Talk:World War II Online

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

World War II Online is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: 19 October 2006

	This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
	A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by WikiProject Computer and video games.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: X-Men vs. Street Fighter Expand: New CVG Articles, List of Nintendo trademarks, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: Super Transformation, Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, Yoshi, Black Isle's Torn, Rise of Nations, Kirby (Nintendo), PlayStation 3, Mega Man Zero 4, Luigi Cleanup: Shiny Entertainment, Age of Mythology, Serious Sam II, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Ted Price, Betrayal at Krondor Merge: Current Events (Update needed!) / Deletions / Essential articles / Workshop / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

I just stumbled across this article. It's a good start, but it needs some work. It seems more (up-to-date) details, and could stand to be made a bit more encyclopedic. I'll do some work on it when I have some free time.

Well, I suppose if we're going to do this, we might as well do it right - I'll try to work on a new section that picks up from there and expands on the development of the HCs. (That's when I joined anyway, so I'm fairly familiar with the progress from there.) If anyone can remember what they involved, we should include a revision history, including the major points of development. Is a consolidated readme included with each update, or does it only explain that revision? Don't need to go into volume, but major highlights would be cool. Opusaug 17:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A while back there was some material about the company behind the game that was guesswork and not very accurate that I modified; there were also some attempts at technical insight into the game which I corrected. There were also a few ranty sections that attacked the game in the recently-disgruntled fashion which I reworded without trying to hide the underlying complaint/issue. I thought I ought to "own up" :) Kfsone 02:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Branching Off

I have started a very short article on CRS, and plan on doing the same for Playnet. Please help add information to these pages, as well as link the WWIIOL article to them whenever possible. (USMA2010 05:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

The page was deleted because practically nothing was on it, so how about we develop the Developers section of this article then try again with the CRS page. DocVM 17, November, 2006

[edit] 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))

Gameplay Overview and Game Community could use a treatment by branches of the player base; Army, Navy, Air Force. This MMPOLG offers some of the best and worst content at various patching stages depending on which branch one player dedicates themselves to. I can chime in on Air Force and recent haze & fog implementations. Man-hi 20:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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))

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

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)

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)

[edit] 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))

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

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

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

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))

I have a few screenshots of some axis equipment and action shots.Please take a look to see if they're worthy for article inclusion:

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/2182/sshot9oi0.png A few tanks wait as a bridge is being repaired.

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/5499/sshot5aj2.jpg

German paratroopers on the coast of england.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/6501/sshot13zx0.jpg A ju52 flees after unloading its fallschirmjaeger squad.Note the anti-aircraft fire.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/17/sshot11hf4.jpg

A stug3g claims victory on a m10 tank destroyer. --Ashmole 00:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, those are really nice screenshots. I particularly like the first one with the axis tanks - gives a great view both from commander and a nice variety in axis tanks. I also like the fourth one, under the scope taking out the m10. I think both shots reflect the real game experience, better than some of the Developer provided shots which are a little bit staged.

I'd propose we replace the existing "Scope" shot, with the fourth screenshot; The old "scope" shot didn't give a very good view of the target - in fact I think a lot of people unexperienced with the game would assume theres nothing there. I'd like to fit in the first screenshot too, but not sure where it would fit best. I'd sort of hate to add it as a new shot (as opposed to replacing an existing one), but we could consider either. What do you guys think?

Warthog32 05:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to add that these are from the latest patch (1.24). I think some weather shots are in order as well.--Ashmole 14:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Very nice screenshots, feel free to include them. Just try to keep the balance between Allied and Axis shots. The only reason all mine were all BEF was because I'm a strong BEF player, and lacked any decent Axis shots. (USMA2010 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC))

Two tank destroyers clash, with a StuG III Ausf. G claiming victory against the lightly armored M10 Wolverine.

With smoke and fuel pouring from the enemy Bf 109's engine, victory is near, but not yet achieved. Leaning into his gunsight, this pilot gets ready to place the final shots.

very good shots, I'm turning this in to a general screen shots section. We can use this section to take down and put up screen shots without them dissappearing into the either. I'm going to start by replacing the Tank destroyer shot, And the fighter Shot. They have graphics glitches in them, and while current players may like the "kill" shots I don't think they are of as much use here.

