Radar step 1

Technically, it’s not really Radar. We gave the ground pounders towns, EWS, AOs, etc, all in an effort to help them find each other. The air game had EWS at one point, but now it only covers bombers and then only over enemy towns.

So to solve these and other issues (e.g. map skirting) we’re looking at a system like AW/WB used for giving you a hint that there is an enemy AC in a particular area (probably 16-20km2).

The first step is setting a reasonable limit for “who gets shown”. Yes, we are departing from historical realism and not giving you radar towers to destroy or methods to avoid radar.

I spent a bunch of time getting a dev build of the client set up at home again and messing with some “don’t paint me straight away” solutions. I think the one I landed with works (you have to achieve a +/-ve climb speed and then exceed Nmph to become “radar elligible” after which it takes M seconds before you finally show up on radar)

It took me longer to set the client up than expected because I was getting really, really terrible stutters while flying. I thought “here’s my chance” and took a long look into it. I finally ttracked down the cause and a bunch of tweaks that took me from 1-2fps during stutters to 6-8fps.

Unfortunately – it doesn’t count for anything. The dev build is compiled with no compiler optimization, and my tweaks are probably all done automatically by the compiler when it builds a beta/release version with optimization.

We had Snellman’s leaving party on Friday. Much alcohol was consumed. And Snellman relinquished a lot of his. Allan has helped complete the picture the team has of Finns being really, really wussy drinkers. ;)


More and more I think the game would be much improved with a hex-map. It would allow distinctive points for brigade movement (not confined to cities) and points for radar coverage. I know most of the navy players wants it to be free-movement with no points, but while that may FEEL better strategically, it adds very little to actual gameplay and comes with a lot of obstacles. Unfortunately, hex-maps would be hard to implement with the current terrain because of how we spawn and capture (set ABs, depots, FBs, etc).

I hope Gophur shares what is planned with radar before you start work on it.. The last time it was brought it, The Hangar was up in arms on what was planned..

What scking said!…

Give people what they want, not what you think they want.

See the Lesson 3, about Google:

Kimi Raikkonen and Mika Hakkinen does not make for a party all weekend vibe. It is more like, bed at 9:30pm and a nice hot cocoa / whipping each other with branches.

The laissez-faire forumz approach unfortunately creates a strategically counterproductive positive-feedback environment for those players who see only how much fun it would be to have a “realistic” system that players as knowledgable as them could evade, when the gameplay need is for an unevadable conflict-creator. That gameplay need has been Rat-explained several times, but we don’t listen well.

The term “radar” and radar-comparisons should be banned from the forumz. The positive feedback loop needs to be opened.

I like the idea of hexagone-map, but of course as you said this need a big change of capture systeme and span system too

Radar will be indispensable if we have soon more stratégic ground target for bombers, defender need to have a chance ( time to react) to defend his strategic points, not like today with factory

“Yes, we are departing from historical realism” sigh

I’m kind of with Bartender on this one. My dream (yeah, I know you don’t want to hear another idea) is that we’d have radar stations placed throughout BE (historically located) and with realistic viewing ranges. They could be bombed out of service (like the firebases of yesterday) and would rebuild automatically. They would provide position and altitude data to the owner of the facility and would be capture objects.


there are just a few things I want to know, will the radar cover the entier map or just around the factories? and will the radar “detect” all types of planes or just bombers?

I would support a hex-map overlay because it would promote a certain kind of positive thinking that could shape many new game features.

Our city/road – node/web construct is very limited.

THe first thing you would might state with a hex overlay is:, “should you deploy a brigade in that hex?”, followed by , “how would a brigade be deployed there?” followed by, “how would you defeat a brigade deployed there?”,


Hex Map?!? Instead of WWIIOL, ya’ll want Avalon Hills ‘Third Reich’? Or reduce the game to that old Red vs. Blue turn-based, PC classic: ‘The Perfect General’?!?

“Give people what they want, not what you think they want.”

Or, there is the alternate philosophy:
“A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” – Steve Jobs.

One can hardly argue with his impressive results.

