Anyone know of a game simular to this one that has been released or is in develpoment? I miss playing this game when it had lots of players it was so much fun. This is one of my favorite games. I did not mind the graphics were a bit dated due to the excitement of it. Is there anything out there even close?

Does it have to me a MMO?  Otherwise I'd say the FPS Red Orchestra (and no, that's not Red October :P ).   Problem with that though is it's old and between versions, RO2 is being developed.  The vanilla RO servers when I last played were pretty quiet, but the Darkest Hour mod for RO had busy servers.  Once WWIIOL got the AO's and battles became massive spamfests (and the squads died) I totally moved over to RO where before I was playing both.

Just one quick vid I saw on Utube, not a bad example.  While a FPS it's not like BattleField, it goes for realism like WWIIOL.  No cross hairs, iron sites only, no hitpoints etc.  Some of the maps are huge so you will be using a rifle as it should be used (longer ranges) etc.  Something to look at or keep in mind for the RO2 release.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQSkcZn8i3k

PS. And no warpy laggy inf.  When you shoot them they die right away ;)

Hard to say, what come in future. I have heard something about Ghost Recon Online, Iron Front (WW2 game on Arma 2 engine)...etc

If about old Red Orchestra, then yep, this was fresh breath in FPS' world.

If about old Red Orchestra, then yep, this was fresh breath in FPS' world.
Now about new Red Orchestra 2 i have some doubts. Yes, armour' game seems take new hills of playability. But infantry game , imo, fall into mainstream. Atleast at first look.

Again, imo, IF game will seem graphically as here, i guess, then more isn't needed atleast in graphic part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z90DOXjZFw

Though about features as logistics, tactics, strategies, that might make WWIIOL unique,  we have said already so many words....Instead it developers choose absolutely contrary road.

RO2 is going to have two server settings, so for the RO original fans we can get the graphics engine upgrade without all the newbie help tools ;).  I'm just going to be so happy getting back to MG-42s and Pfausts.

"Realism Settings: 2 Settings. Relaxed Realism and Realistic. Relaxed realism will include all of the new interface helpers. Realistic will be for the more hardcore players, and will have some of the new interface helpers disabled. Server admins will be able to set up a custom configuration that picks and chooses which features to have. "

For the whole fact sheet...

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=48698

Nothing like this at all on the board of any developers, unless they keep it real real secret.

RO is nothing like this, nor is the Iron Front game.

These are small map games in comparison.

What we have is 1 map, 1 server, 1 playerbase and 1 continuous campaign that is player driven.

That depends on what 'like' aspecs he's looking for.

If it's no crosshairs, no hitpoints one hit kills, ballistics, tanks etc. then they are very similar.  In fact RO is closer to old WWIIOL than the new WWIIOL with it's radar and behind the line spawn teleports.

If it's the large map, even that's pretty close (if you're playing large RO maps) considering most of the spawning is from MSP now which makes most of the map untouched.  With AO's limiting most of the combat to the same old same old 'important cities' the actual number of cities you do get to fight in has dropped dramatically.

Sheer numbers RO doesn't have as it's only 64 players.  Which is why I asked if it had to be a MMO.

Don't be angry with the truth, because it's the Rats who removed the stuff that made it different and now complain when people say how similar they are.

That is hardly "like this", stating "like this" you indicate what the heart of the game is - and the heart of this game is not the lack of crosshairs etc.. it is the nature of the game.

And the nature of the game is very very much defined by our campaign system and the idea of one large map on one server with a continous campaign.

That is what makes this game unique.

Planetside and wwiionline sort of spoiled me on the Player Count in FPS.  Last night in wwiionline, on a weekend at primetime, I counted in one brigade 100 players as infantry/tanks/AA/AT guns on the German side, which means there were about 100 on the allied side.  And in another brigade probably 20 more players, and in the air probably 30 more players.  So that's about 150 players vs 150 players in one battle (300 players total)

About the same as Planetside before it became a desert, barely anyone plays Planetside anymore.

I go to Battlefield 2, look at the 64 player servers and am going, "man that's 1/5th the fun, this isn't a battle it's a skirmish, and this artillery is lame."

@Tontoman

Hmmmm...MSPs reduce the amount of map utilised?

Are you sure?

My experience (funnily enough) is the opposite.

They actually bring more of the map in to play. Did you ever truck it in?

Arguably, MSP's open up more of the map to more players because they can be be placed in out of the way positions. It can be ruddy annoying  but in no way does it lead to less of the map being used. If anything I have seen more ground grabbed by judicious use of MSPs than anything before in the days of trucks.

Originally posted by Szyporyn

That is hardly "like this", stating "like this" you indicate what the heart of the game is - and the heart of this game is not the lack of crosshairs etc.. it is the nature of the game.

