tater

Registered Users
  • Content count

    12,377
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

tater last won the day on September 11

tater had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

208 Salty

About tater

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. I'm still for on-sides rules, I was just thinking of alternate tests to do that seem easy. Dunno if tied to BDE is easy. Think of that attack I mentioned. I have no idea what the Germans had in that town supply wise---and in WW2OL it literally never matters in the case of the attack that happened. They could have had as much supply as the map allows in the one town, and it would have rolled anyway (which gives lie to the very notion of "supply" and the game at the level of "the Map."). Assume the town had a BDE in it, that would bump the range to 1200. If you think it should be 1500, then maybe the Garrison range is 750m, and each BDE adds 750 to that. The goal here is that a town with a lot of troops in it should have more time to set up a defense---precisely because in RL more of those troops would be emplaced in the field, or at the very least doing patrols, etc. As a guy who dates back to hex board and miniatures games, I think of the "map" level game as that sort of wargame, with the actual battles as the tactical level. Anything that abstracts the operational game to improve it is a good thing. So back to my attack example from the other day. If the town had a BDE in it, our attack was absurdly easy, and it should not have been. If the town was a rear area? That blitzkrieg felt just right. Some short, intense fighting, tanks pouring it at full speed, town liberated. As it was for an engagement against nominally equal forces? It felt like cheating in many ways. My paradigm would allow the blitz style attacks on towns without BDEs, and/or rear areas. To go along with that, resupply would need to be slower, as would the speed to move BDEs. You'd then make a breakthrough and have to decide to push ahead through the soft rear area forces, but at the risk of outrunning supply and having untenable gains. Alternately, advance more slowly, moving fresh units forward. If coding 2 levels of Garrisons is a problem, make 2 levels of BDEs, instead. Drop Garrisons to rear area levels (much smaller spawn lists), then have BDEs, and some smaller units to place as holding forces (say about the size of a Company?)
  2. It depends so much on the goals and assumptions of what the larger scale gameplay is accomplishing. I was in an attack the other night with a bridge town, where we attacks one side, and rolled armor to the other. Was crazy capping/guarding a CP on the W side as like 6 tanks rolled past to cross the bridge (was a huge allied pop there). That was a typical WW2OL attack, but at max extent/violence due to local pop (and likely pop imbalance). They never knew what hit them. There was some brief, fierce fighting, but the nature of spawning in town resulted in the Allies occupying the town, THEN defense. I think the AOs and EWS don;t give nearly enough time for defense for towns with BDEs. I already think the Garrisons are too large, but you want brainstorming? 1. Cut Garrison size. Rear areas should be rear areas. Alternately, has 2 tiers of Garrisons, 1 more front line, one vastly smaller (rear areas)---like total spawn list a sum of Depot spawn lists +1 some (lower tier) tanks in the AB. 2. Have EWS vary with BDEs. Garrison would have a short EWS, 1 BDE longer, and so forth. EWS scales to the troops who can patrol, be on picket duty, etc. EWS isn't magic, it's manpower. So maybe: Only Garrison forces = 700m Each BDE adds 500m to that.
  3. If everyone could spawn multiple inf, the server would simply track players (as it does now). Two accounts would then of course have 2X that, so maybe you remove second accounts, or limit them. Not gamey at all. Not even slightly gamey. How many men are in a Brigade? How many are in the field at one time in game? The entire BDE should be in the field all the time. We don;t have enough players for that, but it's closer if each inf is 4 inf. Sneaky caps are idiotic and should not be a thing anyway. Sneaky caps are in fact gamey. There are X hundred troops in a small town. 1 guy could capture the entire town in WW2OL via moling with no defense. How is that not gamey?
  4. Make it farther out. As far as I can tell since coming back the drill is: place as much as possible without setting off EWS. Move people in and start setting AO such that people are already in town before the enemy can defend---because in RL multiple brigades of troops on the front line routinely stayed fall-down drunk until after the enemy literally walked into where they were sleeping, then they drift awake 1 at a time to be serially killed. Cap as much as possible minus any defense. Defenders are either overwhelmed, or they zerg in after the fact and kick you out. The entire paradigm is wrong. All attack vs towns with units deployed (sorry, hate the Garrisons right now) should be alerted far enough before hand that they have the best possible defense.
  5. I'm still thinking of the opposite of this supposed problem, and the fact that it's not multiple POVs, it might be multiple clients running on a machine. Regardless, I think that multiple spawns per player would be a huge improvement. In the balance thread I just observed that large numbers are always more fun. It feels like there are friends on your flanks, and it's not like hide and seek hunting, it feels more battle like, and less random deathmatch with more units on the field. Allow each inf to spawn 4. 1 is active at a time, but you switch exactly like gun/tank/aircraft/ship crew.
