Thermopylae Posted December 15, 2000 Share Posted December 15, 2000 having looked at the WW2OL debate, i figure dit'd be ebst if we let the current fans answer themselves to our skepticism. And here is a transcript (very, very long) of their answers to your objections. questions from me This will be long. Watching this game's potential be debated in the Combat Mission (a game some of you may want to look into; very very good WWII squad level game, plays up to a reinforced battlion) forums for a few days, I've decide to ask some questions here to prove/disprove the various points being propagated by various people. I will then bring the word back like the ten commandmants to the CM forums. Or like the mark of Cain, but thats no big deal.. 1) In looking at your screen shots, there seems to be virtually no cover for infantry. While its understandable that you want to simplify the open ground for the sake of tankers, for an infantryman every bush, dip, crevice, ditch and rock is potential cover. So is there actually going to be realistic open ground from this respect? 2) Command and control does not seem to lend itself well to multiplayer games online. How realistic is it to expect that some few hundred people will actually be following a general attack plan, defense? It is the prevailing opinion that thanks to the average FPS player, anything larger than afireteam probably isn' going to work, and platoons and such are probably going to use the "lots of people =lots of firepower = teamplay" approach. Is there a plan to counter this? 3) Splitting of forces. It is generally thought over in the CM forums that the chances of players falling int he proper proportions, or even in near balanced positions, is slim. It is widely expected that infantry is not going to be an insanely popular choice, cutting their numbers to the level where they can do very little (1:1 ratio with other services combined or less). Is this true? 4) Strategic Layer. Frankly, it is widely thought that there is no way you willa ctually be able to simulate an entire theater of opertaions, or even nessecarily a division level fight. Even at a 1:2 scale proposed by your rattentruppen this would require 100k's of players. Tell me if I'm wrong. Idea's 1) Limited Strategic Campaign A campaign on the division, or failing that, brigade level, instead of a theater of operations. Upside: fewer players needed, cmapaign feleing still there, more manageable in a global sense. Player levels might actually fit battalion sized fights, or even regiment. Downside: No navy really, limited air, and quite a few disapointted tankers. No longer is grandiose. 2) Set-Piece battles Major battles fought from set-piece, e.g. Stalingrad Grain Silo or tractor Works, any number of other mid sized fights. Upside: Players, players, Players. Downside: Cuts out lotsa air, the navy, and plenty of tankers. 3) Pick - Up games. Platoon - Company level games on random maps to be played ons ervers between either major campaign stages or set - pice battles. Theres also a bunch of stuff suggesting things like executing insubordinate players, but those are essentially the major ones. thank you for your time. -Thermopylae answers from Hammy As an avid Combat Mission player myself, and long time follower of WW2 online, I think it safe to say that WW2 online will not fail to impress even the most detail oriented of WW2 enthusiasts. 1)The screenshots you have seen were done early in beta, and by the time the final product is out, there will be much more in the way of cover for infantry. 2)In theory, this game is being designed with the thought that if you do not work as a team, you do not win. Basically, this is not so much of a fragfest as one would think at first. L337 guys running around being Rambo will die. Dieing = no mission points. People will not want to die, thus acting more like they would in real life. This would lend itself to people actually employing the concepts of military doctrine such as cover fire, etc. 3)Tanks, planes, ships, etc. are limited in supply. I forget the exact allocation system, but there is one. Thus, infantry should still be viable. 4)There will be AI controlling many sectors of the battlefield. My assumption is, dedicated attacks by players will be needed to take many bases, supply points. How this plays out over the whole theater of operations, I do not know. The servers are set to handle 1000 players at a time. Anyway, people who are into Combat Mission should definitely check out WW2 online. It truly seems like it will be revolutionary in it's ambition to create a world that has never been attempted before. Check out the FAQ to see just how detailed this game will be. www.hq.wwiionline.com <FAQ there somewhere Answers from OKW Thermopylae- Don't worry that's not a long post by WWIIOL standards First off, this game has heaps of potential. Even if you don't agree that everything can be done or will actually work there is still a whole heap of potential. The huge theatre, the wide range of vehicle choices, the hardcore realism and an in depth mission system are just some examples. The lack of infantry cover in the screenshots might seem concerning but there are some mitigating factors to consider. Recently the Rats have been focused on testing the tanks and hence they need wide open spaces. There is actually a nice screenshot of a forest on a mountain ridge, which would provide awesome cover for infantry. Most of the buildings that you see are also enterable which will provide lots of cover in a town situation. Unfortunately, you will never be able to get all the multitude of dips, shrubs and rocks etc. that could provide cover in RL. But then that is true for most FPS games as well. Command and control should work out fine as well. If you check out some of the other forums you will see that detailed planning