PDA

View Full Version : OT WWII Online



Sama51
04-06-2006, 02:42 PM
Was just curious if anyone here has played WWII Online. Was considering checking it out. So how is it as far as gameplay, realism, community, etc.?

Sama51
04-06-2006, 02:42 PM
Was just curious if anyone here has played WWII Online. Was considering checking it out. So how is it as far as gameplay, realism, community, etc.?

TX-Zen
04-06-2006, 03:18 PM
I've never played, but I have heard a boatload about it from squadmembers and online friends.

For aircraft, don't expect realism otherwise I am told you will be terribly disappointed. I'm a tank fan myself and what I saw from the demo I experimented with last year didn't look very realistic either. Shortly after I installed it I got distracted and haven't come back to it.

I'm also told the gameplay is good and encourages teamwork, that a good way to look at the game itself is to consider it as an entertainment based multiplayer war, not a re-enactment of ww2.

I've always wanted to try it out, fellow TX members are involved and have bugged me for years to help command the tank units...but it costs money to play and doesn't sound like my personal cup of chai so I haven't made the plunge. Lately I've reconsidered, but got involved in BF2 and Red Orchestra and am having fun goofing around with those multicrew tanks, so WWOL is on the backburner again I guess.

Megile_
04-06-2006, 04:11 PM
its ok.... really its quite unique, and you really won't know if you will like it until you try it.
Unfortunatly that means having to pay monthly for it.

it is a battle sim in ww2 era.. but I wouldn't say an exact ww2 recreation.

The tank wars are very good... and the scope for team work is really unmatched by any other game.
Tank columns pretty cool.. with a good mix of machines.
You can use real tank tactics with your squadron... especialy with regards to using cover and movement, formations.
Rarely do multiple people crew the same tank.. as missions can last hours.. and its not as necessary as in RO. The gun will reload even if you are in the drivers seat.

It can sometimes be frustrating when you want to drive a particular tank or plane, and none are left in the list..
so you have to look after your machine.

infantry movements feel a bit slugish, kind of like RO. The new explosion effects they implemented are really good tho.. the screen blurs and shakes etc.

Graphics are kinda sucky.... they need to implement a new graphics engine, which they plan to.. but its a massive job and will take years.

TAW_Oilburner
04-06-2006, 04:19 PM
Right now they have a trial going where you can play for 2 weeks free and if you cancel there is no fee. I tried it out but the graphics are so horrible I couldn't take it. I think I found my gameplay vs graphics breaking point.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-06-2006, 04:44 PM
WWIIOL has its plusses and minuses.

On the plus side, if you like the modeling in this sim, WWIIOL won't let you down. It has some failings, too, but none that are worse than here. I find that energy tactics like B&Z work better there than here...but there are some problems with the lowspeed handling and maneuverability. A few visual problems with spotting between cloud layers. But actually not that bad a sim.

The vehicle combat, as noted above, is pretty darned good. while there are always debates about what armor should stop what shell under what conditions, the basics are all there: the crew positions are well done, proper tactics are rewarded...the vehicle and towed gun part of WWIIOL I think is its best part, closely followed by the air part.

Infantry, I have no clue. FPS just don't interest me, I think I "tried" an infantryman once the whole time I played WWIIOL, and didn't even bother trying to get into combat.

The very worst thing about WWIIOL, and what led me to stop playing it a few years ago, is that the developers caved in to the vocal ALLIED crowd and take all kinds of steps to "balance" the sim. Problem is, they're simulating the Battle of France in 1940, which was one of the most lopsided campaigns in history. The Germans should walk over the French/AEF, but the Cornered Rats are so concerned the Allies can't stand this history lesson that they "gift" them with aircraft they didn't have, they give them armor in numbers the allies didn't have, and they start introducing late(r) war vehicles that didn't even fight in France '40. Even so, the Germans manage to win a good deal of the time, but the idea that the Allies should ever push the Germans back into Germany is laughable; an Allied "win" should simply be French survival.

