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.

dre21

Ok give me a good reason

Recommended Posts

goreblimey
3 hours ago, drkmouse said:

You have not answered what is wrong with the StugB frontal armor... you are over generalizing and not addressing the concern you have.

have said  how many tiems... 

 all  allied euip but the  vik can killa  stug FRONLY onbe shot  out to 1 k atm

( not  the minit  flak not sure on them)

 

I thought you had decided to be taken seriously.

Your complaints are now reaching the chicken little (the sky is falling) level of believability.

Obviously you are working for the Axis Ministry of Misinformation, or perhaps the BBC comedy division.

I applaud your efforts to raise morale through comedy, anything to keep us smiling in these tough times.

Share this post


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

Who is this addressed to?

 

Hmm, just quick looksee, 2lber AP is right on that cusp of frontal penetration at 100m, gotta think that's a lotta spall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_2-pounder

Pencalc says 2lber frontal at 200m or less, wide open on the flanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_2-pounder

Regarding the French, I'm lifting from a David Lehmann post, who is largely regarded as authoritative in Battle of France matters-

The French 25mm I think drops off effectiveness very quickly AND the version in the Panhards is a shorter barrel, so I woudn't get worked up about that valuation.

Note the difference between the tank mounted French short 47 and the ATG/Wacky mounted long 47.

Did the lookup on the StugIIIB against the 57mm/6lber- and ya, it dies like a dog to those.  It's obsolete by Tier 1 except as a supreme ambush tank due to low silhouette.

 

I am talknig about 2lb  and  tier 0 tanks  at out to  1000m  not 100....

and my 1st entnce  wa sa  quite fomr stank ( forgot teh "")

stug shoud  not be dyiing  1 shot   to  a13   2lb  etc  500 to 1000 meters

ded today one  shot from 2lb  at  454  meters 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drkmouse
38 minutes ago, goreblimey said:

I thought you had decided to be taken seriously.

Your complaints are now reaching the chicken little (the sky is falling) level of believability.

Obviously you are working for the Axis Ministry of Misinformation, or perhaps the BBC comedy division.

I applaud your efforts to raise morale through comedy, anything to keep us smiling in these tough times.

Stuff it gor  your tuants  were thin after a while

i have died  out to 1k fornly  in a stug  to 2lb  a13 etc... PERIOD

and i am not alone.

3 hours ago, stankyus said:

 Have you tested this claim?  I ask because that is just not what we experience going head on with the StugB...  ever.

I have pesnoly xdied to a13   2lb  out to 1k  fornly  one shot.. 9 noother  et  atg etc around)

others have also.

 

Share this post


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

The Italiens really didn't fight on the western front as you imagine. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Italy_during_World_War_II

The parts where the italiens where most active are not in game .

The little part of Vichy France that the Italiens occupied is not in game either.  

So what are we supposed to do about that, but the other part is dare I say History , you know Brits north and French south. 

And Stankyus you guys got your player pool back . Not Axis players fault if you guys don't want to play one fraction and let that fall to the way side. But I can see why , why would one not sit in a Matilda with really nothing going against it. After all the fun of the game is to see how many end up one ones kill list and the Matilda is very well suited for that in tier0/1.  

So I see the need why it has to be all over the map.

 

True the Italians didn't.  Best you stop assuming what I know or what I am thinking- you do not know either, and I get really- cross, when people put words in my mouth or foolishly think they can read minds.

 

But if you are going to dictate/limit Allied play, you need to experience the same.... challenge to play.

Game.  Historical feel.  But.  Game.

Big part of that is trued up spawnlists aligned with even opportunity and counter in the major roles of the game.

Share this post


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

I am talknig about 2lb  and  tier 0 tanks  at out to  1000m  not 100....

and my 1st entnce  wa sa  quite fomr stank ( forgot teh "")

stug shoud  not be dyiing  1 shot   to  a13   2lb  etc  500 to 1000 meters

ded today one  shot from 2lb  at  454  meters 

 

Depends on alt, I can see firing down and getting through the deck at ranges like in a hill camp, and 1km in edge cases with 90 degree flank.  Pencalc will show you the flank shots, that IS legit.  Direct fire at same alt frontal and no arc dropping in, no.

 

One of the things I used to specialize in doing is using H39 guns which have no business getting near IIIFs and dropping slow arc shells on the deck.  No one expects it or acts against it, other then to get a gun on the H39 that can kill at range.  Course that doesn't explain the 2lber which is a high velocity laser, but an example where you have to really consider the whole environment and unusual tactical possibilities.

