BEF smashes german divison
Well we lost Sittard after holding it all day...and smasehd a german Div HQ in ERSEL. GHC was alseep. Camped the briagde in MOL and boucned that too. ATtack on lommel for the last briagde of the divison right now.

Numbers are axis advantage, French are losing Wiltz.
- posted by Comstar @ Sunday, February 26, 2006 0 comments

 
Promotions announcements
4th Brigade :: View topic - Promotions announcements

KBAR
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Posts: 460
Location: 2 DIV CO / The Royals

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:07 am Post subject: Promotions announcements Reply with quote

Attention to orders:

The following soldiers are hereby being promoted within 2 DIV BEF.

1. Cavalier, from 4 BDE XO to 2 DIV XXO
2. Armyao, to 4 BDE CO
3. Comstar, to 4 BDE 9IC
4. DTButch, to 4 BDE 10IC

More promotions to follow as Armyao fleshes out the 4 BDE ORBAT as your new commanding officer as I move up the chain of command to take charge of 2 DIV.

Lets give a round of cheers to our newest leaders in mighty 4 BDE!

Well it took 2 months. 4th Briagde is the ONLY allied unit that has a full officer list!
- posted by Comstar @ Sunday, February 26, 2006 0 comments

 
Galciv II OTW
Order status: Shipped The entire order has been processed and shipped.

Fiannly!
- posted by Comstar @ Saturday, February 25, 2006 0 comments

 
Google Video of US WW2 videos
owner:nara type:world_war_II - Google Video

Googles digitzed some US WW2 movies.
- posted by Comstar @ Saturday, February 25, 2006 0 comments

 
Static front
WWII Online Map Viewer

Since the patch came out, the front has been static. Mabye the balancing feature works?

Glitz, Hasselt, Leige are bufferend. Isalnds belong to the axis from BOZ. French hold Verviers but can't take and hold Eupen, St Vith or Luxemborg.
- posted by Comstar @ Saturday, February 25, 2006 0 comments

 
Galactic Civilizations II: Stardock says its stardocks fault
From what I've read on the fourms when there accesaible (better now), the game is short on enough orders like WW2OL was on that day of infanmy, June 6th 2001.

Unlike CRS, they don't have a too buggy game, so I'm sure all will be forgivin when I get the game.

IF I get the game. Might as well download it from Stardock and be done with it!

Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords

#29 by Avatar Frogboy [Stardock]
Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:58 PM

Personally, I blame Stardock and I'm the President of the company.
Here's why I blame Stardock:

1) Stardock knew full well that the demand for the game had skyrocketed unexpectedly in the past 3 weeks. It should have contacted Take 2 to see how this might affect things.

2) Stardock would then have found out that widespread distribution would now take an extra couple of days -- especially because of President's Day being on Monday and could have pushed the digital release back a couple of days.

It's definitely not the retailers fault. It's Stardock's fault really. We've never published a game that has anywhere this kind of demand.

You want to know the really scary part? We almost didn't have enough manufactured for this.

The original Galactic Civilizations I manufacturing run was 10,000 units which was expected to last the first month easy. But Strategy First then found itself without enough inventory to satisfy demand.

So for GalCiv II, we decided to "over compensate" and have the initial manufacturing run be 50,000 copies (or something like that) and it may turn out that that was barely enough.
There's a bunch of other things too, the forum system here designed to handle a load of approximately 2.5X the traffic that GalCiv I peeked. But according logs and Alexa, we're getting an incredibly amount of traffic, closer to 20X the traffic. Luckily, the forums seem to be functioning okay (though we've had to hide any sort of search features for now).

But holy cow. It's been crazy. I can't wait for it to be at stores (or to get the game myself).

What would you have us do?

Let's take a deep breath and look at it from a bigger picture since I assume we're adults here:

The release date for the game was set to be February 21, 2006 many months ago. And due to some logistical/demand issues wide-spread retail availability is was February 22nd-24th (depending on which chain).

In the bigger scheme of things, is this that big of a deal? Does someone else having the game a day earlier hurt anyone?

I agree it's ultimately Stardock's fault. In the sense that we should have put more padding into it. We should have said that the game was going to be available on say March 1 and then surprised everyone when it showed up on store shelves on February 22nd through 24th. It's a lesson noted for the future.

At the end of the day, we simply don't have the clout to force everyone to do exactly what we'd like.

We are given dates. We pass those dates on to you. In this case, the widespread distribution was off by 2 days. Stardock decided how many units to manufacture. We manufactured enough. That's not the issue.

The issue, from what I can tell, is that the expedited units (i.e. when a product is manufactured, you have X units that are rushed out to fit the first day's demands and Y units that are shipped slower/cheaper to deal with the first few weeks demand). President's day combined with a higher than expected demand ate up the X units faster.

Best Buy had the game yesterday. I don't know why they had it but EB/Gamestop did not.

Stardock Makes game, manufactures game, markets game, hands boxes to Take 2 (distributor) who then ships it to retailers. It could even be that the manufacturing people were late a day that aggravated it. We're not sure.

What we do know is this: Weeks from now, nobody is going to care whether a video game came out on February 23rd instead of February 21st.

We're sorry you're upset about it. No one wishes the game was in every store in massive quantity more than I do.

- posted by Comstar @ Friday, February 24, 2006 0 comments

 
1.22.0.255 Release Read Me
Interesting stuff in bold.


1.22.0.255 Release Read Me - Battleground Europe Forums

============================
Battleground Europe - WWIIOL
============================
Version 1.22.0 (2-23-05)

NOTE: Please update video drivers before playing this version of the game. Be aware that dynamic water reflections will cause performance hits on many systems, adjust the frequency of the update or turn this feature off in settings if needed.