is already underway and squads are getting together so that they can coordinate actions. The rank / mission system of WWIIOL will ensure that there is some direction. People with high ranks will formulate the general strategy, people with intermediate ranks will create missions to achieve the plans and people with low ranks will carry them out (kind of like RL really). Of course, your squad could do whatever it wanted but you'll have a lot more fun and success if you cooperate with other people. I concede that the splitting of forces will never be true to life because a lot of people would rather fly planes or drive tanks. How much of a problem this will be is unknown at this stage. However, infantry are essential if you want to capture territory and will be needed to protect the tanks. Other jobs like clearing out cities will have to be done by infantry players. You are also correct in observing that there will never be enough players to simulate even one division. However, we expect that fighting will be localized at a few key locations along the front. A complete description of how the strategic layer will work is not yet available. Rest assured that the Rats have thought about this issue and will have dealt with it in a sensible way. My own personal hunch is that there will be some relation between the in game performance of your squad and the performance at a strategic level of say a division that you represent. I think that this game will be awesome. Even if you don't think it is all possible, you should at least come along for the beta and try it out. Much more information is available at the HQ FAQ Answers from Silly ok lemme give it a try <serious mode engaged> 1) In looking at your screen shots, there seems to be virtually no cover for infantry. While its understandable that you want to simplify the open ground for the sake of tankers, for an infantryman every bush, dip, crevice, ditch and rock is potential cover. So is there actually going to be realistic open ground from this respect? Some older screenshots have pretty dense forests, latest movie showcases some very neat buildings. bushes and stone fences have also made their appearance. infanrty will NOT be able to hide in the grass a-la DF2, at least not in initial release. will there be enough cover for inf to find concealment in the immediate surroundings? i do not know. CRS guys have said that they will keep this in mind when they develop game terrain. it will probably be a compromise between playable level of cover and playable object count on the terrain(not for tanker's sake, but for hardware/network limitations sake, as i understand it). 2) Command and control does not seem to lend itself well to multiplayer games online. How realistic is it to expect that some few hundred people will actually be following a general attack plan, defense? It is the prevailing opinion that thanks to the average FPS player, anything larger than afireteam probably isn' going to work, and platoons and such are probably going to use the "lots of people =lots of firepower = teamplay" approach. Is there a plan to counter this? Basically, yes, there is a plan. the plan is called "mission/rank system". To make the long story short- you select a mission from the list of posted ones, you try to complete it (working with other people who signed for the same mission). If you succeed, you recieve some mission points. once you accumulate enough of those, you advance in rank. As you advance in rank, you can create and post missions for other people to accomplish. If big operation involving multiple branches is planned, plans are passed from top commander to air/land/sea etc commanders who outline objectives to their subordinate commanders who create actual missions for players to participate in. As you see, most of command/control problems are handled by high ranking players who had already demonstrated their dedication and teamwork skills. Lowly private can sign on a mission and be a part of a huge offensive operation without even realizing its scope - just like ww2. 3) Splitting of forces. It is generally thought over in the CM forums that the chances of players falling int he proper proportions, or even in near balanced positions, is slim. It is widely expected that infantry is not going to be an insanely popular choice, cutting their numbers to the level where they can do very little (1:1 ratio with other services combined or less). Is this true? Infantry is essential to a side's success as it is the only way to take enemy territory(spawn points, bases, strategic facilities). Will many people play as "crunchies"? Here i can only offer guesses. The following opinion is often circulated here : "Since the game will provide ultimate realism as far as WW2 weapon platforms go, many people will find a learning curve too steep for vehicle control(tanks,planes,ships) and stick to playing infantry"....we shall see... 4) Strategic Layer. Frankly, it is widely thought that there is no way you willa ctually be able to simulate an entire theater of opertaions, or even nessecarily a division level fight. Even at a 1:2 scale proposed by your rattentruppen this would require 100k's of players. Tell me if I'm wrong. WWIIOL is not an attempt to re-create ww2 conflicts. we get historical terrain, historical weapons as well as some strat aspects such as supply, R&D, ship construction etc(not much has been revealed about these). The fighing is not likely to cover entire fronts, but concentrate around the hotspots with AI defensive positions informing players of a surprise attack on unmanned facilities and providing some level of defence of such facilities. circuit overheat... system shutdown... <serious mode disengaged> i hope CM'ers will be interested - they would feel right at home in this game. Answers from hans aund Frans 1. Cover. Well, as the people who play Combat Mission well know, infantry don't like open ground (I own it too). As far as their being no cover not all screenshots are on this website. Dogfighter.com, SimHQ, and the WW2HQ and others also have screenshots, and some of them show quite a bit of cover. Plus, CRS may not be done with the terrain. We havent' seen any towns yet, so I am sure of it. Here are two screenshots. The perspective is from a French Char 1B-bis tank, and advancing towards him is two German Panzers, and two infantry. Behind him is his base that he is defending (not shown). I could have posted the larger, full screen shots, but if you want to see them, go here: http://www.hq.wwiionline.com/aar/sitzkrieg.shtml I do recomend reading the story, as it comes from beta test gameplay. 