PDA

View Full Version : WW2 online?



robban75
09-27-2004, 06:00 AM
Has anyone here tried it? I was at a museum meeting over the weekend. Me and one of the guys started talking about computer games, and when I told him that I was obsessed with IL2/FB, he demanded that I tried it out WW2 online. I visited their homepage, and it feels kinda "arcadish". Is it worth a try? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

robban75
09-27-2004, 06:00 AM
Has anyone here tried it? I was at a museum meeting over the weekend. Me and one of the guys started talking about computer games, and when I told him that I was obsessed with IL2/FB, he demanded that I tried it out WW2 online. I visited their homepage, and it feels kinda "arcadish". Is it worth a try? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

S 8
09-27-2004, 06:13 AM
I think its aim is mostly for ground warfare.Yes,the FM is "arcadish" compare to FB.I think of it as a "more realistic "Battlefield 1942.Although,I have never played it online,only offline.Lots of cool tanks though.Download and try it,you´ll see.

Tully__
09-27-2004, 06:28 AM
I haven't played it myself, but this review (http://www5.playnet.com/downloads/wargamer030602.pdf) seems consistent with most comments I've seen about it. The gist of it is that for flight simmers there are better simulations of ww2 combat, but it's fun and if you like driving tanks it's great.

From my point of view, it's pay to play so it's not currently an option I'm prepared to consider.

El Turo
09-27-2004, 10:09 AM
Tully, to be fair.. that review is two and a half years old man! There's all kinds of improvements in fidelity, graphics, game-mechanics and even the flight model since then.


WWIIOL is the finest tank/infantry/ATG simulation on the planet. The air war lacks all of the fidelity of IL2/FB/AEP but it is still can be a lot of fun, especially if you like air-to-ground sorties. As for my beloved mud moving, I actually find it to be a more satisfying experience in WWIIOL than IL2FB, believe it or not. Fighter-to-fighter action is spirited but no where near as good as it is here at IL2-FB. The biggest problem with WWIIOL's flight model is lack of lateral/yaw stability, which can be fixed in large part by messing with the high-powered keymapper and sensitivity bands, etc... but is still annoying.

Overall, I'd say the experience is worth playing for a map or two to try it out. I mean, really.. it's about as expensive as a single 3 hour movie with popcorn and a coke except you can play 24/7 for a whole month.

Tully__
09-27-2004, 10:12 AM
Like I said, I haven't given it a try. Your assesment is consistent with the review. There are issues, but it's a lot of fun anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kefuddle
09-27-2004, 01:20 PM
When you act as fighter cover on a 20+ bomber raid the lack of FM seems a distant worry.

The point of WWIIOL is not to be technically precise, but to experience battle as much as it can be on a glass screen. IMHO, if it did have a truely detailed FM then it would be unplayable as the environment relies on people with the right attitude, not necessarily the with skills to fly in close formation full real.

Korolov
09-27-2004, 01:40 PM
If you're OK with Pay to Play, it might be worth checking it out. I won't try it purely on that basis.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2004, 04:42 PM
The biggest problem for me with WWIIOL is that they "playbalance it". They do the Allies all kinds of not so subtle favors to balance the Battle of France, which pretty much should be a walkover for the Germans.

So, they "gift" the Allies with Spits they either should not have, or should have a BIG penalty to pay if the continent still falls and now they don't have all those Spits to defend Britain.

They also get larger supplies of Hawks and D520s than they should; on the ground they get many more Chars than they should; and of course all these are of better quality than the German tanks (amazing how everyone gets that right when it's supposed to be that way, but do all kinds of things to mitigate German superiority).

The ground system doesn't really favor the Blitzkrieg tactics, but supports the Allied way of fighting very well.

On and on it goes, the bias and the bullsh**.

As a game, it can be a bit of fun, though. But as a simulation, it fails pretty badly.

crazyivan1970
09-27-2004, 04:44 PM
The whole wolrd is biased towards allies Stig. You should know it by now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

El Turo
09-27-2004, 04:59 PM
Stig,

It hasn't been the "Battle of France" for a long time now (and I think you know as much). It is a fictional WWII war using historically accurate pieces of equipment. The deployment, tactics, research and development are all up to the players themselves.

Although, I do find it amusing that you still stick to the woe-is-me attitude concerning German equipment vs. Allied equipment. Personally, I prefer speed and optics (read: 38t) over slower, more heavily armed pillboxes (Char). I'd like to see what you have to say when the Germans have their Tiger and King Tiger and the Allies have the smaller, faster, less armored tanks in late-war situations.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Korolov,

You pay to play IL2/FB unless you pirated the software, right? The only difference is that you pay it all up in chunks with this game.. up front for the main game and then $20-40 for each major add on. What if they offered IL2/FB for use but instead of charging you in chunks like they do currently, they made you pay $5 or $6 a month instead? You are paying for goods and/or services rendered.

I wouldn't be for monthly payments either if the product remained a static work. But, as it is, they add 30-50 towns every patch cycle along with new features, vehicles and other assorted goodies every couple of months.

