• Announcements

    • PITTPETE

      NEW Career Subscriptions now available   06/08/2019

      The all new highly anticipated / requested "Career Based Subscriptions" are available through www.WWIIONLINE.com/account only, starting at $9.99! There are three new subscriptions being added; 1) All Infantry at $9.99/mo, 2) All Air Forces at $9.99/mo, 3) All Ground Forces (Army Persona) at $12.99/mo. Continue reading to learn more and get back into the fight now! View the full article on battlegroundeurope.com
XOOM

How can we get beyond pure negativity in the forums?

206 posts in this topic

7 hours ago, nugx said:

 

If it would be only 'realistic' date then yes, it would be bad for balance, and no matter how much the gear would be limited, one side would always suffer which means unhappy players and unhappy players means people leaving the game.

 

Stanky, however think about if Rats would make a similar system to the one that was described earlier, where people could buy few uses of higher tier for the points they earn for playing, everyone would be getting points, which means that anyone at any time could be able to purchase anything they want if they get more points.

This way the realistic date would work  - it would be a base line where at current point in time, the players don't have to purchase the gear and just use it from the supply.

 

9Iw8vRD.png

Look I understand your idea, but for ppl who can afford to put more time in the game for points to earn and my god have you actually looked at TOM for some of these players? 10-15k minutes a map? You still can create a side imbalance.  Balance has to be strictly coded into the game.  I hate the DLC content because it provides a micro pay to win scenario if one side has ppl who can afford to pay for them outside of subscription. It also sets up a system that, mark my words, is heading to where all new content is DLC content plus subscription. The gaming world is chock full of examples of that slippery slope. That's for example.

The RAT chat has already discussed all the new equipment coming and that is exciting and fun to hear.  I see some balance issues especially with the A3 Jabo and the bomb load. IF we go off of strict date entrance the Allies will not see any improved armor for tank fighting until T4-T4.5 as the Rat chat stated. We almost NEVER get to a T4 RDP as it is already. That leaves the allies stagnant from T-2 on with the exception of the CH5 CS tank that enters in IIRC t-3.5.  All the while the Pz4H, 3N, 3L, StugH, Tiger, Panther all get to see the light of day. The 3 and 4 series AFVs all have anti RPAT armor.. to boot.  The Pz3L is the tank that is most balanced with the Cru3.. The 4G already does better than the CH3 and has a higher KD than the Sherman has consistently over the 4G but now will have to face the 4H too boot.  This does not sound fun in anyway and IMHO is horrifying to think I'm actually going to pay to play this game if that is the direction we are headed.  The allies fund this game also and if my funding requires me to go Axis to get to play new content on a subscription base my time is limited here.  I will fight this idea until the cows come home because its a game destroying idea and I'm not going to be apart of it nor support it with my money.

Share this post


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

Wow.........now thats disturbing news.  Was away and just caught up with this thread.  Aside from looking forward to 1.36 this was another thing I was looking forward to.  Not good news.

Scotsman was probably one of the most passionate players to this game I have ever known.  He and I are friends and have had discussions outside this game for years concerning this game. We chatted when he decided to join the CRS team before he told them he was going to. He was very excited about it, I was excited about it. He told me what he could do to get them moving forward in terms of ammo and equipment etc.  There are some ammo options for the Vanilla Sherman that can help greatly dealing with the Tiger but would require warping the Ammo, but that option is out if we have to deal with 100% date entrances.  So yah that's a huge hit unless CRS officially announces differently, Ill leave it at that.

Share this post


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

 There are some ammo options for the Vanilla Sherman that can help greatly dealing with the Tiger but would require warping the Ammo, but that option is out if we have to deal with 100% date entrances.  So yah that's a huge hit unless CRS officially announces differently, Ill leave it at that.

Not so sure about that after yesterday.

Here is the scenario  Oudengaarden  sitting on the north west side on RR tracks . Above me on hill another Stug ,3h and a 4G , opposite side a Vanilla Sherman as you call it he has his A $$ pointed at us and already took a shot and is smoking , easy kill right , well as he turns his turret facing 4 guns he starts shooting .

