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

jwilly

M18.

Zooooom.  ------------>

Share this post


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

The horse is already out of the barn.

I don't see the tier thing ever changing, it's more fun to have new eqp come out.

I can't see any possible reason to be against actually ordered French eqp that failed to see combat simply because they lost first. Prototypes made, design finalized and accepted, orders placed.

The numbers and rate of introduction? That becomes a balance issue, just like I think the MAS 40 should certainly become the standard infantry weapon of ArFr, with adoption slowly replacing MAS 36 tier by tier until the large majority of rifles are MAS 40. I'd do the same for the S40.

The reality is that in many cases the war was fought with equipment designed before the war. The Germans and Japanese innovated a lot—because they were losing.

The Allies tended to fire for effect with what they had, with some experience-motivated modifications to those designs. Change canopy on planes, or props. Add ordnance hardpoints. For tanks, upgun them if possible. Use existing chassis as gun platforms if the turret won't fit anything big enough.

Those are trivial counterfactuals for France.

I have no problem with "new equipment coming out", I have a major problem with "stuff that never saw the light of day" in Arfr service; in just the same way as I'd be implacably opposed to any other nationality being issued units "ordered but not used". Note my recent thread on on the bloody Garrand in the UK spawnlist.

As replacing Arfr with the Canadians ( whose omission is a terrible slur on some of the best troops in WW1 and WWII) is both simple and straight-forwards, and gets rid of this counterfactual crap, at least in terms of kit used, it is the least weird method of creating a WWII game, given that CRS 2 is presumeably likewise unable, as CRS 1 was, to build the terrain extensively enough to allow proper historical context.

Like I said upthread, this concept of the game being "counter-factual" is nothing more than CRS 1 having to adjust expectations of the original hype in 2000 to the reality of what they could actually dev.  In short giving the impression that a limitation was a virtue. It's a bit like buying a car without a windscreen, and the salesman explaining how "driving goggles allow the wind to blow through your hair."

Share this post


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

..."driving goggles allow the wind to blow through your hair."

Huh. That's exactly what they told me. 

It's a good thing my hair's so much thinner than it used to me, so it's not so messed up all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

There is no reason to model Canadians unless they had substantially different gear than the UK or US troops. An utter waste of limited resources.

ArFr itself never saw the light of day after the BoF. So I'm not only fine with them getting stuff that was just ordered, it's required.

 

 

Share this post


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

There is no reason to model Canadians unless they had substantially different gear than the UK or US troops.

Hurrah for Ram Kangaroos and Skinks.  :)

Share this post


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

There is no reason to model Canadians unless they had substantially different gear than the UK or US troops. An utter waste of limited resources.

ArFr itself never saw the light of day after the BoF. So I'm not only fine with them getting stuff that was just ordered, it's required.

Lotta units qualify under the Free French label.  ArFr wouldn't have got Sherman 76 in game except FF got them, particularly the 2nd Armored.

Here is the practical French shopping list in one easy to read website- if you can read French.  Easy enough to hit the translate button.

https://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/liste-chronologique/de-1940-a-1945

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
3 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

Lotta units qualify under the Free French label.  ArFr wouldn't have got Sherman 76 in game except FF got them, particularly the 2nd Armored.

Here is the practical French shopping list in one easy to read website- if you can read French.  Easy enough to hit the translate button.

https://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/liste-chronologique/de-1940-a-1945

Useful, but again the "Free French" are predicated on the French in ww2ol first losing the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
23 minutes ago, tater said:

Useful, but again the "Free French" are predicated on the French in ww2ol first losing the map.

Yes, but that doesn't invalidate the criteria, as French fought WITH the stuff.

Big issue with French production was they did a massive army callup which wasn't coordinated with industry, so they inadvertently slowed a lot of their production.  There were cries of sabotage, and there were some cases, but failing to cull out factory workers from the reserves was much bigger and slowed down several key pieces of equipment, else likely they would have been available in bigger numbers.

Given that reality, outsourced production was not unreasonable even if France had not fallen.

Share this post


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

ArFr wouldn't have got Sherman 76 in game except FF got them

We don't know that, one way or the other. The Sherman and its variants didn't exist yet on 22 June 1940. Maybe by 1943 France would have fielded G tanks with 600 hp engines and long 75mm guns firing Brandt APDS. Or, maybe they'd have been buying Shermans with 75s and 76s.

In the late 1930s and the first half of 1940, France was discussing buying property and building a massive factory in Savannah, Georgia for production of war equipment, using hired American workers and subcontractors since they could not get enough production from France's own economy. We don't know if that would have come to fruition, or when.

