Kilemall

Registered Users
  • Content count

    70,741
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    127

Kilemall last won the day on April 6

Kilemall had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,927 Hero

5 Followers

About Kilemall

  • Rank
    That's the way, uh huh uh huh, I like it
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    Not quite Dallas TX
  • Preferred Side
    Axis
  • Preferred Branch
    Army
  • Preferred Unit
    Anti-Tank Gun

Recent Profile Visitors

3,782 profile views
  1. That's the biggest goal of Pop Neutrality, and I don't understand people not wanting that, even if they think your suggestion or something else different then my PN is better.
  2. OMG it's my game spirit animal! I gotta get this into a sig somehow.
  3. I would argue that the SD and slow cap timers were never going to get people to side switch even though some did, nor should it ever be construed or a goal to achieve. You are more likely to lose subs rather then have people be forced to play a side they don't want. Problem is your side lock solution would do the same thing if it's Uber11ty Squad night and they can't get in. I'd recommend playing the other side if for no other reason then intel on how the equipment is usable or not, what your side looks like from the enemy side, yes perspective, and an appreciation of the guys you fight, cause it's fun to kill people you know who will take it personally- both your home side and the other side when you go back.
  4. I mean that in order to have not red vs. blue but as historically accurate weapons as a commercial game can allow, that players need to be tolerant of intros that have an advantage in a tier in a super tank or air element and not advocate for combinations of things that crush out a whole play element for any side at any time, and that the spawnlists should follow suit on keeping each element in play and competitive even as variety and historical goals are pursued. For instance I was quite verbal about the CS Matties. The idea wasn't to crush out those, but to have an understanding among spawnlist builders that those things are about 80% of what makes a Matty terrifying to Axis players, the armor and camping of all soft things even if it can't kill another tank, and to have enough elements that are either tanks, sappers and/or AT guns that can kill them available so if the Axis players can get near the CS Matty it can be killed. My particular beef was that 88s couldn't get out of the spawn to do anything if just one infantry comes in to camp, and 4 wasn't enough for that situation much less even as many Matties as originally deployed. As it happens the Pak36 with its too much spall audit has balanced things out, but I don't think players finding and using questionable damage model outcomes is a really good controlled way to true up spawnlists.
  5. I'm not bagging or holding this on Ohm, near as I can tell it's a whole team thing where he's being given what are IMO faulty premises to build spawnlists on, which practically guarantees player complaints over and above the usual griping about being pwned some way they don't like. The principle to follow here is to make what the game needs, not what people want. I'm assuming the objective is to provide for a dynamic spawnlist valuation tool so that you can add new models in without going through some two year cycle of spawnlist fiddling. We haven't had this many models coming in this fast in literally decades, and a finger in the wind and eyeballing is too much to ask of anybody, so I would like to think I 'get' the impetus of this standard, along with what I suspect from other comments is marketing. Nonetheless, doing it off of historical research of industrial costing is just utterly absolutely WRONG. I'm sure this is the sort of thing the DoD would do if they were building the WWII force with today's analysis tools, and could be that the research that went into this could make for a good specialist book on WWII industrial output vs. results. But last I checked we aren't building or playing WWII_Industrial_Production_Online, we are playing a competitive game where we have to create even opportunity entertainment spawnlists, not what each country was trying to do historically, create unfair pwnlists. Costing based on production history just gives you a baseline for what could be produced expensively or readily per year, it doesn't do the hard work of sussing out how this stuff matches up under all conditions, which includes varying logistics, terrain, player usage/loss patterns, opportunity action, time to move/flank a battle vs. capture, CQB/capture vs. long range, camping, etc. etc. In short the combat biome driving the player experience. Historical production also recreates how production for x