Infantry:
- Added new infantry smoother and predictor
- Added new death view for fps
- Added new red out and blackout effects
- Increased deploy speed for LMG
- Changed color of French paratrooper uniform
- Changed French Commander hat
- Fixed several emote issues
- Fixed a deflection error with British RG
- Fixed a sighting error on rifle scopes
- Improved prone check to allow for easier going prone near berms and trees
- Improved going prone third person animation to remove a jump effect
- Added 60 second grace period for being killed by a destroyed building at spawn

Vehicles:
- Added range finder to M10 commander
- Fixed LOD shift among vehicles in close range
- Fixed altimeter bug in Ju-52
- Fixed Panhard commander being deaf when hatch is open
- Fixed a bug in the hit model of the PzIIIH the turret had a superfluous floor
- Fixed a bug where positions 6 and 4 would not allow you to �cross the boat� when multi-crewed
- Fixed a bug where destroyers would fall through the earth when crossing boundaries
- Fixed several dispersion errors on older French AT guns based on historical data
- Fixed a bug where low LOD AT guns had too few damage objects aka the 88s impossible to kill at range
- Adjusted convergence on AA guns mounted on Destroyers to improve sighting
- Adjusted several lower gears for smoother acceleration from dead stop
- Completed turret traverse rate audit on AA guns
- Completed deflection audit on mg rounds for aircraft (.50cals done previously, .30s now complete, minor reduction in deflection angle)
- The "gear" display in readout window now only shows if your vehicle actually has gears

Terrain:
- Infantry inside a building that is destroyed will be killed
- Buildings (except factories and AI) can now be destroyed with friendly fire
- Fixed several alpha issues on factory and munitions buildings
- Added new city buildings
- Added normal map textures to buildings (see settings)
- Added dynamic water reflections (see settings)
- Updated the memorial statue

Chat:
- Added change so that chat channels are saved, per-player, between game sessions (except private channels) Lets hear it for KFS1!
- Added change so that F6 is tuned by default to the help channel

HUD/UI:

- Added side balance info to the persona screen Tne end of the inbalance and map rolls? I doubt it.
- Added new welcome pop up to the persona screen
- Added opinion polling to welcome dialogue
- Personas for the side with imbalance may have a slight delay at selection to encourage players to play for the side that is requesting reinforcements Like 15 seconds counts! It takes 1 minute to load the game anyway.
- Fixed a bug where new personas didn't at least get the rank of recruit
- Fixed ID cards not showing latest information
- Fixed a bug where the readout could show the range finder the next time you spawned if you had previously despawned in a vehicle/position that had a range finder active
- Fixed a bug where the persona's brigade didn't always get updated properly
- Fixed a spacing issue with the ready room unit reservation view and certain units with long brief texts
- Fixed new personas not showing rank
- Moved CRS MotD to the welcome pop up
- Enhanced list view functionality; you can now set whether a row is selectable or not
- Units in the mission screen spawn list are no longer selectable if the current column equals zero
- Units in the mission screen spawn list are now gray if the current column equals zero
- Added the required minimum rank level for each vehicle/unit's tool tip to the mission screen spawn list

Map:
- Re-formatted the map options panel; combined a few and added a header and section
- Increased nearest town check and feedback to 2000m from 500m
- cleaned up way point/contact report posting chat feedback (better feedback)
- cleaned up spawn/vehicle reservation messages (better feedback)
- Fixed a bug where center me wasn't turning off in game when you manually scrolled the map
- Fixed a bug that caused players icons to remain on the map after they despawned
- Added new map options to full map
- Added defaults button to map options panel; sets the map filters back to the factory
- Added my division map filter to options panel
- Mini-map now reappears in the correct state after closing the in-game map or full map dependent on the HUD cycle state

Waypoints and Contact Reports:
- Contact reports now show the same icons as EWS
- Now only tanks and scout cars use the tank friendlies icon
- Now trucks and AAA/AT Guns use the infantry friendlies icon

Missions:
- Mobile spawns may no longer deploy on closed missions
- NCOs may now activate brigades by posting a mission

Squads:
- Fixed an issue with ex-CO's not being able to be promoted again

Persona and Ranks:
- Added code that lifts side lock restriction for the "underdog" side
- Personas that rank up as enlisted will have their same side same branch personas receive matching rank up to rank 5 Well now I can fiannly spawn Hawk81s.

Friends list:
- .friend now adds or deletes a player from your friends list
- Players will now be notified through chat when a friend logs in

Host:
- Optimized dbase operations
- Fixed a cause for invisible players
- Fixed a problem whereby an occupied factory would block pass-threw of the occupiers
- Fixed an (other) issue with single personas being side locked
- Added rank and rank percentage figures to persona selection results (for client fix)
- Fixed a memory leak in the cell host

Supply:
- Fixed issue with brigade movement delays being reset on host restart

Global:
- Added callbacks during loading to help ensure connections
- Updated textures to new format
- Removed several unused or updated assets from the archives

Keymapper:
- Added new keymap "change chat height" which toggles the height of the chat window Suprisining useful
- Moved the "cycle icon mode" default keymap to control-I
- Made default keymap for "change chat height" to tab

Settings:
- Added settings for water effects
- Added settings for normal maps on buildings (in beta use .normal to switch on/off) Take that Half Life 2. Pity I need a new vid card to see the water effects.
- Added slider for water reflections to improve performance (this slider sets how often the reflection map is updated, set this to a higher number to improve performance)
- posted by Comstar @ Friday, February 24, 2006 0 comments

 
This is as close as I get to Galciv 2
I preordered it from ebgames, and I should have just payed for the download and not worry about the tech tree poster.

Looks like I wont be getting it before mid march at this rate.

screen2.jpg (JPEG Image, 1280x1024 pixels)


- posted by Comstar @ Thursday, February 23, 2006 0 comments

 
Day 3 of the allied roll
WWII Online Map Viewer

Today Glitz, Wiltz and Vise are all securly buffered. I took the wrong map to not play.
- posted by Comstar @ Thursday, February 23, 2006 0 comments

 
Army Front News Service: WW2OL news reports from the front line!
It's two clips showijng blowup actually DO a news report on todays battles. Amazing stuff to watch :)

Based from the AFNS web site

blownup
Joined: 01 Mar 2002
Posts: 202
Location: Boston, Massachusetts USA

New postPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:03 pm
Post subject: AFNS - ARMY FRONT NEWS SERVICE

ANNOUNCEMENT Reply with quote
AFNS - ARMY FRONT NEWS SERVICE
Is proud to announce our new special report series. Short Flash news reports worth a peek. Certainly good for a chuckle, browse to: AFNS and click on the dates and towns links in the top left margin under Special Reports.

For your convince the first two are here:
Newsflash: Bertix Falls!

News Report: Attack on Huy. this has actual combat footage.
- posted by Comstar @ Thursday, February 23, 2006 1 comments

 
Army Front News Service: WW2OL news reports from the front line!
It's two clips showijng blowup actually DO a news report on todays battles. Amazing stuff to watch :)

blownup
Joined: 01 Mar 2002
Posts: 202
Location: Boston, Massachusetts USA

New postPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:03 pm
Post subject: AFNS - ARMY FRONT NEWS SERVICE

ANNOUNCEMENT Reply with quote
AFNS - ARMY FRONT NEWS SERVICE
Is proud to announce our new special report series. Short Flash news reports worth a peek. Certainly good for a chuckle, browse to: AFNS and click on the dates and towns links in the top left margin under Special Reports.

