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.

kazee

If Tier 3 is suppose to represent 1943...

Recommended Posts

stankyus
22 hours ago, delems said:

*** Isn't tier 3 1944?

No, it is 1943 by anyone who knows this game.

By original design it does seem that tier 3 was anything 1943 and beyond.  So, yes - 44 would be included.

But, that faces completely against the fact that tier 0 is 1940, and tier 1 is 1941 and tier 2 is 1942........... one can quite logically deduce tier 3 is 1943.

The game, imo, needs to get the tiers set right - 6 tiers (0-5).

T0 used to represent just the opening blitz for the BoF. We do not have a T4. We have a t3 which has 43-44 equipment in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

(In reply to Jwilly)

Frankly I don't see t he point, afterall when RDP was properly "live" and round-the-clock bombing could stop tier progression, the Rats caved-in and nerfed it utterly. This despite the fact that one of the Rats flew these sorties with us, and it should have been perfectly obvious that a) this was unsustainable in the sense of unlikely to occur in subsequent campaigns to the same degree, and b) was a HUGE effort. involving some 20-25 pilots flying back to back sorties, hour in, hour out.

If all the strat stuff is added, with railway stations and the like affecting supply, (if bombed), then one of two things will happen: It will not be effective enough to make a difference in tier progression or resupply of attrited divs, or, it will work, for one campaign, the whining will commence and it'll be nerfed again, rendering all the strat work completely pointless and wasted.

Edited by fidd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

RDP was always a goofy concept to me. I said as much a lifetime ago here (pre-kids counts as a lifetime to me ;) )

The game doesn't have anything at the economic/strat level modeled at the resolution required. I always through bombing would be better aimed at supply dumps. We have RR lines and stations. We have "ammo dumps" (whatever the "tents" are. Ideally we'd have maybe 2 pieces of rolling stock, a boxcar, and a tanker, and they get put at the RR station (or someplace) where a BDE is or maybe at some town behind the front (where the BDE used to be, maybe?) Bombing those to destruction slows resupply to that BDE. That's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakeh
On 9/10/2020 at 6:54 PM, kazee said:

If Tier 3 is suppose to represent 1943...then why are there American towns (garrisons) in Europe in 1943 ?

I'm no history major but I don't think there were towns in Europe under American control in 1943. B)

Yeah we can have an american division on the map in '43 if u want, that's fine, but town ownership and garrisons should be discussed

You can debate historical accuracy with equipment all you want but american town ownership in '43 in non-debatable 

 

 

This game starts with the German invasion of France and the Low Countries.  After that, everything is alternative history.  For the Axis to win, they must defeat the French Republic.  Failure to do so allows the US to enter on the Allied side.   There is no D-day in this game.  There are no Free-French.    If the Axis cannot overrun France before the US entry then the Americans will logically land in French held ports and move inland and take over parts of the front.  If the Axis overrun France  before the US enters the war the game is over.  No D-Day.

1943 in this game is not 1943 in the the real life WW2.    In this game, in 1943, the Republic of France has not fallen, its army is still in the game and holding ground.  The British have not been driven off the coast.  Dunkirk never happened.   The Americans can take over front just as they did in WW1.  

Also of note, Germany would not have invaded the USSR until France was defeated, so Germany would be able to put its full resources into a one front war.  

Edited by blakeh
add note

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakeh
On 9/11/2020 at 3:21 PM, fidd said:

Excellent and  most interesting post. Not sure I quite agree with  all your conclusions, but in the main, yes.

Personally, I'd prefer the games campaigns did not start necessarily with the same tier or set-up, ie sequential campaigns.

I'd like to see:

Campaign 1. May 1940. If Germans win, next campaign set-up starting fron Normandy area in 1944 (#2 below).  If allies win, next campaign is Mat 1940 agaim.

Campaign 2. June 1944 Normandy. Next campaign is May 1940 (#1 above) in either case of a win. No Arfr but Leclercs Div modelled, also Canadians and US units. Massive allied air-superiority modelled.

If a "North Africa" or Eastern Front theatres ever done then further campaigns could be added to the possible outcomes.

This has the great benefit of keeping more close to the history, less "weirdness" in TOE's and allows for some variety in the campaign's character and sequences.

 

Good idea.   Having a couple of different campaigns based on different points in the war would be a very good idea.  I would not make camp2 dependent upon the outcome of camp1- just alternate them.

At this point we likely need a few more pieces of equipment before camp2 comes into play, such as an American Air force,  truck, ATG, scout car, half-track.   Axis would also need the Panther.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

I think it's truer to state that the Rats 'made a virtue out a necessity'. Unable to build terrain for campaigns in different theatres, or indeed build the new aircraft, tanks and  infantry a multi-theatre game (as the game was intitially hyped) they had to stay with the ETO, and make maximum possible use of every thing devved. Hence the Framericans, use of Havoc/DB7 the same destroyers and fairmiles for both sides and so on.

All this "counterfactual crap" is simply what was said when CRS1 couldn't deliver on the initial (historic) multiple different campaigns. It's also why "WW2OL" become "Battleground Europe".

As someone who enjoys the historical accuracy side of the game, I freaking loath "counterfactual" and the weasel-words which accompany it's justification. So I'm happiest in tier 0, and then tier 2+ when I can basically pretend the Arfr are the Americans. I also absolutely despise service-dates being mucked about with, and there's a great deal of that which has gone on in the few years I've been out of game, and obfuscation of the tiers. This movement away from historically correct match-ups (by type and numerically) really really pisses me off.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
On 9/12/2020 at 2:54 PM, jwilly said:

US production obviously comes from US factories, unreachable by German bombers.

It comes over via convoys for which there's no game-mechanism for interdiction.

It arrives in far western or possibly southern French ports, unreachable by German bombers.

If it's Lend-Lease stuff for France, it's moved by rail to the French military's central depots around Paris to be organized. If it's for American forces in France, it goes by rail to the American equivalent of Arras, the central British depot/supply-dump location. Both are unreachable by German bombers at game-start.

Then it's dispatched by rail to forward supply dumps, from which it goes by truck/wagon to front line units.

And, everything built in French factories for the French military, and built in 

The rail system that connects the front lines to the Paris-area depots, and the British supply depots at Arras, and the American supply depots somewhere is not out of range of German bombers.

Rail sorting yards, trans-shipment stations and key river-bridges all are important rail-system targets that should be defined in-game as damageable.

Absolutely. 

I'd go further and have certain port and rail facilities count like factories, particularly American supply, and in the case of rail facility capture it actually increases the production (or decreases ticket time) as the facility helps get things 'to the front'.  And of course bombable to increase ticket time.

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
On 9/13/2020 at 9:43 AM, fidd said:

(In reply to Jwilly)

Frankly I don't see t he point, afterall when RDP was properly "live" and round-the-clock bombing could stop tier progression, the Rats caved-in and nerfed it utterly. This despite the fact that one of the Rats flew these sorties with us, and it should have been perfectly obvious that a) this was unsustainable in the sense of unlikely to occur in subsequent campaigns to the same degree, and b) was a HUGE effort. involving some 20-25 pilots flying back to back sorties, hour in, hour out.

If all the strat stuff is added, with railway stations and the like affecting supply, (if bombed), then one of two things will happen: It will not be effective enough to make a difference in tier progression or resupply of attrited divs, or, it will work, for one campaign, the whining will commence and it'll be nerfed again, rendering all the strat work completely pointless and wasted.

As the strategic staff officer on duty when this event occurred, I find it hard to refute that would not happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
On 9/14/2020 at 8:22 AM, tater said:

RDP was always a goofy concept to me. I said as much a lifetime ago here (pre-kids counts as a lifetime to me ;) )

The game doesn't have anything at the economic/strat level modeled at the resolution required. I always through bombing would be better aimed at supply dumps. We have RR lines and stations. We have "ammo dumps" (whatever the "tents" are. Ideally we'd have maybe 2 pieces of rolling stock, a boxcar, and a tanker, and they get put at the RR station (or someplace) where a BDE is or maybe at some town behind the front (where the BDE used to be, maybe?) Bombing those to destruction slows resupply to that BDE. That's it.