weapon was driven by combat needs of a particular designed formation from fireteam/squad on up to platoon (infantry or tank) or larger, special troops such as paras or combat engineering, etc. but does NOTHING for the way people spawn and use the stuff. Formations have NO meaning in our game other then supply names, brigades as movable lists and nature of the list. It's less an org sim and more a combat artist palette with it's own logic driven by the capture, spawning and firepower/maneuver combat biome. Tigers for instance are awesome beasts and in the hands of a professional Heer with proper flanking tanks and infantry, can be absolute terrors. However in our world we do not have either tank OR infantry density such that the Tiger flanks are protected like the real thing, hence it is vulnerable to ATGs, hero inf, sneaky Shermans etc. that would almost NEVER get a chance to kill it except in a VERY painful frontal arc. We just AREN'T in a real WWII combat battlefield so even if this production analysis is trued up with RL lethality/results, it just does not, can not, jibe with what the players experience in the game. You can have ah-HA moments where battle or force movement 'feels' right, but game battle and real battle is a mismatch of valuations that won't get the needed job of even spawnlists done. So what should spawnlists be built on? Major categories of game play related to elements of the whole biome. AT capability-optics range and penetration. Armor level to defeat same, and possibly negative points for 'soft' targets CQB infantry. LR fire infantry. AT infantry Special infantry bonus for build, FMS and FB destruction. General infantry capture and 'sneak' ability. MG mounted on armor vehicles. Soft vehicle MG and cannon. HE capability, armor gun and airplane. Energy rating for airplanes, low alt and high alt. Camo. Audio signature (silent infantry and guns get bonuses, quiet ACs and trucks get a little less, louder vehicles get no bonus) Movement rating urban/road vs. countryside Then true up each category for like spawnlists for all 4 countries per list type (Garrison, Inf Brigade, Armor Brigade, HQ). What counts here are the matchups, so that each element has a possibility of play and a possibility of counter even if the opposition has an 'early' advantaged unit. Avoid the Hardest Campaign paradigm of entire play categories not in use or suppressed. This can also be a good tool for analyzing terrain matchups to spawnlist capability. Some forces may be better in cities or on flat terrain vs. hilly long range fire, that should be able to be assessed. Be sure to keep the Alpha units like Tigers, Matties, unopposed air entries, etc. down to low numbers when there aren't a lot of killers for them. By all means do historical intro whenever possible, but always check against play value and not alienating an entire interest area for a week or more. We SHOULD have learned that during the HC Choice/RDP Tier delay mechanic, don't recreate already learned lessons. Then, when game elements such as spawn paradigms, terrain coloration affecting camo, visibility issues, weapon/armor/DM audits, ammo choices, bugfixes etc. change the performance of one or more units, reassess the point values and adjust the spawnlists to reflect new GAME reality, not historical this or that. I'm sure there is more to this subject, but this is a starting look as to what I mean.
  6. To my knowledge there is still a discrepancy between truck-only EWS and everything else. I know it got moved out from 400m but TBH it's not clear to me what the exact mix is. Nonetheless from a time opportunity analysis POV any of those allows for an overpop force to setup and saturate towns. Which is not bad in itself, again see content generation, but with multi-AOs which presumably we want all the time when population warrants, the 2-4 AOs all the time thing may be exposing a few reaction cracks in overpop/underpop. I'm not suggesting we back off FMS setting in the slightest and if even pop well too darn bad if a side doesn't react to getting D up, just that cap timers may need to be revisited in case of serious pop discrepancy in the light of multi-AO fast switching. That is the idea, yes. I think we are on the outer envelope of acceptable overpop time cost re: gameflow, so faster underpop capping is the thing given that we don't have coding for anything else but SD and that's probably maxed out too. Note what I suggested, same calc except underpop gets counted as 1 to 3 extra people on capping. That's cause when you are underpop fewer of you are available to get to and stay alive capping and so overpop gets more time advantage since they can get more in reliably, often at multiple facilities at once. That play shouldn't be neutered as overpop needs to be able to capitalize on it's strengths, just more of an offset cause of multi-AO meaning overpop gets to switch entire towns and get to caps much more easily.
