• Announcements

    • XOOM

      Volunteer PHP Developer wanted to revive the Gazette!   07/24/2019

      We're looking to properly revive the World@War Gazette and need a solid PHP developer to help take some work forward. If you have some skills with PHP and are looking for some experience and to bring important home page news / recognition for individual players back to WWII Online, I'd like to hear from you! Submit an inquiry to jobs@corneredrats.com with some details about your experience. You will need at least 10+ hours per week to contribute to the team. The Gazette's current status can be found here: https://www.wwiionline.com/resources#gazette
snipey

WW2OL has one thing that other games do not: a big map. Play to your strength.

81 posts in this topic

13 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Realistically, there should be "front lines" across the entire front, with the two sides dug in and facing each other a km or so apart. It should be impossible for a bunch of infantry or an armored car to just drive around an opposing-side position to attack it from the back.  

There aren't enough players to simulate the defensive lines at towns, let alone the lines between towns. 

We know that CRS's original game-concept was that fighting would be at and immediately adjacent to towns.

Why shouldn't there be pairs of impermeable, undefeatable AI "front lines" between the front line towns, stopping say a km or two out, to channel the fighting where it belongs?

Then there'd be no need for location-aware rules on where spawn points could be set up...at least for vehicle based ones. You could set one up anyplace you could get to. The enemy would do the location limiting for you.

What are the tile dimensions again?

Share this post


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

Whoa nelly.  I could buy a lot of what you're selling but not this.  I would agree that the current nodal spawn castle fight plus AO effectively creates this, but if nothing else the air guys have to fly over that map and arrive at the combat area in one piece, and just cause HCs tend to spread AOs around for supply and FB state purposes doesn't mean the game can't have regional fights or at least armor columns/interdiction going on.  Used to happen a lot more, pop is more of a reason for lack of that not game design.

If there are 30 people on each side, that's a platoon.

If 20 of those on each side are inf, and the rest tanks/air, we have a squad action, with some combined arms. It;s just a numbers thing.

The number of actual players, doing something in an AO tells you what the action is. With serial respawning, you can bump it up a bit, so 10 guys can be a platoon maybe, as they die and respawn. The numbers aren;t exact, but that;s what I mean by a squad action.

Share this post


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

Realistically, there should be "front lines" across the entire front, with the two sides dug in and facing each other a km or so apart. It should be impossible for a bunch of infantry or an armored car to just drive around an opposing-side position to attack it from the back.  

There aren't enough players to simulate the defensive lines at towns, let alone the lines between towns. 

We know that CRS's original game-concept was that fighting would be at and immediately adjacent to towns.

Why shouldn't there be pairs of impermeable, undefeatable AI "front lines" between the front line towns, stopping say a km or two out, to channel the fighting where it belongs?

Then there'd be no need for location-aware rules on where spawn points could be set up...at least for vehicle based ones. You could set one up anyplace you could get to. The enemy would do the location limiting for you.

The idea of @pfmosquito is a good one.

I'd say dump brigades, and make squads a unit of deployment. CPs all over between towns (farmhouses, crossroads, the extant ruins, etc). If a squad is placed on them, they get a couple 180 degree AI LMGs (facing opposite directions) and the spawn list is 1 lmg, 1 SMG, 6 rifles, a mortar, and a grenadier (something like that), and a small ATG. Certain CPs that are the right size (farm house with a truck sized barn) can have trucks, larger ATGs.

The HC then puts defensive units as they see fit over the front, and larger concentrations can exist in reserve to move up (brigades the supply the squads). (might be automated? Maybe a squad per CP like a garrison, and platoons are larger units to be explicitly deployed?)

Attackers can then assault the CPs, some will be soft caps, others will be contested. If you take one, into the enemy line, you have started a local bulge, and side CPs can spawn and cut you off. It's much more dynamic.

27 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

What are the tile dimensions again?

800x800m? Something like that?

