Chaoswzkd

Registered Users
  • Content count

    438
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

126 Salty

About Chaoswzkd

  • Rank
    Advance Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Axis
  • Preferred Branch
    Army
  • Preferred Unit
    Anti Air Gun
  1. One very large issue with this is that it'll invite even more concerns over supply numbers. We see a plethora of "Just how many X do they have!?" complaints in side chats and voice chats when we can see the flags, and I'd guess it'd only get worse.
  2. The difference is that WWIIOL renders that entire space. It's not filled in, but it's there. You can travel to and walk there. The engine can, and does, handle it. All that's missing is populating the space. That's very different from how other MMOs are set up.
  3. While it might miss the mark in terms of roleplaying ability, there were few truly joint battles in WW2. There were a lot of joint operations of course, but different militaries had different operational areas for a given joint operation. The British and Canadians were a part of Overlord, but did not land at Utah, Omaha, or Pointe du Hoc, nor did the Americans glide into Pegasus Bridge. Having a mixed Allied roster would probably be a headache for balance, and would have to have less supply for a given country than any dedicated flag, so that roleplaying ability would go out the door much faster once supply was run down. Making it truly generic (spawn "rifleman", and depending on your persona you get a specific country's rifleman) is also an issue because there is no UK or FR automatic rifleman, no US LMG, no UK equivalent to the M10 or S76, no US/FR equivalent to the CS tanks or Churchills, etc. At this time, anyway. It might be possible once each side has mirrored supply, but that may not be fully possible given CRS doesn't want to introduce fantasy/blueprint-only weapons.
  4. I wasn't commenting on whether or not it over- or underperforms; I was just trying to clarify your position, which you haven't clarified. If you think there is an equipment item that underperforms, it should just be removed from the game? As has been repeatedly stated, the only activated "garrison" supply will be for Frontline towns (adjacent to enemy towns), Backline towns (adjacent to Frontline towns and no enemy towns), and Reserve towns (has an AF or Dock). Disagree, but allowing for it in the future might be possible if it doesn't look like it's working. If this is true, and I'm not saying it isn't because I wasn't around before TOEs, then why aren't squads doing any overstocking today? They absolutely can. You went on a pretty big tangent against ratios and such if it's not such a big deal. I have read what you've been saying about allowing mixed faction overstocking. You have made your point: not being able to do it is a disadvantage for Allies. I've addressed it: not feasible in any reasonable time frame to fix the larger issues plaguing the game, not even if we started with that goal in mind in the first place.
  5. Yes, that's fine. Again, if we were pursuing that, we'd still be months and months and months away from accomplishing that, as we'd have to completely rip out supply and re-write it from the ground up. So you advocate for the removal of content from the game when said content underperforms? Even if the files still exist, if the players can't use it it doesn't matter. The only reason why we want to enforce some kind of ratio is because we don't want Allied HC (and possibly Axis HC in the future) remove content from the game. If Allied HC wants to not have BEF on the front, they can do that. Their frontline can be US/FR, and their backline can be BEF. That'll be a disadvantage since they can't overstock between the backline and frontline, but it's doable. Then the frontline shifts forward or back and they'd have to monkey around with town ownership. I'm not sure why you're making such a huge deal about it, as if the success or failure of 1.36 relies on the Allies being able to not have BEF on the map, when currently in the game you already always have BEF. Those divisions don't disappear unless one or two or whatever do when the US roll in. Just like how there is always going to be BEF today, there is always going to be BEF in the future. There'll actually likely be *less* BEF in the future compared to today; the ratios we are thinking of using should offer flexible ranges, not just 50-50 or 33-33-33 splits.
  6. Currently live today you do not have to go back and change your persona. Just right click on a town and select "Join Brigade" and then select whatever brigade you want to hop into. This list will be expanded to include Garrisons with 1.36. The rest of what you suggest represents a major change in how supply is handled that is not feasible at this time.
  7. There is a cap on overstocking of equipment based on a percentage of base supply limits, and that cap is adjustable.
  8. @stankyus The name "garrison" is ultimately my fault, and I apologize for the misnomer. Abstractly, the Town-Based Supply elements represent committed frontline forces. Think of divisions with their units spread along a front. They do not represent a historically-accurate "garrison" of forces by any means. Brigades (the movable variety) represent un-committed forces that can be shuffled along the front. I used the word "garrison" because these are static forces associated with specific towns, and modelling said static forces to visually represent a division-or-higher being spread along a front and moving as the front moves was considered far too much of a headache. The goal of stopping soft-caps is an important but inferior goal to reducing the absolute requirement of a highly-active, highly-competent cadre of volunteers who are forced to play desk jockey shuffling flags around 24/7 in order for either side in the game to have fun and be able to actually play. That is why "garrisons" are not small little forces specifically for defense and are instead an abstraction of committed frontline forces with much more significant supply than one might think of when one hears the term "garrison".
