Ltarflak

Soft caps...

25 posts in this topic

Let me just make this quick and to the point, why do we have softcaps???? They ruin the game, its just a cheap way to win or take over most of the map. Furthermore, this campaign that the axis are winning, isnt good comms and teamwork, its softcaps. I think the players would have more fun because when you AO a town you will have resistance....a battle (shocker, I know). An easy fix to this soft capping issue would be you cant AO a town with no brigades, or you CAN AO a town with no brigades but you have to wait 2 hours to AO another town with no brigades 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Softcapping does play a good role in game.

when you need to fix the frontline but some towns need to be SC to do it.

or the other side pulls back to avoid a bad spot , SC lets you move  the front line . 

But most times when the other side is puling back, they could if wanted to still Defend that town via CP spawn, If the flag did not move back futher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with ltarflak.. I find softcaps as “avoiding” a fight. They will go away on 1.36 thankfully..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the game mechanics don’t allow for capture of undefended towns by any other means 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silky is right on this one. I have also noticed from time to time that the people who [censored] about softcaps when their side is losing, are VERY silent on the subject when their side is doing it so as to get the win.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Silky is right on this one. I have also noticed from time to time that the people who [censored] about softcaps when their side is losing, are VERY silent on the subject when their side is doing it so as to get the win.

To be fair, I think a lot of silence when the tables are turned is just that.. Its the satisfaction of a tit4tat thing and not always should be taken as an indictment of selective complaining.  Softcapping is a unfortunate necessity of the Brigade system and is intended to facilitate the break out or interfering in another sides movement or opening up your own sides ability to maneuver..  I think the over all goal to allow such a thing looked a hell of a lot better on paper. However the game portion of the map is centered around two sides achieving mock battle killing each other off. Instead it turns the game into hours of cap uncontested towns and a race to the edge where no fighting is being had. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Silky said:

Because the game mechanics don’t allow for capture of undefended towns by any other means 

Yup, sometimes you must fix the lines with a softcap. 

My complaint is that some HC will softcap white flagged towns with no enemy in them, using up an AO that could be used to real action. Same HC guys do it map after map after map on the axis side and it's disgraceful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When i like softcaps:

When both sides have an FB to the town, and are actively trying to take control of the town.
And it is mostly infantry because all armor on both sides has to drive in from the FB's and can not spawn from the town.

When i dont like softcaps:

Most other times, they just are not very fun, even if you are winning the town.

Garrisons would at least give the owner the opportunity to defend or try to fight out unless they really mean to sacrifice
the town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might have been interesting to try and deal with this by evolving the FMS tech: extend the range to 2, 3, 4 towns away, make them persistent, in a flagless town switch capture to dealing with the nme FMS', allow them to be swapped between brigades, etc. One step at a time of course. It seems to me a sort of fallow ground that could be used to experiment with mobile spawns, see where you could take them, both for offense as well as defense. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ltarflak said:

a few softcaps?---ok, but winning 90% of the map??---not ok 

How to make manoeuvre warfare work in a PvP game. That is the question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about when Allied pull there units out of a city .. and a Axis unit is next to it....  if the axis commander wants the town he clicks on it and the box that says capture is highlighted...    and click.. its axis...     see problem solved...  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Softcapping is neccessary!

It is the most humane and moral way for a commander to take towns and spare the lives of his digital soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this campaign has not been won or will be won (whichever is the winner), by 90% of softcap. It is simply a lie. There have been great battles, and only the last two days there have been some softcaps, CONSEQUENCE of them previous battles.And it is normal that these softcaps are given.Historically they were also given.One of the causes of these last Sc has been the NON-WITHDRAWAL of the allies of the area of the factories, which may be debatable, but of course understandable. Another reason has been the withdrawal of allied flags (navy and air flags) of cities to prevent the advance of the axis. Disputed but legal and again understandable. On Friday, in Julich, a city that placed the axis to 1 town  to pocket a division, no ally came out to defend it. And there was flag. And it was not tz3.All the allies fighting in Liege, which was also important. By this I mean that it is not necessary that there are no flags in a city for one or another side does not defend  how the situation requires it. In any case, the 1.36 will come soon and there will no longer be this flag system, so these discussions will end.