Overall, I'd say if you can stand the affront to history and the playbalancing, it's definitely worth a trial run, if not subscribing. They have come a long way with that sim; it was hands down the worst 1.0 release in the history of mankind, but they improved it QUICK, so that it would survive, and they've continued to constantly develop and add to it.

georgeo76
04-06-2006, 04:57 PM
who wants another bill every month? seriously?

Megile_
04-06-2006, 04:59 PM
People with money to spend?

Really, Stigler gives a fair assesment.

One thing I didn't mention was paratroopers... a pretty good aspect to the game, although they are rarely used.

you can load a group of guys onto a plane and drop them behind enemy lines.

Watch for the AAA though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Von_Rat
04-06-2006, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I find that energy tactics like B&Z work better there than here...but there are some problems with the lowspeed handling and maneuverability. A few visual problems with spotting between cloud layers. But actually not that bad a sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


funny i find the opposite to be true. bnz is much harder against spits in ww2ol because of their totally unrealistic e retention, much worse than here.

i can't beleive anybody like you who hates the invisa dots in this game, which i agree btw, can say that theres only a few visability problems with clouds. visability in the air is totally horriable compared to il2. it makes bnz almost impossiable.

the tank part is pretty good, but infrantry skitters and skates around alot.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-06-2006, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I find that energy tactics like B&Z work better there than here...but there are some problems with the lowspeed handling and maneuverability. A few visual problems with spotting between cloud layers. But actually not that bad a sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


funny i find the opposite to be true. bnz is much harder against spits in ww2ol because of their totally unrealistic e retention, much worse than here.

i can't beleive anybody like you who hates the invisa dots in this game, which i agree btw, can say that theres only a few visability problems with clouds. visability in the air is totally horriable compared to il2. it makes bnz almost impossiable.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, for one, Spits shouldn't even BE there, but even with the E retention problems, it seems to affect all planes equally, rather than just a few. I remember how people used to howl when they got sucked into a turn contest with a Stuka and lost; as it should be. That plane CAN turn, and if it doesn't have eggs strapped on it, can provide a nasty surprise for the overconfident.

As for spotting, the only real problem is "between cloud layers", which affects "perch-spotting", but not to the degree of IL-2; you can still make out faint enemy below, provided there's just ONE layer of cloud/mist between you and him. Also, their "arc-con" setup is the best EVER devised. It helps you spot and track at distances that are a problem for our monitors, and the graphic becomes LESS prevalent as you get closer and can rely on the actual planeshape for visual cues. It's ingenious.

WWSensei
04-06-2006, 05:56 PM
They still fly with 3 winged 109s?

Played it early on as part of the Sturmgrenadiers and noticed the Emil had unbelievable climb. Argued with the Cornered Rats to no avail and was called every name in the book...until the realized they had modelled THREE wings worth of lift on the 109...

That, the broken flag problems (in a grand capture the flag game that's a big booboo), and the "first hit gets the kill" problems I walked away from that joke and didn't look back.

Sama51
04-06-2006, 07:57 PM
Sounds like for every good feature there are two negatives... I'm thinking games like RO and BF2 sound a lot more attractive.

Xiolablu3
04-06-2006, 08:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:

The very worst thing about WWIIOL, and what led me to stop playing it a few years ago, is that the developers caved in to the vocal ALLIED crowd and take all kinds of steps to "balance" the sim. Problem is, they're simulating the Battle of France in 1940, which was one of the most lopsided campaigns in history. The Germans should walk over the French/AEF, . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


So, so wrong. Tactics NOT equipment was the reason for the Germasn victory in the Battle OF France

The reason that the Germans walked over the French and British was not because of their superior equipment,)It wasnt superior, (in fact inferior if you are talking Tanks) it was purely becasue they knew how to use their Tanks and Armoured infantry better.

The French and British tanks were in fact better in many ways than the Panzer 1's ,2's and 3's and 35/38T's which the Germans were using in that campaign. The French CHar B being the most powerful tank in the world at that time. Matilda tanks being at least the equal of any Panzer at that time.

