Hello chaps. It has been a long time since our last devblog, for which we apologise, but the reality is that work has been going on everywhere and there’s not been any focus of interest for us to write about. But today we have a long-awaited topic.


In Gates of Hell we have rather large maps. This opens the door to several possibilities, and one of which we wanted to do since the beginning of the project was the more relevant presence of aircraft. Air supremacy in WWII was one of the biggest deciding factors on the outcome of the war and changed military tactics forever. Until now in the “Men of War” series, aircraft have been present as background elements or off-map support, and to a limited extent. It is true that aircraft will continue to be an important off-map support element, but we’d also like to offer the players the possibility of manually controlling aircraft in the missions. This adds a new dimension of possibilities to make missions varied! Maybe in the future we test this in multiplayer, but our current development focus is on the single-player.


“Hitler has built a fortress around Europe… But he forgot to put a roof on it”.
~Franklin Roosevelt


Making new models for aircraft is just the tip of the iceberg. A lot of work over time has been invested in making changes to raise the stakes, since aircraft not only have to be usable and enjoyable, but in our case also accurate and historical. So on the one side, we started to fill the game resources with files for new weapon types, ordnance and equipment. You won’t be expecting a Soviet bomber to carry the same bomb as a Stuka?! And likewise, pilots did not have time or availability to reload different ammo types on-board airplanes. As a result, aircraft often used ammo belts with sequences of different rounds - So our modelling of the weapon parameters needs to include a bit of everything, explosiveness and piercing...


Houston, we have a problem!
That is a SC-250 bomb (Sprengbombe Cylindrisch 250kg). Apparently, in german the right grammar would be “Zylindrisch". Why was it spelled like that by the Luftwaffe? You tell us!


… But, in the search of authenticity, we come to a rather impressive obstacle - Can we afford aircraft flying 400km/h on an attack run overhead? In Men of War terms, this means an aircraft would dash over a map in 3 seconds. In Gates of Hell, still less than 10 seconds, and in any case, the radius of turning would envelope the entire map itself. This is an absurd, and compromises need to be taken.

For every aircraft we input the real characteristics into the game - Speed, power, weight, etc. But when this information is processed in-game, we reduced the speed of aircraft to “usable” levels, but of course with our special recipe, which allows for individual planes to conserve their speed differences to a very noticeable level - You won’t be escaping from a fighter aboard a bomber. In a similar nature, the turning radius, acceleration, roll rates etc are all brought to suitable levels.

Another famous problem with implementing planes into RTS is the altitude that aircraft fly at - airplanes either fly too low - in which case they crash into the trees and buildings, or they fly too high - in which case they are not visible in the camera angle. So our solution was straightforward - increase the maximum zoom-out distance, which in addition also opens the field of view for better situational awareness. Nobody forces you to zoom out this much in a regular land battle - but it could be useful in certain cases.







We can talk in detail about all the changes - but it would exceed the amount of words we usually post in 5 devblogs. So let us summarise:

• Whole new soundbank! Lots of effort needs to be invested, now and in the future, in processing the audio we try to collect from the real aircraft. If you try, you’ll be able to spot one of us on Duxford or Biggin Hill air shows.
  
• New manoeuvring speeds, aircraft are generally more maneuverable but also more inertia-based
  
• much longer take-off/landing runs
  
• Airplanes smoke when they start to receive damage. Take extra care when you are smoking
  
• Different airplanes take more damage to take down in the different components
  
• Rear defensive turrets are now operational
  
• Dropping of torpedoes implemented for deep water scenarios
  
• Sounds for undercarriage retraction/deployment, canopy opening/closing, engine starting, and different sounds for engine settings (accelerating, slowing down, etc)

Make no mistake - developing new aircraft is like making a whole new bunch of vehicles, something that nobody before has prioritised too much. Now lies a very long journey for the 3D department to make all the new aircraft models in the same quality as our other assets.

