dandare9

Improved realism

25 posts in this topic

I just wondered if some aspects of realism have been incorporated with regard to armoured vehicles. 

It has been noticed that the rate of fire from most panzers is lower than that of the allied tankers. In 1940, the German armed forces were very well trained and most panzers were fitted with radios for improved coordination. I understand we can't represent the 'radio' aspects but for rate of fire it seems strange that axis tankers can't re load shells as fast as the allies. A case in point being the S35. This tank had a 3 man crew...... yes only 3! The Commander had to spot, advise the crew, load and fire the gun. It was well known that this poor fella had too much work to do yet he can beat the axis tankers with more crew and, probably, better trained yet beat their rate of fire. 

Tiny details but these things make the game more authentic. Let's face it, the allies have the matty in tier 0 and tier 1 and the s35 is a very capable tank in it's own right in terms of gun and armour, so why give it another non historical edge?

By the way, did you also speed up the turret traverse on the tiger? If you did, it was a mistake. The driver can rotate the tank on the tracks faster as per the stug.

Dandare9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My vision of BGE is that CRS try to create all use weapons near 100% realism.

And i hope no stuff like Pz Maus come out, who not real use in WW2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems reasonable to model relative speed related to crew quantity. Quality is harder to characterize (later in the war, if you are losing, should the speed decrease, for example?).

That said, I have a Mauser and a SMLE, and I can run 5 rounds through the SMLE faster than the kar98, and unlike the Mauser, I can do so never leaving the sight picture. Model that, too. With less careful aim, I can run all 10 through faster than the Mauser's 5, still looking down the sights (a little rough on the shoulder after a while).

As for the radios, when the map and map marks first came out, I suggested a way to represent this Axis advantage.

1. Each player can mark their own map, but the player's own position is NOT on the map at all. Only their origin is marked. No player GPS.

2. Each player can share their marks with other players they are literally next to, while both in map mode. For armor, this means commander out.

3. Units with RADIOS (in RL) can share their maps with other units with compatible radios. So if German tanks could talk to each other, they have a huge for multiplier. If the other side didn't, they're SOL on sharing map marks, inf will have to call out tank positions (nothing we can do about comms, sadly) by voice/chat. "ET NE side town by oil tanks"

4. Compatible radios means what RL ability doctrine was, so if they could not talk to air, air gets no map marks shared with them. Indeed, I'd eliminate ALL ground icons between services 100%. Air should have to visually ID targets unless there is a forward air observer with a radio.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

***  I understand we can't represent the 'radio' aspects

I think there are ways we can model this.

Tanks w/o radios can see no marks on map, they have no comms chat bar but their squad chat.

If 2 tanks are very close to each other, w/o radio, and 1 marks, then I'd allow the 2nd tank to see it- just to promote working as team.

 

Same for air, can see no marks on map unless AIR radio vehicle/player is in the area.

 

Squad COs (and XOs?) would all have radios, all HC would have radios (not for air, but for army chat).

A squaddie marking something would be seen by all same branch squad members - but not other squads marks; unless the 2 squad COs had radio contact with each other.

This would drive a lot more local team action, with comms behind radios to organize and work together.

 

But, I think this would have to be looked at closely.  Radio channels might have to be reworked, how game played would change some.  And of course we don't want to make it to hard or complicated to play.

 

Along those lines, tanks with 1 man turrets absolutely should load slower I would think?

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, my detailed posts (many years ago) about this mimic those ideas, @delems. HC, etc are assumed radios. Any guys in close proximity could presumably share maps as well. Anyone in a facility with a radio can share contacts with other radios (CP, bunker).

I think when I first proposed this forever ago I said that the ML gets a map with his position, and anyone near him on his mission gets to share (to promote small unit cohesion).

Edited by tater

Share this post


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

***  I understand we can't represent the 'radio' aspects

I think there are ways we can model this.

Tanks w/o radios can see no marks on map, they have no comms chat bar but their squad chat.