Edited by tater

Share this post


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

800x800m? Something like that?

That's the number that comes to my mind, I wanna hear Rat or Jwilly numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game boils down to sitting in a building with a flag. What do the vets do? Sit in buildings with flags or drive trucks to put down a bunker with a flag so that you can walk to the building with the flag quicker. This is your game in a nutshell. WW2OL. Your .5 scale map of Europe be damned, it's all pointless. It's all about the same god damned building with a flag on it. 

Then you have the case of people moaning about losing the war of sitting in buildings with flags on it. So people quit playing and game changes become a debate and players switch sides all in order to balance the number of times a certain side wins the war of sitting in the same god damn [censored] building with a flag on it. 

This game is the special Olympics without a participation trophy if you think about it. 

 

 

Edited by snipey
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** The game boils down to sitting in a building with a flag.

Yes, the end battle does.

 

So the question is, how do we encourage the earlier parts of a battle?

The setup (ZOC), the move to position on the town to prepare for assault (flanking?), the actual assault?

 

Maybe add facilities (they are just there for area control, say 4 to 8) outside of towns, someone said 300 to 600m out.

(Or better yet, make area capture, a crossroads, a farmhouse area, a wooded area, a hill top; that would be part of a towns facilities)

Then, make sure no MS can be set if closer than 350m to a facility.  These outer facilities/areas would basically block attacker from setting first MSs too close.

Finally, require full EWS on a town for actual CPs to go hot (no more 1 person mole capping spawn).

Then, the attacker has to move in, capture an outer bldg/area or two, which will allow their MS to move closer to actually assault the town.

Basically, move the first fight out of town, then fight to the town - and culminating with the fight in the CP.

This, with some sort of frontline mechanism (so MS can't be placed behind towns, but only in 'friendly or no mans' area) might encourage more setup type battles?

 

Would prolly have to set EWS to 1500m for all units too - don't allow attacker to get so close with no EWS.

Oh, and need to change the 3 story SPs to just ground level.

 

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of outskirts first, and in general any mechanic that results in attacks coming from the side, you know, where the attackers have forces massed. In game, those are the towns with the Brigades in them ;) .

Having something like that first gives those outposts a way to defend in a more realistic manner.

All these new CPs, and the old ones, and all MSPs should have smaller spawn lists which can slowly resupply (not a trickle, they are reinforced with a complete new squad after XX minutes). If the CP/Depot/MSP is lost, those troops are gone for a while, so taking them is not meaningless. The small spawn lists, and slow resupply means that if you kill a bunch of the enemy, you don't have to worry about a rash of new people coming to the 911 call, and an army comes out of nowhere. They can come from neighboring CPs.

Share this post


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

*** Instead, it's pretty much all SMGs in town until they are gone.

I had an idea where the town spawn list would be broke into 3 companies - seen from the spawn in window.

And, HC would have to activate a company for it to be used by players. (only 1 at a time, unless one was under 50%, then 2nd could be activated)

Then, only 1/3 the SMGs would be available at a time.

But, there are issues with that too - HC would just activate a different company soon as SMGs ran out of first one.... or no HC on... or players would complain they are stuck with rifles when 2 more companies are available.

But, I get your point and have thought about that too - everyone just spawns SMGs / LMGs till gone, then rifles; that is a bit unrealistic.

Though, I think many players are learning not to do that, they are using rifles more.

 

HC have to activate - and straight away we have a fail - we dont have HC for long periods of every single day.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, though, I suppose System would always activate 1 company in every town, and as soon it was 50% or lower, automatically activate a second company.

 

Share this post


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

Realistically, there should be "front lines" across the entire front, with the two sides dug in and facing each other a km or so apart.

