• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
snappahead

support tanks

181 posts in this topic

8 minutes ago, BMBM said:

I just told you that it didn’t cost anything in time or money. I completed the StuH in a few hours. It is modelled for the same reason as we will model any kit in the game: it existed in sufficient numbers to warrant its inclusion and it fills a role, however small.

I was working through the thread.

So if it is so simple, and saw service in numbers, why do the axis still have the vision obscuring antennae rail around the 232 - I thought the command vehicle was the 263? - and why not develop the 234, essentially a 232 with the 50mm gun? Less 234s built than StuH 42s, but of far more use in this game.

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BMBM said:

We have tweaked numerous items for both sides. You have the pz3n in your list and a few DLC pz2, and a bunch of StugG. For additional mg power, bring LMGs or 251s.

That's the first time I have seen the complete reversal of the original awful decision to cull allied SMGs referred to as a tweak! LOL

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ian77 said:

So if it is so simple, and saw service in numbers, why do the axis still have the vision obscuring antennae rail around the 232 - I thought the command vehicle was the 263? - and why not develop the 234, essentially a 232 with the 50mm gun? Less 234s built than StuH 42s, but of far more use in this game.

 

S! Ian

I have a 231 in the bag, without antenna. It might make it into some patch eventually. The 234 has a completely different chassis. Not trivial to model compared to the CS tanks.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BMBM said:

I just told you that it didn’t cost anything in time or money. I completed the StuH in a few hours. It is modelled for the same reason as we will model any kit in the game: it existed in sufficient numbers to warrant its inclusion and it fills a role, however small.

So CRS developed and put in game an HE SPG that I don't recall seeing anyone asking for, that can fulfil very very little in this game, that has a main weapon, HE, which by your own admission does not work properly, and Axis have this on their spawn lists to what, just eat up some more of the precious known only to CRS spawnlist production $$$s?

Seriously, ditch half/most of the 88s, and return the pak36, it is of far more use, and give axis back the PzII. Surely these are hardly Lexus type vehicles, or bars of gold? But they would be of some use to the axis players still left in game.

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ian77 said:

That's the first time I have seen the complete reversal of the original awful decision to cull allied SMGs referred to as a tweak! LOL

Players could only take so much history despite having called for it for ages, so yes, we evened that one out. SH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ian77 said:

Seriously, ditch half/most of the 88s, and return the pak36,

Already done.

Share this post


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

Players could only take so much history despite having called for it for ages, so yes, we evened that one out. SH.

Please do not misunderstand, I completely agree with the decision to return the SMGs to the allied spawn lists.

The game is not a simulation of the battle of France, we cannot drive round a defensive town and cut communications and supply. Our game is nothing like reality - there were hardly any actual battles for towns in the 1940 campaign, and the Matildas saw action just once. we have far more fights than actually occurred. If anything, soft capping is the most historically realistic way to capture territory that our game has, but is not what most of the players actually want to see.

Nice to hear that the 232 antennae could be going with the introduction of the 231. :) 

S! Ian

Share this post


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

I have a 231 in the bag, without antenna. It might make it into some patch eventually. The 234 has a completely different chassis. Not trivial to model compared to the CS tanks.

No one will be looking at the chassis just at the gun... so cant we just fudge it? go on..... :D 

 

Anyway based on your recent posts I have just this minute resubbed to see if changes to numbers of 88s etc means there is more "somethings" to play with.

Thanks!

S! ian

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you! S!

No fudging. And there will be more reasons to resub, and stay subbed, in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So its 4 panzer 3Ns in an axis inf flag lined up with how many allied "inf" tanks?

OK, if the axis infantry flags are really meant to be infantry units, and not a mixed KG (which is my understanding of how the axis operated?) Why do they still have 251s in them? Surely these should only be in the armoured flags?

Or, if the infantry flags are panzer grenadiers (and the preponderance of auto and semi auto assault weapons suggests they are) why not give them the panzer units that would have been with them?

Numbers wise, there were two allied players on discord, but not one single axis player. At least the axis DO had light ews, no action, but there was some EWS.

I shall try again tonight, but so far it doesn't look very promising. :(

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

allies get S76's, baby sherms, and stuarts in inf flags.

seal clubbing, not fun.

 

half tracks eating up the axis supply... you guys are soo out of touch, it's difficult to take you guys seriously.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The S76 are extinct or fewer in the edited list, swapped for M10s, and are/were there as a balance to the StuG3G which the babysherm can’t touch. If you don’t want that opposition you won’t have any Stugs either.

I can take out the sdkfz7 from the axis list but then you have no tows for the 88s and pak40s. Maybe you don’t want those either? And you don’t want the 251?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I feel we are hanging up on BMBM a bit here and he is in the thankless role Doc was, want to just say S! And thanks for all the passion and dedication to the game. We all have it as evidence by this thread, but hats off to you for taking this many steps farthur for all of us!

