• Announcements

    • PITTPETE

      NEW Career Subscriptions now available   06/08/2019

      The all new highly anticipated / requested "Career Based Subscriptions" are available through www.WWIIONLINE.com/account only, starting at $9.99! There are three new subscriptions being added; 1) All Infantry at $9.99/mo, 2) All Air Forces at $9.99/mo, 3) All Ground Forces (Army Persona) at $12.99/mo. Continue reading to learn more and get back into the fight now! View the full article on battlegroundeurope.com
    • CHIMM

      18th Anniversary Event Awards!   06/23/2019

      This year we are giving out trophies and awards for the top players during the "Kill a RAT" event! We need the following players to contact @CHIMM at chimm@corneredrats.com with your physical address to mail these out.   @mook2  @dasei88  @c00per  @kardehk  @chau90  @kdped02  @Simcha  @pulfer  @bus0    
XOOM

Brigade Removal Frozen for Steam "Early Access"

514 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, major0noob said:

 

i've never seen attrition work with the 8 hour timers.

 

"localized attrition" ? its just battle damage. empty a flag in prime time then rotate it, repeat endlessly and we have our current 3 hour stalemates. then do it all over again the next prime time, then the next, till the game bogs down to "flood the CP"

nothing else matters beyond "flood the CP"... game difficulty, simulation, combined arms, teamwork, positioning and manouver? all pointless... just flood the CP like a bunch of zombies in COD

 

rotate flags with 15 hour timers and you'll lose, not from the system or HC but because of the players performance and good gameplay. having no supply in a flag was the result of better play from the enemy.

I've seen attrition work with ~8 hour timers for 4 almost years straight (with some minor variances).  The sweet spot has always been between 7-10 hours.  I personally like 8 because it fits nicely into the games concept of TZs, but maybe 9 or 10 is better (I think we're at 10 right now).  

 

If you make the lists fit the population, battles should come to a conclusion within a couple hours without having to smash the same target on and off over the course of an entire day just to drain the flags.  Ideally, once those flags in that area are trashed, both sides stop fighting there and move on to a different set of flags, fight a different set of battles with a different set of conclusions, etc... and 8 hours later, if the players want to play the area of that first battle of the day, they won't be hampered by what happened 8 hours ago.  

 

The main problem CRS has when it comes to making the lists the right size is when the game population gets too small.  You can always cut infantry down, but when it comes to the Allied heavy tanks in T0, you can't get any lower than 1.  That means the armor lists for every country can only get so small before that single Matlida or Char becomes too dominant.  It's also extremely impractical to alter the supply lists for every single time the game population waxes and wanes, and sometimes a change in the RDP timers is the best solution (for example, during a the Steam release CRS might want to go to 7 hour timers, but after the pop spike they might want to raise it back up to 9).  

 

You cannot "endlessly" rotate the one division of flags covering one town indefinitely if they don't have any supply in them.  That supply should be drainable within a reasonable time frame (i.e. over the course of a battle) and come back within a reasonable time frame (i.e. over the course of a time zone).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Capco said:

You cannot "endlessly" rotate the one division of flags covering one town indefinitely if they don't have any supply in them.  That supply should be drainable within a reasonable time frame (i.e. over the course of a battle) and come back within a reasonable time frame (i.e. over the course of a time zone).  

The 1 major issue with TOE is that the flags are so dynamic that if you want attrition to play a role, you are attriting supply all over the map.
CRS decreased the supply multiple times but every time the playerbase would complain that for example there was no tiger all over the map. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, monsjoex said:

The 1 major issue with TOE is that the flags are so dynamic that if you want attrition to play a role, you are attriting supply all over the map.
CRS decreased the supply multiple times but every time the playerbase would complain that for example there was no tiger all over the map. 

This is true 

it's a bit like 'We want attrition! Attrition is realistic! Where's our attrition?!?'

 

Then supply times are increased and it's 'There's no supply! I want my Tiger/M10!!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Silky said:

This is true 

it's a bit like 'We want attrition! Attrition is realistic! Where's our attrition?!?'

 

Then supply times are increased and it's 'There's no supply! I want my Tiger/M10!!'

They want attrition, but for the other side.

 

A bit Like I would love have my Tiger, but facing you stuck with Somuas and Hotckiss

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Silky said:

If the TOEs system had been designed with the ability for a HC player to plan and pre-load moves that execute when timers allow, this wouldn't be an issue.