BUT the Allies didnt know how to use them properly and spread them out piecemeal in the infantry divisions. The one time that British did get a lot of Tanks togther they broke right thru Rommels lines and his 88 guns were the only thing that stopped them,(this was when they discovered how good a tank killer the 88 was) none of the Germans tanks could penetrate the British Tanks armour. HAd the French attacked at the same time fromt he other side like was planned, Rommels quick offensive could have been stoppped right there.

'John Vereker (Lord Gort), commander-in-chief of the BEF, ordered a counter-attack in an attempt to get some breathing space and prevent British forces from being totally overrun.

The resulting Battle of Arras demonstrated the ability of the heavily armoured British Matilda tanks (the German 37mm anti-tank guns proved ineffective against them) and the limited raid overran two German regiments. The panic that resulted (the German commander at Arras, Erwin Rommel, reported being attacked by 'hundreds' of tanks, though there were only 58 at the battle) delayed the German offensive.

The defending forces, elements of SS-Division Totenkopf were overrun, their standard 3.7cm PaK 36/37 German anti-tank guns proving ineffective against their advance. Generalmajor Erwin Rommel, commanding the 7.Panzer-Division committed some of his armour to local counterattacks, only to find the guns of the Panzer IIs and Panzer III's would not penetrate the Matildas' armour.

Desperate to avoid a British breakthrough, Rommel ordered the division's 8.8cm FlaK 18 Flak guns be formed into a defensive line and fire anti-tank rounds in a last ditch effort to stop the Matildas from breaking through. The BEF's advance was halted with heavy losses. Then, with Luftwaffe support, Rommel launched a successful counter-attack, driving the British back.'


How you can say that the Germans should walk over the Allies purely becasue of their equipment is TOTALLY wrong. It depends entirely how the battle is fought.

Also you say Spits should not be there? Again, totally wrong. Spitfires were in France all thru the battle, but they operated from bases in Britain, not on the French mainland.

Nimits
04-06-2006, 09:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
WWIIOL has its plusses and minuses.

On the plus side, if you like the modeling in this sim, WWIIOL won't let you down. It has some failings, too, but none that are worse than here. I find that energy tactics like B&Z work better there than here...but there are some problems with the lowspeed handling and maneuverability. A few visual problems with spotting between cloud layers. But actually not that bad a sim.

The vehicle combat, as noted above, is pretty darned good. while there are always debates about what armor should stop what shell under what conditions, the basics are all there: the crew positions are well done, proper tactics are rewarded...the vehicle and towed gun part of WWIIOL I think is its best part, closely followed by the air part.

Infantry, I have no clue. FPS just don't interest me, I think I "tried" an infantryman once the whole time I played WWIIOL, and didn't even bother trying to get into combat.

The very worst thing about WWIIOL, and what led me to stop playing it a few years ago, is that the developers caved in to the vocal ALLIED crowd and take all kinds of steps to "balance" the sim. Problem is, they're simulating the Battle of France in 1940, which was one of the most lopsided campaigns in history. The Germans should walk over the French/AEF, but the Cornered Rats are so concerned the Allies can't stand this history lesson that they "gift" them with aircraft they didn't have, they give them armor in numbers the allies didn't have, and they start introducing late(r) war vehicles that didn't even fight in France '40. Even so, the Germans manage to win a good deal of the time, but the idea that the Allies should ever push the Germans back into Germany is laughable; an Allied "win" should simply be French survival.

Overall, I'd say if you can stand the affront to history and the playbalancing, it's definitely worth a trial run, if not subscribing. They have come a long way with that sim; it was hands down the worst 1.0 release in the history of mankind, but they improved it QUICK, so that it would survive, and they've continued to constantly develop and add to it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Historically the Germans won beause of better doctrine, not better equipment. In numbers and quality of equipment, the Allies and Germans had rough parity, and the British Maltida I and the French Char B.1 and Souma S-35 war significantly superior to anything the Axis had in 1940. The only significant German advantage was in the air. Properly used, an Allied team should be able to challenge and defeat a German team half the time

Most of the new equipment is not necessarily to benefit one side or the other. The Germans didn't have Bf-109Fs, Fw-190As, Tiger Is in 1940 France any more than did the Allies M4 Shermans, Hawk 81s, or Spitfire IXs. The idea is supposed to be that the war has continued past June, 1940, and both sides are bringing equipment that would have historically been availabe in 1941 or 1942. Really, CRS is prepping vehicles for use in their next theater (North Africa, I believe).

