XOOM

We are trying

58 posts in this topic

We know that there is a great deal of impatience at times with the speed in which fixes and resolutions come into play. I wish I had better answers for you that produced more rapid results. We know that if you're Axis you feel the Allies have it better, and if you're Allied the Axis are being favored. We hear and see the same arguments on each side. This will always exist, and will continue to exist because of the competitive nature of this game for the duration of its life cycle.

Please know that CRS cares equally about both sides because you are OUR community as a whole. We do not wish one side to be better than the other. We have incredible debates internally in the name of balance and each side is protected and represented in all decision making. Your voices are listened to in game, on voice comms and in the forums, and even our e-mails / facebook areas.

The worst thing that you can do, is to pull the plug on your subscription and leave. It really doesn't solve anything to improve things here. 

The best thing that you can do, is stay the course and remember that we're all in this together. 

WWII Online has a real fighting chance to do some pretty big things yet. It will take more time and effort but we're getting it. 

I will do the best that I can. I will continue to invest incredible hours of my life into what we do here because it matters to me. I will have constructive discussion with you and make improvements where ever possible. I will not forget my time as a player and I will hold tight onto the passion that has propelled me this far by your grace and support.

I need YOU to stay the course with our team at CRS to get that done. We will be having a Rat Chat soon, announcement will be coming shortly.

WE CAN DO THIS - TOGETHER, and only together.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of the posters to forums and in game would drop dead with no purpose in life if they didn't have the chance to "wank on" about what is not "perfect" with the game. So it is imperative that the game continues or else they would pass in to that great unknown and then from beyond the grave they would "wank on" about that further, no doubt. lol. ;)

Just keep working away at things CRS. The game had a near death experience of its own....and is recovering and getting stronger. Not as fast as some like no doubt, but development IS happening.

Those that find the game (and community)  interesting and fun will continue to support, though they may leave for a while and return, cycle and repeat.

In the end though I am sure paid people at CRS could be making a whole lot of cash more doing something else with less headache.

It is so easy to be overly critical, destructive and basically an [censored] about things. It is much harder to be creative, productive and patient, especially with significant challenges.

To be honest I am pretty tired of some of  the "wanking" and complaining that goes on, though the real reason people wank and complain is that they really do like and want the game (and community) to continue and have more success. 

For my part.....I"ll be patient with them...as I have been with CRS.

Keep pushing the ball down the field.

S!

 

 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should invite more players to discussing and be more transparent about stuff, particularly the choice of new vehicles and/or at least explain well your thinking for them and new features, so we can put in your shoes and try to see the direction you are aiming for.

You have been taking away the cons of allies vehicles but keeping those of axis.

Why the StuG 105mm? if the reason is for smoke shells you could use the PZ IVD for this and gives us the StuG IIIG with the historical Top LMG, the Allies have a top LMG we don't and with no ability ingame to repair tracks, with ATGs Spawning in FMS and RPATs it's frustrating to use the StuG IIIG. I would rather have STUG IIIG with the top lmg than the Stug 105mm

Same for the lack of a good ground support plane this can be easily fix with the Ju 87 D3 or D5 the 1.5 ton would do so much in turning the JU 87 in a more effective plane, even despite not having the speed of the Db7 the higher tonnage of bombs would do great against the more well armored allied tanks.

You can also easily implement the Puma for axis by using the 232 hull and only adding a new turret due the low modeling details of the 232 this could be easily passed out as the puma.

These 2.5 new axis Vehicles would practically have a 1 to 1 unit comparison between allied vs axis equipment and are of higher priority compared to the IIIL, this would also help shield the dev team from constant nerf and bias accusations, honestly from what you have shown already being able to implement, all this vehicles could all be implemented this year.

 

Also I will always say this I still have no idea why you want town supply so badly and to extend of the disruption it would provoke in the game, it was a bad solution in the past that got changed for the better and town supply would not hold in todays gaming industry. More than half of the fun of WW2ol is the lack and oversupply and flag movements, this increases the stakes and makes so much more engaging and rewarding to play and to win a Battle.. Warthunder doesn't have that and that's why my most epic battle in warthunder wouldn't even hold a candle to any of my epic battles in WW2ol.

The problem with flags is not in flags but in HC putting all potential content generation in the hands of one player at a time(moic) that is not payed and is forced to play the game by making brigade movements, IS the PROBLEM!