That was WWI not The Battle of France 1940. The campaign we supposedly are fighting was one of maneuver and rapid action, and it starts after the breaching of the Dutch and Belgian frontiers, there were no static lines and strategic bombing. The static lines in France were bypassed hence we fight in Holland and Belgium, pushing down into Lux and N France. The initiative rested with the attacker, and they did not send a message to the defenders;

" I say old boy, how about we fight this morning at 10:30AM? Will that give your chaps long enough to have had their breakfast and positioned their ATGs? It will. Oh super!" 

After the initial Axis assault and breach of the frontiers, the allies were in an almost constant state of disorder, re-positioning sometimes several times a day, and always going back towards the next river and the channel in the BEF case and towards N France for the AoF. Battalions within the same brigades had no idea where their sister units were, never mind their higher echelon HQs and support units. They did not retreat a town or village at a time, they pulled back from one outmaneuvered riverline to the next. IIRC the Matildas fought just one action, it was "a draw", but they were once again outmanouvered to their N ans S, and the British retreated abandoning the few Matildas that had survived the action.

This is a game not a recreation of actual combat. I doubt many would want to "play" a game where you spend hours terrified, witnessing the death and horrendous injury to your brothers, images that will never leave you. This is a GAME not real warfare, and you are not real warriors so give up claiming it isnt "realistic". Of course it isnt.

 

S! Ian 

Share this post


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

Agree, though, I suppose System would always activate 1 company in every town, and as soon it was 50% or lower, automatically activate a second company.

 

Or we could just have all the units activated and not have to jump off the depot roof until we got SMGs back into supply? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or the spawn lists could not let people spawn what they want all the time. Standard units until 1943 had 1 SMG per section/gruppe. In 43 the Germans moved to 2-3 SMG/gruppe, UK rifle sections stayed the same (1 bren, 9 rifles). French were 1 MG, 11 rifles (1 a grenadier), but anythign after summer '40 is counterfactual, so I'd let them change to 1 SMG, 1 LMG, 8 rifles, 1 gren as a standard squad. US never had SMGs as standard equipment, it was 1 BAR, the rest M1s (3 had grenade projectors which were easy to move, so all could have that capability as an option).

The extra units would be in specific platoons within a company, some might have 1 sniper per platoon, other platoons might have a mortar squad.

8 minutes ago, ian77 said:

That was WWI not The Battle of France 1940. The campaign we supposedly are fighting was one of maneuver and rapid action, and it starts after the breaching of the Dutch and Belgian frontiers, there were no static lines and strategic bombing. The static lines in France were bypassed hence we fight in Holland and Belgium, pushing down into Lux and N France. The initiative rested with the attacker, and they did not send a message to the defenders;

Front lines != trenches.

It means elements operating in the field, deployed in intelligent, defensive positions (or for offensive action, offensive, jumping off positions).

Most combat was done during the daytime, so the units would bed down where they were (foxholes, or wherever they could find a place to sleep) with people on guard just in case. That is what the "front lines" were. Were they a few hundred meters from each other everywhere? No.

Would they always be centered on towns? Mostly, yeah, but more because that's where the roads and RR stations were (meaningless in ww2ol, sadly).

The big problem is that just like the towns, the terrain is globally to porous to everything. Forests you can zoom through at max truck speed, all the time, sans roads. No real terrain imitations at all.

So units deployed in the field would be more discrete than a ww1 front, but within the places they were, would be more what we think of as lines. So miles between units, sure, but along the ways that the enemy could drive? Many would have men dug in, even if just for the night. That's what we are getting at, temporary positions, not trenches. Massing of forces that are actually out in the world.

For real maneuver warfare, much more thought needed to be put into the roads (we need many, many more of them), and what units can use the roads. Logistics also matters, if things are going to move fast, logistics needs to be a thing, but the game doesn't care about bridges, and they are also far, far, far too easy to rebuild.

Maybe this can fix some of the OP issues.

1. Bridges stay down unless a side holds both sides for some long time period (real life days). Alternately, fixing them requires a HUGE PPO (it can look like parked rows and rows of trucks, and it takes XX truck-hours to rebuild, and killing trucks means you need to build a new PPO) near the bridge be maintained for some large number of hours---reset if it gets bombed out (and not that hard to kill).