OK he be dead in a second so I shoot him into the a$$ at 450 meter along with the other 3 guns above me but nothing. So now he stops shooting at the guys on hill and pays attention to me after I already pumped prop 6 or 7 rounds into his turret and into his engine compartment.  He takes my track off well there goes my mobility and on RR tracks you know what we get teeter tottering .

Now after prop the 15 shot ( from me not sure how oftem the other 3 shot at him )he finally explodes,  I can tell ya one thing I was real close of Rage quitting right there , now if my gunner or my gun would have been taken out I would have quit the game right there and then .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree Stankyus, I'd like to see where they are taking the historical dates and TOE. Personally, it would improve the "simulation" aspect and that's why I support it. 

Share this post


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

strict date entrance

Hatch seemed to suggest recently that historical-date-adjusted-by-game-event-flow at least could be discussed, and that strict game adherence to historical dates based on events that don't happen in-game would not make sense.

Old-CRS's policy was that weapons were eligible for game use if they were fielded, or contracted to be provided and fielded.

The British had contracted to have six pounder cruisers in late 1940 - early 1941, and towed six pounders in late 1940. Historically, without Dunkirk, those would have been fielded no later than T1. 

The French had contracted to have the B1 ter and S40 tanks in late 1940 - early 1941 and  ARL V39 and SAu 40 assault guns in 1941. Historically, without the Armistice, those would have been fielded no later than T1.

The Churchill Gun Carrier with 75mm 20 pounder was built and fieldable in 1942. Scotsman has said there is evidence it was fielded in Italy in 1943.

Quote

There are some ammo options for the Vanilla Sherman that can help greatly dealing with the Tiger but would require warping the Ammo, but that option is out if we have to deal with 100% date entrances.  

Brandt, the French weapon firm, had 75mm/57mm APDS ammo ready for the Mle 1897 75mm gun family in 1940. It had been tested by the Army, and was ready to go to mass production. Without the Armistice, that could have been fielded in 1941. Data is available on its penetration with range. The French had no tanks or SP guns mounting the Mle 1897 gun family, but the US did have the M3 Gun Motor Carriage which mounted that gun, first fielded in 1941.

***

Of course, historical-date-adjusted-by-game-event-flow also would result in favorable availabilities for the Axis. The point here is that the one-sidedness of "strict date availability" is not a dead end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dre21 said:

Not so sure about that after yesterday.

Here is the scenario  Oudengaarden  sitting on the north west side on RR tracks . Above me on hill another Stug ,3h and a 4G , opposite side a Vanilla Sherman as you call it he has his A $$ pointed at us and already took a shot and is smoking , easy kill right , well as he turns his turret facing 4 guns he starts shooting .

OK he be dead in a second so I shoot him into the a$$ at 450 meter along with the other 3 guns above me but nothing. So now he stops shooting at the guys on hill and pays attention to me after I already pumped prop 6 or 7 rounds into his turret and into his engine compartment.  He takes my track off well there goes my mobility and on RR tracks you know what we get teeter tottering .

Now after prop the 15 shot ( from me not sure how oftem the other 3 shot at him )he finally explodes,  I can tell ya one thing I was real close of Rage quitting right there , now if my gunner or my gun would have been taken out I would have quit the game right there and then .

Dre, you know and I know that these things happen in the game.. I killed a StugG at 1600m with a 3" atg the otherday, he was off angled and elevated.. took about 8 hits but I accomplished taking him out, I tracked him and most likely got a good hit on that 50mm plate. However I also put 14 rounds into the flank of one at 500m with a 3" ATG, his rear half was exposed and that's the "easy" engine kill and fuel shot.. I also got him smoking and he backed up and spun toward me and took a shot at me - I helped him because my last shot tracked him at the wrong moment and I was OH FK!.. when he did and 57mm opened up on him and he exploded. I got no kill on him, but I did manage two StugG kills, one being Kareca WOOT.  So to imply that the S75 is a good tank to deal with Tigers because it took x amounts of shots to kill one, one time does not make an argument.  If that was the case I could argue that the 3" ATG should enter into T1 because I also hit a PZH 8 times before he stopped shooting at me earlier with that damn near unkillable hull MG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, raptor34 said:

I respectfully disagree Stankyus, I'd like to see where they are taking the historical dates and TOE. Personally, it would improve the "simulation" aspect and that's why I support it. 

