• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ou812

Does the side with more players always win?

50 posts in this topic

I keep hearing about this a lot lately(mostly since the new patch) arguing about what side has more players and such. I'm not sure if this is a excuse of certain sides when losing ground or just frustration with the new patch.

My question is though, Does the side with more players always win? Logically it would seem yes, but isn't their times when one side can have more than the other and vice versa?

And when people say the other side has more players, how much more players is it would you say? Is it 5-15 which to me wouldn't make a huge difference. Or is it 20-30 or on up? Which then i could see could make a difference.

My point to is, do people take skill into a factor too though? Some players are really good and can kill/do more then 2 or 3 of other players combined and make a huge difference. And just simply know's how the game works. And could probably hold on pretty good if they were the side with the lower population....

If the side that always has more people wins, then whats the point of even playing at all? Are you saying you can look back at all the campaigns and say it was from the other teams having more population??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much yes. The victories go back an forth based on who changes sides to give the other side numerical superiority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During my first CinC term, which was an Allied win, the Allies were actually underpop much of the campaign (at least ToM wise). It wasn't until the last week or two that we finally gained the edge in that category because by that time the bandwagon jumpers skewed the stats in our favor.

The same thing almost happened for my second term. We pushed quite far in the opening of the campaign despite having less ToM, but eventually the numbers wore us down and the Axis won.

It is possible for fewer numbers to overcome the odds from time to time, but it cannot be sustained for multiple campaigns due to high burnout rates.

This still probably happens more often than most people think, but ends up getting lost in the overall ToM stats because of people playing more for the winning side towards the end of the campaign (like my first campaign for example).

Also, I think the "more people play for the winning side" phenomenon is not as much a function of sideswitching, but rather a function of people logging in more for the winning side logging in less for the losing side.

Edited by capco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Numbers always (or almost always) determine the outcome of a campaign.

Good proactive defence can regularly defeat or frustrate an over-pop enemy in individual battles.

The key is that if you are outnumbered focus on strong defence to ware your opponent down. It may take days but more likely a week or two but in the end most over pop pushes run out of steam and then the numbers can change dramatically. Defending whilst out numbered can be a lot of fun, if you play smart and do not fall into the trap of being reactive.

Edited by cavalier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not always, but it is the way to bet.

One can win on org and sheer stubbornness, particularly catching an enemy when they think the campaign is in the bag.

ToEs particularly can do this, when forces get cut off and/or divisiion replacement allows exploitation of thinly held critical ground. Tactics of mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to that question can not just flat-out be positive or negative without further elaborating serveral factors / mechanisms in game which are intended to almost negate any purely numerical advantage one side may have WHICH in turn will affect a low-pop superiority of numbers more severely than "High" pop superiority.

For example:

First lets see what you need to start an AO nowadays and lets take your example of 5 vs 15:

a. the FB(s)

With the 2.5 increase in damage an FB (inf and veh tents) needs to have applied to it for it to flip those 15 guys rather obviously have a much better chance of flipping an FB much quicker than the 5 guys on the other side - even WITH all 5 guys trying to defend said FB

b. Running FRUS and FB defense:

Again going w 5 vs 15 here - the 15 guys can not only run FRUs, spawn a handful of inf from said FRUs but can also keep 1-2 on FB defense just in case whereas the 5 on the other side can barely cover / check all CPs in a Defense Objective w more than 5 CPs let alone spare people to even attack the FB - even if one WOULD manage to attack said FB, due to the increased damage threshold it would take him/her about 20mins running back and forth to get it down - IF he/she can even get a FRU up what with the Truck FRU only nonsense of late - during which time it is most likely that at least 1-3 defenders will spawn there negating all glorious efforts to take it down completely all the while losing CP after CP in the DO 3k away nonetheless.

Now we will examine the one mechanism in place supposed to "counter-balance" a numerical superiority on either side - Spawn Delay ("SD")

Taking your example of 5 vs. 15 again - that means the side w 15ppl on should have max SD ie 30seconds. Lets assume 2 out of the 15 are on FB Defense - leaving 13 to potentially attack the AO against 5 defenders - even WITH 30SD on the attackers side that still always leaves at least 6-7 attackers vs. 5 defenders in the field at all times - assuming each kill is an even trade - IF those 13 attackers display even remotely anything resembling some kind of coordination those 5 defenders don't stand a chance and WILL lose despite 30SD on the OP side.