I think an air combat shot is important to maintain, since it represents 50% of the game. Lets face it, paratroopers, while cool, really are comparitively a much smaller part of gameplay.

Similarly, its a shame to get rid of the periscope shots. We already have an external screenshot which shows armor & infantry. I'm thinking we should get rid of the BE marketing shot, since it's really doesn't reflect the game very well and is highlight staged, and put back the air combat shot. Sure, it's not a great screenshot, but its the best we have. I don't have the flight skills to generate a better air combat shot (Although I'm sure I can get a good one of my death spiral) - but I'm sure someone from the forums will oblige. 64.174.34.251 15:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I put up a thread on the discussion forums asking for air combat images. Lets see what we get: http://discussions.playnet.com/showthread.php?t=127568

I agree on the changes to put back in the periscope shot & axis tanks. Only complaint is that its getting slighly axis biased. I asked for allied screenshots in the air combat thread. I'll work on getting a nice screenshot myself, maybe to replace the other BE marketing picture. I normally run with low graphics settings, but I'll turn them up for a while and see what I can come up with. Warthog32 17:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what we need to do is get side by side shots of the different (basic) gunsights.IE the stug ones,normal panzer,US,Brit,etc.I also think a demonstration of the UI would be a good idea too.--Ashmole 19:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree about a screenshot showing the UI (I assume you mean outside of play, in the mission selection, right?), but I disagree on the screenshots of gunsights. This is an encylopedia article, not a reference. Including every possible gunsight and describing the differences between them all is overdoing it. The article gets too complicated for the average reader who is looking for an overview. We should be looking for screenshots which demonstrate the most important aspects of the game, not the minor details. Gunsight differences is a pretty detail-oriented thing, IMHO. Aritta 22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the screenshots that have shown up in the thread are from the axis so far. I really like this one:

http://jg52.com/public/Whoofe/kiwiblen.JPG

It is at a low altitude so it shows the ground well, there are some nice angles to it, the target is flaming, there is a friendly in the picture, it has a nice partial view of the cockpit, doesn't have any chat text with bad language (like our previous air combat shot), and was taken with reasonable quality graphics options. Seems like a good candidate. Only downside is it's axis and we already have tons of axis shots.

What do you guys think about using this one? Aritta 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I like that shot, but I don't think the paratrooper photo should have been taken down. I'm going to replace one of the other shots with it. I think either the other marketing shot or the AA shot. Paratroopers are a small part of WWIIOL, but the paratrooper photo is a good example of what sets WWIIONLINE apart, Not that their are paratroopers, but that there are para troopers dropping in the DISTANCE, over a town, with a couple K of visability, each one of them being a human player.Nhorning 10:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to have a more balanced group of screenshots, I changed the image of a StuG killing an M10 to a Churchill killing an Panzer IVG. Until better looking Allied pictures take up at least half of the screenshots on this page, it must stay up in order to have at least some balance. (USMA2010 13:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

Sure seems to me like the AAA shot was from a distance, and I prefer a AAA shot over a paras shot, since it demonstrates a much bigger part of gameplay (ground vs. air), but I can live with the paras shot.

I don't like the new tanker shot, compared to the previous one. Sure, it's allied shooting axis, but otherwise the shot is very poor. Most of the screen is black (it's not using the zoom view), it doesn't demonstrate fog effects, you can't clearly see the range markings... the front-on angle of the target makes it harder to see (and a little bit dull)... it's highly pixelated (compare with, say the axis tanks shot), it seems like the graphics options aren't at full, or the photographer had a bad video card...

I totally understand the need to keep balance, but lets work on getting a better screenshot. Aritta 16:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone posted a pretty decent screenshot of a Hurricane taking out axis aircraft, and I put it up replacing the previous one, for balance. I'm not positive from the screenshot, but I think it's a ju-87. I'm mostly a ground player, can someone with a better eye for aircraft confirm it's a ju-87?

