Talk:World War II Online

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Lodestone Games (0 participants)
List of Uma Musume Pretty Derby characters (2 participants)
Salarian (5 participants)
List of Rival Schools characters (5 participants)
Nioh 3 (1 participant)
Nuke (warez) (2 participants)
Standard (warez) (1 participant)
CGMagazine (1 participant)
Joe Baccielo (6 participants)
Abandonia (4 participants)
The Fisherman: A Codfish Tale (3 participants)
List of J.League licensed video games (5 participants)
Nathan Cheever (2 participants)
List of K League licensed video games (6 participants)
Grow a Garden (16 participants; relisted)
Smoking Gun Interactive (3 participants; relisted)
Tales of Commons (8 participants; relisted)
Ilyas El Maliki (11 participants; relisted)
Allin Kempthorne (8 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Things to do

We still need to add the following information:

Current state of the game (out of bankruptcy, future plans, etc.)
A gameplay overview
Description of game community

I personally think that one can find this information in the main body of the article, but I will start to work on a seperate section about the game's community. (USMA2010 22:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Deleted POV.

There is a ton of comments in this article that do not suggest neutrality. I have removed them. This isn't a player's guide. It's for general information only. - XX55XX 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STFU?

FTFA : "players often find themselves in a situation of communicating directly with developers which many of them need to learn to STFU." lol, someone has to edit this. I wouldn't know what to edit it to tho.. --62.147.133.191 17:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the comment has been removed. (USMA2010 22:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Criticisms?

Maybe we should also add a section on criticisms of the game?

A fair idea, I'll start to work on it. Off the top of my head I can think of it being highly taxing on a computer, vastly outdated graphics, and certain vehicles that are missing that simply shouldn't be. I will, of course, provide the counter viewpoint for each of those criticisms. (USMA2010 22:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There, added the section. Hope this helps! (USMA2010 22:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Although I agree with some of the critisism in the new section, I don't like the way it is presented. It seems to make its claims using weasel words. Maybe the critisms could be presened more plainly: "The graphics engine is outdated", rather than "Another popular complaint is that the graphics engine is outdated" for example. Briancollins 07:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any statement this general will create criticism. I think if you want to end any debate, you need to provide some technical details to back it up. Stating that the graphics engine is outdated needs to be followed up with details like "No pixel shader support, no bump-mapping", and so on. I'm not a graphics expert, so I'll leave this to the inspired, but try to remain unbiased... Warthog32 10:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots

I have added four screens of gameplay taken by me during the game. One manning a 40mm gun, one commanding a Churchill tank, one flying a Spitfire V, and one working with a Churchill and a Bren gunner as rifleman. Unfortunatly, being a BEF player, I do not have any non-official screenshots of the German and French armies that are of any quality. If someone could add a few of the other armies to go along with mine, that would be great! (USMA2010 05:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks to whoever took the initiative and rearrainged those images! (USMA2010 04:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'll try and get a couple of axis shots.--Ashmole 23:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. All those that I have are very out of date. (USMA2010 03:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hey if you going to place your own screenshots in, at least turn gourad shading on. I know you may have a slow computer but there is no need to make the game look worse then it already does.

I value FPS over looks, and it works fine for me. That, and it seems to make tanks stand out better in bushes. Flat FTW. Phong soon though, new computer coming. (USMA2010 02:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Playable Equipment

I have added a section for playable equipment, listing the major equipment in the game, with links to other wiki pages. It could use a little more work - I didn't have references for a few pieces of equipment, if anyone is inspired. I imagine the formatting could use improvement too - I'm still learning the right way to do wiki markup. Warthog32 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The list is, for the time being, complete. (USMA2010 02:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

2001 vs 2006 screenshots

Someone posted the before/after screenshots from 2001 vs 2006, which is great - but it's way too large to sit in the middle of the article, in its full size. I reformatted it as a caption, making it enhance the article, not dominate it. Warthog32 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice mate. (USMA2010 04:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Moving Along

Great to see so much progress on this article in the recent weeks. Thanks to whoever rearrainged my screenshots, and added captions. I also noticed more detail in several sections that needed it the most, nice job with that. Keep up the good work. (USMA2010 04:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Virtual Battlefield

" the first (currently only) video game to qualify as a virtual battlefield".

I'm going to back up earlier decisions to remove this statement.

There have been many games which take place on a virtual battlefield, before and after WWII Online. This statement is a highly contested advertising statement from the company, and disregards many past and present games: the Total War series, the Combat Mission series, Harpoon.. there have been too many to name.

