Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Kilemall

  1. On 3/25/2019 at 0:09 AM, XOOM said:

    Pretty sure it factors all players spawned in locally for balanced capture timers. Spawn delay max is 10 seconds now so it’s really negligible and not a concern.



    Not good.  We should never crutch on SD like Rats 1.0 did, and it should never be more then 30s, but in order to not have too crazy any one thing, should be a suite of PN interactions where any one doesn't overwhelm or annoy but in concert gives the underpop their chance.


    K said he saw the SD inoperative as part of his review, I didn't realize it really was intentionally tuned that far down.


    I'm just as horrified that we are talking local calc for cap timers.  That explains a whole MESS of issues, such as cap timers that go against the underpop in a city where maybe the overpop have not shown up in yet- practically gives the overpop an easy cap especially in multi-AO situations when the underpop don't have extra people to cover everything.


    Also explains the situation where a city with a lot of overpop ends up with insane cap timers over and above the overall population ingame, cause even if you have say 30 vs 50 pop, the 50 overpop could have 30 on one attack vs. 10 defenders, 3:1 locally and maxed out cap timers when actual total pop is less then 2:1 overpop.


    This has gotta be looked at with an assessment of all the pop capture tools available and some better formulas that don't drive players mad on either side of the pop divide.

  2. 4 hours ago, OHM said:

    The Team that has been working on the Supply numbers are going threw the numbers. They have found some issue with the formulas and looking into the trouble. Once i get a new set of TOE supply numbers we will be updating them to the game. 



    Ok, and what about the timer issues?

  3. 48 minutes ago, kgarner said:

    yeah there is definitely some funny business going on with SD and cap timers not matching up with the population that is shown at log in ..... and every time i bring it up..... It's just totally ignored I have never had anyone offer 1 single explanation .... not any players ....... or any Rats.

    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.

  4. 13 hours ago, kgarner said:

    thats what spawn delay and insane cap timers are for....... at max OP.... If I am capping a cp 1 guy can spawn in 7-10 times before the cap is complete

    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.

    1 person likes this

  5. 11 hours ago, kgarner said:

    which is what really matters

    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.

    1 person likes this

  6. 11 hours ago, BMBM said:

    Interesting. The old spawnlist was value-based, in terms of it being based on defunct CVC values and based on subjective value by whomever put the final old version into place. However you look at it, some valuation - or worse, no valuation or undefined subjective valuation - is always going to be part of the spawnlist construction. 

    A curated spawnlist would still have to be based on a definition of the balancing criteria. "To equal measure resonate with history and precedence of the game, and is fun" - is simply too subjective. Which part of history would you keep and which would you ignore? Which precedence of the game - every campaign has been different, every year different, every version different. There is no ONE interpretation of that criterion. And how do you define FUN?

    Historical ratios: these have been significantly watered down from the original research and adjusted for gameplay in several iterations (not all of them experienced in the live game), to the point of now being almost eradicated. The whiff of history you're now experiencing is extremely faint and not at all representative of actual history.

    I hope you read this in the constructive and sharing spirit that it was written. I seriously appreciate the discussion (although it is keeping me from working on mumblemumble that I had hoped to have ready by the end of this month).

    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.

  7. 2 hours ago, rebel357 said:

    TZ3 has caused disdain for many allies over the course of the past few years. with them able too take lots of key towns during their Time zone, towns like Antwerp and Brussles.  These towns were probably fought over during the other TZs and battles lasted i remember one was 12 hours. Log in the next day and find out it fell in 30 minutes. It is that disparity in ability too dictate the map wins really as that what these captures do.. they end up creating shortage of #s for allies and the map rolls swiftly west.  I almost quit the game a year ago over this very thing. I saw no hope of allies ever winning another campaign without serious help from the axis side. (Whips has been key parts of  any allied wins over the past 2 years)  This fear has born out in reality as nothing has really changed with capture timers being tied too population. What is still the same is the ability of the OP Side during One TZ Too control the map. It is still happening too this very day.  Correct me if i am wrong.    anyone!

    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. 52 minutes ago, kgarner said:

    CRS should hold constants like........... no more than 50% of any item can be reduced........... no more than 50% increase of specific items.  OR baseline concretes like X,Y, and Z are to vital to noob functions and are well enough adjusted that they are not open to HC manipulation at all. 

    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. 4 hours ago, kgarner said:

    we should just go back to the system of letting the HC's pick how to use their RDP dollars

    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. 7 hours ago, kgarner said:

    IM sorry but it has to be said...... Bmbm your total nescience of how gameplay mechanics actually function in-game and in real time/situations is not just obvious..... its downright frightening.  You obviously have alot of power over the spawnlists..... you ought to know how they actually function in game..... I very much appreciate your passion for the game, and the time you have put in to help make it something better and more fun......... but for the love of god man...... plz make some time to get in and actually play for a few hours every few days..... I think your perceptions will be much more attuned to the PB if you can find a way to make that happen.

    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.

    3 people like this

  11. 5 minutes ago, BMBM said:

    So you're saying we get rid of the 88? 

    The LW holds all the trumps in the air game except for one regimen, and that's best on-the-deck-turnfighter (OK, 50 cal is better, but that's true for RL as well) - unless the pilot knows what he/she is doing. Speed, climb, roll: axis advantage. All they need is a turnfighter to have ALL the advantages.

    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. 

  12. 1 minute ago, BMBM said:

    And yet again I invite you to try and construct a fair and objective model to replace it, instead of pumping out more no-content criticism, passing the buck as it were. Yes, it's CRS's game, and we've chosen THIS model for the time being. If you can build a credible case for another, go right ahead.

    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.



  13. 8 minutes ago, BMBM said:

    I agree. The Allies also need (armed) halftracks to kill the 251 disparity. And perhaps a more expensive Quad truck than the Morris CSDW to offset the sdkfz7 cost. And perhaps a 25 pdr or a 3,7 inch AA gun to offset the 88 disparity. 

    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.

  14. 14 minutes ago, BMBM said:

    If both sides are piling on CRS (or me), it must be balanced ;)

    Methinks you're all too quick to call bias in either direction. We're here for YOU, whatever side you play, and we're totally open for constructive criticism and, yet better, constructive suggestions while we fine tune the balancing instrument. I must say though that a little bit less drama and doom/gloom would be much appreciated.

    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.

  15. 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.

    3 people like this

  16. 30 minutes ago, major0noob said:

    the planes definitely hurt allies in underpop. very few recon and intercept trucks in air missions, the rest of the blue tags are in intercept mode 1-2 squares away from the target

    there are many times when axis are taking a town and there are 4 in town while more are in the air, vs at least 8 axis. this is my experience at the tail end of tz-2


    a easy strat to get a town: is to fly a single stuka mission then respawn as inf, can bait 5+ inf out of town and into the air for easy caps

    Huh, Sgthenning was flying a Stuka last night, must have helped with caps.

  17. 14 hours ago, snappahead said:

    Infantry brigades do not have p2's, that's the point. Oh yeah,  that historical thing for axis.....still allies get 1944 tanks....that's the balance thing right?


    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.



  18. 29 minutes ago, matamor said:

    Not a single town nor a softcap capped in the last 24 hours. Both sides play the trap. 

    Allied OP last night and I organised para over Grandpré, none came and none drove FMS. 

    Axis turtles all over the place and few axis werein Gent inviting allied turtles to stay there. 

    I doubt it’s the game we want.

    <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.