HATCH

CORNERED RAT
  • Content count

    278
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

HATCH last won the day on December 19 2017

HATCH had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

108 Salty

4 Followers

About HATCH

  • Rank
    Production Lead
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    DFW, Texas
  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Air Force
  • Preferred Unit
    Freighter
  1. Dunkirk doesn't exist in the game unless you guys make it happen. Exactly the kind of open minded thinking we are counting on from you guys.
  2. Exactly. We are going to be in no rush and work it out as best we can with Y'all here first, then we can phase it in if not at first in campaign then possibly over Intermission, but definitely tweak as needed to make it as globally accepted as possible. I'm sure we wont please everyone, historians and red-vs-blue balancers alike, but if they are both grudgingly ok with and evenly disgruntled after it all, we probably got it about right. (that last parts a joke for those of you that took it seriously)
  3. Well, I guess you better be there participating in the planning once we publish the historical baselines and start the discussion...
  4. You would be surprised at how equal both the budget and production numbers remain between the active participants between US, Brit, and German forces throughout the war. So for the most part I don't think we'll have to worry about that till later tiers. But by keeping the budgets and costs the same or an average overall budget and equipment costs throughout all tiers, there are no real shortage other than that caused by RDP effects. With the French we have to extrapolate because in YOUR war, the French do not have to capitulate. We want to stick to debut dates as much as possible as that mimics the personality of the forces for all combatants. I think the biggest difference will have to be in the obsolescent regime where we'll probably have to negate or refund the effect of some obsolescent machinery on the budget to some degree because to take them out kills the lower rank and DLC players, but to leave them in in at full strength and counting against the budget could negatively harm the purchasing of newer equipment.
  5. I agree. At one time you had a fully functioning HC from brigade on up that could respond even without moveable flags. We did it with external web based AHC and GHC player managed command structures. But sometime after I left, all the hard work Gryf and I put into designing and filling the "Order of Battles" that pretty much managed themselves, got undercut by artificially limiting AO's instead of giving one each to every Bde/KG, or at least a Division, which made any HC position outside of that AO useless. And then instead of fixing it, the battles and squads were continually throttled further, which in my opinion was a large part of the catalyst that ran off the squads, and let the HC's atrophy from the ever-present, vibrant and responsive, command lines able to move as needed in charge of their own fights, to the current small group of map coordinators for each side, TOO responsible as single individuals to everyone, and having no choice but forcing everyone to one spot with so few AO's. To little operational and strategic mobility. Too much responsibility in too few players hands, forcing too much of the fighting in too few areas. In my view, that is the anathema to what WWIIOL was ever supposed to be. Its supposed to be a wide open map. Its supposed to be usable in a myriad of different ways so that the possibilities of spearheads, flanking maneuvers, surrounding, and tactical support maneuvers like Patton's push to Bastogne were all possible. That made it so that no battle ever had to be the same. I think we have to be VERY careful about purposefully pushing or funneling battles into single small areas. That is no different than any of the "shoebox" games that we wanted to get away from in the first place, and that we STILL have to compete against today, always with WAY better graphics. Why the heck do we want to implement the same thoughtless small box rambo play that can be found in any of them when we are the only option to date that can break a battle out over hundreds of kilometers for thousands of people at the same time and on the same map? Anyways, that's my position. And while I think the current state of the HC (no offense to the great guys currently in it, but see old HC structures and operations here: GHC ArFr BEF. Hopefully you'll get your chance and tools to operate as before) and some could argue player population, mandates 1.36, we are in-effect, starting over closer to the "open" battlefield we had before. I think that 1.36 is the opportunity for re-growth all the way around. While we can work at coding "balance" we should never code in too many automatic restrictions or place the entire ORBAT for either side under too few individuals that the rest of the playerbase (by vote of their respective AHC/GHC Squad/Bde/KG/Division/Corp/Army representatives) didn't nominate and vote on themselves, and on the outside chance is unavailable, cannot manage "on the fly" themselves. If as I believe, this will over time by word of mouth and good promotion, entice those back that relish the freedom of a more open battlefield and the freedom to move around that naturally and organically promoted squad growth and the natural leaders that we filled the HC's with back then when the map was wholly open, enable us rebuild it all again. We'll see. Alongside the ongoing game improvements, and not ignoring the engine and graphical improvements we all wish for and will implement as more player support allows, (or possibly some unforeseen deal with another more modern engine provider that might accelerate that part of the equation), I am optimistic. Like Rome, not "built in a day" but hopeful long term outlook. #WARGAMING-INDEED!