Democratize flags movements, add hundreds of new brigades to the map with 1/4 of supply or so, give the ability for premium players to request one of these to command, you will suddenly have a new feature to monetize and add value to subscribers, squads will able to coordinate with their premium squadies to form their attacks, you won't be overburdening one particular player, you will see more attacks in different locations like the North, camping FMS will be less viable due to the reduce supply, you will be promoting team work across the entire campaign by these movement's since each of these brigades is not enough to mount an attack.. building new relations and forming new communities essential to any MMO future...

I hope you really change your heart in this and instead reduce the scope of town supply to just garrisons/cp level for every town, you are juggling a small MMO community split between axis and allies and features, implementing drastic game changing features is potentially fatal and is something you should really avoid, at least until you are financially stable and have a seasoned dev team.

 

I measure a great leader by it's ability to see a mistake but also by it's flexibility to acknowledged it and come up with a better solution, that's why when Rommel retreat to Tunisia it showed him as one of the greatness military leaders in history.

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of Free Play Accounts like to say what isn't great today, and what will not be great in the future.

Yeah, thanks for that...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, pbveteran said:

You have been taking away the cons of allies vehicles but keeping those of axis.

Why the StuG 105mm? if the reason is for smoke shells you could use the PZ IVD for this and gives us the StuG IIIG with the historical Top LMG, the Allies have a top LMG we don't and with no ability ingame to repair tracks, with ATGs Spawning in FMS and RPATs it's frustrating to use the StuG IIIG. I would rather have STUG IIIG with the top lmg than the Stug 105mm

There are coding reasons that the top MG on the stug hasn't been done. IT's the way the models are built. We all wish it was possible.

 

The Stuh III is the the logical late war HE thrower for the german army.  

 

And do you EVER do anything but whine and complain? I have yet to see you ingame.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, pbveteran said:

Lots of stuff

On Transparency & Player Involvement:

There are scheduled "Rat Chats" available to the general playerbase for the players to sit down and discuss w/ CRS members & volunteers about issues, new features, etc.

They're not regularly scheduled, but they do happen from time to time.

In addition to that, CRS is active in responding to forum posts & questions. A big part of your post has to do with the Town Supply changes, and there's a huge Q&A thread about that very topic with a very handy reference for those questions and answers in the first post.

 

On StuG/StuH:

StuH 105mm is a good close support tank for Axis and requires only a couple changes to resize the barrel.

Top LMG for existing StuG requires significant model and animation changes.

CRS 2.0 is eager to prove itself by producing brand new content to the players, and simple things like munitions and barrel changes are far easier to do than to create new models or do significant model rework on existing models. CS tanks gives Allies some parity with the numerous Axis tanks that can be used to lock down infantry, and the StuH 105mm gives Axis some parity with higher-caliber HE. This is some new content that won't bog down the Production team while they work on brand new stuff (like the Italians, which also involves new models, textures, and tons of animation).

 

On Stuka:

A glance at Wikipedia shows that the changes to the Ju 87D series from the Ju 87B series is a number of internal equipment relocations. The D3 would only need that, but the D5 would also need changes to the wings. This means some model changes to reconfigure where the internal bits are for the D3 from there existing B model, and more model work for the D5.

I do agree that the D3 seems to be something CRS could output in the short term for Axis.

 

On year turn-around:

Yes, if CRS prioritized only those things, they could be done within a year. That's not all CRS is working on, and the 3L being less important than the StuG MG is an opinion I find to be less popular among Axis players.

 

On Town Supply & HC:

Town supply ensures that there are always fights to be had. There are still always stakes, there are still strategic elements.

It was a bad solution in the past due to the North-South split for the Allies, due to how the capture mechanics worked at the time, and due to how rote the campaigns could become.

CRS is seeking to address each of those issues (country change control for Allies, existing capture mechanics that are a vast improvement over the old table-tagging, keeping flags around to introduce variance) and use Town Supply as a way to eliminate Softcapping and do their best to guarantee actual gameplay.

Additionally, it will take away much of the responsibility of HC for both sides acting as office clerks trying to do their part to guarantee action for the playerbase by shuffling flags around.