The factory was proposed to particularly build S tanks. Maybe by the time it was nearing readiness, France would have decided to buy Grants or the upcoming Shermans instead.

Quote

Here is the practical French shopping list in one easy to read website- if you can read French.  Easy enough to hit the translate button.

https://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/liste-chronologique/de-1940-a-1945

Shopping list? No, just a list of most of the ground-fighting-vehicle types that fighters of French affiliation on the Allied side...ArFr or Free French...used between 1940 and 1945, or in some cases wished they could have used.

There's no evidence that this is related in any way to what items France might have purchased from USA or Britain, or traded for, beyond the items for which P.O.s already had been issued.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


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

Given that reality, outsourced production was not unreasonable even if France had not fallen.

I agree, and the US would also have offered (as it did to the UK and CCCP), but I'd still think that they'd manage to at least make the stuff they ordered before the surrendered (given them not surrendering).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

France would not have just closed up their factories, fired all the workers, and bought everything elsewhere. That's irrational.

They would have run their economy at full speed, made those items for which they had available capacity and particularly those items for which they considered their version to be superior to those available elsewhere, and bought from outside only those additional items that they needed beyond their own capacity.

They liked their own trucks, but they needed more than they could make. They liked their own artillery and autocannons, but they needed more of those than they could make, too. They liked their own advanced ammunition and specialized weapons...Edgar Brandt and Company was the most advanced maker of ordnance in the world. They liked their own tanks, but again, they needed more.

It would have made no sense at all for France to just stop building military equipment, just as it would have made no sense for them to dismiss all their soldiers and turn the defense of France over to the USA (who at least they could trust, and who owed them some big favors) and Britain (against whom they'd fought several wars).

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It would have made no sense at all for France to just stop building military equipment, just as it would have made no sense for them to dismiss all their soldiers and turn the defense of France over to the USA (who at least they could trust, and who owed them some big favors) and Britain (against whom they'd fought several wars).

Not to mention that Germany managed to keep producing war materiel in spite of the sort of strategic bombing they were utterly incapable of dealing out to anyone else (like France).

WW2OL presumes a counterfactual ArFr, and any "Free French" gear presumes France loses first (hence FF gear is 180 degrees from the ww2ol universe).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM

Don’t you just love rabbit holes?

I’m not sure if there even is a boilerplate game universe statement for us simple folk to guide us, if so the boss forgot to tell me.

For all my concerns I use a simple formula: if it served, it deserves to be modelled. Preferably in decent numbers, as the likelihood of encountering it should be strong, given our universal spawn mechanic. There’s no hard limit there, however I tend to draw a line around the 150-200 mark. Good news for the Whirlwind and the Puma, less so for <insert favourite vehicle>. Obviously there will be exceptions...

Yes the French is a special case but the same formula applies. Italy too, in due time - they won’t autosurrender in 1943 but continue using German kit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
On 7/31/2020 at 6:43 PM, jwilly said:

M18.

Zooooom.  ------------>

Mmmm, would be a blast.  It's like 65 mph on the road.  Put some HVAP, and it's gonna be a force to be reckoned with.

Share this post


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

France would not have just closed up their factories, fired all the workers, and bought everything elsewhere. That's irrational.

They would have run their economy at full speed, made those items for which they had available capacity and particularly those items for which they considered their version to be superior to those available elsewhere, and bought from outside only those additional items that they needed beyond their own capacity.

They liked their own trucks, but they needed more than they could make. They liked their own artillery and autocannons, but they needed more of those than they could make, too. They liked their own advanced ammunition and specialized weapons...Edgar Brandt and Company was the most advanced maker of ordnance in the world. They liked their own tanks, but again, they needed more.

It would have made no sense at all for France to just stop building military equipment, just as it would have made no sense for them to dismiss all their soldiers and turn the defense of France over to the USA (who at least they could trust, and who owed them some big favors) and Britain (against whom they'd fought several wars).

Who said anything about that?

But in large measure they DID impact their production as I described.

It's reasonable to assume they would have supplemented home builds with US production, just like the UK did.  And the more French divisions were equipped the less US divisions would have had to be formed, or at least more resources could have been put to the Pacific War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
On 8/2/2020 at 6:26 PM, Kilemall said:

Who said anything about that?

But in large measure they DID impact their production as I described.

It's reasonable to assume they would have supplemented home builds with US production, just like the UK did.  And the more French divisions were equipped the less US divisions would have had to be formed, or at least more resources could have been put to the Pacific War.