2. If a side can run around past real units (make garrisons smaller), that's fine, but their supply can't catch up, and then the players have to manually drive trucks forward to resupply units (from a few towns back). Not just 1 truck and warping, like figure out how many trucks it would take to move a ww2ol brigade as a reference. Have the trucks actually then each contain X% of what they are moving, and if destroyed, it's lost. OP side then at least needs to have guys do chores to move forward at high speed (and a few aircraft can then harm that in a non-trivial way).

3. Because bridges are hard to replace, blowing a bridge matters. It can stop the enemy advancing for Allies, but makes counterattack very hard.

4. Obviously FRUs go away, because you can't swim across a river and spawn an army out of your butt.

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

and they did not send a message to the defenders

No, but the defenders were not asleep in their beds, waiting for the enemy to show upin the barracks to decide to leave the building.

Your notion of surprise is perfectly correct as long as every single unit in a ww2ol spawn list is on the battlefield (meaning in the game now, manned by a player), waiting for combat in every area it is deployed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares who wins? Everything resets and you know what? You get to do the same war with sitting in the same building with a flag on it all over again. Time to stop worrying about the mentality of winning and losing a game that has little competitive parameters. This is a simulation. It's about the battle, not the war. If your side is losing, you can't control it unless you play 24/7 and dictate who plays what side. Why for the love of God does everyone make a big deal about winning or losing a map that lasts weeks or months just to feel good about winning a map that has no reward or progression system? Just play whatever side you want.

I for one only play axis. I prefer to play German equipment in every game I play. I think allied side is boring. That's just my preference. In turns out that most the axis dedicated players have always been more skilled on average in this game than your average allied player. That's just how it happened when this game hit the shelves. No need to quit playing or change sides just to even the amount of times a side wins or loses. Most of all, changing the effectiveness of equipment with the objective of side balance should not be happening either. This has nothing to do with my side bias. If I was an allied player, I would be equally disgusted if I could be invincible in a Matilda or fly a bomber that takes more hits than a tank. It's a simulation. Not an e-sports match. I think that a lot of the vets being dedicated to axis throughout the history of this game is purely in spite of the fact that it's the harder side to play.  That or, they are like me and are complete wehraboos. More experienced and better organized squads rolled the map in early wars on the axis side? The reaction was to nerf rather than improve the gameplay. That was the mentality of early CRS. They thought that the allies winning more campaigns would make for a better gaming experience. But in return, it angered the player base over the years and has pushed people away because you are not simulating battles realistically, you are just trying to please people who get caught up on a trivial aspect of the game. My fond memories back in the early day was being a rifleman in the open terrain with Section II and staying alive for hours, I really never cared about winning or losing the map. I just logged on to have fun with my squad and employ good tactics when I played. 

Several years ago when XOOM took the helm, I had hoped that direction of side balance would change to improving the immersion and simulation of the game, but I'm not really sure the direction has changed. But it's not over yet, the mindset can still change and we can make it happen. Just need to flip the script and be our own game instead of trying to compete with games we can't compete with. I really do feel for the current CRS. As someone who thinks in the real world of business and marketing, I know it's rough. I am very thankful to all the hard work and labor of love the volunteer staff puts into the game as well as the subscribers and builders that support it. I know negativity comes out more than praises, but hey we are men with testosterone in our blood and we are playing a game packed with adrenaline. Anger is usually our first emotion. I just think that CRS as a whole going back to the early days lost sight of how to captivate the magic of this game. I mean, Post Scriptum is a beautiful and competitive version of this game on a small scale, but if you look at their servers, they are hurting in population themselves. There just ins't a big market for hardcore WW2 FPS. Hell Let Loose pretty much betrayed their backers and are trying to make it even more casual so far to attract that battlefield crowd. People cried that they had to walk too far, so they added more spawn points. People cried that there were too many objectives, so they made it linear. People cried that suppression was too much, so they made it non-existent. Gamers like us are just a dying breed. You gotta go against the grain and just embrace it. Be your own game. Let the soy boys play their fortnite. 

