Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

Kilemall

Highpop Advantage NOT Okay

Recommended Posts

tater
8 minutes ago, dre21 said:

And it's not a rant it's a fact . Allied players want certain Historical aspects like the FG42 as Paratrooper weapon only . Fine we will take that but Spits and British Airfields will go to England cause Historical that's where they were just as the FG42 were with Para units. You like to pick and choose and it doesn't work that way Period.

This is an idiotic argument. You realize that YOU are the one arguing for things to be where they were historically, right? You are arguing that since paras were not used as paras by the Germans in RL later in the war, then for this historical reason, this single para weapon should be used as the stand in for this historical fact. If you want FG42s to represent the historical fact that Germans didn't use paras much after some tier, then when FG42 appears, you should be fine with the para BDEs losing their ability to be paras, right? Those 2 things are the same.

Airfields in the UK are easy to address, it's like saying that German tanks have to stay parked in Germany, or where they are on day 1 of a campaign, since that where they are based. Moving a UNIT (BDE) is allowed. So you move BDEs forward. Para BDEs are BDEs, put them where you like—with the FG42 inside them where it belongs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
n8r
1 hour ago, tater said:

Para BDEs are BDEs, put them where you like—with the FG42 inside them where it belongs.

I totally agree with you on this.
Para BDEs are BDEs and belong where you put them.
Imo, when STG44 comes out, the FG42 should not be a ground weapon anymore, it should just be a para weapon, it was maintained to be a para weapon, but it's both in this game.

When STG44 comes out, and you have FG42 & STG44 in the same brigade list, it's going to be a problem. So that is why I believe that the FG42 should be a Para-based weapon only, not a ground weapon at all.

S! 
n8

Edited by n8r
mixed up some words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
31 minutes ago, n8r said:

When STG44 comes out, and you have FG42 & STG44 in the same brigade list, it's going to be a problem. So that is why I believe that the FG42 should be a Para-based weapon only, not a ground weapon at all.

Yeah, that will be a whole new issue.

If there is some limit on BDE placement, I'm fine with para BDEs being put on regular towns, BTW. I just think para weapons should be para weapons, and if the fact that some para units were used as regular troops (US PIRs, for example), then that should be a choice. Place paras at AF, they can be used as paras, place them on a town, no chutes (ideally that would be a thing).

Widespread full-auto rifles will be just as destabilizing, though. In RL, they appeared at a time when there were other issues in play that the game doesn't model at all. The abject failure of Axis logisitcs, for one (ETO and PTO). Supply movement is not a thing in game, nor is relative supply—limited for Germany, effectively infinite once the US is in for the Allies.

All weapon systems existed in a context that we don't have. The US didn't worry about having the best X when it could have 1000X more of "good enough Y" vs the enemy's 1X "best." As was said, "quantity has a quality all its own." The trouble in WW2OL is that it's possible to actually have more and better even when that was not a thing.

StG44 is an amazing weapon, but I fear it will be the death of the game, frankly. WW2OL might have been better served to stick with the summer of 1940 exclusively, fleshing that out completely.

Edited by tater

Share this post


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

The abject failure of Axis logistics, for one (ETO and PTO). Supply movement is not a thing in game, nor is relative supply—limited for Germany, effectively infinite once the US is in for the Allies.

All weapon systems existed in a context that we don't have. The US didn't worry about having the best X when it could have 1000X more of "good enough Y" vs the enemy's 1X "best." As was said, "quantity has a quality all its own." The trouble in WW2OL is that it's possible to actually have more and better even when that was not a thing.

More precisely, "as many and better". But, that was not a thing either.

100% agree with the general point.

The M2 carbine with selective full auto will be a negligible counterpoint to the StG44. 95% of German infantry players will want to be armed with StG44s. If that is not provided, the game will generate angst on the German side instead of excitement and goodwill. If it is provided, the Allied side will be impossibly uncompetitive... unless the StG44 is modeled with balancing factors, in which case CRS will be in angst territory again.

I hope this isn't as much trouble as some of us are concerned it may be.

 

Edited by jwilly
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poker

Reminder to stay on thread and to not target individual players - read before you click ‘submit reply’. It’s another person on the receiving end, not a bot.

Thanks troops!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21

I argue for Historical accuracy? I'm    not the one beating the drum for FG42 to be only Paratrooper in only Parabrigades .

Some might need to go back and reread their own Forum topics or where they replied . I only said you guys can't argue to have one weapon to be something or somewhere specific and then wanting Spits sprinkled all over the map when they where only stationed in England . That my friends is call Hypocrisy. 