Many of the problems associated with TOEs comes down to design choices, in the system itself and the tools available for this 'leadership' tier of player. Removing moveable supply units from the map makes the game less complex, and more one-dimensional, which I believe is a negative move, but I do recognise the need to do something, because the initial design of TOEs contained some major flaws that now manifest themselves in a game that sometimes doesn't work.

 

We seem to be moving towards throwing baby out with bath water, whereas I believe we could keep the positive aspects of moveable supply by correcting those design flaws.

  • Pre-planned moves that execute when timers allow
  • Permit HC to set fallbacks through code not through moving units
  • Provide better AO planning through a useful tools set - annotated maps, squad comms tools, ML comms tools
  • Improved chat channels, eg macro commands (to loop instructions), more flexible chat commands (don't limit to 6)
  • Provide rear line units that can move freely to cover holes and flanks via No Mans
  • Make these rear line units huge supply pools so all equipment is available to those willing to drive from rear

 

6 moves that would keep the flexible, interesting elements of the system we have but also uplift the way the game plays and prevents the worst falling down moments

Again more enhancements to the strategic game. Your problem is that you don't have enough HC. Allowing the handful of people that are still in HC to schedule moves isn't going to fix the problem that no one wants to be in HC. More and better HC tools to order the playerbase around doesn't work when there aren't any HC online.

 

There's also no baby with the bathwater. There are thousands of people playing grand strategy games on Steam right now including over 15k playing Hearts of Iron 4, and yet the "strategic" layer in this game attracts none of them. The TOE game has effectively zero appeal. Objectively the strategic game here is really simple and doesn't compare to real strategy games. There's only a "baby" if you still consider the elimination of all organizational and tactical imbalance (the original goal of TOE) to be a positive thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Silky said:

This is true 

it's a bit like 'We want attrition! Attrition is realistic! Where's our attrition?!?'

 

Then supply times are increased and it's 'There's no supply! I want my Tiger/M10!!'

Because instead of being spread evenly over the game world and scaling well with server population and distance to the frontline, all the supply in the game is tied up in a small number of mobile units. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Again more enhancements to the strategic game. Your problem is that you don't have enough HC.

Bee, eye, en, gee, oh.

Got to get rid of TOE as soon as possible.  If ya want some variability, give the squads a platoon flag to move around - you'll never lack for leaders there to move their supply.

This is a huge mistake to not get town supply out before steam imo.

 

Edited by delems
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, delems said:

Got to get rid of TOE as soon as possible.  If ya want some variability, give the squads a platoon flag to move around - you'll never lack for leaders there to move their supply.

 

Platoon size flags for squads and for high ranked players(not in HC)... would solve pretty much all issues currently affecting HC without losing the asymmetric supply that contribute to awesome, fresh and not linear battles, a HUGE STRENGTH this game has, plus I bet it's easier to implement than town supply.

The problem is not Flags or TOEs the problem is forcing paying players to work for free and stop playing their game 24/7, with a cherry on top to sign an agreement that gagballs/refrains for participating on the normal forums.

 

 

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, david01 said:

Again more enhancements to the strategic game. Your problem is that you don't have enough HC. Allowing the handful of people that are still in HC to schedule moves isn't going to fix the problem that no one wants to be in HC. More and better HC tools to order the playerbase around doesn't work when there aren't any HC online.

 

There's also no baby with the bathwater. There are thousands of people playing grand strategy games on Steam right now including over 15k playing Hearts of Iron 4, and yet the "strategic" layer in this game attracts none of them. The TOE game has effectively zero appeal. Objectively the strategic game here is really simple and doesn't compare to real strategy games. There's only a "baby" if you still consider the elimination of all organizational and tactical imbalance (the original goal of TOE) to be a positive thing.

You think. I think differently. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that might work, is add another division, maybe two.

Then, disallow all inter division stacking, i.e. 1pz flags can only stack with 1pz flags, not any other division.

Then, change it so no flag may move into a town if town is contested. (may move out)

Finally, remove all navy and air flags - and put a garrison navy/air supply in every port / AF.

 

This would get rid of much of the JWBS for army as only 1 division can stack unless good movements by HC to rotate in and out of towns.

It also gives a fighting chance to contest a town and keep it that way so you can attrit it and take town. (oh, and flag move time should be twice the time to cap a CP, to give attacker time to recontest town before a flag can just slip in)

And it fixes the unlimited air and navy. (barring rats putting 5000 aircraft and destroyers into every garrison.....)

 

This might actually work - last, have FPA always go to under pop side;  we might just have a winning combination?

 

Edited by delems
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, david01 said:

Again more enhancements to the strategic game. Your problem is that you don't have enough HC. Allowing the handful of people that are still in HC to schedule moves isn't going to fix the problem that no one wants to be in HC. More and better HC tools to order the playerbase around doesn't work when there aren't any HC online.

 

There's also no baby with the bathwater. There are thousands of people playing grand strategy games on Steam right now including over 15k playing Hearts of Iron 4, and yet the "strategic" layer in this game attracts none of them. The TOE game has effectively zero appeal. Objectively the strategic game here is really simple and doesn't compare to real strategy games. There's only a "baby" if you still consider the elimination of all organizational and tactical imbalance (the original goal of TOE) to be a positive thing.

Fwiw, I know a lot folks who have permanently left the game or decided never to return because of the planned removal of TOEs.  There is something extraordinarily special about having players fight the battles and achieve the outcomes instead of some AI calculations, something that doesn't exist in any other strategy game in the world (at least that I know of).  

 

A lot of those fixes would actually help HC retention and enlistment, although as someone who has never been in HC I already know that's impossible for you to see.  

 

Granted, strategy is not the crux of the game.  But not only does global strategy have an effect on the tactical gameplay, to say it has "effectively zero appeal" is false and doesn't help your argument.  

1 hour ago, delems said:

One thing that might work, is add another division, maybe two.

Then, disallow all inter division stacking, i.e. 1pz flags can only stack with 1pz flags, not any other division.

Then, change it so no flag may move into a town if town is contested. (may move out)

Finally, remove all navy and air flags - and put a garrison navy/air supply in every port / AF.

 

This would get rid of much of the JWBS for army as only 1 division can stack unless good movements by HC to rotate in and out of towns.

It also gives a fighting chance to contest a town and keep it that way so you can attrit it and take town. (oh, and flag move time should be twice the time to cap a CP, to give attacker time to recontest town before a flag can just slip in)

And it fixes the unlimited air and navy. (barring rats putting 5000 aircraft and destroyers into every garrison.....)

 

This might actually work - last, have FPA always go to under pop side;  we might just have a winning combination?

 

These would be ideal changes.  +1.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Capco said:

Fwiw, I know a lot folks who have permanently left the game or decided never to return because of the planned removal of TOEs.  There is something extraordinarily special about having players fight the battles and achieve the outcomes instead of some AI calculations, something that doesn't exist in any other strategy game in the world (at least that I know of).  

 

A lot of those fixes would actually help HC retention and enlistment, although as someone who has never been in HC I already know that's impossible for you to see.  

 

Granted, strategy is not the crux of the game.  But not only does global strategy have an effect on the tactical gameplay, to say it has "effectively zero appeal" is false and doesn't help your argument.  

That 20 people who left when it was determined that TOEs needed to be removed hardly stack up against the hundreds who left after TOES were installed.

 

Your point is once again moot.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vasduten1 said:

Except that those people who left when it was determined that TOEs needed to be removed hardly stack up against the hundreds who left after TOES were installed.

 

Your point is once again moot.

Except that those people were people who knew how to manage the map, and for the past year we've had an ultra-critical shortage of HC because of it.  

 

It's as if the announcement of 1.36 itself made TOE gameplay worse lol.  

Edited by Capco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Capco said:

 There is something extraordinarily special about having players fight the battles and achieve the outcomes instead of some AI calculations,

And having town based supply would change this exactly how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Capco said:

Except that those people were people who knew how to manage the map, and for the past year we've had an ultra-critical shortage of HC because of it.  

 

It's as if the announcement of 1.36 itself made TOE gameplay worse lol.  

It did.

Same with Steam, most of AEF went AFK until 1.36/Steam would come.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Capco said:

Fwiw, I know a lot folks who have permanently left the game or decided never to return because of the planned removal of TOEs.

What a crock of [censored]e....I pray that CRS doesnt change it's mind on removing TOE's, by listening to players like you that refuse or can't let go of the past.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Capco said:

Fwiw, I know a lot folks who have permanently left the game or decided never to return because of the planned removal of TOEs.  There is something extraordinarily special about having players fight the battles and achieve the outcomes instead of some AI calculations, something that doesn't exist in any other strategy game in the world (at least that I know of).  

 

A lot of those fixes would actually help HC retention and enlistment, although as someone who has never been in HC I already know that's impossible for you to see.  

 

Granted, strategy is not the crux of the game.  But not only does global strategy have an effect on the tactical gameplay, to say it has "effectively zero appeal" is false and doesn't help your argument.  

At some point you should quantify just how valuable the flag game is instead of citing anecdotes. I'm giving examples of niche games that still have an order of magnitude more active players than this one, and certainly more than the HC rosters. There's a demographic for serious strategy games but despite the glowing descriptions I read here about TOE none of those players are joining. 

 

You're also way too optimistic about the state of HC. If you knew how to effectively retain and recruit HC then the game would not be having a severe HC shortage, and you would not be reduced to begging every remaining subscriber to join. As far as I can tell you don't have a plan to grow HC other than hope that a bunch of Steam players will not only subscribe to the game, but apply for HC. And once that happens apparently the robust and well-staffed HC training and approval pipeline will be able to handle all the new applicants.

 

I'm saying that you're never going to get enough HC as long as they have to deal with the TOE nonsense. Running consistent ops/raids in a MMO guild is a lot of work, and that's when only dealing with others that want to play with you and favor your style. HC have an incredibly tough and abusive job (there's that word again) of having to satisfy every player in their entire faction with AOs. With TOE HC also has to be responsible for the spawning of their entire faction. If HC were a MMO guild I would immediately scale back the scope and intensity, and quit burning people out. Change ops to get leaders happy to log on instead of dreading or avoiding it. For some reason people here are really averse to reducing responsibility and control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We used to follow leaders.  Now we follow orders.

Its like the difference between Capt. Winters and Capt. Sobel. Both 'might' get you to the top of the in-game hill. Yet one is more enjoyable than the other.  

Edited by forrest
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter what side of the TOE's line you stand please keep civil to each other.    Once we get steam players coming through the door we will resume work on 1.36. That being said weather we have TOE's or not the game will still need leaders to lead the players to combat for their respective sides.    

The game needs leaders that is the bottom line HC Leaders and Squad Leaders ...... TOE's has nothing to do with leading.  TOE's is supply nothing more nothing less .     

 

 

OK time to bash on me

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Capco said:

Except that those people were people who knew how to manage the map, and for the past year we've had an ultra-critical shortage of HC because of it.  

 

It's as if the announcement of 1.36 itself made TOE gameplay worse lol.  

Got to look at the bigger picture here.

You're right, of course, but how did we get here?

That's important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, OHM said:

No matter what side of the TOE's line you stand please keep civil to each other.    Once we get steam players coming through the door we will resume work on 1.36. That being said weather we have TOE's or not the game will still need leaders to lead the players to combat for their respective sides.    

The game needs leaders that is the bottom line HC Leaders and Squad Leaders ...... TOE's has nothing to do with leading.  TOE's is supply nothing more nothing less .     

 

 

OK time to bash on me

I just don't see the logic in letting the Steam kiddies see a system and start on that system then change it completely when you release the next patch...

...and TO&Es are not just supply, it's a disaster that keeps on giving. Massive cutoffs that lead to no supply to defend whats left. Softcapping sprees that only some HC dorks like cause they are WINNING!! lol 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pittpete said:

What a crock of [censored]e....I pray that CRS doesnt change it's mind on removing TOE's, by listening to players like you that refuse or can't let go of the past.

That's not my intent at all.  Even if CRS implemented all of Silky's changes before the Steam release, there's a snowball's chance in hell that it would permanently fix the game.

 

But what improvements like that will do is improve gameplay in the meantime before 1.36.  

 

If 1.36 is frozen in the meantime, you'd want better gameplay until then, wouldn't you?  There's nothing to be afraid of here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Capco said:

That's not my intent at all.  Even if CRS implemented all of Silky's changes before the Steam release, there's a snowball's chance in hell that it would permanently fix the game.

 

But what improvements like that will do is improve gameplay in the meantime before 1.36.  

 

If 1.36 is frozen in the meantime, you'd want better gameplay until then, wouldn't you?  There's nothing to be afraid of here.  

I wonder if the real discussion shouldn't be about the fabled v2.0

 

What mechanic would drive v2.0?

 

A problem I have - as a broad fan of TOEs - is how does manoeuvre warfare, with Liddell Hart 'Path of Least Resistance' strategy work in a PvP game where you surely want maximum engagement with a maximum number of players?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Silky said:

A problem I have - as a broad fan of TOEs - is how does manoeuvre warfare, with Liddell Hart 'Path of Least Resistance' strategy work in a PvP game where you surely want maximum engagement with a maximum number of players?

Make it so that the path of least resistance isn't necessarily the path of no resistance.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.