The grand strategy of pushing the map is just meant to roleplay the immersion of tactical play directed by a given strategic situation when the player logs into the game. Yeah it was pretty fun when I played HC. It was fun to move flags around and simulate armchair general in a way. But even that has taken a step back. Now this garrison system has made it even more stale in terms of being a high command officer. If I joined HC, what would I do? Switch an AO and sit in a building with a flag on it. When I can't capture that building with a flag on it fast enough, I just change the AO hoping to rush a different building with a flag on it quicker than the defender is able to react. Most the time it just comes down to a zerg rush mentality and spawn camping. Like I said, the current objective system is more fulfilling on other game titles than this. But, it's the scale of the game and the fundamental system of a sense of realism that gives us an advantage. It just needs to be improved upon and made the focus. 

Honestly, winning or losing the war has no effect on my ability to get out there and have fun. I mean, look at the German operations of Citadel and the Watch on the Rhine or the allied operations of Overlord and Market Garden. Germany was already fighting a losing battle, but these battles that happened late war are some of the most fascinating and fun experiences to simulate. When the map is almost over and you are defending one of the last german towns with a panzershrek trying to kill as many shermans as possible, it's like you are some volkgrenadier somewhere on the Siegfried line just prolonging the inevitable. You likely won't win the map, and who cares? But you are playing and fighting a fun simulation. At least that's how I think of it. Yes I'm a competitive gamer. You put me in a match of Post Scriptum or Hell Let Loose, yeah I'm going to try to win. But those are timed matches with sensible parameters and the battle only lasts a couple of hours at most. They are different games than this. WW2OL can never be those games. It's not meant to be those games. 

We could focus more on just having fun battles and simulating them if we abandoned this stale objective system and made the game more about tactical situations rather than giving a damn about who wins or loses. 

But who am I kidding? Even if anyone agrees with some of the points I've made, the ship has probably sailed and from a developmental standpoint, making changes now is probably impossible. CRS does what CRS does and the rivalry and endless bickering over who wins the maps will probably never end until the server shuts down for good. I'll still continue on. I'll get emotional, praise the good, rant about the bad, and contemplate whether to play or not on a daily basis. I just hope that whatever keeps the game alive and enjoyable is found because yall are okay in my book whatever the outcome. It's just a game. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get this drilled into everyon'e wonky noggins.

 

GAME.  Using SIM ACCURATE EQUIPMENT.  To PLAY A GAME OF WWII EQUIPMENT COMBINED ARMS COMBAT.

 

It's NEVER GONNA BE LIKE THE REAL THING.  EVER.

 

Best we can do is use shortcuts and a bit of theatrical misdirection to get a FEEL of WWII combined arms combat, not recreate it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

No, but the defenders were not asleep in their beds, waiting for the enemy to show upin the barracks to decide to leave the building.

Your notion of surprise is perfectly correct as long as every single unit in a ww2ol spawn list is on the battlefield (meaning in the game now, manned by a player), waiting for combat in every area it is deployed.

They did not have a barracks, they were in foxholes and barns desperately trying to find their HQ and their next planned defensive position. Once your front is punctured, the rear towns were not active manned by fresh brigades standing to, they were rear echelon wallahs bricking it when they heard the rattle of tank tracks coming down the road., hastily packing up shop and joining the floods of refugees on all the roads. If you want realism in the game where are the refugees and civilians? Where are the PBI trying to fill waterbottles in the lull in action? 

