Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


tater last won the day on September 11

tater had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

224 Salty

About tater

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. Yeah, I realize it's likely more helpful for people who are new. I just tend to see it as cat herding. Not sure what I could think of that would be more broadly useful tool wise. It's a non-trivial problem.
  2. No, the defending force is NOT to blame. A town has multiple "Brigades" in it. By your reckoning, the number of players in game willing to stand around on the off chance someone attacks is all that matters. Standing around in case someone might attack is BORING, and it's stupid game design. There's a tool for doing boring, repetitive tasks---it's called a computer. I don't pay money to stare at nothing. The game pretends there is a BDE in a town, it doesn't ACT like there's a BDE in town. You can literally get shot walking out of your barracks as the very first person to (quickly) respond to EWS. Players should not be expected to deploy en masse to empty towns, which is what would have to happen for any meaningful defenses to be in place. The only way for the sort of reactive defenses we have to look like a real defense would be for some sort of persistent FMS system. Ie: someone goes and sorts out good ATG locations, spots for LMGs to cover, etc, then when players respond, they are able to spawn at those, already where any competent CO would have deployed those assets ahead of an attack (and of course attacks would have to come from, you know, the direction the enemy forces are, instead of where they come from now---360 degrees (except on coasts, obviously---of course, even then you'll get MSPs on the wrong side of town from the beach, because magic). That should still be a thing, and would help. The trouble is what if that 1 AO is a huge city, and the defenders don't have even enough people for 1 guard per CP? That huge city, regardless of how many BDEs worth of supply it has will easily fall. This is also a good idea. I would add that the AO should have to be placed such that the relative balance of forces is commensurate to the relative population. The OP side can select huge cities that during even pop times would be a nightmare of attrition. Multiple linked towns vs multiple BDEs and multi-AB Garrisons. Low pop? A handful of people could take the same town, with the only supply a single linked town.
  3. So you prefer the system now, where people sneakorz into town, and take it from arbitrarily large forces (a town could have 100 BDEs in it and it will lose to a depleted garrison if the attackers have 40 people and only a handful of defenders show up) who don't start defending until after it's too late (doesn't matter how many BDEs are in a town, what matters is how many PLAYERS are in town)? I'm not seeing the big changes WRT attrition, except on a larger scale (not each battle, but a sequence of battles then has attrition matter more for a given BDE), seriously think about it. The current attacks where you set up, have people flood in, moments after the AO is set (or they even enter town before that), and by the time the enemy spawns in in any numbers, it's already over (typical during OP)---this is not attrition for either side because the defenders simply don't have time to be attritted, the town falls as fast as the timers allow. The attackers then do the exact same thing with another town. If you want the sort of attacks we see every day right now---attack Garrisons with BDEs. The BDE will lose small numbers, the town will roll just as it does now. Over longer time scales, yeah, attrition would matter. This is part of the reason I suggest more BDEs (to go with smaller garrison forces). Smart HC would keep some in reserve. They can be moved forward to support attacks, or they can stop advances. Attrition on a battle scale will be more likely when BDEs face BDEs toe to toe---this is pretty much what we should want, right? Flanking (at the map scale) results in small, intense battles where the Garrison defense gets overrun, but the defense might be able to inflict damage to the enemy unit that has impact for a few hours. When large units slam into each other head on, it's more like what we have now in actual contested battles (vs rolls). When the sides are roughly even, nothing really changes from right now at all.
  4. I see the marks, and appreciate the effort... but then do whatever I was gonna do, anyway. It IS useful when I think I'm spawning at the AB or CP, and I end up in a field someplace because I didn't notice the MSP check when I spawned in (because someone said there was an ei in the bunker, or in the CP, and now I'm like a km away from where I expected to be). Useful if it's a FB bust, anyway, of course then I'm still just a rifle in the wrong place. A better use of UI changes (IMHO) would be to make it clear from the mission screen that a mission is an MSP. Right now all look the same, but some have check marks. You could also click a mission without a check mark, and they could set by the time you hit enter world. I want to NEVER spawn at an MSP unless I mean to. Whatever UI results in that outcome is what I want. I respond to bunker 911 calls on chat... and end up at some DFMS more times than I might like to admit.
