Tanks rate of fire.

[Jsilec]

1 hour ago, jwilly said:

Bad answer. Instead CRS should work, as resources are available and to the extent possible, to achieve improved realism on all of these identified issues.

RoF properly should take crewing into account. When one action at a time was a limitation in real life, it should be in-game, too.

The Tiger's turret rotation rate should be engine RPM dependent. No doubt that'd take new code. I'll bet CRS could figure out how to do it, though.

How bout instead of new code or re-evaluation of each piece of equipments ROF we just play a VIDEO GAME and shoot each other while its still up and open for business...1 day it wont be here and all these historic players who are quitting the game because of nonsense reasons will be happy because an s35 might have fired 4 extra shells a minute or a tiger turrets hydrolics weren’t modeled and coded correctly.....hows that for an answer?

[HATCH]

28 minutes ago, Jsilec said:

How bout instead of new code or re-evaluation of each piece of equipments ROF we just play a VIDEO GAME and shoot each other while its still up and open for business...1 day it wont be here and all these historic players who are quitting the game because of nonsense reasons will be happy because an s35 might have fired 4 extra shells a minute or a tiger turrets hydrolics weren’t modeled and coded correctly.....hows that for an answer?

Well said Jsilec

Astonishes me how toxic this place has become and even worse how some fool will make up some BS and others will jump on his train and work themselves into a tizzy up to and even rage quitting over nothing, a grievance made of fairy dust. Its stupid and toxic, they should know better, and be ashamed of participating in it. That kind of BS is what kills communities.

Case in point, I had a few minutes to look at the tier 0 French and German tank ROF file history. Bottom line is that ANYTHING that shoots the 47MM french gun got slowed down. Not a lot, but slower than either the Pz3F and 38T which remained the same at their original 3 seconds reload time. The Char main gun went to like 10 seconds, such a difference we didn't have a long enough reload sound for it and had to come up with a new one.

[drkmouse]

welp us old trolls have to go 
SOMEWERE>>>>>>    jk,   peeps  love the game so they are hard core;) 

[Augetout]

1 hour ago, HATCH said:

Case in point, I had a few minutes to look at the tier 0 French and German tank ROF file history. Bottom line is that ANYTHING that shoots the 47MM french gun got slowed down. Not a lot, but slower than either the Pz3F and 38T which remained the same at their original 3 seconds reload time. The Char main gun went to like 10 seconds, such a difference we didn't have a long enough reload sound for it and had to come up with a new one.

 I sure hope this settles things.

[GrAnit]

On 7/16/2019 at 11:54 AM, enemytank said:

Very well.
I hope you are right and keep this game alive.
GL

PS. I am not a payer, I have no right to bother you.
sry.

 

Thanks for posting and knocking the game without being a paying member.  It is very much appreciated and it helps the game sooooo much.  <sar>

The righteous indignation at some minor issue really helps the community of those who are paying (sometimes multiple accounts) to help keep the game alive and grow..

[delems]

*** Thanks for posting and knocking the game without being a paying member.  It is very much appreciated and it helps the game sooooo much.  <sar>

He has been a paying player and is/was one of the best axis tankers.....

Glad he is still here as FPA instead of completely gone.

 

PS I find it awfully funny to think any allies have ever quit because of the tanking game.  LOL

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by delems

[Augetout]

2 hours ago, delems said:

PS I find it awfully funny to think any allies have ever quit because of the tanking game.  LOL

Well I don't.  My unit had 40+ members who were dedicated French tankers.  I haven't been able to convince them to come back.  It's not funny at all.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Augetout

[Jsilec]

23rd was biggest allied armor squad and its non existent now.....like a fart in the wind

[delems]

*** 23rd was biggest allied armor squad and its non existent now.....like a fart in the wind

lol, ya, like they all left cause they couldn't kill panzers................ lmfao

Maybe 1000 years ago when Tiger first came out, but not in last 10 years.

Up until maybe a few months ago, with the 6 month tiers, allies have had complete tank superiority every tier.