If 2 tanks are very close to each other, w/o radio, and 1 marks, then I'd allow the 2nd tank to see it- just to promote working as team.

 

Same for air, can see no marks on map unless AIR radio vehicle/player is in the area.

 

Squad COs (and XOs?) would all have radios, all HC would have radios (not for air, but for army chat).

A squaddie marking something would be seen by all same branch squad members - but not other squads marks; unless the 2 squad COs had radio contact with each other.

This would drive a lot more local team action, with comms behind radios to organize and work together.

 

But, I think this would have to be looked at closely.  Radio channels might have to be reworked, how game played would change some.  And of course we don't want to make it to hard or complicated to play.

 

Along those lines, tanks with 1 man turrets absolutely should load slower I would think?

 

Why strive to make the game less accessible and fun? This is a game for pleasure/fun, not a chore. Guarding etc is bad enough without adding the inability to know where your team are and where the enemy is. You want to see more ninja town caps? Get rid of marks etc and only let squad COs and HC communicate. Sheesh it is herding cats to get peeps to spawn on D or AO as it is, you think they will obey orders and just sit and cover their assigned section of town like good little soldiers? You think squads will get off discord and not jump to other channels to share intelligence? 

The allies have enough communication issues (and so do the axis) without it being hard coded.

We dont need this GAME to become even more hard work and unpopular with the subscribers that are left paying and praying it continues to survive.

 

S! Ian 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Why strive to make the game less accessible and fun? This is a game for pleasure/fun, not a chore. Guarding etc is bad enough without adding the inability to know where your team are and where the enemy is. You want to see more ninja town caps? Get rid of marks etc and only let squad COs and HC communicate. Sheesh it is herding cats to get peeps to spawn on D or AO as it is, you think they will obey orders and just sit and cover their assigned section of town like good little soldiers? You think squads will get off discord and not jump to other channels to share intelligence? 

The allies have enough communication issues (and so do the axis) without it being hard coded.

We dont need this GAME to become even more hard work and unpopular with the subscribers that are left paying and praying it continues to survive.

The GPS and universal comms and data sharing make this a sci fi game, might as well dump the ww2 weapons, and make scifi weapons where we get no more complaints about balance, because they can simply make up balanced units, and give the UP side cool super blasters to make up for lack of numbers.

Adding fog of war makes the game better, not worse. Ninja caps go away by not allowing them in the first place. That's an arbitrary game mechanic that can be changed... arbitrarily. Make it take 5 guys to cap. Make EWS more specific (we are after all serially representing just a handful of hundreds of guys presumably deployed in and around town---EWS is not magic, it's what the guys in the outpost we don;t have are telling us they see (if they have a radio/telephone), or saw (if they sent a runner).

If the capture mechanics required linked facilities, and on-sides spawning, then we have a better sens e of where the enemy is. If AI someplace is shooting (or just blown), then missions near that AI should float to the top (or be auto created for defense---you're asleep in the barracks, then you hear MG fire).

Fog of war helps because you can set up a defensive position, or offensive base of fire, or even an ATG or tank, and not instantly have the position marked with accuracy for instant removal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My non-Xoom, non-CRS's/Playnet's-owner perspective is that at some point CRS will have to decide whether to continue competing with the giant game companies in the fantasy/unrealism-but-fun/sci-fi market slot, or instead commit whole-hog to the realism niche; and clearly communicate that decision to the marketplace.

Over the past eighteen years or so, CRS has failed to retain thousands of customers who wanted fantasy/unrealism-but-fun/sci-fi gameplay, and moved from WWIIOL to one of the giant games because they have better graphics and more toys. CRS also has failed to retain many hundreds of customers who wanted realism, and concluded CRS wasn't sufficiently interested in going there.

It's hard to convince customers what you are when you can't make up your mind, or feel you have to keep pretending to be multiple game-types at once.

