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.

ZEBBEEE

TOP 10 towns that need architectural re-work?

Recommended Posts

ZEBBEEE

From the latest updates you have seen how hard (and good) @tr6alis redoing the architecture of some towns. 

 

So far he has been able to learn our (awfully complex) terrain editor and achieve the following kind of changes:

- Moving Spawnable depots

- Moving capture building

- Adding or Moving (non-)enterable urban or rural buildings

- Adding or Moving town- or city blocks

- Adding extra vegetation

- Adding the few available scenery objects (rocks, hard fences...) - more to come over time

- Adding any of these stuff far outside towns and near FBs

From brainstormings performed in these forums, we agreed how our gameplay can be impacted by the architecture of towns, and the setup of vegetation.

So our question for you today, is: 

What would be your TOP 10 towns that need architectural or environmental re-work?

Please, try to provide feedback regarding your current experience and why/how a change could improve the gameplay. Don't hesitate to illustrate with some artwork! (2D map drawing, or edited in-game screenshot of the area)

 

Thanks for your contribution!

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Hmm, have to look at map again; also, when I mean redesign, I don't mean a full redesign, mostly just mean CP/SP pairs have to be moved away from center town 100-200m.  Towns with CPs sitting on top of each other are terrible imo. (or within 100m of AB)

 

But, first, the Antwerp Center CITY CP really needs to be swapped with the Antwerp South-Central CP, those 2 are way out of place.

Second, remove any CP from AB area in a town (Carigan, Boullion, Binche, etc).  See full list below.

 

Going to just go alphabetical to start, ones with * more key (or lots of CPs to close)

Aalst (SE CPs), Achel (S and center CP), Anhee (Profund CP), Anthony (S and W CPs), Arlon*, Ath, Avesnes (S CP), Avricourt (S CP)

Baarle*, Bavay*, Beaumont*, Boz (Steen Zand CPs), Berlamont (E side CPs), Berry (W CP), Bertrix* (main town CPs), Bievr (W CP), Binche* (All E town), Bohain (E CP), Boom (AntS CP), Boullon* (Sedan CP), Brakel (E CP), Breskens (N CP)

Carigan* (mouzon CP), Caudry* (N CP), Champion*, Chaumont*, Chily*, Chuig*, Ciney*, Clervaux*, Cobre*, Crom (spik and will CP)

 

I'd start with all the CPs in AB towns: binche, boullion, carigan, DenHaagE, DenHaagW, dizy, eghezee, haybes, lislet, mechelen, mettet, morbach, nivelles, rochefort, rozoy, saint saens and tongeren.

 

NOTE: there are many towns with CPs far to close to the AB, but not enclosed, such as tournai, ouden, sprimont,, stavelot, veere, veurne, wavre, etc.  Maybe some of those can be on the 2nd round of designs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Hmm, have to look at map again; also, when I mean redesign, I don't mean a full redesign, mostly just mean CP/SP pairs have to moved away from center town 100-200m.  Towns with CPs sitting on top of each other are terrible imo.

 

But, first, the Antwerp Center CITY CP really needs to be swapped with the Antwerp South-Central CP, those 2 are way out of place.

Second, remove any CP from AB area in a town (Carigan, Boullion, Binche, etc).

 

Going to just go alphabetical to start, ones with * more key.

Aalst (SE CPs), Achel (S and center CP), Anhee (Profund CP), Anthony (S and W CPs), Arlon*, Ath, Avesnes (S CP), Avricourt (S CP)

Baarle*, Bavay*, Beaumont*, Boz (Steen Zand CPs), Berlamont (E side CPs), Berry (W CP), Bertrix* (main town CPs), Bievr (W CP), Binche* (All E town), Bohain (E CP), Boom (AntS CP), Boullon* (Sedan CP), Brakel (E CP), Breskens (N CP)

Carigan* (mouzon CP), Caudry* (N CP), Champion*, Chaumont*, Chily*, Chuig*, Ciney*, Clervaux*, Cobre*, Crom (spik and will CP)

Diest*

Hannut (N side CPs)

Wavre*

 

Enough for now.  That is 18 *s :)

I can only agree white Delems in this town and 10 is and littel low number even if it takes most work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

With @delems  on this. I'd honestly pick towns more based on how often they change sides in a typical campaign (since they see more use from the change). Also, at least one city. The cities are awful. One that changes hands often.