And the nature of the game is very very much defined by our campaign system and the idea of one large map on one server with a continous campaign.

That is what makes this game unique.

 Ah no, that totally depends on who you talk to.  For lots of my buddies it was the lack of crosshairs, radar, hit points, bunny hopping etc. that made the game, the realism aspect of the combat VS regular FPS games.  The fact it's some global map was beside the point for lots, especially after AO's came up and you had zero control on that anyway.

Those guys were useful as those were the ones who didn't stop playing once one side was obviously losing or didn't switch sides (map fairweather flyers) to clear the end of the map quicker.  The global map might make the game for you (as it does others), but don't make the mistake of projecting that onto everyone else.  You could stick a global map on COD and I wouldn't touch it. 

As the global map campaign part hasn't changed, but the combat mechanics has, it's funny they've lost a ton of the players.  If it really was all about the global map for everyone and nothing else, the numbers shouldn't have changed with AOs, MSP and depots instead of being devastated.

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

STUG, I'm from about 2 years before depots, so yeah a lot of trucking.  And that means a lot of early bailouts (either on purpose or due to a shot out tire) and clearing a trucking path into the city and clearing ATGs etc.  You could measure how the attack is going on how far you could get before taking fire.

Now with a couple of trucks setup back behind the city, and or some EASY trucking in a forest you can spawn the whole army in close.   It's all zerg combat in that 200-300 yards.  Spawning from the same truck taking the same path 30 times imo is not using the map.  Pushing out of a city to cut off truck routes imo was more map combat than not bothering because there's a MSP somewhere behind you anyway with a full army and instead just pulling circles around the city doing the MSP wack-a-mole thing.

During the free trials I last played I saw it wasn't uncommon for the FB to be raided during a big OP.  How, because everyone was teleporting in directly from the MSP there was no FB to city traffic to spot let alone stop the enemy driving up to the FB (and by this time, seemed no one was willing to guard the FB anymore).  And if you were in a tank might as well drive up as sitting inbetween the two nets you nothing as eveyone teleports in behind you.  Before MSP, those missions were part of the conflict around the FB, expecially if it could be lauched from a nearby city.

But that's me and readily admit it's just my opinion and that others might see all the combat from MSP to city (and quick respawn with little waiting/traveling) as being more combat.  But I also know I'm not alone as I know from the others who left.

----------

Nerf09, yeah big battles could rock when they happened.  Just too few and far inbetween for me.  Or when there was one it was in a 'camp' phase which I didn't want to spend my time on and as there was only one 'real' attack sucking up all the players,  there was no other choice if I wanted to play.  The river city battles usually were the most likely to turn out well.  Has the freeplay opened more viable battle AO's up?

Don't be too hard on BF arty, it's not like WWIIOL tank HE is anything to write home about heh.  One nice thing with RO is it does have real arty and HE in tanks work (clears out houses very nicely, body parts and all).  All games have their quirks.

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

Anyway that's far off the topic of the OP.  I stand by my statement that if you're not looking for a MMO, RO can fill that nitch.  It's not an coincidence that a lot of RO players knew about WWIIOL.  Players of a certain genre know of the games within that genre.

The exodus was not related to the AOs - only indirectly (IMO that is).

We lost the squads, and we lost the squads due to HC all of a sudden becomming a structure not related to the squads at all.

That made the AO a dealbreaker for most squads as they no longer had control of areas to attack - not that AO made that impossible, it still is possible, but due to most HCs being complete and utter idiots and not willing to spend the time squads were willing to spend in setting up new attacks.

If your looking for a non-MMO World War II themed game, the RA stuff CRS are rolling out, which uses the physiscs of this game engine and is pretty realistic may be worth a look.

Think it should be free too.

Originally posted by Szyporyn

The exodus was not related to the AOs - only indirectly (IMO that is).

We lost the squads, and we lost the squads due to HC all of a sudden becomming a structure not related to the squads at all.

That made the AO a dealbreaker for most squads as they no longer had control of areas to attack - not that AO made that impossible, it still is possible, but due to most HCs being complete and utter idiots and not willing to spend the time squads were willing to spend in setting up new attacks.

I do not agree Allied HC has SLO's people just tend to not work with them as much plus your only in a 3 man squad last time I checked with no SLO in the squad. As for HC not spending time with squads you do not have HC chat so you have no clue what HC does with squads AllFor and 23rd and 13th always work with SLO's and HC so do many other large squads..

I still do not see you in HC yet maybe you should go for it seen as you can do a better job. Plus if HC is doing such a bad job how is it we won last campain ?

Anyhow not going to get into this any more as it is derailing the topic.

--

To answer the OPs question no there is only planetside set in the future that even comes close that being said they are making a Planetside 2 at the moment but as for MMO SIM's there is none out there unless you go for normal Multiplayer FPS games.