For your convince the first two are here:
Newsflash: Bertix Falls!a>

News Report: Attack on Huy. this has actual combat footage.
- posted by Comstar @ Thursday, February 23, 2006 0 comments

 
Exxelent guess Kreskin.
Well the french have the numbers... - Battleground Europe Forums

Well so much for my predictions. The French habe bufferend Bertrix, havn't taken Lux, the BEF hasn't advanced further north than Osstmale...and VERVIERS AND LEIGE AND BUFFERED?!!?

Looks like the attack on the centre worked. I don't understand, that trick NEVER worked.
- posted by Comstar @ Wednesday, February 22, 2006 0 comments

 
Criswell Precicts...what will happen this map
Whats in store for the next couple of weeks? - Battleground Europe Forums

I really should do this each map. My predictions.

The BEF will take Osstmalle. Get Stuck at Breda for a bit, but take it. Nothing much happens in the islands except to help take BOZ OTW to Breda. Islands slowly fall and are allied about a week later.

French take Lux, can' hold it and lose Metz within 72 hours. They advance in the centre, but can't take Bertrix.

BEF advances to Eindhoven quickly after Breda and take 3 days to take it.

Tier 1 shows up and the BEF continues to advance for 2 days before stalling at the river line of FORTRESS GERMANY. French fallback from Bertrix to the Muese.

Around this time, the patch comes out. Much rejoicing in fourms over new graphics. Also complaints about friendly sappers blowing up friendly buildings with friends inside. Complaints about the balancing system are low.

Front stays static for a few days.

French are pushed off Muese, BEF loses Eindhoven and falls back to Tilberg. Complaits about the balancing system being permantly in axis favor increase markadly, particlay from Axis-Euro players who have to wait every time they play.

Tier 2 shows up and French fall back to Mauberge, BEF to Osstmale and the gates of Antwertp. German attacks on the southern edge of Brussels force BEF to fallback to Antwerp as the Germans take maximuinm advantage of the fault line between allied armies. Complaints about this appear on the fourms at this time (they are absent until Namur and Chareloi falls).

Antwerp and Brussels fall within 24 hours of each other. BEF line stablizes at Gent, the French fallback to be in line (more axis use of the allied army fault line).

Tier 3 shows up and it's game over for the allies, French falling first. The numbers balancing feature will be annoucned to have changes done to it or the next map.
- posted by Comstar @ Tuesday, February 21, 2006 0 comments

 
No more neon green
1.22 vs 1.21 Texture comparison (56k Warning) - Page 3 - Battleground Europe Forums
That is some sexy tank.

- posted by Comstar @ Sunday, February 19, 2006 0 comments

 
Plane pics
New texture format and ac skins (56k warning) - Battleground Europe Forums





That is some ugly plane.




- posted by Comstar @ Sunday, February 19, 2006 0 comments

 
Scotsman 2, Axis troll 0
Azimov and some other axis trolls are trying to complain that a heavy ATG/AA gun that reuqires it's own transport, is very heavy, was a AA gun used very rarly as an ATG and didn't come with much didicated AP ammo should not be in the game.

For some reason, the're talking about the 3.7"...not thje 88 which under all those rules should be removed immiedatly!

Scotsman pawns them.

The Pak40 - Page 4 - Battleground Europe Forums


scotsman
Member Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Arlington, Tx
Posts: 4,347

Re: The Pak40

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok - some random facts from - draw you're own conclusions.

The History Of The Royal Regiment Of Artillery
Anti-Aircraft Artillery 1941-1955
Brigadier NW Routledge, OBE, TD

page 50-51 concerning the first batch of 3.7" built with the old loose barrel liners in 1936..."A semi-armour piercing shell was issued to batteries for engaging tanks". Thats the very earliest Mk-I off the production line in 1936.

Total HAA production was just under 10,000 for 3.7" vs 19,700 88mm from 1941-1944...the larger German numbers reflecting the need to defend the Reich vs day and night bombing attacks (ie static mounts). Those numbers are present in several different tables - hopefully I did the addition correctly. This total --does not-- include production for Canada, India and other Commonwealth nations which would raise the total British production.

Ammunition production for the in the UK only approximately 10 million HE vs about 200K AP. That makes the production of AP approximately 2% of total ammunition - quite in line with what the 25pdrs and virtually any other nation's field or HAA - very similar to the provisioning of HEAT for the German field guns. As per previous quotes from British 3.7" gunners fighting in the Neatherlands this was altered as needed for the target set being engaged...facing tanks truck loads of nothing but AP was delivered. again - AP production was present from 1936 on. (page 92 lists all HAA ammunition production by type and caliber)
Also as per previous posters...this need not worry anyone until such time as loadouts are possible. AP provisioning on a standard of issue basis was low vs HE...hard to believe that perhaps 4 rounds in 150 or so total are going to have a major game impact. You certainly -do not- want to be hit with one of the 4 though...even in a Tiger. Plugged HE could also be fired in the AT role (same was true of the 88mm) and generally could remove or dislodge the turret of a medium given a hit.

At the time of the BOF - 3.7" production was running around 80 a month in the UK - Some 312 3" 20 CWT and 3.7" were initially present in that force - the equivalent of about 10 HAA regiments...along with the first GL Mark I early warning radar sets.

Concerning the employment of the weapons - page 117 - "The regiments of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th AA Brigades were sucked into the ground battle, split into subunits to join the rearguard action and moved back from one key point to another." 5 Complete HAA Brigades engaged in rear guard actions with ground forces hardly sounds like a case of 'desperation defense only' to me Asimov. Rather sounds like the full intregration of available firepower into an organized retreat. So much for you're comments about the HAA weapons only being used in last ditch instances hey? The employment of those units in a dual purpose AA/ground role is recorded in the applicable regimental diaries.

Later in the same accounting - same page -
"When General gort decided on evacuation through Dunkirk, the MGAA (Major General AA)was able to make contact with Corps commanders in the forward area and agree to priority tasks for AA units. these boiled down to 4 items:

(1) AA units deployed on the southern flank --in the ground role-- to continue to block advances by Army Group A.

(2) The withdrawl routes of the Corps to be covered by regiments and batteries extricated from the front line fighting and positioned -in a dual AA/ground role-- on successive river lines and canal crossings, working under Corps command. 4 HAA regiments and 3 LAA regiments were deployed in this role.

(3) and (4) Covered AA defense of the ports - lengthy and no time to type out the orders for dual purpose defense around dunkirk, Boulogne and Calais.

I have added the highlights to the original text here....

'Considering the confusion and constant harrassment during the withdrawl, the MGAA's plan was adhered to remarkably well, culimnating in AA batteries reaching Dunkirk to provide badly needed defense against LW attacks -and to participate in holding the perimeter against ground attack.'

