Comments on 16 September Rat Chat

[Nick 128]

5 hours ago, Silky said:

 

It seems that CRS recognises the need for flexibity for air units, so the question I’d pose is why, if air supply requires country flexibity, do ground forces not? 

The extra coding would obviously push 1.36 further back, we want to get a first generation into play and then we can look into the possibility of updates as you are suggesting.

[dropbear 121]

In the mean time the allied forces are limited in their option...

[pbveteran 0]

On 9/18/2018 at 8:12 PM, viper69 said:

For sure! As I said even historically the panzer 4 was the real workhorse but damn the panther is a sexy beast. Couldn’t die without its final drive failure though

the number of panzer IV produces were 8000 while the panther was at 6000, considering the panther was more of late war tank.. it was considerable easier to produce than the PZ IV

[Chaoswzkd 155]

1 hour ago, dropbear said:

In the mean time the allied forces are limited in their option...

They're limited today. There are no mixed brigades today, they're all one country, one supply. The closest to mixed we have is French inheriting a lot of US armor supply, but those are all French variants. They're driven by French personas, and show up as French Stuart, French Sherman, etc. in stats.

The game cannot handle mixed brigades at this time. Theoretically, we could mix the brigades, but then we'd have British P38s, French Spitfires, etc., which would get extremely confusing for stats and make a tangled mess of data and equipment on the back-end.

So in order to get 1.36 out ASAP, the best that can be done at the moment would be to give some movable flags to the Allies (and in turn the Axis so there's no supply disadvantage) so they can diversify the supply at their airfields.

Doing so might put way too much aircraft supply in the game, though, so it needs to be looked at. After all, every airfield across the map will be active.

[Capco 1,312]

6 hours ago, chaoswzkd said:

They're limited today. There are no mixed brigades today, they're all one country, one supply. The closest to mixed we have is French inheriting a lot of US armor supply, but those are all French variants. They're driven by French personas, and show up as French Stuart, French Sherman, etc. in stats.

The game cannot handle mixed brigades at this time. Theoretically, we could mix the brigades, but then we'd have British P38s, French Spitfires, etc., which would get extremely confusing for stats and make a tangled mess of data and equipment on the back-end.

So in order to get 1.36 out ASAP, the best that can be done at the moment would be to give some movable flags to the Allies (and in turn the Axis so there's no supply disadvantage) so they can diversify the supply at their airfields.

Doing so might put way too much aircraft supply in the game, though, so it needs to be looked at. After all, every airfield across the map will be active.

This (some movable air supply) is fine for AHC.  We can work with this until you guys have more time to revisit the garrisons and what not.  And obviously the Axis needs the same setup for balance reasons even if they don't need the added flexibility (at least until we get to a full-fledged Italian TOE where they can garrison towns and airfields on their own).  

 

We understand you can only do so much.  I think I've made our case very clear to you chaos, and based on your posts you in turn definitely understand where we are coming from.  That's all that we at AHC can ask for.  

 

 

PS - if every airfield is active, that means whoever owns more airfields has more air supply.  I'm not sure I like that...  At this point in development I doubt you can change that, but doing it like that means that whoever is winning the map gets to turn their snowball of aircraft into an avalanche, if they so choose.  

[Silky 2,406]

I may have missed this but what happens to the garrison or air supply when the AB or AF is capped during an attack? Bounced off map? Does that mean fallback is now extinct? Will linking supply be a thing through linking CPs?

[Merlin51 1,388]

Silky, you're stuttering again  

Depot's and their supply links will still be valid, they will still be the means by which a town can be resupplied etc.
Beyond that, i'm not sure what you might mean, and might not know the answer.


I am not sure on the fallback mechanic

[Silky 2,406]

29 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

Silky, you're stuttering again  

Depot's and their supply links will still be valid, they will still be the means by which a town can be resupplied etc.
Beyond that, i'm not sure what you might mean, and might not know the answer.