This is a game, and nothing like actual combat. We can have realistic performance modeling of weapons. but at present an opel or 232 can bounce a tiger off the road... so we dont have accuracy in this area. This is a skirmish game, with multiple small unit actions and missions that are constantly repeated, the campaign map serves to provide a different town layout etc as we go east or west. But it is a game, we get to live and die time after time, we have no fear of death and we can choose what we want to spawn up to the limits of the spawn list. Telling paying customers they may not spawn an smg when there are 40 or 50 in supply but it is not realistic to use it yet will not win much praise from the general player base.

Tater, you asked about the "half SMGs" - this refers to the "Hardest Campaign Ever" when axis had virtually all panzers removed from the majority of flags and allies lost much of their smgs, all in the name of realism. It was a disaster for player numbers and seemingly for subscriptions judging from Xooms posts. Allies could not defeat axis infantry who outnumbered their supply in smgs and lmgs, eventually every fight was rifles v smgs in the CPs. Axis won. Many tankers left the game as well, axis because they had no tanks, allies because they had no one to fight. When "realism" is chosen over gameplay, it is invariably the game which has lost. 

 

S! Ian 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

Best we can do is use shortcuts and a bit of theatrical misdirection to get a FEEL of WWII combined arms combat, not recreate it.

This is all I really want. A feeling of immersion. The current paradigm doesn't do it very often (just enough to make me want more). The comments about staring at a wall really ring true with me.

 

Last night I was at the Rem-Essen FB defending (just 2 of us), and looking around I said in the chat, THIS is were we should be fighting.

The long road down a hill, some trees on both sides, open in other places. Some of the forests have the berm/bush terrain, the one uphill had a ditch around it.

Imagine a really good fight there, with as many peeps as might be spread out in a large city elsewhere on the map in a serious fight. That would be cool.

Share this post


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

Let's get this drilled into everyon'e wonky noggins.

 

GAME.  Using SIM ACCURATE EQUIPMENT.  To PLAY A GAME OF WWII EQUIPMENT COMBINED ARMS COMBAT.

 

It's NEVER GONNA BE LIKE THE REAL THING.  EVER.

 

Best we can do is use shortcuts and a bit of theatrical misdirection to get a FEEL of WWII combined arms combat, not recreate it.

THIS

Share this post


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

That's the number that comes to my mind, I wanna hear Rat or Jwilly numbers.

800m x 800m. The tileset is about 62 custom designs, I think, not counting the plain land tile and the plain water tile. If you want to see the full range of tiles, you can readily work it out by reviewing Five's maps, some of which have the tile grid superimposed on them.

Tiles don't have any elevation built into them except for riverbanks. The world creation engine "stretches" the tiles to fit the corner heights created by the DEM (satellite height) data, which...not coincidentally...is per an 800m x 800m grid. 

Tiles do have roads/railroads/bridges, rivers/riverbanks and forests built into them.

City/town buildings, berms, ditches, walls/fences, individual trees and all bushes/bushlines are separately placed.

Share this post


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

This is all I really want. A feeling of immersion. The current paradigm doesn't do it very often (just enough to make me want more). The comments about staring at a wall really ring true with me.

 

Last night I was at the Rem-Essen FB defending (just 2 of us), and looking around I said in the chat, THIS is were we should be fighting.

The long road down a hill, some trees on both sides, open in other places. Some of the forests have the berm/bush terrain, the one uphill had a ditch around it.

Imagine a really good fight there, with as many peeps as might be spread out in a large city elsewhere on the map in a serious fight. That would be cool.

What General is going to attack you up hill, into woods, in prepared positions, in close proximity to your supplies and reserves?  If he has to use that line of advance, he will blow the FB, (probably by backdooring it) our version of severing your communications and go around you.  Some strong points have to be assaulted, in game these are the towns and cities, but these too can sometimes be cut, and nullified.

Do you only defend in game? You always seem to want the perfect defensive position/set up. 

