• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Attention Soldiers Operation Fury Needs you!   02/20/2020

      Attention All Soldiers, Operation Fury needs you.  You need to choose a side and sign up.  
      For more intel on Operation Fury Please click HERE Please go to Special Event Forum (here), And sign up for allied or axis.
      This will be a CRS Lead event on both sides.  Xoom will be heading up the axis side and Heavy265 will be heading up the Allied side. This will be for bragging rights.
      Why are we asking players to sign up you ask. We are trying for a role play experience.   We want this to be a true realistic event.  
      So get up and sign up and let's make this the best event ever!!!!!!!!!!
      Give me your war cry, grrrrrrrrrrrrr
      Heavy265 **out**
goreblimey

THE AMERICANS ARE COMING , well some of them

207 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, softserve said:

Historical data would give us the spec on one tank vs  another, and a small amount of how it was used info. 

Tanks in the game are not played like the real one were driven.

and i was pointing out to vanapo that stats per tank vs tank do not tell the full story 

 

but please teach me, i would like to know more on the data

I meant the historical game stats.  Not the RL history.  

 

A lot of times people tend to bring up current campaign K/Ds in their arguments, but there are so many factors that make each campaign unique.  Many of these factors go back and forth however, so looking at the historical K/Ds (all of the campaigns combined) gives you a better idea of true unit lethalities.  

Edited by Capco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, softserve said:

AHHH see every time i see the "historical" part i think they are referring to RL stats :huh:

Can never try fitting RL statistics into the game, we are all much too insane and much too immortal for them to have any meaning.
Curse of being Godlings i guess...

Share this post


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

so looking at the historical K/Ds (all of the campaigns combined) gives you a better idea of true unit lethalities.  

this is only true if the Pz2c of campaign 1was performing exactly the same way it is performing now after all those patches that have been introduced. If not, historical game stats are allways misleading.

Edited by vanapo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vanapo said:

this is only true if the Pz2c of campaign 1 is still performing exactly the same way it is performing after all those patches that have been introduced.

Absolutely correct!  It's not perfect.  But it's usually better than looking at current campaign stats.  

 

The most obvious example is when one side is winning and has considerable overpop.  They will likely die less and kill more on average considering their population advantage and higher morale.  To put it simply, campaign conditions affect campaign stats.  

 

But in the long run, both sides have roughly the same amount of winning campaign conditions since both sides have roughly the same amount of wins.  

 

Again, it's not perfect, but I think it tends to be more accurate than looking at current campaign stats for the reasons stated above.  

 

Ideally, you'd do something like look at the stats of the last 30-50 campaigns to get an even more accurate picture, since it would include less of the variances that you've correctly noted.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, softserve said:

i was pointing out to vanapo that stats per tank vs tank do not tell the full story 

I never implied that. First of all, I mentioned the k/d ratio of all medium tanks in general, which shows it is way worse for german medium tanks. Then I was told that these numbers are not accurate because they include not only tanks. Then I brought up the numbers solely for pure tank vs. tank warfare which also show the PIVg is way worse in this regard. Now you say that doesn't show the whole picture... because we have to look at the general performance again... which is how I started.

Let's just all agree that it's too hard to say something definite about just the performance of one single tank - as this discussion shows - so it's definitely far fetched to say "allied tanks are rubbish so they don't count balance wise"....

Share this post


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

Ideally, you'd do something like look at the stats of the last 30-50 campaigns to get an even more accurate picture, since it would include less of the variances that you've correctly noted.  

Total agree on that one. It would be so nice for CRS to bring the stats to us in form of a real spread sheet :-D

Edited by vanapo
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I don't get this argument to be honest. Are you saying that the people who switched for this campaign (S! to the Whips) are way better than the average allied player that's playing allies for years?

No no no.. lol but I can see how one could view it that way. its just simply the difference between having a map that is population balanced and maps that are won due to OP. 

It also does not make that much sense at times to boot. What I have noticed that when pops are inherently balanced throughout a campaign the total kills per side are very very close to one another.

When the games overall density is high but one side has op more than the other, the defender tends to have more kills.. IE the losing side.

When the overall density is not that high and we have not seen much in the lines of 3 AOs for a while, the OP attacker tends to garner more kills.  Its a trend over the years I have taken notice of.  I think it has more because layered defenses are much harder to establish but I'm not certain.

This is also why at times you see the 4G actually have a better KD over the S75 like a 1.05 - 1.2.. but its almost Always just with in a few tenths of a percent from 1:1 kd in favor of the S75.  That trend has been around since the S75 mantle fix. Before hand the S75 was doing about a 1.4kd vrs the 4G IIRC.  You know back when we had just a T2 some maps had battles where it came down to fighting 38ts, Pz2s with R35s, H39s and A13s.. I was primarily an Axis player back then defending town and killing a few A13s strolling into town with my 2C from ambush.