Your idea of adding tons of new flags reminds me very vividly of the bs that is the Generals mode for Heroes & Generals. To be blunt, it's a giant, unmanageable cluter[censored]. There are constantly flags moving everywhere, it's difficult to see what's going on, it's difficult for the game (or any game) to even informatively render what's going on, it requires the playerbase to constantly be online to manage, etc.

It would not directly address Softcapping, it would still allow for ridiculous cut-offs, it still requires constant player activity to manage, you'd need to have 1 flag per subscribing player or they'd feel cheated and then overpop would have an even greater advantage, etc. etc. etc.

It is a terrible idea that will not solve the problems you say it will solve.

Democratizing existing flags poses its own issues for the same reasons that too many people trying to lead anything is a problem: nothing effective ever gets done. It would also open up both sides to griefing during low-population times.

 

On Big Game-Changers & Stability:

I agree that making sweeping changes may cause too much instability, esp. for a game and company that continues to struggle. However, doing nothing is not viable, because CRS is at a greater disadvantage of losing existing & future business by doing nothing than it is by showing it is ready and able to make changes (hopefully for the better). 

You're also very hypocritical here, saying "no sweeping changes" while the prior paragraph is all about going crazy by adding in "hundreds" of flags, removing hc, democratizing flag moves, etc.

 

 

Out of all of that, the only thing I can see as being positive criticism is the recommendation for adding the Ju 87D series, and possibly a reiteration of the request for the StuG MG (though that one is coupled with complaining that CRS is putting out the StuH 105mm, with the misunderstanding that the StuG MG vs StuH 105mm is somehow an equivalent decision; you can have the StuH 105mm now and the StuG MG later, or just have the StuG MG later... not sure why you'd insist on the latter over the former).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, poker said:

Plenty of Free Play Accounts like to say what isn't great today, and what will not be great in the future.

Yeah, thanks for that...

QFT

Put up, or STFU.

Edited by lipton
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New toys, new HE, new ballistics, the ability to fix, add and change towns, dynamic cap timers, new graphics in the works with wing 2....  And ppl want to unsub?  TBH I see the coolest days of ww2ol right around the corner, I don't want to miss it.

As relationship to balance. Balance will always be a issue to get it right.  We had a mechanism in place to help set the balance scales. When any new item enters the game there has been and always be a period of time where balance can be upset until the data is sufficient enough to make the right balance choices.  The attribute of a said piece of equipment has to be weighed and measured and its "sexiness" which as to weighed and measured "ie player draw" and wrapped up into a modified CVC. The old CVC did not encounter much of the player draw as much as the Tiger did. That phenomena has to be considered with every sexy addition into the CVC.  Especially with the Matty, Tiger and Firefly. It has to appeal to the pb enough to draw new players and keep players but also cannot pass that threshold to where it encourages one side to massively over populate one side. The counter is to make sure that the counterpart is in sufficient numbers to keep the other side logged in.  That is the beauty of CVC. Its a stabilizing force.  The allies are bleeding ppl simply because of ignoring the StugG/Tiger parity with their counterparts. Its insulting, but can be easily remedied.  The best solution would be to keep the Tiger numbers as they are and increase the S76s numbers.. and probably decrease the StugG numbers some and increase the M10 numbers some. That would keep the stugG numbers from looking to punitive and plenty in supply and the M10 numbers from being overwhelming.  I am sure there are some other items that can be looked at from other perspectives, but the one I mentioned are the biggest concern for my squad and one reason why AEF is bleeding members who are considering unsubbing or already have. 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

New toys, new HE, new ballistics, the ability to fix, add and change towns, dynamic cap timers, new graphics in the works with wing 2....  And ppl want to unsub?  TBH I see the coolest days of ww2ol right around the corner, I don't want to miss it.

 

It's why I'm back. Folks ... do you want a MMO war simulator that doesn't suck? This game is your only real hope for that.

 

nothing new in this game for YEARS now we have a flood of new stuff with a roadmap suggesting more. it really does boggle the mind. keep that sub, take a break, but there is properly rendered light at the end of this tunnel. Maybe even some lens flare. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, stankyus said:

The allies are bleeding ppl simply because of ignoring the StugG/Tiger parity with their counterparts. Its insulting, but can be easily remedied.  The best solution would be to keep the Tiger numbers as they are and increase the S76s numbers.. and probably decrease the StugG numbers some and increase the M10 numbers some. That would keep the stugG numbers from looking to punitive and plenty in supply and the M10 numbers from being overwhelming.