That's fine, I don't mind tightening up historical dates a bit. However in the Rat Chat all the new allied entrances for improved tanks don't enter until T4.5.  and extremely limited to match historical TO&E. Something we don't see with the Tiger ATM.  All that being said, what has been floated around is that even the S76 is a T4.5 tank. That means the vanilla Sherman and M10 will HAVE to be the mainstay of the allied tanker corp. The BEF will have to hold ground with the Cru3 and CH3.  The CH5 in the game has yet to be fixed you still cannot range the gun, its static which means those 5 HEAT rounds are just guess shots over 300m and over 800m you have to elevate the gun so high you cannot see the target. I think IMHO the CH5 HEAT should be adjusted for balance like the StugB and 4D. Few of those AFVs ever carried HEAT  and those that did had very limited ammo - more like 4-5 rounds in 1940 and that HEAT used cintered iron liners with abysmal penetration. What we have is a fantasy HEAT round, less penetration than the HL/A (43' arguable) ammo but much closer to it than the HL ammo.

As far as going there, we have already gone down that road and it nearly destroyed the game.

Share this post


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

I think IMHO the CH5 HEAT should be adjusted for balance like the StugB and 4D. Few of those AFVs ever carried HEAT  and those that did had very limited ammo - more like 4-5 rounds in 1940 and that HEAT used cintered iron liners with abysmal penetration. What we have is a fantasy HEAT round, less penetration than the HL/A (43' arguable) ammo but much closer to it than the HL ammo.

My take would be, make everyone's ammo work as chronologically correct. Everyone's early war HEAT simply had poor performance. No fantasy performance...performance in a given tier has to be supported by test data for ammo from that date-period. HL ammo should work like HL data; HL/A ammo once available should work like HL/A ammo.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Hatch seemed to suggest recently that historical-date-adjusted-by-game-event-flow at least could be discussed, and that strict game adherence to historical dates based on events that don't happen in-game would not make sense.

Old-CRS's policy was that weapons were eligible for game use if they were fielded, or contracted to be provided and fielded.

The British had contracted to have six pounder cruisers in late 1940 - early 1941, and towed six pounders in late 1940. Historically, without Dunkirk, those would have been fielded no later than T1. 

The French had contracted to have the B1 ter and S40 tanks in late 1940 - early 1941 and  ARL V39 and SAu 40 assault guns in 1941. Historically, without the Armistice, those would have been fielded no later than T1.

The Churchill Gun Carrier with 75mm 20 pounder was built and fieldable in 1942. Scotsman has said there is evidence it was fielded in Italy in 1943.

Brandt, the French weapon firm, had 75mm/57mm APDS ammo ready for the Mle 1897 75mm gun family in 1940. It had been tested by the Army, and was ready to go to mass production. Without the Armistice, that could have been fielded in 1941. Data is available on its penetration with range. The French had no tanks or SP guns mounting the Mle 1897 gun family, but the US did have the M3 Gun Motor Carriage which mounted that gun, first fielded in 1941.

***

Of course, historical-date-adjusted-by-game-event-flow also would result in favorable availabilities for the Axis. The point here is that the one-sidedness of "strict date availability" is not a dead end.

Well you have pointed this out many times, I think I have liked each of your posts.  THIS IMHO is way to fungible and is a can of worms not worth opening.

Cant remember who it was but there was some reference about trying to maintain historical dates of entrances and performances that might not be historical or correct. I read that... yah but what? I don't think by the outline of the way things are going that they will not back off of the German HEAT or 37mm performance. I have noticed when I have brought up the 17pdr ammo - crickets.  I wonder if the Axis T-0 tanks are going to get their rarity on the battlefield also - Tiger? bah the Axis would through a fit.  Very few P4Ds entered France, Very few STugBs did also.. where the majority where 38ts and Pz1s and 2's. We already heard that the Firefly is going to be extremely limited because of the BEFs historic TO&E. I wonder how many Axis TO&E are going to be that limited by the same constraints? I heard a lot of great stuff entering for the Axis with no mentioning of constraints and date entrances with the exception of the Achillies and Firefly. Only 2 of the mentioned AFV entrances.  PZ3L, M, 4H, and StugH... Firefly and Achillies. Not only very late tier wise but in very few brigades.