Yes, lets find a better tanker shot, that one that is up now is bad. It's too bad the old one was on the axis side, it was a really nice screenshot. Warthog32 19:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the visuals are quite poor, but I did not intend for that shot to be a perminant one. Just something to use until a better quality allied picture came along. (USMA2010 00:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

Look, there needs to be an adjustment of priorities here. Having better quality screenshots is far more important then having "balanced" shots. Readers of this article who don't play the game arn't going to look at the shots and say "Thats axis biased." But they will look at the shots and stay "Those graphics suck!" If you are going to use placeholders, use a good looking axis shot as a placeholder until you can find a good looking Alied one. Don't put a crap allied shot in until you can find a good allied shot.Nhorning 11:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Any allied players have decent computers?What you need to do is play with just the chat on your UI and the vehicle icons on.That way,all you need to do is press those buttons once to get a clear un marked shot.--Ashmole 02:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the map shot to the current one, in order to more accuratly represent the starting line. If anyone has a shot of what the map looks like exactly when the campaign starts, please replace the current one with that picture. Thanks. (USMA2010 00:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

Hi guys, I recently upgraded my machine enough to finally be able to generate some screenshots of my own that are reasonably presentable, and replaced the allied on axis tanker screenshot we had as a placeholder from back in August. Hope you guys like it. Warthog32 07:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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))

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

I have added the M4A3 76(w) to the French vehicle list, with the note that it is currently being tested. Will update when needed. (USMA2010 18:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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))

[edit] Advertisement

Someone added the advert tag, at the top of the page, without taking the time to add any discussion why they thought that was the case. In my mind, the article is pretty even-handed, and there are a number of criticisms of the game - something you wouldn't find in an advertisement, for instance, a few that come to mind:

• Detailed criticism of high system requirements, and performance issues
• Detailed mention of the dated graphics
• Mention that technical support is scant to non-existant from the developer.
• Financial difficulties of the developer (meaning slow game development)
• A detailed history of the game's flaws at launch in 2001
• A criticism section, pointing out that, in several ways, the game wouldn't appeal to all players
• Mention that bugs are often introduced along with patches

I'm going to drop the advert tag - please give some details of what you think needs change to make it less of an advertisement, before re-adding the tag, so it can be debated and corrected. Be specific on what negatives of the game you think are missing, so we can correct the problem. Warthog32 23:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The wording of the introductory paragraph does sound a bit like an advertisment, using descriptions such as "action-packed". I'll go ahead and remove them. (USMA2010 03:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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

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:

• http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/aircombatcommandfighteropsworkingtitle/index.html
• http://johnsmilitaryhistory.tripod.com/cwvirtual.html
• http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=948906&dl=ACM&coll=&CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618
• http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=24486

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)

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)

The reason is Airwarrior III, Aces High, And Warbirds are all "online Air combat simulators." If you ask the developers, some of whome went on to create WWIIONLINE, they will tell you as much. Some of these games do include models of ground vehicles. However, these ground vehicles are used to fight over AIRFIELDS. There are no front lines, there is no urban combat, they are simply used as a suplement to the Air combat.

Now, I will consede the point on infantry. obviously from the military definition a virtual battlefield need not include infantry, and I'll take that out of the virtual battlefield page. While that will make it harder to define the catagory, it still will not modify WWIIONLINES (probably short lived) exceptionalism. I think it is clear from those articles that I didn't make up the term.

A virtual battefield is a combination of various vehicle simulators into a common digital environment. If you do that with primarily Air you have an Online Air Combat Simulator. If you do it with primarily infantry you have a MMOFPS (of which there are about 2 by the way, you didn't seem to have a problem with that term.) If you do it with primarily vehicles you have an Online Armored combat simulator (of which there are none). But if you combine 2 or more of these things using a more or less equalivalent aproach you have a "virtual battlefield." The reason you have that is because when you combine them the other terms (air combat simulator etc.) are no longer sufficent to desicribe what you have.

So, again, you're arguing that CWIN doesn't qualify as a virtual battlefield. There are no front lines in CWIN, there is no urban combat, and ground platforms are there to supplement air simulation. Stop and think for a while before responding.