  6. Since the map is rolling the other way, there are often many allies on in one AO or DO compared to usual. An observation: It's more fun when there are many people in an AO/DO who are on your side. This fun factor is independent of the number of enemies at a certain level---where too few enemies is actually worse than too many. This goes to the notion of minimum numbers being required (which is the bare min to guard what you cap on attack, or guard what you hold on defense), but it's far more than that. The point CP nature of the game is awful, and with low pop it feels far more like a giant, random terrain death match. When there are MANY on your side, there is a de facto actual holding of ground that doesn't exist with lower numbers. 10 v 10? better than 5 v 5, but still meh. 20+ v 20+? starts feeling interesting. With lower numbers it's all infiltration, and porous awfulness. I think a lot of my solutions are to make the lower pop game feel better (more like higher pop). What's the cutoff for just 1 AO? Also, is 1 AO 1 AO per side? If so, if there are 10 people on each side, and each has an AO, that's 5 per battle, else switching back and forth. Gameplay would be 1000% more fun with 10 v 10 than 2x 5v5. I'm not sure there should be more than one battle at a time at all unless the pop exceeds 20 v 20 to be honest, and the large cities... they need to be even smaller segments.
  7. I remember that. I think that the best solution would be something like I have said above (a distinction between destroyed guns, and guns with dead crews), and the ability for players to take over the AI. Short of that, I think that any infantry should be able to rebuild the AI, at the cost of despawning. If the gun has 2 crew, then it should take 2 inf. If the gun is destroyed (emplacement blown with a charge), then rebuilding could require moving a weapon of that type out (push ATG to emplacement). If the emplacement is wrecked (tower), then I could see the engie rebuilding the tower, then someone has to run an LMG to it. I still think AI should rebuild once there's no more AO on the town. These methods represent recrewing quite well, and the attempt at doing so can be interdicted.
  8. Can't be done can't be done. My idea above is based on things already tracked. The only solution you can discount as not workign to solve the problem are those that have actually been tested, otherwise your answer must be "I don't know." You state that there are 2 solutions (only), but neither will happen (I agree that neither of those will happen), but we canot say that other mechanisms cannot solve the problem, or at least mitigate it. To know this, some testing needs to happen.
  9. AI should auto-rebuild, and have the speed a function of global population, and relative population. The idea that an engineer is "rebuilding" AI being over the top is wrongheaded, IMHO. Unless a gun was actually spiked or otherwise physically destroyed, gun positions were not "taken out" they were "unmanned" (meaning that the men operating it were killed or rendered combat ineffective). Years and years ago I suggested an auto-"rebuild" mechanism. AI guns are attached to facilities. Make an AI model minus the gunner. If the gun is hit, and "taken out" the gunner goes away, but the gun remains. After some (short) time, an AI troop avatar runs from the linked facility to the gun, and it is remanned. Taking out the gun permanently would require a charge (spiking the gun), nades would kill the crew, but new crew would come back as long as the spawn list has people in it (maybe it could subtract a rifle for every crew killed). If I did that, I'd likely also increase all the arcs of fire for AI, and make them easier to kill, and possible to suppress without killing them (realistically a gun crew would seek cover if sprayed with MG fire, for example, during which time they stop shooting).
  10. Have they tried every suggestion? Have they tried any of mine? Address my specific ideas, but don't suggest that my ideas won't work because other ideas that are not even remotely similar have been tried, but have not worked. What has actually been done? Spawn Delay. Game side entry delay. Cap timer adjustments based on balance. The above the limit of what I am aware of, if I'm missing dozens of other ideas that have been turned on in my absence, do tell. Has CP ownership ever been set to reverse to the town owner if left unguarded after some time, pegged to imbalance? How about that, but with sometimes multiple guards required? This concept forces attackers to sideline multiple players guarding, so during low-pop periods attacks on larger towns might not even be possible at all---say you needed 2 guards per CP because of massive imbalance, and that required more people than you even had, then that attack would not be possible. This could interact with the existing options, SD, and cap timers. Cap timers would basically be redone such that the town owner gets added in as an anti-capper all the time. Currently whoever is trying to cap has no need of clearing the CP, the existence of an enemy moves the capture bar. I would change this to compare the CP attacker vs defenders, and move the bar only if the attackers outnumber the defenders. 1 capper in a CP with 1 guard upstairs in normal play would have to clear the CP for the bar to move. This new system would add an invisible enemy to every CP in town for the UP town owner side (again, depending on imbalance levels). So if one side is 2:1, then maybe all CPs get When the server is roughly balanced, the town owner contribution becomes 0, so that without guards, CP ownership is as it is now. When one side gets OP above some level, the town owner contribution increases such that with no guard, it acts as if it is being recapped. If one side becomes even more OP, the system adds an additional, invisible capper to every CP in the town. Now the OP attacker needs 2 guards just to stop the bar from recapping. If a defender chucks a nade in and kills one guard... the CP starts recapping by itself. The defender need no go in, they can try and cut, instead. Course they might still want to enter and check, because if the OP side becomes less OP, the second invisible capper goes away, and the lone guard is now enough to arrest the auto-recap. Note that the UP side can attack towns normally, no guards required (still a good idea, obviously).
