• Announcements

    • CHIMM

      Operation Burning Skies   09/17/2019

      All pilots scramble!  Strap yourself in for this months Community event - Operation Burning Skies! This Sunday, September 22, 11 am – 5 pm server time. In honor of XOOM and friends showcasing WWII Online at the Oregon International  Air Show – our forces too will battle for superiority in Operation Burning Skies. High Commands are on high alert to rally their forces to victory! Lift off, and see a whole new world of WWII Online… Fearless bomber pilots make the skies rain down fire – our daring fighter pilots are in pursuit of their prey- as western Europe erupts in war on the ground below! Rally your squads, rally your buddies - Combined arms are back!  …Under Burning Skies! SALUTE!
XOOM

How can we get beyond pure negativity in the forums?

206 posts in this topic

Quote

and the fear of death ain't there either .

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but this system introduces this.

 

Quote

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.

 

And this also,  fear of death + personal spawn + players purchasing gear after they lost it for the points they earn

 

 

Quote

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

 

Jwilly, models can remain realistic but mechanics which create gameplay need a leeway. (there are already many unrealistic things in the game, simply because full realism in a video game is not possible)

Edited by nugx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're having a discussion about balance. It's the height of absurdity to propose a system in which some players could fight in T0 using T5 weapons, as a way to improve customer perceptions of balance.

Noobs entering the game for the first time would have no points accumulated, so they'd be using T0 gear in T0. How fast would they accumulate points, fighting against even a few vets using late-tier weapons?

They'd get a great first impression, having their H75 bounced by an Me 262 or having their R35 facing off with a King Tiger.

I'm at a loss as to how that idea can make sense to you.

Share this post


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

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.

General stats assume that all factors are equal over time, which they patently are not. Stats are skewed by the circumstances of engagements, eg camping, stand-off, surprise, TOM, teamwork, skill, numerical advantage/disadvantage etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Noobs entering the game for the first time would have no points accumulated, so they'd be using T0 gear in T0. How fast would they accumulate points, fighting against even a few vets using late-tier weapons?

Jwilly, how can I discuss this, if you don't want to hear what I'm proposing ?

 

T 0 is the timeline - the 'years', which means that if it would be 1943, noobs would be in 1943 gear, if it is 1945, noobs would be in 1945 gear.

At 1939, 1940, the systems would create limits, so the cost for late game tier is high and 'fear of death' is high also (due to small nr of personal spawn)

 

There would never be a situation that a noob is in h75 vs 262, simply because the system would not allow it, and by the time a few players use 262, everyone would be on 1943 gear.

Edited by nugx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything then can be balanced very easily.

 

The more lethal gear like 262 which you mentioned, can cost even more.  And it would be very easy for Rats to balance, because all you would need to tweak is 1 number - the cost   from  100 to 10000000 and then you are sure it is 'limited' to give you an extreme example.

So apart from the normal cost - there could be an extra cost from the 'lethalness' of the gear, so it costs more.

Edited by nugx

Share this post


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

General stats assume that all factors are equal over time, which they patently are not. Stats are skewed by the circumstances of engagements, eg camping, stand-off, surprise, TOM, teamwork, skill, numerical advantage/disadvantage etc. 

Wait, so are you saying that each map is so diametrically different to the point that statistical data over a period of time are of no value in determining potential battlefield effectiveness?  Am I reading you correctly?  Why did Xoom say that upping the Tiger numbers was because the "Tiger was not living up to its historical potential"? That's pretty much a direct quote.  How do you think he arrived at that conclusion?  MB he was looking at the stats and instead of a 10-1 KD vrs AFVs it was consistently approx. 5.0 kd? We all know it took 10 shermans to take out one Tiger... right?

That begs the question then, why do we limit the Matty in T-0 to 2 Max?  The only conclusion would be a anti-allied bias because statistical data is irrelevant.  The only option therefore is subjective.  This line of thinking is huge factor in EXACTLY why the Germans never produced a nuclear warhead because all semitic scientific data was ignored by legal policy - IE Einstein. I mean why do scientist use statistical data to produce a range of performance in the scientific method?