64.174.34.251 17:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Pehaps you would like to define a new Genre called Massive Multiplayer Combined Arms Simulator, the usage will still revert back Virtual battlefield. None of the flight simulators you have listed claim to be Virtual battefields. WWIIONLINE does. They make this claim because calling them an online flight sim doesn't make any sense, limiting them to a MMOFPS doesn't make sense, and calling them a tank sim (although Bilton may desagree) doesn't make any sense. So, they used a term that was already in use by military simulators. I think we can agree that Virtual Battlefield:

A. a term that has existed for a long time

B. Describes the combination of simulators into a common combat environment.

I think it may be open to discusion what that term means in relation to video games, but the competitors you mentioned do not claim to be Virtual Battlefields. WWIIONLINE does. Armored Assault probably will.

No, I don't advocate a new genre "MMCAS". I don't have any problem with a "virtual battlefield" genre. Since throughout this discussion, WWIIOL's wiki introduction has contained the term "virtual battlefield", without anyone editing it, I suspect nobody else does either. Well, maybe Warthog32 did, not sure.

If anything, I would have used the term Survey Simulator, but again, I have no problem with using the term Virtual Battlefield.

I do, however, challenge the claim that WWIIOL is the first and only virtual battlefield, and the restrictive definition of virtual battlefield on which that assumption was based.

The point I've been trying to make to you is that the limitations you've imposed were overly restrictive, and didn't reflect popular or professional use of the term. It's a good way to define the genre to say that virtual battlefields are systems which often have: (online play, a first-person interface, air/ground/sea weapon system modeling, command and control features, supply models, simulated weather, realistic ballistics and damage modelling, ...). It is a bad way to define the term by saying that they must have these features. Doing so excludes systems which have many or most of these features but not all, and so would be considered to be virtual battlefields.

I can't speak to when the term virtual battlefield came about - but my first experience was in the late 90s, when 3DFx took 3d hardware to the consumer, so it doesn't surprise me if simulators from the early to late 90's simulators didn't make the claim - the term wasn't in widespread use yet. Note that most, if not all, of the responses in your "where did you hear the term..." thread, in the WWIIOL forums, were also quoting experiences from the late 90s to early 00's. 64.174.34.251 06:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem here with 'virtual battlefield', especially in light of other posts, in particular the use in military simulators. I agree, everything I read seems to give evidence that there is a lot of variation in the genre. As it should be! Lets face it, technology in general is so fast moving that innovation and differentiation are a fact of life. That's a good thing. If every virtual battleground, or every piece of software in general, had exactly the same features, we'd be very dissapointed.

The fact that no marketers or developers claimed Aces High was a virtual battlefield, during its time is irrelevant. Nobody called Wolfenstein 3D a first-person shooter at its release either (the term didn't exist yet), and yet it is commonly referenced as being the game which popularized the FPS genre. Similarly, nobody used the term Impressionism to describe the 1860s french art movement until 15 years later, following a similarly titled painting by Claude Monet. Clearly, virtual battlefields are still in their infancy, particularly in the arena of computer gaming.. an important factor to keep in mind. Warthog32 17:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

• http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/455/455316p1.html.
• http://www.stratics.com/content/portals/dnl/content/guides/geography/index.php?PHPSESSID=8c934195220903

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

64.174.34.251 16:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

This map was created by a player, only posted on the WWII forums, who never named his source, exceeds even CSR's marketing claim that they model 350,000 km² (NOT 350,000 mi²!), and was clearly hand-edited with a black block paintbrush. And yet, we're supposed to base a wikipedia article on it?? Here's the CSR marketing link http://www.wwiionline.com/scripts/wwiionline/be_features.jsp. This map is a compelation of in game map screenshots. The black area's are missing data, not black block paintbrush. The source is a player named bushman who lives in the middle of a swamp, ownes a bunch of guns, and likes to blow things up. If you don't believe it's actualy this big then you can download the game and pan around the map yourself. Its a free download.

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.

yeah, sorry about that. I went to the page, saw 350,000, then latter someone in the forums said miles, so I just assumed they were right. I'ts OVER 350k.

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)

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)

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)

I guess you missed the player expeditions to the Alps then!!!. It takes litterally hours of flying at 300k an hour to reach the edge of the map, It's just that there isn't any reason too, (besides seeing the alps) The data is factual. You can't just take it out because you don't believe it's really that big. The map was compiled by taking screen shots from the in game map and stitching them together. Thats why it looks like crap. I'll make sure it doesn't sound like advertizing when I put it back in.