Observation: This all sounds remarkably like the use of the 88mm in any number of battles to me. Obviously everyone from the BEF commander to the Corps commanders to the HAA Regimental commanders knew these HAA batteries were firing in a dual purpose role. I'm not going into the individual battery deployments but if you dive into the records you will see 3.7" supporting 2pdrs forward...the same tactic used by the Germans in the Desert with the 88mm and the Pak-38 and 76.2mm.

In fact some commanders (junior officers in 1st HAA Brigade) destroyed their own guns early (the picture of spiked 3.7" along the Brey beach areas has been posted previously - by Dinnsdale I think)

Page 119 - (paraphrase not a quote) At Bologne we see 4th/2nd HAA battery 3.7" (2 4 gun troops) deployed for dual purpose ground defense along with 174th/58th LAA Battery (2 troops) and two Guards battalions (20th Guards Brigade) and their associated 2pdr AT guns.

Page 120 around Calais - 'A troop of the 6th HAA Battery also engaged tanks, but were immediately subjected to heavy shellfire and mortar fire. They subsequently disabled their guns to avoid capture.'
Observation - sounds like any number of German actions in North Africa or on the Russian Front to me. In fact the actions at Bologne and Calais absorbed the attention of the --entire 19th Panzer Corps--...and was instrumental in the BEF being able to be extracted in large part. Hardly inconsequential actions historically...the fighting on the outskirts and in the towns by these units and others made this possible.

I dont have the time it would take to type in the battle engagements of all the individual regiments and batteries. Even with the completion of withdrawl through Dunkirk, 3rd AA Brigade with 79th HAA regiment duked it out along with 51st Highland in a dual purpose role. Even the old 3" 20 CWT firing in a ground role featured prominently in the last gasps of the BEF on the continent.

These comments are a small sample of what may be found in these and other works. Obviously Asimov many of the things you are trying to claim simply don't hold water historically.

It would seem to me that the commitment by orders of the -entire- available BEF HAA force to dual purpose ground defense would constitute plenty of proof of the dual purpose nature and use of the 3.7" and 3" 20 CWT. Absolutely no different to how the 88mm was used in many other battles of the war.

All of this is pretty much in direct disagreement with some attempted assertions made above concerning the 3.7" in a dual purpose role in the BOF. My money is that Lord Gort and his MGAA knew what they were about when they ordered this - the same as Guderian, Rommel and others knew what they were about when using the 88mm in an identical fashion. If you want more detailed history beyond what I am willing to type in a single setting...buy the books and do the research - or order the various PRO documents yourself - You'll find the 3.7" AP ammunition production in PRO AVIA 22/51 5-519.

I have never typed -any- of these before Asimov as the book in question has only been recently published...as usual...you're way out on a limb with no support. I have typed in quotes from Dobinson's 'AA Command'...and as an apparent novice on the subject of British AA...it doesnt suprise me that you mistake any information as coming from the same source. Strike One...

You're continually contradicting yourself here...if all you care about is whether the weapon was designed and provisioned for a given use that question has been answered 100 times over. No-one is cherry picking anything - the game represents the BOF - the data reflects the deployment of the weapon in that role in the time period in question. Strike Two...
(By the way - if you set a standard of merit then live with it.)

I'm an ex infantry officer Asimov and NONE of my military education up to the level of command and general staff and the war college would lead me to make the kind of leaps you made in the posting above. A retreat under pressure is not a desperation situation. I'd call the final assault on Tobruk something along those lines...certainly not this. You aren't talking about an odd gun or two here - but some 300 guns commited by an Army commander in a specific dual purpose role...all of which contradicts you're earlier posts and assertions. Strike Three...

The 88mm employment at Arras (to name but one example) was every bit as indicative of HAA being commited or 'sucked' into the ground battle as the BEF retreat in total was....you're attempt to bludgeon the community with 88mm use in an analogous role on one hand while denying the very existance of identical actions on the allied side in the same time frame. It doesn't make sense.

By any method of examination your qualification of the 3.7" applies to the -vast- majority of 88mm - especially the time of the BOF. At this point I truely feel the only thing you are interested in is repeating the same thing over and over again.. I'm not going to convince you - you aren't going to convince me...and apparently you are so programmed at this point you can't recognize new data from old.

Lets leave it at that. I'm sick and tired of this endless list of objections none of which are supported by the British employment data. I'll let someone else bludgeon you with the Russian 85mm and US 90mm. You will likely argue that none of them were used in the AT or ground role as well while championing for the Italian 90mm L-53 based on the existance of the 88mm ingame.

You have the direct orders of the BEF Army commander (News flash some 60 years later - that was Gort) to his senior AA officer as applied to 200-300 HAA guns...not an isolated incident...nor a singular act of desperation which is what you have tried to convince everyone of in the preceding pages. 88mm and 105mm use at Arras was by any measure much more an 'act of desperation'...an the infantry of an entire division was being destroyed and over-run.

I have no idea where you are getting some of your comments from - you obviously arent reading what I write. I never said you or anyone else didnt want 3.7" or other weapons models. I am saying that whether you like it or not - if the weapon has the sights and the ammunition and history documents its use in the appropriate role - thats the end of the discussion - as its a common standard applied to both sides. Neither side should cherry pick the other's capabilities...or deny capabilities that exist.

Bed for me - why not do me a favor and look at the 88mm ammunition production early in its life and before Tiger. Compare AP production percentage to HE...report back on what you find and compare that to the 3.7". For dedicated small caliber AT the ratio is frequently 4 or 5:1 AP to HE. I think you will find that 88mm ammunition production looks nothing like that. It will look remarkably like the 3.7" Im guessing...albeit perhaps a higher percentage given the differences between the armies. The ratios will not be inverted though as they are with many of the proper AT guns.

Seems to me that destroys you're assertion the 88mm is any more of a dedicated AT gun at this time than the 3.7" was. Its simply another HAA fulfilling its secondary mission...I'll check back in the morning to see what you;'re response was.

- posted by Comstar @ Saturday, February 18, 2006 0 comments

 
Someone posts a pic of new building
Normal maps and reflections. (screens of 1.22 dweebs) - Battleground Europe Forums

gnasche
PLAYER SUPPORT CORPS Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 16,684

Re: Normal maps and reflections. (screens of 1.22 dweebs)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New buildings in Vohinkle (or whatever it's called).

Yes, it's enterable.
Yes, you can shoot through the glass (there is no colider on it...it's just like air)
No, you cannot shoot through the door.
Yes, there is an exit in back (a very small entry/exit room).
No, there is no upstairs.

