HATCH

CORNERED RAT
  • Content count

    412
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by HATCH

  1. And a short followup... The truck/FMS - para/FRU proposal is only about group supported/limited FMS's and paratrooper FRU's that are "owned" by the riders in each vehicle. So you couldn't just plop one down and spawn an adhoc army out of it, you would be limited by the capacity for each vehicle (20-30 each truck/plane respectively?). So it would pay to assault with as many people as possible in more than one truck, and possibly with some armor and air to help scout/spot/defend for the multiple truck assault group. You cant place an FMS by yourself, and you cant limit the folks that hitch a ride on your truck to just your squad, so we get some squad expansion and vet/newbie "lone wolf" inclusion/integration in ALL FMS spawning operations. Again, that brief experience/communication period (while enroute) is the catalyst for the inclusion and introductions that we do not support/foster with the current adhoc forward mobile spawning system. And I hope everyone can appreciate that it only affects mobile PPO's. If you aren't trying to advance across open terrain and set an FMS or do a para drop it's no different than CP spawning today. If your using a CP facility to spawn (like on defense) or once you captured a facility in the enemies CP, (as you would on offense) the truck-FMS/plane-FRU groups would basically end until the next truck/transport runs because everyone would be facility spawning like they already do now unless we change that paradigm somehow as well. Just my $0.02...
  2. I'm stepping out on a limb here, but would like to share with y'all my thoughts on the subject and what I have proposed to address the situation. First and foremost, just because this is what I'd like to see, doesn't mean its going to happen. I'm just one member of a pretty large team here. So if you don't approve, don't fret... although if it did come to fruition, you'd probably see a lot more of me. Part of made WWIIOL so special (at least to me) was lost when trucks became nothing more than indie mobile spawn planters that anyone could spawn from with no investment or teamwork... Adhoc, spawn, rambo in, die, rinse-repeat, is prevalent everywhere else with a lot better graphics. Second, this does nothing to address the difficulty squads have with the current AO/Flag/TOE/HC system and I think some part of the garrison system needs to be re-designed where either squads or preferably, groups of squads can set their own AO's (btw, I believe some variation of this is being planned). Third, It should be known that I am NOT a huge proponent of the mobile spawn in its past and present iterations (to put it mildly)... 1) Because I hate the ability for any single player to be able to plop an army on anyone's front (or worse) back door all willy-nilly with no requirement or structure, 2) Because it doesn't foster teamwork or the growth and/or natural integration of squads with indie vets or green tags (with the available squads or each other) with any consistent proximity based communication, and 3) Because it doesn't provide a dynamic to slow the veterans down enough to where they have a short but still entertaining period of time to talk as a group about whatever, target, plans, weather, whatever they intend to happen when they spawn, whatever... Oh, and last but not least, Fourth, this is assuming the engine sounds and coasting abilities for the trucks have been addressed. Those of you that have never ridden into the next attack with a bunch of other guys on a truck or on the back of a tank in a convoy might not "grock" where I'm coming from, but if you ever do, you will. SO the following is a part of the discussion I have been sharing with the team every chance I get... As far as the regular FMS. I STILL think we need to rework how those are used and deployed. I wrote a new proposal for such that limited them to only being available to the group of guys that rode the truck that sets them (minimum of at least 2, driver and rider but better driver+3 with current game pop? Max 20? 30?). In my opinion, if this HC operable FRU is coming, I think it would be an interesting game play addition to the truck grouped FMS operations in that proposal. In other words. you get as many as you can to join you on the truck to go be able to set and utilize the truck spawned FMS, but make sure you have an HC along for the ride if you want an infantry based "adhoc" FRU in the near vicinity usable by everyone to help protect it... The new "Group Based" FMS proposal below... (In reply to proposal spawning "un-attached" paras in flight) Not in favor. The more and more we "mobile spawn" everything in it's current form, the more we cheapen the investment and organization of the teamwork and camaraderie developed in the planning and running of the airborne operations. Same as with not utilizing the trucks anymore as objects