DOC had a excellent method of determining balance. It called CVC.  It was a economic model. Each side had an equal income and spent it on vehicle costs.  Each attribute of a AFV was given a value.. Speed, Armor, Gun/Ammo and probably more aspects that varied by class of weapon platform.  The sum of each attribute was then calculated to give the cost of each item.  That cost was then applied how many you could "purchase" WITH statistical data the value of attribute was adjusted till a good balance was found.  Data had to be collected over a period of time. So if you wanted more stugGs, it came at a cost of 2 less 4Gs for instance. The only item that ever broke the mold was the introduction of the Tiger. It added a significant but new attribute not seen before in the game. Player draw.. that's where we learned about the Axis Bench.. The allied side numbers actually increased for that map, however the Axis Bench showed up and at times the Axis where fielding a 5:1 numerical superiority - CRS released data on population.  It was summed up by calling it the "Sexiness" factor and because of that over a period of time and Statistical data, not only in the effectiveness of the Tiger but data on how it created such a numerical superiority the magic number of limiting the Tiger to 2.. like we do the Matilda.

What you are suggesting is preferential treatment of equipment by what you think is balance if you are diametrically opposed to statistical data to determine balance.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

How do you explain  that the Axis were able to retain somewhat their player base while most Allied Squads split after one Tiger campaign?

Could it be because the point shoot kill aspect was somewhat gone and they actually had to use tactics? Like the Axis side was told from the day the Game came out?  From day one it was pretty much axis Panzer runs into a Allied Tank the chances were 80% the Allied would win . 

Now Axis many years later got the Tiger and the Allies left in droves . Sure sounds to me someone got conditioned to as an Allied you run into an Axis tank you will win and all of a sudden that was not the case anymore so I bail.

So CRS will give Allies the Firefly so that is restored. 

Like I have said many times CRS did the Allies no favors giving them the Char and Matilda because the invincibility ego set in when they were almost guaranteed to drive up to an AB and kill everything that spawned. 

 

Nugx once you tell us who you really are I might start to read what you write but as long as I see no missions i'm really not interested .

Sure it looks like you used to play the game but then come in here with your name that you used to use and not hide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got caught up with the discussion. To be clear, when I said I disagreed with you Stankyus what I was really trying to say is that I support the global move to more historical TOE. If the Firefly is to be limited (as they should be) as per TOE, so should the Tiger in Tier 3. As with the Matty and B1 in tier 0. And I am fully with Jwilly when I say that I think the only good way to deal with weapons and ammo is historical dates and modelling. If it was a poor performer, then its a poor performer in game. Having ammo from one time and vehicles from another just doesn't make sense in the long run. When we use history (within reason) we have something that should act closer to the real event than not. 

As you said this means that the axis tier 0 will have to deal with mainly pz38 and pz2 as their main armour number wise, IVD and STUG B will be very limited as they were. On the other side, there will be very few Mattys and B1 and only in a few units. I fully support the idea of armour flags post 1.36 btw, where heavy armour must to brought in to support an attack or defence, not just available at every depot and to every inf unit (unless historical to that unit's TOE). Tier 3 the axis should have very limited numbers of Tigers available but that means we need to fight them with Sherman 75mms. It is not going to always be in one sides favour but it will move from tier to tier. 

Share this post


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

 

 

How do you explain  that the Axis were able to retain somewhat their player base while most Allied Squads split after one Tiger campaign?

Could it be because the point shoot kill aspect was somewhat gone and they actually had to use tactics? Like the Axis side was told from the day the Game came out?  From day one it was pretty much axis Panzer runs into a Allied Tank the chances were 80% the Allied would win . 

Now Axis many years later got the Tiger and the Allies left in droves . Sure sounds to me someone got conditioned to as an Allied you run into an Axis tank you will win and all of a sudden that was not the case anymore so I bail.

So CRS will give Allies the Firefly so that is restored. 

Like I have said many times CRS did the Allies no favors giving them the Char and Matilda because the invincibility ego set in when they were almost guaranteed to drive up to an AB and kill everything that spawned. 

 

Nugx once you tell us who you really are I might start to read what you write but as long as I see no missions i'm really not interested .