  5. What % of people actually use the ML tools (either as MLs, or as grunts)?
  6. This is no solution, anyway, it's not like we even want someone with an account open on each side. Imbalance is part and parcel of the game. People tend to switch sides at the campaign level, generally, right? Or they don't switch sides at all. The "solution" is to steer the fights to the available player population. If the server odds are 2:1, try and set up 2:1 fights (based on Map level units---like you'd say the odds were 2:1 if 2 Divisions attacked 1 Division at some part of the front. Generally, vs any sort of defense, attackers like to have more forces than the defenders. The map tends to move based on side balance anyway (during the different times of day), so the Rats should embrace it. While I still like my ideas about limiting linked facility spawning, let's just look at the AO concept... 1. Substantially reduce Garrison size. Instead of being ~BDE size, it needs to be a fraction of that. A company at most, so like 150 men (count ATGs are 2 men each, and count tanks as 3 each, so maybe 2 platoons inf, plus a few tanks) 2. Possibly increase the number of BDEs, as they are going to take longer to resupply when attritted (see #3). Possibly change the time it takes to move them (ideally a time cost per link (town) they move through). 3. Substantially increase resupply time for both BDEs and Garrisons (I want those best tanks you lost 2-3 towns ago to matter, that sort of long resupply). The goal is for logistics to matter more, since breakout will be more of a thing, full BDEs will attrit and move though Garrisons much faster than now---but any damage done against the attackers will also matter more. Rolling a town at the cost of half of your SMGs, when they will not be replaced for a long time might not be desirable. 4. Base allowed AOs on the relative spawn lists between linked, attacking towns and the target. Not the BDE count, the actual spawn lists (total # of inf units, + total vehicles (maybe each vehicle counts as X inf). That way an attritted BDE counts for less. If you are OP, and need 2:1 odds, you might have to move a fresh BDE forward. The idea here is that you need at least the relative supply of your OP level. If you are OP 2:1 in players, you can attack with 10:1 supply if you like, just like the UP side can attack anywhere they like, even though it won't likely work out. If you were 2:1 you could NOT attack 1 BDE with 1 BDE, though, since you can possibly spawn at least 2X as many people as the players in the defensive BDE. Note that if the sides are close to even, the game is identical to what it is now AO wise. 5. Eliminate spawn delay. How would something like this look in practice? Perhaps (there's been talk of a new UI anyway) the UI for HC peeps could show any town that is ALLOWED to be AOed (for both sides) as a new color (one for Axis, one color for Allied). This makes AO selection easy, and the HC can see how it changes via moving BDEs to the front, when the linked potential target town changes color, you're good to go. Note that the OP side can likely attack Garrison towns pretty much at will, you could be ridiculously OP, and if a Garrison is only 33% of a BDE, then 1 BDE (town also has a Gar) vs a Garrison is ~4:1 odds---so as long as your OP level is under or equal to 4:1, you are allowed to place the AO. So the OP side can break out in multiple AOs, since they have the pop to do that. Yeah, the UP side will get rolled, just like now, what have I added? The defensive players in those hopeless battles can do real damage, since resupply is much longer. The more important units you knock out, the fewer they have at the next town. If they hit a town with a BDE, the attackers might be in trouble, and since the AO placement rules require they attack where they are locally OP, if they hit an area fortified with BDEs, and they have only a few attritted BDEs, they might not be allowed to advance (place an AO there) until they move fresh units to the front (they've outrun their logistics). Clearly they can then just go around, and pick AOs on the flanks that are vs soft targets (garrisons). This allows complex "map level" play, and actually allows "blitzkrieg" to be a thing. When the side that had been advancing goes under pop, then they are consolidating, and moving up fresh troops. The other side can then counterattack for a while. Where sides decide to stack BDEs and eliminate possible attacks might be strategically very interesting (likely places with lots of links...). Everyone can play, no SD, and the side getting rolled can at least feel like their fight to the death matters. Nothing else up to this point has worked, and we ALL hate SD... it's worth trying something novel. I thought this old comment was worth adding, and it's true. The goal is for people to have fights. People getting rolled is no fun, we've all been there. Spawn in, and even if you kill a couple, "winning" means booting the attacker's AO if you are on the side getting rolled, anything short of that feels like losing all the time. The above system I suggest would result in many of these fights (we have many of these anyway, remember!), but the longer resupply, etc, would mean that you could fight a Garrison vs attacking BDEs, and you KNOW you will lose, just as I know we'll lose when 3-4 defenders spawn into a town already crawling with ei, but you'll also know that they will either advance with fewer forces than you were just attacked with, or if they stick around, the town has a weak BDE in it. Your damage to them should matter more. When the UP side knows that they'll lose this town, then the next, and all with a zillion units in supply... what's the point?