Either we do it both ways the right way or we leave it be , and not pick and choose where who and what gets to be where just cause you don't like it .

 

@stankyus. CRS gave you the Matilda CS as a counterpart to the Stug. Matilda CS by far a better INF killing Tank then the Stug ever will be.  Axis still don't have a counter part to the Laffy15. Now not our fault if you guys don't roll it out if the barn. I like it BTW and my best sort was 5 kills with it , that's 5 less Axis tanks before one even needs to roll out a so called regular tank from the spawn list. I'd say that's a rather good trade for a ugly stepchild with the name Laffy15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bus0
12 hours ago, dre21 said:

Am I talking Hurricane ? Nope .

What you equal or don't doesn't play into the books , it's not about YOU its about the overall gameplay. DAC and Panny can kill pretty much all of Axis Armor after tier 0 , it's not that hard to understand but if you don't want to understand that then I can't help you nor is it worth my time to discuss it with you.

And it's not a rant it's a fact . Allied players want certain Historical aspects like the FG42 as Paratrooper weapon only . Fine we will take that but Spits and British Airfields will go to England cause Historical that's where they were just as the FG42 were with Para units. You like to pick and choose and it doesn't work that way Period.

I am talking about it, damage model complaints were also made about the Hurricane's, DB7/Havoc , so yes we've been hearing about Allied Aircraft damage for awhile now, not just the Spit.

And you don't understand the role of a scout. You keep insisting an putting there secondary or tertiary roles before there primary one.

As to the fg42, me thinks your confused somewhat on this subject, some Allies complain about its History, here's the unconfusing part, I don't, play with it all you want, just fix its cone of fire is to damn precise and to damn sexy.

Too stay on subject, POP favors Axis at the most inopportune times, 2 town rushes when we can hardly defend one, oh well, moving on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
4 hours ago, dre21 said:

I argue for Historical accuracy? I'm    not the one beating the drum for FG42 to be only Paratrooper in only Parabrigades .

Yeah, you are. The only reason the FG42 is in the general spawn list is because of the historical fact that the Germans chose not to use paras later in the war, and used those troops instead as regular ground forces. You'll note the uniform on the unit, as well.

The US PIRs got used as regular forces, can the US infantry get HEAT charges, and all the other non-chute para gear as a result (extra ammo, etc)? Why not?

Share this post


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

The M2 carbine with selective full auto will be a negligible counterpoint to the StG44. 95% of German infantry players will want to be armed with StG44s. If that is not provided, the game will generate angst on the German side instead of excitement and goodwill. If it is provided, the Allied side will be impossibly uncompetitive... unless the StG44 is modeled with balancing factors, in which case CRS will be in angst territory again.

Yeah, StG44s being even as common as FG42s are now (and combined with them) will make me quit, probably. The latter is already really bad, it's most of the gunfire I hear. For some reason the counterfactual late war French are still armed with the MAS 36—when the French Army by then would have the MAS 40 as the standard rifle (and all std rifles need HE charges to blow FMS). So I find in many towns there are nothing but MAS 36, and literally every German has a SMG, FG42, or semi, and clearing/guarding a CP is pretty much impossible.

What possible balancing factors could there be? The M2 makes sense, but the US should clearly have the Springfield pretty much retired as soon as the M1 Carbine exists at all, since rear troops got carbines, no one got Springfields (except with scopes on them). So US would have M1, M1 Carbine, and M2s? That helps, but what about the UK/French? The UK should not even have the M1, frankly (I know they had more in service than Fg42s were ever built, but it feels wrong to me). Maybe the No4Mk1 can get fixed to act like the actual rifle? Stay in sight picture while cycling the bolt, and improved ROF (always should have been a thing)?

The French? See above, MAS 40 should be standard after Tier 0, and I suppose the MAS 44 in late war (almost identical to MAS 40 but with a 10 rnd box mag). So late war French Std rifle is MAS 44. Again, all std issue rifles should have HE charges.

Still, non-US vs StG44s will just suck given how important CQB is, and how awful it is in game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21
3 hours ago, tater said:

Yeah, you are. The only reason the FG42 is in the general spawn list is because of the historical fact that the Germans chose not to use paras later in the war, and used those troops instead as regular ground forces. You'll note the uniform on the unit, as well.

The US PIRs got used as regular forces, can the US infantry get HEAT charges, and all the other non-chute para gear as a result (extra ammo, etc)? Why not?

