• Announcements

    • CHIMM

      Operation Burning Skies   09/17/2019

      All pilots scramble!  Strap yourself in for this months Community event - Operation Burning Skies! This Sunday, September 22, 11 am – 5 pm server time. In honor of XOOM and friends showcasing WWII Online at the Oregon International  Air Show – our forces too will battle for superiority in Operation Burning Skies. High Commands are on high alert to rally their forces to victory! Lift off, and see a whole new world of WWII Online… Fearless bomber pilots make the skies rain down fire – our daring fighter pilots are in pursuit of their prey- as western Europe erupts in war on the ground below! Rally your squads, rally your buddies - Combined arms are back!  …Under Burning Skies! SALUTE!
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
n8

rocks

16 posts in this topic

maybe add some sort of rock and like fossils to the game where like from a mountain there is a big crevice in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Image result for devil's den gettysburg

I have been to Gettysburg a couple times, the stories of the battle as Confederate snipers in the rocks of Devil's Den, 670 yards from Little Round Top Sniping the Union Officers on Little Round Top as they directed the cannon has always fascinated me.

670 With Open Sights in 1863.

Shot one guy in the heart and when his friend bent down to hear his last words they shot his friend in the head.

How long until we get this?

Image result for nazis riding dinosaurs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what little i know about the terrain and it's editor , the rocks etc would have to be placed individually which is extremely time consuming and serve little purpose .

Would look better though .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I miss the impenetrable forests. It'd be nice to have enough rocks and boulders placed in some forests (Ardennes region) to prevent vehicles from moving through them. 

Edited by gavalink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes , would be nice to have areas specifically infantry other than some towns .. places for snipers etc that tanks can't run them over etc .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Vehicle-impenetrable forest" should mean no supply for all force elements moving through that forest.

Including infantry.

Supplies move in trucks. Trucks move on roads.

Individual ground force elements should not be able to move out of supply range. WWIIOL is most marketable against its bigger competitors when it offers realism they don't. The game's biggest ground unrealism is its supply system for ammo and vehicle fuel.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

"Vehicle-impenetrable forest" should mean no supply for all force elements moving through that forest.

Including infantry.

Supplies move in trucks. Trucks move on roads.

Individual ground force elements should not be able to move out of supply range. WWIIOL is most marketable against its bigger competitors when it offers realism they don't. The game's biggest ground unrealism is its supply system for ammo and vehicle fuel.

 

 

Yep.

It's also important to note that they in fact moved vehicles through places where they were assumed to not be able to. It was not that the forests were impenetrable, but that they had impenetrable forests with very small roads running through them. The roads were what had to be used, and they were thought to be logistically impenetrable, since tanks, trucks, and men need supplies. The fact that roads, rail, etc have never mattered has always been a problem in this game. Any unit "in supply" should have a stream of AI trucking and trains supplying it (would give air something to do). Then make all offroad travel for wheeled vehicles very, very slow (think infantry walking speed, or slower), and have wrecks block roads. Dense forests then either have things to block vehicles entirely, or a much slower offroad speed than inf walking (even tracks), and add a narrow road through forests connecting likely places. So you get travel, but along chokepoints.

Tracks can own the offroad farmland, trucks stick to roads, though some can be better offroad (still nothing like now), like HTs, etc).

Edited by tater
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Yep.

It's also important to note that they in fact moved vehicles through places where they were assumed to not be able to. It was not that the forests were impenetrable, but that they had impenetrable forests with very small roads running through them. The roads were what had to be used, and they were thought to be logistically impenetrable, since tanks, trucks, and men need supplies. The fact that roads, rail, etc have never mattered has always been a problem in this game. Any unit "in supply" should have a stream of AI trucking and trains supplying it (would give air something to do). Then make all offroad travel for wheeled vehicles very, very slow (think infantry walking speed, or slower), and have wrecks block roads. Dense forests then either have things to block vehicles entirely, or a much slower offroad speed than inf walking (even tracks), and add a narrow road through forests connecting likely places. So you get travel, but along chokepoints.

Tracks can own the offroad farmland, trucks stick to roads, though some can be better offroad (still nothing like now), like HTs, etc).

I see your point. Unfortunately with the current system. It's all too easy to know exactly where an enemy has to go at any given time. There is no Fog of War worth mentioning. This means when a side grabs an FB to attack, it would become incredibly easy for a defender who has a few tanks to setup and start blowing up trucks, potentially shutting down an attack almost completely. As there is usually only one road between towns, camping one becomes child's play.

In addition (and I am NOT sreaming bias here), currently only one side has a tracked vehicle capable of setting FMSs. It would create a serious side advantage if the Allies could only drive FMSs along roads while Axis could still drive them offroad. Things would be different if the Allies had halftracks of their own, but that's not on the roadmap yet.

This doesn't mean that I don't agree that it would make sense to slow offroad trucks and halftracks down. In my opinion, it would. Unfortunately it would also really slow down game play, as it would be harder and take longer to get any FMss driven out and set up. I don't see a lot of folks being too happy about that.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Quincannon said:

In addition (and I am NOT sreaming bias here), currently only one side has a tracked vehicle capable of setting FMSs. It would create a serious side advantage if the Allies could only drive FMSs along roads while Axis could still drive them offroad. Things would be different if the Allies had halftracks of their own, but that's not on the roadmap yet.

Convert the Vickers so it can place an FMS (the 251 has an MG) and model the French Version of the Renault Tank with the .30 Cal Mgs (take the cannon barrel off the R-35) or just leave the R-35 alone and give it the ability to place FMS (It's already slow as |=v<|<.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, downtown said:

Convert the Vickers so it can place an FMS (the 251 has an MG) and model the French Version of the Renault Tank with the .30 Cal Mgs (take the cannon barrel off the R-35) or just leave the R-35 alone and give it the ability to place FMS (It's already slow as |=v<|<.

I'm sorry, but that would make no sense. I know that sometimes we sacrifice some realism for gameplay; but you're suggesting setting FMSs with tanks, none of which were designed to carry troops, no matter how many jumped on when they could. Let's be honest...if they really needed to, it wouldn't really be much harder for CRS to make a couple of allied halftracks than it was to create new tanks. The question would be if it would really be worth the time and resources?

I think that if they went to all tat trouble...the most likely result would be that most folks would just stop using trucks very much and start using halftracks all the time. With the exception that the halftracks would be more limited.

And roads would still be ambush spots for tanks...

Like I said...I personally like where your concept is headed... but in the end I see it as slowing down game play, at least as the game is currently set up. We already have insane things like spawn depots from other towns just to make sure that folks can spawn directly into the action.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need AIR FRUs so airplanes from both sides can spawn in mid-air. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, flong139 said:

can we throw the rocks ?

 

only if they explode.

Image result for exploding rocks gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any acknowledgment that supply systems should be improved and offroad mobility made more realistic IMO should be addressed with a multi-part plan including filling-out vehicle-type sets as needed; addition of a secondary road network to the terrain tile set; and enough development time to sort out the inevitable map/terrain issues and the effects on players' accustomed gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With on-sides rules for MSP deployment, no need to use trucks for FMSes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.