Kilemall

Registered Users
  • Content count

    66,943
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    47

Everything posted by Kilemall

  1. Arguably you should format and reinstall your whole drive every few years.
  2. Far as they are concerned its working properly, always was the answer. My guess is there is some deep unresolved bug in the guts of whatever it is they are sampling to drive the SD/CT calculation, and it's more spread out over time then they think it is. I deal with this professionally, mainframe processor utilization packages typically will give you historical slices of 15-minute reporting, so you could say X machine is using 80% CPU, but the actual event is 5 minutes 100% and 10 minutes 70% and the 100% brings everything but prioritized processing to a halt. Windows servers are more vulnerable as they don't usually have good workload management and the answer is to just not let the CPU hit that for any length of time. It's VERY frustrating as it is clearly intermittent and so they could be on for hours and not see it. But we can't tell what is going on globally or behind the curtains when it does happen and point them in the right bughunting direction. Been there professionally too, I made my mark that got me out of the computer room by ruthlessly hunting down a weirdo bug where one misconfiguration of one terminal out of 1000 defined would hang up the whole system until timeout cleared and it was dropped only to happen at a very precise terminal count but highly variable time. It can take singleminded focused jihad to catch these things, but it starts with recognizing that users aren't making up the problems they are experiencing and are living with working with the machines, not you the IT guy.
  3. Yes but remember, cap timers are a new thing, not there for most of the run of the game, and SD proved to not be useful because it was too high a pain point, and it still seems to have problems matching reality we see ingame, I think both sides have seen real oddities in terms of SD times that do not match what the system is saying pop ratio is.
  4. Okay, yes. And no. The part you guys are missing is that Axis guys often showed up just on squad nights plus eh why not nights. In order to win during many of those years, particularly the sixxx yeeearzzzz, it was LESS Allied players playing MORE. It was like a marathon run through broken glass. That's the difference between TOM and the 55-45 deep bench.
  5. I do agree that there has to be a valuation of units, this is just basic wargaming scenario building 101. But as I have said for years, NO one wants to actually play a recreationist sim, best you can do is give a FEEL for the tier era, not actual numbers. Special scenarios, sure. War, no. Just gonna have to learn the hard way, I guess. Even now though, there are obviously subjective choices being made with unit composition. There is no escape from human judgement, especially in an entertainment. And to a point you make in another post, yes one should always neutral out one's personal desires in this game's design. The game needs what it needs, and one of the things people don't understand is that Rats have to do what the game needs, not what people want to do, including Rat personal preferences. But this whole few tanks here few SMGs there combat biome busting approach kills off entire segments of the game. That IS enforcing a 'way to play the game' and limiting solution options. When you can't determine what the 'right' fun is for people or the game as a whole, best to provide as many avenues to different kinds of fun as possible. Example of this is town capture, knockdown dragout multi-day Stalingrad vs. ninja cap vs. armor roll vs. infantry infiltration building to a combined arms limited battle. The game is richer when all of those can happen naturally without being goosed into it, and poorer if one type of capture is coded for over the others.
  6. I don't buy that graph for one instant, if for no other reason then the Rats themselves said there was a greater discrepancy.
  7. CRS keeps backing off the cap timers and not fixing the SD bugs and not spreading the PN pain so no one thing is Too Much. The FMS move up close is going to be another overpop godsend, already saw that in play. And cap timers were NEVER supposed to hand underpopped sides victory to balance campaign outcomes, only to provide an opportunity to attack equally even if underpop. Smart play wins. Now if all the vets are driven off, then smart play is not likely to happen, it starts with the sort of thing Potthead is talking about. But if there is no PN, there is no chance for that to occur with any regularity.
  8. Those sort of things were in the original RDP rules, and got more restrictive as time went on and HCs would do things like wipe out all the baby tanks and leave new players nothing to spawn or build up on. While I didn't see the final iteration of the RDP list rules, I am under the firm impression that they got to the point where HC discretion was tightly circumscribed to deal with ranking and having at least 1 of every ride available for fans. And there were times when HCs didn't turn in a new equipment list so Doc ran with what they had the campaign before, which if they were weird and/or bad set off players for a whole nother campaign. As I heard it there were HCs who basically begged for it to be taken away, either not their gig or just beat up by the politics of lists. Ya. This is one of those things where we need to learn what didn't work and not Go There. Another example of game, not warsim.
  9. Dude, I SPECIALIZED in this area. I helped Allied CinCs BREAK Axis, got the Crus up in numbers when K/D said they were better (mantlet), back to masses of Matties, and other RDP work (although there were Allied CinCs for a run there who were just geniuses at this and got it done better then help from me). So many problems with doing it. I can enumerate them, but the short answer is Just No.
  10. <Shrug> it doesn't terminate side, my guess is one of three things will happen- Ops will 'degrade' to being like Side now. There will be a split between old timers on Side and new players on Ops, leaving HCs to have to talk to both or splitting comms. People will just learn to tune Side and ignore Ops.