I beg to differ. Harpoon, Combat Mission, et cetera, all have virtual battlefields. No question about that. However, the statement, at least as how I read it, implies that this game has the first virtual online battlefield. In other words, where as other MMOGs might take place in a kingdom, the entire map of WWII Online is an international battlefield. I'm putting it back up, but I'll tac on the bit about it being the first online battlefield, for clarification.

Additional discussion on this point is needed. Can someone provide an external (to wikipedia) reference where the term 'virtual battlefield' is held in public discussion? I too want to make sure we aren't inventing terms for the purpose of advertising this game. The only time I've heard the term mentioned in association with computer games was with WWIIOL, and that was from the Cornered Rat's own advertising. Take note that the only mention of this term in Wikipedia were added in the last few days by only one user. It is not included in the Computer and video game genres page.

Note that the term 'virtual battlefield' is highly misleading, since "virtual" and "battlefield" covers numerous games, while only the virtual battlefield wiki page seems to be constantly evolving to single out only WWIIOL.

Even if we do support a term whose definition includes "online" "virtual" "battlefield", "simulation" and "persistent", WWIIOL is definitely not the first, or only game in the category. How about Aces High? There have been numerous online games, even predating the internet, that fit in some way into this category.

Please, no more reverts until we come to consensus. Aritta 20:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aces High was an air combat game. It did not represent the full spectrum of war.

How many new qualifications will emerge for this new term? I think it would be easy to argue that WWIIOL doesn't address the full spectrum of war. It doesn't include submarines (and has a very simplistic naval model in general), has a very inaccurate model of supply, doesn't consider civilian casualties (much less human cost in general), has a stark imbalance of deployed forces (far more armor than realistic, for instance), has no artillery or mortars, weather is scarely existent and primarily cosmetic.... 64.174.34.251 23:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. What bothers me even more about this new genre than its vagueness, is the fact that it only applies to one game. What advantage is there to creating a new genre when it isn't really a genre? Warthog32 01:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It increases sales. ;) (USMA2010 02:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

A virtual battlefield isn't a Genre of video game. It is the digital simulation of war through the combination of vehicle simulators into a large common envirionment together with infantry. This term existed long before WWIIONLINE came out. It was not used to refer to video games, but to a simulation environment that the U.S. military (probably among others) was looking for. The first environment to fulfil this purpose was likely VSB1 (Virtual Battlespace) by Bohemia Studios . If you do a google search for virtual battlefield the first result is VBS1 and VBS2, Not WWIIONLINE.

"Virtual battlefield" is not a vague term. products that do not include infantry are not virtual battlefields, they are vehicle simulators. Products that do not include vehicle simulation are not virtual battefields, they are infantry simulators or first person shooters. Products that do not have a large enough map or enough simutanious "players" to simulate a war or at least an acurately sized battle cannot be virtual battlefields. Products that take place in fictional environments are generaly not simulators (unless they use completely acurate physics) and are therefore not virtual battefields. Again, this term was used before WWIIONLINE came out it has not been modified to describe wwiionline. It can be, and is, used to describe other products such as VSB1 and VSB2.

the comment about Aces High is correct, it does not contain playable infantry. I did not make that comment though. Navy is not necissary, because a virtual battlefield could presumably take place on land. If it ONLY took place on water it would be a naval simulator.

The problem is, you're creating a definition of a 'Virtual Battlefield' category so narrow that it only refers to two products (VBSn and WWIIOL), so it seems really strange to me to say WWIIOL is the first of that category that happens to fit another limitation (that it's an online game). Our role as Wiki editors isn't to invent history, but to document established fact. So, please provide some external references where 'virtual battlefield' is a term in general use to define a class of software, and limited to:

Must be a computer simulation.
Must be "online" (networked)
Must include infantry
Must be a combined arms simulation (but not necessarily Navy)
Must include air? (You didn't say this, but I suspect its next)
Must have a single person controlling a single piece of equipment
Must have a realistic ballistic model and realistic damage model

yeah, that about describes it there. I think the Inclusion of air would depend on the theater and the era simualated. But yes, a simulation of War would have to include just about all of these things. To clarify a little bit more here, the idea of the Virtual Battlefield orignated for the desire to conduct War Games or War exercises in a simulated environment. In order to do that you need all of the above. I'll work on finding an external link, but it may take a short while because they may have to be from a few years ago, at a time when their were no examples to point to.

Please note that "virtual" and "battlefield" are very generic words often used together to mean something very different than what you are describing:

I did not come up with the term so I am not responsible for their vagueness of the words contained it. What the term MEANS however, is very specific. If you think this term is to vague, I have a question for you. What term do you use to describe what that bulleted list up there describes? Do you have a term for it? In other words, What Genre Does VBS1 (Virtual Battle Space 1) fall into?

