goreblimey

THE AMERICANS ARE COMING , well some of them

207 posts in this topic

13 minutes ago, Pittpete said:

And if there's an apparent error then let OHM know.

Just put an @OHM and he'll respond.

Knowing is half the battle

That's all good and well.  You guys actually do a good job of that.  


We need fewer mistakes being made before the campaigns commence. 

 

Please guys.  I want to support this game but you should AT LEAST be able to get the infantry numbers matched up without a problem. 

 

Balancing armor is a nightmare and I get that.  But you have no excuses for messing up the infantry this frequently.  Get it right.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you guys have fast [censored] bombers, db-7 and the havoc just blowing the [censored] out of EVERYTHING!  Thats unfair, i want more AA added to the game, MULTIBARRELED AA to be exact, (whirbelwind,ostwind, flak panzers etc) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Balance" has to take stats-shown lethality into account. It can't be simply matched numbers. That'd be dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jwilly said:

"Balance" has to take stats-shown lethality into account. It can't be simply matched numbers. That'd be dumb.

But ALL Country Bgds should field the same number of Semi's, Rifles, SMG's, etc. That's just common sense and good, fair game play.  

You're going to lose some subs over this, CRS. You're going to lose mine if it happens again. 

Edited by lipton
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is abit off-topic during a heated discussion but would like to know the answer please:

When the American divisions do arrive for placement on the map, how does AHC decide what to remove and where etc.?

Does AHC just remove say one BEF division in town xyz held by BEF and place an American div in its place ? Or if town held by French, AHC just removes that division and place American one there ?

Thnx

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, jwilly said:

"Balance" has to take stats-shown lethality into account. It can't be simply matched numbers. That'd be dumb.

What like equal tigers to s76 ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jwilly said:

"Balance" has to take stats-shown lethality into account. It can't be simply matched numbers. That'd be dumb.

Are you purposely being obtuse?  The infantry numbers have always been 1:1, and it's probably the one part of the spawn list that both sides have the most agreement on.  

 

If they want to try to balance out the infantry in a much more rigorous, stat-based way they can try to do that.  But I have zero confidence that they are capable of that at this point, especially considering their decision to have the same amount of Tigers as S76s (which the stats show is a woeful mismatch).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, kazee said:

I know this is abit off-topic during a heated discussion but would like to know the answer please:

When the American divisions do arrive for placement on the map, how does AHC decide what to remove and where etc.?

Does AHC just remove say one BEF division in town xyz held by BEF and place an American div in its place ? Or if town held by French, AHC just removes that division and place American one there ?

Thnx

We actually don't get any say whatsoever in this.  CRS makes the decision for us.  

 

Which really sucks, because 90% of the time we in AHC hate the divisions they choose to keep.  They usually plop the French and Brits right in the center, when we would prefer to have them each on the flanks.  

 

It would be really nice if they choose the exact same divisions to keep and to replace each campaign, that way we could plan ahead of time.  But they aren't consistent, so we are really at the mercy of whoever is doing the deployments.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

We actually don't get any say whatsoever in this.  CRS makes the decision for us.  

 

Which really sucks, because 90% of the time we in AHC hate the divisions they choose to keep.  They usually plop the French and Brits right in the center, when we would prefer to have them each on the flanks.  

 

It would be really nice if they choose the exact same divisions to keep and to replace each campaign, that way we could plan ahead of time.  But they aren't consistent, so we are really at the mercy of whoever is doing the deployments.  

Ooooo really, wow didnt know that...now that is a bigggggly problem and if I was in AHC I would be beating my fists on the door to where servers are stored to get control of those divisions and placement

How the &%$@# did you guys let this go on for so long ??? They control the placement ??? Thats like a hugggggge decision and takes many factors into play. Most factors I will keep to myself, but its a very big deal.

Just one mans opinion but that is what u guys should be [censored]ing about way more than an extra 30-40 units of supply

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kazee said:

Ooooo really, wow didnt know that...now that is a bigggggly problem and if I was in AHC I would be beating my fists on the door to where servers are stored to get control of those divisions and placement

How the &%$@# did you guys let this go on for so long ??? They control the placement ??? Thats like a hugggggge decision and takes many factors into play. Most factors I will keep to myself, but its a very big deal.

Just one mans opinion but that is what u guys should be [censored]ing about way more than an extra 30-40 units of supply

We did man.  I made my case before on this exact topic (and at least once within the last year).  And I know I'm not the only one.  

 

They just didn't care enough to do anything about it, or they said it was too difficult for them to do with the tools or something.  I don't really even know... EDIT:  WAIT I remember now.  It's to add spice/flavor/an X-factor.  That was the official answer for quite some time.  

 

It's kind of this recurring theme lately with the Allies and CRS, and it's sapping our will to beat fists on doors.  

Edited by Capco
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things like this should be addressed before new items are brought into the game. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

We did man.  I made my case before on this exact topic (and at least once within the last year).  And I know I'm not the only one.  

 

They just didn't care enough to do anything about it, or they said it was too difficult for them to do with the tools or something.  I don't really even know... EDIT:  WAIT I remember now.  It's to add spice/flavor/an X-factor.  That was the official answer for quite some time.  

