways from real world combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** All game combat elements should operate in units.

I thought about this before.

What if the game required another unit within 100m of you to move further?

Exception being of course the truck and maybe the first 300m away from any friendly facility / MS / FB.

 

So, if you were alone, you'd get to 300m and couldn't go the 301st meter w/o another unit 100m near you.

Tanks couldn't leave towns further than 300m, unless they had another tank or infantry escort.

Basically, require a small amount of unit cohesion to move - a 2nd unit.

Then, 1 tank can't go rambo around, but 2 could (but then it isn't rambo, is it?); same for infantry, no single ATS, he'd have to have a rifleman accompany him.

 

I suppose one problem with this is, if 2 tanks got 1500m away, but then 1 died; the second tank could no longer move until some other friendly unit was within 100m of him.

Same for a 2 person infantry team 800m out, if 1 dies, 2nd player no longer could move. Hmmm.  Guess you'll travel in 3s! so if one dies, no matter.

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

*** All game combat elements should operate in units.

I thought about this before.

What if the game required another unit within 100m of you to move further?

Exception being of course the truck and maybe the first 500m away from any friendly facility?

 

So, if you were alone, you'd get to 500m and couldn't go the 501st meter w/o another unit 100m near you.

Tanks couldn't leave towns further than 500m, unless they had another tank or infantry escort.

Basically, require a small amount of unit cohesion to move - a 2nd unit.

Then, 1 tank can't go rambo around, but 2 could (but then it isn't rambo, is it?); same for infantry, no single ATS, he'd have to have a rifleman accompany him.

Or they could leave this topic alone and go fix things that are actually broken instead of trying to limit things.  I mean how big a deal is it that a guy with a bazooka can go kill a guy in a tank ?  If neither of them has anyone covering them then who really cares ?

 

LESS LIMITS and more fixing stuff that actually broke

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the over pop side will always have maneuver advantage ...

 

how bout allow tanks to drop a 4-8 infantry MS. Meaning, only 4-x infantry could ever spawn from it, one shot as in can’t be deployed again once the tanks close distance.

upon deployment, an auto mission is created for defense of the tank(s), infantry that spawn on mission are scored for the time they’re on mission and within X distance of the tanks.

its asking a lot for infantry to cruise out from FB or AB ‘with’ the tanks. We just don’t have the man power ATM to warrant that type of spawned in time potentially away from other more important roles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

LESS LIMITS and more fixing stuff that actually broke 

 

Some of us think that one of the things that's broken is the combat gameplay.
 

Quote

 

Then, 1 tank can't go rambo around, but 2 could (but then it isn't rambo, is it?); same for infantry, no single ATS, he'd have to have a rifleman accompany him. 

 

Why two for infantry? Why not say half a squad/section for infantry, i.e. four?

Otherwise you just get Rambos setting up second accounts, and Ramboing them together.

Tanks IMO should always be able to be operated by a single player, but with a time delay switching between positions, to make one multicrewed tank more effective than two single-crewed tanks. Then a two-tank unit requirement for tanks generally would mean four players.

Old-CRS was desperate to get something running because of their marketing problems and the risk of the original publisher shutting off funding. My guess is that with more development time, they would have recognized the unrealism of the current random-lemmings game, and designed something better.

New-CRS of course inherited the current game, and has a long list of immediate concerns, but it sure would be an improvement to have the game evolve toward small unit operations and tactics.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** its asking a lot for infantry to cruise out from FB or AB ‘with’ the tanks

Or 2 tanks could just go; doesn't have to be infantry.

 

*** Or they could leave this topic alone and go fix things that are actually broken instead of trying to limit things.

True, was just thinking of 'in the game' aspect, it would become more unit and team oriented - not solo player oriented.

By forcing a small amount of teamwork to get anything done, maybe more teams will form, also more fun etc?

 

*** Why two for infantry? Why not say half a squad/section for infantry, i.e. four?

Just because current game pop is still to low I'd think?  As we get more players playing, no reason this couldn't change to 3 players.

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take away smgs and guys log and dont play, take away tanks and guys dont log and dont play.  

 

Taking things away is Not good, one of the things that make this game fun is that you can log in and do whatever you want.

Take away my binos , not fun, take away this and that = not fun.

Taking things away from people to make others happy is not the way to do anything.

3 people like this

Share this post


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

By forcing a small amount of teamwork to get anything done, maybe more teams will form, also more fun etc?

Tell me to use a tank I have to have a guy with a rifle next to me is a quick way  to get me to say BYE BYE

Delems , you have been here for a very long time.  Have you ever seen the RATS force something on the player base and have it work ?

Teamwork happens on its own. Telling people that they "Have to do this" is a sure fire way to get them to say no

 

Edited by hondo
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an idea.... I'm not proposing this.  I said I had thought about this before.

The idea is simply to require teams (at least 2 people) to get things done, not within your own town though, you can go solo in your town and 300m out.

And tankers don't have to have infantry with them, they just tank in pairs.  (kinda like in real life... tank platoons)

As willy said, some of the combat gameplay could be improved, I agree.  Maybe this isn't the right way, but it is a thought.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support the idea of squads and teamwork being required. I will admit the solo sapper/ant trail of EI isn't really building any level of immersion for me, and it does not represent the tactics of the era. Games like Squad and PS with "squads" that are formed around an NCO with rifles/support weapons are the way forward. The same could be done with armour. Rather than say stop a player from moving if he is below the team limit I'd argue for some kind of spawning restriction or suppression effect to enforce team play. Of note is the US Civil War simulator War of Rights for how it penalizes both the player and the team if players go off too far off solo in order to enforce player groups. 