Unfortunately, from what I’ve been reading around the web, WWIIOL is not doing particularly well in either respect. I’ve supported this community in my own way, if you recall my Zheriz guides, so hearing about WWIIOL’s troubles is not something I like to hear. This is a tangent from the topic, but this blog seems to be the refuge of the few WWIIOL players capable of a quiet discussion, and I was compelled to speak for once.

It’s good to see CRS “depart from historical realism” –meaning, that there won’t be a radar tower to blow up. The play value of blowing up a tower, is much less important than radar’s ability to help players find each other to fight.

It’s more than just a game mechanics issue, it’s a philosophical issue: one of historical realism versus delivering player value; giving players what they want and showing them what they want. I get the sense that the community, and even CRS, is looking for a fresh and clear fundamental position by which to concretely define itself once again. These are fundamental issues relevant to WWIIOL’s continued success or lack of success.

I felt for some time now that WWIOL’s wounds have come to govern it. I would like to think CRS and the community is better than that. We need to be better than that.

BTW, my post was in response to post #3:
Cid250 “Give people what they want, not what you think they want.”

Excuse some of the grammatical typos in the last paragraph. I’m a stickler for precision as you may know:

“I [have] felt for some time now that WWIOL’s wounds have come to govern it. I would like to think [that] CRS and the community [are] better than that. We need to be better than that. ”

…can’t edit comments, pft

Doc: Well that’s good, because I think the pilots would quit in droves if they appeared on the grid as soon as they spawned or while they were forming up on the field for fourty minutes looking at their watch setting up missions and waypoints and everything and then before they’ve even taken off they were already on the grid I think that would piss them off and that they would quit in droves if we did it like that because I really don’t think they would like that so that would have been a bad way to do it and I don’t think we’d have many pilots left after a few days if we’d gone ahead and done it that way.

Zheri, couldn’t have said it better if i tried.

Realism for the sake of realism isn’t fun. Nobody will fly recon missions which were a very real part of detecting the enemy. Noone will spawn in for hours on end and be a ground spotter, which also was a very real part of detection. Likewise, almost nobody will sit at a radar screen for hours on end waiting for blips to appear.

Whatever removes the ability to skirt and forces large fights I am all for. It just needs to be inaccurate enough so that it is never automagic.

A couple of things:

1. Shorter jwilly – the majority of prominent hangar denizens are completely self-absorbed wankers. [1]

2. Among other reasons, people also don’t fly recon missions because there are largely no rewards for doing so. The game rewards players individually for killing things, so that’s what players do. A very small percentage of players also care about larger goals like helping their side etc, but these are the exceptions.

[1] okay, I’m being mischievous, this isn’t what jwilly said at all, but rather what he should have said. IMHO the hangar is not a resource that should be consulted but rather a problem that needs to be “managed” (in the sense that you could call Tony Soprano a “manager”).

Horse – ‘recon’ type activities in other games do not work on a large enough scale to really make it worthwhile. people play simulations and action games, what ww2ol is, to kill stuff.

you may get a handful of people willing to do it if you give them a fancy gold star but by and large i highly doubt it would work in ww2ol.

When they do put in radar i hope they model it historically correct. They had radar but it was very low tech. I think when radar comes in it should be like a mobile radar unit or unit’s placed about 50-100 miles away from the intended target’s, and im speaking of only rdp runs here, so in this way the enemy still has enough warning to be able to scramble and vector interceptor’s to the incoming raid. If Crs develops it to where you can see any bomber sitting on a back line airfeild then it wont work at all.

SOrry Madrebel, you are wrong about “recon” in other games.

SInce we are talking about flying here, a recon mission would be PHOTO RECON. Getting a facility or object into the x-hairs of your camera (in a bomber or fighter), and pulling the trigger to get your reward in points.

WIth a succesful RTB your HC might gain some useful information in an abstract manner (what is left on the spawn list of x,y, and z brigade; what missions have they posted; how many people are spawned in, ect.)

You would of course then have COUNTER RECON missions with people trying to intercept the recon guys.


Leave a Reply

Name and email address are required. Your email address will not be published.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

%d bloggers like this: