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.

N8

trench :)

Recommended Posts

N8

affb2cf7fe1b62d2fd10c73a6d93f58f.jpg


Here is what I made :) 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blggles

Nice castle. Henning's going to make a maze from which no one will ever escape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE
32 minutes ago, blggles said:

Nice castle. Henning's going to make a maze from which no one will ever escape.

He’ll write “watch your six” visible from 7km high 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blggles
Posted (edited)

Heh, now we can write SOS if stuck on an island.

Edited by blggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blggles
Posted (edited)

More trenches:

Oh noes, nme otw!

okr0TGv.png

Zigzag, you can't strafe this

StRrwAh.png

Broad field of fire from woods edge, with stg

dtU6UyF.png

fM7w58t.png

Sadly, no one drove by.

Edited by blggles
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jsilec

Someone needs to build a trench from an fb to a town

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmw
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Jsilec said:

Someone needs to build a trench from an fb to a town

Would take forever......the time in between being able to set them is too long and even if you have the time an manpower by the time you got there the AO will have dried up...lol.......not to mention a good bomb will destroy all that hard work

But.....it would be cool to see

Edited by bmw
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
Posted (edited)

The odd thing about trenches is that the only side that has a reasonable chance to build a trench that will be seen in combat is the attacker (once novelty wears off).

Why?

Because the attackers either know where they WILL attack, and can build a trench system well in advance, OR some player(s) can set out from an FB, and build one, then get on side chat and let HC know they have prepped someplace for attack with an offensive trench (say overlooking a town to be attacked)—resulting in a subsequent AO placement.

Defense in ww2ol is nearly 100% reactive. Yeah, there will be side chat about where we think the next enemy AO will be, but even if we jump to that town to proactively defend, there is no possible way to move out an FMS, then build a real defensive trench system in time with just a few players (we lack the player numbers to have 20 people building a trench  that will disappear in X amount of time on the off chance the enemy decides to AO the place).

IMO there needs to be a system of accelerated building possible. Maybe a super engineer of which there is ONE in the spawn list for each BDE/Garrison, and that unit is only in the spawn list if there is no AO on the town. Super engineer builds trenches really fast. Maybe the unit only spawns at the AB.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
Posted (edited)

Totally fundamentally valid point. In warfare, defenders have major advantages, including trenches, other forms of fortification, planned fields of fire, etc...that's why force ratios of 2:1 classically are considered even odds. In WWIIOL, though, the attackers are the defenders...because they arrive en masse at their point of attack, invest or occupy it, then fight off and reduce the "defenders" who spawn in piecemeal and try to eject the "attackers".

To be realistic, WWIIOL would have to have the defenders all in place and ready, with defensive force multipliers like trenches, foxholes, revetments and other fortifications already fully built and occupied, before the attackers were allowed to come into first contact.

Then the attackers would actually be attackers.

Of course there'd have to be a parallel mechanism for assuring that attackers had a favorable force ratio. 

Yeah, it'd need more development. And this is hardly the only game that works backwards like this. The term "camping" wasn't invented here. But, there's marketing potential in being the game that gets it right.

Edited by jwilly
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Would take forever......the time in between being able to set them is too long and even if you have the time an manpower by the time you got there the AO will have dried up...lol.......not to mention a good bomb will destroy all that hard work

But.....it would be cool to see

Someone will do it I guarantee it or at least from fb to outskirts of an ao....do bonbs take whole trench out or hust sections?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OLDZEKE

4 direct bomb hits per section

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Totally fundamentally valid point. In warfare, defenders have major advantages, including trenches, other forms of fortification, planned fields of fire, etc...that's why force ratios of 2:1 classically are considered even odds. In WWIIOL, though, the attackers are the defenders...because they arrive en masse at their point of attack, invest or occupy it, then fight off and reduce the "defenders" who spawn in piecemeal and try to eject the "attackers".

To be realistic, WWIIOL would have to have the defenders all in place and ready, with defensive force multipliers like trenches, foxholes, revetments and other fortifications already fully built and occupied, before the attackers were allowed to come into first contact.

Then the attackers would actually be attackers.

This is the point of a large % of my posts with suggestions.

It's why the battles I like (regardless of what side of the AO I'm on) have separated depots, or other geographical features that REQUIRE the side attacking to actually attack to take it (or take it back). That spacing allows the defense to shoot people outside CBQ range. It forces the attackers to move up armor, or pop smoke... bases of fire, fire and movement. All the things that make it occasionally feel immersive.

It's why I always want "on sides" rules. The people against this are in fact the "turtles." They don't want to really attack. As attackers from 360 degrees they always know where the enemy is—directly in front of them. They claim to be "flanking," when there is never a flank. So yeah, everything in ww2ol is exactly backwards.

Regarding trenches and PPOs, they need persistence to allow people who want to noodle around with this stuff to do it in advance.

Edited by tater

Share this post


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

4 direct bomb hits per section

When a city building is heavily damaged, it changes from its normal state to a damaged state.