We have a few mechanics to update in WW2OL before we get there, like the squad spawn and UI, but creating workable teamplay is completely possible in my opinion. WW2OL 2.0 would require this from the get-go I'd argue. I know there are vets that really like the sandbox playstyle and would resist these changes, but I believe they would help create a much more authentic experience in the long run. Also, nothing is stopping players from setting up that long-range hilltop ATG position, the only thing is not you cannot do it alone. How much better would infantry fights be if they were centred around squads rather than a constant flow of single enemies? Play Project Reality to get a sense of how different it could be with the right mechanics. 

Still waiting for 2.0, I really hope we, the community, can make that happen in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Telling people that they "Have to do this" is a sure fire way to get them to say no

Agreed, mandatory changes to existing gameplay that existing players like would be bad marketing.

So the way forward is to make the gameplay goal be more combat effective than a bunch of independent singles.

One two-person tank, using fixed multicrew code, would be more combat effective than two one-person tanks.

A 2/3/4-man infantry fighting group would be more combat effective than two or three or four independent infantrymen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The obvious way to encourage team play is through the game's reward system. Give rank points meaning, and reward them for team play.

Just a possible example: free players get generic Joe the rifleman. Generic Joe has a point clock and gets points automatically based on how many mission mates are within a certain distance; a slow build of points. Generic Joe gets many more points when he caps as a unit than when he caps solo. Generic Joe gets no points for a kill when he has no mission mates near, many more when he does.

Etc.

Generic Joe can then trade his points for an extra grenade or two.

Or a pistol, which he can keep as long as he survives his missions.

Or a semi-auto when they are available <-- like 500 points.

Anyway, reward team play, and make it count. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rank ceases to have any real importance quite quickly is the primary problem with using that as incentive.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Rank ceases to have any real importance quite quickly is the primary problem with using that as incentive.

Correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, thats why you allow the trade of rank points for more grenades, or a pistol, or a flamenwerfer <--- 10,000 points.

Rank points are a number count, they are not indelibly linked to advances in rank. They are almost certainly fungible.

Alternately, you could produce a novel number count, a reflection of rank points, and call them 'mission points', and use them for reasonable perks.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, madrebel said:

Rank ceases to have any real importance quite quickly is the primary problem with using that as incentive.

Have an idea.

Rank Points = Highest level of equipment you have access to, but does not grant the actual ability to spawn
Categorical Spawn Points = used to "purchase" a unit, above the base units, to spawn (IE rifleman, lowest atg, lowest afv, lowest plane, fmb)

You would get a slider to determine where youd like your mission points to go, Rank or Spawn, by percentage

Spawn points work like such.
Spawn rifleman - cost 0, lets say somewhat uneventful mission, we recapped one depot
Lets say 15 points.
We despawn RTB, and we have slider set at 50/50 
7.5 points to rank, 7.5 to spawn

Ok so we save up some spawn points, lets just say 45
We spawn a SMG - Cost 45
Infantry Spawn point balance now 0

We go out on an escort mission to protect some 88's
EI are scared and none come close enough to shoot, so we despawn to FMS at end of mission
0 points from the mission, but SMG is undamaged
Despawn status was RTB
Refund 45 points for the SMG - direct to infantry spawn point pool
Balance now 45 again.

Next mission, we kill 2 EI and capture a depot
so lets say 15 for the cap, and 5 for each EI
25 mission points on RTB plus 45 refund for undamaged SMG
so 12.5 to rank, 12.5 to infantry spawn pool plus 45 refund to infantry spawn pool
infantry span points balance 57.5

Ok now next mission, we take the SMG again
leaving a balance of 12.5 in the infantry spawn points
We gun down 2 EI, but we get hurt, not killed but we take damage.

We RTB.
5 mission points per EI, so 5 to rank, 5 to infantry spawn points
balance 17.5
We RTB but we were damaged, refund 22.5, 50% penalty for being damaged.

If we had rescued, then 11.2 points refund, 75% penalty for being RES with damage (50% for RES with no damage)

So infantry spawn point balance 39.7
Cost of SMG is 45, so we have to do some rifle missions now to earn points to get another SMG.

And the points earned as a rifleman can not be used to buy a tank or ATG etc.

Now, it goes without saying, but being KIA or MIA is a total loss of the unit, you get 0 refunded
total loss of unit points spent.

 

Edited by Merlin51
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mmhmm. Rank points, victory point, pixie dust point ... i dont care what you call it - we need a back end economy.

Share this post


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

Still waiting for 2.0, I really hope we, the community, can make that happen in the future.

Going to be a bit. We have a lot on that plate that still needs doing. As long as we're here and developing, we are working towards that big, massive, goal.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Lots  of stuff...

A slider is nice and simple. I think maybe spawn points not being categorical might be better in the sense of keeping it simple (as well as easier to code).

KISS

Edited by blggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 5:39 PM, blggles said:

A slider is nice and simple. I think maybe spawn points not being categorical might be better in the sense of keeping it simple (as well as easier to code).

KISS

Only issue there is i run around with a rifle, playing the fringe, popping a few things, and rtb for the points, save them up
then go use them to lets say spawn a top tier fighter, that is in limited quantity.

And i have no clue how to fly.
Little unfair to the guys who put in their time in the bf110 or H75 or Hurri and gained some skills etc that i popped into
this limited plane and impaled it into the ground 15 minutes out because i havent learned to fly.

That's why i was trying to categorize the unit points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.