- posted by Comstar @ Saturday, February 18, 2006 0 comments

 
Product Placement in WW2OL
Posted by marnevs

Nice Easter Egg in 1.22 - Battleground Europe Forums




If you can't work it out...took me a minute...it's 3 boxes of Battleground Europe
- posted by Comstar @ Saturday, February 18, 2006 0 comments

 
And some more tanks
There were all taken and posted by fallsjgr

1.22 vs 1.21 Texture comparison (56k Warning) - Page 2 - Battleground Europe Forums













Yet another Tigge

- posted by Comstar @ Saturday, February 18, 2006 0 comments

 
Even More truck pics
1.22 vs 1.21 Texture comparison (56k Warning) - Page 2 - Battleground Europe Forums




- posted by Comstar @ Saturday, February 18, 2006 0 comments

 
New blackout/redout pics
New blackout/redout and more!!!!!!! - Battleground Europe Forums






- posted by Comstar @ Saturday, February 18, 2006 0 comments

 
More pics. That vikki looks HOT
1.22 vs 1.21 Texture comparison (56k Warning) - Battleground Europe Forums





















Grenade explosion. Ouch!







- posted by Comstar @ Friday, February 17, 2006 1 comments

 
1.22 vs 1.21 Texture comparison (56k Warning)
This is for open test, please review for all features for 1.22.

=====================
World War Two Online
=====================
Version 1.22.0.6 Beta (2-16-06)

Infantry:
- Added new infantry smoother and predictor
- Added new death view for fps
- Added new red out and blackout effects
- Increased deploy speed for LMG
- Changed color of French paratrooper uniform
- Changed French Commander hat
- Fixed several emote issues
- Fixed a deflection error with British RG
- Fixed a sighting error on rifle scopes
- Improved prone check to allow for easier going prone near berms and trees
- Improved going prone third person animation to remove a jump effect

Vehicles:
- Added range finder to M10 commander
- Fixed LOD shift among vehicles in close range
- Fixed altimeter bug in Ju-52
- Fixed Panhard commander being deaf when hatch is open
- Fixed a bug in the hit model of the PzIIIH the turret had a superfluous floor
- Fixed a bug where positions 6 and 4 would not allow you to �cross the boat� when multi-crewed
- Fixed a bug where destroyers would fall through the earth when crossing boundaries
- Fixed several dispersion errors on older French AT guns based on historical data
- Fixed a bug where low LOD AT guns had too few damage objects
- Adjusted convergence on AA guns mounted on Destroyers to improve sighting
- Adjusted several lower gears for smoother acceleration from dead stop
- Completed turret traverse rate audit on AA guns
- Completed deflection audit on mg rounds for aircraft (.50cals done previously, .30s now completely, minor reduction in deflection angle)
- The "gear" display in readout window now only shows if your vehicle actually has gears

Terrain:
- Infantry inside a building that is destroyed will be killed
- Buildings (except factories and AI) can now be destroyed with friendly fire
- Fixed several alpha issues on factory and munitions buildings
- Added new city buildings
- Added normal map textures to buildings (see settings)
- Added dynamic water reflections (see settings)
- Updated the memorial statue

Chat:
- Added change so that chat channels are saved, per-player, between game sessions (except private channels)
- Added change so that F6 is tuned by default to the help channel

HUD/UI:
- Fixed a spacing issue with the ready room unit reservation view and certain units with long brief texts
- Fixed new personas not showing rank
- Added new welcome pop up to the persona screen
- Moved CRS motd to the welcome pop up
- Added population feedback to welcome pop up
- Overpopulated side will now have a brief wait at the persona select screen
- Added population feedback to persona list
- Enhanced list view functionality; you can now set whether a row is selectable or not
- Units in the mission screen spawn list are no longer selectable if the current column equals 0
- Units in the mission screen spawn list are now gray if the current column equals 0
- Added the required minimum rank level for each vehicle/unit's tool tip to the mission screen spawn list

Map:
- Re-formatted the map options panel; combined a few and added a header and section
- Increased nearest town check and feedback to 2000m from 500m
- cleaned up way point/contact report posting chat feedback (better feedback)
- cleaned up spawn/vehicle reservation messages (better feedback)
- Fixed a bug where center me wasn't turning off in game when you manually scrolled the

map
- Fixed a bug that caused players icons to remain on the map after they despawned
- Added new map options to full map
- Added defaults button to map options panel; sets the map filters back to the factory
- Added my division map filter to options panel
- Minimap now reappears in the correct state after closing the ingamemap or full map dependent on the HUD cycle state

Way points and Contact Reports:
- Contact reports now show the same icons as EWS
- Now only tanks and scout cars use the tank friendlies icon
- Now trucks and AAA/AT Guns use the infantry friendlies icon

Missions:
- Mobile spawns may no longer deploy on closed missions

Persona and Ranks:
- Added code that lifts side lock restriction for the "underdog" side
- Personas that rank up as enlisted will have their same side same branch personas receive matching rank up to rank 5

Friends list:
- .friend now adds or deletes a player from your friends list
- Players will now be notified through chat when a friend logs in

Host:
- Optimized dbase operations
- Fixed a cause for invisible players
- Fixed a problem whereby an occupied factory would block pass-threw of the occupiers

supply
- Fixed issue with brigade movement delays being reset on host restart

Global:
- Added callbacks during loading to help ensure connections
- Updated textures to new format
- Removed several unused or updated assets from the archives

Keymapper:
- Added new keymap "change chat height" which toggles the height of the chat window
- Moved the "cycle icon mode" default keymap to control-i
- Made default keymap for "change chat height" to tab

Settings:
- Added settings for water effects
- Added settings for normal maps on buildings (in beta use .normal to switch on/off)



1.22 vs 1.21 Texture comparison (56k Warning) - Battleground Europe Forums





2nd thread here










- posted by Comstar @ Friday, February 17, 2006 0 comments

 
imsneaky owns axis whining
He's right. The axis want the allies to suffer for thier poor planning, buit never the axis poor planning.

Centurians in Tier 5 for the win.

ARL44 as of 1942-43 - Page 2 - Battleground Europe Forums

imsneaky
Member Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Jacksonville, FL or in a Tank, hull down on the virtual battlefield and most likely on your flank.
Posts: 10,439
Default Re: ARL44 as of 1942-43

Quote:
Originally Posted by aismov

I have no interest in delving into "what ifs." First off, trying to "predict what would have happened" is crazy and no serious historian treats any sorta of alternative history seriously. There are too many interrelated factors that exist.