  6. Agree. As soon as everything dies properly, that's where we go next... Going to have to disagree with you there... Technically that was the same for the P39's. Hard to find Free French P39 in Europe as well... Interesting situation as A) its not easy to find ANY American P-40s actually IN northern Europe, and B,) it IS near the end of the P-40 service life in the European/Mediterranean Theater. However, I think we are relatively safe with these markings as C) the 325th, along with the 33rd, 57th, 79th all participated in the Salerno operation. That's considered ETO, and therefore close enough to Europe for me. As well, after transitioning from P40's to P47's and later P51's, they moved to Italy and flew bomber escort missions to Regensburg, Berlin, Vienna, and hit other targets such as airfields, marshaling yards, and communications targets in France, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia. Maybe they never flew their P40's farther north than Italy, but the squadron itself ranged all over Europe. So if we can give the French 322's and Bell 14a's that they never actually received, I think we're safe with allowing a squadron that DID range all over Europe to do so with a plane that they were transitioning out of during the Italian campaign. If the Allies had progressed faster on that Southern front before the P38's and P-47's were available, who's to say the 325th might have had to hang onto those P40's a little bit longer... So we're going stick with what we have
  7. Exactly. IF we adhere to 100% historical orders of battle. That is why we will be working with you guys to determine where we are going to end up along the spectrum of play balance vs the actual historical tactical identity of the British, French, and US armies. Sure to be a passionate and interesting discussion.
  8. Almost... Both the Brit and Germans Inf Bdes start historically with 600 riflemen... But the Germans ALSO have 50 SMG while the Brits have none. Soooo, working within the Brits budget, they could trade 167 rifles for 50 Thompsons to bring parity to the Germans SMG's at start, but then they would be down 167 rifles comparatively... But on the other side of the equation, the German Inf Bde doesn't have any grenadiers till 1st quarter of 1942. That's just the way it was... Now if the weapons were developed, it's easy enough to trade an excess of one thing for the other. If the weapon hasn't even been developed yet for that side we start getting into history warping territory in the name of balance. Something we prefer not to do as much as humanly possible. This is the point of the upcoming discussion, to stick as closely within the context of historical timelines, weapon ratios, and comparative overall budgets, but keep enough parity so that while different tactics might need to be employed for one side or the other during certain periods, everyone still feels capable of holding their own.
  9. So nobody is poking about Fort Rommel yet eh? Bummer...
  10. Entire TOE structure for ALL tiers under review. We have historical budget based baseline for all combatants equipment and for all branches that we will be presenting to you, the community, in the near future to determine just where on the historical scale we actually want to be with respect to gameplay and balance numbers in coordination with population. etc. Don't worry, we are all pretty hardcore as far as equipment debut times, but in context of historical numbers, if we choose to go 100% by the numbers, an infantry brigade/garrison might end up with 600 rifles, no armor (only a few CS tanks) and only either 50 or 20 SMG's. For comparison, you only get like 200 rifles today... Also, just focusing on debut dates and historical numbers puts historical unbalances in play with various equipment that tends to see-saw back and forth between allied and axis throughout the war as they debuted new weapons and strategies and the other side countered. Example, Brits Infantry Bde starts with 0, nada, SMG's at all, then gets only 20 the last half of 1940 (tier1.5) until they get 40 by 2nd half of 1941(tier 2.5), while the axis Infantry Bde starts with 50 at the get go... So maybe you trade 167 of the 600 rifles for 50 SMG's to start with smg parity... I think you get the drift of working within overall budget... Not saying that isn't as it should be, but but we want to bring these historical numbers to you guys, talk them over, and come to a reasonable consensus between historic and gameplay that everyone can sign off on as a new budget based baseline for all forces. Stay tuned. Will hopefully be presenting this to you within the next couple of weeks.
  11. That's what seemed to have worked out the best last time... More active squads, more player participation, teamwork, communication, and squad recruiting. Just seemed to generate a LOT more cohesive and organized community alltogether. And the community then seemed to work with the HC's much better without the forced "firehose nozzles" of HC managed AO's and Flags. Most robust the community has ever been, and I think it had more to do with the then HC framework with local Division and Brigade/KG leadership that gave the squads in the Brigades/KG's ownership of their own sectors on the map rather than an OIC running around on each side trying to manage an entire map themselves with AO and flags (wth?), AND the great communications between HC, Squads, and the general pop that existed at the time. Official Disclaimer: What I said has nothing to do with 1.36 other than my hope that 1.36 and future dev will be able to revive some of the Esprit de Corps and HC teamwork we once had before the current AO and Flag system was introduced to the game. So far, what I have heard of 1.36 seems to be a good start. AO's and Flags are a GREAT idea for organized groups of players to use if done properly, but I "feel" the current iteration is arguably a great demonstration of terribly bad execution. We have to do better. Just my $.02.
  12. It isn't really about "capturing the radio" either, but rather eliminating enough of the enemy defending that "space/facility/area" to give you the unmolested time to take and hold it long enough to trigger it's ownership. I just tend to think that those kinds of results should fall more into the tactics of how a player uses the avatar, rather than because of some artificial advantages inherent in the the attributes of the avatar itself, other than the minimal differences in classes (like the difference SEALS/SForces would show in practice as compared to "standard" troops) like I mentioned before.
  13. I myself wouldnt be in favor of "buffing" one type of troop over another type of troop outside of small things that can be proven historically like better stamina/h2h combat/aiming/reloading/ etc due to better training. So making them faster cappers "just because", I wouldn't if just my call. But one thing I would think would be arguably doable, would be the lowering of their EWS and AI "draw" to represent their stealth capabilities a little better. Jmho.
  14. Where is the "Two Thumbs Up!" emoticon?