3 people like this

Share this post


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

My non-Xoom, non-CRS's/Playnet's-owner perspective is that at some point CRS will have to decide whether to continue competing with the giant game companies in the fantasy/unrealism-but-fun/sci-fi market slot, or instead commit whole-hog to the realism niche; and clearly communicate that decision to the marketplace.

Over the past eighteen years or so, CRS has failed to retain thousands of customers who wanted fantasy/unrealism-but-fun/sci-fi gameplay, and moved from WWIIOL to one of the giant games because they have better graphics and more toys. CRS also has failed to retain many hundreds of customers who wanted realism, and concluded CRS wasn't sufficiently interested in going there.

It's hard to convince customers what you are when you can't make up your mind, or feel you have to keep pretending to be multiple game-types at once.

We've made a conscious decision to bring the game more closer to reality in a lot of ways since forming CRS 2.0. This can be demonstrated through audits, reworking supply lists and making historical introduction dates for weapons and vehicles more accurate. I don't intend to claim perfection here but these changes were made with good intention to follow through on the realism of our game. There's more work to be done.

CRS collectively is aware of our strengths and what WWII Online represents, along with its community. That is the primary motivating drive that keeps us all going and pressing into the challenges and eventually, we have been able to conquer them.

We'll continue that, with your subscription and moral support.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@XOOM, is the current player GPS map , and player icons something that can have settings changed for the server outside of regular play for testing? It seems like it might be interesting to try a scenario/event where icon range is extremely low (like no name til you'd be close enough to recognize a face), or even off, and with map contacts not shared, or not shared except to specific players, etc.

The map is obviously a very useful tool for organization, but IMHO it can be perhaps too useful. It instantaneously communicates to everyone, and everyone knows exactly where they are. It makes ambushes impossible, the map, and icon "skulls" both have this effect. The current state of play is that everyone has to always move. Muzzle flashes (excessive, IMHO) give shooters away at distance, and skulls (or even exact player positions) mean that we know exactly where all the danger areas are. This actually harms thoughtful play. An attacker sets up a good base of fire to cover people, and the muzzle flash, plus skulls, plus the ability of anyone to look at him, then draw a line on the map to where he is literally singles him out for destruction for combined arms.

It's partially a realism thing, partially just a survivability thing, and partially a gameplay concern, honestly. In the last case I think it makes for an an etirely different game. You cannot stop global comms, so units will always be able to call in strikes from tanks, aid from inf, or attacks from air in a way that no ww2 military could have dreamed of, but what you can control is the MAP and icon situation. Giving players a GPS was always a mistake, IMHO.

I would ideally have the map mark the origin for the player, not his current location. Perhaps it could be reset to current location as certain places (a CP, for example), though it would not move, it would center on that facility. I'd not allow map contacts to be shared between services as a start, at all, and I'd eliminate icons air to ground, entirely. I'd also dump the skulls on the map, and as icons, and reduce icon range substantially on the ground. I'm sure many will disagree, but I think that a little less information will actually improve play, and force a little more cohesion.

FF has always been something that is hard/impossible to add, but we all know how trigger happy we are (how many times have each of us shot someone coming into a CP or bunker who is a friend?). If we didn't have icons until closer range, we'd not harm friends, but we'd waste ammo, or give our positions away---this would incentivize IDing targets before shooting, not as much as FF, but more than magical icons doing it for us.

Anyway, it might be fun to see what it looks like as a non-campaign event.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

(try an event with GPS turned off, and map mark sharing turned off except in close proximity)

Xoom responded, in part:

Quote

I don't intend to claim perfection here but these changes were made with good intention to follow through on the realism of our game. There's more work to be done.

The question, I think, is where is CRS's design boundary. Would the above quoted suggestion fit into the "more work to be done" category...not with a commitment for immediate accomplishment, but nonetheless something that customers could consider a goal, by which they could be motivated? Or would it be disallowed from that category in line with the below quoted thoughts:

Quote

Why strive to make the game less accessible and fun? This is a game for pleasure/fun, not a chore. Guarding etc is bad enough without adding the inability to know where your team are and where the enemy is. You want to see more ninja town caps? Get rid of marks etc and only let squad COs and HC communicate. 

which other customers, preferring the game-style as discussed, would prefer?