Sure it looks like you used to play the game but then come in here with your name that you used to use and not hide.

Reread my post above. It was not one Tiger map, it was like three tiger maps. The first Tiger map, the allied PB had a huge influx of allied players when the Tiger entered, the axis bench showed up and still had a 5:1 pop advantage and the map went from somewhere near the Antwerp line to the cost in something like 3 days. The second tiger map after RDP, the allies showed up again and got steamrolled, IIRC they held out longer because they got a [censored] ton of Cru3s and Sherman 75s and M10s - IIRC the Tiger KD against the Cru3 was somewhere around 13.5:1 that map. When the 3rd map came around the Allied pb did not show up. Enter the argument that "it did not matter if we had 100 Cru3s, we don't have the ppl to drive them."  There was a drop in tiger numbers after that however the allies still at the time did not have the CH7 or Sherman 76.. however IIRC either the CH7 was almost finished or discussion about it.  I had given the allies a ton of bias shat about it and jumped allied for a map or two but got a real eye opener. When the CH7 entered I jumped back Axis and played for a bit but the allied side numbers where dwindling so much that I was fighting my own squad for kills (3rd pz with Dinker - a bunch of great guys I might add)  I switched allied after a series of allied loses and got booted from 3rd PZ. I had jumped allied with a few other 3rd pz but I got kicked and they didn't. That pissed me off so I stayed allied for a bit.  I know when I came allied the French still was using the M10 as the MBT against the Tiger. IIRC I spent 1 map allied and tried to rejoin the Axis side and played till t-2, I think at that time the M10 had been rolled back to T-2. Still no S76. I lost 3 StugGs to Wetspot and grabbed another one. Some of the Axis guys where pissed I had spent some time on the allied side and accused me of griefing. That's when I decided to stay allied permanently and did not finish the map Axis.

Dre - I have dreamed of the Firefly and putting the BEF back in the game efficiently. Its not that CRS is not putting Allied tank that can rival the Tiger. For that I am extremely excited about.  My whole argument is against historical dates of entry and keeping the Firefly to its historical TO&E rarity.  You realize that the Allied side in this scenario they are laying out means that the ONLY AFV to be RDP after T-2 is going to be the CH5 CS <--  a bugged CS tank until T4.5?  That's 2.5 Tiers without any upgraded AFV that can be a challenge or go H2H to the Tiger, IE the CH7, S76, Firefly and Achilles.  However the Axis will have the luxury of getting the P3N (most likely with the corresponding HL/A/B ammo - a true Sherman killing round) with anti RPAT skirts. The PZ3L - the right tank to challenge and most balanced choice to deal with the Cru3.. and the Pz4H with anti RPAT armor and the L/48 cannon which is pretty significant in lethality.  There are some surprises in the works, hopefully something the allied can RDP for T3 that actually. The only thing I can think of is BEF M10s, mb some Cromwells but thats really just a Cru3 with some armor and a tad slower. Certainly not a heavily armored AFV.

The Matty and Char have had CRS do many unhistorical things and even fantasy rounds for the German side to help balance out T-0 that lasts a whole 7-10 days.. IE unheard of 37mm penetration stats that only CRS has, unhistorical HEAT TO&E. IE the heat round used in the BoF was so rare most the 75mm/L24 AFVs did not carry them and when they did it was like 4-5 rounds.  They where such a POS, the data Scotsman shared with me years ago on the subject IIRC something like 42mm (just a tad better than its AP ammo) from 50/50 test criteria. I probably still have his email at home. This was in regards to the improved HL ammo when it got introduced. In that email he agreed that the HL ammo was way over performing. I did not make this argument in the game off "feelings." In game they can penetrate the frontal armor of the Matty at times, enough to set off ammo explosions, they slice through the S35 and kill Chars.  The fact they struggle at times in this area means that the round is penetrating just enough armor to get through. HEAT does not produce much spall if any at partial penetration. That tells you that they have somewhere between 55-65mm of penetration - much closer to the 43' HL/A ammo than the HL ammo. So its NOT HL ammo and its NOT HL/A ammo - therefor its made up - Fantasy. The funny thing is that its called HL ammo in the game.. therefor overperforming. However if the argument that its really HL/A ammo and a typo - well its not historical and robbing the Axis of its actual performance by about 10-15mm.

