jwilly

What to do about "gameplay blocked with PPOs"

17 posts in this topic

What's it take in the real world to flatten/scatter a dirt-timbers-and-sandbags fortification?

Not small or even large cannon shells. Not enough sustained force. 

Not aerial bombs, unless they're direct-contact hits with short delay fuzes. There's plenty of force at the slightly buried point of detonation, but that force diminishes very rapidly with distance.

In the real world, it takes either trained men with demolition charges and shovels to tunnel them into or under the object, or a bulldozer.

So, allowed methods:

1. HE "sapper charges". 

2. Bulldozers:

Take an available medium tank. Remove the turret, and cover the hull opening with a flat plate. (Or get fancy and make the vehicle look like it's got a stack of square timbers on top, plus other engineering construction materials...rope coils, buckets of waterproofing tar, shovels and picks, etc.) Mount a basic earthmoving blade to the front, with a small ground clearance. No need for an up/down animation or anything fancy.

There's no requirement to make such a vehicle an exact copy of anything. Every army had these, but except for the US they all were at least somewhat customized based on what tank chassis was available. For game purposes, just make sure that each nationality has such a vehicle in every tier.

In every army but USA, the turretless tank often was a multipurpose vehicle used for earthmoving, snow plowing if needed, mine clearance, vehicle towing, carrying bridge materials, and other heavy support tasks.

Drive the dozer into a PPO fortification, and it disappears in a cloud of dust.

b_5034_6.jpg

bergepanzer38_31.jpg

Mounting plates for an earth moving blade:

TD-3-38.jpg

Front mount for a winch for a lift/lower earthmoving blade...removed while the engineer vehicle is used for tank recovery:

image201.jpg

Centaur_dozer.jpg

MatildaII-Aus-Dozer.png

A27_Centaur-ARV_Dozer.png

0a2a32ff1c331f328f6c04ec08d7c9f7.png

6ae2211007c52159ec09ad76b9b81b3b.jpg

 

 

Edited by jwilly
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make them able to "support" armor by fixing tracks/engines as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that a Matty with a dozer on the front? The forums would melt.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

On 5/21/2019 at 4:38 AM, jwilly said:

bergepanzer38_31.jpg

Mounting plates for an earth moving blade:

TD-3-38.jpg

Front mount for a winch for a lift/lower earthmoving blade...removed while the engineer vehicle is used for tank recovery:

image201.jpg

Hello jwilly how are you?

Just a couple of corrections.

The image at the top is of the berg panzer variant of the Hetzer (Pz38t). The earth moving blade as you have described it is actually a towing anchor blade used by the vehicle to recover damaged vehicles. The blade is dug into the ground to give the vehicles winches more purchase to prevent the vehicle being pulled back while attempting pull the recovered vehicle out of bog or up an incline. Its presence allows the Hetzer vehicle to pull vehicles that are heavier than itself without slipping backwards. There is a limit to what it can pull however.

The "Mounting plates for an earth moving blade:" description of the visible attachments on this Bergpanther are actually fitted to allow the vehicle to push other vehicles. They are necessary due to the shape of the Panthers front hull.

Additionally the "Front mount for a winch for a lift/lower earthmoving blade...removed while the engineer vehicle is used for tank recovery:" is actually an AAMG (possibly up to 20mm) mount fitted on this Bergpanther, You can just make out the pushing plates on this vehicle as well. Just a little note the winches for both vehicles are located in the superstructure within the original fighting compartment. The Bergpanther has a box structure around the area in question while the Pz38t (Hetzer) appears to have supports for some weather protection. The last two images would be the closest the Germans come to a " bulldozer". An additional note the Bergpanther also had a towing anchor blade mounted on its rear like the Hetzer shown. Google "Bergpanther" to get some images as I dont seem to be able to post any here.

Cheers
james10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, all true, but used for earthmoving as well, and snow movement too in northern areas. The Germans, no different than any other WWII military force, needed to move dirt to prepare defenses, and they used the machinery they had. The alternative would have been lots of shovels, which would be absurdly wasteful when there's power equipment available.

In any case, the point of my post was to propose ways of modeling earthmoving capability for each game army without creating all-new object models. Yes, each army had other capabilities that were used for that purpose, but those other capabilities are not yet modeled and we need something that can be created as a variant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great ideas. great pix. great info. given some of the variants show above, could they not also be used to build or reinforce emplacements/berms/sandbags/dirt walls? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure...that's been proposed before, many years ago when Old CRS was thinking about extending the game to marketing-encompass Builders as well as Fighters, and no doubt CRS had already thought of it, but it would take coding which obviously is in short supply.

Share this post


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

Sure...that's been proposed before, many years ago when Old CRS was thinking about extending the game to marketing-encompass Builders as well as Fighters, and no doubt CRS had already thought of it, but it would take coding which obviously is in short supply.

Understand. But perhaps, as an interim 'minimum coding' test couldn't one, say, take the current infantry close-support tank models (the smoke ones or any designated medium tank) and without even changing the model, add the ability to: 

1. blow up ppos (even using false grenade and/or HE satchel existing code) and; 

2. place ppos (the existing ones or limited to just sandbags and emplacements? )

From limited but live observational experience in-game - there do seem to be a number of players who like to build as much as fight - even if its taking a break from the fight. Could literally lead to a new class of DLC called 'builder'. Even. Maybe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By coding, I meant a visual process of stepwise building of berms and other earthworks, as one would do with a dozer blade. Old CRS discussed the possibility of building a four-step-height berm in the old days, to provide cover for guns, tanks and infantry that set up with weapons at various heights.