Virtual battlefield is a fine classification for VBS1. But you seem to be missing the point entirely. Genres are not absolute. From the wiki on [genre]: "genres are vague categories with no fixed boundaries.". "Virtual battlefield" is a fine descriptive grouping, but it is impossible to assign absolutes without excluding significant mebers of the group. By doing so, you've excluded a number of virtual battlefield simulators that really deserve membership. 64.174.34.251 17:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, theres a link to another virtual battlefield. http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/asian/asian_04/d3_virtualp10.html and another http://www.irconnect.com/noc/pages/news_releases.mhtml?d=45031 "The five-day integrated strike warfare exercise, conducted in mid-July, was funded by the Air Force's Electronic Systems Center, Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass. It was hosted on Northrop Grumman's Cyber Warfare Integration Network (CWIN), a nationwide, virtual battlefield environment. " the emphasis is mine. Noticec the context, its a nationwide integration of different simulator platforms. Here it is in military context again, notice the reference to training. http://www.uhd.edu/academic/colleges/sciences/ccsds/reports/1997/cont.html#15 the northrop gruman one in pdf http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/media_news/2003_data/mn03_mprtip_9_15.pdf#search=%22virtual%20battlefield%20define%22 Oh, and here's a really good one. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.01/virthell_pr.html

NetCos is a virtual battlefield, but doesn't simulate infantry. Why did you include it? CWIN doesn't simulate infantry either.

So, according to your definition, these aren't virtual battlefields. Even though, in the military, they're considered to be virtual battlefields. Are you starting to see the problem with your exclusive definition? I would hope so, by now.

Tell us again why AirWarrior III and Aces High aren't virtual battlefields, but WWIIOL is?

64.174.34.251 17:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Largest map

WWIIONLINE has the largest terrain. This is not desputed. If you want this verified refer to the graphic in the main article. Any game that can claim terain size mesuring 120km by 230km is free to have the title. EVE online does not have terrain so don't start with that angle.

I just looked up dark and light due to the edit comments. dark and light boasts 15,000 sq KM "without seas." the square root of 15000 is about 122, meaning that Dark and light is roughly half the size of WIIONLINE excluding the seas. If the seas take up more then half the game it is larger than WWIIONLINE. Please verify before you change it.

WWIIOL does not have the largest world. This is not disputed. The graphic in the main article doesn't have Dark and Light in it, does it? I invite you to add Dark and Light to it.

The Dark and light is 40,000 square kilometers. I'm not sure why you would exclude seas, since they are navigable. Here are two links which discuss the world size, including one which compares to other games:

This compares with WWIIOL at 120km*230km = 27.6 sq km

64.174.34.251 16:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, why use "terrain" size rather than "world" size, especially since terrain size isn't terribly easy to calculate (what is the terrain size in WWIIOL?), and in this case travel isn't exclusive to land in either game. But even if limited to terrain, it seems too close for comfort to say its the largest "by far". Warthog32 18:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 15,000 number being quoted for DnL is incorrect. DnL has 15,000 square miles of land (seas excluded), which is equal to roughly 40,000 square kilometers of land. Do the math. The difference between 15,000 and 40,000 is a difference in units, not of what is being measured. The 40,000 km² already excludes seas.

Other online games that pass WWIIOL in size (or are close)

Flight Simulator X = 510,065,600 km²
Auto Assault = 300,000 km²
Irth Online = 39,204 km²
Face of Mankind = 23,000 km²

There's another one at the 100km² mark I'm having trouble remembering.. I'll follow up with it later. ::But yeah, WWIIOL is "by far" not the largest.

Aritta 23:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all 120km*230 = 27,600 sq KM not 27.6 km

File:Mmogmaps 001.jpg

World War II online uses a ½ scale map of Western Europe.

File:Big07kb7.jpg

World War II online uses a ½ scale map of Western Europe.

Ok, so the big black blob thing is the actual map size of WWIIONLINE, the black areas include terain but the player who compiled this map didn't take screen shots of them. This entire map is "traversable" but the area with cultural objects and detail is expanding into the traversable area. If I revert the largest map claim I will make mention of this, as it is obviously clear from the above posts that there are now games that are larger than the play area of WWIIONLINE, though this wasn't true in the past. I guess this article was started a bit late.

Note that the first map is 123KM by 120 KM and makes a rectangle slightly larger then the square in the second map. The play area in WWIIONLINE is currently (according to current player made maps) about 250km by 120Km (it has letters A-Y along the bottom and 1-12 along the sides; 10km each) That makes the play area roughly 30,000 Km² which eliminates face of mankind whatever that is. the 40,000 Km² land area in dark and light does infact envelop WWIIONLINE play area, but it drawfed by WWIIONLINES map size.