Lastly - a part of your argument is a Tit-4-tat.. "the point shoot kill - actually need tactics now" is not an argument, its a perception. I think its crazy to suggest we don't flank and just drive right up the road thinking we just have to point, shoot, kill as if just our stare will kill the enemy tank is all we need is fallacious. You know better.

I know its a long post, but you are suggesting my argument is some sort of allied bias. I feel the need to explain my reason behind the issue.

1. 100% historic TO&E and dates - horrible idea and unbalanced.

2. Perception is everything

3. Game destroying history we need not repeat and the lessons we should have learned.

4. The need for objective balancing mechanisms

5. Statistics are indeed important

6. NOTHING is for free.

7. Restoring PB ownership and promoting game mechanics the build back squads.

That is the outline to bring this game back to its former glory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the Churchill Gun Carrier with 75mm 20 pounder? Wikipedia says it wasn't deployed, but Scotsman said he had documentation that it was, in Italy in 1943. Fifty were built in mid 1942, so they could have been deployed in Tier 2.5, contemporaneously with the Tiger. It had enough armor to go nose to nose with the Tiger, and maybe defeat it frontally with good shooting.

What about the ARL V 39 with 75mm APX gun? Old-CRS's policy was that equipment on order, and not involving captured elements, was game eligible even if historically not fielded before the recipient historically was defeated. ARL V 39 was contracted for in the late 1930s, so it should be game eligible for T1. As a B1-bis-tank modification, it should be modelable. Equipped with available-in-1940 Brandt 75/57mm APDS shells, it possibly could have killed the Tiger frontally out to a reasonable range if it got the first shot.

Share this post


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

What about the Churchill Gun Carrier with 75mm 20 pounder? Wikipedia says it wasn't deployed, but Scotsman said he had documentation that it was, in Italy in 1943. Fifty were built in mid 1942, so they could have been deployed in Tier 2.5, contemporaneously with the Tiger. It had enough armor to go nose to nose with the Tiger, and maybe defeat it frontally with good shooting.

What about the ARL V 39 with 75mm APX gun? Old-CRS's policy was that equipment on order, and not involving captured elements, was game eligible even if historically not fielded before the recipient historically was defeated. ARL V 39 was contracted for in the late 1930s, so it should be game eligible for T1. As a B1-bis-tank modification, it should be modelable. Equipped with available-in-1940 Brandt 75/57mm APDS shells, it possibly could have killed the Tiger frontally out to a reasonable range if it got the first shot.

Italian forces had a not too dissimilar weapon to this churchill gun carrier. They fit a 65mm naval gun to ... essentially anything that could hold it ... mostly to FIAT trucks. They used these early on to deal with the Matilda. From what I recall this was 100% a field modification meant as a stop gap weapon until the Solothurn 90/53 was ready. I don't recall even seeing pictures of these things just recall reading about them. 

w/e is required to arrive at balance that has historical justification should be considered.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, raptor34 said:

Just got caught up with the discussion. To be clear, when I said I disagreed with you Stankyus what I was really trying to say is that I support the global move to more historical TOE. If the Firefly is to be limited (as they should be) as per TOE, so should the Tiger in Tier 3. As with the Matty and B1 in tier 0. And I am fully with Jwilly when I say that I think the only good way to deal with weapons and ammo is historical dates and modelling. If it was a poor performer, then its a poor performer in game. Having ammo from one time and vehicles from another just doesn't make sense in the long run. When we use history (within reason) we have something that should act closer to the real event than not. 

As you said this means that the axis tier 0 will have to deal with mainly pz38 and pz2 as their main armour number wise, IVD and STUG B will be very limited as they were. On the other side, there will be very few Mattys and B1 and only in a few units. I fully support the idea of armour flags post 1.36 btw, where heavy armour must to brought in to support an attack or defence, not just available at every depot and to every inf unit (unless historical to that unit's TOE). Tier 3 the axis should have very limited numbers of Tigers available but that means we need to fight them with Sherman 75mms. It is not going to always be in one sides favour but it will move from tier to tier. 

As I said I understand your position. Sure ppl would like to go to historical TO&E.  However that does not make a good game. As Jwilly outlined that IF it was not for aspects of the outcome of battles etc..  I also don't think your really read through my posts or you would understand that the Tiger would not be in T-3, it would enter in T-2.5 and the historical TO&E would create such a imbalance that you wont get tankers to spawn tanks and players to log in.  There would be a 2.5 long space to where the Allies would not get a new tank with the exception of the CH5 CS tank while the Axis get new and improved equipment while we stay stagnant. That's not going to fly with the average player and they have the option just not to play a game or side that does not satisfy or fulfill their expectation of having the equal opportunity to be successful. This timeline has been tried and was a very destructive to the game as a whole which is exactly the reason why CRS rushed the S76 and CH3 into the game as soon as they could. They reprioritized everything to do so.

So what this looks like if implemented.

CH7-S76  get pushed out of T-3 and enter at T4.5

Tiger T-2-2.5

Panther T-3 possible

Sherman and M10 - T-2-2.5

Pz4H T-3(?)

Firefly and Achilles T-4.5

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Italian forces had a not too dissimilar weapon to this churchill gun carrier. They fit a 65mm naval gun to ... essentially anything that could hold it ... mostly to FIAT trucks. They used these early on to deal with the Matilda. From what I recall this was 100% a field modification meant as a stop gap weapon until the Solothurn 90/53 was ready. I don't recall even seeing pictures of these things just recall reading about them. 

w/e is required to arrive at balance that has historical justification should be considered.

And of course, the JgPz 1 with Czech 47mm AT gun as a Matilda ambusher. Or, since that chassis doesn't currently exist, maybe the PzKpfW 38(t) or PzKpfW II chassis as a stand-in.

Share this post


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

As I said I understand your position. Sure ppl would like to go to historical TO&E.  However that does not make a good game. As Jwilly outlined that IF it was not for aspects of the outcome of battles etc..  I also don't think your really read through my posts or you would understand that the Tiger would not be in T-3, it would enter in T-2.5 and the historical TO&E would create such a imbalance that you wont get tankers to spawn tanks and players to log in.  There would be a 2.5 long space to where the Allies would not get a new tank with the exception of the CH5 CS tank while the Axis get new and improved equipment while we stay stagnant. That's not going to fly with the average player and they have the option just not to play a game or side that does not satisfy or fulfill their expectation of having the equal opportunity to be successful. This timeline has been tried and was a very destructive to the game as a whole which is exactly the reason why CRS rushed the S76 and CH3 into the game as soon as they could. They reprioritized everything to do so.

So what this looks like if implemented.

CH7-S76  get pushed out of T-3 and enter at T4.5

Tiger T-2-2.5

Panther T-3 possible

Sherman and M10 - T-2-2.5

Pz4H T-3(?)

Firefly and Achilles T-4.5

I'll quit if they put that timeline stuff in. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

As I said I understand your position. Sure ppl would like to go to historical TO&E.  However that does not make a good game. As Jwilly outlined that IF it was not for aspects of the outcome of battles etc.. 

Not only historical events, but historical use-percentages. 

If (total guess) 70% of American main-AFV usage in 1942 was Sherman 75 and 30% was M10, and 95% of German main-AFV usage was PzKpfW IV and StuG III and 5% was Tiger, then those ratios need to be implemented in-game for historical TO&E to make sense. That means that offering a TO&E with 2 Tigers, 14 PzKpfW IV and 4 STuG III doesn't work, because that allows the first two tanks taken to be the Tigers...which is bogus from the perspective of representing an historically valid ratio on the battlefield.

During low-pop times, in a given locale the main, or maybe only, tank the Allies would face would be the Tiger. That's not historically valid.

Maybe a more historically valid way to structure TO&Es would be on the basis of spawned time. Using the above guess-numbers, 70% of spawned time would have to be Sherman 75s, 30% M10s, 95% PzKpfW IV and StuG III, and 5% Tiger.

4 people like this

Share this post


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

Not only historical events, but historical use-percentages. 

If (total guess) 70% of American main-AFV usage in 1942 was Sherman 75 and 30% was M10, and 95% of German main-AFV usage was PzKpfW IV and StuG III and 5% was Tiger, then those ratios need to be implemented in-game for historical TO&E to make sense. That means that offering a TO&E with 2 Tigers, 14 PzKpfW IV and 4 STuG III doesn't work, because that allows the first two tanks taken to be the Tigers...which is bogus from the perspective of representing an historically valid ratio on the battlefield.

During low-pop times, in a given locale the main, or maybe only, tank the Allies would face would be the Tiger. That's not historically valid.

Maybe a more historically valid way to structure TO&Es would be on the basis of spawned time. Using the above guess-numbers, 70% of spawned time would have to be Sherman 75s, 30% M10s, 95% PzKpfW IV and StuG III, and 5% Tiger.

Yarg...

My concern is that IF we do that, T-0 Axis tanking is going to go beyond how horrible it was to tank back in the day with out the benefit of the Char Grille kill spot and the Matty fuel tank kill spot because the majority of Axis tanks were Pz1 and 2s.  Very few where heavier than the 38t.  Axis tanking in T-0 is light years better now than it was back in the day.  It was very hard when I was axis before all the fantasy rounds and unhistorical ammo TO&E. That would go away and T-0 would be horrifyingly unbalanced. You would get very few Axis tankers spawning in.

Now if you look at our Stuart tank we have in the game, It is not the 1941 variant. Its actually the M3A3 variant which would push it back to T2.  I wonder how many ppl ever noticed this. It would require a completely new stuart model to go into T-1. However without the M3A3 variant T-1 French balance might not be as bad just as long if we don't add the Pz4E/F models until the M3A1/2 are modelled. The Pz3H variant would literally be so few you could not legitimately put it in all the towns.  However does that really add anything to the fun factor of the game? However the balance would put the BEF ahead, French behind and the Axis would see little relief.

After that, the game balance flips to a very serious tanking advantage to the Axis from T2 to T 4.5.  That is such a long period of getting relatively nothing new, THE GAMER who are not enlisted service men or pressed into service DO not have to play or chose to spend money here.

It completely leaves the realm of the fun factor and I dare say the reasonable expectation of balance OR being provided with the idea you can win.. not only for the Axis early on, but for the Allies later on.  Its a double hit and would negatively effect both sides and actually promote even more wild population swings.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Mosizlak said:

I'll quit if they put that timeline stuff in. 

I don't know why I would play either.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Reread my post above. It was not one Tiger map, it was like three tiger maps. The first Tiger map, the allied PB had a huge influx of allied players when the Tiger entered, the axis bench showed up and still had a 5:1 pop advantage and the map went from somewhere near the Antwerp line to the cost in something like 3 days. The second tiger map after RDP, the allies showed up again and got steamrolled, IIRC they held out longer because they got a [censored] ton of Cru3s and Sherman 75s and M10s - IIRC the Tiger KD against the Cru3 was somewhere around 13.5:1 that map. When the 3rd map came around the Allied pb did not show up. Enter the argument that "it did not matter if we had 100 Cru3s, we don't have the ppl to drive them."  There was a drop in tiger numbers after that however the allies still at the time did not have the CH7 or Sherman 76.. however IIRC either the CH7 was almost finished or discussion about it.  I had given the allies a ton of bias shat about it and jumped allied for a map or two but got a real eye opener. When the CH7 entered I jumped back Axis and played for a bit but the allied side numbers where dwindling so much that I was fighting my own squad for kills (3rd pz with Dinker - a bunch of great guys I might add)  I switched allied after a series of allied loses and got booted from 3rd PZ. I had jumped allied with a few other 3rd pz but I got kicked and they didn't. That pissed me off so I stayed allied for a bit.  I know when I came allied the French still was using the M10 as the MBT against the Tiger. IIRC I spent 1 map allied and tried to rejoin the Axis side and played till t-2, I think at that time the M10 had been rolled back to T-2. Still no S76. I lost 3 StugGs to Wetspot and grabbed another one. Some of the Axis guys where pissed I had spent some time on the allied side and accused me of griefing. That's when I decided to stay allied permanently and did not finish the map Axis.