You can help us by sending us clear references of different camos/aircraft that we can make. Unfortunately our 3D modellers are also overloaded with other models to make - so we will post renders and pictures gradually in the future.

We’d like to make many more changes to aircraft to make them even more enjoyable and but this depends on the programming capacities later down the road and how people react to its implementation.


“Air mastery is today the supreme expression of military power”.
~Winston Churchill

Hello chaps. It has been a long time since our last devblog, for which we apologise, but the reality is that work has been going on everywhere and there’s not been any focus of interest for us to write about. But today we have a long-awaited topic.


In Gates of Hell we have rather large maps. This opens the door to several possibilities, and one of which we wanted to do since the beginning of the project was the more relevant presence of aircraft. Air supremacy in WWII was one of the biggest deciding factors on the outcome of the war and changed military tactics forever. Until now in the “Men of War” series, aircraft have been present as background elements or off-map support, and to a limited extent. It is true that aircraft will continue to be an important off-map support element, but we’d also like to offer the players the possibility of manually controlling aircraft in the missions. This adds a new dimension of possibilities to make missions varied! Maybe in the future we test this in multiplayer, but our current development focus is on the single-player.


“Hitler has built a fortress around Europe… But he forgot to put a roof on it”.
~Franklin Roosevelt


Making new models for aircraft is just the tip of the iceberg. A lot of work over time has been invested in making changes to raise the stakes, since aircraft not only have to be usable and enjoyable, but in our case also accurate and historical. So on the one side, we started to fill the game resources with files for new weapon types, ordnance and equipment. You won’t be expecting a Soviet bomber to carry the same bomb as a Stuka?! And likewise, pilots did not have time or availability to reload different ammo types on-board airplanes. As a result, aircraft often used ammo belts with sequences of different rounds - So our modelling of the weapon parameters needs to include a bit of everything, explosiveness and piercing...


Houston, we have a problem!
That is a SC-250 bomb (Sprengbombe Cylindrisch 250kg). Apparently, in german the right grammar would be “Zylindrisch". Why was it spelled like that by the Luftwaffe? You tell us!


… But, in the search of authenticity, we come to a rather impressive obstacle - Can we afford aircraft flying 400km/h on an attack run overhead? In Men of War terms, this means an aircraft would dash over a map in 3 seconds. In Gates of Hell, still less than 10 seconds, and in any case, the radius of turning would envelope the entire map itself. This is an absurd, and compromises need to be taken.

For every aircraft we input the real characteristics into the game - Speed, power, weight, etc. But when this information is processed in-game, we reduced the speed of aircraft to “usable” levels, but of course with our special recipe, which allows for individual planes to conserve their speed differences to a very noticeable level - You won’t be escaping from a fighter aboard a bomber. In a similar nature, the turning radius, acceleration, roll rates etc are all brought to suitable levels.

Another famous problem with implementing planes into RTS is the altitude that aircraft fly at - airplanes either fly too low - in which case they crash into the trees and buildings, or they fly too high - in which case they are not visible in the camera angle. So our solution was straightforward - increase the maximum zoom-out distance, which in addition also opens the field of view for better situational awareness. Nobody forces you to zoom out this much in a regular land battle - but it could be useful in certain cases.







We can talk in detail about all the changes - but it would exceed the amount of words we usually post in 5 devblogs. So let us summarise:

• Whole new soundbank! Lots of effort needs to be invested, now and in the future, in processing the audio we try to collect from the real aircraft. If you try, you’ll be able to spot one of us on Duxford or Biggin Hill air shows.
  
• New manoeuvring speeds, aircraft are generally more maneuverable but also more inertia-based
  
• much longer take-off/landing runs
  
• Airplanes smoke when they start to receive damage. Take extra care when you are smoking
  
• Different airplanes take more damage to take down in the different components
  
• Rear defensive turrets are now operational
  
• Dropping of torpedoes implemented for deep water scenarios
  
• Sounds for undercarriage retraction/deployment, canopy opening/closing, engine starting, and different sounds for engine settings (accelerating, slowing down, etc)

Make no mistake - developing new aircraft is like making a whole new bunch of vehicles, something that nobody before has prioritised too much. Now lies a very long journey for the 3D department to make all the new aircraft models in the same quality as our other assets.