WWIIONLINES total map size estimated using my advanced finger measuring(tm) is about 812km on a side, making the total map area about 650,000 Km²

btw, the official marketing on the WWIIONLINE site has it at over 350,000 mi². So, incase you doubt my finger measuring you can do the math on that.

You need to start using references. At the Battleground Europe marketing site, http://www.wwiionline.com/scripts/wwiionline/be_features.jsp, it has it at 350,000 "km". Although, I can only assume they meant km². So, where do you get 350,000 mi²? That's not the first time you've changed the unit of measurement to support your theory. Since everyone knows that the game is limited to 30,000 km², and even your own previous documentation and maps showed only that, do you really think the game should claim the largest map, just because you can find a bigger map of europe?

I also think your dominating the introduction with a qualification of your claim is unreasonable - introductions are supposed to be introductory, not defensive. 64.174.34.254 15:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... does ANYONE think that WWIIOL map really includes scottland, northern italy and the west coast of yugoslaive (modern day croatia) as indicated in the map that was just posted? Sorry, but this is pretty blatantly wrong and misleading. Hey, I can provide a map of the whole world, and limit the game play to my home town and set a new record!

Aritta 18:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this is getting ridiculous. The caveats and debate within the gameplay section about the size of the map make the paragraph deranged and almost unreadable. The reader is here to learn about WWIIOL and doesn't care about Dark and Light and other games, let's just change the claim to "one of the biggest" and leave it at that. The point about play being restricted to only a subset of the map is BS too. If you regularly play naval or air you'll find yourself all over the place. I'm gonna clean it up, but please read this and respond before reverting. - H0G

Hear! hear! Your edit looks just fine and I hope it stays that way and ends this nonsense. The 350,000 sq. km looks like garbage to me too (I've sure never sailed out of Scapa Flow or flown over Turin), but I can play dumb if the "biggest, baddest game on the planet by far" weasel word advertising is dropped. Warthog32 20:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speed tree

If can't see how speedtree is more than a graphical improvement then you have probably not played WWIIONLINE. Yes, in most games trees are graphics. In WWIIONLINE they are invaluable cover and concealment. Before Speedtree had unenterable "Hard Forrests." That could be flown over but not walked through. Speed tree replaced rows of "X trees" Which were rows of trees created by placing what looked like cardboard cutouts of rows 10 trees or more in the middle of a field. The trunks were 1 dimentional and were like plywood that people had to hide behind. Speedtree was a gameplay change far more than it was a graphics improvement.

Wrong, I'm a day 1 player, and a very active player, I just considered these different issues, although I can't speak for the other editors. Keep in mind though, that this article isn't for day 1 WWIIOL players, it will primarily be read by people who don't know what WWIIOL is, and want to learn. So, we need to make these sorts of distinctions as clear as possible.

I see your point about the tight relationship about graphical improvements and gameplay improvements, but that goes way beyond SpeedTree - SpeedTree is only a single example of this relationship.

SpeedTree, at least to me, is a graphical technology. As SpeedTree technology has gotten better, the rats have had several releases of SpeedTree improvements. For instance, even now, SpeedTree just released version 4.0, and there is speculation that WWIIOL will eventually update to use the latest technology.

True, graphical improvemetns often provide cover and concealment improvements, but that goes beyond SpeedTree. X-bushes provide concealment too - they just look real bad. Higher polygon bushes, without speed tree, also provide additional concealment. Some of the old 2D buildings, which didn't provide cover, were also improved, but that has nothing to do with SpeedTree technology.

Similary, the removal of hard forests seems to me like an independent feature and it seems to me like that deserves its own bullet on the feature list.

I'd suggest we put SpeedTree back in the graphical category, and add new bullets for cover/concealment improvements and navigable forests.

I'll wait for the revert though, since its already bounced back and forth a few times. Warthog32 17:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make the change seems like this addresses both concerns. Aritta 23:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nhorning here. While I'm satisfied with this as a compromise, note that speedtree is mentioned 3 times in the bullet list and that looks a little ridiculous.

I totally agree, clearly that was intended to please you and end your edit parade. 64.174.34.254 15:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, i just put speedtree in all over the place to try to satisfy Nhorning, but its good to know he thinks its excessive, I'll put it back in graphical improvements where it belongs.

Nhorning, seems like you're new to Wikipedia. You can put your discussion tag by typing four tildes in a row, and keep the discussion more readable. Like this:

Aritta 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]