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the advanced vehicles for either side, and, despite the fact that I exclusively play Allies (and mostly RAF), I was all for forcing Spitfires to only fly from England, for example. With the exception of the Spitfire decision, neither side gains a significant advantage with any of the "modern" equipment.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-06-2006, 10:17 PM
I didn't say it was equipment that won the battle for the Germans. I'm just saying it was lopsided. And what CRS does is "gift" the Allies with more and better equipment in a bid for parity.

They get Spitfires without any of the consequences of what would've happened in the BoB had Churchill frittered away his spits in France. They get (or got, not sure what the balancing paradigm is these days) many MORE Chars and superior tanks than the French had.

Etc., etc. Plus, the game design there doesn't exactly allow for the Germans to truly use Blitzkrieg; the supply rules don't allow for fast thrusts into the enemy rear: you have to have contiguous supply lines to move the front, and there's little "back lines disruption" you can do from a vehicle standpoint.

Von_Rat
04-06-2006, 10:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I find that energy tactics like B&Z work better there than here...but there are some problems with the lowspeed handling and maneuverability. A few visual problems with spotting between cloud layers. But actually not that bad a sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



funny i find the opposite to be true. bnz is much harder against spits in ww2ol because of their totally unrealistic e retention, much worse than here.

i can't beleive anybody like you who hates the invisa dots in this game, which i agree btw, can say that theres only a few visability problems with clouds. visability in the air is totally horriable compared to il2. it makes bnz almost impossiable.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, for one, Spits shouldn't even BE there, but even with the E retention problems, it seems to affect all planes equally, rather than just a few. I remember how people used to howl when they got sucked into a turn contest with a Stuka and lost; as it should be. That plane CAN turn, and if it doesn't have eggs strapped on it, can provide a nasty surprise for the overconfident.

As for spotting, the only real problem is "between cloud layers", which affects "perch-spotting", but not to the degree of IL-2; you can still make out faint enemy below, provided there's just ONE layer of cloud/mist between you and him. Also, their "arc-con" setup is the best EVER devised. It helps you spot and track at distances that are a problem for our monitors, and the graphic becomes LESS prevalent as you get closer and can rely on the actual planeshape for visual cues. It's ingenious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

e retention is not equal as far as i remember. it was to low stall speeds that were equally to low, not the same, just equally off. never read that about e retention being equally to good.

i would need to check, but how far you can see that icon, or the speck of the plane itself, compared to il2. i don't remember the numbers but i read about on their forums and it wasn't very far. most servers in il2 have dots pretty far out.
of course if their against the ground in il2 good luck seeing them.

Megile_
04-07-2006, 05:52 AM
hmm I will have to take a plane up again in WW2ol.. been a year since I have.

But I found plane spotting way harder than in IL2... in il2 you can spot dots at some distance, but in WW2OL you almost have to rely on the icons.

But I did like the air atmosphere.... not crystal clear as in IL2.. but cloud layers etc.

I have no idea which is more realistic though.. il2 or ww2ol in distance spotting of planes.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-07-2006, 11:28 AM
Von Rat wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i would need to check, but how far you can see that icon, or the speck of the plane itself, compared to il2. i don't remember the numbers but i read about on their forums and it wasn't very far. most servers in il2 have dots pretty far out.
of course if their against the ground in il2 good luck seeing them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have the distance off the top of my head, but a wild guess would be 10km at the furthest. Whatever the distance, it was a lot more consistent, in all conditions. The arc-con system was just great, with the one exception of with multiple intervening cloud layers, which would sometimes hamper "perch spotting". Still, you wouldn't have to give up nearly as much of your alt advantage before seeing something, anything.