I am not sure on the fallback mechanic

So let’s say Allies are defending Leuven. Axis cap the Tienen CP, they get a spawnable, as now?

so they continue to attack and now cap the AB, but the Brussels CP remains Allied. What happens? Does the garrison get bounced? Can allies spawn from the AB? Can allies spawn from the Brussels CP?

 

[Merlin51 1,388]

1 minute ago, Silky said:

So let’s say Allies are defending Leuven. Axis cap the Tienen CP, they get a spawnable, as now?

so they continue to attack and now cap the AB, but the Brussels CP remains Allied. What happens? Does the garrison get bounced? Can allies spawn from the AB? Can allies spawn from the Brussels CP?

 

Well the 1st part i am pretty sure is still yes, capture a linked depot and you can use it as a spawnable same as now.

Bounce the AB, i can not answer for sure, i am not working on the 1.36 stuff
But i think it would probably not change in part.
You'd loose garrison main force in town, but because of your rear town/FB links, you would be able to spawn the connecting depots
until the axis shuts them down by capturing them.

Ain't over til the fat lady sings

I do not know how the routing and fallback and what not mechanics will work though

[Silky 2,406]

4 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

Well the 1st part i am pretty sure is still yes, capture a linked depot and you can use it as a spawnable same as now.

Bounce the AB, i can not answer for sure, i am not working on the 1.36 stuff
But i think it would probably not change in part.
You'd loose garrison main force in town, but because of your rear town/FB links, you would be able to spawn the connecting depots
until the axis shuts them down by capturing them.

Ain't over til the fat lady sings

I do not know how the routing and fallback and what not mechanics will work though

And what if we then recap the AB? Is there a way back?

[Merlin51 1,388]

4 minutes ago, Silky said:

And what if we then recap the AB? Is there a way back?

I can't quite answer that Silky, i am not working on the 1.36 stuff
It's all host and code and mechanics and i would not be any great help there.

I am sure there will be "A way back" rather than just "Well oil beef act"
but i do not know how it may work exactly

[Silky 2,406]

1 minute ago, merlin51 said:

I can't quite answer that Silky, i am not working on the 1.36 stuff
It's all host and code and mechanics and i would not be any great help there.

I am sure there will be "A way back" rather than just "Well oil beef act"
but i do not know how it may work exactly

I know you can’t. But presumably somebody can?

[Capco 1,312]

1 hour ago, Silky said:

I know you can’t. But presumably somebody can?

@chaoswzkd can.  And this is a very good question too, one I didn't even think about yet.  

[Silky 2,406]

@chaoswzkd is there an answer to the question about the mechanics around AN caps?

[Silky 2,406]

On 25/09/2018 at 9:17 PM, Silky said:

@chaoswzkd is there an answer to the question about the mechanics around AN caps?

@chaoswzkd any update on this question?

[ZEBBEEE 436]

On 21/09/2018 at 7:03 PM, Silky said:

And what if we then recap the AB? Is there a way back?

IMO AB should be re-capturable from spawnables linked to rear towns only. If owner recap the AB it should provide back the  supplies that remained at capture.

[Chaoswzkd 155]

On 10/4/2018 at 2:50 PM, Silky said:

@chaoswzkd any update on this question?

@Silky @Capco
Apologies, IRL stuff happened. Haven't been on the forums or the game for a month and a half or something. My WWIIOL-related energy (what I have to spare anyway considering all the goings on for me) has been being invested in managing 1.36 stuff internally.

Anyway, answers to your questions:

Capping a linked CP gives a spawnable: yes, no change there.

Spawn into a friendly town that you've lost supply in through linked CPs: yes, no change there.


When all of the major facilities for a particular branch are captured, the corresponding garrisons will be hidden. That means capping all the ABs will effectively 'boot' the Army garrison. Capping all of the docks will effectively 'boot' the Navy garrison. Capping all of the airfields will 'boot' the Air and Airborne garrisons.

Now, if you recap those major facilities, the garrisons should un-hide, effectively putting them back into play. At least for the first release of 1.36. Everybody's been asking for it for a long time, it's the #1 priority (or among #1 priorities; 64 bit, for example, is also huge, and the other branches of CRS have their own priorities), we're trying to kick it out the door.