The only way to really get an idea of how things should be balanced out was assigning attributes a number.. the better attribute, the better the number and adding them up to get a "cost".  All sides get a budget and you spend the max amount of attributes per item and you get your balance on paper.  KD has to be taken into consideration at some point over time because on paper you might be getting too much for less or not enough for more.  There is one other factor that became very apparent when the Tiger entered the game that was unique to all other entrances into this game.  Its the sexiness factor.  In the case of the Tiger it attracted a mass amount of ppl once you hit the magical number of 4 Tigers per brig... but it also had another effect which was what I call Tiger fatigue.  So it made for a pop imbalance in which we are seeing the effects of.  The horror of it all is that this phenom was KNOWN since the first two tiger maps with 5 per AB.  I suspect when the Panther arrives we are going to see something very similar especially since we are going back to a TD with the M36 being used as a MBT... BUT I think it wont hit as hard simply because the M36 will sport a very nice gun on it and will be a much more capable AFV over the M10.

Share this post


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

I am not arguing with CRS about tank numbers. I am argueing with allied players that are complaining about allied tanks being "rubbish" and that they "do not matter" in balancing things out. That's rubbish. Like you said yourself, they got those tanks because they do matter. We agree on that one. We also agree on the problems of the PIVG and how difficulty it is to really balance things out.

PzIGs k/d ratio against allied tier3 tanks:

Crusader Mk III : 0.6

Churchill Mk VII : 0.19

American M4A2 Sherman : 0.92

American M4A3 Sherman 76 0,33

American M10 Wolverine : 0.55

French M4A2 Sherman : 0.68

French M4A3 Sherman 76 : 0.33

Tankwise, the few tigers have to balance out all of this, the way worse performance of the PIVg against tanks and against soft targets. Sure, there is the StuG helping with AT performance. But it doesn't helpt the Panzers with killing infantry. That's why in total the axis tanks are performing not as good as the allied tanks do. Which is FINE TO ME IF IT'S REQUIRED TO BALANCE THINGS OUT IN GENERAL.

Again: As you said - balancing things out is very difficult if you got so much equipment that's just not equal on both sides. All I am saying is: Stop complaining about allied tanks. They are not rubbish. Or better: If allied tanks are rubbish, then why do they perform *better* than the german tanks in total? And while that's the case: How can this be the problem we have to debate?

I was not trying to imply that you were implying  anything  lol

i was just pointing out that the above could be low numbers due to the conditions of the last few engagements.

Did not mean for it to come across badly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This massive imbalance in allied tanks delems  is whining about is made up generally of vickers . While they do seem oversupplied, it hardly seems game changing.

The tanks that are being referred to as rubbish are the vickers and the CS tanks that delems keeps banging on about.Nowhere was it said the main Brit tanks T3 were rubbish. Some may think that but it certainly wasn't said. 

Whereas the Brits have a real imbalance in battle tank ability i.e. 40 tanks less per division.

And you idiots who can't read. The infantry I balance gave the axis 2 Divisions worth of extra infantry, that's nearly 3000 extra infantry. Not the 100 you keep bleating on about.

Again  Historical load out of vehicles,  which was done for very good reasons in RL , those reasons do not exist in this game.  They serve only to hamper the allied tank units. Also as far as I know German load out was 50% HE in their medium tanks.

 

Edited by goreblimey
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, goreblimey said:

This massive imbalance in allied tanks delems  is whining about is made up generally of vickers . While they do seem oversupplied, it hardly seems game changing.

The tanks that are being referred to as rubbish are the vickers and the CS tanks that delems keeps banging on about.Nowhere was it said the main Brit tanks T3 were rubbish. Some may think that but it certainly wasn't said. 

Whereas the Brits have a real imbalance in battle tank ability i.e. 40 tanks less per division.

And you idiots who can't read. The infantry I balance gave the axis 2 Divisions worth of extra infantry, that's nearly 3000 extra infantry. Not the 100 you keep bleating on about.

Again  Historical load out of vehicles,  which was done for very good reasons in RL , those reasons do not exist in this game.  They serve only to hamper the allied tank units. Also as far as I know German load out was 50% HE in their medium tanks.