  7. And I expect vice versa, not sure what the point is here. That Stu 37mm is NOT your 1940 German 37, it's more like a more powerful 2-lber or Pak38, arguably better. Can't hang with the traditional Tier2 green G-tanks, but as a Tier 1 speedy light tank morphing into a recon/short range TD tank later on, it has it's place. The real butthurt would be the US 37mm ATG deployed to FMS. THAT would be a difference. IMO Axis tanks will play more like tanks with the full armor audit.
  8. Completely disagree. I know the issues only too well and the eroding effects on allowing highpop to dictate defense only. Plus it's bad bad bad when you give up half of your content generation to 'oh well'. Highpop already has an advantage that is just a given, blowing FBs at will, getting tanks into a town without effective interdiction, extra people to do all the little things. Underpop needs to be able to recap for effective defense and cap for offense and that means pop neutrality, so those time player advantages are not autowin. The multi-AO situation just unmasked it. Didn't read what I said closely huh. I specifically said not to increase the overpop timer, but to give a bonus to the underpop. The overpop already can load those depots and make them cap fast, and I think they are about right. PN should never be about ending offense or terminating the ability of overpop to get their firepower in place. But it has to be a game. No. Really. I don't buy your thesis except for Axis tanks. The problem there is again CRS is not pairing the RIGHT way to do their audits, ammo/gun AND armor/damage model audits. One without the other is an exercise in marketing without the sim results. You can never get the spawnlists right if things are overperforming or underperforming or you don't break the game down into LR battle, CQB, bombing, CAS, capture etc. and make sure every element is equal opportunity, even if the individual equipment isn't. It all stems from spawnlists accurately reflecting what accurate modeling equipment can do AND building spawnlists based on the ENTIRE combat biome, including spawning/capture opportunity. Can't get timers right either, you'll be chasing a ghost. Otherwise Pak36s are blowing hell outta Matties, near as I can tell the Allied AF is sitting out or certainly not it's normal self thanks to the 190/.50 cal thing, Axis infantry kit still kicks [censored] (as it should), it's not all the Allies way. Shouldn't be. But that Tiger is looming rather large when Axis has overpop to do overstocking, and one Tiger overstock is worth several 75 Sherman restocks. Been down that road with the T0 Allied heavies. Don't accept your thesis, not this time. Axis adjusted under the RDP gun, Allies got sloppy and didn't fully cash in on the RDP advantage, BAD brigade movement at several junctures, and no small part you yourself. I can tell when you are on, Allies start losing towns. Whew, you may like the title but I would NEVER EVER EVER accept a Spawn Queue limit to break the ability of people to play the side they want, particularly squads and adhoc player groups. I'm for allowing as many people on a side as want to play it, it just shouldn't give unearned advantage.
  9. Same thing on Allied side Dre, a lot of it is vets vs. newer players that don't comm. A lot of old school players don't comm on text either. The player communication/org experience is as core as any of the equipment or play, about time it got the same careful design attention other aspects do. Acculturating players to be part of the team doesn't work when there aren't comms happening for them to glom onto, and for my part it drives me to not want to comm when you do comm and players don't react or comm back.
  10. In a recent thread there was raging and not surprisingly it was closed. That's fine, we have to expect that even without the 'promised' forum cleanup coming. What I didn't like about it was the dismissive 'well sometimes highpop one way, sometimes the other way, that's how baseball go' end response. That's NOT an acceptable game design goal IMO. The principle should be that any number of players can get on and win even if they are lowpop. Some very good pertinent issues were also discussed, which of course got lost in the backwash of the thread closing that directly relate to this principle. Spawnlists matter, lowpop needs to be able to fight back and not just serially bleed to death from highpop superior firepower maneuvered to positional advantage without contest- so historical this or that can step hard depending Highpop with close FMS can swamp towns giving the impression of 'enemy everywhere' Increased AOs means favorably advantaged prior