  7. That might help, but it depends on the number of FTP people, how effective they actually are, etc. I think the AO rule change really does have a good shot at making things feel the best in game. One thing I think we all know is true---the game is better at higher player densities. During a lower pop period, it would generally be best for all the players on both sides to be in one AO (gotta have critical mass of players). If you are just at that point where there is a minimal effective defense (guard all the CPs, plus some recappers and maybe extra units (a tank or 2, and maybe even an aircraft)), then at least when the enemy attacks at 4:1 it feels less unfair and "rolled again" when you know that they were attacking you with 4X the supply. Also, it seems like you could immunize certain parts of the front from low-pop rolling by stacking defenses on them.
  8. With the current Allied OP (not huge most of the time when I'm on based on the SD), I was in a few attacks where we rolled the Germans... and while I participated, it was just stupid. We were basically all over town before there was any response. The idea of maneuver warfare and breakthroughs is a good one, but the game is not really built for this, particularly with the giant "garrison" paradigm. I generally think the defenders should always have their best shot---via fighting the attack at the very least just outside of town. For the ability to break through---instead of relying on the sneaky attacks we always see now where defenders spawn often into a town that is already controlled by the enemy, even if the enemy has not "captured" the CPs, etc because the tables aren't hot---what we need are MUCH SMALLER Garrison forces. Give the small force it's best shot at defense, but it runs out of supply quickly. This makes the "Map" level more important (where you put Brigades), and allows both kinds of play---large "fixed piece" battles, and the sort of Blitzkrieg that people complain that I am trying to kill via having realistic defenses.
  9. PUNT (my last post got buried by someone's credit card post spamming the recently replied frame on the right).
  10. Gonna harp on this once again. Local imbalance is the only imbalance that matters, and sometimes local imbalance is what SHOULD happen, and sometimes it is a game flaw. When 3 linked towns attack an enemy town, and if all the towns have the same supply (each has the same number of Brigades and Garrisons), then the attackers SHOULD possibly have 3:1 odds. If a single town with a Garrison only attacks a large town/city with 4X the supply (say 2 ABs and 2 BDEs), then the attackers in this case should be attacking 1 vs 4 odds in population. Right now, if one side was OP by 4:1, they could do exactly the opposite, and attack at 4:1 odds, even with supply that was 4:1 against them---that is broken. In the game now, the relative population depends entirely on what AOs players decide to join, and this is of course largely driven by global player population on one side vs another. There are various ways to address this issue, and I have expounded on them before. I'll bullet point a few: 1. Limit spawning from any linked facility/object (depots and mobile spawns) when the local population exceeds the maximum operational odds (Attacking supply vs defending supply). This would be instead of any spawn delay, so there's zero SD in this concept. Everyone can respawn at will, but WHERE is controlled, if your side is OP in a given AO/DO, you can only spawn from the place your Garrison/BDE is based (for the attacker, the attacking town/FB). 2. Change the AO placement rules such that the global imbalance sets what AOs are allowed. Ie: If one side has 40 players on, and the other side has 20, the higher pop side can only set AOs where the local supply is 2:1 vs the defenders. So when supply is identical in every town (as an example), they can only set AOs where 2 towns or more link the target. Ie: If the Germans were 2:1, they could attack Tienen if they had St. Tru and Jodo, but they would not be allowed to AO Aarshot if they only owned Diest right now. This way of doing it might be easier to code (it's just AO rules). No SD, either. The attacked is SUPPOSED to have 2:1 odds, after all. Both could happen at the same time in some fashion as well, though it seems like the second might be one to try first, it might solve things all by itself. What it's doing is acknowledging the existing imbalance, and driving the FIGHTS such that the imbalance is actually FAIR. What sucks in game is losing a huge city during low pop with pop imbalance, because in "normal" play with a good server pop, those battles are huge things that often come down to supply/attrition. If there's a low pop period with 6:1 odds (tiny numbers of actual players, that could be 12 vs 2, lol), then the attackers would be stuck finding an AO where maybe 3 towns all with Garrisons and a BDE attack a town with just a Garrison. If that doesn't exist, they can't set an AO. The low pop side, OTOH, can AO anything they like, though they just have to eat the odds. Yeah, that OP side gets stuck on defense even though they are OP---but that's the sort of imbalance that is only likely to happen with very, very low population, like the example of 12 vs 2. The reality is that WW2OL has a minimum number of players on a side for it to function at all as a game. My feeling is that that minimum number is to take the smallest town in game, and count the capturable facilities. Add 1-2 to that, and that's the minimum number of players. 6-8? Killing most all AO setting when one side has under 6 people seems entirely reasonable---or a side that routinely has an imbalance that looks like this could drive their play before that tz to set up possible AOs with the right level of imbalance. That is, you pile a few BDEs on the front such that you have an AO that can work at huge odds in your favor. If that can't happen, the OP, low pop side can always bust FBs.