Dre - I have dreamed of the Firefly and putting the BEF back in the game efficiently. Its not that CRS is not putting Allied tank that can rival the Tiger. For that I am extremely excited about.  My whole argument is against historical dates of entry and keeping the Firefly to its historical TO&E rarity.  You realize that the Allied side in this scenario they are laying out means that the ONLY AFV to be RDP after T-2 is going to be the CH5 CS <--  a bugged CS tank until T4.5?  That's 2.5 Tiers without any upgraded AFV that can be a challenge or go H2H to the Tiger, IE the CH7, S76, Firefly and Achilles.  However the Axis will have the luxury of getting the P3N (most likely with the corresponding HL/A/B ammo - a true Sherman killing round) with anti RPAT skirts. The PZ3L - the right tank to challenge and most balanced choice to deal with the Cru3.. and the Pz4H with anti RPAT armor and the L/48 cannon which is pretty significant in lethality.  There are some surprises in the works, hopefully something the allied can RDP for T3 that actually. The only thing I can think of is BEF M10s, mb some Cromwells but thats really just a Cru3 with some armor and a tad slower. Certainly not a heavily armored AFV.

The Matty and Char have had CRS do many unhistorical things and even fantasy rounds for the German side to help balance out T-0 that lasts a whole 7-10 days.. IE unheard of 37mm penetration stats that only CRS has, unhistorical HEAT TO&E. IE the heat round used in the BoF was so rare most the 75mm/L24 AFVs did not carry them and when they did it was like 4-5 rounds.  They where such a POS, the data Scotsman shared with me years ago on the subject IIRC something like 42mm (just a tad better than its AP ammo) from 50/50 test criteria. I probably still have his email at home. This was in regards to the improved HL ammo when it got introduced. In that email he agreed that the HL ammo was way over performing. I did not make this argument in the game off "feelings." In game they can penetrate the frontal armor of the Matty at times, enough to set off ammo explosions, they slice through the S35 and kill Chars.  The fact they struggle at times in this area means that the round is penetrating just enough armor to get through. HEAT does not produce much spall if any at partial penetration. That tells you that they have somewhere between 55-65mm of penetration - much closer to the 43' HL/A ammo than the HL ammo. So its NOT HL ammo and its NOT HL/A ammo - therefor its made up - Fantasy. The funny thing is that its called HL ammo in the game.. therefor overperforming. However if the argument that its really HL/A ammo and a typo - well its not historical and robbing the Axis of its actual performance by about 10-15mm.

Lastly - a part of your argument is a Tit-4-tat.. "the point shoot kill - actually need tactics now" is not an argument, its a perception. I think its crazy to suggest we don't flank and just drive right up the road thinking we just have to point, shoot, kill as if just our stare will kill the enemy tank is all we need is fallacious. You know better.

I know its a long post, but you are suggesting my argument is some sort of allied bias. I feel the need to explain my reason behind the issue.

1. 100% historic TO&E and dates - horrible idea and unbalanced.

2. Perception is everything

3. Game destroying history we need not repeat and the lessons we should have learned.

4. The need for objective balancing mechanisms

5. Statistics are indeed important

6. NOTHING is for free.

7. Restoring PB ownership and promoting game mechanics the build back squads.

That is the outline to bring this game back to its former glory.

Thanks for the explanation,  and yes I did read all of it .

I agree that TO&E should not happen and that both sides need to be competitive with each other at the same time . 

I also agree with you that the 37mm ammo is overpowered now on Char and Matilda, nowhere did I ever read that the Pak36 gun was able to take out these tanks , they were highly insufficient for the task. It was a high velocity gun but only adequate for the R35 ,H39 and in rare occasions the S35.

What we have now ingame I could not tell you cause I can't figure it out.

In my opinion CRS of old should have had the PNZjgr1 in the game from the beginning , great gun but the high profile of the platform would have been something the player base would had to overcome.