I think softcap are necessary. We can not have a big fight in each town of the map

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, nerco250 said:

No, this campaign has not been won or will be won (whichever is the winner), by 90% of softcap. It is simply a lie. There have been great battles, and only the last two days there have been some softcaps, CONSEQUENCE of them previous battles.And it is normal that these softcaps are given.Historically they were also given.One of the causes of these last Sc has been the NON-WITHDRAWAL of the allies of the area of the factories, which may be debatable, but of course understandable. Another reason has been the withdrawal of allied flags (navy and air flags) of cities to prevent the advance of the axis. Disputed but legal and again understandable. On Friday, in Julich, a city that placed the axis to 1 town  to pocket a division, no ally came out to defend it. And there was flag. And it was not tz3.All the allies fighting in Liege, which was also important. By this I mean that it is not necessary that there are no flags in a city for one or another side does not defend  how the situation requires it. In any case, the 1.36 will come soon and there will no longer be this flag system, so these discussions will end.

I think softcap are necessary. We can not have a big fight in each town of the map

There will be a flag system in place with 1.36. Just no town with out supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always hated softcaps..........still hate softcaps...........wont attack a soft cap UNLESS there is only one AO

Cant wait till they go away but until then it is a necessary evil

Edited by bmw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe make softcaps only possible for the Paratrooper Avatar? 

That way the Troopers get something to do and the other side could hold said town with troopers too.

In return we get AIR battles and each side is trying to land Troopers to either take or hold said town .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dre21 said:

Maybe make softcaps only possible for the Paratrooper Avatar? 

That way the Troopers get something to do and the other side could hold said town with troopers too.

In return we get AIR battles and each side is trying to land Troopers to either take or hold said town .

I think someone a while back and proposed para mission AOs for behind the lines softcaping. Personally I have not thought much about it simply because I don't think it has a place where towns = supply routes.   I see paras being used more for interdiction with some work on some of the para droppable equipment is in the game.

Share this post


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

How about when Allied pull there units out of a city .. and a Axis unit is next to it....  if the axis commander wants the town he clicks on it and the box that says capture is highlighted...    and click.. its axis...     see problem solved...  

This is the only solution I can see, so long as campaigns are measured and won through town captures 

 

And that’s half the problem. I wonder if campaigns shouldn’t be judged by a measure that is focused on PvP, ie the destruction of the enemy’s armed forces, and not by territorial gains 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Silky said:

I wonder if campaigns shouldn’t be judged by a measure that is focused on PvP, ie the destruction of the enemy’s armed forces, and not by territorial gains 

This would not work for a campaign, but it might be interesting to try for say an event?
Start with X amount of tickets in the various unit types
and when you run out of something, it is gone.
Or some variation of that?

For a campaign it wouldnt work because you'd reach a point where people simply cant spawn in because their side only has X amount of units left and XX amount of players wanting to play.

For a campaign, im not sure how you would score a victory based on attrition numbers alone
It would reward the turtle, which in T0 is a game the french can outplay everyone in.
just sit in a defensive huddle, because the axis will have to sacrifice a good number of units
to wear away that early french armor shield.
So the losses would stack against the axis if victory was based on that and the axis tried to do anything in the early tiers.
I fear we would have people not playing for fear that their attempts would generate too much loss causing their side to lose, and so you get everyone trying
to turtle
I think you always need territory to be a major factor in deciding the outcome of conquest
And that players should not be burdened with calculating loss outside their immediate situation, they should not have to worry about "How many tanks have we lost this week" only how many tanks they might be losing at town A right now.
Can not have people afraid to play, have fun, make mistakes, take risks, die in a glorious fireball and laugh about it, etc.

If you attack Paris and Versailles, it may cost you 195,000 units to accomplish it to the 17,000 the defenders lost
But if you stand at the front steps of the palace 6 days later, costly as it may have been, you should be the victor, yes?

What i think probably should not happen though is, as you continue to advance, you should probably not face the enemies entire intact army
compressed into a small area, so maybe as the territory losses begin to go to the large scale the losing side should begin to suffer loss of flags?
Say starting at like 75% or something, whatever percentage works as a good starting point, the losing side would lose some flags from play until they could reverse their losses. (the winning side would not gain extra of course)

Town supply already handles that naturally, as you lose towns 1 by 1 you lose potential resources and the victor gains them up  until the point
that the front begins to narrow and the losing side is backed into a corner, then the victors battlefront resources narrow a bit too as a majority of his holdings become non frontline, kind of semi self balancing so it doesnt become mordor VS hobbiton.