FMS placement means fast switching from one AO to another, the fastest TTB movement possible Unlike previous situations I don't feel a need to call for drastic change. A steady hand here suffices. But tweaks are needed IMO. Relating to the current situation, I think we are seeing the effects of having more players and more AOs, which is generally a good thing, but is not really tuned to maintain the pop neutrality balance, which is not a good thing. The AOs are allowing the no-EWS truck placement to occur and then spring two full battles on 2-3 AO times. This is good, content generation and all, but not so good when the lowpop side isn't good about doing the same or doesn't get a serious cap time advantage and having to struggle just to hold onto those towns, a huge unearned time advantage past a certain point. That's NOT good content generation, what you want in multi-AO times is 2 AOs AND DOs going, a real barn-burner edge of seat thing where you can pick your content and just a few players' excellent action tips the balance. The other would appear to be that in single AO times the underpop doesn't get enough cap time to make up for their situation. I wouldn't increase highpop timers that much nor undercut the multiple player cap bonus. I think what is needed here is faster recap times for the underpop- possibly use the same slider/calc as now but say add 1-3 people value capping to 1 underpop capper especially in TZ3 outnumbered multiples times. The other thing is the historical spawnlist paradigm vs. happiness. I think both sides need to allow for the other to have some advantage tier in certain categories related to individual equipment capability, asking for exactly the same firepower in all categoreis all the time is counterproductive to accurate modelling and historical feel intro. But it IS up to CRS to maintain total force viability in spawnlist building and while I see some of that going on, I don't think it's there and seems to me like there is a tin ear towards allowing for effective fighting every tier. Finally, any of this balancing does not mean guaranteeing lowpop success. That should NEVER be a goal. The goal should be to allow lowpop to function to build up player interest and hours such that they aren't so lowpop anymore and not drag down other TZs. I think the Axis is largely earning their town wins, but taking smart advantage of the missed tweaks above with very much the RDP bombing in mind for revenge, and that the Allies most TZs are matching them for effectiveness and ferocity. The Allies seem to be losing towns more to squad org/leadership mismatch in late prime TZ/early TZ3 where I play and the lowpop TZs where there often are very few Allies playing, the usual comments apply. The other part is the Allied airforces seem to be absent, that would appear to be an equipment/spawnlist gripe. I expect the reverse was true during WBS, the Axis was likely getting pummeled with exactly this sort of highpop PLUS superior HC and leader org doing the multi-AO/fast switch plus the RDP bombing, Just as much a problem that way going east as west. Pop neutrality should not be a substitute for lack of organization and play, and earned advantage should always be rewarded, just not higher pop as the autowin. We're getting closer, but with more AOs in play PN just needs some adjustment. The spawnlist thing is more troublesome, the community needs to grow up and let people have their toy time while allowing for the other side to have equal chance, and CRS needs to design/enforce it through the spawnlists. But just writing this off to highpop and 'oh well' is not going to reduce the cycle of suck, it will make it worse.
  11. Nope. No point in bogging down our machines processing dozens if not hundreds of player points for no good play effect for 90% of them BVR/no LOS. STO or nothing.
  12. Any towns in attacks or defenses likely have no MGs for 20 hours plus. But if you take towns, nice clean full supply list, including MGs. Take one early in TZ3, then any enemy frontline towns that were in battle and used up supply next to the now captured town is vulnerable until the full 10 hour cycle is run and they are back up to strength. Meantime, any towns taken are full supply and tougher targets for the next main overpop surge.
  13. Definitely AFs should be in play as a target beyond vulch camping. As for landing strips, simple mechanism- trucks refuel and rearm planes. The planes have to land on rough field successfully or road, get truck to reup them, and then take off again, all while giving away their EWS and risking destruction on the ground. Squad/formation missions is a serious bit of business and exactly the sort of thing when I talk about gameplay/org tools. Ah well.
  14. Might tighten up those pop differential cap timers.