Share this post


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

My take would be, make everyone's ammo work as chronologically correct. Everyone's early war HEAT simply had poor performance. No fantasy performance...performance in a given tier has to be supported by test data for ammo from that date-period. HL ammo should work like HL data; HL/A ammo once available should work like HL/A ammo.

I mean adjusted TO&E like the StugB and 4D.  ATM the CH5 carries 4 or 5 rounds.. that should be upped to half the ammo count.. and fix the damn sites so they can be dialed in ASAP. ATM its a useless POS without it which is another example of getting another bugged allied AFV in the game that somehow passed Q&A with something so glaringly missing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Look I understand your idea, but for ppl who can afford to put more time in the game for points to earn and my god have you actually looked at TOM for some of these players? 10-15k minutes a map? You still can create a side imbalance.  Balance has to be strictly coded into the game.

And that balance would be very easy to achieve, because Rats would just have to alter the cost/use ratio of gear - it would be strictly coded into the game.

For example the tiger in 1940 would cost a lot and would have only 1-2 uses.

Once all the gear is potentialy available right from the start and then unlocks for everyone gradualy - it's much easier to balance it out, because you just have to manipulate the cost and personal spawn of it.

Edited by nugx

Share this post


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

And that balance would be very easy to achieve, because Rats would just have to alter the cost/use ratio of gear - it would be strictly coded into the game.

For example the tiger in 1940 would cost a lot and would have only 1-2 uses.

Once all the gear is potentialy available right from the start and then unlocks for everyone gradualy - it's much easier to balance it out, because you just have to manipulate the cost and personal spawn of it.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo with my money plssss.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Dre, you know and I know that these things happen in the game.. I killed a StugG at 1600m with a 3" atg the otherday, he was off angled and elevated.. took about 8 hits but I accomplished taking him out, I tracked him and most likely got a good hit on that 50mm plate. However I also put 14 rounds into the flank of one at 500m with a 3" ATG, his rear half was exposed and that's the "easy" engine kill and fuel shot.. I also got him smoking and he backed up and spun toward me and took a shot at me - I helped him because my last shot tracked him at the wrong moment and I was OH FK!.. when he did and 57mm opened up on him and he exploded. I got no kill on him, but I did manage two StugG kills, one being Kareca WOOT.  So to imply that the S75 is a good tank to deal with Tigers because it took x amounts of shots to kill one, one time does not make an argument.  If that was the case I could argue that the 3" ATG should enter into T1 because I also hit a PZH 8 times before he stopped shooting at me earlier with that damn near unkillable hull MG.

Sure it happens , but your example is 1 gun vs one Tank . My example is 2 Stugs,1 3h and a 4G  thats 4 guns shooting at one Tank , and we both know that the Sherman 75mm will only need one shot on the 4G and the 3h at the range of 450 meters to take them out, there you have 2 Panzers gone out of the fight myself being tracked well I'm only 1/2 useful now and not sure how the other Stug faired. 

 

 

Now to your other post with the Axis used P2,P1 and a lot of 38ts  yes that's all correct but the Axis didn't take France cause of better guns but because of better Tactics. If we want to go that route then each French tanker in Game will have the chat bar disabled along with the map marks so we can actually simulate how it was in a French tank .

Also the French Char crew will abandon their Tank then  cause one of the Axis tactic ( even that they knew they could not penetrate them ) was open up on them with everything they had in their arsenal , till the French crew were so rattled in their Chars that they gave up. Because I can imagine having 5 LMG and various other guns pounding on the steel of the char made the crew being on edge in a hurry.

These are all not in game, French tank have the benefit of coms and mark just like the Axis , and the fear of death ain't there either . 