It seems ridiculous to dominate an article with clarifications, as everyone else but Nhorning seems to agree, but since you edited everything back in, ignoring everyone else's opinion, I'll at least fix your edit to be correct. Aritta 15:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This new section is garbage, its dominates the gameplay section with all sorts of bizarre clarifications. Wikipedia articles are encyclopedic documents, not in-depth reference documents. And where the hell did 600,000 km^2 come from. Even the CSR marketing says 350,000 km^2. Not 350,000 miles^2. Haven't we gone over this enough?

I'll add my vote to go back to HOG's edit, or remove the paragraph entirely. Everything that needs to be communicated is already communicated with the map image. 64.174.34.251 18:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote the same. Is this a joke? "New cities are occasionally added at the fringes of the map, expanding the 30,000 km² core, which was originally less than 10,000km², and may in the future be bigger than 30,000 km². The original development plan was to detail the entire 350,000 km² map". Warthog32 20:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nhorning's Original:

Play occurs on a 1/2 scale map of Western Europe. It is technically largest map of in any other MMOG, at roughly 350,000 km². However, only 30,000 km² of this map contains cities and modeling detail to make it useful to players, and this play area has recently been superseded by other games like Dark and Light. It has always been smaller than online simulation games, like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which models the entire planet with sattelite-based data. New cities are occasionally added at the fringes of the map, expanding the 30,000 km² core, which was originally less than 10,000km², and may in the future be bigger than 30,000 km². The original development plan was to detail the entire 350,000 km² map, and also model other areas of the world (Japan, Africa), but the speed at which this happened has been far less than anticipated, primarily due to lack of staff. Though vehicles can travel anywhere in the 350,000 km² (It can take hours to fly to some places, and vehicles are likely to run out of gas or break down), play generally takes place around the cities at the front line. This means at any given time battles happen in a small subset of the full map. However, as the front line moves through the course of an entire campaign, the battles visit the majority of the 30,000 km² core.

My Copy-Edit:

Play occurs on a 1/2 scale map of Western Europe. It is one of the largest MMOG maps, at roughly 350,000 km², with most play occuring in a 30,000² central area in which capturable cities, airfields and ports have been placed.

the above is not my (Nhorning) edit someone added a bunch of useless crap to it. The marketing claims OVER 350,000 km not roughly 350,000 km. the actual map size is roughly 600,000 km. If you don't believe me please do a careful comparison of the two maps posted above. I think I like you edit though, and I'll leave it as is (well, I'll change the "roughly" to over to maintain accuracy) unless I decide to add a "Unity I/II" section to explain how the engine works. I am glad that you are all challenging me on my facts here, as it creates a better article.

Glad we finally came to agreement. Regarding documenting Unity I/II: please note that the article is over the 32k guideline (see article length), and we starting to get bloated. As such, I'm very relieved that we ended up with a short and concise edit. If you start to go overboard on documenting the engine (and it would be very easy to do this), consider adding a seperate article, dedicated to it. Many readers aren't going to give a damn about a graphics engine's details - they can see the screenshots. But, going into depth in a secondary article would be a very good thing!

Also note that there is already some discussion of the engine, particularly in the criticisms section. 64.174.34.251 06:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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

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)

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)

[edit] Axis bias

As of right now, we have virtually no shots of Allied play in the article. I ask you to upload your own shots, as will I. Except all of mine are taken with low settings... Just get it done, or the pictures will get pretty damn ugly. (USMA2010 14:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

Agreed. I just got an air combat shot up, donated from the forums, which is pretty decent quality (and british on german). I wish I could personally contribute a ground shot - but my rig is sub-par, and my screenshots just don't do justice. Warthog32 20:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries, that air combat shot is perfect. We're back to being fairly balanced. (USMA2010 00:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Needs a section dedicated to the HC

I think that the HC concept is one of the more unique parts of the game.We should work on a new section for it.--Ashmole 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then mate, this is your chance to get used to editing Wikipedia, go for it. (USMA2010 14:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Ok,just looking for approval.Thanks :).