to coalesce troops around. I firmly believe this is a huge detriment to the game that fosters individual "Rambo" charge, die, repeat style play, rather than being "stuck" together for a short period of time in a truck or a plane en-route to the target area where you have a few minutes to bond with the others with you, listening/reading the pratter between the troops that organized it, and the attack discussions regarding what everyone is going to do when they get there. THIS I believe is something that the current mobile spawning paradigm has killed off to our detriment. I realize the weakness of this gameplay requirement is that the casualties that are lost en-route and once "deployed" at target are now separated from their truck or plane group while the others are still alive and active in the battle. I think we can find a good compromise here and I would like to propose an alternative that can sort of meet in the middle giving us the best part of getting to the mission objective as a group, as well as keep the group together for some time as they begin to take casualties once deployed. I propose that we use the trucks and the transport planes to create groups of players on the fly, and then the driver/pilot and those players that "hitched the ride" are authorized to utilize the FMS/FRU/etc that that vehicle places as long as they are active. Since transport planes don't place mobile spawn points, I would either allow all the "troops" that initially joined that transport plane to respawn and jump again as long as that AC was over the target, OR, better yet, tie an FRU to whoever is leading the jump (mission leader?) that will activate at the point he hits the ground that the pilot and all the guys on that plane could respawn from, only as airborne, for the lifetime (to be determined) of that FRU. When the FMS or FRU is destroyed, ALL the players attached to that vehicle/FMS/FRU go back to either the same place/spawnpoint of the vehicle where they started the mission (or the closest available alternative) and get a pop-up notice that their "mission/group"? spawn point has been destroyed and the option to either stay in the same group that they created upon joining the first truck/plane to do it again, or they can give up that reservation leaving the group to go '"do their own thing" somewhere else (including spawning another truck/plane to start the formation of another group). If they elect to stay with the group, they can wait for the mission leader (or someone else in the group?) to spawn another truck/plane which will auto launch that group on the same platform (truck/plane) and away they go to do it again. I would allow more people to join that "team" on the fly (up to a logical allowance, don't need 1000 guys all using the same truck) but the FMS/FRU availability would have to be "locked" to the the guys associated with the truck/plane if not upon joining the vehicle outright allowing for anyone killed enroute to spawn at FMS/FRU with the rest of the group as soon as it is set, up to at least at the point of FMS/FRU deployment. 1) It promotes team and squad building by the natural grouping of players both squad and individual alike 2) It serves as a catalyst for natural leaders to start leading 3) It gets the trucks back into use by groups rather than individuals, minimizing the un-managed/un-organized practice of individual people setting multiple mobile spawns by/for themselves, many that no one knows who put it there, who's using it, or the plan (if any) associated with it 4) It would keep the groups together at the target by utilization of the FMS/FRU for that group associated with the vehicle that delivered it 5) It would allow the groups to stick together (even increase in size on subsequent trips) on multiple missions (truck runs) if they so choose 6) It kills the problem with people spawning out in the middle of nowhere (at least with the mobile spawns) because everyone attached to/on that truck/plane FMS/FRU would know exactly why and whose using that spawn point 7) Its a GREAT mechanism to build an inclusive "group" chat channel around for text OR voice when we get around implementing that. Not exclusive to squad members, but to all that joined that truck or plane. Would work with proximity chat right now 8) More trucks on the ground and transport planes in the air, more people hunting them on the ground and in the air 9) With trucks consistently making trips back to the battlefront from safer places to the rear, (FB's or other depots) should bring more fighting out of the cities into the countryside. 10) Brings back the camaraderie we've lost by fostering communication between the players riding on those vehicles 11) Helps to get newbies up to speed and integrated into the playerbase through that group contact 12) Brings back some of those shared "wwiiol moments" when buzzed by low flying AC, near misses, etc, that we'd all talk excitedly about during the ride