 

Whats happening of course is the endemic overpop will get you FMS all over which both puts those ATGs everywhere AND protects the Allied tanks with infantry/Situational Awareness.  May not explain the frontal bits you're claiming if at even alt, but definitely a lot of side shots at range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goreblimey
2 hours ago, drkmouse said:

Stuff it gor  your tuants  were thin after a while

i have died  out to 1k fornly  in a stug  to 2lb  a13 etc... PERIOD

and i am not alone.

I have pesnoly xdied to a13   2lb  out to 1k  fornly  one shot.. 9 noother  et  atg etc around)

others have also.

 

I'm not The one whining buddy. If they Killing you 1 shot at 1k there damn fine shots, cause allied (British) optics at that range are plain [censored].

Share this post


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

I'm not The one whining buddy. If they Killing you 1 shot at 1k there damn fine shots, cause allied (British) optics at that range are plain [censored].

so anytime a aixs palyers  say wtf it is winning??  ok..........

 

2 hours ago, Kilemall said:

Depends on alt, I can see firing down and getting through the deck at ranges like in a hill camp, and 1km in edge cases with 90 degree flank.  Pencalc will show you the flank shots, that IS legit.  Direct fire at same alt frontal and no arc dropping in, no.

 

One of the things I used to specialize in doing is using H39 guns which have no business getting near IIIFs and dropping slow arc shells on the deck.  No one expects it or acts against it, other then to get a gun on the H39 that can kill at range.  Course that doesn't explain the 2lber which is a high velocity laser, but an example where you have to really consider the whole environment and unusual tactical possibilities.

 

Whats happening of course is the endemic overpop will get you FMS all over which both puts those ATGs everywhere AND protects the Allied tanks with infantry/Situational Awareness.  May not explain the frontal bits you're claiming if at even alt, but definitely a lot of side shots at range.

zereo atl  levl shots  both  last times  no incline even

Share this post


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

Pzjgr I (...) Only been advocating for this for over 10 years, but hey, someday one of you guys will actually pitch harder for it.

@BMBMhas said, or at least implied, in recent history that it's on the list...which I think in context must mean that it's close enough to the top of the list that it'll be developed within his lifetime.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


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

@BMBMhas said, or at least implied, in recent history that it's on the list...which I think in context must mean that it's close enough to the top of the list that it'll be developed within his lifetime.

Ya well it's something should have been on the VERY SHORT LIST right after the Tiger because of this T0 thing.

Share this post


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

Ya well it's something should have been on the VERY SHORT LIST right after the Tiger because of this T0 thing.

Not really, because of the miniscule production (202). Thus far we have prioritized the mainstream vehicles, and will continue to do so until the most glaringly missing ones are present. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drkmouse
41 minutes ago, BMBM said:

Not really, because of the miniscule production (202). Thus far we have prioritized the mainstream vehicles, and will continue to do so until the most glaringly missing ones are present. 

You ARE aaking into acoutn the FACT  real germany was a  burned out  dump with al teh bomimbing  thta  hamperd  the real  like  produciotn #'s  vs  THis gaem were   prod is  dep on  facotry destrution...

aka axis did not make as many of X becuse ther facoties were detroyd in real life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goreblimey
24 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

You ARE aaking into acoutn the FACT  real germany was a  burned out  dump with al teh bomimbing  thta  hamperd  the real  like  produciotn #'s  vs  THis gaem were   prod is  dep on  facotry destrution...

aka axis did not make as many of X becuse ther facoties were detroyd in real life

Not going to be a factor in T0 is it.

Share this post


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

Not really, because of the miniscule production (202).

23 Matilda IIs were with the BEF at the time of Arras. 

99 PzJg Is were fielded by the Wehrmacht in the BoF.

What was that about numbers being a justification to de-prioritize the PzJg I?

***

In your July 19 "Light Tanks" thread you said:

Quote

You know you want them.

Pz I (upgradable to various nifty vehicles)

(...)

then you said in a July 20 response:

Quote

The pz I however is a two-fer because of the conversion to pzj I.

That certainly seemed to suggest that the PzKpfW I was on the development list.

***

It's odd that the Matilda II already is modeled, but no German T0 SP weapons capable of fighting it on even terms are prioritized.

There was no problem prioritizing US and British tanks capable of defeating the Tiger...even including time travel. 

The handling of the two situations doesn't seem parallel.