 

[Jsilec]

2 hours ago, delems said:

*** 23rd was biggest allied armor squad and its non existent now.....like a fart in the wind

lol, ya, like they all left cause they couldn't kill panzers................ lmfao

Maybe 1000 years ago when Tiger first came out, but not in last 10 years.

Up until maybe a few months ago, with the 6 month tiers, allies have had complete tank superiority every tier.

 

Never said that noobcakes....so your saying axis tankers have unsubbed because they cqnt kill allied armor or is it ROF?.....or maybe your exaggerating just a little bit

Edited July 18, 2019 by Jsilec

[ian77]

Regardless of "why" players are unsubbing, they have unsubbed. The Map before "Hardest Campaign Ever" we regularly had 3 AOs and on weekends a few nights of 4 AOs.

Now, 1 AO seems to be the norm. 

Players have unsubbed for many reasons, from 6 Matties V 25 PzII "historical doctrine" to Brits having less than 50% of axis SMGs. to Axis having eleventy Tigers in every AO.  IMHO every thing implemented from now on should only be done so IF it is not going to cause more people to quit. If it will  result in a net decrease in subscriptions  please do not implement it regardless of "historical accuracy". There are too few in game most of the time already, lets not push any more away, please.

 

Ian 

[Dre21]

14 hours ago, major0noob said:

 

RPATS...

I would claim it was , the Ninja ML running around in the landscape, to find said Tank ( Allied- Axis alike) set up a FRU , then despawned and came back as a Sapper. And then went back as a Rifle and went back onto the hunt. 

IMO that alone has cost us more Tankers on both sides, then any reload speed , Turret turn rate.

[Jsilec]

1 hour ago, dre21 said:

I would claim it was , the Ninja ML running around in the landscape, to find said Tank ( Allied- Axis alike) set up a FRU , then despawned and came back as a Sapper. And then went back as a Rifle and went back onto the hunt. 

IMO that alone has cost us more Tankers on both sides, then any reload speed , Turret turn rate.

I can agree with the ninja part but at least with sappers using teamwork can keep you alive...rpats fuhgedaboutit!

[dandare9]

I seriously resent the fact that comment Hatch when you talk about some fool making up BS!

I have been reading and looking at the second world war since as far back as I can remember, having had a parent who was in it!  50 years of interest in a subject does not mean that I make things up. How far do you want me to go? Do I need to produce experts from the Imperial War museum or will you call those guys fools too? Perhaps Sandhurst? 

This is not a side/axis rant but a considered comment about realism, which we were led to believe by Xoom, was something the Rats were concerned with including keeping a fun factor. I even expressed disappointment at the speeding up of Tiger turret speeds from what had been called, at the time, realistic. Same with the slats on the 109, which were commented on by an actual German pilot ace Gunther Rall!

I had not considered leaving the game over the rate of fire but I would seriously consider it when someone has to revert to calling someone a 'fool making up BS'. How about the reasoned argument focusing on the key points. My thread might have been hijacked but that is no reason to consider the argument spurious.

By the way, Raydr left the game BEFORE this thread.

DD9

[Kilemall]

On 7/17/2019 at 0:33 PM, Augetout said:

You know better, Kilemall, in that you are well aware that I am all for accurate performance modeling, and have been for 18 years, regardless of whether doing so 'helps the Allies' or not. 

I do not believe that Allied tankers, who presumably have been taking it in the shorts for who knows how long before the May of '18 audit, will react poorly.  Not to mention it might entice some of the Allied tankers who left during the 'take it in the shorts' period of time when the performance modeling was less accurate, to come back.

I think you have missed many years and will be disappointed in Allied reactions.  Many people on both sides seems to be convinced Rats have it out for them and better modeling won't go over when their candy is taken away.  One of those would be the 2lber on all those Brit tanks AND the current FMS under a full modeling regimen of FHA/shattergap/caps.