You can help us by sending us clear references of different camos/aircraft that we can make. Unfortunately our 3D modellers are also overloaded with other models to make - so we will post renders and pictures gradually in the future.

We’d like to make many more changes to aircraft to make them even more enjoyable and but this depends on the programming capacities later down the road and how people react to its implementation.


“Air mastery is today the supreme expression of military power”.
~Winston Churchill

To diversify our blogs, we'd like to start off this series of war facts and narratives. At the end of the day, we're making a game that portrays the strategy, realism and authenticity of WWII, so we hope our readers enjoy our posts in the same way as we love finding out all the surprising bits and pieces that you are often miss.


When a design of a vehicle or weapon concept is proposed to high command, it is usually because a terribly desperate need for it is required and often a replacement for an older existing military concept or role.

Did you know?
The formidable M26 Pershing was delayed in its production and deployment (until the very end of the war) because the army chiefs were not completely sure there was a "terribly desperate need" for it.

However, the Assault Gun was neither a replacement/improvement of an existing concept nor proposed by a team of acknowledged military figureheads. In fact, it was the bright proposal of Erich Von Manstein in 1935. He thought that for the coming conflicts a new vehicle was needed, one that was supposed to work alongside infantry and:

• Provide direct infantry support, it needed a gun capable of causing substantial damage and not rely on indirect artillery support.
  
• It needs adequate speed to accompany motorised infantry and be able to relocate to subsequent enemy strong points.
  
• It does not need any unnecessary equipment. It needs no turret, because it will exclusively shoot in the direction of frontal enemy forts. It needs no secondary armament because it will be surrounded by infantry.
  
• The vehicle should be substantially protected to soak up damage and get close to enemy fortifications unharmed.
  
• From the simplicity and straightforward design scheme, it should hence be cheap and easy to produce.

Thanks to Manstein's extraordinaire performance in the start of the war, plus his constant pressuring, his proposal was accepted. On the chassis of the Panzer III, the first Sturmgeschütz III (Assault Gun III) arrived to breach the Stalin line on Operation Barbarossa in 1941.

Did you know?
Erich von Manstein is often considered the most capable and respected Axis Field Marshall of WWII.

The first StuGs to see combat were armed with 50mm of armour and the short-barreled 75mm StuK 37 L/24 (derived from the standard kwk 37). Not only were they very effective in their role of supporting infantry, but thanks to their added protection (compared to other german tanks of the time) and due to their loadout of multiple HEAT shells, they proved to be extremely useful against the superior soviet T-34 and KV tanks.

Following the success of the Anti-tank role, after 1942 the StuGs shifted their focus as tank destroyers, with the StuG III Ausf F presenting the fearsome long-barreled StuK 40 L/42 (derived from the kwk 40). Aware that these new variants were no longer as effective in the infantry support role, German High Command ordered the design of a variant for an improved iteration of its original role. As a result, the Sturmhaubitze 42 Ausf G (Assault howitzer or StuH 42; Ausf G) was developed, this time, using a powerful 105mm howitzer instead of a 75mm.


HD Link

Like many german vehicles, the design principles and technical specifications allowed continuous improvement of the design without too radical changes to the original scheme. The Ausf G, which is being modelled for Gates of Hell in both it's early and late production variants, raised the armour to 80mm and gave the vehicle secondary armament to be able to engage enemy infantry. The late production variant included a streamlined mantlet, known as the "Pig-head", and a remotely controlled roof MG, similar to that of the Hetzer.