Edited by dre21
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dre21 said:

Now to your other post with the Axis used P2,P1 and a lot of 38ts  yes that's all correct but the Axis didn't take France cause of better guns but because of better Tactics. If we want to go that route then each French tanker in Game will have the chat bar disabled along with the map marks so we can actually simulate how it was in a French tank .

Also the French Char crew will abandon their Tank then  cause one of the Axis tactic ( even that they knew they could not penetrate them ) was open up on them with everything they had in their arsenal , till the French crew were so rattled in their Chars that they gave up. Because I can imagine having 5 LMG and various other guns pounding on the steel of the char made the crew being on edge in a hurry.

These are all not in game, French tank have the benefit of coms and mark just like the Axis , and the fear of death ain't there either . 

If you think there is something wrong with the S75 as it is and its a issue across the board, report it in the bugs section.  My experience is quite different in the Sherman.. I rarely take a hit in one from a StugG.  I think we have a case of extreme lag death going on.. kinda like the ei you empty 2 mags into and he keeps on running then falls over dead 100m from where you shot him. Its certainly not normal.

As to the quote above...  Discord, that's what we use while tanking. 

That being said.. I am NOT suggesting that the Axis just get Pz1/2s and 38ts to make up their armor force in T0.  BUT BUT IF CRS decides to put historic TO&E numbers on the Firefly ETC  WITHOUT treating the Axis equally..  There has been no mention of these restraints going into the Axis TO&E and that is bad bedside manner to not mention it along with the foremost allied mentions. 

 

Listen, there are tells that ppl give away in conversation they don't mean to give away. The mentioning of the Firefly being held to a limited and historic TO&E without mentioning restrictions to historic TO&E for things like the Tiger or Pz3L is a "tell".  There might be BUT..

1. It tells me that somewhere inside or OUTSIDE CRS, possibly friends in the game are concerned with the potential of the Firefly and had to be addressed openly though off handed.

2. It tells me that there is a lot of scrutiny over the Allied kit that is not being applied to the Axis kit because if that was the case it would be just as important to have mentioned them.

3. Suggests personal preference and attention to detail concerning that preference.

Not saying its all of those or even any of those, but the chances are much higher than naught they are one or all three.  The very least the perception coming across suggests such and perceptions is EVERYTHING.

 I want a FUN game for both sides and what is being presented looks to be very lopsided. Not just in equipment available for the tiers but in how the new Allied equipment is going to be limited.  No mention about the how they are going to handle the new Axis equipment, just coming soon. Very soon.

Now, I know for a fact that CRS has all the ballistics data for all the rounds in the game.  The Germans did not use the PzGr39 round for the 88 in 1939-40 but they got it in the game because of future armor it is going to face.  I have asked over the years mb 10 times to give the 17pdr its historical APCBC round and not the APC round its using.  Talk about not being historical, the version of the 17pdr we have in the game NEVER fired the APC round in anger. That round was rushed to the front along with the 17pdr Pheasant.  Still crickets about it.

This is the crap that's getting my panties in a jumble and several other Allied players.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well see Discord would need to be disabled then too as soon as you spawn an French tank. All these things that in real life actually favored the Axis are not in game. The only thing Axis have going is the better population,  why that is I have no clue . Maybe because of the Equipment, maybe because of being the bad guy is more a turn on. I don't know.

Last 4G I took out one shot dead so it goes with most of our Armor , we get one Tank with a turret  where we actually stand a chance to fight, if our glass gun doesn't get taken out .

Yes the Stug is a great platform. But how many players do you fear in it?

I can think of only 2 that take them out on a consistent regular basis and made it their platform to play, Kareca and myself. 

So yes Tiger is a Beast and yes we may get to many per Spawn list ( which is CRS baby not the player base) but you see nothing wrong with a year 42 tank going against a  year 44 tank? 

There are plenty of other instruments in the Allied arsenal that will take out a Tiger once in game . ( MAYBE I'm blind and need to play a stint / campaign on the Allied side again )

The 88 is a shadow of its former glory . It's like Bigfoot rarely sighted in the game world anymore . And if it is the life expectancy is that of a LT landing on a hot LZ in Vietnam .