  11. I only have one account, and my ping is great, and I bet the other night Axis guys were complaining about me. I went into the SAB bunker, there was a guy behind the crate downstairs---who I assumed was the guy who killed me when I left the bunker---I shot him with my rifle (I was prepared to shoot someone when I went into view there). I then ran right into the radio room, assuming it was empty (stupid). There were TWO guys in there, and I shot both of them, having to reload the bolt rifle in between, lol. No nade, no smoke. One or both were in map mode, presumably.
  12. This has always been odd to me---the infantry damage model. I get the impression from playing that shot placement is far more important on tanks than people. Aside from how awful it is that people clip though walls, it is odd that one shot in the toe is instant death, yet other times I get peppered with SMG fire, and while wounded, even really badly, I don't die.
  13. Except "rebuilding" a gun emplacement is more often than not "remanning" a gun emplacement (unless it was actually spiked). I'd imagine more guns were temporarily disabled via small arms fire, bomb splinters, etc, byt killing or wounding the gun crews. Alternately, by driving the crews to cover (say a nearby slit trench for AAA emplacements). I'd much rather see that abstracted somehow. Ie: Have the crews disappear to show the gun crews dead or suppressed, then they reappear. Taking the guns out in a way that requires a "rebuild" might require a charge, or similar damage capable of destroying the actual gun.
  14. What I hate about guarding is being in the CP. Trapped in this tiny space, with incredibly limited FOV. On attack at least they have to come for you, it's a bit bizarre that defenders have to clear the building, but attackers don't. The progress bar is extremely counterintuitive, BTW. I was in a CP the other day that we owned, and I thought I was resetting it after killing a couple ei, and there was an ei downstairs and they capped it. I swear it was doing what it usually does, too. Anyway, guarding would still be a thing with open CPs, but the guarding would be done from a wider area, allowing the CP defenders (in the case of CPs the attacking side are also "defenders" of the CPs they have capped!) to pick their ground to control the area.
  15. @OLDZEKE I'm not talking about invisible shooters, I'm confident that 99.999999% of the time it's just someone I didn't see that kills me in those cases. What gets me to call "BS" in the chat is when I shoot someone 4 times as they come into the CP (blood splash on wall, etc), then they shoot me once, then we both die (confirmed by AAR). Happens all the time. My ping is around 50, FWIW (new, RT ping). I don't think there's anything that can be done about it, it's physics (propagation time of data in this case), I think it's something we all just have to live with. Hence my suggestions about altering the capture paradigm so that this "worst WW2OL" gameplay is not also "the only WW2OL gameplay that is required." Guarding is awful. We have this large game world, and the only thing required to win is the willingness to stare at a wall. One side could agree as a group to focus on CPs, and stay and guard with at least 1, ideally 2 people, and they'd roll the map---no other units needed except the trucks to set FMSes. It's so very awful, though. I'd really like to see even a single CP someplace changed to some sort of open space with low cover as a test. Guarding it becomes overlooking it. Defenders in the open space can shoot in all directions.