I figure I buy a new game every 2-3 months at least at $40-60 a shot, so what is $30-40 every three months for a new game experience/patch with an existing game? Plus, if I get bored of playing a rifleman and don't feel like playing a sub-machine gunner, light-machine gunner, engineer, grenadier, anti-tank rifleman or any number of tanks, I can spawn an anti-tank gun, anti-aircraft cannon, multicrew a destroyer or whatever else.

So, for a few bucks each month, I get all these different games that all get refreshed with new features every couple months.

As soon as there is another game out that allows for thousands of players simultaneously in a WWII environment, I'll check it out as an alternative.


Best,

~T.

Aaron_GT
09-27-2004, 05:38 PM
Stiglr wrote:
"So, they "gift" the Allies with Spits they either should not have, or should have a BIG penalty to pay if the continent still falls and now they don't have all those Spits to defend Britain."

They gift both sides. Despite the fact that the battlefield is the Battle of France the plane and vehicle set is not intended to be limited to that time period. Hence the Allies have Spitfire Vs (a 1941 plane) and the Axis has the 109F (a 1941 plane) and so on, or at least potentially available (strategic bombing can mean no 1941 types).

With regard to tanks, the S35 (available to the French) was perhaps the best medium tank in the world at the time and the earlier Pz III marks and the A13 were closely matched. The Allies (UK, France, Belgium, Holland) actually had more tanks than the Germans in 1940 - about 3400 plays 3700, or varying types (German numbers include the Pz I, for example, and the UK the slightly superior Vickers Mk. VI). What was the downfall of the Allies was more to do with the way the Germans conducted the attack and poor strategy and tactical communications on the part of the allies.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2004, 09:02 PM
El Turo, you're listening to their spin and their lies.

When WWIIOL was conceived, make no mistake it was to be a SIMULATION of WWII in all its theatres. (And for those of you who don't know the difference between "simulation" and "re-enactment", please look up the definition of these words before you embarass yourself with a stupid reply to this point.) They picked the Battle of France, in all their westernized wisdom, thinking it was the closest thing to the beginning of WWII, since 'nobody would be interested in Poland'.

They screwed the sim up in every imaginable way, including a hideous launch, that by rights, should have killed it. But, to their credit, they pulled their heads out long enough to at least stabilize the code and begin to build on it.

Then, they realized they'd bitten off way more than they could chew, and the chance that they'd ever come up with a new map and a new theatre was a pipedream. And, they'd created a somewhat accurate german rout map after map, so then the whines and cries started from the "white hats" guys, so they caved in and began making all the "modifications" to try to make one of the most lopsided campaigns in modern history "even".

A few meetings and revisionist history stories later, and voila: "WWIIOL was never intended as a sim" but just a totally historically unguided game with only the vaguest notions of 'the right equipment for the time.' Of course, that concept only applies when it's time to give the Allies a break.

IF they *ever* manage to get to 1944 or 45, you think they'll playbalance away the P-51s range, the other historical advantages the Allies had to "make the game fun" for Jerry? No, then, it'll be "well, that's the way it was, and we want to be as accurate as possible."

The Rats are liars, speaking out of both sides of their mouths, as it suits them.
===========================
As it pertains to tanks, it is very true that the Germans did NOT have the best equipment; the Chars, Somoas and other Allied tanks, unit for unit were quite a bit better. It was the Blitzkrieg tactics that made the difference.

But WWIIOL doesn't have good rules to allow the Germans to "get into rear areas and disrupt things", take advantage of Allied confusion or WWI-style tactical thinking. The supply rules and gameplay reward only the late war Allied steamroller approach, with continuous fronts and supply lines. Thus, the Germans have to fight with a hand tied behind their backs. It's a testament to the overall situational imbalance that the Germans still manage to take their share of the maps. But the Rats are still doing their best to recreate WWI on their WWII map.

Korolov
09-27-2004, 09:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by El Turo:

Korolov,

You pay to play IL2/FB... Blah de blah de blah, pay to play rules, blah de blah de blah <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point A: When I first got IL-2 in '02, I paid 30 bucks for it. I played IL-2 for... 9 months till FB came out. Divide that up...

3 bucks a month. Most pay to play games charge 7 to 10 bucks a month. Lets say most use 7 bucks. I'd have paid 63 bucks for IL-2 then if it were pay to play. About double price.

When I got FB, I payed 40 bucks for it, and am still playing it now. That's about... 18 months or so. 2 bucks a month, and going thinner. Make that 7 for Pay To play and you get 126 bucks total and still adding.

Then, I got AEP. I believe that was for 30 bucks when I got it from EB. Had it for 6 months, and still adding. But for the current time, I've paid 5 bucks a month for it. Change that to 7 for PTP and I'd have blown 42 bucks now.

Altogether, I've spent about 100 bucks on FB, software alone. If IL-2 were PTP, I'd have paid 263 bucks now and still counting. Almost three times as much as if it were retail. Maybe 1C should make their future sims PTP - they'd make a hell of a lot more money!