 

I also don't believe the Allies taking it in the shorts narrative, I know who broke down when the truck FMS went in and why.  Whatever Scotsman's assessment was, was likely done during that time when the spawnlists were an overreaction to Allied armor superior lists for at least 6 years plus truck FMS unmasking that situation, and had too many IIIBs which we had already mentioned many times before.  The other big valuation I seem to suss out from how spawnlists interact now is 88s being ridiculous.  They weren't a real factor 90% of the time during that period due to Allied superior airpower most of the time and FRUs before truck FMS hunting 88s to death much more then even tanks.

 

The takeaway from this thread SHOULD be more communication and openness helps retain those that are open to reason, won't do a damn for those who are convinced the Rats are out to ruin them, and more accuracy in modeling is desirable as long as the spawnlists reflect game reality as a whole.

[tater]

6 hours ago, dre21 said:

I would claim it was , the Ninja ML running around in the landscape, to find said Tank ( Allied- Axis alike) set up a FRU , then despawned and came back as a Sapper. And then went back as a Rifle and went back onto the hunt. 

IMO that alone has cost us more Tankers on both sides, then any reload speed , Turret turn rate.

Another reason why all MSPs should have "on sides" rules for deployment. At least if your tank is in "enemy territory" without infantry cover, it's not impossible there are clots of inf around (MSP represent this), but if your tank is in friendly territory, any inf that are there should have gotten there in a way that can be seen and interdicted (:ie; walking).

[Augetout]

1 hour ago, Kilemall said:

I think you have missed many years and will be disappointed in Allied reactions.  Many people on both sides seems to be convinced Rats have it out for them and better modeling won't go over when their candy is taken away.  One of those would be the 2lber on all those Brit tanks AND the current FMS under a full modeling regimen of FHA/shattergap/caps.

 

I also don't believe the Allies taking it in the shorts narrative, I know who broke down when the truck FMS went in and why.  Whatever Scotsman's assessment was, was likely done during that time when the spawnlists were an overreaction to Allied armor superior lists for at least 6 years plus truck FMS unmasking that situation, and had too many IIIBs which we had already mentioned many times before.  The other big valuation I seem to suss out from how spawnlists interact now is 88s being ridiculous.  They weren't a real factor 90% of the time during that period due to Allied superior airpower most of the time and FRUs before truck FMS hunting 88s to death much more then even tanks.

 

The takeaway from this thread SHOULD be more communication and openness helps retain those that are open to reason, won't do a damn for those who are convinced the Rats are out to ruin them, and more accuracy in modeling is desirable as long as the spawnlists reflect game reality as a whole.

Oh I know what I'm disappointed in, and it isn't Allied reactions.

I think your assimilation to the axis side is complete, Kilemall.  

This thread's root cause is not based in fact, and I'm not sure communication fixes that one bit.  That the ROF and turret speed was changed in May of '18 to reflect more historically accurate research/data was in the readme.  That it slowed the ROF for French tanks has been (now) fully explained, and yet despite all of it I am to believe that a bunch of german tankers have (and allegedly will contintue to) quit the game because the ROF on French tanks was slowed despite their conclusion that it wasn't.  At some point ridiculous has to be called just that.  When the water is wet and a bunch of folks think it isn't, I'm not sure what fixes the issue.

Twist and turn and attempt to morph it into a bunch of whataboutisms and you know betters, but at its root, I ran an Allied unit that had over 250 members, and long after turning the reigns over to more active players but still being involved in the squad, I watched them melt away from the game, and have had zero luck in getting them back into the game despite concerted rebuilding efforts now lasting almost 2 years.  You want to claim knowledge over what happened to the tankers in my unit because it fits your narrative better which is understandable, but in this instance you are overstepping, as you weren't involved in the squad discussions that I was involved in despite not being in the game, even as you were still in-game.

As for the constant whining regarding the 88 from all kinds of folks, I can only say that it's the best ATG in-game by a wide margin, and the inability to make it 'a factor' is based on choice.  Argue about how many there should or shouldn't be, but the very second the reasoning behind it starts in the direction of the false logic that it is ineffective, just stop, as it isn't an argument that holds any water.

 

The Flak 36 (88mm) has killed over 662,095 thousand Allied armored vehicles, at a 2:1 k/d.  627,956 thousand have been Allied 'tier 0' tanks.  Leaving out the k/d for a moment, that is 205,264 more kills on armored vehicles than the 2 pounder and French 47mm combined. 