Again I could care less where the damn thing is, it was CRS that put it there not Dre21 , so you are barking up the wrong tree .  If you have an issue with it take it up with CRS , just be certain that when YOU want it in the ParaBrigades that some Axis players will come here and will insist also on Historical accuracy when it comes to Allied Equipment.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander .

 

7 hours ago, bus0 said:

I am talking about it, damage model complaints were also made about the Hurricane's, DB7/Havoc , so yes we've been hearing about Allied Aircraft damage for awhile now, not just the Spit.

And you don't understand the role of a scout. You keep insisting an putting there secondary or tertiary roles before there primary one.

As to the fg42, me thinks your confused somewhat on this subject, some Allies complain about its History, here's the unconfusing part, I don't, play with it all you want, just fix its cone of fire is to damn precise and to damn sexy.

Too stay on subject, POP favors Axis at the most inopportune times, 2 town rushes when we can hardly defend one, oh well, moving on.

 

1st of I didn't talk Hurricanes,  so that is your subject, 2nd Stanky asked what equipment is an advantage past tier 0. It doesn't matter what it's primary role is or secondary role that's not the subject the Point is the advantage the piece of equipment has . For some odd reason you think I'm addressing you personal and I'm not and I could care less how you play any equipment . And I can careless if you finally understand that the subject is advantage and not what role each equipment plays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
1 hour ago, dre21 said:

just be certain that when YOU want it in the ParaBrigades that some Axis players will come here and will insist also on Historical accuracy when it comes to Allied Equipment.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander .

It's only in the non-para spawn list because of "historical accuracy" in the first place. That argument is incoherent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
On 4/28/2020 at 5:34 AM, dre21 said:

 

@stankyus. CRS gave you the Matilda CS as a counterpart to the Stug. Matilda CS by far a better INF killing Tank then the Stug ever will be.  Axis still don't have a counter part to the Laffy15. Now not our fault if you guys don't roll it out if the barn. I like it BTW and my best sort was 5 kills with it , that's 5 less Axis tanks before one even needs to roll out a so called regular tank from the spawn list. I'd say that's a rather good trade for a ugly stepchild with the name Laffy15.

Well, I can see that... it fits the historical roles similarly. A field assault gun and a CS tank.. makes sense. However, ingame the stugB is not used in that role. It's primary function is AT work. It's load out is primary AT rounds is it not? That might have changed but it used to carry 5 early war HEAT and mb 8 AP before the AT round increase. The HEAT it carries now is a fantasy round. It sits closer to HL/a 43' ammo than it does the HL ammo it historically should be carrying. The rest was HE. Something only the ch5 CS has the capability of. TBH, i have yet to actually kill another tank with its HEAT round.. so, not sure what to say. If the stugB had its proper TO&E, I would agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21
7 hours ago, stankyus said:

Well, I can see that... it fits the historical roles similarly. A field assault gun and a CS tank.. makes sense. However, ingame the stugB is not used in that role. It's primary function is AT work. It's load out is primary AT rounds is it not? That might have changed but it used to carry 5 early war HEAT and mb 8 AP before the AT round increase. The HEAT it carries now is a fantasy round. It sits closer to HL/a 43' ammo than it does the HL ammo it historically should be carrying. The rest was HE. Something only the ch5 CS has the capability of. TBH, i have yet to actually kill another tank with its HEAT round.. so, not sure what to say. If the stugB had its proper TO&E, I would agree with you.

I don't know the load out for each round right at the top of my head. 

But if it were not for the so called fantasy heat round the Stug3b would be pretty much useless as a piece of equipment in game. 

Heat will kill all Ets in tier 0 besides the Matilda , AP does some , HE is good for all ATG . 

If we would have a environment where everything takes visual dmg the Stug3b would be used maybe in a different role cause it could just sit back and shell a town, but buildings take way to long to be blown to be effective in any way. Let's just take a church tower a HE round into it should make it crumble in game not the case and getting a sniper is rather tricky the way it is now in game or any INF unless you have pretty much a clear shot at him with HE . That's where the Matilda CS holds the advantage with having a MG in game speak over the Stug3b. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall

Well this is all well and good, but I'm much more focused on the timers.  Most of these issues revolve around firepower and maneuver, which can be affected by relative pops in that an underpop could have a full armor set and not have the time or people to roll them out before the town is gone. 

So I often focus more on town capture/control pop issues then firepower/maneuver- it's a given that overpop forces will have more options for that, and we don't want gamey or intrusive limits to stop people from getting a chance to use them.  It therefore behooves us and CRS to focus on getting underpop that boost so they can have enough extra people to attack or spawn all that good firepower.

Get extra people that can spawn these matchups and then it will be relevant to work those out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dropbear

Definitely agree @Kilemall..

Unfortunately CRS seems to be stuck in giving us more goodies to play with, before addressing the core problems of the game.

EVERYTHING  else is  fluff if you don't have population equality. EVERY other game makes it a core mechanic, but this one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nc0gnet0

Second accounts should be disabled during times of more than +10% OP. They are not being used as they were intended anyways (tow accounts). This would help TZ3 immensely IMO. 

Additionally, I am not sure how the OP math works (or if it works tbh) but greentags should not count as 1. 

For instance 4 allied greentags  + 2 vets does not equal 6 axis vets (or vice versa) 

So yes, there are tweaks to the game that don't go as far as to implement forced pop balance, but lets get real with the calculations and prevent someone playing on the OP side from spawning in 4 different accounts. 

Edited by nc0gnet0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saffroli
1 minute ago, nc0gnet0 said:

Second accounts should be disabled during times of more than +10% OP. They are not being used as they were intended anyways (tow accounts). This would help TZ3 immensely IMO. 

I really don't see that many 2nd accs online during TZ3 to be honest I don't think it will make a difference at all. However, limiting 2nd accounts based on OP i dont have a problem with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
2 minutes ago, nc0gnet0 said:

Second accounts should be disabled during times of more than +10% OP. They are not being used as they were intended anyways (tow accounts). This would help TZ3 immensely IMO. 

Seems to me the opposite would be better. Add the ability within game to control multiple inf, switching between them like crew on a crewed vehicle. Forget "AI" control of them at any level, they do nothing without a player, but you can switch.

The UP side gets them, OP doesn't. You could use them as guards (they get killed, they can't fight), so you know what is being capped. For UP side on def, you might put one in spawnable, leave another hidden nearby. See skull, come clr CP. Third you are using to run around and check stuff.

I suppose the alternate version is just having system messages telling people what CP is under cap when their side is UP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saffroli
Just now, tater said:

Add the ability within game to control multiple inf, switching between them like crew on a crewed vehicle. Forget "AI" control of them at any level, they do nothing without a player, but you can switch.

 

Lol lay off the sauce will ya? 

What a ridiculous idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nc0gnet0
5 minutes ago, tater said:

Seems to me the opposite would be better. Add the ability within game to control multiple inf, switching between them like crew on a crewed vehicle. Forget "AI" control of them at any level, they do nothing without a player, but you can switch.

The UP side gets them, OP doesn't. You could use them as guards (they get killed, they can't fight), so you know what is being capped. For UP side on def, you might put one in spawnable, leave another hidden nearby. See skull, come clr CP. Third you are using to run around and check stuff.

I suppose the alternate version is just having system messages telling people what CP is under cap when their side is UP?

Quote

Seems to me the opposite would be better.

 

Huh? you want the overpop side to spawn in even more accounts?

Edited by nc0gnet0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nc0gnet0
3 minutes ago, saffroli said:

I really don't see that many 2nd accs online during TZ3 to be honest I don't think it will make a difference at all. However, limiting 2nd accounts based on OP i dont have a problem with.

Lol so Pothead 1-4 etc etc being parked in a depot as a "guard" doesn't happen? also, these second-3rd-4th accounts are quite often out setting up the next AO or taking down a FB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flong139

prevent someone playing on the OP side from spawning in 4 different accounts

and probly at least 1 of those on the opposite side

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
8 minutes ago, nc0gnet0 said:

Huh? you want the overpop side to spawn in even more accounts?

No, the UP (underpop) side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nc0gnet0
6 minutes ago, tater said:

No, the UP (underpop) side.

 Under what I proposed, the UP side would still be able to spawn in second accounts. I also really think a system needs to be in place that using a point system that applies points to rank ( the higher the rank, the higher the point value), and from this figure population imbalance needs to be calculated. 

Of course, the free for play accounts really throw a wrench into the works, but at least they can't spawn in a full compliment of weapons (what I mean by this is a skilled vet is a lot more effective with even just a standard issue rifle vs a new player). 

Edited by nc0gnet0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saffroli
20 minutes ago, nc0gnet0 said:

Lol so Pothead 1-4 etc etc being parked in a depot as a "guard" doesn't happen? also, these second-3rd-4th accounts are quite often out setting up the next AO or taking down a FB. 

That does happen, true. I guess you don't noticed the cp guards when you out in the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...