It always amazed me how well the game worked prior to HC. Or should I say before HC had the AO power to force the playerbase into there own private little wars.

Give me the pre AO power HC and the orbit anyday over the idiots we got now playing demi-gods with other players time. Heck in the whole HC's existance since the ability to set AO's has ethier HC had any decent leadership. Beyond a handful of players who where large squad leaders prior HC comeing to be the answer is no.

Worst part is I had to watch my squad the 101st one of the best squads in the game have its leadership die off and be replaced by a bunch of guys who's whole job became seeing how much HC arse they could kiss to get a AO. No thinking out the box no independent thought beyond follow the orders of some  HC dick that was on at the time. made me so sick I had to leave the squad. HC as it is now is the main factor to this game being is as poor a shape as it is.

If you really think about it this game has always been one where the player base drove the content. By placeing all the power to force that content into a small group of players hands the rats killed off the best resource for game play they had the playerbase itself and it shows.

Well I'd say the problem started with depots, then each solution made it worse.

Depots themselves might have not been bad, but putting them next door to the spawnable was just nuts.  I can only hope it was a coding issue (had to the that close) and not a design one.  Next door spawning VS a five min truck drive, not even close.

With depots giving such a boost to defenders, that made for the uber camps.  Even good size squads couldn't hope to cap with that defensive adv, so the squads started teaming up on attacks for even larger zergs and spawn lockdowns (attrit caps).

That's when all attacks started becoming suprise camp attacks.  Then you had the AO's come up to give the defenders warning in order to get ready before the camp started so we would get back to actual combat.  But that had the effect of removing the combat freedom from the global map.  What started as a few people leaving due to the change from solo close knit squads doing their thing to multi squad zergs, really became a rush out the door as squads became lost in the mash of people into a single AO and as time drifted by with a lack of  a true solution to the zerging.  Once the freedom was taken away and the battle became for the same 'important' towns again and again, that really hurt.

IMO they could have done better removing depots or if possible (code allowing) move the depots from the spawns once they saw the issue.  Go back to the original system until something else was worked out instead of leaving us with the issue while working on another solution.  If depots and MSP came in together, might have been ok.  With that old player pop, AO's might have even been ok with so many more AOs to give out.

Originally posted by Tontoman

Well I'd say the problem started with depots, then each solution made it worse.

Depots themselves might have not been bad, but putting them next door to the spawnable was just nuts.  I can only hope it was a coding issue (had to the that close) and not a design one.  Next door spawning VS a five min truck drive, not even close.

With depots giving such a boost to defenders, that made for the uber camps.  Even good size squads couldn't hope to cap with that defensive adv, so the squads started teaming up on attacks for even larger zergs and spawn lockdowns (attrit caps).

That's when all attacks started becoming suprise camp attacks.  Then you had the AO's come up to give the defenders warning in order to get ready before the camp started so we would get back to actual combat.  But that had the effect of removing the combat freedom from the global map.  What started as a few people leaving due to the change from solo close knit squads doing their thing to multi squad zergs, really became a rush out the door as squads became lost in the mash of people into a single AO and as time drifted by with a lack of  a true solution to the zerging.  Once the freedom was taken away and the battle became for the same 'important' towns again and again, that really hurt.

IMO they could have done better removing depots or if possible (code allowing) move the depots from the spawns once they saw the issue.  Go back to the original system until something else was worked out instead of leaving us with the issue while working on another solution.  If depots and MSP came in together, might have been ok.  With that old player pop, AO's might have even been ok with so many more AOs to give out.

I suggested to the rats to make AO's a area of effect type of thing. Meaning the HC set a overall goal and the AO would cover a portion of the front say 5 or 6 towns. This allowed HC to do there thing sttting a overall goal. And let the squads do there thing which is organize and provide good attacks and defense for the playbase without killing off there choice of how where and when a attack took place. Best of both worlds but oh well it didnt fly so here we are. 

Originally posted by Zbus

Originally posted by Tontoman

Well I'd say the problem started with depots, then each solution made it worse.

Depots themselves might have not been bad, but putting them next door to the spawnable was just nuts.  I can only hope it was a coding issue (had to the that close) and not a design one.  Next door spawning VS a five min truck drive, not even close.

With depots giving such a boost to defenders, that made for the uber camps.  Even good size squads couldn't hope to cap with that defensive adv, so the squads started teaming up on attacks for even larger zergs and spawn lockdowns (attrit caps).

That's when all attacks started becoming suprise camp attacks.  Then you had the AO's come up to give the defenders warning in order to get ready before the camp started so we would get back to actual combat.  But that had the effect of removing the combat freedom from the global map.  What started as a few people leaving due to the change from solo close knit squads doing their thing to multi squad zergs, really became a rush out the door as squads became lost in the mash of people into a single AO and as time drifted by with a lack of  a true solution to the zerging.  Once the freedom was taken away and the battle became for the same 'important' towns again and again, that really hurt.