Share this post


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

Guarding etc is bad enough without adding the inability to know where your team are and where the enemy is. You want to see more ninja town caps? Get rid of marks etc and only let squad COs and HC communicate.

 

3 minutes ago, jwilly said:

which other customers, preferring the game-style as discussed, would prefer?

I would make the server tell people CPs are being capped. There are different issues here. One is that there is an abstraction in the game of large forces (in being) that are only serially played by small numbers of players. One aspect of that abstraction are the AI units, awful (in both good and bad ways) as they are. Another is EWS (many hundreds of troops means they have pickets, etc). The server already tells us a facility has fallen, it could just as well tell us/mark that a facility is contested.

I guess I can see a slight change in the map that acknowledges the abstraction, to make it seem less modern/scifi.

We in a sense represent groups of men at once due to the spawning abstraction. So within areas where we have forces, there are people who know things, but we only get to play 10 out of 400 at a time, for example. If that was the way the magic map was thought of, then it can make some sense. None the less, it's still too perfect, IMO.

Giving us location, AND precise facing, for example. I'm less concerned with marking ei in a CP than I am with marking the precise location of an ATG, ET, etc.

How about the position is not a point, but a fuzzy circle (position is within the circle), and has no facing. The longer you keep the map open, the better the position gets (location back in the day to any precision would have involved a compass, visual landmarks, etc). Regardless, sharing that information I still think should be limited, even with the abstraction that we are 1 of many (invisible) troops/units. Sharing between ground an air? Short of a dedicated FO with a radio, that's not a thing (and I think most ww2 CAS coordination was done at a higher level, not guys at the front). So maybe all on a mission can share, but not separate missions? HC sees all? (that at least pushes unit cohesion). I don't think inf should get to share with non-inf units, however, and I think tanks should only share if they had radios in RL (that is something I recall reading about an advantage the Germans had in RL in the BoF, and I say this as someone would would suffer from this bit of realism).

Anyway, I think that while comms is out of CRS control, the map/icons ARE under control, and should be used in a way that drives desired gameplay goals. What's the goal, and could changes in map/icon use be helpful?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree with Tater here.

You may have a town with a suppousely enormous pool, but in the end with just a handful of defenders not even enough to have one in each CP.

So I support the idea of a Warning system in CPs. Either a mark of ei in the map plus a message in the screen 

This way we would encourage the team work when assaulting a CP instead of the lonely sneaky capper.

Well, this and that the overpopulated side needs a minimum of two cappers in the CP to begin capping.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 people min for a cap plus a warning when a CP is under cap is a good start towards enforcing teamwork and getting more players out attacking or defending vs sitting in CPs. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, I’ve always thought that WW2OL needs to focus its effort on realism vs quick play - it is why I joined originally and the only thing that makes it stand out, or should. It will never compete with rapid play FPS games, not should it try in that regard. 

This being said, I always wanted to see Docs Bloody Battles and Rapid Assault to see what else is possible with the current engine (thinking mission based historical campaigns and other non-standard campaign type offerings) 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, piska250 said:

I fully agree with Tater here.

You may have a town with a suppousely enormous pool, but in the end with just a handful of defenders not even enough to have one in each CP.

So I support the idea of a Warning system in CPs. Either a mark of ei in the map plus a message in the screen 

This way we would encourage the team work when assaulting a CP instead of the lonely sneaky capper.

Well, this and that the overpopulated side needs a minimum of two cappers in the CP to begin capping.

Now we are giving warnings that CPs are being capped? First we reduce timers to make it significantly easier for people to cap. Now we are going to warn the opposing team that their CPs are being capped by the enemy? Not necessarily directed at you piksa (my second comment is), but how much easier do we need it be for people? At this point, we might as well just have the GMs manually change towns over after games of Rock, Paper, Scissor. 