I guess it just urks me that the Allied player base jumped ship cause of 3 maps (not sure what campaign numbers those would have been ) but Axis had to deal with it from the beginning. 

So it might be just a personal feeling . 

On a side note after SG left the game I too was 3rd Panzer for a short stint and also got booted from them even that I announced in advance to the higher ups in the Squad that I'll be playing a map Allied. But didn't seem to matter after that even as you said it a great Squad , 3rd was over for me and I lonewolfed for a long time .

I was very reluctant to join another squad cause all the Squads that followed folded shortly after I joined.

The one thing I do have to say is when I do switch even with an Axis Squad tag I have never been accused of spying or any of the other things some players go through.  Why that is I have no clue and I hope it stays that way cause once I do switch I give my best and all for that side.

With that S!

2 people like this

Share this post


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

I also agree with you that the 37mm ammo is overpowered now on Char and Matilda, nowhere did I ever read that the Pak36 gun was able to take out these tanks , they were highly insufficient for the task. It was a high velocity gun but only adequate for the R35 ,H39 and in rare occasions the S35.

It was quite capable of causing some harm to those units.
Those units did not allow it the opportunity to get the distance and position needed to actually cause any harm.

In real life, no one lived long trying to push a pak36 within 60 meters of an enemy tank across a live battle field.
Nor an MLE 34, nor MLE 37, nor 2pdr, nor much anything else.

And all that happens when you fire at them from 200+ meters and/or frontally, is you make them angry and let all their friends know where you are.

We dont act like real life people in game, we act like people on massive quantities of PCP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

It was quite capable of causing some harm to those units.
Those units did not allow it the opportunity to get the distance and position needed to actually cause any harm.

In real life, no one lived long trying to push a pak36 within 60 meters of an enemy tank across a live battle field.
Nor an MLE 34, nor MLE 37, nor 2pdr, nor much anything else.

And all that happens when you fire at them from 200+ meters and/or frontally, is you make them angry and let all their friends know where you are.

We dont act like real life people in game, we act like people on massive quantities of PCP

That is true Merlin , didn't think of that . Rolled a Stug3b within 10 meters of a Matilda and side shot it , it will burn ,done it once he was clueless that I rolled right up to him.

And true we do push our ATG guns a lot closer to the enemy then they did in real life.  In real life there was usually INF around , in game that is not the case and with that your chances highly increase getting closer with the Pak to get that penetrating shot.

Share this post


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

That is true Merlin , didn't think of that . Rolled a Stug3b within 10 meters of a Matilda and side shot it , it will burn ,done it once he was clueless that I rolled right up to him.

And true we do push our ATG guns a lot closer to the enemy then they did in real life.  In real life there was usually INF around , in game that is not the case and with that your chances highly increase getting closer with the Pak to get that penetrating shot.

In game, an ATG might push up through the bushes passing within 30 meters of enemy infantry, and no one notices.
In real life, that simply did not happen, everyone's one and only life depended on the other guy.
There was a cohesion that no game can mimic as many times it was formed from being 3 steps on the other side of death and yet living to see the sun rise again.
There are a lot of other things that come into play when you have survived any amount of time in an active combat zone or similar high stress situation. 

Many things will happen in game that are mostly the result of being able to sit around, crack jokes on discord, drink beer and spray bullets all over
and do crazy things with no fear because reincarnation is only a mouse click away, and pain does not exist.

The physics will be right, but the situation will be one for the insane.
Like rolling the StuG right up to the matilda. :) 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

It was quite capable of causing some harm to those units.
Those units did not allow it the opportunity to get the distance and position needed to actually cause any harm.

In real life, no one lived long trying to push a pak36 within 60 meters of an enemy tank across a live battle field.
Nor an MLE 34, nor MLE 37, nor 2pdr, nor much anything else.

And all that happens when you fire at them from 200+ meters and/or frontally, is you make them angry and let all their friends know where you are.

We dont act like real life people in game, we act like people on massive quantities of PCP

wiser words were never typed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

We dont act like real life people in game, we act like people on massive quantities of PCP

 

Some players don't understand this, and/or don't want to understand this.

Edited by nugx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.