How we're going to handle air garrisons (Air Force and Airborne, they're split because one's Air persona and one's Army persona) is that they'll be disabled on Frontline towns. They won't mimic brigades. Air units on frontline action doesn't really make sense unless things are really dire (Luftwaffe ground forces in the late war, for example), but shuffling around brigades is up to HC. HC won't be managing garrisons, so just not having them is the way to go for now. We can explore changing that to mimic brigades more closely after 1.36.0.

 

When a town is completely captured, town ownership will flip, garrison ownership will flip and change supply lists, and supply trickle timers will pop in. Expect garrisons to have their own trickle timers (and other related variables) separate from brigade trickle timers. Garrisons do not 'rout', they are always in the city they belong to.

That's not the most realistic thing, necessarily, but working with supply isn't the easiest thing either, and we've pruned 1.36 to the core functions in order to get it to the players ASAP. I think that, while the above isn't perfect, it's definitely functional and usable for the playerbase. It will provide us with a firm foundation without too many working parts muddying the waters for trying to refine particulars for both balance and realism. Look for future patches beyond the first release of 1.36 to touch things up.

[Silky 2,406]

3 hours ago, chaoswzkd said:

@Silky @Capco
Apologies, IRL stuff happened. Haven't been on the forums or the game for a month and a half or something. My WWIIOL-related energy (what I have to spare anyway considering all the goings on for me) has been being invested in managing 1.36 stuff internally.

Anyway, answers to your questions:

Capping a linked CP gives a spawnable: yes, no change there.

Spawn into a friendly town that you've lost supply in through linked CPs: yes, no change there.


When all of the major facilities for a particular branch are captured, the corresponding garrisons will be hidden. That means capping all the ABs will effectively 'boot' the Army garrison. Capping all of the docks will effectively 'boot' the Navy garrison. Capping all of the airfields will 'boot' the Air and Airborne garrisons.

Now, if you recap those major facilities, the garrisons should un-hide, effectively putting them back into play. At least for the first release of 1.36. Everybody's been asking for it for a long time, it's the #1 priority (or among #1 priorities; 64 bit, for example, is also huge, and the other branches of CRS have their own priorities), we're trying to kick it out the door.


How we're going to handle air garrisons (Air Force and Airborne, they're split because one's Air persona and one's Army persona) is that they'll be disabled on Frontline towns. They won't mimic brigades. Air units on frontline action doesn't really make sense unless things are really dire (Luftwaffe ground forces in the late war, for example), but shuffling around brigades is up to HC. HC won't be managing garrisons, so just not having them is the way to go for now. We can explore changing that to mimic brigades more closely after 1.36.0.

 

When a town is completely captured, town ownership will flip, garrison ownership will flip and change supply lists, and supply trickle timers will pop in. Expect garrisons to have their own trickle timers (and other related variables) separate from brigade trickle timers. Garrisons do not 'rout', they are always in the city they belong to.

That's not the most realistic thing, necessarily, but working with supply isn't the easiest thing either, and we've pruned 1.36 to the core functions in order to get it to the players ASAP. I think that, while the above isn't perfect, it's definitely functional and usable for the playerbase. It will provide us with a firm foundation without too many working parts muddying the waters for trying to refine particulars for both balance and realism. Look for future patches beyond the first release of 1.36 to touch things up.

Appreciate the response, thanks

[Capco 1,312]

Thank you Chaos.  

[aismov 600]

On 9/17/2018 at 8:23 PM, HATCH said:

I agree. At one time you had a fully functioning HC from brigade on up that could respond even without moveable flags. We did it with external web based AHC and GHC player managed command structures. But sometime after I left, all the hard work Gryf and I put into designing and filling the "Order of Battles" that pretty much managed themselves, got undercut by artificially limiting AO's instead of giving one each to every Bde/KG, or at least a Division, which made any HC position outside of that AO useless. And then instead of fixing it, the battles and squads were continually throttled further, which in my opinion was a large part of the catalyst that ran off the squads, and let the HC's atrophy from the ever-present, vibrant and responsive, command lines able to move as needed in charge of their own fights, to the current small group of map coordinators for each side, TOO responsible as single individuals to everyone, and having no choice but forcing everyone to one spot with so few AO's.