Furthermore, in WWIIOL we have the opportunity to model rare and often unseen vehicles that people never have a chance to play with like the Renault UE, Panzerjager, SdKfz 165 Hummel, Archer. And what do people want? Super Pershings and Maus's :/

Actually Aismov, what we are talking about is the problem faced past the point we are in game already. The simple fact is that the game as set up can not go past 1943. The Axis vehicles were so superior that they will wreck any notion of this game even being a sim. The reason is simple and if you are truly a historical sim fan you need to jump up and down and scream for forced numbers on each side because without that, there can be no sim in the later part of the war when the Allies simply outnumbered the Axis to the extent that it was impossible for them to win.

Even stupid gambles like Market Garden weren't enough to give the Germans any help. In fact, there can be no RDP in game as that totally wrecks any notion of a sim. How can you hold the Allies to stupid decisions but not the Axis?

The Axis would be required to lose evry battle they lost and the Allies would be required to lose every battle they lost. Otherwise it isn't a sim. Oh, you can have a winner of the battle but in the end, it can't have any altering affect on the rest of the war. Otherwise you are delving into the what ifs.

The simple fact is that the German were outnumbered for the vast majority of the war. They also did not have the manpower and industry to keep up which is why historians agree that Hitler needed to win and win fast. He wasn't equipped to fight protracted wars.

You as well as like minded Axis players only have a problem with historical inaccuracies when they don't benefit your side. The Axis were outnumbered in the Battle of France. If I'm not mistaken some of the territory the French have to defend is missing the Maginot Line defenses.

Most historians agree that the Germans should not have won the BoF which makes what they did so spectacular. Stupid decisions all around the Allied side at that point caused their loss. They didn't even have a single contingiency plan for what to do if their lines were breached. They thought it would be WWI all over again and had no plans for what to do if things went differently. Much of the FaF was held in reserve but some accounts I read and it stated that those pilots were extremely frustrated over it.

Belgium and Holland would not allow defenses to be built up until it was too late because it was feared that doing so would provoke Hitler into war. Funny that one. France wouldn't continue their Maginot line through the low country for fear of alienating Belgium and Holland.

Britain didn't commit enough airforce to the battle, etc...etc...etc...

But in the end, the Allies won. The Allies made most of their catastrophic mistakes early on and the Axis made nost of theirs after the BoF. Funny how many Axis player don't want to be shackled to the poor decisions of Hitler and his cronies but want the Allies to be shackled to every bad decision they ever made.

Germany was at war with three armies by 1942 that individually outnumberd them by themselves. The closest probably would have been the British/Commonwealth armies. The Russians and Ammericans each outnumbered Germany by large margins. In the BoF, the French alone outnumbered the Germans.

Had it not been for totally inept leadership in the beginning by the Allies, WWII would have went down as a small footnote in history.

- posted by Comstar @ Friday, February 17, 2006 0 comments

 
Doc casts cure moderate wounds.
I'm still dubious.

Shouldnt the m-10 be moved into the tier2 class ? - Page 6 - Battleground Europe Forums

DOC
CORNERED RAT Join Date: May 2001
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 9,162

Re: Shouldnt the m-10 be moved into the tier2 class ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our intentions are to get 3 things completed in the short term, and possibly 4 depending on our development schedules and manpower in that short term window.

1. Numbers balance. We have a number of mechanisms (no I'm not talking about a queue to login) to get the numbers to be or behave close enough to 50/50 that this should (I say should, we won't know precisely until after we do it) ... should negate the core issue of bring more players to every battle everwhere that the opposing side cannot hold them back. Yes, localized differances will occur but that's ok as long as the global balance is good. You will lose ground where you have a localized inferior number, and gain it where you have a localized superiority in numbers. This will prove a lot more interesting than a superiority eveywhere which is what happens now. Which is why it's being changed. Accompanied with same day arival of each tier for each country balanced numbers will play better at all times during a campaign.

2. British/French "split" due to country seperation in the code rather than unit seperation. We are going to do 3 things here:-

i) Allow movement of Allied players from British to French areas of operation (and vice versa) with rank access transferable so that they can better mimic what the Axis can always do, play in any area of the map to match needs as the come about through localizeed brigade movements and attacks.

ii) More difficult (but being worked on) is Allied movement through all Allied held towns regardless of whether they be French or British. This is a core engine code change and will take a little longer as a result.

3. Equipment disparity. Yes it will be impossible to match the sheer draw of the Tiger tank. You could pass that same effect onto other items but to a lesser degree that is fairly well matched in most respects by Allied equipment, but there are some areas we can improve things. Prime amongst those, given modeling completely new uitems and systems is not a short term possiblity at all ... is the French ground situation. We have already addressed several of those. One is the review of the previosuly bad dispersion on French ATG's (that means the tanks guns also) which will be changed when we patch next. Two is the desire to now move the M10 down to it's more correct tier 2 slot, where it pairs with the other 2 countries in bringing some parity to function there ... Axis have a good tank (Pz.IVg) and an tank hunter (StuG.IIIg) ... British have a heavy slow well armoured tank (Churchill III and 6 pdr. gun) and a faster lighter armoured tank (Crus.III with 6 pdr. gun) while the French will have a good all around medium tank (Sherman with 75mm gun) and a lighter well armed tank destroyer (M10 with 3"M5.Hv gun) ... this leaves tier 3 with the very heavy Churchill VII (still with a 75mm gun) and the french with a Sherman M4a3(76) which could even outperform the M10's 3" gun slightly.

No they aren't Tiger tanks but they will have more of them, and with numbers balanced this can still work, without numbers balanced it never will.

4. This would be the new ATGs, with the QF.17 pdr chief amongst them. Since the best gun the British have is the QF.6 pdr they need this gun more than the perhaps the French as the 76.3mm M7 and 3"M5 will outperform all but the 88mm German gun, currently in game, albeit only on a par with the Axis 75mm gun but we can't do a lot about that really. The French will make good use of the M5.3" ATG even though it isn't a QF.17 pdr., really we can't model equipment that is identical in every aspect because the history that built these things didn't do that either. We do think we're very close to having a good balance when these short term goals are realized.

Other new things ? Fireflys ? Achilles ? German AFV's ? Bombers ? Even better ATG's like the QF.3.7" ? The French "88" (forget it's proper French name) ? Sure, they are all great suggestions and will I'm sure be done at some point. Right now, we are taking the path seen by many as "not ideal" not through choice, but because we CAN do it in the short term. That which prevented us finishing the new ATG's which we planned to do by the last patch is the same situation preventing new models of equipment you'd like to see being possible in the short term. If we couldn't get those ATG's done why is that ? Not choice. The same difficulty (but magnified to an even greater degree) applies to totally new equipment that doesn't even exist yet. So we'll maximize our resources and get the 76mm Sherman (and perhaps the new ATGs of which 2 of them require more work than that Sherman does, it's a new turret and not much else art wise) ... because this is doable in the short term.