If memory serves, CSR doesn't take into account the earliest days of WW2Online, when the 88 was even nastier to run into due to the Allies simply not having figured out anything resembling a counter at that time.  Ineffective?  Pishtosh.

[delems]

*** the 88 from all kinds of folks, I can only say that it's the best ATG in-game by a wide margin, and the inability to make it 'a factor' is based on choice

Hmm, 88 has 10 tank kills this map.

The 2lb has 53 tank kills.

The pak 36 has 56 tank kills.

Exactly how is the 88 the best ATG in game?

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by delems

[Jsilec]

11 minutes ago, delems said:

*** the 88 from all kinds of folks, I can only say that it's the best ATG in-game by a wide margin, and the inability to make it 'a factor' is based on choice

Hmm, 88 has 10 tank kills this map.

The 2lb has 53 tank kills.

The pak 36 has 56 tank kills.

Exactly how is the 88 the best ATG in game?

 

Spawnable atgs from ms’s have changed the landscape for that but the door knocker has gotten a good boost so theres that

[Kilemall]

5 hours ago, Augetout said:

Oh I know what I'm disappointed in, and it isn't Allied reactions.

I think your assimilation to the axis side is complete, Kilemall.  

This thread's root cause is not based in fact, and I'm not sure communication fixes that one bit.  That the ROF and turret speed was changed in May of '18 to reflect more historically accurate research/data was in the readme.  That it slowed the ROF for French tanks has been (now) fully explained, and yet despite all of it I am to believe that a bunch of german tankers have (and allegedly will contintue to) quit the game because the ROF on French tanks was slowed despite their conclusion that it wasn't.  At some point ridiculous has to be called just that.  When the water is wet and a bunch of folks think it isn't, I'm not sure what fixes the issue.

Twist and turn and attempt to morph it into a bunch of whataboutisms and you know betters, but at its root, I ran an Allied unit that had over 250 members, and long after turning the reigns over to more active players but still being involved in the squad, I watched them melt away from the game, and have had zero luck in getting them back into the game despite concerted rebuilding efforts now lasting almost 2 years.  You want to claim knowledge over what happened to the tankers in my unit because it fits your narrative better which is understandable, but in this instance you are overstepping, as you weren't involved in the squad discussions that I was involved in despite not being in the game, even as you were still in-game.

As for the constant whining regarding the 88 from all kinds of folks, I can only say that it's the best ATG in-game by a wide margin, and the inability to make it 'a factor' is based on choice.  Argue about how many there should or shouldn't be, but the very second the reasoning behind it starts in the direction of the false logic that it is ineffective, just stop, as it isn't an argument that holds any water.

 

The Flak 36 (88mm) has killed over 662,095 thousand Allied armored vehicles, at a 2:1 k/d.  627,956 thousand have been Allied 'tier 0' tanks.  Leaving out the k/d for a moment, that is 205,264 more kills on armored vehicles than the 2 pounder and French 47mm combined. 

If memory serves, CSR doesn't take into account the earliest days of WW2Online, when the 88 was even nastier to run into due to the Allies simply not having figured out anything resembling a counter at that time.  Ineffective?  Pishtosh.

If you are talking about the era in which Lafayette was active, yes there were equipment problems, none more potent then the original Rats' tendency to release Axis equipment first that had a leg up on Allies.  The Axis getting AA first when Brits had absolutely no HE in an era when FBs were blown by tanks and Allied air was overrun by triwing 109s, the intro of the Tiger (Which I predicted would be 5 Tigers per AB as per the RDP rules) that created Tiger Sunday and the resultant problems when there are Tigers but only TDs to oppose them, the S35 problems I know you know about, etc.

I think it's important to distinguish what era we are talking about when discussing any of this.  I'm assuming this 250 member count you are quoting is original era numbers, 2005 and earlier, and that your trying to get them back recently.  Assuming that's the case, I'm sure many were traumatized by unlimited overstocking and no population adjustment utilities, and so no they would not have pleasant fond memories and difficult to get them tanking.  I don't know where you get the idea I am referencing what your specific squad's tanking experience is, but I can tell you since then the pendulum has swung several times and the Axis largely gave up on panzers with the exception of Tigers.