Why are trench sections eliminated by aerial bombs and other ordnance? Why instead don't they change to a damaged state?

Shredded wall reinforcements sticking up where they don't belong, dirt piles and sloped sides instead of squared off walls, any ammo crates gone/blown up/scattered, maybe an irregular dirt bottom/floor instead of the smooth wood one, rocks and debris where they don't belong so it's hard to run through and maybe impossible to wheel a gun. 

Share this post


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

Totally fundamentally valid point. In warfare, defenders have major advantages, including trenches, other forms of fortification, planned fields of fire, etc...that's why force ratios of 2:1 classically are considered even odds. In WWIIOL, though, the attackers are the defenders...because they arrive en masse at their point of attack, invest or occupy it, then fight off and reduce the "defenders" who spawn in piecemeal and try to eject the "attackers".

To be realistic, WWIIOL would have to have the defenders all in place and ready, with defensive force multipliers like trenches, foxholes, revetments and other fortifications already fully built and occupied, before the attackers were allowed to come into first contact.

Then the attackers would actually be attackers.

Of course there'd have to be a parallel mechanism for assuring that attackers had a favorable force ratio. 

Yeah, it'd need more development. And this is hardly the only game that works backwards like this. The term "camping" wasn't invented here. But, there's marketing potential in being the game that gets it right.

Still, attackers (in WWIIol) want stealth to set up their ZOC first and will NEVER ride towards a well-defended area.

A good (fun long lasting) attack is probably one where both sides managed to consolidate their ZOC.

Hence I was wondering how it would play out if:

- Spawnables were capturable without AOs (not supplied yet)

AO would mostly be launched on a town where a spawnable is owned and hold.

So that we would combine both gameplay: stealth for attack initiatives anywhere over the frontline with your squad, while defenders can set up defensive fortifications around the spawnables and wouldn't have to worry about other flags, creating that "localized" battle that tater and delems are speaking about.  Current AO limit would still avoid map rolls.

EWS could still trigger a small defense setup, but focused on spawnables. Attackers would probably setup their AO only on towns where they dug in and can hold the spawnable/ZOC strong. Owning the spawnable is often the first thing most players are waiting to invest into an attack.

This would probably end in long-lasting attrition battles in towns where the spawnables are placed 200-500 meters out of towns (newer parts of the map), where the scenery objects are concentrated along the road mostly (dense CQB area), and without too much vegetation around to maximize armor support (or trenches effectiveness)

Share this post


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

Still, attackers want to stealth to set up their ZOC first and will NEVER ride towards a well-defended area.

So attackers never want to actually attack, just sneak.

Yuck.

Their ZOC is at the jumping off point, be it the FB, or the FMS.

Quote

Hence I was wondering how it would play out if:

- Spawnables were capturable without AOs (not supplied yet)

AO would mostly be launched on a town where a spawnable is owned and hold.

So that we would combine both gameplay: stealth for attack initiatives anywhere over the frontline with your squad, while defenders can set up defensive fortifications around the spawnables and wouldn't have to worry about other flags, creating that "localized" battle that tater and delems are speaking about.  Current AO limit would still avoid map rolls.

The problem of course is that the defenders still appear after the fact. On many occasions I have been the first to spawn into a defense, ran out on the depot roof to look for the opel I hear in the distance—and get shot by someone LOUD and close. EWS in chat. Despawn where I am. Find town. Make mission at spawnable... by the time I have done that the ei are already in town, or at the outskirts.

I'm cool with requiring a spawnable as the first attack, mind you.

So under the above idea, every town would have the spawnables capped all the time. The point of the AO was supposed to be so the defenders would make a defense, right?

Quote

EWS could still trigger a small defense setup, but focused on spawnables. Attackers would probably setup their AO only on towns where they dug in and can hold the spawnable/ZOC strong. Owning the spawnable is often the first thing most players are waiting to invest into an attack.

It's still lipstick on a pig—the current capture system is awful.

I still like the idea of persistent, defensive MSPs best. Maybe the MSPs even have an AI LMG/ATG nearby (in which case the ones now go away). They have limited spawn lists, slow resupply. Maybe they have to be blown to turn the radio on to cap the CP? So instead of knowing where to park to avoid AI, you don't even know where the AI starts. If it fires, the EWS makes that mission active, first responders don't have to make a mission, they spawn right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blggles

Tank bathtub

mZwHzSu.png

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So attackers never want to actually attack, just sneak.

Yuck

As long as defenders have almost infinite local supply or cannot be step by step physically pushed back to rear spawns (no giant leaps like now) and as long as attackers don't have the leadership tools to send coordinated waves of combined-arms teams... yes.

The most realistic vision of our current frontline is a no-man's land town with just a forward regiment eating soup in temporary build barracks and town depots. Think of the final scene in saving private Ryan.

Instead of the persistent FMS concept you described, I would suggest the concept of a system where you drop multiple (inactive) FMS PPOs, that can be activated one at a time. This would also result in a physical daisy chain between town and FB for both sides, but still need to be build for each new mission to require real territory control.