Thats w the "5 vs. 15" scenario

Take your next example - 20 vs. 30 or an average US Prime Time example ft. 50 vs. 70:

Since SD seems to be based on the amount of players per side and the resulting percentage of difference of those numbers in relation to each other - a 50 vs. 70 pop imbalance is LESS severe w regards to SD "punishment" (45% OP) than a 20 vs. 30 imbalance (50% OP) or a 5 vs. 15 imbalance (200% OP) - yet SD remains the same or even less during those "45%" / "50%" OP periods which means during those "high pop - 45-50% SD times" a 20 vs. 30 / 50 vs. 70 imbalance WILL favor the OP side even more than in the previously mentioned 5 vs. 15 example IF you consider all the above w regards to the typical game scenarios, the tasks which need to be done to even setup an AO or DO and you should be able to see that the side with more numbers is always at a distinct advantage - factor in certain mechanisms "intended" to "improve" or "fix" the overall gameplay experience for certain Time Zones that shall remain unnamed and...well yes, numbers win - if you take skill into account or not.

A typical US Prime Time example of 50 vs. 70 w some 15-20SD on the OP side is more serious than a 20 vs 30 for the sole reason that there are multiple tasks that always need to be done in a certain order but the side w more numbers has more players to distribute those tasks to hence the individual "workload" of the OP side is lower than the underpopulated sides workload.

Simplyfied:

50 vs. 70 = 50 attackers keep 50 defenders in check while the op side has 20 free to do the background chores, err "tasks" like guarding FB / blowing FBs / running FRUs etcetc

Edited by gsc4free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a general overall rule #'s will win -- If Organized. This game is littered with incidences of the underpop side making gains against a disorganized (comparatively) overpop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a real life situation wouldn't the side with more soldiers eventually over run a smaller defending force? Of course there are variables which allow for the underdog to win in a given number of encounters. One of those variables being the over all difference in numbers between each side. A million men with sticks and stones will over take a hundred men with automatic weapons? As long as the difference in numbers isn't extremely disproportional then the underdog can beat an overwhelming force if the leadership is good and the idiot soldiers do what they are told to do... :) Now there is your real issue.... hahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simplyfied:

50 vs. 70 = 50 attackers keep 50 defenders in check while the op side has 20 free to do the background chores, err "tasks" like guarding FB / blowing FBs / running FRUs etcetc

insightful and experience-based answer, gsc4free. thx.

to OP > so in otherwords, usually pop wins.

1. see thermopylae, vietnam, italian invasion of greece (wwii); italian collapse in north east africa (wwii) for another, yet rare-ish point of view

2. also search kilemall's posts re "Pop Neutrality"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overpop usually ends up winning campaigns. But population can swing from side to side. Usually a few times during a campaign the underpop side can win a couple small battles in one day, and the momentum changes, resulting in the underpop side becoming the overpop side which can lead to victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could call this the Romanian effect. When you know youre going to lose you join the side of the devil and hope for the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could call this the Romanian effect. When you know youre going to lose you join the side of the devil and hope for the best.

This! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Strange enough every single campaign we win, you will notice the same people you were killing just a few short weeks ago are now magically appearing on your friendly radar.

It's one of those co-incidences that the Devs deny exist, and quantum physicians describe this phenomenon as multiverse doppelgangers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I keep hearing about this a lot lately(mostly since the new patch) arguing about what side has more players and such. I'm not sure if this is a excuse of certain sides when losing ground or just frustration with the new patch.

My question is though, Does the side with more players always win? Logically it would seem yes, but isn't their times when one side can have more than the other and vice versa?

And when people say the other side has more players, how much more players is it would you say? Is it 5-15 which to me wouldn't make a huge difference. Or is it 20-30 or on up? Which then i could see could make a difference.

My point to is, do people take skill into a factor too though? Some players are really good and can kill/do more then 2 or 3 of other players combined and make a huge difference. And just simply know's how the game works. And could probably hold on pretty good if they were the side with the lower population....