I agree with moving CPs apart, and out of the ABs (that has never made any sense at all).

I'd go further and say that the CP and Depot should not be right next to each other very often—meaning not jump to the roof close.

Maybe some towns with a RR bridge could have a depot near the bridge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Continuing:
 

Damv (NCP), Deal*, Deinze, DenHaagE (CP in AB), DenHaagW (CP in AB), Diest*, Diskmude, Dinant (spontinCP), Dinslaken (SWCP), Dizy* (CP in AB), Douai*, Dover*

Echternach (NE CPs), Eersel (WCP), Eghezee* (CP in AB), Eindhoven (N CPs bunched), Elsloo (SCP), Esch*, Etain (SCP), Ettelbruck*, Eupen*

Fecamp (S CP pair), Fecamp Naval*, Fechain (NCP), Flameirge*, Florinville*, Fontoy*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Gedinne (SCP), Geel*, Genk, Givt (NCP), Gomont (NCPs), Gouda (CPs by AB), Gouvy (CPs by AB), Gravelines (SCP), Graven (WCP), Grevenmacher*, Grobbendonk*

Habay (SCP), Halle (ECP), Hampteau (NWCP), Hannut*, Hass (BlizenCP), Hast (FeschCP), Have (Nan CP), Haybes* (CP in AB), Haze (NW, NE Cps), Heerlen (ECP), Heider (SCP), Helle (CP by AB),  Herb (CPs near AB), Hirson*, Hoek*, Hulst*

Izjen (SCP)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Jabbeke*, Jodo*, Jurbise (SCP)

Knokke*, Kort*

LaBass (NCP), LaCap (NouvCP), Landrec*, LaRoche (NCPs), LeChes (SWCPs), Lens (SnWCP), Lueven (arsh/brux CP), Libn (wellinCP), Libramont*, Lislet (CP in AB), Lok (CPs by AB), Lommel (ECP), Longy (couple CP by AB)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

I got to thinking, instead of elaborating every town, simply look at a town and ask "are all the facilities at least 100m away from one another".

Take aalst, S and E CPs are too close to AB, each needs to be moved at least 100m or so (E and S).

Then add a few items in between, and maybe add a few items further down the roads (N S E W).

 

I'd start with the Antwerp point earlier.

Then remove all the CPs in ABs:  binche, boullion, carigan, DenHaagE, DenHaagW, dizy, eghezee, haybes, lislet, mechelen, mettet, morbach, nivelles, rochefort, rozoy, saint saens and tongeren.

And while in those towns, try and make sure no facilities are within 100m of another facilitiy.  That would be 18 towns :)

The most fought over I'd guess would be boullion, carigan, haybes and eghezee.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tr6al

Last time I looked 10 only means 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 . 

choose 10 towns on the map and I will see what I can do .

 No one is superman and they need to be changed manually so time is an issue. 

Pick the worst ones , not just a wander through the alphabet .

Antwerp is not an option  . Neither is any other large city atm. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

The most important change on map I'd say is fixing Antwerp Center CITY CP, swapping locations with the Antwerp South-Central CP.

 

Then, I'd move CPs out of ABs for these towns: boullion, carigan, haybes, eghezee, mechlen, nivelles, rochefort and tongeren. (and making sure no facility is within 100m of any other)

Finally, no CP should be more than 1k from a town, ala Genk.

That is 10 towns.

Share this post


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

Finally, no CP should be more than 1k from a town, ala Genk.

That last I am unsure about, I think that distant CPs might have a place particularly if the terrain is interesting enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
On 7/26/2020 at 1:04 AM, ZEBBEEE said:

- Adding extra vegetation

Just checking to make sure, but does this mean that removing any terrain/vegetation in a certain town is off the table, and only addition is possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tr6al

Nope , just consider it an adjustment of vegetation . If trees etc need to be removed to create something closer to what the town would be like then for sure. The vegetation is mostly atm on terrain tile overlays that I just drop onto a tile . I can remove it and  place trees and bushes independently .(time consuming though) So it depends on what town etc.  Rebuilding a town completely I will most likely not do unless it is really bad so mostly adjustments. 