My second comment responds to, "but in the end with just a handful of defenders not even enough to have one in each CP."

That's because people won't guard. They choose not to guard and instead walking around the fields WHILE the enemy is already in town capping or have capped. Sure, there are obviously times to track the initial opel, blow the fms, of course...but when you have wide open cps and 20 people out doing nothing but 'hunting,' that's not a game issue, that's a person issue. 

Share this post


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

It's hard to convince customers what you are when you can't make up your mind, or feel you have to keep pretending to be multiple game-types at once.

Because this is in a forum read by players who don't have the long customer background of some of us, a bit of a clarification:

It's not that CRS doesn't know where it's headed. It's only that they have customers who especially like each kind of gameplay, and because of CRS's customer focus, they've tried over the years to market a game that -- they've hoped -- appeals to both customer types.

The challenge these days as seen from one long-time customer perspective is whether that middle path is working, or whether instead the game might be more commercially successful...which it needs to support ongoing development...by communicating a commitment to one direction or the other.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


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

Now we are giving warnings that CPs are being capped? First we reduce timers to make it significantly easier for people to cap. Now we are going to warn the opposing team that their CPs are being capped by the enemy? Not necessarily directed at you piksa (my second comment is), but how much easier do we need it be for people? At this point, we might as well just have the GMs manually change towns over after games of Rock, Paper, Scissor. 

There has always been a segment of the player population that seems to forget that we serially play a force that is much larger than the number played in a given AO at any moment. There could literally be nearly 1000 units in a AO on one side, right (do brigades stack with garrisons?), yet the number of players representing them might be... 10.

People complained that EWS was somehow a "crutch" as I recall a particular posted decades ago. Apparently we were supposed to post pickets in an arc around literally every front line town to wait for an attacker. Then, of course, he'd have to tell everyone (somehow magical comms were NOT a crutch to these people, it's not like the sniper scout had to run back to the AB to report the attacker, after all), then people spawn in after the fact.

Capturing a CP means you control the area. Moles, even in 2 player teams, frankly, do not control the area.

 

21 minutes ago, xohorvath said:

My second comment responds to, "but in the end with just a handful of defenders not even enough to have one in each CP."

That's because people won't guard. They choose not to guard and instead walking around the fields WHILE the enemy is already in town capping or have capped. Sure, there are obviously times to track the initial opel, blow the fms, of course...but when you have wide open cps and 20 people out doing nothing but 'hunting,' that's not a game issue, that's a person issue. 

LOL, it's because there are literally not enough people.

I'm newly returned, and I tend to respond to EWS a lot. I can't tell you how many defenses I've been in in the last 1.5 months where I see the same group of dedicated defenders, all of whom guard what they cap/recap, and we have fewer in town than CPs.

From a player standpoint, guarding is awful. It's bad enough in a CP where you can respawn, then clear it, but it's worse in places like factories, etc in cities. You could be there an hour, then die looking at the map, or chatting out of boredom, and you can't get back to kill the attacker. Anything that mitigates guarding as a required activity is good, IMHO.

Part of the way I would fix this---within the current system---would be to give all non-depot CPs a spawn point, but with a small spawn list (squad/section/gruppe) that takesa LONG time to come back. The enemy needs to kill them, basically. Depots might get a similar spawn list, but it refills faster. The CP design could change to reflect this as well in some fashion, even having a ground area that a tank can park on (they control ground, too, after all).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been part of the fast early defense fraternity, a number that is very small on both sides, and I'm horrified at the idea of 'x facility being capped' messages.

Mostly cause it will kill offense dead.  And will make the skull feature look like realism incarnate.

Only way out if you went this direction is to reduce the cap timers by 2x minimum, you get one chance to clear them if you aren't there otherwise boom it's gone,

Underpop would need lightning fast caps.

Edited by Kilemall
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I have been part of the fast early defense fraternity, a number that is very small on both sides, and I'm horrified at the idea of 'x facility being capped' messages.