  9. If you're asking if Axis can also overstock, the answer is yes. It seems to have escaped the entire playerbase once TOEs went out, but you can still overstock supply. Like, today, live, in the game. It's just that no one does it. We're just spotlighting the possibilities with Hybrid Supply. Making overstock generic and resolving the associated stats and persona issues is likely another 6 months of development, and that might be too optimistic given how many man-hours the volunteer devs can donate to the cause. It's a preposterously tangled mess that would involve completely re-writing the entire way the game handles supply. 1.36 has taken forever itself, and it avoids making any major changes to the way supply is handled in the game. If we started out with that goal in mind 1.36 still wouldn't be ready this year, because we'd still be exploring and trying to figure out how the supply works. It is simply not feasible (nor was it feasible prior) on any reasonable timetable, especially since the community has been at CRS's throat about 1.36 for months and months now. Yes, not being able to despawn a BEF soldier in a French town and have that BEF soldier stay there is a disadvantage compared to Axis who doesn't have to worry about it. That's why Allied HC should endeavor to keep sane groupings of same-country-owned towns along the front. We've also taken into consideration the SYSTEM AOs to ensure that they can't screw things up. We're doing as much as we can to mitigate any disadvantage the Allies have without literally ripping away one of the largest components of the game and starting from scratch. It's not that you're not stressing it enough, or that we're discounting the issue as minor, it's that the resolution of said issue is not feasible at this time.
  10. 1. No information about hard limits on those kinds of things has been released publicly. 2. The fact that you can't overstock any equipment that way, so the Allies will be willfully shooting themselves in the foot to do so. What's to stop them from doing that today with a mix of brigades getting all tangled up? There are range limits, but those are generous enough to have the exact distribution you lay out. If you're not upset about it today, I don't see how you can be upset about it going forward. 3. Demand by the playerbase might increase because they want to see a different mix-up of supply in a given area and only HC would be able to do that, but the absolute requirement to have it will be entirely eliminated. 4. Demand for 24/7 HC will absolutely decrease because they will no longer be required in order to play the game. Overall, what you're going to see is the current "WE NEED HC ON IN ORDER TO PLAY!!! NO HC ON, WE'RE LOSING! BETTER LOG OFF!" to "WE NEED HC TO GET A SLIGHT LEG UP ON THE ENEMY! NO HC ON, WE CAN MANAGE BUT WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL!". HC will still have an ability to affect the strategic layer and thus local gameplay, and so players will always demand HC in order to get every advantage possible.
  11. That is a UI issue. New UI is in progress. There have been some very early concept art posts about it I believe.
  12. All I can ask is that you wait to actually experience it and see before you convince yourself it'll be all your worst fears realized. Maybe you're right, but maybe you're wrong. If there are issues, we'll move to fix. Keep in mind this will coincide with trying to build HC back up, and if that campaign is successful it's definitely possible that garrisons vs brigades could see a shift in power down the line, or even sooner if the initial design really isn't working for the playerbase. Just hold your final thoughts on it until it's in your hands to play with, please, and keep in mind that no one wants to see WWIIOL succeed more than CRS and especially the volunteers (like myself) that spend what little free time they can scrounge together to work on it out of love for the game.
  13. Yes, you are wrong about it. It's not going to be WW1 Online by any means. Garrisons will be attritable. There won't be doom stacks of supply like we see currently with whole divisions slugging it out with other divisions. There will be frontline supply, and backline supply to use for reinforcements and overstock. There will be smaller brigades that HC can use to supplement attacks and defenses. If anything you should be seeing less pound-your-head-against-a-wall gameplay than we have seen with 2-4 brigades fighting 2-4 brigades. Each town will be a battle, but they won't be slogfests unless players spend time manually driving and dumping supply in their respective garrisons to hold or press the line. The objective isn't to slow down the campaign, the objective is to eliminate the need for an increasingly absent/burnt-out HC to play 24/7 desk jockey shuffling flags around for the game to be playable, to eliminate the risk of no HC presence on one side for an hour or two allowing the other side to make massive cuts with softcaps, to eliminate softcap gameplay itself, etc. Cuts and surrenders will still be a thing, but attackers will have to fight for it, and defenders will have every real opportunity to stop it. Yes, it will slow down a campaign as a side effect of this, but the goal is to increase the amount of action the players experience, lessen the burden on HC, ensure players can always actually play, etc. Those are all real issues in the game right now today that will be solved with Hybrid Supply.
  14. Yes, the strategic layer of the game is extremely important, which is why brigade supply will remain, and overstock's importance is being highlighted and showcased, garrison supply being available also putting more control in squads' hands to use to run their own ops, etc. Just because Brigade supply won't be the driving force doesn't mean the strategic layer is somehow dying. It's not like CRS isn't 12000% aware of the only reasons it has any paying customers at all when there are a plethora of modern WW2 FPS competitors out there. It's a unique game, a unique experience, a unique community. Keeping that strong and making it stronger is absolutely what CRS is focusing on. Fixing some of the issues in the game by implementing Hybrid Supply is intended to do just that.
  15. Yes, "supplemental supply". As in "the brigade supply will supplement garrison supply". That's also an earlier part of the Q&A which I already quoted, and later entries in the Q&A clarify this, which I have also quoted. Whoever said they were told the supply of garrisons would be less was ill-informed because this decision was made almost from the get-go.