 

Which... brings up a question.. Did the 4D and StugB lose a lot of HEAT for Smoke and HE?.. and is the HEAT now its historical round in terms of performance?  The stugB was primarily an assault gun with very little HEAT and AP and very high on HE.  The reason why I ask is simply because the CH7 now has 29 AP rounds and is supposed to be the counter to the Tiger.  Very hard to do when the AP is gone and your time on the field is looking for resupply or give up the position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historical campaign data analysis for tanks has been done before, though the data is largely useless after the HE/KE audit. We're in uncharted territory now, and since it was mid-campaign, this campaign is not indicative of the effects.

But, if you want to argue about historical K/D:

Allied vs. Axis Armor K/D Analysis

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, merlin51 said:

They are not useless, and the HE itself is much improved.
But there is an issue with the infantry unit itself, which is being very very actively worked on.

It prevents infantry from properly reacting and taking damage from the frags that are hitting them.
Something that was buried in old code, so they have had to rework the entire infantry DM
and of course test it heavily to assure proper reactions.
Once it is done, i doubt anyone will laugh too much at anything that delivers HE.

@merlin51

"And test it heavily to assure proper reactions."

See, this is where I'm confused. Didn't ya'll test the HE heavily against infantry BEFORE releasing it to the game... this last time? 

And if so, wouldn't that have shown you the problem we are seeing now? Because it seemed pretty obvious to everyone, right away. 

Edited by lipton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still seeing 90 BARs in USA flags vrs 50 LMG/FG42?  Don't understand this.

Also what is the explanation for 10 sappers instead of 5?  Must be a reason?
 

I mean if 100 extra semis can collapse the allied side, pretty sure 40 extra BARs can collapse the axis side.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

Also, I haven't looked at the lists lately, but if the Americans still have too many infantry it needs to be changed, by like yesterday.  Same with the French and Brits not having enough infantry if that's still the case.  

 

I assume chaos's doc is still accurate?

Contrary to popular belief, touching the spawn lists of stuff isn't a super easy and nice fix. Every time new equipment is added during the middle of a campaign stuff seems to get messed up. Seems to be due to a combination of the old tools the old team left new CRS and how the database is structured.

The ideal solution is that supply lists are only ever touched between campaigns, get audited before the campaign goes live, and then is static no matter what happens. That sounds like Axis bias because Allies have gotten shafted with supply a couple times now, but it's the ideal solution for keeping the game stable and keeping CRS sane.

Despite that, players want supply changes now, and they want new equipment now, and etc. If STG44 or the US LMG was ready to drop but CRS was like "no pls wait for next campaign", I bet everyone would be pissed. "Why won't they release it now, must be bias, omg so done I quit". I believe CRS from a marketing standpoint also don't want to wait for campaigns to end, because they get to point out the new, shiny stuff and market it to old and new players.

 

 

I can't definitively state whether any other changes beyond the emergency one @OHM did for US semi-autos are coming for supply during this campaign. That's a question for him or the other Rats.

Edited by chaoswzkd

Share this post


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

Still seeing 90 BARs in USA flags vrs 50 LMG/FG42?  Don't understand this.

Also what is the explanation for 10 sappers instead of 5?  Must be a reason?
 

I mean if 100 extra semis can collapse the allied side, pretty sure 40 extra BARs can collapse the axis side.

 

Conjecture: US have extra BARs because it fills the combined role of LMG and Automatic Rifleman for the US, and is not as good as the MG34 so they get extra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Conjecture: US have extra BARs because it fills the combined role of LMG and Automatic Rifleman for the US, and is not as good as the MG34 so they get extra.

No, don't even go down that line imo.

If so, then we should get 40% more mp34 as not near as good as the grease gun.  We should also have more bombers and fighters.

I have no problem with giving nation characteristics to spawn lists. But base numbers should stay very close to the same.  Especially with infantry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely disagree. If the weapons slotted into equivalent roles are definitely better/worse, then their numbers should be adjusted to balance. I don't think the MP34 is 40% worse than the grease gun, but I would agree with a 10%-20% boost in numbers to compensate the fact that it can't hit targets 100m away in the first 7 shots like it always seems a grease gun can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we just disagree on the main premise then.

Each sides infantry numbers should be nearly the same in total is my belief.  One side should not have 600 infantry and the other 650 in a same type flag.

As for the grease/mp34.  Since intro, the grease gun has maintained a near 1.0 KD every map, while the mp34 is about 0.70 every map; 0.70x1.4 = .98;  so 40% better.

 

Share this post


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

Completely disagree. If the weapons slotted into equivalent roles are definitely better/worse, then their numbers should be adjusted to balance. I don't think the MP34 is 40% worse than the grease gun, but I would agree with a 10%-20% boost in numbers to compensate the fact that it can't hit targets 100m away in the first 7 shots like it always seems a grease gun can.