 

With the same clarity and truth about those situations, I'm telling you that since then the Axis have gotten tanking beaten out of them so badly they won't spawn it even if it's way past time, cause it's so pointless.  I think some situations that is not accurate and it would be best to absorb some MG work on the disposable tanks and not crutch on the MGs, but there is just no question that the majority of the Axis tank park is built for 1-2km steppe warfare, not inclose urban assault, and it's armor is under-performing from what it should be particularly in earlier tiers, and almost always has.

I had identified that problem WHILE being Allied dedicated, so you can take the assimilation snark back to the place whence it came.  That really angers me on a personal level, you of all people should KNOW where I come from.  Smiley faces don't make that better.

The game papered it up with the FRU/LMG-SMG infiltration tactics the Axis were able to perfect while the Allies would reach for the armor first thing, having learned that all that MG and inf mutual support would overrun the Allied towns and Axis towns needed ubercamping to actually take targets.

 

As to the 88, no question that it was a killer back then and is perfectly capable now, with the shield making it marginally possible to survive bofors bombardment.  But that killer era involved enough density and distance and time to get the 88s out and in position, and a lot less vegetation.

Things changed- consistent air destruction ASAP especially when map marking went in, and FRUs/FMSs where a simple rifleman can and will trek 2km to kill them at highly predictable firing locations defined by terrain makes them the weapon that usually stays in the barn until desperate people spawn them far too late to clear camping armor.  Couple that with a series of changes designed to goose the offense, specifically trucks not setting off EWS until really close and 300m FMS, and you got a recipe for dead 88 before it can even clear the town BEFORE the AO goes down.  So again, too few 88s for it to be a factor and I am reasonably certain this is due to a crazy high valuation for what most Axis regards as functionally junk.

And that is part of what is cheesing me off so badly about the valuation system, changes to the game reality will have virtually no bearing on a tonnage/production based point system. 

Acid test, did the Axis LMG get it's cost reduced when it ceased being a whirling terminator of depot clearing?  I'm guessing, NO.  Why?  Not cause the Rats have it in for the Axis or any of that nasty bull, but because CRS definitely needed a systematic way to build fair spawn-lists quickly and without artistry, especially given the move to half year tiers, the historical bent, and many many more models coming down the road have to be integrated fast without spending a year jiggering the list and bleeding subs in the process.  But being dedicated to that process, CRS forgot that we don't actually have scientific absolute physics and industrial process modeling and so this list point system need to factor in what the thing can do in game reality not just it's supposed performance based on cost/RL stats.

I LOVE the 47, can use the same tactics I built up for that and the 6lber for Pak38s and do damage, and the best ATG in the game IMO is the Pak40.  17lber is like the 88, needs a dedicated driver crew and standoff tactics.  The 88 as primary T0 Matty killer?  NOT an option, especially at night with low numbers.

 

Gun and ammo change moved the dog bowl, historical spawnlists moved the dog bowl some more, and whenever the armor gets audited and goes in there will be more squawking.  Lesson learned should be 'don't move the dog bowl very often' along with 'game first' but I'm gathering pride isn't going to allow either of those lessons to sink in.

[drkmouse]

Waht no coments on the pan chars and the Tigers35's?  or the  Havok"bomber/fighter"  each side has equip advin the old days weather it was #'s or  type.

am getting real tired of  every one jumping on the rats as evil sob's hwo hate there side.

Yes the tiger 5 was a  not too hit on allies, as was the panchars etc  or the Charmagedons or  shemrmgedons #'s

Rats have a hard time "ballcneing " effectiviness for both side as tthe ballance of population on each side changed map to map or in maps.

Number mistakes are made some  can be aexpaerated by  op/up ((as was the case with the matty gedon past 2 maps)

Me i play to have fun  try stategy and stop the "enemy"in its track when  i can.