Edited by jwilly
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM

I’m not saying it won’t be modelled, just that there are other priority vehicles ahead in the queue.

Look at the total Matilda numbers for reference, not just BOF. Already by autumn 1940 numbers were heading way up. Had the Brits not been kicked off the continent those numbers would have deployed.

4 hours ago, drkmouse said:

You ARE aaking into acoutn the FACT  real germany was a  burned out  dump with al teh bomimbing  thta  hamperd  the real  like  produciotn #'s  vs  THis gaem were   prod is  dep on  facotry destrution...

German tank availability in the game is already far higher than was historically the fact, whereas the Allied inventory is scaled way down. History or alt-history, what’s it gonna be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

Err. If the Allies have this advantage of tailoring frontages to maximise their best kit in the front-line, why not simply split the Axis in two or three, each with a different composition of spawnlists so that they can do exactly the same. You could call them "corps" or "armies". In fact this would be entirely historically accurate too at times - for example the great majority of the panzers which came over the Meuse at Sedan and formed the southern thrust westwards to the coast were 35 and 38t's, with both types rare, if not completely absent, from, the northern divisions.

Now I'm not suggesting that's the model we necessarily want to follow, but in theory the axis could be split into as many corps as the allies have nations, and able to optimise their front in the same way, if they wished....?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21
11 hours ago, Kilemall said:

True the Italians didn't.  Best you stop assuming what I know or what I am thinking- you do not know either, and I get really- cross, when people put words in my mouth or foolishly think they can read minds.

 

But if you are going to dictate/limit Allied play, you need to experience the same.... challenge to play.

Game.  Historical feel.  But.  Game.

Big part of that is trued up spawnlists aligned with even opportunity and counter in the major roles of the game.

Well goes both ways my friend , with you thinking you are the lone voice and advocate for the Pnzjgr1. 

I probably voiced my opinion for that platform before you even joined the game ( and yes this is an assumption on my part cause I don't know when you actually did join. ) but I'm going by your post  of 10 years + when I'm with game since 2001. 

I also take a bit of offense that you are the all knowing voice of everything that has to pertain to WWII.

 

Here a small WWIIOL history lesson between a head rat from back then and myself , best thing is I can quote it word for word even that it's been a real long time .

Question was! When will Axis forces be seeing the Pnzjgr1 to combat Char and Matilda ( yes back then the pak36 did nothing to the Char ) 

Answer of said head rat was! The open concept of the Pnzjgr1 leaves it open for roaming infantry and it be easy pray ( may I remind you that was when troops still needed to be driven in no magic Frus, Fms, Ms or whatever other name they had)

My response to his answer was!

Model it and let that be our problem .

You know the rest cause it's still not in game. 

And over the years I have called for that platform as I have pretty much on a yearly basis for dmg models on AAA and ATG guns.

 

Just then later to see the M10 being modeled and put into the game with a magic roof over it so that the crew inside could not be killed. And you wonder why certain players quit or call a bias ( remember we are talking old school CRS here) 

But as I recall the m10 still has that magic roof or the nades just fall throu without any impact on the crew inside.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM

FTR, we’ve tried pretty hard to circumvent the code that bounces or lets right through grenades into open spaces - M10, Achilles, 251 - with no success. You can shoot into the crew compartments (no magic roof) but the inverted nature of the collider won’t allow nades. The engine simply can’t figure out the normal orientation of the collider faces, despite it working perfectly well for lighting (sort of). It’s an engine physics issue that persists, though not for want of trying.

Share this post


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

Err. If the Allies have this advantage of tailoring frontages to maximise their best kit in the front-line, why not simply split the Axis in two or three, each with a different composition of spawnlists so that they can do exactly the same. You could call them "corps" or "armies". In fact this would be entirely historically accurate too at times - for example the great majority of the panzers which came over the Meuse at Sedan and formed the southern thrust westwards to the coast were 35 and 38t's, with both types rare, if not completely absent, from, the northern divisions.

Now I'm not suggesting that's the model we necessarily want to follow, but in theory the axis could be split into as many corps as the allies have nations, and able to optimise their front in the same way, if they wished....?

This is a really interesting idea. At the level of individual BDEs that sort of difference is apparently a nightmare, but 2-3 different Armee would be no more work than the Allies already deal with.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
14 hours ago, drkmouse said:

 

I have pesnoly xdied to a13   2lb  out to 1k  fornly  one shot.. 9 noother  et  atg etc around)

others have also.