  11. Maybe a little history is in order. Bmbm is one of the first Allied CinC of the game, ever. I've seen lists where he is considered #1 #2 or #3, so I guess it depends on how you start the CinC counting. He worked with me and Allied CinCs and senior officers many years later in an air HC advisory capacity. I know him to be knowledgeable and smart, particularly about the air game. Scotsman, I never worked with per se. but I knew what sort of background he had and in our few brief discussions at conventions he was exactly The Guy the Rats should have been listening to all along for the sim models, and I also knew he wants an accurate sim, nothing more. In fact one could look past the situation and see this whole master equipment historical cost thing is just his way of trying to get to fair and accurate. So, this isn't fun for me to pillory their work, and no doubt expended very hard effort to come to their honest sweat equity conclusions. But pillory I must, because there are deep-seated 'missing knowledge sets' or something that's not clicking in their heads about this issue. Rats 1.0 would get this way too, and it was about as much fun dealing with that. Some things sank in, and it took player leaders they trusted to at least get some things done. I expect most of us in this thread are not on that list for Rats 2.0.
  12. That's ridiculous arguing re: 88 termination or even gimping, of course not. However, map marking NOT visible to pilots UNLESS it is a special infantry Forward Observer and otherwise ground targets have to be marked by colored smoke, yes. The other thing I would have done is not deploy a shield 88 until the advanced ammo version, when they were used a lot more for anti-armor work. Identity distinction and definite upgrade. I'd gather that's what that one fellow is pushing for in getting Italian fighters. But that guy's got a point, Nodal Spawn Castle, so controlling the airspace up close counts for much more then what happens 4km up. And using a Bofors virtually identical for all countries against CAS, there is a world of difference engaging a Stuka vs. a DB-7.
  13. I surely can, got a spawnlist spreadsheet that's usable and cross-indexed with half-tiers? You won't shut me down with that kind of comeback, you gotta know better. But yes it does appear you guys are going to stick to your guns, and player input isn't getting across as to the error in the CRS approach. I've been working it through past few weeks, you'll forgive me if I didn't have Scotsman's months and methodology ready to trot out in 4 weeks since this whole thing blew up. First thing was to decide if a QJM/BPV type valuation was of value, but I think the issue is gameplay, so more valuate individual abilities and then cross-reference against countries so you can have competing sets without being strictly red vs. blue, AND be able to prosecute an attack or defense, which different units can do better or worse. So less a single number or specific total brigade number goal, more a total attack/defense capability and matchups down to the individual unit level. Once you have that, I think plugging in units will mean it will become very apparent what sort of units are required and how many of x new units can go in. Errgh, just thought about air, I am NOT good at valuating that, yet it is a factor for ground if for no other reason then AA and CAS potential especially for soft targets- like 88s. Annoying, this being logical thing.
  14. Umm. The answer to the 88 is the RAF. Always has been, but with the map marking AND general Axis malaise in the Luftwaffe department, 88s are near hunted to extinction and has a lot to do with Axis lack of enthusiasm for open-topped TDs (even though they are a big answer for getting cheap tubes out there- or should be, the weight you guys seem to be giving 88s is unnerving). Don't get me wrong, I've always said the Allies were missing their whole huge arty arm, particularly the US and UK, and I never want to deny anyone their toys. But if the 88 was so badazz in game as you guys seem to valuate them, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
  15. I'm not calling bias. I'm calling mismatch in an economic masterwork of history misapplied on two levels, valuation and unit building, for gameplay. And a frightening level of lack of understanding about how the tools work in our nodal spawn castle game as opposed to the RW, and player psychology.
  16. This has been in for years. I think it is PRECISELY so infantry can move around and not be nuked 1km anywhere near a tank. Independent of gamey reasons, it IS more difficult to pick out infantry at range, just not quite that close.
  17. Ya cept the problem is the thin-skinned 88 requiring towing even out to town's edge effectively AND a large high profile AND unrealistically close strafing fused with computer age forward observer marking is not the monster in RL in this game. Either that or the thin to no armor valuations are way whack. Or another thought, all that AA gear that drove up the cost of the 88 is not effectively in play, we don't have time-fused AA shells, it's literally not the same gun and ammo in terms of capability. Again, another example where this cost business does not capture the game situation, or vice versa.
  18. Huh, Sgthenning was flying a Stuka last night, must have helped with caps.
  19. More like 55/45, that IS a solid number.
  20. IMO itt's a misconceiving of what sort of units brigades are modeling and what Allied units were like vs. Axis. US units look like what infantry divisions looked like with attached units, Axis infantry doesn't have the kampfgruppe style of attached units.
  21. <Shrug> been blowing FBs for offense, first step to attack. We would have had Sechault last night but the team was too hungry for the bunker and did not listen to calls to rescue the spawnable.
  22. I really hate your crap Mata- just not the case.
  23. And Axis LMG and Tiger is good enough to kill any 2-4 of their counterparts, while I agree that manpower usage sinks such as 88s are something to watch, the dedicated HT it needs can also do double duty for FMS and Axis can get more done with less with other units. I would argue the 88's true manpower sink is the increased AA and infantry cover it needs to stay alive and the one piece of equipment that isn't going away or number altered, the map mark for the air guys to kill it. You have to look at the air game ultimately and that's a whole nother ball of mess.
  24. Alright guys, learning in long long interactions with Rats 1.0 and 2.0, you don't get what you want done until you help them solve their problem that caused them to act in X way. In this case, getting a veritable cornucopia of toys pouring into the lists and needing to be able to incorporate them quickly into functional spawnlists, in this case both TBS and the hybrid brigades, and do it faster and more 'accurately' to provide a differentiated variable battle experience that is always dynamic, but is deemed by both Rats and players as 'fair opportunity' for each side overall with varying TZs and 'side strength'. I would posit an extra bit in there, that the more organized side wins any given 6-hour TZ regardless of relative pop and that a side can recover from a disastrous 3 days and come back to win a campaign, but that's my focus. So post solutions, not just 'I wants' and 'this is problems', and you are more likely to persuade the Rats of a course of action.