I quickly wacked up a very basic overview of the HC. It of course needs a lot more added to it and a lot of editing. Just thought I'd get it started for now.--Wdywtk

Sweet, thanks and good work. (USMA2010 20:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC))

Another person edited the section and it sounds good, but they moved it to within gameplay. I personally think it deserves its own section called High Command and things such as Attack and Defend Objectives, Movement of Brigades, Dot Axis and Allied, etc messages should have their own sections under High Command. A well detailed piece on the High Command would be quite long and would look "funny" I would think if it was just a "small" section in Gameplay. What does everyone else think?Wdywtk 20:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wdywtk, Thanks for stepping in to work on this section. I moved it to gameplay, because this is just one element of gameplay, not really a seperate entity. This is a common template to the WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games project. Please remember that this is a wikipedia article, and is meant to be encylopedic. It isn't a WWIIOL reference. Some of the details you're putting in the article are a little overboard. An average reader trying to get to know what WWIIOL is all about won't want this much detail.

Most readers will lose focus quickly when they start seeing a lot of new terminology (AOs, DOs, brigades....) that they aren't familiar with. It's important to try to keep this in check and communicate the major features without the particulars.

Please try to rework the section to cut down on the game terminology details and instead talk in simple terms. Also try to keep article length in check, we're already well over the 32k guideline.

If you feel the topic deserves more than a short section, then you might consider making a full length subarticle: "World War 2 Online : High Command". But also keep in mind that this sort of thing is already a work in progress on the forthcoming battleground europe wiki from CRS.

Welcome to the WWIIOL wikipedia page!.

Warthog32 07:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a minor thing but..

Is the link bad game play intented to go on article death or is this some kind of mistake?

1. 1 It's a mistake. Please, could someone who's more familar with wikipedia fix it? (There doesn't seem to be any article about bad gameplay nor bad game play. And I'm feeling myself way too shy and new to this to mess with it all by myself. Created an account to talk about this a moment ago.)

1. 2 It's on purpose. Please, explain me what's purpose of this? Ofcourse death is result of bad game play, but the link is kind of out of topic (while the article is about WW-II online). Yet again, this is just my opinion and I'd like to hear general opinion as well.

The link was first introduced in version posted 12:35, 2 November 2005. - Articluna 10:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It was clearly intentional - the author (not me) intentionally entered "death" as the redirection for that text. But, I agree, it's bad practice and misleading... it bothered me in the past too and I didn't bother to fix it. Will do so now though, since I'm clearly not the only one Warthog32 21:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Squad info

Maybe we can add in some info about the players squads and list of squads. Kinda of a record of all the squads in game and what side they play on. It would show how big the WWIIOL community is.

First of all, please sign your comments in the future. You do this by typing (~~ ~~), but without the space in the middle.

Having information on this topic might seem nice, but it could be problematic. Squads might get angry because they are not included, or not enough attention is paid to them. Though I agree that a section on squads would be nice, I personally feel that it should be oriented towards how squads function, rather than a list of the different squads. (USMA2010 03:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC))

If added, this should be its own full length article. I don't think there's any way this could exist as a subsection of this article while doing justice both to this article, and squads in general. Warthog32 07:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

As of 19 October 2006, I am making a speedy failing for this article to reach Good Article status, per WP:WIAGA, because of the following fatal reasons:

1. This article is totally unsourced. Please provide your reliable sources according to WP:CITE to support the three pillars of Wikipedia: neutral point of view, no element of original research and verifiable. I've put a template in this article for editors to fill in their references. Please do not consider it as discouraging.
2. A lot of the images used are copyrighted (including screenshots) and no fair use rationale given. Please provide images suitable for Wikipedia, per WP:ICT, or give fair use rasionale, per WP:FAIR.

If all of those matters above have been fixed, this article can be renominate it again. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 02:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This game is not like most others, but that goes without saying. The majority of the news we get about this game is from information posted in the official forum, which requires and active subscription to even view. I, however, will try to talk with CRS to help get sourcing taken care of. As for the screenshots, I will check who uploaded them and get back to you guys on that. I know that at least two of the frequent editors of this article are memebers of the development team. (USMA2010 03:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

Most of the screenshots are player or developer submitted.-Ashmole