And Axis has lost subscribers due to "paper panzers", the existence of an anti-tank armored car for the Allies, that the Tiger appears to be disproportionately 'de-gun'-able, etc., and that's from the ground. There are a wealth of issues that have caused Axis players to unsub regarding the air game.

 

I ran the stat numbers in the Motor Pool forum some time ago and I will agree that Tigers are very, very good. Disproportionately good.

The issue with balancing its numbers are that without the Tiger, the StuG 3G is the only tank able to effectively fight the S76 or the M10. The Pz IV G is not effective, and we have the stats to confirm this. This is somewhat balanced by the fact that the StuG 3G cannot effectively defend itself from enemy infantry due to its fixed gun and lack of machine guns (even with the top mg, an infantry could simply shoot it in the head and render it useless).

Slightly lowering the number of Tigers, from like 8 to 6 or something, is something that CRS could point to the raw data and justify. Lowering the StuG 3G numbers at the same time is not. Buffing the S76 numbers or the M10 numbers at the same time is not.

 

There are tensions on both sides with people threatening to unsub. What you're suggesting would definitely cause a lot of Axis to believe that CRS is being biased and unsub. At least, not without something else to hand to the Axis that penalizes the Allied side or provides Axis an advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@chaoswzkd

Quote

 

On Big Game-Changers & Stability:

I agree that making sweeping changes may cause too much instability, esp. for a game and company that continues to struggle. However, doing nothing is not viable, because CRS is at a greater disadvantage of losing existing & future business by doing nothing than it is by showing it is ready and able to make changes (hopefully for the better). 

You're also very hypocritical here, saying "no sweeping changes" while the prior paragraph is all about going crazy by adding in "hundreds" of flags, removing hc, democratizing flag moves, etc.


 

You have to see that in a development and programmer point of view, the only difference between what I ask and the current system is a simple check IDPlayer to see if he owns a brigade and can move it.. more brigades and with different supply is only changing values on the existing system, the coding required is insignificant ... Further more because this is mainly value centric, it could be easily rolled back, something town supply won't be.

Also this was already tested in heroes and generals, so it's proven to work. This was one of the best features of H&G unfortunately they used flash to command these brigades which made this strategic layer extremely laggy rather than being ingame like WW2ol, they also destroyed much of the advantage of this by putting progress walls, in the old days of H&G, if you have a Stug Assault Team on the battle every player could use a StuG but currently you have to unlock a tank crew, level until you unlock the StuG and then buy the Stug to be able to use it.. considering battles are like 20 vs 20 the likeness that some one can use that equipment is very small, so this assault team and the strategy layer have little impact on the game.

Now compared this to town supply? You basically have to remove completely flags, it's a deeper system that requires a lot of programming since it uses features and concepts are not present in the game this increases the likeness of bugs and delays, it will be harder to roll back since it will have many new systems related to each other and it will take a considerable time to implement.

And what do you gain?... the same battles over and over again where each side has the same starting supply? Plus this system was proven to be flawed in the past, we been there and the old system of having people spend 8 hours of purely driving between towns to oversupply won't be happening today.

 

Please reply tell me why this is wrong? Wouldn't you rather own a battalion and together we other players mount an attack or defense? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, chaoswzkd said:

And Axis has lost subscribers due to "paper panzers", the existence of an anti-tank armored car for the Allies, that the Tiger appears to be disproportionately 'de-gun'-able, etc., and that's from the ground. There are a wealth of issues that have caused Axis players to unsub regarding the air game.

 

I ran the stat numbers in the Motor Pool forum some time ago and I will agree that Tigers are very, very good. Disproportionately good.

The issue with balancing its numbers are that without the Tiger, the StuG 3G is the only tank able to effectively fight the S76 or the M10. The Pz IV G is not effective, and we have the stats to confirm this. This is somewhat balanced by the fact that the StuG 3G cannot effectively defend itself from enemy infantry due to its fixed gun and lack of machine guns (even with the top mg, an infantry could simply shoot it in the head and render it useless).

Slightly lowering the number of Tigers, from like 8 to 6 or something, is something that CRS could point to the raw data and justify. Lowering the StuG 3G numbers at the same time is not. Buffing the S76 numbers or the M10 numbers at the same time is not.