@ megile: yes, you do have to rely on the arc-cons, but that's why they're THERE: they're to make up for the fact that "little tiny dots" can't be seen on your average PC monitor to proper scale with the same visual acuity of a trained pilot. So, that acuity is "simulated" with symbology (or icon systems).

I feel that with current technology being what it is, icons of all types are a 'necessary evil'. No icon is just "making it harder than it really is". Given that we can limit the length, information and display distance of icons, they can be made to produce realistic results and have the proper effect on how combat evolves.

NekoReaperman
04-07-2006, 11:53 AM
WWII Online is an awsome video game, and is the closest thing to an online war in existance right now...


No "health bars", every bullet and shell is tracked, hits surfaces, loses energy and changes direction based on the angle, thickness, and type of armor, and does damage by striking certain critical components...


Now sure there are some bugs and problems, as they are trying to simulate in a game things that the US government cant even simulate (namely shrapnel modeling, the nades seem to switch between too powerful and too weak)

Sure the Flightmodel's are suspect, but you need to remember that it isnt just a flight simulator, its an infantry, Tank, Truck, Strategic, economic and naval simulator ALL AT THE SAME TIME...


In the last year the game has grown by leaps and bounds, Mobile spawns have been introduced, so you no longer have to ride a truck 20 minutes into a mission, graphics have been updated (reflecting water, normal mapping) to make it look even better...


And dont think of it as an un-historical BOF 1940, the game assumes the germans are stopped in the Battle of france, and the fight continues from 1940 to 1942, thats why you see spitfires in the game...

Give the game a try, its awsome (unless you think of it as a flight simulator, in which case you may be dissapointed)

http://www.wwiionline.com/images/wwiiol/screens/be_006.jpg

http://www.wwiionline.com/images/wwiiol/screens/be_003.jpg

http://www.wwiionline.com/images/wwiiol/screens/be_001.jpg

http://www.wwiionline.com/images/wwiiol/screens/be_008.jpg

Stigler_9_JG52
04-07-2006, 12:14 PM
Nekoreaperman wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And dont think of it as an un-historical BOF 1940, the game assumes the germans are stopped in the Battle of france, and the fight continues from 1940 to 1942, thats why you see spitfires in the game... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um......no. The 'Rats basically gifted the Allies to balance the contest. The biggest problem with this, wrt to the Spitfires (that's Spitfire I models, not later Vs), is that the Allies don't have the "dilemma" or any consequences for deciding to send Spits to France.

Also, this happens in a timeframe that does not suggest a WWI style stalemate. I remember this clearly, as it was the #1 thing that caused me to take my leave of the sim; the fact that they were so willing to play fast and loose with the history really rankled me. I actually think they went ahead the even later war progression to deflect attention from the fact that they couldn't create any new theatres in a timely manner as promised.

Still, there is a lot good about WWIIOL, to be sure.

Von_Rat
04-07-2006, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I actually think they went ahead the even later war progression to deflect attention from the fact that they couldn't create any new theatres in a timely manner as promised. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you hit nail on the head.

the rats even admited as much, in so many words.

BaldieJr
04-07-2006, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
They still fly with 3 winged 109s?

Played it early on as part of the Sturmgrenadiers and noticed the Emil had unbelievable climb. Argued with the Cornered Rats to no avail and was called every name in the book...until the realized they had modelled THREE wings worth of lift on the 109...

That, the broken flag problems (in a grand capture the flag game that's a big booboo), and the "first hit gets the kill" problems I walked away from that joke and didn't look back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

haha. you beta'd too?

same end result here: i walked away. when it came out i heard it was still carp. too much too soon i reckon.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-07-2006, 09:26 PM
There's a HUGE difference between beta and even the horrid 1.0 release of WWIIOL, Baldie. And from then on, it's changed a LOT. If you last flew WWIIOL during beta, you have no knowledgable opinion on it at all.. nothing to base it on. The game is as different from beta to current version as IL-2 1.0 is to PF 4.04.