You are allied yes? You should be "immersing" yourself in the desire to recover the homeland lost to the dreadful Boche not being Wellington and seeking potential positions for your next defensive battle! :D  We know the axis won the Battle of France in six weeks, we know the axis have been winning our campaigns recently, and this seems to have set a permanent fixation with the allies on defending rather than attacking. That is great if that is how one wants to play this game, but if you never attack you can never win the campaign game. You will be like the British Tank Corps and their Matties, you can hold the line for your one engagement, but your comrades lost elsewhere and you need to abandon your position, scuttle your tanks and retreat - in WWIIOL you cannot just defend forever and hope to win.

 

S! Ian 

Share this post


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

They did not have a barracks, they were in foxholes and barns desperately trying to find their HQ and their next planned defensive position. Once your front is punctured, the rear towns were not active manned by fresh brigades standing to, they were rear echelon wallahs bricking it when they heard the rattle of tank tracks coming down the road., hastily packing up shop and joining the floods of refugees on all the roads. If you want realism in the game where are the refugees and civilians? Where are the PBI trying to fill waterbottles in the lull in action? 

This was always the cry of people against "realism," that we'd need to model latrines, or other non-combat stuff. We're serially playing the guys at the sharp end. We're only concerned about people actually being shot at any given moment. The Allies took ~360,000 casualties (many more captured) during the 46 days of the BoF, the Germans about half that casualty figure. There was some fighting.

I'd actually like that to be more of a thing. Some front units fighting, then a breakthrough, and the Allies have to try and pug the hole by picking a place in the rear to make another stand.

Just for the sake of variety, honestly. But that is secondary.

 

6 minutes ago, ian77 said:

This is a game, and nothing like actual combat. We can have realistic performance modeling of weapons. but at present an opel or 232 can bounce a tiger off the road... so we dont have accuracy in this area. This is a skirmish game, with multiple small unit actions and missions that are constantly repeated, the campaign map serves to provide a different town layout etc as we go east or west.

I want some immersion, nothing more.

 

6 minutes ago, ian77 said:

But it is a game, we get to live and die time after time, we have no fear of death and we can choose what we want to spawn up to the limits of the spawn list. Telling paying customers they may not spawn an smg when there are 40 or 50 in supply but it is not realistic to use it yet will not win much praise from the general player base.

This I disagree with. The German ToE has close to the right number of SMG/rifles for 1940, the UK actually has way too many. The problem is that the spawn lists are so huge (even in a garrison) that literally all players can have them initially. Since CQB is so awful, they dominate. The Allied SMGs are worse at range IMO, so picking a SMG is committing to staying inside a CP to me (YMMV, obviously), whereas I get hit with SMG fire all the time at pretty long range (I think this has as much to do with poor rifle modelling than excessive SMG accuracy). Anyway, since the CP combat that dominates winning the game is what I see as the biggest problem, the SMGs are preferred for obvious reasons. That said, even late in the war, rifles still dominated, so if the game prefers SMGs because they are more effective, the game is broken. Fix the capture mechanics, and maybe rifles are preferred, right?

 

6 minutes ago, ian77 said:

Tater, you asked about the "half SMGs" - this refers to the "Hardest Campaign Ever" when axis had virtually all panzers removed from the majority of flags and allies lost much of their smgs, all in the name of realism. It was a disaster for player numbers and seemingly for subscriptions judging from Xooms posts. Allies could not defeat axis infantry who outnumbered their supply in smgs and lmgs, eventually every fight was rifles v smgs in the CPs. Axis won. Many tankers left the game as well, axis because they had no tanks, allies because they had no one to fight. When "realism" is chosen over gameplay, it is invariably the game which has lost.

Thanks!

The UK has too many SMGs right now, so did they get them back? Like they have way too many (and I play allied), and not enough LMGs (SMG/LMG ratio should basically be 1 on all sides).