 

There are tensions on both sides with people threatening to unsub. What you're suggesting would definitely cause a lot of Axis to believe that CRS is being biased and unsub. At least, not without something else to hand to the Axis that penalizes the Allied side or provides Axis an advantage.

The paper panzer relates only to T0 respectively and over the years there have been many changes to improve that including the advent of a new HEAT round, changing loadouts, increasing numbers etc.. There are efforts in releaving that problem in the works right now.  The game is rarely won in T-0, its usually a T2/3 win.

Normal KD -

Tiger vrs the S76 - Just over a 2.0 kd: T3 vrs T3

Tiger vrs M10 - 3.5-4.0 kd: T3 vrs T2 - That is a average range I have seen the Tiger as low as 3.1 and as high as 4.7

Tiger vrs S75:  5.0 kd  T3 vrs T2

S76 vrs the StugG - 1.2-1.3 kd: T3 vrs T2

S76 vrs the 4G - 1.5-1.7 kd: T3 vrs T2

StugG vrs M10 - 1.7-2.0 kd T2 vrs T2

M10 vrs the 4G - 1.2-1,3 kd T2 vrs T2

S75 vrs the 4G - .98 - 1.1 kd: T2 vrs T2

These are usually the kd averages in T2/3 where most maps are won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@pbveteran

Your original comment was cautioning about "implementing drastic game changing features"; that sounds a lot more like you're saying it's a problem in that it's changing the game, not that it's a problem in that it requires a ton of dev resources.

But okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were talking about using dev resources. Let's talk about what adding hundreds of flags would require programming-wise.

Remove HC integration, create new system that's active for every player. Scrap AO system and create something new. Scrap HC pieces of OrBat. Add and track hundreds of movable flags. Add better movement system to be usable without keywords or training. Implement either automatic or manual supply selection when spawning in. Scrap current flag display UI and make something new. Scrap Brigade Roster screen and make something new. Either allow players to lock in which country their flag is for or otherwise allow them to change it with restrictions, and implement whatever is decided on.

That's not even everything, and each of those things requires consideration and significant design time on top of actual dev/production time. It is far, far beyond "just change it to look at player id".

 

We have SIGNIFICANTLY different opinions on Generals mode on H&G. I thought it was a neat idea, but everything about its implementation is god-awful, and it has almost no balancing mechanic (supply production is one, but it is [censored]-poor and locks players out of even being able to play Generals mode unless they're there in the first hour of a new campaign, and your side has to hope they stay online forever). From my perspective, it was tested and proven not to work.

Flags don't "have to" be removed at all, and CRS isn't removing them.

Hybrid Supply gains the playerbase not having to rely on any players to actually have fights, the elimination of softcaps, and the relief of pressure for HC.

Player flags gains the playerbase... shiny toys of dubious reward. They won't guarantee anything except a mess. Even General mode had fights between 10+ flags on one side and 3 fighter wings on the other. It was almost impossible to actually impossible to coordinate.

 

To answer your final question, I would rather have a historical warfare simulator with a functional and reasonably historically accurate strategic layer over "owning my own brigade".

 

 

@stankyus

Paper panzers is not a T0 issue. It goes all the way to Tiger. Many Axis players believe even the Tiger to be a Paper Panzer, and that's without talking about the IVG & IVD, the 3F & H, etc. The Tiger, despite its k/d, appears to be de-gunned or destroyed in many different ways in which it either shouldn't or other tanks also should.

It doesn't help that WWIIOL accurately models German tanks with their stupid boxcar designs; if the US had accepted the T-34 proposal, the Allies would have had a monopoly on sloped armor designs until the Germans refined some of theirs.

 

As you can see from the stats, the Tiger is indeed quite strong. It is also the only Axis tank effective at taking out the S76. 

The StuG 3G is good at taking out everything but the S76. The Pz IVG is good at taking out nothing except lower tier medium and light armor (but not the M10).

If anything, if you lower Tiger numbers, you should increase StuG 3G numbers to compensate, not also decrease them and also increase S76 and also increase M10.

 

If Allies lose all S76, M10s can still de-gun Tiger. If all M10s are lost, pretty sure S75 and equivalent caliber ATG can de-gun Tiger.

All of that is without taking ATS and Sappers into the equation.

