Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by madrebel

  1. Seems there has been a lot of discussions that pretty much all dove tail back to the same root cause, let's talk about that. Let's first talk about game theory. Ok let's not talk about game theory as that is a really long conversation however, go read about game theory. Rather than the larger umbrella let's focus on the prevalent drivers of modern games specifically action games meant to simulate war. Even many kids games are governed by these 3 prime movers. Defend and Destroy: Sounds simple and it is. You have something of value you need to defend, so does your opponent. Usually in video games this game type exists along side mirrored bases so there can be no balance issues. In reality, defend and destroy is at the core of warfare. You're either conquering or trying to not be conquered. You can't rush out conquering too quickly or you risk a counter attack, further, history has shown time and again that you can't just sit behind walls and defend your opponent to death either. There is a balancing of risk here. This game type hasn't been extremely popular in video gaming history in the action genre. I'd argue RTS games all function over top a core DnD frame work though. Various action games have had this game type but i'd argue it hasn't been until payload style DnD was introduced that DnD became quite popular in action games. Capture and hold: Best thing about the really powerful theories, they're so simple. Much like defend and destroy, the simplicity is in the name. Here, you capture something, and have to hold on to it. Whatever 'it' is that needs to be captured doesn't matter the underlining driver here is 'it' is transient. 'it' may be owned by blue team to start, or it may be owned by nobody, but 'it' is designed to be fought over. Man with the ball, kill the carrier, the point of those games is to capture 'it' and hold it as long as you can. That is one version. Another would be more object oriented, something specific that needs to be accomplished and maintained beneath some larger driving force. I'll add to this in a second. In real war, CNH exists. Special forces was more or less invented to exploit CNH to its highest degree. The D-Day landing were preceded by one of the largest most elaborate capture and hold mission plans in history. In our game, depots and the requirement of holding certain ones before other things cap - that's CNH gameplay. I think we're missing a big piece here though, i think AFVs should have CNH objectives. roads, bridges, etc could be targets for AFV flanks and or para drops. Capture the Flag: The old favorite. Again, so simple, you must capture the flag. Now, many iterations of this but for the most part you must get the enemy flag, typically from the enemy base, and bring it back to your base. the two main flavors that i know of then go 1) you can't capture unless your flag is on the stand 2) you can capture regardless CTF is actually DnD combined with CNH - points being the over laying driver. In real war, any invasion or offensive is by nature capture the flag. You have a plan to do w/e, you have X assets to employ, and to do so you need to do xyz etc etc. You can't just throw that away though, you need forward command, field command, field bases, assets, logistics, etc. All that goes into accomplishing a war objective that if you boil it down - is just a very loud and bloody game of CTF. If CTF is in fact DnD + CNH .... what is missing in the game? We need to talk a second about aircraft and what they did to war. Until WW1 you're only real ability to strike at the enemy over their lines was perhaps spies and super long range artillery. Planes changed all that. Now your rear assets and logistics were vulnerable, as were your line positions. Once this became clear, military strategy adjusted. Now you had to deploy your assets differently both to protect but also to hide them. This would be doubly true for planes and air fields too. You wanted as many as you could get, not so much to put planes on all of them but to give you options to keep your planes in range of the fight but just far enough back that they wouldn't be vulnerable to artillery fire or other planes. We all good so far? Risk vs reward and simple mechanics. What do we have in game now? On the ground you have global CTF, the germans need to capture X amount of the map before triggering victory [censored] to the allies. below this, each AO is a smaller CTF objective beneath the global. At the AO level, you have elements of both DnD and CnH. You need to defend your FBs and mobile spawns while attempting to CnH town objectives that ultimately allow for the final CP to be captured and the flag flips for the win. pretty good at the core. plenty of things to flesh out but still, pretty good. What about the airwar? Well, planes can't capture anything and shouldn't really be allowed to ever do that as it would just be silly. By nature then, planes can't participate in anything with capture in the name so CTF and CNH ... out. Can't do it. This leaves only Defend and Destroy as an option for planes. Let's pause here and inject some history: The Battle of Britain - quite literally the opening rounds of this battle specifically and intently targeted the RaF's facilities that were within range. The LW inflicted heavy damage and it has been written in multiple places that the RaF was on the ropes. Let's put that shoe on the other foot. The 8th airforce later returned the favor many times over. The 8th airforce specifically targeted LW factories, LW bases, and later ordered that all LW fighters be chased down and killed. If you look at the statistics, the 8th airforce destroyed more planes on the ground than in the air. History shows that planes, their bases, and the logistical back ends required to produce them are all EXTREMELY high value targets/assets. So what of the air war here? Where is that war? We know planes can't capture, so 2 of the holy trinity can't even be participated in. We have one tiny element of DnD with factory bombing but there really isn't a compelling reason to engage in that activity in game as the risk grossly out weighs the reward. further, this is the second longest mission type in game with DD/farmile driving being longer. ok, we have one 'target' type, that has a very poor risk/reward ratio, and takes a long time to accomplish. the only other thing planes can do, is directly kill ground targets. oh, and you have to scan gray skies that blend into a grey horizon for grey dots. if you kill ground targets too much or too well though, you get a reaction from the ground guys who are still poorly armed for this pest. If you add another DnD target that is of high value, that must be both protected and attacked, you'll pull more of those planes away from the ground guys as they will have to defend something or attack something else if they want to have an asset as close as possible to the fight so as to expediently bomb squishies. With fewer planes actively shooting at squishies, you get fewer complaints from squishies as less of them get squished. We need bombable air fields. How though? Because it could suck. 1) damage must scale with aircraft population, not global population. most people don't fly, most can't bomb for [censored]. further, even with gross numbers imbalance on the ground seems the allies always have air superiority. if damage scaling can't be delivered ON DAY ONE do not under any circumstances deliver bombable airfields. if it can't be tied directly to pilot population, there needs to be some other scaling function. 2) it needs to be hard to do. it should be nigh on impossible to shut down more than 1 air field at any given time. there should be a fast and steady average repair rate that automagically happens as even if you allow players to participate in this, you're now creating a really crappy job for someone. My gut feeling is somewhere between 8-16 he-111 bomb loads of direct hits to knock out an AF is a good place to start the discussion. I feel that volume should need to be maintained every hour too. To knock an AF out and keep it knocked out should require a lot of concentrated effort. why is this level of difficulty acceptable when it clearly isn't for RDP? because a player could run 4 of these missions in the same time as one factory run and if successful, have an immediate felt reaction in game. 3) I'd like to see 4 damaged states too where each state removes 1/4 of the AA protection. Final knocked out state has zero AA guns. Perhaps every 15 minutes for each state to automatically repair? So a completely dead AF will be 1/4 operational in 15m. 4) if in the next iteration of TOEs/supply or w/e we're calling it still has flags for planes, the flags deployed at the AF when knocked out get bounced to training. With town supply, planes cannot re-appear in the list once the AF has been knocked out until it is 100% operational. I'm fine with RTB always working even to a knocked out AF if that is the simple route but ideally RTB to an AF with no supply should be at least a 4 hour resupply, preferably 7. Now there are other things that need fixing. We need complete weapon sets, with tier progression, for both sides. We also need Italian fighters. Those new toys though, don't fix the underlying problem. You have weapons in game that historically had many mission types yet we've got funneled down into one single mission type. we have a level bomber, with nothing to level bomb. in order to have a realistic ww2 simulation, we need lots of other much larger level bombers. they too will need level bomber targets to bomb. Making the sky blue again, would be amazing ... but ... still only one thing to do in game for planes ... shoot squishies. I'm sure one thing that will be said is "but players don't want to fly more than 5m". Oh? Players used to do this all the time. Players on the ground still drive more than 5m to get a tank to battle. a matilda could take 20+ minutes ... and players do this all day ere day. Don't use this BS reason, it holds no water. when the airwar in this game was healthiest you flew from where ever you could find a plane. At map start the flight from Monchen to Antwerp airspace is less than 10 minutes. Its just so two faced to say "pilots can't be asked to fly for more than 5 minutes" when everything else in the game takes more time. making airfileds vulnerable would be one of the best things to happen to the ground game in the history of this video game.
  2. you're not trying to be obtuse, but you're doing a great job. "show me the math" when you know we can't as we don't see the back end. you're asking us to do the impossible while standing on your appeal to the authority of the infallible model. pretty spot on. fix it or don't - i'm done arguing and supporting the game.
  3. then you're fully wrong. the model is mostly fine, as ive said countless times. the edge cases though aren't being addressed. worse many comments indicate you don't even think its a problem cause, you know "the model" is fair and balanced. in most cases it is that, in others due to whatever factors, it isn't. fix those and the arguments go away. dig your heels in and you'll continue to have this conversation.
  4. the logical fallacy here is know as appeal to authority. you can't crack this nut as scotsman has X years in the real world with real weapons systems design. you won't ever be able to convince them as they've bought into this lock stock and barrel. in order to 'win' you'd have to out credential scotsman, since that isn't possible, 'the model' wins by default despite the obvious edge case issues we're dealing with on an otherwise pretty solid foundational model.
  5. this is how you're arriving at the silly numbers and how you're claiming a stug3b 'costs' the same as a matilda. first, you're taking the cost of it, then you're attempting to define a combat effectiveness in a vacuum and I'm guessing weighting 'optics' very high in that calculaton. how else can a short barrel 75mm AFV with no turret nor MG cost the same as a matilda when the real world costs don't even come close to 'the same cost'? the optics are ALREADY accounted for in the total cost. to apply them again after the fact is arriving at a bias conclusion. the fact you continue to justify this continues to erode your position. how many more threads do we need before this over matches your mental armor block? let me guess, 'you come up with the solution' ... uh huh. let's say someone did, how many threads would it take to actually get through? the answer - about as many licks as it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop. @XOOM - this doesn't make sense to many of your players. this topic has come up in many many threads, most get locked at some point as there is no apparent meeting of the minds. the model mostly works but falls down in certain edge cases that need some resolution.
  6. not explicitly true mosquito. windows: alt-shift-prntscreen captures the active window only. mac: command-shift-3 captures just the screen you're on ... i think. may be wrong on this. i'll check in a minute when im on my multi monitor mac.
  7. You mean gamepad? If that is what you mean then yes, most of them work. The only 'problem' is buttons are very limited. If you search this forum for steam controller I have a config/write up for that one. It works pretty well but I still prefer mouse/keyboard.
  8. Further - hybrid supply is designed to address one of the core gameplay issues that purportedly drove away players - that being the softcap either by way of flanking or encirclement/cut off. meaning, this type of gameplay is BAD for the health of the game which is why it is being designed out. yet, we're still forcing 'history' at the TOE level all while designing out the ability to create/re-create historical/realistic flanking and cut off.
  9. Blacking out spooner will happen when you sit more upright. There are RaF test reports stating RaF test pilot in a 109 pulling out of a dive that caused the chasing spit pilot to black out badly. 109 pilot was fine. I forget it it was the spit2 or 5 that got double foot rests on the pedals to elevate the legs more, may have not been standard till the 5. Later allied pilots get gsuits for their legs and gyro ace maker gunsights.
  10. spits aren't really doing anything they couldn't ... there are issues with it but for the most part how it flys isn't the big issue. however, since we're all about history, how come hurricanes don't out number spitfires 3:1 throughout '1940' and 2:1 throughout '1941'? we're forced to use a ton of Pz2s cause 'history' yet that same history doesn't get extended to the RaF. further, the germans had a 2:1 bomber advantage in '1940' yet the allies have tons of bombers in tier0. france should have mostly h75s as stand ins for the mb150 and ms406 yet they aren't forced to use that. its ... a real curious application of 'history' atm.
  11. Maybe - don't forget about the Union Bank Corp connection with Thyssen. Germany running rough shod over the oil doesn't necessarily mean the US gets frozen out.
  12. shouldn't be hard. you design it such that supply en route can never be reduced below x%. this gives you two abilities to reduce supply factory bombing = supply timers increase by X destroying supply convoys enroute = supply arriving at the front can be reduced by Y will take a bit of tweaking and will vary by population levels but you don't want to give people are reason to not login or unsub. IMO, the RDP timers at present are too high - but - we're at an in game population level where it doesn't really matter/hurt. if we had more people, it would be awful. further, if we had the ability to interdict X% en-route after its produced you can lower the max resupply timer as the interdiction en-route actually hurts a LOT more. 5-15% advantage IMO is what you want to shoot for if one side perfectly executes both RDP and supply interdiction. some may argue 5-15% advanage isn't enough but gamers will do incredible(ly stupid) things to gain tiny advantages and 5-15% map wide or say in a specific area advantage with the right population density is actually devastating. i'd start at shooting for 5% then ramp up till it sucks, then quickly step back a few % till it fits.
  13. sam i am
  14. thats a fieseler storch, its 'AN' example of a recon capable plane, not the only - and certainly wouldn't have been sent out over enemy air space where there was any expectation of contact with the enemy. their primary missions were NOT recon either. medi-vac, forward air control, and liason were its primary duties. behind the lines recon was the job of un/armed fighters with camera packages and typically bombers configured for specialized high altitude work with multiple cameras instead of bombs.
  15. on point 2 .. why? why would you limit a plane to some silly unrealistic setting? it seems like you're trying to create a unit that is hard to spot and hard to shoot down by way of its UFO like ability to stay aloft at super low speeds? again, why? unarmed recon spitfires were a good deal faster than regular spitfires. unarmed recon 109s, same thing. that alone makes them hard to shoot down but more importantly fits the theme of the game in that, we at a minimum all want 'weapons' in game to adhere as closely as possible to realistic performances.
  16. finally - something i can agree with you on. however, i'd stipulate ground only. very few occurrences of captured planes being used in combat and I'm guessing this has to do with the speed of combat, even with markings its hard to ID planes at speed. The Italians used a captured P-38 to shoot down at least one B-24. I know KG 200 DID operate captured allied planes however these were mostly recon or transport missions. I'm not aware of any combat missions conducted where munitions were expended. I'd also do it as a certain percentage per town/flag capped would get 'pooled'. once the pool is full you get X of A,B,C units. I'd preference AT guns, then tanks. Example: Cap 10 towns, get a few guns and tanks to use.
  17. The Finns did this a LOT to the Russians. Germans afaik mostly re-used their guns against them. *edit* appears the Germans did it quite a bit too. Note the over marking though. I’m not aware of German tanks with the German cross on the front hull. Guess they wanted to be extra sure a friendly didn’t shoot at them.
  18. they may have left it that color to stand out on purpose. it was a tiger after all, having blatantly wrong or opposing colors to tigers that may be in the area on the other side reduces friendly fire possibilities?
  19. maybe - idk i forget.
  20. blen4 has 9 total kills this map - 0 against anything with wheels/tracks and a motor. 7 infantry, 2 guns. lol
  21. sure, needs a lot of command and control functionality as well as ammo tracking. you'd have to have some sort of hard limiters on it though. fixed known spawns = super awful gameplay even if we had the 80mm medium mortars. would need a lot more mobile spawn options otherwise the game would just break.
  22. no it doesnt. havoc recently got more powerful bombs and it has 8 of them. essentially 4 x the bombload. db7 has 8 x 200kg vs the 2 x 250kg on the 110. blen4 has 2 x 500lbers now iirc or is it 4? doesnt matter the blen sucks and bombs don't really kill much on the ground anymore. i know, i know - they're better at killing infantry now. so?
  23. the allies weren't the only ones with artillery - you make it seem like only they used it on attack. arty made up a giant percentage of the total casualties for all sides. it also REALLY sucks in video games - especially ones with fixed spawn locations.
  24. Now, lets get back to cms.b1 and b2 and use those virtual buttons to create b5 and b6. this will be similar to last post, but, we need the sequence stanzas from the script. lets examine those real quick. SEQUENCE // on/off sequence 1 for elevator trim WHILE (cms.b1); cms.b5 = TRUE; DELAY (1); cms.b5 = FALSE; DELAY (1); ENDSEQUENCE SEQUENCE // on/off sequence 2 for elevator trim WHILE (cms.b2); cms.b6 = TRUE; DELAY (1); cms.B6 = FALSE; DELAY (1); ENDSEQUENCE What is going on here? Real simple, while the mini-stick is held essentially fully forward it then becomes cms.b1, this sequence then says "as long as the stick is held fully forward, cms.b5 = pressed, wait 1ms, then cms.b5 = not pressed - and as long as the stick is held forward keep cycling between pressed/notpressed" the same is true for cms.b6 What this does in game then is increase/decrease elevator trim, by default, 2 degrees at a time. on my system, this ramp through the degrees really isn't all that fast, its quite controllable. Now we need to map cms.b5 and b6. and button 6 Now your mini-stick goes from being a very spastic inaccurate fairly useless control, to a well behaved control for both flaps and trim. I'll add more in the future, using the above for example you could have a control for changing gunsight range (use the trim) and say determine range (mstick up) as well as cycle ammo type (stick down). if you enable the mode function, you can cycle between an "airplane" mode where the mini stick change sthings relevant to planes, and a "tank" mode where things change relevant to AFVs. If anyone has any questions about CH products, feel free to bump this or PM me. I may be able to help or figure out a script to do what you want.
  25. This is for folks who either have a full CH setup or partial say pedals and throttle or just throttle. I just updated the old ww2ol CMC file that iirc reyern put together years back that isn't relevant anymore. Since the default keymaps have changed below is a CMC file that works with all the new default keybinds. Something else to note, I've had a significant problem with Windows 10 and the CH Control Manager V4.55 functioning properly. THe ultimate resolution to this was to buy a USB 2.0 PCI add in card. Using the CH stick, throttle, pedals, and the virtual device map that the CH manager allows you to create was SUPER flaky. Sometimes it would work, then it just wouldn't. I had a suspicion this was related to USB 3/3.1 ports and - at least on my system - the suspicion proved true. These old device/drivers don't work well on USB 3.0/3.1 ports. that card solved my problems. I can't direct link the files so I'll just copy/paste the contents. Next post I'll add in my CMS scripts that turn the ministick into more or less trim wheels