IMO they could have done better removing depots or if possible (code allowing) move the depots from the spawns once they saw the issue.  Go back to the original system until something else was worked out instead of leaving us with the issue while working on another solution.  If depots and MSP came in together, might have been ok.  With that old player pop, AO's might have even been ok with so many more AOs to give out.

I suggested to the rats to make AO's a area of effect type of thing. Meaning the HC set a overall goal and the AO would cover a portion of the front say 5 or 6 towns. This allowed HC to do there thing sttting a overall goal. And let the squads do there thing which is organize and provide good attacks and defense for the playbase without killing off there choice of how where and when a attack took place. Best of both worlds but oh well it didnt fly so here we are. 

Glad your not a rat then I would have quit long ago.

Really 5 or 6 towns for 1 AO ? How much ninja capping is classed as fun ?

Originally posted by Woopin

Originally posted by Zbus

Originally posted by Tontoman

Well I'd say the problem started with depots, then each solution made it worse.

Depots themselves might have not been bad, but putting them next door to the spawnable was just nuts.  I can only hope it was a coding issue (had to the that close) and not a design one.  Next door spawning VS a five min truck drive, not even close.

With depots giving such a boost to defenders, that made for the uber camps.  Even good size squads couldn't hope to cap with that defensive adv, so the squads started teaming up on attacks for even larger zergs and spawn lockdowns (attrit caps).

That's when all attacks started becoming suprise camp attacks.  Then you had the AO's come up to give the defenders warning in order to get ready before the camp started so we would get back to actual combat.  But that had the effect of removing the combat freedom from the global map.  What started as a few people leaving due to the change from solo close knit squads doing their thing to multi squad zergs, really became a rush out the door as squads became lost in the mash of people into a single AO and as time drifted by with a lack of  a true solution to the zerging.  Once the freedom was taken away and the battle became for the same 'important' towns again and again, that really hurt.

IMO they could have done better removing depots or if possible (code allowing) move the depots from the spawns once they saw the issue.  Go back to the original system until something else was worked out instead of leaving us with the issue while working on another solution.  If depots and MSP came in together, might have been ok.  With that old player pop, AO's might have even been ok with so many more AOs to give out.

I suggested to the rats to make AO's a area of effect type of thing. Meaning the HC set a overall goal and the AO would cover a portion of the front say 5 or 6 towns. This allowed HC to do there thing sttting a overall goal. And let the squads do there thing which is organize and provide good attacks and defense for the playbase without killing off there choice of how where and when a attack took place. Best of both worlds but oh well it didnt fly so here we are. 

Glad your not a rat then I would have quit long ago.

Really 5 or 6 towns for 1 AO ? How much ninja capping is classed as fun ?

I know right what would you guys do if you had to use your brain and not only look at ews warnings along with haveing to /gasp do some recon yourself. Ask the rats for more spoon feeding play. while there filling that request perhaps they could wipe your arse for you.

Oh and by the way that was a short overview I listed out a long one and it got many positive reviews on PS fourms.Funny I dont remeber you putting any posts up about changes but then again comeing from a guy who wants it all handed to him on a platter im not amazed ethier. 

The issue in this game that has driven game mechancis since day one is population dynamics and imbalances. We design and break the game, tbh.

What this game needs is equal sides. What nay game needs to be fair, is equal sides. Otherwise the side that ahs the numerical advantage with an open playing field will strategically out flank and outfight the other side by sheer numbers. Historically accurate? Yes. Fun? For one side, more fun for longer than the other.

CRS has had to cope with this conundrum for a long time....bless em...

Yeah, always been the problem and not helped by the playerbase.

"we give them a system to find a fight and they spend the whole time avoiding one" is one quote I remember popping up.

I'd like a more flexable system, but I'd also want some MSP restrictions (distance from FB) also.  It is so easy to zerg a city without warning the recon could be a pita.  Also you're talking about a playerbase that's instant action now,  hard to get people to scout or wait (they can't even wait in ambush with a tank).  Four trucks and you're ready to be attacked from four sides by a full army.  Even if you can spot them, it's not like posting it on the channels will get any defenders to spawn in until EWS goes off or something is capped heh. 

It was one thing to scout a city to see if it was a real attack or just a diversion, but now you don't know if it's 1 or a 100.  Not as if you can count the trucks driving in.  But do miss the day of spotting a armor column and working out where they are going.

I do have sympathy for the Rats when the playerbase works the game mechanics as much as the game.  I think it's a mechanics effect you can't get away from, the more quick and instant action you give the game, the more control you have to give the game and take away from the player.  Otherwise the quick action mechanics can get abused as seen in the game evolution with more game mechanics being added to the attackers or defenders benefit to balance out a previous addition.