The armored vs infantry unit distinctions are actually a cool idea, but I think that they should make more, but smaller units. Then the HCs can decide how to deploy them, armor all together, or a mix with inf 1:1, whatever. Tank companies were what 12-14 tanks? I'd make companies, or even platoons the unit size to move around on the map. Let the sides organize as they see fit.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ian77 said:

That was WWI not The Battle of France 1940. The campaign we supposedly are fighting was one of maneuver and rapid action, and it starts after the breaching of the Dutch and Belgian frontiers, there were no static lines and strategic bombing. The static lines in France were bypassed hence we fight in Holland and Belgium, pushing down into Lux and N France.

Partly historically correct, partly just wrong. The French did have continuous defensive lines behind the Meuse. They failed to cover the footbridge over the dam near Dinant. And, their forces disintegrated after Ninth Army was unable to move fast enough to counter their tactical defeats near Dinant and of course Sedan. But elsewhere they maintained lines. The Belgians had a continuous line along the entire Dyle River. The French from Namur to north of Dinant had an effectively continuous line, wherever the Meuse was bridgable.

And after the fiasco of the first weeks of the campaign, WWII fighting was about defensive lines. Actions occurred due to someone breaking through the opposing defenses, or...in Libya and Egypt...going around a hanging flank.

Attacking an enemy position from all sides simultaneously does not in any way relate to how WWII worked. A game that includes that functionality isn't about WWII.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But again, you want the allies to only defend. This is a game. Most people like to win when they play a game. If the allies are to have to keep retreating and reforming their lines then we need to give them a goal, and means to measure their success or failure. You seemed determined that the axis will always be on the attack and always eventually win the Battle of France. 

And yes, the smgs were returned to the allies, but it was too late, many saw it as the last straw of CRS bias against the allies (nonsense of course but passions run very high in this ultra competitive game that so many of us love!). They also slowly trickled a few panzers back to the axis - we are talking 4 stugs 4 232s and 2 P38ts  V 6x Matties 4 Matty CS, plus vickies etc. It was a disaster for gameplay and player numbers, and we have never recovered. The previous map to the realistic spawn proportions we had 3 AOs regularly, and sometimes 4 - this was pre 1.36 remember when extra AOs were harder to achieve. After the changes we rarely saw 2 AOs even in prime time. Numbers recovered a bit as panzers were added a few at a time (initially there were 25 PnzIIs in the axis Armoured flags because this was historical) but player numbers never really recovered from the "Hardest Campaign Ever" disaster.

 

S! Ian 

Share this post


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

Partly historically correct, partly just wrong. The French did have continuous defensive lines behind the Meuse. They failed to cover the footbridge over the dam near Dinant. And, their forces disintegrated after Ninth Army was unable to move fast enough to counter their tactical defeats near Dinant and of course Sedan. But elsewhere they maintained lines. The Belgians had a continuous line along the entire Dyle River. The French from Namur to north of Dinant had an effectively continuous line, wherever the Meuse was bridgable.

And after the fiasco of the first weeks of the campaign, WWII fighting was about defensive lines. Actions occurred due to someone breaking through the opposing defenses, or...in Libya and Egypt...going around a hanging flank.

Attacking an enemy position from all sides simultaneously does not in any way relate to how WWII worked. A game that includes that functionality isn't about WWII.  

It also wasnt about 30 v 20 or a "battle" with 250 troops to spawn. This is a game.

A game that is struggling to survive.

IMHO Any changes have to be easily implemented, and encourage players to log in, log in for longer, and to encourage them to get their friends to play.

We were told that fixing the rambo lmg would bring back hundreds of allied players, hopefully some returned, and hopefully very few axis subscriptions were lost. ANY CHANGES NEED TO BE NET SUBSCRIPTION GAINS not losses, regardless of realism - yes I know many on these forums disagree, but I truly do not want to see this game end, and I fear that changes that do not encourage players to play will just be more nails permanently closing the WWIIOL coffin lid. 

I play this game because it is/was a great game and I made many great friends. I do not play because I want to role play being a soldier in 1940 north west europe. The game is set against the background of 1940, and has a flavour of WWII. It is not a recreation of WWII.

S! Ian 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.