This is outlined in the USSBS, they explain that we had a period of strat bombing proper, then switched to interdiction of forces in France to cut off supply to support the invasion, then went back to strategic after our foothold and logistics were secure.  You can see it here in this Summary report under Allied Strategic Plan.

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/ETO-Summary.html

However, the current strat bombing is not ridiculous, we definitely had major effects on Germany's prosecution of the war.  Just not all the ballyhooed things we thought were going to work.  And of course we forced the Luftwaffe over Germany and ground it down, keeping it from interfering with our operations and more importantly losing the capacity for consistent aerial reconnaissance for which Germany's outnumbered but skilled forced relied on for optimal operations.

USSBS is a great read, not least of which outlining Germany's production plant.

I did the math on the optimal targeting of hitting Germany's electrical plant.  if the Allies had done that, it probably would have taken 10% as many bombs to cripple German industry, and therefore within sight of our modeled effort.

 

Share this post


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

As the strategic staff officer on duty when this event occurred, I find it hard to refute that would not happen again.

Hehe, there's rather a lot of negatives in there, but I think you're agreeing that that was an extraordinary effort. I suspect that with the accounts seperated as they are, one would really struggle these days to get that many pilots all together at the same time..

Share this post


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

However, the current strat bombing is not ridiculous, we definitely had major effects on Germany's prosecution of the war.  Just not all the ballyhooed things we thought were going to work.  And of course we forced the Luftwaffe over Germany and ground it down, keeping it from interfering with our operations and more importantly losing the capacity for consistent aerial reconnaissance for which Germany's outnumbered but skilled forced relied on for optimal operations.

I'm not arguing it was ridiculous in RL, I'm saying for the game it sort of is.

Strat bombing in ww2ol is time consuming, but trivial. Targets reliably are wrecked, very predictable. AAA is a joke, and there is no radar to guide interceptors properly. On the down side for the bombers, no gunners (100% of defensive guns on bombers should be manned unless the gunner is actually killed).

So maybe a more variable bombing would make more sense, and be more fun. Search and destroy would require flying low enough to spot the "supply dump" areas (that or dedicated recon to mark them). Would give planes something to do without the time investment required for RDP. Would have a local, not global effect on the battlefield, and timing could be adjusted (with new rolling stock showing supply was coming back, etc).

Share this post


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

Hehe, there's rather a lot of negatives in there, but I think you're agreeing that that was an extraordinary effort. I suspect that with the accounts seperated as they are, one would really struggle these days to get that many pilots all together at the same time..

I'm saying the part where we put together an effective bombing campaign two campaigns in a row, we weren't allowed a third, and that likely if supply network interdiction were coded in, we would have similar effectiveness then likely nerfing.

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


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

I'm not arguing it was ridiculous in RL, I'm saying for the game it sort of is.

Strat bombing in ww2ol is time consuming, but trivial. Targets reliably are wrecked, very predictable. AAA is a joke, and there is no radar to guide interceptors properly. On the down side for the bombers, no gunners (100% of defensive guns on bombers should be manned unless the gunner is actually killed).

So maybe a more variable bombing would make more sense, and be more fun. Search and destroy would require flying low enough to spot the "supply dump" areas (that or dedicated recon to mark them). Would give planes something to do without the time investment required for RDP. Would have a local, not global effect on the battlefield, and timing could be adjusted (with new rolling stock showing supply was coming back, etc).

Your point about gunners is well observed, but then the standards of ww2 gunnery, even with powered turrets, was pretty poor. Ironically, it was "easier" at night, as the fighters tended to get a great deal closer, and provided the gunner was alert, and crew quickly executed a "corkscrew", the  direction of which was commanded by the gunner, he could slather thee now nearby night-fighter. Of such combats, however, the night-fighter won circa 80% of the time, until the advent of radar collimating gunsights.