  3. What part of the DM are we referring to specifically?
  4. First we have to get the Garrisons in so that groups of players are not dependent on HC's to be able to fight where they need/want to. That IS 1.36. There will still be a Division/HQ or two on each side that operate as they do now to supplement the Garrisons and give the HC's as they are now something to do. The opening up of the map this way will hopefully ease frustrations enough where groups of folks can overstock Garrisons and attack like they used to back before everything became dependent on flags and 24/7 HC support. Hopefully this will start squads and impromptu groups that organically become squads themselves while playing together growing again, and promote the natural battlefield commanders/squad leaders to become active again, obviously apparent, and supported by the rest of the player base just like they did back when the map was open before the Flag/TOE system. At that point, it is my hope that we can rebuild the HC Orbat much like it was in the beginning of the original AHC and GHC with web based HC level administration by the players themselves (those squads and their leaders I mentioned above), but this time around, integrate the positions in the web based Orbats properly with in game flag movement controls for the Division/HQ/AO's. This would allow those groups/squads and those natural leaders that are organically forming using the Garrisons, the option to attach themselves to the Brigades in the movable Division/HQ/AO groups naturally and organically becoming the HC and filling its Bde/Div/Corp/Army level positions themselves by promoting the leaders of their choice up the ranks. Squads choosing their leaders. Squad leaders choosing their Bde CO's (who choose to fill in their XO's to operate in their absence, same for each CO position up the ladder). Bde CO's choosing their Div CO's, Div CO's choosing their Corp CO's, and so on and so on all the way to CinC. That's the main "bones" of what I would like to see the as the new integrated HC "system". The main points being that the rank/control/operation level positions are administrated in real time by the players themselves through web based and in game user interfaces, and operational control of the individual Bde and the Div/HQ/AO groups they make up remains in the control of the player (squad) promoted leaders on the ground (who should be) coordinating with the other Div/HQ/AO groups (as they are activated by re-population/expansion) through the orders/guidance of the Corps and Army positions above that they have populated themselves. With a properly designed nomination/vote/selection (and "battlefield promotion" fallback) system for each level, and appropriate in game UI controls for Flag movement operations and communications, the players operate the HC's and its in game resources with minimal involvement from CRS making it so that there is no more of this "us/them" as their HC leaders are promoted from among st themselves, by themselves. Anyway, that is how the HC's were intended to operate when their original Orbats were designed and laid out before the web/game integration dev support got indefinitely sidelined, the vision was lost, and game development started trying copy everyone else (closing down the map and funnel everyone into small AO areas) rather than finishing the vision of what we originally intended.
  5. 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.
  6. 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)
  7. Well, I guess you better be there participating in the planning once we publish the historical baselines and start the discussion...
  8. 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.
  9. 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!
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Where is the "Two Thumbs Up!" emoticon?
  18. Ain't THAT the truth!
  19. Just Steam
  20. I'd like to have a dedicated terrain builder. But no extra funds for a contract like that at the moment. We'll see where we are down the road a piece and possibly revisit that offer. :-)
  21. Lol! I didnt call you out because I KNOW how busy you are! Thanks for all you do man!
  22. Well, thanks for considering, and good idea just the same. I had forgotten about how well that program worked for us back then until you jarred my memory. So thanks for that. Hope you get off easy with the computer! Yes, I saw what he started. Very pretty. I meant to drop him a line and say something but been a little hectic around here as you can imagine...
  23. Back when we started that program, I think Snak was the volunteer that mainly managed us for Pyro. Was soooooo long ago, its hard to remember for sure. But I can still remember a lot of the trainers from then, RobinHood, Boa, Hardcase, Worr, Fletchman... Krod and Boa volunteered and helped me build a bonafide training web academy (I was good at flyin and teaching, not so much with html and visual media lol! And we could only dream of the tools available to day like zoom and discord... If there are some folks interested in volunteering a couple of hours a night, fer fun with the newbs, I'll see if we can get the CM team and whatever resources they can muster behind it.
  24. This is one of the best suggestions I have seen lately. Talking from experience in teaching advanced ACM as a volunteer in the WarBirds training program, it WAS a very successful program. Warbirds was considered to have a steep learning curve in its day, and it was only a flight sim. Our learning curve is on steroids compared to that! The WB training program started off only a couple of nights a week with two of us a night, but it was in demand and successful enough to end up running every night a week except for Sundays I think. (Been a looooong time ago). I can remember having up to 10 students a night between the 2 or 3 of us, and some "students" even going on multiple training nights during the week to get specialized training from the guys on board those nights, notorious for their style of combat tactics in the game. Like me for stall fighting, Fletchman for Boom&Zoom, etc... Was all volunteer run and a great retention tool. I'd be happy to step up myself to kick something like this off for WWIIOL if there was someone else that could take my place in production. It was a fun job and great community builder. What about you Jester? Zippy? Merlin51? Delems? (if not already busy volunteering for something else) Interested in helping to get something like this started?