It's similarly likely, that had the French not folded like a pack of cards in May 40,. the BEF would have been augmented by Canadian, Indian Army and Anzac troops, just as had occurred in WW1, and which to some degree happened in WW2.

This is why I think the Arfr should be got rid of by tier 2, and replaced by Canadians. It's less weird - in terms of who fielded what/where - to accept the peculiarity of the axis failing to "take" France, and nevertheless ceasing Arfr participation, but otherwise conforming to the history, than it is to indulge in the mental gymnastics required to keep the Arfr a going concern long after, in reality, they'd ceased developing or producing vehicles or indeed fielding an army. 

The reasons for retaining the Arfr are now gone. Implementing Canadian units would require minimal dev time, in the sense that with 1 or 2 exceptions, all the units used by the Canadians are already modelled.... Adjustments could likewise be made to the British, so that when the US comes in intially, the British+Canadians roughly equal or exceed the US, with that changing to the US predominating as tiers progress.

Such changes in the nationality distribution and TOE's could add further scope for balancing as tiers progress, if intelligently done.

Edited by fidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
30 minutes ago, fidd said:

It's similarly likely, that had the French not folded like a pack of cards in May 40,. the BEF would have been augmented by Canadian, Indian Army and Anzac troops, just as had occurred in WW1, and which to some degree happened in WW2.

This is why I think the Arfr should be got rid of by tier 2, and replaced by Canadians. It's less weird - in terms of who fielded what/where - to accept the peculiarity of the axis failing to "take" France, and nevertheless ceasing Arfr participation, but otherwise conforming to the history, than it is to indulge in the mental gymnastics required to keep the Arfr a going concern long after, in reality, they'd ceased developing or producing vehicles or indeed fielding an army. 

I don't understand how the mental gymnastics are lowered when the French could literally be winning the map, then they just disappear when they get to tier-whatever.

Honestly, they should disappear tier 1, right?

 

30 minutes ago, fidd said:

The reasons for retaining the Arfr are now gone. Implementing Canadian units would require minimal dev time, in the sense that with 1 or 2 exceptions, all the units used by the Canadians are already modelled.... Adjustments could likewise be made to the British, so that when the US comes in intially, the British+Canadians roughly equal or exceed the US, with that changing to the US predominating as tiers progress.

Such changes in the nationality distribution and TOE's could add further scope for balancing as tiers progress, if intelligently done.

Canadian forces makes zero sense.

It's the same gear as the UK with a different patch on the uniform.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

I don't understand how the mental gymnastics are lowered when the French could literally be winning the map, then they just disappear when they get to tier-whatever.

Honestly, they should disappear tier 1, right?

 

Canadian forces makes zero sense.

It's the same gear as the UK with a different patch on the uniform.

I disagree. The Canadians could have slightly different TOE's where such differences are both supported by history and game-play considerations. In effect, the US centric Arfr TOE (by tier 3) would become a similar but mixed US and UK TOE for the Canadians with Ram Kangeroos and similar for the Canadians. In short, there's very little difference in general terms between the current Arfr TOE through the tiers, than there would be with the Canadians. The difference is that an extensive and capable contributor to fighting in Europe from 1942 onwards would be modelled, at the expense of one that is am highly artificial, ahistorical "counter-factual" construct.

I cannot imagine anyone suggesting the US forces should not be modelled, and if so, why ignore the Canadians?

So, yes, I'd happily bin the Arfr in tier 2, and then bring them back in later along the lines previously lain out.

In effect, we'd be talking about suspending the use of Arfr Bde's for circa 2-3 tiers, and then bringing them back in as the LeClerv Div. Why would that be a big deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall

Completely ridiculous, for no other reason then there are a LOT fewer Canadians then there are French.  Realism?  Bollocks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drkmouse

all i see is  already 3 dif  forces for variety  on allied side.

give  axis ther signiture  equip like the lalies already have. FIRST. and fommost

panther  puma  jag panther  tiger 2  ju88

my  thoughs

Share this post


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

Completely ridiculous, for no other reason then there are a LOT fewer Canadians then there are French.  Realism?  Bollocks.

Not under arms in 1942-1944 there weren't. Which is my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
1 hour ago, drkmouse said:

all i see is  already 3 dif  forces for variety  on allied side.

give  axis ther signiture  equip like the lalies already have. FIRST. and fommost

panther  puma  jag panther  tiger 2  ju88

my  thoughs

Variety is a double-edged sword. It can confer a little advantage in certain situations, such as being able to optimise where Diviisins with good range kit can most usefully exploit that ability. Frankly I never realised the Axis viewed this as an advantage. If so, the simply answer would be to split the Axis into the same number of "armies" as there are allied nationailities, with slightly varied spawnlists, and then allow the axis to deploy them in exactly the same fashion as the allies can with their seperate nationalities?