Did you know?
The rotatory MG developed for the Hetzer and StuG was in some ways derived from the remotely actioned defensive MG's used on the Messerschmitt 210 and 410. The USA later reverse engineered the mechanisms to develop an improved MG defense system for the B-29 Superfortress, which not only was it remote-controlled, but computer-assisted.

Until the end of the war, while Hitler proposed massive tank projects that were barely feasible, Manstein and Guderian (amongst others) pressured the industry to keep producing reliable and cheap fighting vehicles like the StuG. As a result, this became the most common tracked vehicle of the Wehrmacht from 1943 onwards.

Pictures of all the mentioned variants which we have not yet showcased, coming soon.

Worth mentioning are the Soviet Assault Guns developed during WWII as well, namely the SU-76, SU 122, SU/ISU 152, and to an extent, the KV-2. More detail about each one on our specific vehicle blogs in the future.

To diversify our blogs, we'd like to start off this series of war facts and narratives. At the end of the day, we're making a game that portrays the strategy, realism and authenticity of WWII, so we hope our readers enjoy our posts in the same way as we love finding out all the surprising bits and pieces that you are often miss.


When a design of a vehicle or weapon concept is proposed to high command, it is usually because a terribly desperate need for it is required and often a replacement for an older existing military concept or role.

Did you know?
The formidable M26 Pershing was delayed in its production and deployment (until the very end of the war) because the army chiefs were not completely sure there was a "terribly desperate need" for it.

However, the Assault Gun was neither a replacement/improvement of an existing concept nor proposed by a team of acknowledged military figureheads. In fact, it was the bright proposal of Erich Von Manstein in 1935. He thought that for the coming conflicts a new vehicle was needed, one that was supposed to work alongside infantry and:

• Provide direct infantry support, it needed a gun capable of causing substantial damage and not rely on indirect artillery support.
  
• It needs adequate speed to accompany motorised infantry and be able to relocate to subsequent enemy strong points.
  
• It does not need any unnecessary equipment. It needs no turret, because it will exclusively shoot in the direction of frontal enemy forts. It needs no secondary armament because it will be surrounded by infantry.
  
• The vehicle should be substantially protected to soak up damage and get close to enemy fortifications unharmed.
  
• From the simplicity and straightforward design scheme, it should hence be cheap and easy to produce.

Thanks to Manstein's extraordinaire performance in the start of the war, plus his constant pressuring, his proposal was accepted. On the chassis of the Panzer III, the first Sturmgeschütz III (Assault Gun III) arrived to breach the Stalin line on Operation Barbarossa in 1941.

Did you know?
Erich von Manstein is often considered the most capable and respected Axis Field Marshall of WWII.

The first StuGs to see combat were armed with 50mm of armour and the short-barreled 75mm StuK 37 L/24 (derived from the standard kwk 37). Not only were they very effective in their role of supporting infantry, but thanks to their added protection (compared to other german tanks of the time) and due to their loadout of multiple HEAT shells, they proved to be extremely useful against the superior soviet T-34 and KV tanks.

Following the success of the Anti-tank role, after 1942 the StuGs shifted their focus as tank destroyers, with the StuG III Ausf F presenting the fearsome long-barreled StuK 40 L/42 (derived from the kwk 40). Aware that these new variants were no longer as effective in the infantry support role, German High Command ordered the design of a variant for an improved iteration of its original role. As a result, the Sturmhaubitze 42 Ausf G (Assault howitzer or StuH 42; Ausf G) was developed, this time, using a powerful 105mm howitzer instead of a 75mm.


HD Link

Like many german vehicles, the design principles and technical specifications allowed continuous improvement of the design without too radical changes to the original scheme. The Ausf G, which is being modelled for Gates of Hell in both it's early and late production variants, raised the armour to 80mm and gave the vehicle secondary armament to be able to engage enemy infantry. The late production variant included a streamlined mantlet, known as the "Pig-head", and a remotely controlled roof MG, similar to that of the Hetzer.

Did you know?
The rotatory MG developed for the Hetzer and StuG was in some ways derived from the remotely actioned defensive MG's used on the Messerschmitt 210 and 410. The USA later reverse engineered the mechanisms to develop an improved MG defense system for the B-29 Superfortress, which not only was it remote-controlled, but computer-assisted.

Until the end of the war, while Hitler proposed massive tank projects that were barely feasible, Manstein and Guderian (amongst others) pressured the industry to keep producing reliable and cheap fighting vehicles like the StuG. As a result, this became the most common tracked vehicle of the Wehrmacht from 1943 onwards.

Pictures of all the mentioned variants which we have not yet showcased, coming soon.

Worth mentioning are the Soviet Assault Guns developed during WWII as well, namely the SU-76, SU 122, SU/ISU 152, and to an extent, the KV-2. More detail about each one on our specific vehicle blogs in the future.

Hello chaps! We’ve been quiet for a while, here’s a little report about what we’ve been doing for the last weeks.


You know what they say. A Picture is worth more than a thousand words so here we have a brief summary of a couple thousand words.


HD Link


HD Link


HD Link


HD Link


HD Link


HD Link


HD Link


HD Link


HD Link

Comment on what you like and what you don’t.

Have a lovely summer time and see you in a bit! And no, that doesn’t mean we’re taking any vacations from the depths of hell ;)

Hello chaps! We’ve been quiet for a while, here’s a little report about what we’ve been doing for the last weeks.


You know what they say. A Picture is worth more than a thousand words so here we have a brief summary of a couple thousand words.


HD Link


HD Link


HD Link


HD Link


HD Link


HD Link


HD Link


HD Link


HD Link

Comment on what you like and what you don’t.

Have a lovely summer time and see you in a bit! And no, that doesn’t mean we’re taking any vacations from the depths of hell ;)

Today we shall give some insight into what we are up to.


The team keep working on the singleplayer and multiplayer maps for the game. As you would expect, all singleplayer and most multiplayer maps are based on real locations, and it takes a lot of time just to collect information and references about the general direction of the scenario - only then can the actual mapping commence. We extract real height-maps and define the unique flavour of each map. Sometimes the terrain of a region has massively changed since WWII - so we need to contrast with images of the time. We also need to consider how suitable for gameplay our selected terrains are - we are making a game after all, and
sometimes mappers scrap some of their work and start again. And of course once the map is progressing, assets are needed for it from the 3D department.












While the continuous flow of 3D models for units and vehicles continues, there is a massive effort going into updating flora. As maps get bigger - we must make the extra mile to deliver good performance. Therefore we concluded we wanted to invest a lot of time in optimising what is mostly seen on the terrain - trees, bushes, landscape elements, etc. It takes 5 times more time on average to make our assets now - but we hope it will be worth it.










Our internal testing goes on and occasionally we add new features. Our latest idea was to give some vehicles the ability to deploy sandbags or other defensive means while they are holding a position. For this to be achieved, the unit must be static



While the construction goes on, the vehicle is completely unresponsive. You will need to sacrifice a couple of seconds of inactivity to obtain a defensive advantage element. If you later decide to move the unit - we’re debating what happens here. Should the un-mounting of the fortification take place? Should it be reusable? Should it stay there?

However during our testing we came to the concerning statistic that over 80% of the fortifications were blown to smithereens before the unit was considering repositioning. So we never came to decide. On the bright side: the additional defences did their job - right?

Maybe you want to throw us your thoughts about this, if you wish to, please do.

Other issues we recently tackled were mainly frustrating aspects of the gameplay. No longer must infantry stand up to collect weapons such as bazookas or RPG’s.

We also are considering allowing infantry support tanks (like the Panzer IF or Na-ispug tractor) the ability to capture flags - something that previously was only allocated for infantrymen - but in war these units were supposed to fight together!

Today we shall give some insight into what we are up to.