My comments are directed to the general gameplay design by CRS, and not you, although you happen to be in this thread and caught in the crossfire.

I think a major concern players have is the different between absolute capacity and relative capability.

Do the Axis have the ability to bring in weapons to suppress infantry spawns? Yes they do, we indeed have 251s, LMG, and a host of other weapons with the capacity to do that. But in "real life" that is WWIIOL the relative capability to fulfill that role is night and day different between doing it with an LMG or abd 251 and a Vickers. It's becomes the classic example of where production cost/value diverges from WWIIOL value since 1 Vickers is worth probably several 251s due to its survivability. But I supposse that due to the Vickers being a small tankette it's cost likely won't be that different from a 251. Yet some how the Axis need to find ever more innovative ways to fight in WWIIOL rather than simply spawning an MG-armed tank.

Im glad all these vehicles are modelled, and they should be in the game. I just think that the spawnlists should be made to give both sides the same relative capability. If there is a weapon that doesn't have a counter such as Allied heavy tanks or the Axis 88, then decrease their available spawn numbers to make sure the weapon doesn't dominate the battlefield. But I think the current system of having assault guns that can't do much against infantry relative to what an MG-armed tank can do is just poor game design, even though if it is the more historically realistic option.

Share this post


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

lmao I almost never see people use the stuH, and when I do I sometimes ask people how many kills they get and its usually none or a couple. It's too hard to use it as a CS tank and cut spawns/buildings/bunkers when you fire 1 round every 15-20 seconds. Plus its hard to use it most situations. For example, if there is an ei in front of you behind a berm, you have to contact that EI with the round, which is a very very precise shot. If you hit the berm in front of the ei, it won't damage the ei. then you have to wait 15-20 seconds for a reload. With a mg, you can hold down your fire button while you make a slight adjustment to your aim. Next is cutting things. So say they have a depot on one side of a street and the CP for the depot on the other side. you are trying to cut. You have to either contact the ei with the round or place it super close to him. That depth perception is very hard to calculate in the limited time you have to fire while an ei is sprinting across the road. Even if you are a great shot, itll still take 15-20 seconds to reload, which means more and more ei crossing that road. Plus, if EI smoke the road, you are screwed. you have 1 shot every 15-20 seconds to have an attempt to get ultra lucky and hit an ei crossing, where if you had a MG, you could just lay down a continuous stream of fire or bursts into the smoke. 

I think I made my point here and I hope this makes sense as to why people don't use it.

My statement isn't to argue if its historically accurate or not, it's to explain why people don't use it.

 

This throws out another question , why does the StugH have historical load times, I guess that is what CRS bases the load time on that platform due to the weight and size of the shell.

While all French one man turrets have a faster load timer all while they get to keep their sight picture of the target to boot. 

Just asking , it would explain while the Axis use it very little to almost not, while the other side comes in with the argument you want to loose more players if the one man turret goes historical.

Historical seems to be good for one side but for the others it's a unsub game breaking issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dre21 said:

This throws out another question , why does the StugH have historical load times, I guess that is what CRS bases the load time on that platform due to the weight and size of the shell.

While all French one man turrets have a faster load timer all while they get to keep their sight picture of the target to boot. 

Just asking , it would explain while the Axis use it very little to almost not, while the other side comes in with the argument you want to loose more players if the one man turret goes historical.

Historical seems to be good for one side but for the others it's a unsub game breaking issue.

We don't want any side to lose any more players... there are too few already, we should not be implementing piecemeal changes that drive anymore people to stop playing regardless of how correct the change is. Hopefully the LMG change actually gets some back, but nobody will resub just because the French one man turret tanks get their reload times increased..

 

 

S! Ian 

Share this post


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

The S76 are extinct or fewer in the edited list, swapped for M10s, and are/were there as a balance to the StuG3G which the babysherm can’t touch. If you don’t want that opposition you won’t have any Stugs either.

I can take out the sdkfz7 from the axis list but then you have no tows for the 88s and pak40s. Maybe you don’t want those either? And you don’t want the 251?

Glad you guys remembered that axis need the sdkfz7 to tow the heavy guns, 20 is so much better than the 10 you originally allocated. But, why would you threaten to remove all the HTs?

Somehow the axis in WWII managed to have HTs and guns, and infantry, and they also had light panzers and medium and heavy panzers, and all on the same battlefield, and all within the actual real world production budget that they had to work with (I am sure their production figures are wrong compared to your new bible of production costs!)  BUT we seem to be faced with CRS saying you cannot have all your toys, and we shall pick which ones you will do without, and if you question us we shall threaten to take your other toys away as well!