Puma I think you can probably forget all about, the numbers built were minimal - circa 90 or so, and presuming half went East you're looking at, in all likelihood, a mere 45 Pumas in the whole western theatre! The Panther and Jagdpanther are both worthy, but again I can't see the Tiger II being a strong contender, partially because of the small numbers built, but mainly because I think it'll be found to be a profound disadvanatge in axis spawnlists. 

Why? Because to keep the game competitive, there will need to be a lot of additional Sherman Fireflies and TD's to compensate, it'll attract huge amounts of fire, like as not be tracked in short order and sapped, and really only able to shine where it's up high and able to use it's reach. The rest of the time it'll be an albatros around your necks, wasted more often than not, and result in huge amounts of Shermans. The same applies, to a lesser degree, to the two Panthers.

If I were axis, I'd be seeking to have the cheap-as-chips Marder type TD's instead. They'll be generally more useful, won't cause a massive numeric inbalance in allied lists - which the Panthers, Tiger II etc would infallibly warrant, and it won't matter if 1 clot gets the thing whacked to no avail. Basically, consider the issues you already have with the Tiger I, where early and ill-judged use gets it clobbered, and you then face a pile of Shermans. The same thing will generally occur, far worse, if the axis do go down the route of uber-tanks.

Far smarter to go for the JgdPz 1, Marders, Hetzers even the 251 Pak 40 Portee.

In my estimation, if axis lists do go for these uber tanks, you will almost invariably lose any campaign where that tier is reached, simply because players gravitate to the sides where they can more frequently get  decent tank, rather than the side where they only very infrequently get to operate an uber one, and have to watch, most of the time, the thing being wasted....

Be careful what you wish for.

The only way I can see this working, is if modest units of these vehicles were available to GHC to augment the TOE of regular armoured Divs's whilst so attached. That way the overall match-ups of allied v axis armoured Divs will be kept sensible, they can be employed where there weapons and armour can do the most could, they can be present in numbers with some tolerance of clueless operation.

If instead, they simply become part of the regular armoured Div TOE's, in small numbers, I'd forecast that once that tier arrives, the axis will lose. Every single time.

Edited by fidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
37 minutes ago, fidd said:

Not under arms in 1942-1944 there weren't. Which is my point.

LOL.

In the real world where France surrendered, obviously. In the ww2ol world where France might be winning?

 

Share this post


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

LOL.

In the real world where France surrendered, obviously. In the ww2ol world where France might be winning?

 

In the ww2ol and in the real world, the Canadians would have augmented the BEF in any case. So the issue becomes not "should the Canadians be modelled?" but rather, should the Arfr be persisted with. You could, for example simply rationalise it that the area of France and Belgium modelled on the map was held by the BEF, Canadians and later US troops, and that the Arfr was simply south and east of this area. IE the Arfr is "present" in theatre, but not in the area of the modelled map.

A bit like the Russians - technically a foe of the axis, but not present on our part of the battlefield. What I'm suggesting is similar treatment of the Arfr so that during the period where (in fact) the Arfr was defeated, we treat them as "elsewhere" if you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
7 minutes ago, fidd said:

In the ww2ol and in the real world, the Canadians would have augmented the BEF in any case. So the issue becomes not "should the Canadians be modelled?" but rather, should the Arfr be persisted with. You could, for example simply rationalise it that the area of France and Belgium modelled on the map was held by the BEF, Canadians and later US troops, and that the Arfr was simply south and east of this area. IE the Arfr is "present" in theatre, but not in the area of the modelled map.

The Canadians ARE the BEF. It's literally a uniform change, and some slight differences in relative numbers of US vs UK tanks, maybe. A total waste of time.

I'm entirely disinterested in losing the French given a 1940 start. Might as well start the map after D-Day and be done with the BoF.

7 minutes ago, fidd said:

A bit like the Russians - technically a foe of the axis, but not present on our part of the battlefield. What I'm suggesting is similar treatment of the Arfr so that during the period where (in fact) the Arfr was defeated, we treat them as "elsewhere" if you will.

That's a poor analogy. This map includes France, and starts before they are defeated.

Again, the map would have to start not after Germany is halfway to the coast in 1940, but start after D-day and the Allies are halfway to Germany, instead. Would solve the tier problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...