 

This is why I go test things when I get concerned with something that happens ingame to see how it was or could have been achieved.  I have tested a lot of concerns... out of the ones I thought happened I just could not do during testing.  However I have found that if I mb changed up what I thought happened just a bit, there where some logical explanations that could have achieved my death... a big one was simply dealing with changing my position a tad exposing areas of my tank that could be penetrated.  I still find myself in situations where I am unsure of position of my tank is facing. Like I said, I have found only 2 items during testing that actually are a result of something actually incorrect.  While I dont doubt that you might have died to a 2pdr at long range... I highly doubt it has anything to do with a issue with the frontal armor and I highly doubt it was 1k.  You can kill a stugB "frontally" with a 2pdr at approx 500m HOWEVER while the stugB driver can fire at you also, he is off angled and you are not shooting at the 50mm plates you are shooting at the 30mm angled side plates and 20mm  lower hull.  This is why I highly doubt there is an actual armor problem with the StugBs frontal armor.  Ancedotal evidence is only evidence of your perception of the situation. Now if you came to the forums and said, hey I tested the 2pdr in a controlled situation and was killing the stugB at 1k repeatedly...  there is something wrong with the 2pdr ammo or the frontal armor of the stugB.. then the right ppl could take a look at it.  But thats not what you do, you come in here and make claims based off of ancedotal evidence in conjunction with a list of why your gear sucks and ours is OP and Uber.. It does not lend to any credibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
22 minutes ago, BMBM said:

FTR, we’ve tried pretty hard to circumvent the code that bounces or lets right through grenades into open spaces - M10, Achilles, 251 - with no success. You can shoot into the crew compartments (no magic roof) but the inverted nature of the collider won’t allow nades. The engine simply can’t figure out the normal orientation of the collider faces, despite it working perfectly well for lighting (sort of). It’s an engine physics issue that persists, though not for want of trying.

Could you model a invisible "bucket " inside the crew compartments? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21
34 minutes ago, BMBM said:

FTR, we’ve tried pretty hard to circumvent the code that bounces or lets right through grenades into open spaces - M10, Achilles, 251 - with no success. You can shoot into the crew compartments (no magic roof) but the inverted nature of the collider won’t allow nades. The engine simply can’t figure out the normal orientation of the collider faces, despite it working perfectly well for lighting (sort of). It’s an engine physics issue that persists, though not for want of trying.

Fine and dandy , but I can't recall a 251 kill Tank after Tank with a enemy Rifle close by and a nade in his hand looking at it in desperation, to just come to the conclusion he might as well just run away and find a stack of papers so it has some use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
warspite
25 minutes ago, stankyus said:

Could you model a invisible "bucket " inside the crew compartments? 

Before life forced me to leave the team BMBM and I tried various ways to fix the M10 with regards to grenades. As with a lot of the code it needs a rewrite, the rats put in little hacks all over the code, with special cases, fixing one thing breaks something else.

Like all things, it can be fixed but it just requires lots of time.

Share this post


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

Before life forced me to leave the team BMBM and I tried various ways to fix the M10 with regards to grenades. As with a lot of the code it needs a rewrite, the rats put in little hacks all over the code, with special cases, fixing one thing breaks something else.

Like all things, it can be fixed but it just requires lots of time.

I can see all sorts of issues something like that could possibly cause like what happens to spall if it hits that interior collider or extra protection to crew etc. Unintended consequences.  TBH, all of that is not a huge problem in game anyway.  All in time I am sure.  You could add back is the ability to climb on tanks so they can shooting into the hatches again.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

True?

If the turret had a visible roof, much like the Sherman's it could have a collider roof and that'd work.

So it could have a collider roof without the visible roof. Of course, we don't want the collider roof up at the top.

And if you just put inward facing collider walls in the turret, closed by an upward-facing collider "roof" at the bottom, it misbehaves.

What if instead the roof, made up of multiple polygons connected to the turret upper edges, all meeting at a central vertex, has that vertex moved downward...so that the "roof" is now a polygonal "cone" extending downward into the turret?

No gap at the bottom. An object arriving in the turret would collide with one or more faces of the turret-liner cone until per gravity physics it arrived at the bottom, where it would come to rest.

All the turret-liner polys would have one edge present at the top of the object and connected to another (turret outer face top edge) collider poly with the same directionality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM
52 minutes ago, stankyus said:

Could you model a invisible "bucket " inside the crew compartments? 

That’s what we did. That’s what didn’t work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...