TuftyFoil

*Vote New Supply Control (Customization)

Customization of Troops   14 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we give ourselves the freedom to choose what troops are produced and how much them are?

    • Yes, We should have the freedom to choose
      5
    • No, We do not deserve freedom ;)
      9

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

12 posts in this topic

I think it would be a very good if we could customize troop production. 

 We could do this by having High Command choose which units they think would best fulfill our objectives.  There should be an equivalency ratio for each type of troop. An example of this could be we produce 2 M1 Grand rifleman or we could produce 1 LMG . Ratios are not necessarily whole number so the developers can figure out the best ratios.

This is a great idea because if we have to defend a town that only has supply left with 25 Sniper rifles and a few sappers we would want to move a brigade in  to defend with all the other great weapons with no sniper rifles as it would maximize our defense. Or have an entire brigade of engineers to blow forward bases if you wanted.

Pros -

1. No oversupply of a particular type of weapon.

2. Freedom of choice. To choose what gets produced and how much.

3.  Maximizing brigades to our best advantage as the situation demands it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did we have this in place once we where able to RDP all the teirs equipment or did it end before that?

The up side to having that ability is that it would bring back a CVC which was one of the premiere gems tossed out the window with the old crew. They did a lot of things right (and wrong) but CVC was an insurance policy for balanced tiers. It kept things honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When asking poll questions, how the question is asked is almost as important as the question itself.  Try to ask them as objectively as possible, or accept that the results you receive will be invalid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An ability to increase X would mean a decrease to Y.

A increase of X would be enjoyed by some customers, but not by those customers that prefer to play with Y.

It's necessary for CRS to manage the weapon mixes in order to assure that all customer gameplay preferences are met with a supply level scaled to demand, and to eliminate weird if-they-choose-A-then-we'll-choose-B ways to win the game that depend on analysis more than on competitive gameplay.

As alluded to above, this idea was tried a number of years ago for a few campaigns. It made a few customers happy...those that got to make the command decisions for the sides that won...and a lot of customers unhappy. Commercially, it was very unsuccessful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, GrAnit said:

This was tried before.  It was a disaster!

As a player during that time, if our HC (which was far more organized and better manned) made the mistake of getting the wrong equipment, they would pay gravely, and so would the entire side who would be the recipient of that bad call on equipment. In theory it was cool, but in practice it ended up being really bad. I do not think we'll be exploring this due to our previous experience with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 11:06 PM, XOOM said:

As a player during that time, if our HC (which was far more organized and better manned) made the mistake of getting the wrong equipment, they would pay gravely, and so would the entire side who would be the recipient of that bad call on equipment. In theory it was cool, but in practice it ended up being really bad. I do not think we'll be exploring this due to our previous experience with it.

Sorry, this is going to be a long reply.

Some of that is true - I think some of it was over exaggerated.  You are correct that the problem was internal squabbling. The first rule set with the RDP was a decision on what to RDP.  Very problematic on the Axis side, RDP the PzH OR rdp the 109F4.  HC had to chose which was always the PZH and the LW always got screwed out because the BEF would RDP the Spit5 and would naturally have more CVC to add Matties.  So the LW players would log in protest. 

That got remedied by allowing RDP to contain all the items in the RDP list.  CVC then would adjust the supply numbers and of course the Axis HC would MAX out the tank and ATG pool.  They would add 3x 88s, Max PzHs and by that time the pak38 was in with Max Pak38s.  The Axis supply pool then maxed out at 8x PzHs, 8x 88s, I cant remember what the pak count was.. down to something like 10 P4Ds, 4 PzFs, 2 stugBs, 4 232s and 1x38T. Cant rmemeber the 2C count...

AND then again in the LW - 6x 109 F4s.   So the Axis LW got screwed over by HC again so a Max limit on the top teir RDP items was established.  IIRC a Max of 5 Pzhs could be RDP'd. 

I have no idea what the allied count was simply because I did not play allied much then.  Then IIRC there was one more CVC change prior to the Tigers entrance and that was that the RATs introduced a Max CVC allowance to the ground and a Max amount for the Air.  That prevented GHC in particular from continually screwing over the LW.  That final change actually brought about some great game play even after the T2 entrance and ironing out balance issues the StugG brought, and fixing the Shermans mega mantle. The HUGE balance issue was with the BEF for the longest time and remains so until the BEF gets the Firefly and Achillies. That's the first time I have heard that there was  a  real  effort to actually address the BEFs balance since the introduction of T-2 into this game.

The NEXT readjusting the CVC was the Tigers entrance.  The Tiger was allowed to enter at 5 per AB.  I was axis then and LOVED it.. right up to the point it seemed so unbelievably ridiculously over balanced I could not find allied tanks to shoot.  That's when the Tiger got a MAX LIMIT of 2 per AB because after some serious deep down internal research with balance and the sex appeal of the Tiger any more than 2 Tigers tipped the scales so bad it nearly destroyed the allied PB.  Also having M10s and Cru3s to battle the tiger was pretty stupid. 

Adding the S76 and CH7 stemmed the allied bleeding, but it never really recovered.  Going back to the 5 Tigers vrs 5 S76s and equal numbers of StugGs and M10s was a huge mistake. It cut the AEF numbers in half as a result.  ATM we are down to a core of AEF members with some ready to walk until this balance issue is remedied. I know you prob don't like the constructive criticism but my squad is suffering from it - so I'm suffering from it.  They don't need CRS to tell them the game is balanced because we know its far from it and is quite insulting to suggest otherwise.  New toys is going to be awesome but if the balance problems are not fixed.. you are going to continue to bleed allied pb to where the allies have to rely on the Axis switching sides every once and a while for a win.  We pretty much are there now anyway, seriously tell me the last Allied only map win that we did not have a major axis squad switch sides?  I can remember... nope, I cant remember one in the past year or mb two.

The reason why I would want to go back to HC determined supply pools is that we have learned what works with the RDP.  We got all the limitations, max CVC point expenses, and limits on certain equipment that by themselves can destroy a map.  IE the Matty and TIger.  All that knowledge in place and CVC.. not only makes for honest play, it adds variety.  CVC established real value to attributes of each piece of equipment. You would not get 5 S76s and 5 Tigers. You would get 10 S76s and 5 Tigers, 10 StugGs and 18 M10s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing that would happen is lower tier/rank kit would get scrapped as much as it allowed.
Which was fine if you were a ranked player but was at the expense of the low ranked players.

Sure axis really did stop making any more PZII in real life, but when they did so, they did not say Well private Gunter, since you dont have enough rank to man anything but a PZII, you may go home and sit out the war.

The whole concept was a nice idea, there were certain parts i miss, like real RDP bombing to delay the enemies next tier
but other parts did not play out well in practice.

Even if you have players vote for it, just like stanyus's example someone is going to get screwed over

Share this post


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

Another thing that would happen is lower tier/rank kit would get scrapped as much as it allowed.
Which was fine if you were a ranked player but was at the expense of the low ranked players.

Sure axis really did stop making any more PZII in real life, but when they did so, they did not say Well private Gunter, since you dont have enough rank to man anything but a PZII, you may go home and sit out the war.

The whole concept was a nice idea, there were certain parts i miss, like real RDP bombing to delay the enemies next tier
but other parts did not play out well in practice.

Even if you have players vote for it, just like stanyus's example someone is going to get screwed over

Well a lot of the screwing over was simply because the Allies had more factions.  Prime example was that the PZH had to be RDP before the 109F4.  The French would then have (at the time) a overmodelled Stuart tank.  Yes even then the PZH was overmodelled.. however the allies had the Cru2 which was and still is no match for the PzH so all the BEF did was put all its extra RDP CVC for T0 equipment into more matties and the new RDP CVC went into the Spit5.  The French then Maxed out its Stu RDP while the Spit5 held the air advantage for everyone. HENSE my first post (when I was axis) on the subject of splitting the Axis into Army Group A and B that are tied to a split and equal number of factory towns so the Axis could RDP both the H and 09 using their ability to pass through one another. It would not "fix" but it was a solution to that allied advantage. So in order to do it correctly, all that has been learned plus a splitting of the Axis army groups and added factories I think could allow for such an item to be implemented equitably. That being said.. I can do with or without it.. but what Is most important to me was that each item had a value set in pretty much stone with CVC.  When CVC left, there was ZERO baseline to constrain each sides spawn pool. Nothing came for free. Nothing ever should be for free.  The current Tiger and StugG issue is a result of tossing CVC out the window. If the tiger was not fulfilling the needs (and I dare say neither is the low Matty numbers) of pb enjoyment IE being able to spawn one.. then they should have been upped, but so should the S76 numbers.  MB not double, but certainly by adding another 3 at a minimum. Same with the M10.  IF that had been done, I have an educated guess that the allies would have retained its PB or more of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, stankyus said:

Sorry, this is going to be a long reply.

Some of that is true - I think some of it was over exaggerated.  You are correct that the problem was internal squabbling. The first rule set with the RDP was a decision on what to RDP.  Very problematic on the Axis side, RDP the PzH OR rdp the 109F4.  HC had to chose which was always the PZH and the LW always got screwed out because the BEF would RDP the Spit5 and would naturally have more CVC to add Matties.  So the LW players would log in protest. 

That got remedied by allowing RDP to contain all the items in the RDP list.  CVC then would adjust the supply numbers and of course the Axis HC would MAX out the tank and ATG pool.  They would add 3x 88s, Max PzHs and by that time the pak38 was in with Max Pak38s.  The Axis supply pool then maxed out at 8x PzHs, 8x 88s, I cant remember what the pak count was.. down to something like 10 P4Ds, 4 PzFs, 2 stugBs, 4 232s and 1x38T. Cant rmemeber the 2C count...

AND then again in the LW - 6x 109 F4s.   So the Axis LW got screwed over by HC again so a Max limit on the top teir RDP items was established.  IIRC a Max of 5 Pzhs could be RDP'd. 

I have no idea what the allied count was simply because I did not play allied much then.  Then IIRC there was one more CVC change prior to the Tigers entrance and that was that the RATs introduced a Max CVC allowance to the ground and a Max amount for the Air.  That prevented GHC in particular from continually screwing over the LW.  That final change actually brought about some great game play even after the T2 entrance and ironing out balance issues the StugG brought, and fixing the Shermans mega mantle. The HUGE balance issue was with the BEF for the longest time and remains so until the BEF gets the Firefly and Achillies. That's the first time I have heard that there was  a  real  effort to actually address the BEFs balance since the introduction of T-2 into this game.

The NEXT readjusting the CVC was the Tigers entrance.  The Tiger was allowed to enter at 5 per AB.  I was axis then and LOVED it.. right up to the point it seemed so unbelievably ridiculously over balanced I could not find allied tanks to shoot.  That's when the Tiger got a MAX LIMIT of 2 per AB because after some serious deep down internal research with balance and the sex appeal of the Tiger any more than 2 Tigers tipped the scales so bad it nearly destroyed the allied PB.  Also having M10s and Cru3s to battle the tiger was pretty stupid. 

Adding the S76 and CH7 stemmed the allied bleeding, but it never really recovered.  Going back to the 5 Tigers vrs 5 S76s and equal numbers of StugGs and M10s was a huge mistake. It cut the AEF numbers in half as a result.  ATM we are down to a core of AEF members with some ready to walk until this balance issue is remedied. I know you prob don't like the constructive criticism but my squad is suffering from it - so I'm suffering from it.  They don't need CRS to tell them the game is balanced because we know its far from it and is quite insulting to suggest otherwise.  New toys is going to be awesome but if the balance problems are not fixed.. you are going to continue to bleed allied pb to where the allies have to rely on the Axis switching sides every once and a while for a win.  We pretty much are there now anyway, seriously tell me the last Allied only map win that we did not have a major axis squad switch sides?  I can remember... nope, I cant remember one in the past year or mb two.

The reason why I would want to go back to HC determined supply pools is that we have learned what works with the RDP.  We got all the limitations, max CVC point expenses, and limits on certain equipment that by themselves can destroy a map.  IE the Matty and TIger.  All that knowledge in place and CVC.. not only makes for honest play, it adds variety.  CVC established real value to attributes of each piece of equipment. You would not get 5 S76s and 5 Tigers. You would get 10 S76s and 5 Tigers, 10 StugGs and 18 M10s.

Yet you fail to realize how close the Axis side was to collapse. The FRU change exposed the 4G’s glass jaw. The Axis has been relying on the infantry FRU to fight tanks for years. The FRU change caused game dynamics to shift and forced ZOC style play that the 4G was not up to.

Entire squads discussed leaving the game. I convinced some to stay by just going Allied to have fun with it. We capped an empty town during prime time the very next campaign.

The Axis had decided the game wasn’t worth the price of admission anymore. There is where your Tigers came from. 

I had assumed CRS would model a decent AFV somewhere between the Tiger and 4G to cover the gap when they were able to model vehicles again. Instead they choose a souped up 3H on their roadmap. 

Notice my account now says free to play. 

I would go into greater depth, but it’s squad night tonight and I have to think about where we are going to set up a FOB and mortar site to defend the refinery in Al Basrah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept should be explored, I really doubt CRS implement this correctly in the past considering how unbalance each side is if you compare unit with unit.

But I think I see this more as a feature for player own brigades similar to what you had in Heroes and Generals, like owning a tank battalion you could choose to focus on tank supply or more combine arms supply that would mean you had a few extra infantry units and apcs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2018 at 9:51 AM, TuftyFoil said:

I think it would be a very good if we could customize troop production. 

 We could do this by having High Command choose which units they think would best fulfill our objectives.  There should be an equivalency ratio for each type of troop. An example of this could be we produce 2 M1 Grand rifleman or we could produce 1 LMG . Ratios are not necessarily whole number so the developers can figure out the best ratios.

This is a great idea because if we have to defend a town that only has supply left with 25 Sniper rifles and a few sappers we would want to move a brigade in  to defend with all the other great weapons with no sniper rifles as it would maximize our defense. Or have an entire brigade of engineers to blow forward bases if you wanted.

Pros -

1. No oversupply of a particular type of weapon.

2. Freedom of choice. To choose what gets produced and how much.

3.  Maximizing brigades to our best advantage as the situation demands it.

 

cons - 

1. How does one balance 'new units' (which historically incur higher costs vs maintaining current vehicle set)?  historically this was done by being able to choose between a few new units or more older units

2. How does one rectify the butthurt that one branch has when it's new shiny toy get skipped over in favor of the other branches new shiny toy?  Historically this was a huge issue and led to some serious butthurt by said branch (or when your countries toy didn't make the 'new' production list (a very real issue for the allies in the early days of the game)).

3. There are only a few templates, so while there would be some differentiation it'd not be much more/less than it is now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.