2. Command and Control. Its not a Bizantine, "you must do as I say...or ELSE!", type of control. A system that rigid would probably kill this game's fun factor. Now, to be honest we know very little about the C&C part of the game. However, from what I have read it is a carrot on a stick. You bait your troopers to do what you want by making things valueable. I think it works like this. The General make large, sweeping missions, but only Colonels and Majors can accept them. Colonels and Majors accept and make more specific, smaller missions for Captains and Leutenants to accept. Captains and Leutenants accept the missions, and make their own smaller plans/mission to take their men into combat. So, General Veers says, "Take Belgium." Colonel Potter says, "I will take Antwerp." Leutenant Dan says, "Take the canal bridge north of town." Squads are another command and control device. You can run your squad as tight as you want, and threaten any member who doesn't want to tow the line with dismissal if he won't obey. 3. Infantry are unpopular. There won't be any forcing anybody to play something they don't want to. As far as infantry being unpopular, well that would imply that they are not going to have any use, or be effective. Infantry can go into the buildings and they can hide behind the smallest terrain that wouldn't hide a tank. Tanks draw alot of fire...because they are tanks. Vehicles are easier to see from aircraft than a single pixle that is a soldier from far away. Infantry are also the only players who can "capture" land. We don't know exactly how this works, but bassically they are the only players that can go up to an enemy installation, touch it, flip a switch, or click on something (flagpole?) and the installation switches to their side. In that scenario above, the French Char tank knocked out both enemy panzers, but the two infantry made it into the base he was protecting, and it took him forever to find them. All the while he was being repeatedly dive bombed by a Stuka, which probably was getting up to the minute information from the German infantry on where he was. 4. Simulating an entire theatre. No, they are not trying to simulate an entire theatre with hundreds of thousands of soldiers. This isn't intended to be a 1:1 ratio of real life to game world. Its a game based on WW2 gear and terrain, but not the actual war or Table of Organization and Equipment. A "large" battle is probably going to be on the order of 20 vs 20 people at one location. The game will be a scaled down version of real life. Remember that people can respawn over and over, and in the end if somebody kept count there might have been thousands killed in the course of a single hour, and the grand total of an entire war (counting up every single "death") could number into the millions. So, more or less there will be huge armys marching across the landscape, but actually it will be the same couple hundred over and over. -------------------- Now, to answer your final ideas section, the games like you've describe are not as appealing to me. I would rather have WW2OL. This is a combined arms sim, with navy, airforce and army. It isn't a full scale, true to life sized army sim, but enough is there to get the idea. Hans. Answers from baseline A few things to keep in mind regarding WWIIOL and the real WWII. 1) Although nations fielded armies with millions of fighting men, not all of these troopers were engaged in combat at all times. The majority of the combat action seen during the war was between the big operations. It takes time to gather the men and equipment for such large operations. 2) By the time all of the theatres are finally up and running the player base for WWIIOL should be huge indeed. The experienced player’s will/should have a complete understanding of how the strategic system has worked out. 3) Based on the concept of this game the heroic efforts of one individual operating alone are not going to make much difference as well it shouldn't. The world is a big place even at 1:2 scale. 4) Like it or not teamwork will be the key to success here as it should be. The victorious side will be the side that best manages to pull the motley masses together towards achieving their strategic plan. 5) There is allot that we still don't know yet about how all these systems/plans will work. This is only the beginning; it will only get better. The game IMHO at this point is already better than anything out there. She's nearly ready for Prime Time now. We still have not yet entered open beta. We will/should find things that need tweaked yet. 6) I’m going to go out on a limb here, albeit a sturdy one, WWIIOL will be an ever-evolving project. As technology improves so will the feature set. As we play the game improvements will be made; new units added etc. etc. I'm in this thing for the long haul. Many if not all of you will get tired of seeing Baseline in WWIIOL, if you haven't already. WWII is my passion, and this is truly a dream come true for many of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts