Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


jwilly last won the day on March 10

jwilly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,092 Hero

1 Follower

About jwilly

  • Rank
    WWII Online Builder [GOLD]
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. I'd think CRS would want to maximize aggregate fun delivery. That likely would mean that some kinds of fun would not be delivered, because if those kinds of fun are delivered, other kinds of fun in greater quantity could not be simultaneously delivered. That's the nature of a statistical analysis. You're striving to maximize...not to be all things to all people. You've said several times that CRS wants objective solutions. Statistical fun-delivery maximization based on aggregate spawn demand plus your budget costs would be highly objective. Trying to individually decide who to deliver fun to, and what exceptions to make to aggregate demand based maximization, would be subjective. What's the solution goal again?
  2. There was discussion a month or two ago about a French truck with a single Oerlikon as part of a T0 single-20mm SPAA set, alongside a Bedford with a pintle Oerlikon and an Opel with a FlaK 38. Are those on the "eventual" list? A number of years ago, old-CRS greenlit (in the eventual-modeling-list sense) a Laffly S25TL (or maybe S30TL?) with the naval Hotchkiss CAMle 40J dual 25mm, as the French weapon for the high end of the T0 SPAA sets. Pachy did plan and elevation drawings as part of that discussion. Is that on your "eventual" list?
  3. Two responses: 1. The proposal would be to include anything in the analysis that's spawned by choice, as opposed to being left until the spawn-list end. Then the ratioing would be based on popularity, with relative numbers based on the allowed aggregate budget. So, the lists could include a small number of almost every model. What they wouldn't include would be large numbers of weapons that are unpopular. 2. "the game would be the poorer for it"...well, now, what's the goal here? To design the game you want, or the game that maximizes fun delivery? My gut feeling would be that all else equal, maximized fun delivery would result in maximized customer count at any given point in time, and maximized likelihood of a game revenue growth trajectory. That, I'm pretty sure, is someone's goal.
  4. Two responses: 1. The British and French equivalent to the FlaK 38 2.0cm was the Oerlikon 20mm, not the two pounder pom-pom. The British had Oerlikons mounted on various destroyer models and other ships; Fairmile Bs and similar-sized boats; trucks...singles in 1940, and doubles, triples and quads in later years; and in late 1942, AA tanks. 2. If the two pounder pom-pom were to be modeled, more use would result from modeling the single cranked gun than one of the power quads. The power quads were big and heavy even for 1940 destroyers, though some did carry one. The cranked singles were small enough to be standard armament fore and aft on 1940 Fairmile B gunboat versions, and aft armament on the late 1940 Free French "Normandie" class gunboats. AFAIK, no two pounder pom-poms were used by anyone in European land fighting. Vickers did export their Type 76, a two pounder single mounted to a lightly armored "carrier" version of the Vickers light tank, but I don't think the British Army used any. There's a photo of a unit manned by two men in naval uniforms, but I don't think they're British, or if they are it might have been a Vickers marketing photo.
  5. Usage data provides democratic input from the customers, to a significant extent based on fun-delivery by the game. HC desires would be based on their how-to-win ideas...which, history of HC-determination-of-TOEs shows us, is not aligned with maximized game fun-delivery. Arbitrary rules for TOE composition also are not inherently based on maximized fun-delivery. They're someone's idea of how the game should work. Maybe they're right, maybe not. What customers in recent campaigns have chosen to spawn, ratioed to each nation's total budget...that's valid customer input if your goal is maximized customer satisfaction.
  6. Nah. I'm actually very impressed with CRS's productivity. We just like to complain.
  7. I don't think we know yet what the Garrison TOEs will be...? So how do we know that there's fault to be found with them? Seems like the support tank issue will be gone. If the budget for each side is expended according to player usage: That's pretty much the ambition and direction of the whole project. ...then it seems like there's nothing obvious to complain about...?
  8. I'm probably not the only person here that was educated as an engineer, then spent a career adapting that skillset to the real world. With considerable respect intended because I've been there a lot, the above reads like an engineer's comment about how to design a product. If products could be designed solely objectively, there'd be a lot fewer unsuccessful companies. Equally important to successful product design is having someone that can put themselves inside the customer's head and subjectively figure out the best aggregate answers to the questions above, including what maximizes fun and what will convince the customer that they want what you're selling. Those questions inherently are subjective. If you try to answer them objectively, you'll get the wrong answers. And, if you devalue the questions because they're subjective, you have a process problem. A key to good engineering management is helping your engineers to understand that objective metrics are essential in some areas because the subjective folks otherwise don't realize they're asking for the impossible or uneconomical, but you have to listen to the subjective folks when it comes to what the customer wants, and will think is fun, and will want to buy.
  9. That sums up the whole game mechanics and the resulting combat style VS history, were the equipment production value had a meaning. +1. The key problems lately have been CRS's attempt to represent history via divisional TOEs, when the historical forces often fought as kampfgruppen or battlegroups or with attached supporting elements, and the limited and minimally historically representational game mechanics, for which weapons are differently valuable than was the case historically.
  10. There is nothing wrong with the cost model, or at least nothing that I want to try to convince CRS to fix any faster than you probably already want to do. The problem instead is what you call "disposition of spawnlists" above, i.e. how the budgets are spent. It's already been discussed, and you've acknowledged, that it's problematic for only one side to have a very expensive weapon type (example: 88mm FlaK 36 plus its gun tractor). As you noted and everyone agrees, the fix for that will be to fill out all of those incomplete model-sets, and probably that's part of the very long work-priority lists. The question is what can be done more immediately. An aggregate-customer-demand-based solution often is good marketing. Adjust the numbers of each weapon type toward the relative demand from that side for that weapon type, consistent with the total budget and the game's foundational historical-flavor marketing goals such as weapon chronology. You're already moving in that direction, it appears. The caveat would be to avoid backsliding by allowing other considerations to override aggregate customer demand. The resulting numbers of course won't satisfy every critic's individual theoretical preference, but they should maximize each side's operational game satisfaction delivery.
  11. It's a side point to this thread, but the above comment keeps being made. I hope it doesn't become accepted wisdom through repetition, because I think it's historically incorrect. One man turrets (including several French tanks, and the PzKpfW II when the magazine emptied) did not have slower reloading than anyone's two man turrets, and only somewhat (50%?) slower reloading than that of three man turrets. What one man turrets did have was an inability to simultaneously be at the main gun (eye to the gunsight while the hands accepted the next shell from the crewman below and put it into the gun) and fire the coaxial MG and observe around the tank. All of the early-days CRS tank models have badly coded management of what could be done simultaneously. The one man turrets are just the most obvious examples.
  12. Instead of having permanent/integrated LMG mounts on infantry carriers, maybe that vehicle class should have code that allows LMG infantry to deploy their weapons into a vehicle mount. The Lorraine 38 and 39 APCs and various French halftracks and cars utilized this approach. So did the Universal Carrier in some instances in regard to its Bren mount and an AA mount, and so did some SdKfz 250 and 251 APCs and the Kubelwagen. *** If such LMG-deployment code existed, it also could be used in conjunction with an LMG-AA-tripod PPO.
  13. Focus on the right issue. The economic model is fine. It's how CRS has chosen to spend the two sides' budgets that's the problem. If the players could see the unit costs, I don't think they'd choose to allocate the budgets as CRS has.
  14. I don't know that any Matilda II CS tanks were ever directly part of an infantry division's TOE. They were part of the RTRs...the infantry tank sub-units of the Army Tank Brigade, along with the regular two-pounder-armed Matildas. StgG IIIB vehicles were part of a few infantry divisions in 1940...all of them the more-motorized " Schützen" ones that later were renamed "Panzer Grenadier". They however were not considered tanks; they were crewed by Artillery personnel, not Panzertruppen. When the British needed tanks as part of an infantry action, they attached part or all of an RTR. When the Germans needed tanks as part of an infantry action, they formed a kampfgruppe with an independent panzer unit or a tank unit borrowed from a panzer division. If StuGs are going to be in German infantry TOEs for T0, maybe those vehicles should have an almost-all-HE-and-smoke loadout. Certainly the Germans thought of them as the iG 18 direct-fire 7.5cm infantry support cannon, mounted inside a self-propelled chassis with enough armor on the front to withstand fire from the pillboxes that StuGs were used to take out.
  15. I think yes and yes. Which explains why, back when this was a hot topic under Old CRS, there wasn't a CRS push to get bombs to operate as STOs. I'm pretty sure we were told back then that STO damage would be server managed. Seems as if either that was a fib, or the implementation wasn't quite done and never happened.