 

I agree both sides need fun and the balance issue has been a sore spot ever since. I remember the Char and Mattyothon.  Where you would see nothing but these 2 tanks on the Battlefield maybe the old time Axis have just become more efficient with dealing heavy Tanks because we had to do it for such a long time , while back then it was a pretty much aim and kill affair on the Allied side when they spotted Axis Armor. I'm not sure .

I think we can go back and forth on this subject and never come to a solution. 

Now I have to tell my Squad mates I'll be killing them next Campaign. They are not going to like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dre21 said:

Well see Discord would need to be disabled then too as soon as you spawn an French tank. All these things that in real life actually favored the Axis are not in game. The only thing Axis have going is the better population,  why that is I have no clue . Maybe because of the Equipment, maybe because of being the bad guy is more a turn on. I don't know.

Last 4G I took out one shot dead so it goes with most of our Armor , we get one Tank with a turret  where we actually stand a chance to fight, if our glass gun doesn't get taken out .

Yes the Stug is a great platform. But how many players do you fear in it?

I can think of only 2 that take them out on a consistent regular basis and made it their platform to play, Kareca and myself. 

So yes Tiger is a Beast and yes we may get to many per Spawn list ( which is CRS baby not the player base) but you see nothing wrong with a year 42 tank going against a  year 44 tank? 

There are plenty of other instruments in the Allied arsenal that will take out a Tiger once in game . ( MAYBE I'm blind and need to play a stint / campaign on the Allied side again )

The 88 is a shadow of its former glory . It's like Bigfoot rarely sighted in the game world anymore . And if it is the life expectancy is that of a LT landing on a hot LZ in Vietnam .

 

I agree both sides need fun and the balance issue has been a sore spot ever since. I remember the Char and Mattyothon.  Where you would see nothing but these 2 tanks on the Battlefield maybe the old time Axis have just become more efficient with dealing heavy Tanks because we had to do it for such a long time , while back then it was a pretty much aim and kill affair on the Allied side when they spotted Axis Armor. I'm not sure .

I think we can go back and forth on this subject and never come to a solution. 

Now I have to tell my Squad mates I'll be killing them next Campaign. They are not going to like it.

Well disabling discord is a no go.. just like unbalancing the Axis kit in T-0 because the game has to remain fun.

The 4G is not a bad tank, its consistently .2-25 better than the CH3, and about .1-2 worse than the Sherman. I think by and large that tank triad is prob the closest balanced triad AFVs in the game.

As for fearing the StugG... There is fear of the StugG and there is fear of who is behind the wheels. I "fear" the stugG period, its worse when you know the stugG driver is very good at handling that platform.  Usually when I see one in a Sherman, I back up, get behind something or drive into deep cover.. There is a reason why I prefer the M10. I will do 10x more M10 missions than the S75 in any given map.

As for warpage of material for balance.. I am 100% behind that approach. I played Axis back during the Matty Map, Axis the first Tiger map, then Allied when all we had where Cru3s and M10s vrs the Tiger.  The damage done to the Allied side during that fiasco literally destroyed some of our largest and most influential squads. We still have not recovered. The Tiger parity led to about half AEF unsubbing from the game. Only the core ppl are somewhat active and a shadow of its former self.  IF we go back to a system that pits the allied side to fight Tigers with Cru3s, CH3s, M10s and vanilla shermans again with no hope of relief for 2.5 RDP cycles before the S76 and Firefly enter the game.. eh, we will probably never see beyond T-2 at that point and the allies will literally require a huge armor number advantage along with a player advantage. The set up will not draw players to our side one bit, the opposite will happen.  THATS why we cannot go 100% historical date entry. It will destroy the allied side at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how did Allied units facing Tigers handle the situation historically?

1. There were only a few Tigers. Supporting units for each Tiger were killed off. The Tiger commanders didn't want to be out front with no support against flanking attacks, etc., so they fell back.

2. Real battlefields are smoky and dusty, so vision was limited, which decreased a key Tiger advantage. Allied units took advantage of this by firing a steady progression of smoke shells at the Tiger when they couldn't kill it and didn't want it to kill them. Then while it was masked, Allied units could maneuver so that someone could get a flanking shot.