Just my thoughts, but i think silky's general idea would make for a cool scenario/event type of thing
 

Share this post


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

I think someone a while back and proposed para mission AOs for behind the lines softcaping. Personally I have not thought much about it simply because I don't think it has a place where towns = supply routes.   I see paras being used more for interdiction with some work on some of the para droppable equipment is in the game.

That was me :) , I have been pitching different Para ideas forever, cause what we have now is pretty pointless in my opinion.

Share this post


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

This would not work for a campaign, but it might be interesting to try for say an event?
Start with X amount of tickets in the various unit types
and when you run out of something, it is gone.
Or some variation of that?

For a campaign it wouldnt work because you'd reach a point where people simply cant spawn in because their side only has X amount of units left and XX amount of players wanting to play.

For a campaign, im not sure how you would score a victory based on attrition numbers alone
It would reward the turtle, which in T0 is a game the french can outplay everyone in.
just sit in a defensive huddle, because the axis will have to sacrifice a good number of units
to wear away that early french armor shield.
So the losses would stack against the axis if victory was based on that and the axis tried to do anything in the early tiers.
I fear we would have people not playing for fear that their attempts would generate too much loss causing their side to lose, and so you get everyone trying
to turtle
I think you always need territory to be a major factor in deciding the outcome of conquest
And that players should not be burdened with calculating loss outside their immediate situation, they should not have to worry about "How many tanks have we lost this week" only how many tanks they might be losing at town A right now.
Can not have people afraid to play, have fun, make mistakes, take risks, die in a glorious fireball and laugh about it, etc.

If you attack Paris and Versailles, it may cost you 195,000 units to accomplish it to the 17,000 the defenders lost
But if you stand at the front steps of the palace 6 days later, costly as it may have been, you should be the victor, yes?

What i think probably should not happen though is, as you continue to advance, you should probably not face the enemies entire intact army
compressed into a small area, so maybe as the territory losses begin to go to the large scale the losing side should begin to suffer loss of flags?
Say starting at like 75% or something, whatever percentage works as a good starting point, the losing side would lose some flags from play until they could reverse their losses. (the winning side would not gain extra of course)

Town supply already handles that naturally, as you lose towns 1 by 1 you lose potential resources and the victor gains them up  until the point
that the front begins to narrow and the losing side is backed into a corner, then the victors battlefront resources narrow a bit too as a majority of his holdings become non frontline, kind of semi self balancing so it doesnt become mordor VS hobbiton.

Just my thoughts, but i think silky's general idea would make for a cool scenario/event type of thing
 

I might have a different outlook.

 

I've long been a fan of using HQs as HQs - rear line, large supply hubs that can  support the daughter brigades and provide variation in gameplay by giving top tier equipment to those willing to invest in TOM getting to the fight, which in turn would provide more authentic reinforcement supply, and the associated interdiction gameplay. I'd also have these rear line HQs free to move across the map, creating No Mans defences where currently there are softcaps at breakouts and at the flanks. Then the key aspect, the HQs could not fallback - to encourage them to remain rear line, if a HQ town was bounced, it routs.

So carry that proposal forward - if your HQ bounces, it's gone forever. And when the HQ is routed, supply to the daughter brigades is hampered, and losing daughter units becomes more likely, and wihout the HQ, a routed daughter bde cannot return to the game.

Hence over time, you gradually rout or destroy your enemy's divisions.

When you destroy the last division, you win

 

 

 

Share this post


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

There will be a flag system in place with 1.36. Just no town with out supply.

it's good!!!

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That HQ idea is what I had in mind basically.

Disallow HQs from moving to front line.

Allow them to free move w/o any daughter flag restrictions.

Make their RDP ticket 1/2 normal, to encourage rear resupply.

But - I would not route HQs forever, just the normal 6 hours.

 

Share this post


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

That HQ idea is what I had in mind basically.

Disallow HQs from moving to front line.

Allow them to free move w/o any daughter flag restrictions.

Make their RDP ticket 1/2 normal, to encourage rear resupply.

But - I would not route HQs forever, just the normal 6 hours.

 

The purpose of the permanent rout would be to simulate the destruction of a division which could replace territory gain as a way of deciding the campaign 

 

Maybe permanent routing kicks in at Tier 3 only?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.