 

It's kind of this recurring theme lately with the Allies and CRS, and it's sapping our will to beat fists on doors.  

Yea must have missed that about you and others complaining, and rightfully so...but I will just say this, these issues needs to be addressed like now, not next month or sometime soon...it should be addressed now

How can they say "too difficult with tools etc." ahh that bs...AHC sends a email prior to deployment and says we want this division here in this town we hold etc etc up and down the front. Hell is so freaking important in my book due to supply, types of equipment, speed, armor, where your front is on the map...the game should just pause for 20 mins if needed to place them under AHC orders.

In total shock here this is the case;  because I thought AHC made the decision of what divisions are kept and where placement was and I was thinking a few hours ago removing alot of those BEF divisions on that part of map was a major mistake...mistake by CRS i guess I know now 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didnt know about this US division placement process. 

I Wonder how 1.36 planned supply management. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Are you purposely being obtuse?  The infantry numbers have always been 1:1, and it's probably the one part of the spawn list that both sides have the most agreement on.  

Maybe recently, but recently things have been out of kilter at times.

I'm sure that equal numbers would be easier to type in, but how would a balanced-effectiveness game result from the American lack of some weapons? If the missing weapons were compensated for with more of some other weapon, wouldn't that throw off the equal numbers of that other weapon? What would be the logic of equal numbers of non-comparable weapons, i.e. the eventual American 60mm light mortar vs. the German 50mm mortar with ~ 1/5 the lethality? Or the German GPMG vs. the British and French LMGs vs. the American automatic rifle, with way different lethalities? Or eventually the British HEAT RG with (once the round effectiveness is made realistic) several times the lethality of the German HEAT RG? 

The list could go on.

My understanding from the old-CRS person who did this work, in the old Design/Beta Forum, was that spawnable numbers and lethality were both considered in arriving at spawn list numbers. That often needed to be the case when weapon effectiveness differed, or one side didn't have a weapon yet that the other side had. Otherwise an imbalanced game would result. The #1 directive always was to keep the game balanced, based on overall stats.

I don't know the specifics of Tigers vs. S76s, but balance based on stats is always and only overall. Never one weapon against another weapon. So, if one side has an advantage in one area, that can offset the other side's advantage in another area, and result in overall stats balance. It's always been that way, since the beginning.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Maybe recently, but recently things have been out of kilter at times.

I'm sure that equal numbers would be easier to type in, but how would a balanced-effectiveness game result from the American lack of some weapons? If the missing weapons were compensated for with more of some other weapon, wouldn't that throw off the equal numbers of that other weapon? What would be the logic of equal numbers of non-comparable weapons, i.e. the eventual American 60mm light mortar vs. the German 50mm mortar with ~ 1/5 the lethality? Or the German GPMG vs. the British and French LMGs vs. the American automatic rifle, with way different lethalities? Or eventually the British HEAT RG with (once the round effectiveness is made realistic) several times the lethality of the German HEAT RG? 

The list could go on.

My understanding from the old-CRS person who did this work, in the old Design/Beta Forum, was that spawnable numbers and lethality were both considered in arriving at spawn list numbers. That often needed to be the case when weapon effectiveness differed, or one side didn't have a weapon yet that the other side had. Otherwise an imbalanced game would result. The #1 directive always was to keep the game balanced, based on overall stats.

I'm not saying you're wrong.  Of course that's the best approach (and a couple years ago I tried to push for that approach when new CRS came around).  I question if they can do that however.  

 

The last time CRS attempted to do this publicly was when Doc was still here.  He decided to drop the Axis LMGs by 5 per brigade since they were more lethal than the Allied LMGs, and there was so much whining that it didn't even last a full campaign.  

 

Right now, a 1:1 ratio is what people are used to seeing, and until CRS lays out their rationale for a lethality-based approach to infantry number balancing, you will get a repeat of that Doc saga above if you stray from a 1:1 ratio.  

Edited by Capco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would always start with a 1:1 line up.

Then, adjust from there.  And, explain the adjustments.

USA have no LMG, so of course they going to get BAR in the same number of mg34s.

When FG-42 comes in, say at 20, then allies would get 20 more BAR as their assault rifle in addition to the 'LMG" ones.

 

Brits w/o a semi is a bit trickier.  They are already better rifle with the faster bolt cycle by far - but obviously not as good as a semi.

So going to have to stray a bit from reality and probably give them some semis; but maybe not the full amount?
Same as german semi, they had em, but not as many as USA.

 

So, for example, (this is totally made up #s as an example).  We'll disregard assault rifles, LMGs and SMGs atm.  Just deal with bolt and semis.

Since brits had none, maybe they'd get 50 semi and 150 bolt.  german with a  few more, might get 100 semi and 100 bolt.  USA might get 150 semi and 50 bolt.

 

Anyways, you get the idea; start with an even line up, then adjust a bit.  SMGs should be the easiest (get rid of grease gun in early tiers though - that really is fantasy and out of reality) and LMGs/assault rifles pretty easy too.  Not sure when it comes to MMG and HMGs.  But, since not in game don't have to worry about that atm.