3. Early Tigers had poor reliability. They were introduced in settings where the German side was gradually falling back, so German breakdowns often were captured by Allied units before the next night when German tank recovery units could go get them and do repairs.

Factor 1 fits the existing game if played realistically, i.e. each side is a team. If the German side plays individually, without teamwork, that further weakens use of Tigers against a teamwork Allied side.

Only if the Allied side does not play with teamwork is Factor 1 not to the Allies' advantage.

Factor 2 isn't yet part of the game. Game-smoke either forms small localized puffs and stays in place until it magically dissipates, or it rises rapidly upward until it again magically dissipates. Dust quickly dissipates. Combat and tank-movement don't make the battlefield lower-visibility. That's presumably a CRS choice. 

Smoke-shell smoke dissipates unrealistically quickly. Again, a CRS choice.

Factor 3 isn't part of the game either. All game-tanks have perfect reliability. And, there are no abandoned tanks with a breakdown issue or light damage, because unlike real war, no one abandons such a tank. So, holding the battlefield to allow friendly and maybe enemy tank recovery is irrelevant.

It appears to me that the expected tanking imbalance is in the context of fundamental non-side-specific unrealisms that CRS could fix.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A core problem with the red/blue and the on-paper numerically "balanced" vehicle setup is that vehicles aren't equal in terms of speed, armor, guns, optics, ammo and other factors. One side enjoys a general qualitative advantage AND more often than not a considerable numerical advantage too – which makes it twice if not thrice or four times as powerful. Quantity, a quality in itself that offset the qualitative disadvantage, is not factored in, and is further automatically denied the side that is chronically underpopulated. For the underpop side it doesn't matter if the spawnlist is choked with half-decent kit if there aren't enough players around to put the gear to use as its qualitative disadvantage requires, en masse. This, to me, is the fundamental fault that needs to be fixed so that the game may offer both sides a relatively balanced WWII-ish experience. This qualitative/quantitative balance/imbalance shifts from tier to tier so I'm not making an Allied/Axis thing out of this - it will have to be fixed for all tiers.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for adding in code to simulate the 1 man turret and radio less tanks.

We model armor, main gun and speed - but not comms, how come?

One man turret tanks and/or tanks with no radios should have some steep penalties.

No marks.  No comms but own mission; have to think about voice comms; prolly shouldn't be in, but may have to be for playability and its just a game.

 

As for mechanical reliability - prolly not, unless you create a vehicle that can go out and fix any 'reliability' issue - then I'd prolly be all for it as it provides more things for players to do.

 

As for strict timelines, I'm mostly for it, balance should be by the numbers of units, not the date.

For sure try it, if it is shown it don't work, then maybe fudge by some number of months. (but not this 3 year crap like the grease gun, i'm talking a few months maybe)

 

Share this post


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

A core problem with the red/blue and the on-paper numerically "balanced" vehicle setup is that vehicles aren't equal in terms of speed, armor, guns, optics, ammo and other factors. One side enjoys a general qualitative advantage AND more often than not a considerable numerical advantage too – which makes it twice if not thrice or four times as powerful. Quantity, a quality in itself that offset the qualitative disadvantage, is not factored in, and is further automatically denied the side that is chronically underpopulated. For the underpop side it doesn't matter if the spawnlist is choked with half-decent kit if there aren't enough players around to put the gear to use as its qualitative disadvantage requires, en masse. This, to me, is the fundamental fault that needs to be fixed so that the game may offer both sides a relatively balanced WWII-ish experience. This qualitative/quantitative balance/imbalance shifts from tier to tier so I'm not making an Allied/Axis thing out of this - it will have to be fixed for all tiers.

It used to be explained by old-CRS that vehicle comparisons for purposes of balance were best done using statistically determined lethality...necessarily, after a new vehicle had been in-game for a while and had built up some stats.

Old-CRS told us that a key feature of building the game around a transactional database was so that such all-action-encompassing statistics were readily internally available.