As mentioned elsewhere, historical gets applied (to only one side?) when it suits. 

 

S! Ian 

Share this post


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

The S76 are extinct or fewer in the edited list, swapped for M10s, and are/were there as a balance to the StuG3G which the babysherm can’t touch. If you don’t want that opposition you won’t have any Stugs either.

I can take out the sdkfz7 from the axis list but then you have no tows for the 88s and pak40s. Maybe you don’t want those either? And you don’t want the 251?

You guys are too out of touch to understand this is a game, not a economic sim...

 

Seal clubbing is bad gameplay. Why'd you throw away all of DOC's work on his acceptable ToE?

Edited by major0noob
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Why'd you throw away all of DOC's work on his acceptable ToE?

Because Axis had a 40% advantage, according to the economic model.

(can be read in the forums)

The StuH didn’t have an mg so we don’t give it any.

Yes it did, at least according to this original manual page 22.

Pic with Mg and smoke launchers

As I can understand, the gun in the StuH was loaded with grenade and powder bag.

That will explain a longer reload time compared with a case and grenade in one unit.

With a max powder charge it had a firing range of 12 km, how far is the sight possible to adjust to?

 

Edited by Hardlead
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Hardlead said:

Because Axis had a 40% advantage, according to the economic model.

So. The economic model has no bearing in gameplay.

It's pure economic sim, the game isn't in that genra...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We on the Axis side are at war with history
no more with the Allied team
in the name of the game today it should be

WWIIONLINE - AXIS x HISTORY


(Historia narrated on the one hand only)

S!

 

Edited by enemytank

Share this post


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

So. The economic model has no bearing in gameplay.

It's pure economic sim, the game isn't in that genra...

Being ironic dont work well over the key board, should know better. 

I dont agree with the reported consequences of the economic model, has no to little relevance in our limited game world imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hardlead said:

Being ironic dont work well over the key board, should know better. 

I dont agree with the reported consequences of the economic model, has no to little relevance in our limited game world imo.

Focus on the right issue.

The economic model is fine. It's how CRS has chosen to spend the two sides' budgets that's the problem. 

If the players could see the unit costs, I don't think they'd choose to allocate the budgets as CRS has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ian77 said:

We don't want any side to lose any more players... there are too few already, we should not be implementing piecemeal changes that drive anymore people to stop playing regardless of how correct the change is. Hopefully the LMG change actually gets some back, but nobody will resub just because the French one man turret tanks get their reload times increased..

 

 

S! Ian 

But that is what's happening.  

On both sides , we got the Historic argument and we get to see it in the LMG fix now ( both sides hold your horses) 

The German LMG did have a selector switch that would let the user shoot 3 round bursts per trigger pull if my memory serves me right.

Then in others it's playability .

It's like CRS picks and chooses what and why.

Let's say Tiger turret speed , Allies not happy.

Matildas in herds, Axis not happy .

Reload speed on StugH, Axis not Happy but I guess historic. 

Reload speed French Tanks , Allies happy , but not historic accurate. 

And so on and on.

It would be great if we the player base could get a clear cut answer how and which way they are going to handle things, are we doing the historic route or are we doing playability.

A little of both?

I just think the way it is now , each side is not happy . And thinks CRS prefers one side over the other , like the SMG spawn list,  we went historic I guess , then Allies complaint cause they had really nothing to fight with in the INF department,  it got adjusted then Axis looked at it , Allies whine and they get their way while other topics the Axis player base has complaint about get over looked ( or so is the feeling) and with that the resentment starts to creep up , and next step is I'll unsub. Just like we are gonna see once the LMG fix is coming in.

It's just a very Nasty cycle we are in right now. 

I don't have the answers,  but it's what I have now observed over the last few weeks. It's very toxic , both sides, within , against each other Axis vs Allies and the player base vs CRS.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Focus on the right issue.

The economic model is fine. It's how CRS has chosen to spend the two sides' budgets that's the problem. 

If the players could see the unit costs, I don't think they'd choose to allocate the budgets as CRS has.

The players must never see the holy words writ only for the chosen ones.

 

That said, imagine the arguments there would then be if we had a list of CRS costs!

 

S! Ian

Edited by ian77
to be serious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dre21 said:

 

It's just a very Nasty cycle we are in right now. 

I don't have the answers,  but it's what I have now observed over the last few weeks. It's very toxic , both sides, within , against each other Axis vs Allies and the player base vs CRS.

By and large it seems to be players V CRS over the spawnlists, even some of the more partisan allies see the problems, and the numbers in game just continue to trickle slowly away. Even if nobody unsubs, the game needs guys in game in order to work, not just money. Without players the game is just as dead as it is without their money.

1.36 - "the resuscitation"?

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.