  11. For in town it would be better if the CP and Spawn were in fact just regular buildings (slightly altered) that already exist.
  12. The operational one is clearly a longer pole as it doesn't seem to exist at all. The idea of CPs reverting seems easier, however, and it could be tied to existing SD code. Regardless, they're serious problems---low pop map swings, and large OP issues---and it's worth some effort to fix them. So the only fix is to shut people out from playing, even if trying some other solution to test was "easy?" That seems less than productive, honestly. You're basically saying that they should shut the game down then (since you list 2 solutions that you admit will never happen)?
  13. Did you read the suggestion you are replying to? Nothing like what I have proposed has ever been tried as far as I know, and it seems at first blush that my idea might actually help. It would not stop grossly OP play during low pop from being a thing, and it would not stop rolls, certainly, but it would slow them, and it would potentially make taking larger towns/cities nearly impossible during low pop. It could also be combined with operational limitations. Ie: if the server OP is 2:1, then no AOs get set unless the attacking side has at least one town facing the AO target with 2X the units (attacking BDE+Garrisons vs defending). Any more than 2X, and you need more than 2X, 3X and you need 3X, etc. a 2 AB town with 2 BDEs attacks a 1 Garrison town with 1 BDE, and that AO can be set of the attacking side has 2:1 odds on the server. If they have 3:1 online, then they need to only attack that 2-unit town from a 3 AB town with 3 BDEs, and so forth. This can be fixed/mitigated with some rules changes (or it's worth it to try).
  14. Without having to count local population, how would my idea above work (we know the server tracks balance, and works SD, so this should be fairly easy, right? I'd say that there should be a constant rate at which CPs revert, regardless of pop. Side A owns a town, Side B caps a few CPs, then the mole doing that leaves, goes AFK, whatever. Even during max pop, the CPs if untouched by an attacker should revert in maybe an hour. Yeah, a mole can run between CPs they have capped and keep them owned. Means a defender can watch a CP for the ei to come back---they have to. Population imbalance would then decrease this revert time for the underpop side. If the imbalance is 2:1, that CP revert might be down to a few minutes (what are the cap timer rules, use them as a model to adjust this). At 3:1+ the CP revert time might be nearly instant (5-10 seconds)---anyone capping must stay and guard. Perhaps it could even go to negative time, with a bonus for multiple guards. Ie: 1 guard and it reverts anyway (albeit not instantly), 2 or more become required to guard as imbalance increases a great deal. There was an example posted here a week or two ago about some tz3 time recently when 2 were defending against 24. 12:1 odds. Under the facility revert idea, at that level, it might go to where 3-4 are required just to hold a capture without it quickly reverting. The lone active defender (I'm assuming 1 is in the bunker) could then throw a nade into a CP, and if they kill even 1 attacker, the CP might start reverting (acts exactly like it is being recapped, except the only way to stop it is to add new guards til it reverses). This gives defenders in low pop who are massively outnumbered at least some chance, even if it is just holding.
  15. Pop imbalance is a local issue, not a mapwide issue, and occurs regardless of total population. Spawning/respawning/MSPs should be tied to relative brigade/garrison strength attacker vs defender. Posted a lot on this over time, guess no one agrees. Low pop is bad when there are attacks that cannot adequately be defended against for lack of population. There is a minimum number of players required to defend (or attack, actually). One to cap/recap every CP, one to guard each as well. Here's another idea to fix rolling during any period of imbalance, and during low pop. Note that all the following ideas can have a setting that adjusts them like SD based on imbalance, and possibly based on either server pop, or even (more ideally) population within an AO/DO. Require that CPs be guarded, else they switch back to original (town) owner. During normal pop periods, this timer might be set quite long, like a CP has to be unoccupied for 20 minutes to start reverting (could either just revert, or it could act as if it is being capped). Yeah, this kills moling of large cities (which should never have been a thing, anyway, yipee). So you could cap a CP, then move to the next, but after X minutes (adjustable based on local pop/imbalance/etc) they swap back to the town owner. The more imbalance there is, the faster this happens, to the point where it might even happen faster than SD, so in a hugely overpop situation, a single defender might kill someone guarding a spawnable, and even if the defender trades, the CP will fall before the attacker can respawn from that linked depot. Again, all adjustable. Such a system might make it so that during low pop periods only small towns can be captured.