Separating depot and spawn etc , moving buildings further out of town , as well as depots further out . 

It basically means we will take the 10 towns that sound like they need work to get more functional to play in and I will adjust them . Could be minor , could be major . 

Will know when I have a list from a few of you .    

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I got to thinking, instead of elaborating every town, simply look at a town and ask "are all the facilities at least 100m away from one another".

A poll is current live to check what the average distance between depots should be, according to active players 

Share this post


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

Finally, no CP should be more than 1k from a town, ala Genk.

Actually, the fighting in WWII was over supply movement choke points.

Sometimes those were towns, but sometimes not.

As French First Army discovered when they tried hedgehogging behind-the-lines crossroads cities to stop the German breakthrough after Ninth Army had been smashed, you block nothing by holding a town that is bypassed by sufficient tonnage-capacity of local roads. And, some main roads ran through the suburbs of a city to start with. Holding those cities was valueless.

WWIIOL allows trucks to zoom anywhere...thus implying that the whole game-world is a mesh of high-speed-capable local bypass roads. So, there should be zero value in holding any city or town, unless it contains a bridge.

The game would be much more realistic if it included some capture points unrelated to towns, in addition to some that are town-centric; and if all major river bridges (if not downed) and pontoon-bridgeable locations were capture points.

Edited by jwilly
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
1 hour ago, tr6al said:

Nope , just consider it an adjustment of vegetation . If trees etc need to be removed to create something closer to what the town would be like then for sure. The vegetation is mostly atm on terrain tile overlays that I just drop onto a tile . I can remove it and  place trees and bushes independently .(time consuming though) So it depends on what town etc.  Rebuilding a town completely I will most likely not do unless it is really bad so mostly adjustments. 

Separating depot and spawn etc , moving buildings further out of town , as well as depots further out . 

It basically means we will take the 10 towns that sound like they need work to get more functional to play in and I will adjust them . Could be minor , could be major . 

Will know when I have a list from a few of you .    

 

Cool.

We all know how every town is roughly speaking. A crossroad in/near town. Roads leave town, and a short distance from town there are then generally tree-berms perpendicular to the road every XX meters, and bush lines down both sides of the road (and radially out from town in some other places.

I'd like to see at least one town look more like the pic of the UC above. Road goes out of town, lined with trees. some places might have berms parallel to the road on the other side of the trees. Some of your cool rocks off the side of the road here and there (cleared from fields, or from making the road). Exactly the opposite of WW2OL right now, in short.

untitled-design-11-1-1.jpg

^^^Wall, trees, road, trees, brush.

Belgian-refugees.jpg

8thInfantryLibin.jpg

^^^brush, trees, road, building/trees, brush. (slight berm parallel to road?)

Kampfgruppe_Knittel's_troops_on_the_road

^road to Stavelot (woods passable by troops easily, but very short visual range many places—typically pine forests are dense near clearings lower, and more open inside, though loads of fallen branches)

In addition, it would be interesting to see a town where instead of those stone wall/berm things replacing random brushlines to actually have a more rational arrangement of those stone walls. Ie: Outskirts of town there's a farm. Then the barn, then a paddock with stone walls mostly walling it in. Maybe a vehicle can get in, but it's not a great place to get stuck in, certainly no place for a truck to careen through. Again, just more "real" looking given the limitations of ww2ol terrain.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall

I don't have a particular hardship set of towns or general rules of thumb, but I am concerned that this is being jumped into with some bad assumptions AND perhaps not consideration of the larger picture.

 

The bad assumption I am referring to is that every town needs to have X distance for everything.  Some general play possibility revamps should occur, but I strongly disagree with the idea that all towns should have X criteria.

The last thing you want is to create sameness in our arenas, that way lies boredom and same tactical play.  Each town should be a unique puzzlebox.  We've wed ourselves to this big ol map, don't undo the uniqueness that makes it different from cookie cutter same arena implementations in WWII and other games.

 

The second thing is related to the map too- these towns do not exist and effect gameplay in isolation.

HC will go in certain sequences in part because of the mix of AB supply and linkages, but also because of the surrounding terrain of the town and it's relative values to attack and defend from certain directions.