The best long range SMGs are most definitely the Italian SMG and Grease gun... and the uber Luger (I jest).  The worst long range smgs are the Mp34 and Thompson.  I find the Mas38 and MP40 very similar in range with the Mp40 just slightly better.  However once the ballistics audit for the SMGs are in, the Mp34 is going to be the best SMG for range shooting bar none. Its going to have an effective range of around 200m. 100m-150m better than any other SMG in the game.

Share this post


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

Well, we just disagree on the main premise then.

Each sides infantry numbers should be nearly the same in total is my belief.  One side should not have 600 infantry and the other 650 in a same type flag.

I agree for both of those things: that we just have different opinions on how things should be, and that the absolute total of infantry should be the same for both sides.

I just think that, for example, if one side has 500 rifles and 100 semi-auto rifles, and they have the superior semi-auto rifles, the other side gets maybe 475 rifles and 125 semi-auto rifles. Both are at 600 total infantry, but the exact equipment in those 600 are balanced based on performance.

Share this post


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

I agree for both of those things: that we just have different opinions on how things should be, and that the absolute total of infantry should be the same for both sides.

I just think that, for example, if one side has 500 rifles and 100 semi-auto rifles, and they have the superior semi-auto rifles, the other side gets maybe 475 rifles and 125 semi-auto rifles. Both are at 600 total infantry, but the exact equipment in those 600 are balanced based on performance.

If it's done correctly, this is the best way to go.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, lipton said:

@merlin51

"And test it heavily to assure proper reactions."

See, this is where I'm confused. Didn't ya'll test the HE heavily against infantry BEFORE releasing it to the game... this last time? 

And if so, wouldn't that have shown you the problem we are seeing now? Because it seemed pretty obvious to everyone, right away. 

Yes they did test it a lot.
The problem lies in that the target infantry and the live human operated infantry dont share the same reaction.
If target dummy takes a frag, he goes down. And then there is the tool you've seen pictures of with the rays that show the frag patterns.

The live human operated infantry are basically absorbing only a minuscule amount of the KE that a given frag has to offer, causing only the biggest of frags
to have noticeable effect.
That was due to some very old and very arbitrary values assigned to infantry that were buried in the game in some weird place that scotsman found after
a lot of digging and hunting and searching for an unknown thing in a giant ocean of data.

But it isnt as simple as hey lets turn this off and all will be well (nothing ever gets to be that simple), as it kind of globalized how an infantryman might react to anything hitting them any place.
To have it work right and not be just another arbitrary thing, hatch and scotsman have had to revisit the entire trooper DM, which has really been kind of needed for 17 years but this kind of forced the project.
The end result should be that we now get an infantry with a much better DM who responds to frags properly and also responds differently to being hit in the foot or arm or hand as opposed to hit in the head or chest.

Bullets were never terribly effected simply because in general they carry an overkill amount of KE to what is needed to take down a human being
but frags do not, they are generally much lower in KE than a bullet, and yet as life shows us are quite debilitating and fatal.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is, from the QA tests, due to a few factors, HE appeared to be working correctly even though it wasn't in reality. Basically, those tests inadvertently supplied confirmation bias that the new HE was working.

For example, if you ask players to throw a grenade on the ground and see what happens, I have heard that many will say "in a building, no death. Outside, definitely a kill. Standing up, wounded. Prone, not even a hit." etc. In actual battle conditions this is realistic to see, even very quickly.

For testing, though, the thought was probably "we're changing number of frags and their size. How do we test it?" "Well we can probably do it outside and have people stand at different distances so we can measure lethality and dispersion." Pretty smart, right? Except, turns out, that's when the new HE is operating at its best. Why would the testers think to do anything else? HE was working 'fine' before, and all CRS is touching are numbers of frags and their sizes.

But like many things with the game, turns out Old CRS had a bit of code somewhere about the infantry damage model, and that's why old bombs and grenades threw a handful of bricks around when they went off, and no one knew until the patch went live and people started having issues.

Edited by chaoswzkd

Share this post


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

Still seeing 90 BARs in USA flags vrs 50 LMG/FG42?  Don't understand this.

Also what is the explanation for 10 sappers instead of 5?  Must be a reason?
 

I mean if 100 extra semis can collapse the allied side, pretty sure 40 extra BARs can collapse the axis side.

 

@OHM agreed this needs fixing.

As do the French and Brit bgds that are still short 100ish infantry. the Brits need more T2/T3 battle tanks they are about 40 short in a Division. The Brit bgds need the number of vickers reducing. And the naval bgds should not be having anything heavier than a DAC.

Edited by goreblimey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.