I think it's well understood that population imbalance is a positive-feedback mechanism, because a sizeable percentage of players are here for "psychic income" that is maximized by being on the advantaged, winning side. They're most likely to get kills without being killed, and so forth, by being on the overpop side. 

But even so, the game population imbalance rarely goes beyond 2:1 overall. 

in real war, participant number ratios in a given battle often reach and exceed 2:1. That's because real-war mechanics create lethality multipliers of 2:1 and beyond in the opposite direction for prepared defenders, compared to attackers.

I've never understood why CRS has always maintained a commitment to the dysfunctional fiction that both sides' first participants in any battle physically arrive at each battlefield simultaneously, and that infrastructure such as bunkers should be designed so it looks defensively effective but doesn't actually create the statistically verifiable lethality advantage that real-war 2:1 participant ratios inherently require.

If game defenders always were provided an opportunity to prepare planned defenses before the opposing side could attack, utilizing a realistically complete set of statistically proven defensive elements, then it would be reasonable to force-balance each such battle to a 2:1 population ratio at any given time. That might entail limiting the number of attackers, or the number of defenders. Across the map, that would create opportunities for both sides to be the attacker...as currently preferred by some players, though that might go away once the current advantages of overpop were gone...even when the overall game population ratio approached 2:1.

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jwilly said:

It used to be explained by old-CRS that vehicle comparisons for purposes of balance were best done using statistically determined lethality...necessarily, after a new vehicle had been in-game for a while and had built up some stats.

I don’t subscribe to that notion. In fact, I’m diametrically opposed to it. 

4 hours ago, jwilly said:

I've never understood why CRS has always maintained a commitment to the dysfunctional fiction that both sides' first participants in any battle physically arrive at each battlefield simultaneously

We can’t impose a 30-minute delay on the attack to create a defensive advantage. The warning signs are there already - loss of FB, sudden downshifts and upshifts in activity, EWS. 

Share this post


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

How to promote teamwork????? ???

???

This game does not work without it.

Other games use the XP reward system to encourage certain types of gameplay. 

 

The mssion mechanism in this game is nothing more than a way to spawn in. What if it weren’t?

What if achieving the mission objective gave an XP/points reward that all players wanted, regardless of their rank or experience? What if all players on that mission received bonus points for the achievement of the objective and also points based on group survival or group kills?

 

Think about a RDP bombing mission. At the moment, the bombers get points for bombs on factories; the fighter escorts get points for killing any interceptors, that’s all. And the points they get are completely worthless because all the players are probably maxed out on rank anyhow. 

Now imagine a game where the bombers get points for bombs on target, so do the  escort fighters. Imagine where the fighters get points for bombers RTBing and the bombers get points for the bomber group RTBing. Imagine where interceptors get points for factories not being damaged, for bombers not RTBing as well as aircraft downed. 

And then imagine that the XP pony’s gained mean something to every player, where achieving XP rewards stands as a different game objective, aside campaign win and the thrill of killing stuff.

With some subtle changes to the mission mechanism and the XP system, we can change behaviours to create a much better game. 

Share this post


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

I don’t subscribe to that notion. In fact, I’m diametrically opposed to it. 

It has the advantages of being objective; being based on data that the game was designed to collect and provide; and inherently measuring the differential effect of design or functionality modications to a model or the game mechanics to achieve better balance.

It would seem that any other approach is necessarily subjective, therefore open to bias/unfairness/error claims and pushback from one side or the other.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

We can’t impose a 30-minute delay on the attack to create a defensive advantage. The warning signs are there already - loss of FB, sudden downshifts and upshifts in activity, EWS. 

The discussion has been about what to do about imbalance.

Xoom seemed to reinforce in the latest Rat Chat that the game remains based on realistic models and mechanics.

Intentionally rejecting that most WWII battles were not 1:1 meeting engagements, and instead were attacker:defender with a participant ratio of 2:1 or higher and a roughly 2:1 offsetting lethality advantage for the defender due to defensive preparations, would seem to be obviously inconsistent with realistic mechanics and obviously associated with the question of why the game hasn't yet effectively figured out imbalance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.