No one here sees this as being the be all/end all solution, it's just the fastest and most doable that's all. You have to try and remember that with a small team and hundreds of things to add to the game ... for us it isn't a preferance to "not add" certain things to the game ... it's that a lot of things fall under the "can't do everything we want so we do what we can" and in that sense, we have to choose things that address the games needs in a less than "ideal" fashion (given the "What do I want" versus "what can I do" options) ... in reality we want pretty much everything that you could ever want, reality dioesn't make it possible to turn desire into reality quite the same as it is in our wish lists.

It takes long time to keep bringing the game to a new level every year. It's a huge game, with many complex elements and pretty much outstrips us all the time, because the list of what we need to do, and want to do to the game, would dwarf a company with 5 times our resources. The big boys, who have those kinds of resources, are not interested in developing this type of game, so you have to make do with us, one of the smallest developers in this market that there is.

- posted by Comstar @ Tuesday, February 14, 2006 0 comments

 
Three years of denial?
KFSons posted that the numbers inbalance is a myth (Till the Tiger showed up). He takes on NZhorse.

I hope this won't mean the end of his blog.

kfsone's pittance: Three years of denial. MY ARSE.

Any discussion on why one side wins consitantly and the other loses consistantly isn't going to very happy.

Assuming KFsone's right and the numbers were balanced until the Tiger came out...The axis are always going to win 66% of the time. We've had over 20 maps and severel years of data to prove it.

Therefore, CRS isn't announcing anything to change that, only the numbers inbalance (though there aren charnges coming to the allied side, such as fixing French gun dispersel) that will not fundematly change the win/loss ratio (the only thing the Tiger did and will do, was make it more than 2/3s of the victories Axis).

I doubt the playing ability or skills of allied players is going to dramticly change much this year as compared to the last 2 years. Even if you added in the US, the now hard coded numbers balancing feature will prevent it from changing the win/loss numbers. The US itself won't add many new weapons or tactical or stratagys.

Conculsion: The Allies win 1 campgain in 3. This will not change with the balancing factor if the numbers were balanced beforehand.

Solution: Add the Russians, and make them free to play :). Having a 2 front war might be the only solution.
- posted by Comstar @ Monday, February 13, 2006 0 comments

 
More new Building Textures
For some reason Gopher hid this on his website (link to the right).

First to post new Building Textures screenshot? - Battleground Europe Forums


- posted by Comstar @ Saturday, February 11, 2006 0 comments

 
New graphics
WWII Online- Cornered Rat Software/Playnet.com



And a short movie showing off new wounding and death effects. Very scary now.

Also small hint that 1.22 WILL have FREE RIFLEMAN.
- posted by Comstar @ Saturday, February 11, 2006 0 comments

 
I do this on a regular basis
I predict this comic will go across the internet and back, on messageboards everywhere.

Exterminatus Now - Friday, February 10, 2006


- posted by Comstar @ Friday, February 10, 2006 0 comments

 
NZhorse gets his revenge fiannly
So after the axis get 60% advmtage of 70% of the numbers, CRS fiannly faces facts. Nzhorse gets his moment of glory.

Consipircy theory: this all changed after 7 people were let go from CRS. I wounder if 1 or more of those were holding the idea of balancing the numbers till now? Presuably MO?

Side Balance Discussion - Page 13 - Battleground Europe Forums

GOPHUR
CORNERED RAT Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 4,778

Re: Side Balance Discussion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We hope so as well. Actually the numbers haven't really been like this for an extended period of time very often in the last several years but there are times when it just gets out of control and we are looking for a mechanism that helps to address those specific times.

In the past we have largely focused on soft measures and regardless of those measures success or future success, we need an absolute catch all that kicks in when enough, as they say, is enough.

We're going to continue the soft approach though and start by placing a small delay at login for the personas on the side that has the numbers advantage thus encouraging players to select the other side if they are inclined to do so.

We'll also look at other soft factors though I think we, in-house, are generally in agreement that we do not wish to make seperate rules that must be adjusted as the balance swings perpetually through the day in order to achieve a form of balance. First, players should have as consistant experience as possible. Second, adjusting game mechanics for balance is a complete grey area that is impossible to get right. It will always be a point of contention (no that should be 5 seconds not 6 seconds, etc.). Thirdly, the root problem to the excellent feedback loop that horse posted earlier is the imbalance in the number of players online at a given time. That core issue needs to be addressed. Addressing other concerns will be fixing the effects and not the cause. Yes, we can encourage side balance in many ways and should do so, and will do so but we must ultimately be prepared that if the Americans arrive (or whatever anomaly inducing event), that shouldn't mean they get to win the War by sheer numbers alone. That type of victory, in a game, is simply not fair.

Thank you to all who have posted.

- posted by Comstar @ Thursday, February 09, 2006 0 comments

 
Release Date Change - World War II Online: Battleground Europe - Battleground Europe Forums
Set for 6th of June 2006. Good Grief.

Release Date Change - World War II Online: Battleground Europe - Battleground Europe Forums

RAFTER
CORNERED RAT Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Don't ask about combat all I did was brain an npc with a butt where his mouth's supposed to be
Posts: 8,361

Re: Release Date Change - World War II Online: Battleground Europe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its just the way the system works. When the publisher doesnt give them a new date it gets pushed back in the system.

We still havent got a decision on whats going to happen with the NA release from Trisynergy.

They may wait until the new graphics engine goes in. OOpps errmm was that a secret?

- posted by Comstar @ Wednesday, February 08, 2006 0 comments

 
MOVIE: The last Sherminator
It's pretty rare to see actual ground combat movies of WW2OL, and this is a good Sherman one. I give it 7/10.

MOVIE: The last Sherminator - Battleground Europe Forums

svartur
Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 716

MOVIE: The last Sherminator

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Made a movie from last campaign. As the steamroll west started I quickly got bored and decided to try rank up for the M10. In the meantime the Sherman had to do and it really did.

It's one sortie, I was the last Sherman alive. Originally out with some others in an attempt to close down a fb but it failed.

All clips are recorded under pretty dark conditions so I have greatly enhanced the brightness and contrast otherwise you wouldnt see much details.
Also leaving it at a pretty high bitrate for better details. (approx 80mb large)

Was one of my early sorties and I really hadn't got myself acquainted with gunsight which made me miss a lot. In the end I finally got surrounded but was hoping to get a close shot at them from my position before I died.

Linkie here, right click and save as

So whats the point with it?