 

You need to study VERY CAREFULLY how any change to a town's structure affects it's place in the map and whether you are making something a fortress or just a bump and easy to take.  Sometimes you want the fortress sometimes you want easy, but it needs to be chosen ON PURPOSE for map effects and integrated into your town alteration schema.

Share this post


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

I don't have a particular hardship set of towns or general rules of thumb, but I am concerned that this is being jumped into with some bad assumptions AND perhaps not consideration of the larger picture.

The talk is around modifying 10 towns. Definitionally this is a tiny subset, seems worth doing a few things that are perhaps minor changes, others more radical to see what happens.

Quote

The bad assumption I am referring to is that every town needs to have X distance for everything.  Some general play possibility revamps should occur, but I strongly disagree with the idea that all towns should have X criteria.

The last thing you want is to create sameness in our arenas, that way lies boredom and same tactical play.  Each town should be a unique puzzlebox.  We've wed ourselves to this big ol map, don't undo the uniqueness that makes it different from cookie cutter same arena implementations in WWII and other games.

While I agree diversity is better than all being the same, some stuff has never made a lot of sense to me. CPs so close together you run into one to defend it from the depot, and it's the city, or some other CP, not the one you meant to check cause they are literally next to each other. Some clarity on what belongs to what I think is decent where possible

Spreading out to me (done right) actually has a chance to USE the big ole map, which is mostly "white space" right now, never used. Not everywhere, but there are certainly areas of the map where it would be cool to see some out of the box thinking.

That said, many of the proposed change areas are more around the landscape than the town itself it seems.

 

Quote

The second thing is related to the map too- these towns do not exist and effect gameplay in isolation.

HC will go in certain sequences in part because of the mix of AB supply and linkages, but also because of the surrounding terrain of the town and it's relative values to attack and defend from certain directions.

True. Of course I don't think these things were likely thought out originally at all.

Quote

You need to study VERY CAREFULLY how any change to a town's structure affects it's place in the map and whether you are making something a fortress or just a bump and easy to take.  Sometimes you want the fortress sometimes you want easy, but it needs to be chosen ON PURPOSE for map effects and integrated into your town alteration schema.

This I'm less sure about. We know the interactions because everyone has been playing the same map forever. Certain things are best because it was designed without thought, and it just worked out that certain attacks make more sense. Rear attacks std in one town contrary to any sense of reality—but because the bushline goes right into town on that side, away from a spawnable, and the other sides are harder to approach.

So while I'd agree not to change ALL the towns at once, changing 2 here, 1 there, another somewhere else will have very little game breaking effect.

A good idea based on your concerns would be to take make sure any substantially changed towns (large spacing changes, etc)—or possibly linked pairs of towns if the changes are designed to go together—be done in areas that are not super important. Not cutoff towns at the edges, etc.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

*** You need to study VERY CAREFULLY how any change to a town's structure affects it's place in the map and whether you are making something a fortress or just a bump and easy to take.

idk kile, I think you are WAY over thinking this.

If you could instantly, move every CP/SP pair in game 100m away from AB, along the line of CP to AB; it would do nothing but make combat 100% more fun in about 200 towns, at least.  Imo, it would do zero to what order towns are attacked or any map strategy.

Towns like LaRoche, Flamerige, Cobreville are complete disasters imo for promoting any type of game play.  They along with prolly 100 others.

And, even if what you say is true, which I disagree with much, so what, some new strategies/tactics and game play can be developed.  Nothing wrong with mixing up the map some imo. (they only changing 10 towns at once, it can't be that catacalysmic)

In fact, I strongly believe each HC should be allowed to 'gray out' (make neutral) any 1 town of their like on the opposing side.  This would make the map change every time. (allies make Liege neutural, axis makes Antwerp S) for example.  Could not pick the same enemy town till at least 10 maps have passed.  Just to keep it different.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tr6al

This exercise is about finding 10 towns that have bad game play and see about adjusting them to improve player experience. 

This will not be  standard for all towns to look the same as each town is and will stay different . I am trying to create more variation to towns , but only 10 atm . They could be anywhere outside the usual towns that get constantly played in and make them more useful as well as  interesting , causing them to actually get fought over instead of walked into . 

I have played for around 15 years and know there are badly designed towns and well designed ones and wish to improve things .

Nothing more , nothing less  

 From what I can tell the map and towns where created under a time crunch and as they functioned , where left as is . 