To little operational and strategic mobility. Too much responsibility in too few players hands, forcing too much of the fighting in too few areas.

In my view, that is the anathema to what WWIIOL was ever supposed to be. Its supposed to be a wide open map. Its supposed to be usable in a myriad of different ways so that the possibilities of spearheads, flanking maneuvers, surrounding, and tactical support maneuvers like Patton's push to Bastogne were all possible. That made it so that no battle ever had to be the same.

I think we have to be VERY careful about purposefully pushing or funneling battles into single small areas. That is no different than any of the "shoebox" games that we wanted to get away from in the first place, and that we STILL have to compete against today, always with WAY better graphics. Why the heck do we want to implement the same thoughtless small box rambo play that can be found in any of them when we are the only option to date that can break a battle out over hundreds of kilometers for thousands of people at the same time and on the same map?

Anyways, that's my position. And while I think the current state of the HC (no offense to the great guys currently in it, but see old HC structures and operations here: GHC ArFr BEF. Hopefully you'll get your chance and tools to operate as before) and some could argue player population, mandates 1.36, we are in-effect, starting over closer to the "open" battlefield we had before. I think that 1.36 is the opportunity for re-growth all the way around. While we can work at coding "balance" we should never code in too many automatic restrictions or place the entire ORBAT for either side under too few individuals that the rest of the playerbase (by vote of their respective AHC/GHC Squad/Bde/KG/Division/Corp/Army representatives) didn't nominate and vote on themselves, and on the outside chance is unavailable, cannot manage "on the fly" themselves.

If as I believe, this will over time by word of mouth and good promotion, entice those back that relish the freedom of a more open battlefield and the freedom to move around that naturally and organically promoted squad growth and the natural leaders that we filled the HC's with back then when the map was wholly open, enable us rebuild it all again. We'll see. Alongside the ongoing game improvements, and not ignoring the engine and graphical improvements we all wish for and will implement as more player support allows, (or possibly some unforeseen deal with another more modern engine provider that might accelerate that part of the equation), I am optimistic. Like Rome, not "built in a day" but hopeful long term outlook.

#WARGAMING-INDEED!

 

I agree with Hatch 100% here. To give players some perspective there was also a "HC" in the game even in 2001 (I was in it, started the game day 1 as a Lieutenant General). But it was mostly for starting missions (nobody had rank back then), organization, and coordination between squads. Back then the major squads had their own sectors of the map they were responsible for (31st was traditionally Namur - Revin) and to shuffle around squads when necessary based on the strategic situation. When flags and then AOs started there was a lot of backend HC work that had already happened often naturally. For example my squad ran an entire Army top to bottom so there was a lot of buy-in, but more importantly there was always multiple HC officers on at all times. The same was true with many larger squads. Granted things weren't all rosy and there was criticism of the above model as being a good ol' boys club with squad members promoting squad members in the HC hierarchy, which led to several of the large squads leaving the HC system after an ugly power struggle. But for all its faults it worked. Players were organized and battles were large.

Hatch I think echoes my own criticism of AOs in that they limited squad choice, making squad nights or any real operation taking planning an exercise in frustration or futility (often both) as the map OIC either couldn't spare an AO, or had differing strategic goals.

I think players would be surprised how much time it took to plan out a once-weekly squad op. It was a lot of dedicated work by a lot of dedicated people:

1) pick strategic target and discuss merits/will it benefit front/can we defend it/are we over-extending

2) scouting main and flanking attack routes

3) scouting likely enemy resupply routes and planning how to cut them off

4) stockpiling equipment from behind the lines. We had a dedicated logistics officers with legit a notebook they would fill in (!). This crazy [censored] (Hikarr) would write down every tank we brought and from where it came. At one point we had a air squaddie with 3 accounts that would shuttle in 3 Ju87s at once on 3 systems (Ring) for operations. All crazy people, but honestly doing supply runs on teamspeak was fun too as crazy as that sounds.