If the side that always has more people wins, then whats the point of even playing at all? Are you saying you can look back at all the campaigns and say it was from the other teams having more population??

honestly no , because each army has strengths and weaknesses , like how americans have the m1 garand , and how germans have good tanks and smgs , so really if you know them , you have a advantage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

allies can win the campaign within just 2-3 days because they are only 7 towns away from our factory towns

axis need much longer for that because our front line towns are like 20 towns away at campaign start

the whole map setup is leaned more towards allies. 60-70% of towns at beginning are allied. rest is axis

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
allies can win the campaign within just 2-3 days because they are only 7 towns away from our factory towns

axis need much longer for that because our front line towns are like 20 towns away at campaign start

the whole map setup is leaned more towards allies. 60-70% of towns at beginning are allied. rest is axis

Yet..........the win/loss ratio is almost 50/50 so whats your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I keep hearing about this a lot lately(mostly since the new patch) arguing about what side has more players and such. I'm not sure if this is a excuse of certain sides when losing ground or just frustration with the new patch.

My question is though, Does the side with more players always win? Logically it would seem yes, but isn't their times when one side can have more than the other and vice versa?

No you hear about it a lot because frankly nearly all of the players that have experience in other serious PvP games and MMOs have left this game, and those that remain are mostly players that only know HC and doc's wisdom. They are obsessed with numbers and numbers are always the reason given to dismiss any notion about equipment balance or player performance.

If anyone participated in the organized operations years ago they could tell you that numbers don't guarantee the winner because frequently the attacker would get a "soldiers needed" message at the end of an attack when the AB was camped and the town was about to fall, which meant that the defender had a 50% advantage in player numbers. It was obviously because the defender was frantically spawning infantry from the AB while the attacker had tanks and other units in good positions around the spawn area. 50% more players in a battle would guarantee a victory in many other games but not here. That's because unlike other HP-based games the time to kill of a unit here is either instant or infinite depending on the unit and the positioning.

Yet..........the win/loss ratio is almost 50/50 so whats your point?

This fellow here demonstrates my point wonderfully. Citing the win loss ratio of the game over 15+ years was always always the excuse used by doc to dismiss any complaint about game balance. It's probably the worst data analysis I've ever seen from any game developer and would get laughed at anywhere else but here it's repeated verbatim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the whole map setup is leaned more towards allies. 60-70% of towns at beginning are allied. rest is axis

Learn to count, bronco.

David you're such an annoying pita to read, really. Always complaining and making snappy comments. "all people have left" and blabla but you're still here whining like we give rat's ass about an inactive F2P's opinion.

Who's 2nd account are you anyway? Didn't play since September. Some kind of uber axis warrior I bet :rolleyes:

CRS really need to clear out those professional F2P whiners who are just here to render the atmosphere as toxic as they can. In most MMO forums, you can't post at all if you're not a subscriber.

Sick of people complaining behind a mask for shat that happened 10 years ago.

Edited by Lob12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This fellow here demonstrates my point wonderfully. Citing the win loss ratio of the game over 15+ years was always always the excuse used by doc to dismiss any complaint about game balance. It's probably the worst data analysis I've ever seen from any game developer and would get laughed at anywhere else but here it's repeated verbatim.

Merely commenting on the falsity of Allies being able to win in 2-3 days because of the map setup.......but being a "NEW'er" F2P player I will cut you the slack you so don't deserve.

Edited by bmw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually a side with a 20% more TOM overpop should finish a campaign in less than a week and half MAXIMUM if they don't turtle on defense 20 hours a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though I would have stated it more diplomatically than Lob12 I get his point completely. I am a 2011 player and over the past 5 years or so one thing has become glaringly apparent to me in these forums and even some in the game. There is a group of players (maybe not directly connected) who either stopped playing or unsubscribed and even some who still play that are still so enraged about past offenses that it seems their mission is to disrupt and destroy the game. I have no direct proof of this but that is my perception anyways.

If you can relate to this as an offender, give it a rest. If you really hate the game and the development team then move on for your own sake. I'd rather you change your mind, subscribe and contribute constructively, but if you are not a subscriber and just have some old axes to grind then, yes, give it a rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Usually a side with a 20% more TOM overpop should finish a campaign in less than a week and half MAXIMUM if they don't turtle on defense 20 hours a day.

That is accurate with the old game mechanics. We'll see if that still holds true. I suspect that quick map rolls are a thing of the past unless the sides remain heavily unbalanced through the whole campaign towards one side. I think that is your point with the 20% more TOM as that indicates a great imbalance. I just think that with the new system 20% will not have the same affect as it did in the past.

Will be interesting to see what happens this map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Usually a side with a 20% more TOM overpop should finish a campaign in less than a week and half MAXIMUM if they don't turtle on defense 20 hours a day.

Sounds like an opportunity for leadership matamor. Hell, I'll form a squad with you. You lead I'll follow orders. We can do nothing but attack if you would like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.