I can leave well enough alone but there are some really bad towns out there and I want to adjust some . I can't do them all and need to see if what I do has a good effect so I can continue with others .   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE

Let's also remind that towns were designed when there were no spawnable depots nor FMS. 

The overall expectation remains variety, for sure.

The thinking process has just started. Using both experience and game data, we are trying to find out how the gameplay is impacted and if it deserves more investment. Maybe you should think further than CPs, and identify surrounding areas that could become obvious ZOC areas. Putting a depot, enterable buildings, or some vegetation on both parts of a bridges is a nice example. Right now it's often about finding the best bushline to sneak to town, hence the fact most will go behind the frontline to setup their FMS.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
2 hours ago, tr6al said:

I can leave well enough alone but there are some really bad towns out there and I want to adjust some . I can't do them all and need to see if what I do has a good effect so I can continue with others .   

Thanks, appreciated.

I have trouble remembering specific towns I can't stand, lol, memory will be jogged as I go back to them. For general redecorating (vs moving CPs, etc), I'd be happy with almost any town (even if just 1 to start) being made to look more like an actual town in that region. With rows of trees along the road, instead of waves of trees perpendicular to the roads. Some houses set up with walls and gardens...  I dunno, trying to imagine the actual town if that makes sense.

Share this post


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

Maybe you should thing further than CPs, and identify surrounding areas that could become obvious ZOC areas. Putting a depot, enterable buildings, or some vegetation on both parts of a bridges is a nice example. Right now it's just about finding the best bushline to sneak to town...

gettyimages-3287548-1559831871.jpg

Image of D-day gliders with fields and roads. In some ways the terrain is much like WW2OL, in others different. Trees often along roads, though (unlike ww2ol, ever), and bushes. The orchard could be a nice touch (could be neat near a town if small trees are a thing).

 

St. Mere Eglise (view image will embiggen it):

111-SC-1998011.jpg

Walled/fenced areas in back yards. Hedgerows (not passable). For ww2ol maybe stone walls, some of the decorative wall objects—but breaks in them since we can't climb.

Another of St. MereEglise:

St._Mere_Eglise_1944.jpg

 

Here's an index of aerial shots Utah beach area (inland): http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-A-Utah/img/

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


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

*** You need to study VERY CAREFULLY how any change to a town's structure affects it's place in the map and whether you are making something a fortress or just a bump and easy to take.

idk kile, I think you are WAY over thinking this.

If you could instantly, move every CP/SP pair in game 100m away from AB, along the line of CP to AB; it would do nothing but make combat 100% more fun in about 200 towns, at least.  Imo, it would do zero to what order towns are attacked or any map strategy.

Towns like LaRoche, Flamerige, Cobreville are complete disasters imo for promoting any type of game play.  They along with prolly 100 others.

And, even if what you say is true, which I disagree with much, so what, some new strategies/tactics and game play can be developed.  Nothing wrong with mixing up the map some imo. (they only changing 10 towns at once, it can't be that catacalysmic)

In fact, I strongly believe each HC should be allowed to 'gray out' (make neutral) any 1 town of their like on the opposing side.  This would make the map change every time. (allies make Liege neutural, axis makes Antwerp S) for example.  Could not pick the same enemy town till at least 10 maps have passed.  Just to keep it different.

I would agree that monkeying up some towns would be fine, and also with the thesis that there are some bad towns that need fixing.  Just not that all towns have to have a minimum distance between X and Y.

The greyed out town would be a neat feature.  I think it more likely for the Rats to go with a manual flip of X town(s) at map start rather then code this, but  your suggestion certainly would liven up the variability.

Share this post


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

Let's also remind that towns were designed when there were no spawnable depots nor FMS. 

The overall expectation remains variety, for sure.

The thinking process has just started. Using both experience and game data, we are trying to find out how the gameplay is impacted and if it deserves more investment. Maybe you should think further than CPs, and identify surrounding areas that could become obvious ZOC areas. Putting a depot, enterable buildings, or some vegetation on both parts of a bridges is a nice example. Right now it's often about finding the best bushline to sneak to town, hence the fact most will go behind the frontline to setup their FMS.

Doc redid a lot of them so I don't know that this is true, and certainly vast swaths of the map were created post-spawnable and post-MSP at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...