 

If CRS removed the ability to de-gun the Tiger, or made it so it's equally viable to do for all tanks (which theoretically should be the case but observational isn't), I could see a decrease in Tiger and increase in S76 and M10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always a challenge fighting perception vs. fact. If Axis perceive the tiger to have paper armor or too easily degunned but the hard facts (k/d ratio versus other tank models) tell us different, then maybe we need a way to better highlight this data in a more easily accessible way. Not sure that it would matter to some though.

Or maybe the fact is, the tiger was a supremely awesome tank and a 2 or 3x k/d ratio is too low. 

And yet again, the Allies could point out germany only built 1,300 tigers during the entire war. Compare that to the nunbers of Shermans produced. Pretty sure that numbers imbalance isnt historically accurate in the game.

Not sure what the actual fact of the matter is historically though regarding how good one tank actually was vs. another. I am not that much of a wwii history buff.

So in closing. Maybe the answer is make the tiger even more awesome until it gets a 6x k/d ratio. Give the allies 3x the number of shermans. Maybe that will make everyone happy. 

Muhahaha, think not!!

Good luck CRS finding the right balance to make everyone happy ;)

Appreciate you trying though!

Side note: Personally i hate the M10 with its open topped turret, painfully slow turret spin an no forward facing MG. Historically accurate i am sure, it just sucks to use.

Share this post


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

 

@stankyus

Paper panzers is not a T0 issue. It goes all the way to Tiger. Many Axis players believe even the Tiger to be a Paper Panzer, and that's without talking about the IVG & IVD, the 3F & H, etc. The Tiger, despite its k/d, appears to be de-gunned or destroyed in many different ways in which it either shouldn't or other tanks also should.

It doesn't help that WWIIOL accurately models German tanks with their stupid boxcar designs; if the US had accepted the T-34 proposal, the Allies would have had a monopoly on sloped armor designs until the Germans refined some of theirs.

 

As you can see from the stats, the Tiger is indeed quite strong. It is also the only Axis tank effective at taking out the S76. 

The StuG 3G is good at taking out everything but the S76. The Pz IVG is good at taking out nothing except lower tier medium and light armor (but not the M10).

If anything, if you lower Tiger numbers, you should increase StuG 3G numbers to compensate, not also decrease them and also increase S76 and also increase M10.

 

If Allies lose all S76, M10s can still de-gun Tiger. If all M10s are lost, pretty sure S75 and equivalent caliber ATG can de-gun Tiger.

All of that is without taking ATS and Sappers into the equation.

 

If CRS removed the ability to de-gun the Tiger, or made it so it's equally viable to do for all tanks (which theoretically should be the case but observational isn't), I could see a decrease in Tiger and increase in S76 and M10.

All tanks in the game have "paper" armor on the flanks compared to the frontal armor.  Just saying they are paper is a thin, very thin argument.  All sides have tanks with very similar side armor across the board. The gun performance curve goes up after T-0 ending in favor of the Axis to where side armor on the allied tanks is a non factor - let alone frontal armor with the exception of the CH7. KD does have its roll because it tends to be performance in aggregate.. fighting styles, flanking and frontal engagements, camping and being camped.

Degunning is a matter of fact in this game -  in RL also. The largest threshold for degunning is in fact on the Tiger and is just a symptom of it being very well armored and not outright being destroyed.  You have to take the T vrs T kd into account with their counter part during their Tier entry FIRST.  The StugG in its entry Tier absolutely decimates the M10 and S75.  The S76 which was developed and entered into this game SPECIFICALLY as a result of the M10 not being able to come close to cutting the mustard with the Tiger.  Tiger has just over a 2.0 kd vrs the S76.  Lets say we drop the Tiger and Keep the S76.  The StugG numbers remain at 10 and the S76 remain at 5.  Using the KD, the end result is that the StugG will eliminate the S76 and still have 4 StugGs left. The 3G has a 2kd vrs the M10 and you wind up with 2 M10s left.  The 4G and S75 virtually eliminate each other and that leaves the Allies with a 2 M10 advantage. That is without the Tiger in the Mix and an added 5 S76s.  That scenario is actually MORE balanced than it is currently.  I know its not a perfect picture as the game is not a vacuum. However its not in the outfield either, it falls closer to the infield.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On democratic flag movements:

They wont be democratic really.
I will give you an extreme example
A side balancing squad that puts their members in where ever the game pop needs, even if the squad winds up facing off against each other.
No one will let them have a flag, guarantee it, they will get outvoted and shot down left and right on both sides
And all they are doing is trying to do their part to make sure sides are even and fair, but because people will decide to label them as spies or what not
they will never get to use a flag, period.