11 hours ago, tater said:

So under the above idea, every town would have the spawnables capped all the time. The point of the AO was supposed to be so the defenders would make a defense, right?

It could indeed fire up the whole frontline, creating local skirmishes. That is how squads felt useful back before AOs. When I was in AHC back in 2003 I had proposed to Badger the plan of "the battle of all battles" where allies contested every single frontline town. epic memories.

Some fear that it would spread people, others hope that it would contribute to keep more players engaged and bring back squads. Back then it generated that second result.

To avoid mole actions, this could be combined with rules such as unguarded flags would automatically uncontest themselves. 

Just trying to find a balance with easily implemented game-changers. Larger numbers would fix this though. No need then for artificial rules when you have hundreds of players available. That could be brought with other changes, but not do-able for now.

Share this post


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

When a city building is heavily damaged, it changes from its normal state to a damaged state.

Why are trench sections eliminated by aerial bombs and other ordnance? Why instead don't they change to a damaged state?

Shredded wall reinforcements sticking up where they don't belong, dirt piles and sloped sides instead of squared off walls, any ammo crates gone/blown up/scattered, maybe an irregular dirt bottom/floor instead of the smooth wood one, rocks and debris where they don't belong so it's hard to run through and maybe impossible to wheel a gun. 

Buildings have a damage state that is actually a part of the strat layer. That's why only frontline town buildings damage. Strat checks if that CP (town) is frontlined, if so it enables the building damage. PPOs, at this time, do not have a damaged model component/ state. It is something we want to explore. As is it takes 4 bombs to remove a trench piece. Ideally a single bomb should cause a partial damage state change. Would be nice if it could be several states....1 bomb=slight damage, 2 bombs= collapsed wall etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, OLDZEKE said:

Would be nice if it could be several states....1 bomb=slight damage, 2 bombs= collapsed wall etc.

+100 for 4 state damage for buildings and for naval vessels.

Also zoned damage with 3D rectilinear stacked zones, where the size of one zone is approximately the damage volume of a 75mm/88mm HE shell. So, damage for a large city block or naval vessel would not be an all-or-nothing matter. I fire a HE shell through the window into room 4D, that room shows as blown out and (for a while) burning. You drop an aerial bomb onto the north wing, a large part of the building has various damage levels...but if the buiilding's big enough, the south side is fine.

Plus, 3D rectilinear stacked construction-modules are an efficient way of building visually more complex models.

But mostly: huge improvement in visual fidelity.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


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

As long as defenders have almost infinite local supply or cannot be step by step physically pushed back to rear spawns (no giant leaps like now) and as long as attackers don't have the leadership tools to send coordinated waves of combined-arms teams... yes.

One, eliminate the idiotic "garrison" that is effectively a BDE. That solves that problem instantly. Garrison forces can be a company (including the men with the ATGs/armor).

The leadership tools? Meh, everyone already has too many tools, and too much information. On-sides. The enemy is THAT way. Fire and advance, stay close enough to see what happens to the guys left and right, far enough to not get killed by what kills them.

 

7 hours ago, ZEBBEEE said:

The most realistic vision of our current frontline is a no-man's land town with just a forward regiment eating soup in temporary build barracks and town depots. Think of the final scene in saving private Ryan.

Or instead, I do like the concept of a system where you drop multiple (inactive) FMS PPOs, that can be activated one at a time. This would result in a physical daisy chain between town and FB for both sides.

The daisy chain idea is awesome, but it seems like a bridge too far effort wise, so I tend to suggest simpler fixes.

The game has two things going on, and they are utterly disconnected. The whole point of the giant (but reduced scale) map was to have the sweeping "map level" game. Winning and losing the campaign. We'd be better off with a world exactly the same size in avatar scaled meters across, but in 1:1 scale. Regardless, if the "map" level of the game is to be meaningful, the "Brigades" or whatever we want to call our operational units need to become meaningful.

That means killing the Garrisons as suggested above.

A ww2 Company in all the armies was ~130 men. HQ, some trucks, and 3 Platoons. I think a Garrison should be about like that, where the 3 Platoons are in fact mixed. For ww2ol call an armor platoon the same ~30+ guys, divided by tanks. I'll assume gun batteries were similar. So if the previous tier tanks are ~3 crew, a platoon of tanks might be 10 total. ATG/AAA can be lumped. 20 total? Or 15 and 5 trucks? Regardless, small enough that every loss matters.

Then the BDEs. They should be more distinct as armored vs infantry if the army in question was organized that way. UK used battalions of 6 Companies (HQ, Support, 4 rifle companies). Such a battalion (late war) had 6 6lber guns as part of the support company as a reality check. I'm using this as a model, for ww2ol I might have the rifle companies look proper, and the 2 additional companies can include extra AAA/ATG organically, as well as maybe a few ACs, etc. No tanks, the French mixed tanks, so they would have tank platoons mixed in. The Germans would also have more distinct batallions. Since these are maybe 2X the size of ww2ol BDEs, I would reduce resupply for them. The goal here is that if your operational unit gets attritted, it is weaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...