The team keep working on the singleplayer and multiplayer maps for the game. As you would expect, all singleplayer and most multiplayer maps are based on real locations, and it takes a lot of time just to collect information and references about the general direction of the scenario - only then can the actual mapping commence. We extract real height-maps and define the unique flavour of each map. Sometimes the terrain of a region has massively changed since WWII - so we need to contrast with images of the time. We also need to consider how suitable for gameplay our selected terrains are - we are making a game after all, and
sometimes mappers scrap some of their work and start again. And of course once the map is progressing, assets are needed for it from the 3D department.












While the continuous flow of 3D models for units and vehicles continues, there is a massive effort going into updating flora. As maps get bigger - we must make the extra mile to deliver good performance. Therefore we concluded we wanted to invest a lot of time in optimising what is mostly seen on the terrain - trees, bushes, landscape elements, etc. It takes 5 times more time on average to make our assets now - but we hope it will be worth it.










Our internal testing goes on and occasionally we add new features. Our latest idea was to give some vehicles the ability to deploy sandbags or other defensive means while they are holding a position. For this to be achieved, the unit must be static



While the construction goes on, the vehicle is completely unresponsive. You will need to sacrifice a couple of seconds of inactivity to obtain a defensive advantage element. If you later decide to move the unit - we’re debating what happens here. Should the un-mounting of the fortification take place? Should it be reusable? Should it stay there?

However during our testing we came to the concerning statistic that over 80% of the fortifications were blown to smithereens before the unit was considering repositioning. So we never came to decide. On the bright side: the additional defences did their job - right?

Maybe you want to throw us your thoughts about this, if you wish to, please do.

Other issues we recently tackled were mainly frustrating aspects of the gameplay. No longer must infantry stand up to collect weapons such as bazookas or RPG’s.

We also are considering allowing infantry support tanks (like the Panzer IF or Na-ispug tractor) the ability to capture flags - something that previously was only allocated for infantrymen - but in war these units were supposed to fight together!

On April 29, 1945, the first Soviet soldiers crossed Spree through the damaged Moltke bridge and attacked “Himmler’s house”. The next day, Soviet units targetted the Reichstag. After artillery, mortar and “Katyusha” fire, the assault began. In the evening of April 30th the Red banner was waving on the Reichstag’s top and on May 2nd, Berlin’s garrison surrendered.

After the suicide of Hitler and the fall of Berlin, many German soldiers and generals understood that the end of the war was close. On the evening of May 8, in Karlshorst, the unconditional surrender of Wehrmacht forces on all fronts was signed. May 9th, Soviet tanks arrived into Prague and liberated it from the last German soldiers.

War is now over. 72 years since the end of the Largest conflict of all time, which our game narrates.

Today, Let us remember those who fought in the hard battles, burned in a tank, went on the brutal attacks, and fought in hand-to-hand combat through those terrible years. Let us remember those who did not survive and those who fought for their respective Motherlands and Fatherlands in that war.

On April 29, 1945, the first Soviet soldiers crossed Spree through the damaged Moltke bridge and attacked “Himmler’s house”. The next day, Soviet units targetted the Reichstag. After artillery, mortar and “Katyusha” fire, the assault began. In the evening of April 30th the Red banner was waving on the Reichstag’s top and on May 2nd, Berlin’s garrison surrendered.

After the suicide of Hitler and the fall of Berlin, many German soldiers and generals understood that the end of the war was close. On the evening of May 8, in Karlshorst, the unconditional surrender of Wehrmacht forces on all fronts was signed. May 9th, Soviet tanks arrived into Prague and liberated it from the last German soldiers.

War is now over. 72 years since the end of the Largest conflict of all time, which our game narrates.

Today, Let us remember those who fought in the hard battles, burned in a tank, went on the brutal attacks, and fought in hand-to-hand combat through those terrible years. Let us remember those who did not survive and those who fought for their respective Motherlands and Fatherlands in that war.