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.

BMBM

Easter Eggs

Recommended Posts

james10
23 minutes ago, dre21 said:

OK I'll buy the bugfix and addition argument , but the CHANGE one is a big deal.

Apparently the sapper spot on the Matilda has changed ( haven't had a chance to try but Kareca did see his post in the Forum)

Well that is a big deal if true , why cause we were repeatedly told by CRS that sap spots never change without being in the read me or we were told sap spot have never changed .

And if the player bases addresses it we are told we have no clue what we are talking about . So you can imagine that it irks me a ton .

If I may just make an observation here.

There is in the readme a reference to an armor leak that has been located and rectified in the Matilda vehicles. Both the regular and CS versions are effected by the armor leak fix. The armor leak has been apparently around for quite a long time too. Maybe, just possibly the sap spot for the Matilda was attacking the location of the armor leak. No more armor leak, no more sap spot.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21
9 minutes ago, james10 said:

If I may just make an observation here.

There is in the readme a reference to an armor leak that has been located and rectified in the Matilda vehicles. Both the regular and CS versions are effected by the armor leak fix. The armor leak has been apparently around for quite a long time too. Maybe, just possibly the sap spot for the Matilda was attacking the location of the armor leak. No more armor leak, no more sap spot.

Cheers.

Sorry to vague for me ,  that spot has worked since the Matilda made it in game, now it was an armor leak .

Sorry if it was an Armor leak then me in a Stug3b would have slaughtered tons of them cause I tried and tried that spot with all ammo the Stug3b has , matter of fact the 3f and 4d would have been successful then too.

I'm talking the rear side spot

Only time I managed to kill a Matilda with a Stug3b was rolling within a few meters of it and hitting that same sapper spot.

Again I have not tried it yet. But I will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
james10
8 minutes ago, dre21 said:

Sorry to vague for me ,  that spot has worked since the Matilda made it in game, now it was an armor leak .

I don't claim to know which sap spot you are attempting to use AND I also have NO knowledge of where the armor leak was located and rectified.

I DO know there WAS an armor leak located and fixed in the Matilda that appears to have been in existence since the Matilda was introduced.

The very simple point I am making in relation to the changing of the Matilda sap spot you do seem to be very distressed about, could be a result of the fix to the old armor leak. A coincidental change that may have resulted from a genuine fix to a discovered inadequacy.

The armor leak fix was defined in the readme. It is not inconceivable the whole previous performance profile of the Matilda is now very different to what it was.

Testing will reveal the possible new performance profile of the Matilda, it that is now the case.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM

I don’t think it is or should be required of us to detail the specific vulnerabilities of any vehicle. By the same token we don’t detail the specific nature of every leak/bugfix.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I know this may not be what a few people want to hear, but the basic design of armoured vehicles (and I assume that in the base code, this hasn't really changed in terms of foundation) is often misconstrued by players when speaking of "sap spots". These seem to be mentioned in a frame of reference that implies 1 or more "sap spots" are included in an armoured vehicles design so that they can be sapped. Obviously that would also mean that anti-armour weapons could target such locations for enhanced success possibilities.

This is true of course, with an important caveat. There was never a "sap spot" included in ANY armoured vehicle. "Sap spots" are simply somewhere on a vehicle where it's armour is more susceptible to penetration than other areas on the vehicles exterior, due to thickness, angle and the proximity of vulnerable components that if compromised can lead to catastrophic results for that vehicle or it's crew. Like fuel tanks, ammunition (the 2 prime components in this respect) or the crew themselves.

Thus, if you change any of these factors (armour thickness, or overlap in the art that comprises the rendering in game, which could include "holes" or seams unintentionally left with an integrity deficit) ... change them through fixes or redesign or whatever process introduces such change, then the "sap spot" may change, even though an actual deliberate "sap spot" never existed as such. It was always simply the confluence of design parameters that  produced the effects or consequences that became known as "sap spots" ... and I grant you while this seems a small differentiation what is important about it is that we should always be aware of how misunderstanding it can lead to less than ideal perceptions and satisfaction when you feel you were badly done by.