Point B: Pay to Play games often have little, if any, offline elements. This isn't always the case of course but it's very commonly the case. Let's see, WW2 Online came out in, what, Summer '01? Lets assume they charge you 7 bucks a month to play it, and you bought it when it came out. Not counting what it cost to buy it at a retail counter or if you downloaded it, you've thrown 252 bucks of your gaming budget now at it. 84 bucks a year. You could buy two retail games with that money and play them online for however long you want, and over time the amount of money you "paid" per month becomes mere pennies. PTP charges a flat rate throughout the time you play it.

Lets assume DOOM was 50 bucks to buy when it came out in '94. If you played it all the way up to now, the release of DOOM3, you'd barely have spent half a cent a month on the game!!!

For now, I find it easier to hassle with the wallet once, and not have to worry about it each month lest I loose my playing privledges because I forgot a payment.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2004, 10:18 PM
Some pay to play are still cheap, when you consider that the monthly fee is almost universally under $20/month for 24/7 access, all you can eat.

Compare that to movies, compare that to golf, compare it to premium sports cable access...it stacks up well against all of those.

If you can get a better experience for those prices than you can with a boxed game, it may be worth it for you.

To say it isn't a good value is to be a totally tight pennypincher.... or perhaps a student or kid with no disposable income of his own.

WUAF_Badsight
09-27-2004, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
The whole wolrd is biased towards allies Stig. You should know it by now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>.

damm stright . . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

JG27_Arklight
09-28-2004, 12:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tully__:
I haven't played it myself, but http://www5.playnet.com/downloads/wargamer030602.pdf seems consistent with most comments I've seen about it. The gist of it is that for flight simmers there are better simulations of ww2 combat, but it's fun and if you like driving tanks it's great.

From my point of view, it's pay to play so it's not currently an option I'm prepared to consider. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


That review is WAY TOO OLD to still be valid.

I have been paying to play it since release and at first there were some serious issues...and I mean serious. I took a few breaks from it here and there but started to get back into it seriously a while back and the experience has totally changed.

HOWEVER, now though WWIIOnline is an excellent game and online expereience. I have never seen a more immersive game before, ever.

The game performance is WAY up, the game now supports hardware acceleration, there are a ton of vehicles/equipment/etc.. to paly around with.

It is a LOT of fun. Try out the free trial and see for yourself. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just don't expect to just jump into a firefight every time you sign on. Sometimes you have to find the action. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tully, if you get a chance, go check it out..you will be in for quite a suprise. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My only beef is the flying aspect which I think is sort of lame...but some guys love it. Too each his own!

robban75
09-28-2004, 03:46 AM
Thanks everyone for your inputs! I might just try it out. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Aaron_GT
09-28-2004, 03:48 AM
Stiglr wrote:
"so then the whines and cries started from the "white hats" guys, so they caved in and began making all the "modifications" to try to make one of the most lopsided campaigns in modern history "even"."

German success in 1940 was predicated on things such as unexpectedly coming through the Ardennes and much superior tactics and communications to those the Allies were employing at the time. It was not based on vastly superior eqiupment. In WW2OL tactics on the Allied and Axis side are equally disorganised and surprise tactics are not so likely to work as we have the benefit of hindsight. Thus, not unsurprisingly, battles are more evenly matched, with no consipracy theories about how the developers are being beastly to the hun required.

Tully__
09-28-2004, 04:01 AM
Honestly guys, I wasn't dissing the game in the slightest. I didn't even look at the date on that review, I just googled it and picked the first one that didn't read like paid advertising.

I've heard a lot of people say it's an enjoyable game, and the only ones I've heard bashing it do so on the basis of "I don't care that it's great fun, the flight models are way off!" or "I went in there once and the server was full of kiddy FPS freaks".

My point is that the flight models are off, but that doesn't stop it being fun and by all accounts the ground action can have much of what real combat does.... a lot of hurry up and wait followed by a few moments of frantic bloodshed. That alone makes it more realistic than most fps type games.

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2004, 09:26 AM
If that criteria is OK for you, Tully ("I don't care if the FMs are off, it's fun), then you'll enjoy it.

That applies to driving tanks, too. And, I suppose, playing infantry, which i never bothered with.

It's just like this game: sure, it's fun, but knowing it COULD be correct, too, but is annoyingly, stubbornly *in*correct in spots, takes a lot of the shine off it.

I don't know about anybody else, but the reason I play sims instead of FPS shooters and fantasy roleplaying games is because it's supposed to be based on REALITY and HISTORY. Something I can not only enjoy on a visceral level, but study and learn from. When I can see the ragged seams of inaccuracy and bias, it lessens the entire package. And no amount of eye candy can make up for that.

Tully__
09-28-2004, 09:38 AM
There's that "b" word again. Oh dear....

As for me, I didn't say that's what I was after. I said for those who want to try it many have found it fun. You are so adept at ready agendas into statements that don't have them.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

9th_Spitin
09-28-2004, 09:49 AM
I played WW2 Online when it first came out and was free. I liked the game idea and the fact that it was a huge map in whitch the power moved from side to side as you take or loose a town. I found it fun to hold a town and ambush the ememy as they tried to regain the position.

There were alot of bugs back then and not sure if they ever worked them all out, but if they could polish it up some and work a little on the graphics it would be a good game.