People will get outvoted constantly over petty BS and he who makes the most friends will have the most flags so to speak, and that is no way to do things.
Tick someone off in OT? well screw you my friends are outvoting you, no flags for you this week end etc.

 

On Town Supply:

Town Supply 1.0 if no one remembers was supply in every town on the map
We could go 10 towns to the rear and pull equipment, and no town could be cut off, they were all their own self sustaining entities
You would insta-cap 1 town in the rear and spawn magic army and BAM it had full supply.

Townsupply 2.0 does not bring any of that with it, no one wants any of those aspects ever again.
You will get cut off, full supply rule set remains in effect.
You wont get magic army on cap, your stuff will slowly drive in.
You wont be pulling supply from any farther backwards than right behind you, and if you overpull and lose you will find yourself in a bad way if the offensive continues to push at you cause you will be scrambling to try to keep pulling and you will wind up with a break through, just a slower one.
You will, if you've the willing bodies be able to try to make a stand against a softcap, if you've no willing bodies you will then get soft capped but it was your choice.
If HC makes a mistake and commits a bad flag move (Everyone messes up, if you dont, then you are deceased and cant play anyways) you wont be sitting there with nothing but a pickle in your hands.
You will be able to carry on, just will be missing a bit of supplemental kit.

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

merlin, behind the lines warp armies got killed pretty quickly requiring a link to the town. trickle in as i recall also existed prior to flags. just saying, be fair to the past. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, madrebel said:

merlin, behind the lines warp armies got killed pretty quickly requiring a link to the town. trickle in as i recall also existed prior to flags. just saying, be fair to the past. 

When I first started playing back in 2003 they had a trickle supply already implemented from instant supply, however the supply started trickling in at the 2 minute mark and filled in at the 30min mark (?) It was pretty fast.  That has been adjusted many times IIRC prior to Brigades entering.

Share this post


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

merlin, behind the lines warp armies got killed pretty quickly requiring a link to the town. trickle in as i recall also existed prior to flags. just saying, be fair to the past. 

it was a fast trickle like stanky says, and that was after it had originally been hump BOOM army.
and if you put either 2 or 3 towns together, forget which, they would begin their own supply, they just had to link to each other, im sure someone remembers some of the early campaigns with the auto supplying pockets you couldn't kill easily.

 

The fights were fun, trying to make any sense of the map sometimes was hard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@stankyus

Theoretically, in a vacuum, with all players of equal skill, mathematically, sure, removing the Tiger is good for tank balance.

First issue is that this is combined arms; are there effective counters to the Tiger in the form of ATG/AAA/Inf/Air? How effective are they? Are there effective counters to the S76 and M10? How effective are they? Etc.

Second issue is I can tell you right now that removing the Tiger will cause Axis to lose all faith in CRS. Keeping the Tiger and doing nothing might cause Allies to lose all faith in CRS but removing it won't. I get that you're more just going for conjecture to prove a point, but acting on it will break the playerbase without significant concessions elsewhere.

The best thing to do would be to hand the Axis something that was good at taking out the S76 without being as overpowered as the Tiger, and then reducing the Tiger's numbers.

 

Also, your armor argument is all about side armor, but front armor on every Axis tank, including the Tiger, is pennable. Even the StuG 3G; I even died a couple days ago from one shot from an S76 (or an S75, will have to check) when I was trying to line up on him, so I was just off-center which would actually increase my armor effectiveness. Not sure if any audits will need to be done about that, because it seems realistic given German boxcar designs. Meanwhile, there are a number of Allied tanks that are VERY difficult to pen from the front; likewise most likely due to historical armor design rather than model/munition data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The grass is always greener on the other side.  Everyone should not stick to their sides 100% of the time and experience both sides.  I am sure that they will probably find that they are getting killed around the same amount on the other side.  Stats are good and all, but we all know that people who think charging straight at the enemy is in the game or the camping of spawns that skew the numbers.  If everyone used the equipment properly, then I would guess that the stats would change a lot.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.