Guess I just wanna show what you can accomplish with what you have as there have been alot of discussion about the French and their vehicles lately.
Clueless tankers exist on both sides as you can clearly see.
I loved sneaking around in the Sherman and I'd take it over a 4G honestly. The biggest problem lies with player numbers not with the toys at hand.
There arent many tanker movies either but plenty of pilot stuff so guess I wanna change that to.

Lonewolfing will always be easier though keep that in mind. The dedicated squad tankers that charge on command have it a lot harder as their fate is not in their own hands anymore.

There will be a sequal with more burning Tigers and in daylight.

- posted by Comstar @ Saturday, February 04, 2006 0 comments

 
How to FIND a battle in WW2OL
From The Gophur Hole, Gopher links to Gnasches How to find a battle interactive flash page.

It takes you through how to find a battle and use the basic map interface. As Gopher said, something that needed to be done.
- posted by Comstar @ Saturday, February 04, 2006 0 comments

 
OMG AWSOME! (new medium buldings
Hey when did we get QUICK REPLY BACK?

Anyways, I suspect they DONT have doors or windows. GRANIK I think posted they need to reduce the amount of doorways. Note that theres little allyways and streets every 1d3 buildings, that still provide cover, and look to be too small for tanks to get down. Also note the depressions in the center of the courtyards...my guess the'll be trees put in there to provide better cover for infantry anyway.

Nice work. 1.23?

OMG AWSOME! - Battleground Europe Forums


- posted by Comstar @ Saturday, February 04, 2006 0 comments

 
Side Balance Discussion - my opinon
Side Balance Discussion - Page 5 - Battleground Europe Forums

am against the Queue syetem (option #1). When I want to play WW2OL, I wish to play it then, not wait 5 minutes after I sit down (and rembember all those bad reviews complaing about loading times?). Now, while WoW does the same thing, THEY have a lot more servers to choose from. We don't.

The 2nd option is better. You can spawn in the first time immediatly. You only have a problem when you die or despawn volentarily. If you're despawning on your own choice, the timer dosn't matter too much. And if my depsawn timer is longer because I got myself killed, mabye I should be more cautious next time.

However, I would make a change that allowed the player to view the MAP and chat commands eaisly. If I'm stuck waiting for the queue, you MUST allow me to do something while I wait. Check the map, check the missons, write new orders, say something in chat.

Option #2 means I'm still able to play the game, but not spawn in as fast. I'd rather wait at the map than wait at game loading screen.

Option #2 dosn't stop HC players getting into the game to provide leadership, and there often looking at the map anyway. Option #1 can prevent them getting into game (and though the siide that has the numbers, wins, it's more fun with someone providing leadership). You don't need to "excempt" them or proivide more specical privlages the rest of the playerbase dosnt get.

Also, the timer could be reduced from 10 seconds for when you die in a vechile, to a lower base level.

I would effect everyone in game, than those who havn't had the chance to log in yet. Also, new players who WANT to play a side, wont be able to too if they happend to play in the TZ where thier side has numbers. Allowing them to spawn in still allows them to try a side out when they want.


The FREE RIFLEMAN should be done. If the slack in numbers can be taken up by forcing FREE RIFLEMAN to play the outnumbered side FIRST, this provides greater ability for paying players to not have to worry so much about joining the outnumbered side. FREE RIFLEMAN would provide lubrication and mushiness to hard breaking you're going to do to the paying players. Granted FREE RIFLEMAN is not the only answer, but it serves to mitigate the effects.

Another idea: allow MULTICREWED units to not be effect the timer. If you're multicrewed a vechile, you should be rewarded by not having to wait extra time for the despawn. And often the only people who do multicrew are either playing DD's or Bombers, both units that tend to go on long missons already.


I still think increaseing resupply times for the side with higher numbers would also help. Sure you have more soliders at the front..you have less Tigers or Churchills (M10s dont count :p) too.


Also increasing table times for the winning side can allow the outnumbered side a better chance of holding the line (and this after all, is the problem. Moving the map 1 town an hour is fine. Moving it 10 towns an hour is not). AB/AF/Port tables should stay the same, as increasing them mearly increases the time the AB stays camped. But allowing depots to be recaptured faster by the outnumbered side, provides a better chance they can hold towns. It also serves to lengten the "fight time" for a givin town.
- posted by Comstar @ Saturday, February 04, 2006 0 comments

 
The hard "balance" work for CRS - Page 3 - Battleground Europe Forums
I'll to come back to this post in a years time..,...

The hard "balance" work for CRS - Page 3 - Battleground Europe Forums

DOC
CORNERED RAT Join Date: May 2001
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 8,970

Re: The hard "balance" work for CRS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There will be no progress beyond tier 3 for the time being. We made this clear some time back. In no order of priority, our focus this year will be:-

1. Gameplay and rules/features that improve it (RDP, UI, etc.)
2. Supply becoming more visible and interdictable
3. Breaking the global spawn/supply in support of 2. (ToE's is main feature here)
4. Tier 2 ATG's (tier 3 may also be looked at depending on progress with tier 2)
5. Tier 3 single engined aircraft (very low priority and to be honest we have a number of choices we haven't yet made here)
6. Determining the next (big) step in naval gameplay we can introduce that will give navies meaning and propel further development in that area as a result of it being a more viable and useful game feature, as in having real purpose and function within the game (look at 2. again) not just boats that can be spawned
7. Infantry improvements to better expose the game experience as a positive one to new players and improve the subscription base so that the game (and us who build it) can expand quicker than is possible at the moment ... in addition to more people online in game = better game battles

Please note, that list above is in general and not in any sort of order of priority ... for eg: 7. is already under way as a seperate phase of development within the team here, many of the above are concurrent phases of development so it is almost never 1 thing at a time, but more like this crazy mix which we pull into some semblance of order as a patch deadline looms ... we all do different stuff and have multiple tasks to perform as a part of any development cycle.

- posted by Comstar @ Friday, February 03, 2006 0 comments

 
Gopher mentions Mechwarrior Online
Pity CRS dosn't have any money. I wounder which world it is...cant be battletech surly. Mabye Heavy Gear?

When is the next decent MMORPG coming out? - Battleground Europe Forums

GOPHUR
CORNERED RAT Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 4,728

Re: When is the next decent MMORPG coming out?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We hace had a liscense for a mech universe for some time. It never really got off the ground unfortnately. Would be a really cool game. Star map with planets opening up for fighting, contracts to keep the forces on the same point value, much goodness in that. I'd really like to do that as well. One of the cool things in the liscense was that inf are teams so you play the team commander and have a few troops that follow you around, mortar teams, heavy weaps and reg infantry. Would be a great project for our engine and systems as well.

- posted by Comstar @ Thursday, February 02, 2006 0 comments