So, while that weak spot (in terms of resisting the catastrophic consequences of a successful sapping) can be CALLED a sap spot (pretty fair in game slang evolution to be honest) don't be fooled into thinking there were ever sap spots that could or were included, added, or rearranged to increase or decrease a vehicles ability to be sapped, or resist being sapped. These results were always the consequence of the basic armour and component values that comprise whatever vehicle you are considering, not the consequence of sap spots included or not.

So if you fix an armour leak for example, if that armour leak presented itself functionally in game as a spot vulnerable to sapper charges (and other anti-tank ordnance) then it may well appear that a sap spot was removed. Which is not strictly the case but it will function as if it is the case to players that think sap spots are put into vehicles for the benefit of sappers.

Just for clarity's sake.

Edited by DOC
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I don’t think it is or should be required of us to detail the specific vulnerabilities of any vehicle. By the same token we don’t detail the specific nature of every leak/bugfix.

I never said that , that is required but if a spot that worked for sappers changes it should be addressed , not saying that CRS needs to say where new spots are just that the old ones do not work anymore. I didn't know there was an Armor leak on the Matilda to begin with. 

And Doc we call it sapper spots cause it's spots that work for sappers nothing less nothing more .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOC
16 minutes ago, dre21 said:

I never said that , that is required but if a spot that worked for sappers changes it should be addressed , not saying that CRS needs to say where new spots are just that the old ones do not work anymore. I didn't know there was an Armor leak on the Matilda to begin with. 

And Doc we call it sapper spots cause it's spots that work for sappers nothing less nothing more .

I understand that. However, you should understand that I dealt with hundreds of players who thought there were "sapper spots" built into a vehicle for that purpose, so this drives my desire for clarity on the that issue because I'm certain the same situation exists today, although I cannot know to what degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE

Sorry I am not an expert on weapons: I see that there are multiple tubes but only one grenade is shot. is this how it worked?

The grenade lands about 20 meters away, so it should be used while riding backwards?

Any opportunity to allow some more to be reloaded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM

One smoke mortar per tube, two tubes. You fire it to cover a tactical displacement, ie to cover a retreat when shot at. Reload is automatic in proximity of a supply base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE
On 10/4/2020 at 9:58 PM, BMBM said:

One smoke mortar per tube, two tubes. You fire it to cover a tactical displacement, ie to cover a retreat when shot at. Reload is automatic in proximity of a supply base.

I only see one munition in the UI and a single one fired. Could be nice to have a full smoke screen fired with 4 grenades at once, fired from 2x2 tubes 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM

You should see two rounds (1 load) plop out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:
Quote

One smoke mortar per tube, two tubes. 

Could be nice to have a full smoke screen fired with 4 grenades at once, fired from 2x2 tubes 

Was there an historical version of the Matilda II with 2x2 tubes? I'm not aware of one.

Two images of the Bovington tank:

Bovington_191_Matilda_II.jpg

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRqNSaIWUehrIBA4cStkW6

Edited by jwilly
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blggles

Both rounds fire at once and land right next to each other, such that they seem only one. I was thinking that they're probably meant to land with separation in order to create a screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE

Ty jwilly, but then what boggles said? Sorry I am a n00b in armement, just looking at it from a gameplay perspective :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM

The rounds hit with some separation currently adjusted to the puny smoke round that we have. Ideally the rounds should give a rather more massive screen and would then have a somewhat greater spread.

I’m not aware of a 2x2 setup, I used the Bovington example and others for reference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
18 hours ago, BMBM said:

The rounds hit with some separation currently adjusted to the puny smoke round that we have.

Who would we ask to have the #80 smoke grenade in this case, and other smoke grenades/rounds, all made more voluminous?

Share this post


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

You should see two rounds (1 load) plop out.

You do, it’s two smoke rounds that land in front of the matty

Share this post


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

You do, it’s two smoke rounds that land in front of the matty

Or wherever the turret is pointing ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21

It's a nice feature to be added to the Tanks , be cool when all that had them get them.