My take on RDP is that  it was "strangled at birth" before players had the oppurtunity to adapt. Towards the end of the  campaign where we completely stalled axis tier progression, there were signs that standing patrols of 109's were operating a bit like a u-boat wolfpack, where one sighted us, and then 7-10 of them fell on us and usually shot down a similar number. In my view, this was something to encourage, as it gave the air-war "a point" and led to some quite large engagements at altitude, rather than the "down amongst the weeds" we typically  have.

It seems to me that RDP bombing gave a new means of possibly winning a campaign, as if there was a morale-collapse in the opposition, driven by being "a tier or two behind", then you could gain ground. Conversely, if the side that had been bombed traded ground for time, ie accepted they were going to lose ground, but endeavoured to lose as little as possible, until their bombers could return the compliment; or until later tiers, when the fact had been a tier behind would count for less.

Sadly, what CRS1 didn't spot, or did, and paid inadequate attention to, was that the skill-set required to level-bomb was far harder than the dive-bomb attack then possible with the DB7/Havoc, and so the He111, which required a level-bombing profile, was mastered by very few players. With the Ju88 and Wellington, both sides will have dive-bombers - in the sense that the Db7 can make a shallow diving attack - and the Ju88 a steeper one, and two level-bombers in the Wellington/He111.

I hope that once these are in, RDP will be revisited, as it was a most interesting idea that gave-rise to some fun engagements.

Share this post


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

My take on RDP is that  it was "strangled at birth" before players had the oppurtunity to adapt. Towards the end of the  campaign where we completely stalled axis tier progression, there were signs that standing patrols of 109's were operating a bit like a u-boat wolfpack, where one sighted us, and then 7-10 of them fell on us and usually shot down a similar number. In my view, this was something to encourage, as it gave the air-war "a point" and led to some quite large engagements at altitude, rather than the "down amongst the weeds" we typically  have.

Reasonable points about something for them to do.

Maybe since RL "strat" bombing attacks (even area bombing) were level bombing attacks, there could be a way to force level bombing, instead (course the Allies need a real bomber).

Ie: RDP targets have horrific, heavy flak. below some altitude such that any attack that isn't high alt almost certainly fails. RDP facilities could generate smoke (with decoys), etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Just fix the game code so there are 6 tiers; 0 - 5.  Tier 5 can last forever.

Then have gear come in at the correct time, including USA that doesn't require server reboot.

All the other tiers seamlessly transition, time to make USA transition the same.

This should be a pretty high priority imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

Why stop at 1945 if neither side is defeated yet? Ten tiers, 0-9, with gear coming in the historically first-available-to-be-fielded tier or the first tier that it would have been available if the historical defeat of its owner nation hadn't intervened.

So Britain gets Centurions in the second half of 1945, Germany gets Panther IIs in 1946 and ceases new production of all other tanks/assault guns, USA converts its armored divisions to M26s in the second half of 1945, US gets M4A3E8-based Pershermans for infantry divisions in 1946.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Sure, could do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall

Heh, there is a hardcore piece of equipment nerdery comic called Luftwaffe 1946.  It assumed the Axis not defeated in 1945 and a continuation of the war, allowing for the artist to draw all those weird German planes into combat situations.

It really is bad writing as this review states, but far as I'm concerned it was just an excuse to execute gorgeous drawings of the stuff.

http://www.ourworlds.net/blackhawk/exclusives/rr-luft46.html

Also apparently spawned a wargame, an RPG, and minis for the game.

http://msdgames.com/epages/bccb46a7-1a07-48ac-8a77-e8e6cce9e958.sf/en_US/?ObjectPath=/Shops/bccb46a7-1a07-48ac-8a77-e8e6cce9e958/Categories/"LUFTWAFFE 1946"

 

The important part is the descendant Luft46 site, which gives a nice overview of upcoming German projects.

http://www.luft46.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...