5) organizing the column(s) which often required 3-4 separate channels, not including a command TS channel

6) coordinating with the squad air wing for both CAS and CAP

7) coordinating with the squad flak detachment (we had one of those too... back before SPAA was even a dream) that would often operate dozens of km away from the action setting up a flak trap at likely ingress points that the pilots would bait EA to fly into

8) coordinating with others squads/HC both before and during the op

 

It was dozens of hours of work by many people. But it was fun. Hell, this one time we actually went as far as staging a mock practice op in a behind the lines town with a similar layout and topography.. completely nutso stuff. But it was fun...

I still think why it was so fun to do something as boring as be the guy with binocs on the flank, or the lone stug cutting off a resupply road listening to the action over teamspeak. It was because there was a sense of ownership and a sense of buy-in. A lot of that got lost when all of the above was given to the HC and more importantly Map OIC. Its just too much work for even a small number of people.

[ZEBBEEE 436]

4 hours ago, aismov said:

 

I agree with Hatch 100% here. To give players some perspective there was also a "HC" in the game even in 2001 (I was in it, started the game day 1 as a Lieutenant General). But it was mostly for starting missions (nobody had rank back then), organization, and coordination between squads. Back then the major squads had their own sectors of the map they were responsible for (31st was traditionally Namur - Revin) and to shuffle around squads when necessary based on the strategic situation. When flags and then AOs started there was a lot of backend HC work that had already happened often naturally. For example my squad ran an entire Army top to bottom so there was a lot of buy-in, but more importantly there was always multiple HC officers on at all times. The same was true with many larger squads. Granted things weren't all rosy and there was criticism of the above model as being a good ol' boys club with squad members promoting squad members in the HC hierarchy, which led to several of the large squads leaving the HC system after an ugly power struggle. But for all its faults it worked. Players were organized and battles were large.

Hatch I think echoes my own criticism of AOs in that they limited squad choice, making squad nights or any real operation taking planning an exercise in frustration or futility (often both) as the map OIC either couldn't spare an AO, or had differing strategic goals.

I think players would be surprised how much time it took to plan out a once-weekly squad op. It was a lot of dedicated work by a lot of dedicated people:

1) pick strategic target and discuss merits/will it benefit front/can we defend it/are we over-extending

2) scouting main and flanking attack routes

3) scouting likely enemy resupply routes and planning how to cut them off

4) stockpiling equipment from behind the lines. We had a dedicated logistics officers with legit a notebook they would fill in (!). This crazy [censored] (Hikarr) would write down every tank we brought and from where it came. At one point we had a air squaddie with 3 accounts that would shuttle in 3 Ju87s at once on 3 systems (Ring) for operations. All crazy people, but honestly doing supply runs on teamspeak was fun too as crazy as that sounds.

5) organizing the column(s) which often required 3-4 separate channels, not including a command TS channel

6) coordinating with the squad air wing for both CAS and CAP

7) coordinating with the squad flak detachment (we had one of those too... back before SPAA was even a dream) that would often operate dozens of km away from the action setting up a flak trap at likely ingress points that the pilots would bait EA to fly into

8) coordinating with others squads/HC both before and during the op

 

It was dozens of hours of work by many people. But it was fun. Hell, this one time we actually went as far as staging a mock practice op in a behind the lines town with a similar layout and topography.. completely nutso stuff. But it was fun...

I still think why it was so fun to do something as boring as be the guy with binocs on the flank, or the lone stug cutting off a resupply road listening to the action over teamspeak. It was because there was a sense of ownership and a sense of buy-in. A lot of that got lost when all of the above was given to the HC and more importantly Map OIC. Its just too much work for even a small number of people.

I want to play that game! now!