I make use of the Smoke rounds from the Stug a lot it's a great add on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greyman

Is it possible to get them to fire separately at some point in the future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
36 minutes ago, greyman said:

Is it possible to get them to fire separately at some point in the future?

2:13 in this video, Nick Moran shows us that the two smoke dischargers have separate firing handles. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
james10

Hello All.

Well, looking at the video there is defiantly reference to the two triggers for the smoke projectors. However if the Matilda II has 2 smoke projectors on each side of the turret for a total of 4 smoke projectors, the triggering of the smoke projectors would be completed in pairs, 1 each side of the turret, for a total of 2 deployments without reloading. At the moment I haven't looked at the Matilda in-game so am unsure how its modeled.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, james10 said:

Well, looking at the video there is defiantly reference to the two triggers for the smoke projectors. However if the Matilda II has 2 smoke projectors on each side of the turret for a total of 4 smoke projectors, the triggering of the smoke projectors would be completed in pairs, 1 each side of the turret, for a total of 2 deployments without reloading. At the moment I haven't looked at the Matilda in-game so am unsure how its modeled.

I think the Matilda II has only two smoke projector tubes, on the right side of the turret with reference to the commander's view looking forward.

One might say from the photograph used on the front page of the video that there are also tubes on the other side of the turret...but that photo (stupidly IMO, embarrassing for wargaming.net) is reversed! Note that the MG is on the wrong side of the main gun, and the driver's periscope is on the wrong side of the direct vision port.

The post 11 up from here has photos of both sides of the Bovington example's turret. Two tubes on the right, nothing on the left.

 

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM
On 10/8/2020 at 5:42 AM, greyman said:

Is it possible to get them to fire separately at some point in the future?

Most definitely yes. YMMV with just one shot though, except in alleys. I’d go for mass any day in the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
On 10/4/2020 at 10:45 AM, DOC said:

I know this may not be what a few people want to hear, but the basic design of armoured vehicles (and I assume that in the base code, this hasn't really changed in terms of foundation) is often misconstrued by players when speaking of "sap spots". These seem to be mentioned in a frame of reference that implies 1 or more "sap spots" are included in an armoured vehicles design so that they can be sapped. Obviously that would also mean that anti-armour weapons could target such locations for enhanced success possibilities.

This is true of course, with an important caveat. There was never a "sap spot" included in ANY armoured vehicle. "Sap spots" are simply somewhere on a vehicle where it's armour is more susceptible to penetration than other areas on the vehicles exterior, due to thickness, angle and the proximity of vulnerable components that if compromised can lead to catastrophic results for that vehicle or it's crew. Like fuel tanks, ammunition (the 2 prime components in this respect) or the crew themselves.

Thus, if you change any of these factors (armour thickness, or overlap in the art that comprises the rendering in game, which could include "holes" or seams unintentionally left with an integrity deficit) ... change them through fixes or redesign or whatever process introduces such change, then the "sap spot" may change, even though an actual deliberate "sap spot" never existed as such. It was always simply the confluence of design parameters that  produced the effects or consequences that became known as "sap spots" ... and I grant you while this seems a small differentiation what is important about it is that we should always be aware of how misunderstanding it can lead to less than ideal perceptions and satisfaction when you feel you were badly done by.

So, while that weak spot (in terms of resisting the catastrophic consequences of a successful sapping) can be CALLED a sap spot (pretty fair in game slang evolution to be honest) don't be fooled into thinking there were ever sap spots that could or were included, added, or rearranged to increase or decrease a vehicles ability to be sapped, or resist being sapped. These results were always the consequence of the basic armour and component values that comprise whatever vehicle you are considering, not the consequence of sap spots included or not.

So if you fix an armour leak for example, if that armour leak presented itself functionally in game as a spot vulnerable to sapper charges (and other anti-tank ordnance) then it may well appear that a sap spot was removed. Which is not strictly the case but it will function as if it is the case to players that think sap spots are put into vehicles for the benefit of sappers.

Just for clarity's sake.

Thx, and I might say even during your tenure, you explained this on more than one occasion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...