Mostly cause it will kill offense dead.  And will make the skull feature look like realism incarnate.

Only way out if you went this direction is to reduce the cap timers by 2x minimum, you get one chance to clear them if you aren't there otherwise boom it's gone,

Underpop would need lightning fast caps.

Good points.

I think part of the problem is that the spawn lists are so huge, and they are shared. So while defense is almost never prepared as it should be, it ends up being "911" and everyone spawns in and zergs.

That's the sort of gameplay I hate on both sides of the attack/defense game. If the spawn lists were broken up and belonged to facilities/MSPs, and capturing/destroying those removed those units, then at least when a CP gets capped, that depot's spawn list is gone from the forces in town. Perhaps if recapped the depot spawn list takes a while to recover. It's tough to make the current capture paradigm work in a better way, sadly.

Share this post


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

Good points.

I think part of the problem is that the spawn lists are so huge, and they are shared. So while defense is almost never prepared as it should be, it ends up being "911" and everyone spawns in and zergs.

That's the sort of gameplay I hate on both sides of the attack/defense game. If the spawn lists were broken up and belonged to facilities/MSPs, and capturing/destroying those removed those units, then at least when a CP gets capped, that depot's spawn list is gone from the forces in town. Perhaps if recapped the depot spawn list takes a while to recover. It's tough to make the current capture paradigm work in a better way, sadly.

I fail to see how facility based spawnlists would be the slightest bit superior.  We had what I call Base Spawnlists in the original part of the game, and this Town Based Spawnlist is utterly superior, breaking down to facilities seems to me to be big steps backwards and not buy anything other then feelgood for you.

Share this post


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

I fail to see how facility based spawnlists would be the slightest bit superior.  We had what I call Base Spawnlists in the original part of the game, and this Town Based Spawnlist is utterly superior, breaking down to facilities seems to me to be big steps backwards and not buy anything other then feelgood for you.

I always thought all the spawning should mostly be via smaller (in unit number) persistent MSPs that owned their spawn lists. There could be larger spawn points (say using the FB facilities as PPOs) that contain larger units (a company?). Losing the MSP would send those units to the parent unit as reserves (the reserve unit might be at the rear FB by default).

Capture points could have their defenders decide to have one or more of these spawns nearby the CP, but they need not do so. Capture points are to capture a town, which is a place to capture because it signifies control of a logistical hub.

The goal here would be that defeating (for the attacker) a local area means they are relatively secure from an army zerging in next to them, though they can expect attack from the flanks (since they just punched through a line).

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being able to step over a log is the most realistic thing I've seen in a video game since Wolfenstein 3D.

 

Using the word realism in the same sentence as WWIIOL isn't realistic. It's 2019; not 1999.

Share this post


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

I always thought all the spawning should mostly be via smaller (in unit number) persistent MSPs that owned their spawn lists. There could be larger spawn points (say using the FB facilities as PPOs) that contain larger units (a company?). Losing the MSP would send those units to the parent unit as reserves (the reserve unit might be at the rear FB by default).

Capture points could have their defenders decide to have one or more of these spawns nearby the CP, but they need not do so. Capture points are to capture a town, which is a place to capture because it signifies control of a logistical hub.

The goal here would be that defeating (for the attacker) a local area means they are relatively secure from an army zerging in next to them, though they can expect attack from the flanks (since they just punched through a line).

 

That's an epic amount of databasing you are asking for, infinitely more likely you get throttled spawning like depots.

Share this post


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

That's an epic amount of databasing you are asking for, infinitely more likely you get throttled spawning like depots.

Yeah, I didn't say it was possible, just that I think it would be better.

A certain number of persistent MSPs would be nice to have (just to move things out of town).

I wonder if the FBs could be capturable, and town ownership links the depots to the rear FB for supply. Replace the walled ABs with a new spawn facility (can have the same spawn points coords, center area can be a park), but in new, urban looking buildings--the barracks groups are always the same, it could be one 2 story building).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.