fidd

Differentiated Brigades, APC's and other thoughts

37 posts in this topic

I'd like to see the possibility of different brigades have different TOE's, for each tier. These would be set before each campaign, and would persist from one campaign to the next, if unchanged (to save everyone work  recompiling these lists if no changes were desired. The upshot would be that, say, a French tier 1 armoured Brigade might consist of mostly S35's, or, mostly H39's, or, a mixture as now, of all types. Where lend-lease* kit was commonly used, units could be used to create a list for a British tier 5 armoured Brigade of (say) Half Shermans, and a few Sherman 76's (as stand-in for the Firefly), or, an armoured Brigade of mixed mark III and VIII Churchills. Likewise an German infantry brigade might be heavily endowed with 251's and ATG's, with a larger number of SMG's and mortars, and fewer riflemen, or, a great many rifles, trucks, and so forth.

The basic idea is to allow for some variety in the match-ups, so some brigades will be better suited than others to different roles. For example, you might have two brigades generally operating together, where one has a preponderance of Heavy armour with long-range guns, operating in concert with another configured better for supporting said armoured brigade in attacks, but less capable for prolonged urban defenses. Or you might have an infantry brigade better suited for long-range infantry fighting, with rifles and snipers, but relatively weak in terms of taking and lobbing cp's.

A key component to this would be the introduction of Bren carriers and M3 halftracks, and some revision of the 251. In my view all nations, with the exception of tier 1 French, should have an APC, and all APC's should have an integral commander view with binos. It's daft that the 251 doesn't, the only reason I can see that it doesn't, for now, is that in the absence of allied APC's it might be a bit uber as a counter FMS vehicle. I would retain APC's ability to create FMS's, or ammo crates, but not both.

I propose that in tier 2 onwards, the French are given the M3 halftrack, in tier 5 the British have the option of adding a quantity of M3's to replace some of their UC's, as indeed occurred. Consideration might also be given to employing a turretless Sherman as the Ram Kangeroo, again for tier 5 British. In armour and appearance they are very very similar. With further devving, the triad of UC/M3/251 could be built upon, with quad .50 flak, medium mortar-carrier and 57mm AT or 75mm howitzer variants on the M3, and flamethrowers for the UC and Pz II (re-turreted). The 251 would obviously open up a number of sub-variants, with the 37mm, Pak 40,  and rocket-firing versions being possible. I hope obviously, those sub-variants of the UC/M3/251 would be unable to set FMS's or ammo.

In parallel to this, I'd like to see the speeds of Bedfords, Morrises and Opels significantly reduced when off road, likewise the DAC and Panhard, but not, or at least, not to the same degree the multi-wheeled 232 and laffy. So, hopefully one would start to see APC's used to travel and set FMS's involving off-road travel, and trucks used to tow and or set FMS's where road travel is more viable.

I would suggest that such use of lend-lease kit, both for British and French, never form the majority of equipment across all brigades summed, unless, in the case of the French, no other viable alternative exists.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sound like a pretty good reason for rethinking this barking-mad decision to go back to town-based supply. Sheer unadulterated vandalism, and a very retrograde step. Instead of building on what's already in place, they're reducing it back to the lowest common denominator of simplicity. Boring, boring, BORING!" If you think that battles are getting a bit "same old same old" wait until town-based supply returns and two towns change hands every night and pre-camps with massive armour columns precede EVERY attack. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Ditching Brigades may very well be the  very worst decision the Rats have ever made, and I include the Vietnam foliage in that now familiar sequence of "introduce new feature, fail to develop it further, and finally neuter it by degrees until the whining stops"  : The HC system was never developed to provide a lower tier of leaders to learn their trade, HC was never - and still hasn't - been given anything in terms of tools to convey to player what needs setting-up where etc. Paras were never developed further in terms of weapons containers or any form of abiilty to create FM's drawing from the para brigade (until DZ over-run).  Vietnam foliage is still with us, which severely buggered the armour game, bringing engagement ranges down to "Normandy" distances. APC's were never developed beyond the abortive 251.  Moling persists as a complete nuisance. I could go on.

What do we get "new hands" and throwing the game back 8 years. I despair, I really do.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, fidd said:

Sound like a pretty good reason for rethinking this barking-mad decision to go back to town-based supply. Sheer unadulterated vandalism, and a very retrograde step. Instead of building on what's already in place, they're reducing it back to the lowest common denominator of simplicity. Boring, boring, BORING!" If you think that battles are getting a bit "same old same old" wait until town-based supply returns and two towns change hands every night and pre-camps with massive armour columns precede EVERY attack. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Ditching Brigades may very well be the  very worst decision the Rats have ever made, and I include the Vietnam foliage in that now familiar sequence of "introduce new feature, fail to develop it further, and finally neuter it by degrees until the whining stops"  : The HC system was never developed to provide a lower tier of leaders to learn their trade, HC was never - and still hasn't - been given anything in terms of tools to convey to player what needs setting-up where etc. Paras were never developed further in terms of weapons containers or any form of abiilty to create FM's drawing from the para brigade (until DZ over-run).  Vietnam foliage is still with us, which severely buggered the armour game, bringing engagement ranges down to "Normandy" distances. APC's were never developed beyond the abortive 251.  Moling persists as a complete nuisance. I could go on.

What do we get "new hands" and throwing the game back 8 years. I despair, I really do.

Barking mad?

 

Barking mad is keeping the punitive and content limiting TOEs system we have had to chew on for far longer than it should have been in place.

 

If you haven't noticed, people don't like to soft cap their way to victory, and when no Hc is on, the TOEs system goes dead stick, often during peak gaming times.

That's facked.

 

It's been a cancer that has spread to many other areas of gameplay and need excision.

 

You are, thankfully, in the minority on this position.

I'm glad to see town based supply as well as movable supply in flags for HC to spice things up with and apply pressure in key areas of the map.

 

I don't know how it's all going to work out form here, but I definitely don't want to see flag-based supply stay.

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"content limiting" is just another way of saying "variable content battles". If town-based TOE's and the loss of the Brigade system involves "unlimited content", then every battle will be similar, and the game will be as dull as ditchwater. HC is a separate issue, and to repeat myself, it's not working well - sometimes - because  the Rats never really gave HC the tools to do the job, never introduced measures to make HC membership the norm, rather than the exception, for experienced players, and never put in place any system to give HC'er's a more gradual increase in responsibilities as they learn the role. The idea is fine, it's the lack of further development that's the problem (as I hope I made clear above), leading predictably to an ongoing difficulty training and retaining adequate numbers of HC'er's over the 24 hour period, which in turn "breaks" the system. Saying it's broken is like buying a new car without an engine and declaring it "broken". It isn't, they just never finished building the bugger!

Whilst I'm on my soap-box, the other issue is that ALL new features, simply MUST work in gameplay both on and off-peak. Somethings that's "a really cool new feature" that works at peak-time, but is disasterous for gameplay off-peak, is NOT a cool idea, it's something that should be strangled at birth and not implemented until the off-peak issue is dealt with.

I entirely agree with you that this chronic inability of CRS to finish developing any new feature (see post upthread) is "cancerous", as it tends to create lots of new problems that need addressing - and that has happened in areas far beyond the issue of HC's and Brigades, but is absolutely the reason for the current and historical angst over Brigades.

I may be "in the minority", now ....- but you wait until the gameplay becomes monotonous, as it assuredly will do (again!), if Brigades are done away with.

The decision is one of bovine stupidity, quite literally asinine.

 

Edited by fidd
wiping off spittle
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I cannot understand this move to dismantling brigades and reverting to a model we already know the extensive flaws of. It literally makes no sense. If the problem is HC's in combination with Brigades, then fix the HC component. As for the need -occasionally - to soft-cap, I think the current system of towns automatically changing once cut-off is excellent, as the need to soft-cap only arises when HC want to accelerate that process. Normally, most soft-caps these days are in effect nothing of the sort, a you can often have two sides attempting to fight over a town where neither has the ability to spawn directly into town until their linking cp is held, and, it makes for a relatively interesting 2nd battle dynamic. Why the Rats should want to waste efforts on canning something that works, and works well, is nuts. Note that if the proposed system goes ahead we'll lose that type of battle, and moreover all towns will hold similar spawnliss. Dull, dull dull.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Restricting movement across the countryside (vehicles and infantry) would really help shape the game to natural transport choke points 

 

Mote clutter, vegetation, dips and hills etc would be the best solution, in order to give cover and concealment as well as reduce movement speeds 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I agree with that, to my mind we've far too much visual-cover without colliders already. However, if you're suggesting that off-road truck speeds, and ability to put FM's behind towns before the nme even spawns in - despite the fact that the town holds norminally at least 400 or so infantry - then I would fully agree with you.

It seems to me that the central problem is this:

In the early days of the game infantry had to be trucked in from fb's or out from AB's. I don't, for one instant, suggest that we return to that, but it did mean that inserting infantry into a town over any length of time was all but impossible until the enemy had been attrited of tanks/ATG/AAA weapons;  or, that you'd moved up sufficient tanks/atg's/AAA wepaons so as to dominate the ground between FB and outskirts of the town. Only then was it viable to start inserting infantry into the town. Post 1.26 patch, this was turned on its head by the creation of the so-called Vietnam foliage, where infantry could move into towns from all points of the compass sapping ET's and killing  ATG's with ease as they went. This was utterly disastrous to the armour-game, as it brought engagement ranges down to nil to 500m typically, from nil to 1500 yards typically. It also allowed trucks and A/C's and infantry  to whistle across hedge-lines at breakneck speed flanking tanks and ATG's where common-sense tells you the visual obstacle would also pose a significant physical obstacle, if not one that would simply be impossible to cross for that unit.

In my view, the game should return to the point where the armour-fight should precede the infantry fight, generally speaking, however, whilst strenuous measures are made to prevent a return to mass armour columns pre-camping towns before AO's are placed. The current speeds of tanks, trucks simply does not allow defenders to react with sufficient speed to mass tanks suddenly spawning from an FB to a non-AO'd town. The reason this has arisen, imho, is that the great majority of the terrain, and FB positions, was created when Matilda's Chars, R35's and 38t's were typical tanks. As more content was added, the fixed nature of FB's became a problem insofar as their location was arguably too close. In an attempt to moderate this imitation, EWS, AO's and depot spawnage were all brought in, but it never dealt with the core issue, that FB's are simply too close to their towns over a good portion of the map,

Edited by fidd
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, fidd said:

FB's are simply too close to their towns

Yet the majority of players believe that FBs are too far from the towns (5 minute jog on average). This however ties in to the old TTB force multiplier discussion where the defender has but seconds to respawn into battle whereas the attacker must suffer several minutes in transit. UMS and FMS evened the odds in that regard. 

The big question IMO is what kind of battle does the player wish to participate in, in general, given that he/she must fight both as attacker and defender. Personally I prefer the structured battle with phase lines and discrete teams performing single tasks, battles where you may gain solid SA and keep flanks under control, rather than the chaotic bumrush ninjacap battle where you start with no SA at all in a min-distance FMS and must FLOOD THE TOWN and cap before the enemy reacts and camps you to kingdom come. For me the slow and deliberate battle is a lot more fun than the twitch game. 

Seems to me that the town supply concept is not going to create better "content" (i.e. fun battles) because that content lacks definition beyond having some supply to defend against small-team softcaps and the ability to fight without HC involvement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2017 at 11:49 AM, brady said:

Brigades are being tossed, its town based supply , so idk know if this would work.

Verifiably false? CRS has made an announcement that it's moving to Hybrid Supply, NOT just tossing brigades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If battles were won and lost on attrition, rather than speed, and on sequence, rather than as you say "bumrushes" then the game would be immeasurably improved. Personally I'd prefer to see all battles commence between two Fb's a couple of miles apart. As one side gets the ascendency they can fallback their fb with an FMS to the rear, or, by simply abandon the FB for a server-created FB (call it a server-positioned-object?) a couple of miles further back. The advantage of a PPO rather than SPO FB would be that the PPO can be optimised for defense of the area from which the enemy can approach, and, would be at an unpredictable location.  Attacks on towns could only occur once the defenders have been pushed back from their last FB. If both sides fb's are unmanned, then the positions of the FB's self-centre to a mid point between two towns, over time.

This would have multiple gameplay advantages: It would confer a "slow-burn" quality to battles as they would naturally and gradually arise from successfully contested countryside between FB's. Killing an attack by "swapping" FB's would no longer arise, provided that the FB remained defensible, and even if it did, it would be straightforward for the town attacker to re-take the FB in any case in most circumstances. It would make large off-peak map movements inherently harder, as a sustained effort would be required to take all the intervening FB's before a town could be attacked. Moling would become relatively pointless, and in any case would be easily defended against simply by regaining one FB towards the enemy and holding it, during which period further moling caps would cease even if the city were contested. Result: The only way of taking a city would be full commitment to do so by a great many players - which is as it should be, I would suggest.

What, precisely, is meant by "Hybrid supply"- and how is materially different from what we have now?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** If battles were won and lost on attrition, rather than speed, and on sequence, rather than as you say "bumrushes" then the game would be immeasurably improved.

With TOE, you can't have attrition battles, it is far far to easy to just warp another flag in.  Move timers are way to fast.  And it is nearly impossible to hold a linking CP for hours to attrit the flag that is in the town.

Now, maybe, if the town was contested in any way, and flags were then not allowed to move - you might be able to do it.  Also, flag move in time is 2 minutes;  once the defender gets the link CP (or libs) - it is impossible to stop the flag from moving.  I'd suggest the flag move in time be at least 10 min; this gives the attacker time to retake the lost CP to prevent a flag from moving in.

There are many things that can be done I think to save TOE - but the bottom line is not enough HC at this time.  Even if all the changes were done, still not sure we'd have enough HC to manage a TOE game; much as I totally think it is far more realistic than town supply.


*** What, precisely, is meant by "Hybrid supply"- and how is materially different from what we have now?

It means every town will have supply on the frontline (at least current INF in size) - and the town just behind it.  Rest of map empty (guessing except navy and air which will have all towns across map populated).

Then, my guess, a few TOE flags; lets say 6 to 12, maybe company sized (150-200 troops)?

So, battles can take place anywhere on map, w/o HC and no big cutoffs and no soft caps - but to preserve the maneuver warfare and a dynamic map, flags can be moved to reinforce an area or overstack to create a push.

 

There are a bunch of questions, do towns have different sizes of supply based on ABs? The ratio of the town supply to the flag supply, etc. That have an immense impact on how the game is played.

You could just put 50 troops in every town and keep our current TOE, but not sure that would solve much; or you could put 1000 troops in every 1 AB town, 1250 in 2 AB, 1500 in 3 AB etc. and only put 100-200 in the flags - this would play out very different than the first layout.

Hybrid gives the best of world, it allows battles across the map, but maintains some maneuver warfare.  The details/variations of implementation are many.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2017 at 11:36 AM, fidd said:

A key component to this would be the introduction of Bren carriers and M3 halftracks, and some revision of the 251.

all nations, with the exception of tier 1 French, should have an APC

I propose that in tier 2 onwards, the French are given the M3 halftrack

triad of UC/M3/251

I would suggest that such use of lend-lease kit, both for British and French, never form the majority of equipment across all brigades summed, unless, in the case of the French, no other viable alternative exists.

The viable alternative for the French of course is the Lorraine 39L...historically just in production as of the armistice having replaced the 38L on the production line, with a few units in the field already--thus game-eligible.

Ahistorically making the French Army a fantasy-hybrid American Army by arming them with American weapons wholly without rationale in the context of a game-progression in which no armistice has occurred and French forces would have been using their own kit, would be dumb marketing. A key distinguishing difference between WWIIOL and its mega rivals is this game's claim to historically realistic equipment and weapons. I don't see a justification for discarding the game's marketing differentiation.

lor39l.jpg

39_prototyp.jpg

lorraine020.jpg

 

Share this post


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

With TOE, you can't have attrition battles, it is far far to easy to just warp another flag in.

TOE and warping are not the same thing
just saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear, and have complete sympathy for what you're saying Jwilly. In an ideal world I'd be fully behind the "historic" 39L. However: The UC, 251 and M3 are all models from which numerous derivatice marques are possible, the 39L by comparison is something of an evolutionary dead-end, as far as the French are concerned, the only derivative marques produced were German. Given the game is now 16 years old, and we still don't have the single most common AFV in WW2 modelled - the UC. the production of which outnumbered Sherman and T34 production combined, suggests we may have to wait a little longer for the 39L? The M3 just makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just do them all, start soft skinned and move up.

First do the trucks for all nations (and jeeps/kubel), maybe 2 types of trucks and 1 'jeep' type.

Then half tracks/UC/Lorraine, just the basic unarmed ones at first.

Then armored cars, and get the off road working right.

Finally tanks/TD - starting with tier 0.

By grouping the types during development, can leverage the knowledge from 1 truck/HT/AC/tank coding  to the other for each nation, etc.?
 

BUT, before that, p1 is fix the early tier rifles and SMGs.   This grease/sten gun and garand fantasy is ridiculous.  Not like they can't code infantry weapons easily.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fidd said:

I hear, and have complete sympathy for what you're saying Jwilly. In an ideal world I'd be fully behind the "historic" 39L. However: The UC, 251 and M3 are all models from which numerous derivatice marques are possible, the 39L by comparison is something of an evolutionary dead-end, as far as the French are concerned, the only derivative marques produced were German. Given the game is now 16 years old, and we still don't have the single most common AFV in WW2 modelled - the UC. the production of which outnumbered Sherman and T34 production combined, suggests we may have to wait a little longer for the 39L? The M3 just makes more sense.

I don't disagree on the M3. Clearly it's needed for American forces.

Old-CRS said several times, though, that they'd learned their lessons from prior mistakes and would never introduce partial sets again, except in the context of fixing earlier partial-set intros. Now that the Americans are in, sets that will be in-game from T2 onward have four elements, not three. 

I of course don't know that new-CRS thinks the same way. Often though it's wise to learn from prior mistakes even if it wasn't you that made them.

Eventually as the Italians are more completely introduced, sets will have five elements. That's just the nature of the game.

+++

Quote

as far as the French are concerned, the only derivative marques produced were German

It's true that there were several interesting German variants, but there also were two interesting French variants.

Just as it will be desirable to revisit the existing SdKfz 251 model and add a closed-top version as the basis for variants, and build the M3 model with a different-sides version as the basis for the M16, so will it make sense to build the 39L model with a 37L variant as a gun tractor and supply hauler.

And, the 37L was fielded in 1940 in a variant mounting the long 47mm AT gun. Not a lot of them, but they were factory built rather than field expedients, so they're game eligible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2017 at 10:12 AM, fidd said:

Sound like a pretty good reason for rethinking this barking-mad decision to go back to town-based supply. Sheer unadulterated vandalism, and a very retrograde step. Instead of building on what's already in place, they're reducing it back to the lowest common denominator of simplicity. Boring, boring, BORING!" If you think that battles are getting a bit "same old same old" wait until town-based supply returns and two towns change hands every night and pre-camps with massive armour columns precede EVERY attack. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Ditching Brigades may very well be the  very worst decision the Rats have ever made, and I include the Vietnam foliage in that now familiar sequence of "introduce new feature, fail to develop it further, and finally neuter it by degrees until the whining stops"  : The HC system was never developed to provide a lower tier of leaders to learn their trade, HC was never - and still hasn't - been given anything in terms of tools to convey to player what needs setting-up where etc. Paras were never developed further in terms of weapons containers or any form of abiilty to create FM's drawing from the para brigade (until DZ over-run).  Vietnam foliage is still with us, which severely buggered the armour game, bringing engagement ranges down to "Normandy" distances. APC's were never developed beyond the abortive 251.  Moling persists as a complete nuisance. I could go on.

What do we get "new hands" and throwing the game back 8 years. I despair, I really do.

We have failed to even see tier 3 in five consecutive campaigns. Had it not been for the initial steam launch that garnered interest we may not have seen tier 3 in the last 10. The campaign is not stable because it is dependent on a system of volunteers that don’t always show. And why should they? People get down right nasty with them when things are not going well. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pfff... We won't see tier 3 again until the game is balanced better.

 

Four campaigns ago, we had the best map we've seen in a long time. We got to duke it out for weeks and it was a blast.

Since then, and usually, the map rolls right over and only because a handful of people switch sides to spice things up.

 

I want to see areas of the map balanced off in population, I think it would help.

It'd be nice to avoid letting fights become 50 v 10. Maybe 50 v 40, but not much more of an imbalance.

The extras would have to go elsewhere on the map. 

Would any army commander ever simply devote 400% more troops to a fight just because they showed up or would they send them elsewhere to fight if it was in hand already?

 

Share this post


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

I want to see areas of the map balanced off in population, I think it would help.

It'd be nice to avoid letting fights become 50 v 10. Maybe 50 v 40, but not much more of an imbalance.

The extras would have to go elsewhere on the map. 

Would any army commander ever simply devote 400% more troops to a fight just because they showed up or would they send them elsewhere to fight if it was in hand already?

 

Does CRS even have the ability to force players to one side or the other AND do the HCs have the ability to funnel players to a specific AO/DO? from a personal perspective I don't mind being funneled to a AO/DO. As to population imbalance I would prefer to commit to a side for a campaign instead of the flavour of the day...but understand sometimes it is necessary for balance.    

Share this post


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

Would any army commander ever simply devote 400% more troops to a fight

Overwhelming Force.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, odin67 said:

Does CRS even have the ability to force players to one side or the other AND do the HCs have the ability to funnel players to a specific AO/DO? from a personal perspective I don't mind being funneled to a AO/DO. As to population imbalance I would prefer to commit to a side for a campaign instead of the flavour of the day...but understand sometimes it is necessary for balance.    

I'm not at all proposing a side lock.

I'm proposing area balancing, side choice still up to the player whenever they want, to play whatever unit they like.  I'm saying that the AOs can be broken up into zones and the zones could be balanced to within +/-10%. Others who would tip it over that percentage have to spawn elsewhere.

 

I suppose funneling players to AOs/DOs would have to occur though. Could be more than one "Active Battles" tab.

Active Battles North, Active Battles North Central, Active Battles South Central, Active Battles South as examples.

Air and Navy? Bah. Whatever. They're tied to docks and airfields. 

 

I bet this could be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

Fur Vas
YXi44yj.png

This... is beautiful.

Also, one of my favorite movies. Desert island top 5.

 

@matamor Six long YEARZZZZZZZ!!!!!!

Edited by vasduten1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.