 

As for mortars, what, 60mm twice as lethal as 50mm?  The give them half the number, at least as a stating point.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

***  He decided to drop the Axis LMGs by 5 per brigade since they were more lethal than the Allied LMGs, and there was so much whining that it didn't even last a full campaign.

Because, just like axis has to suffer with slow bombers, poor tier 0 ATG, poor armor, poor AA and lousy armored car, allies going to have to suffer too, your LMG just not as good; so that just the way it is, just like axis deals with it. (curious, you willing to have 1/5 the bombers as axis.. and 1/3 the AA guns as based on stats...?  Well, same as axis having fewer LMGs based on stats.....)

 

Personally, when it comes to infantry weapons, they all pretty equal over all, it is how they use them that matters far more - hence, the base numbers should be equal as long as the side really had that gear. (i.e. all sides have 200 bolts, or 75 SMGs etc) - It does become tricker if a side didn't have a class of weapon, I'll agree there - but generally you just substitute in the closest one they really did have in real life (ala brits use their bolt and no or very few semis).  Such is war.

 

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Ooooo really, wow didnt know that...now that is a bigggggly problem and if I was in AHC I would be beating my fists on the door to where servers are stored to get control of those divisions and placement

How the &%$@# did you guys let this go on for so long ??? They control the placement ??? Thats like a hugggggge decision and takes many factors into play. Most factors I will keep to myself, but its a very big deal.

Just one mans opinion but that is what u guys should be [censored]ing about way more than an extra 30-40 units of supply

yes, this is odd too, beyond the brigade supply issue being discussed. 

> do AHC/GHC still get to outline where they want brigades placed prior to a campaign start? how does this function work? and if it does still work this way (it used to in the old days) could not the same method be used to replace brit/fr bdes with americans - ie. let AHC tell CRS what goes where as replacement bdes? 

> wasn't there also way  back in the old days an RDP quota system where the HCs on each side got to choose within parameters which specific units were to be researched and built and added in over time, like the tier system but allowing an over-weight of certain inf weapons, planes or tanks?  where did this disappear to? could it help at all in the current situation? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

As for mortars, what, 60mm twice as lethal as 50mm?  The give them half the number, at least as a starting point.

LOL. It;s OK to adjust numbers of mortars based on lethality, but not GPMGs vs. LMGs vs. automatic rifles? 

Well, how about T0 HEAT RGs once those are made realistically effective, or not-so-much in the case of the German one...? Are you going to want equal numbers there, or adjust based on lethality? 

We probably want to avoid adjusting based on lethality when that approach favors Side X, but insisting on equal numbers when that approach favors Side X. So if lethality is the right approach for some weapons, it should be the right approach for all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sorella said:

wasn't there also way  back in the old days an RDP quota system where the HCs on each side got to choose within parameters which specific units were to be researched and built and added in over time, like the tier system but allowing an over-weight of certain inf weapons, planes or tanks?  where did this disappear to? could it help at all in the current situation? 

There was, but it was taken out.
The idea was good, but the implementation needed work.
The effect on the opposing sides RDP should have been capped at a max delay, rather than a near perpetual halt of it.

Also, the unit purchase part was not thought fully out, you could sacrifice too much of the lower
grade and rank kit for the highest.
So imagine a low rank guy comes on and wants to play and and he finds 10 tigers in spawn pools
but 1 pzII and 2 PZ38T, not exact numbers but that was the gist.
It was a good idea, but not implemented well.
Maybe it can come back some time but implemented properly.

I do not know about the initial brigade deployments now.
They were picked by HC in the past, but maybe that is no longer
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** LOL. It;s OK to adjust numbers of mortars based on lethality, but not GPMGs vs. LMGs vs. automatic rifles? 

Yes, it is totally ok.......

Mortars have very little to do with tactical play, you sit back and lob shells - nothing to do with skill between players like a rifle/smg/LMG.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** so if lethality is the right approach for some weapons, it should be the right approach for all of them.

No, I don't think this is the case, there is a clear difference in how mortars are played verses rifles.  In fact, a huge difference.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, delems said:

*** You also can't blow factories with engineers

What?  Of course you can destroy production facilities with engineers; done it myself, though not recently.

Did this just change?

 

I've been told by two different AHC that it's bugged since HE Patch.

 

Share this post


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

Since brits had none, maybe they'd get 50 semi and 150 bolt.  german with a  few more, might get 100 semi and 100 bolt.  USA might get 150 semi and 50 bolt.

Then, when there's an AO or DO where the battle consist of only  1 Brit Bgd vs 1 Axis Bgd...  I'm NOT participating. Rifles are almost useless in city fighting and trying to capture or clear a CP.  The Smg and the Semi-Auto are King. Well, and the Axis LMG of course, but that's different argument. 

Who in their right mind would want to try and engage in a city fight with house to house fighting, where one side gets 50 semi-auto rifles and the other gets 100? In what world would that be a fair fight? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.