CRS can build model variants these days, but code is required for those model variants to interact with the terrain in not-already-code-supported ways.

Allowing dozer models to build/destroy as you propose would be fine, of course. It'd add a layer of complexity and an availability limitation to what otherwise would be the same process as at present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello jwilly, has your day been ok?

13 hours ago, jwilly said:

Yes, all true, but used for earthmoving as well, and snow movement too in northern areas. The Germans, no different than any other WWII military force, needed to move dirt to prepare defenses, and they used the machinery they had. The alternative would have been lots of shovels, which would be absurdly wasteful when there's power equipment available.

 

Anyhow I would have to say categorically NO in the case of the German recovery vehicles.

Why you might ask. Well if you look at ALL of the obvious bulldoser vehicles the doser blade is attached to the front of the vehicle where it can be used in a forward direction. Additionally the vehicles driver can see the blade and how it is preforming and make adjustments to the positioning of the vehicle. This is not possible if the driver is in the front and the blade is in the back, as is the case with the recovery vehicles. No amount of communication can overcome the inability to "See". The two German vehicles that do have the appropriate configuration are likely based on a Snow plough but are probably used to clear roads of debris in built up areas.

As for powered equipment we are talking of the 1930's - 40's. Steam Shovels and rollers were rife. Also manpower, especially in the army, is easily available and abundant. I would be very surprised if "lots of shovels" were not the norm. Powered earthmoving equipment for the most part was rare during this period especially anything other that steam driven. I would suggest the US would have had the lead in this area however. Yes the US did have diesel powered caterpillar bulldosers, they even had armored ones they used in the Pacific predominately for airfield construction.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gameplay is not blocked by PPOs, PLAYERS are blocked by PPOs.

MORE of this might actually be good, assuming players can appropriately remove them. Here's a start:

Make a PPO that covers doorways.

Make a PPO that covers windows.

Make a PPO that mostly covers doors (loop for shooting through).

Make a PPO that mostly covers windows (also to shoot through).

The idea is to allow fortifying urban positions. Can you block CP or the bunker? Yep.

Can players blow them? Also, yep (makes a breaking noise). The goal here is not locking players out of the places the game requires them to go, it's making the players have to assault them, not sneak into them. I'd prefer inf at CPs to be able to shoot out more, vs staring at a wall or stairwell. They can turn to the door/stair AFTER a door is kicked in/blown.

If the PPO is a firing hole with sandbags/etc, it might take HE to bust (satchel, or grenade). Door objects perhaps get opened with the knife? The former results in a BOOM with breaking object noise, the latter could result in a breaking wood/creak noise.

I'd add camo objects as well, for the countryside to mask ATGs (I've proposed a fewe things to help ATGs, with the ultimate goal of removing much (all?) of the infantry AT sapper capability.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2019 at 10:32 AM, tater said:

Gameplay is not blocked by PPOs, PLAYERS are blocked by PPOs.

MORE of this might actually be good, assuming players can appropriately remove them. Here's a start:

Make a PPO that covers doorways.

Make a PPO that covers windows.

Make a PPO that mostly covers doors (loop for shooting through).

Make a PPO that mostly covers windows (also to shoot through).

The idea is to allow fortifying urban positions. Can you block CP or the bunker? Yep.

Can players blow them? Also, yep (makes a breaking noise). The goal here is not locking players out of the places the game requires them to go, it's making the players have to assault them, not sneak into them. I'd prefer inf at CPs to be able to shoot out more, vs staring at a wall or stairwell. They can turn to the door/stair AFTER a door is kicked in/blown.

If the PPO is a firing hole with sandbags/etc, it might take HE to bust (satchel, or grenade). Door objects perhaps get opened with the knife? The former results in a BOOM with breaking object noise, the latter could result in a breaking wood/creak noise.

I'd add camo objects as well, for the countryside to mask ATGs (I've proposed a fewe things to help ATGs, with the ultimate goal of removing much (all?) of the infantry AT sapper capability.

I like some of what you've proposed. I worry, however about the removal of all infantry AT capability. ATGs and the extremely few bazookas, PIATs and Shreks are not enough to leave infantry with the ability to deal with tanks, especially once the depots where ATGs spawn are camped.

That said, there were a few different infantry ATG options. Satchel charges were only one of them. I wouldn't mind seeing some of those proposed. One route might be Sticky Bombs. (Yes, they had some issues, but they should still meet the criteria for entry into the game. On the other hand, I do NOT want to see the satchel charges just go away, considering they have several other purposes as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sachels are part of core gameplay anyway (blowing FMS, FBs, etc), though HEAT ones are special, still.

I'm torn on infantry AT capability. I'd wager that the number of tanks killed by infantry with explosive charges of any kind was probably very close to zero. Having a few around as a possibility is good to keep tanks honest, but in reality if a tank is around and you are infantry... You're largely hosed. Besides, tanks can't cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 11:38 AM, jwilly said:

 

6ae2211007c52159ec09ad76b9b81b3b.jpg

The WWII Online zombie apocalypse Stug! Need a flame thrower and a couple MG34's and that thing is ready for the zombies! 

Would also make for a good plow when we make the game winterized around Christmas time :D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extreme under pop side should get flame throwers. (and lots of them)

Sure, side will still lose, but they'll have fun.

 

Share this post


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

Extreme under pop side should get flame throwers. (and lots of them)

Sure, side will still lose, but they'll have fun.

 

One side benches and hides waiting for next campaign, the other's side bench are fully invested in game. I doubt flaming weapons will change anything there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.