• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      TOS Change regarding the Forums   11/23/2018

      Rule 23 is in discussions.  The official change will come out soon.  It will go effect Jan 1st. As it stands from this point.  Political and religious posts are allowed in off topic.  Be mindful to be respectful to each other.   That is all for now. Thank you for your continued support and patience.
raptor34

Town/Airfield supply and nationality

79 posts in this topic

With HC having the ability to select which nation is responsible for a town, is there going to be approximate force ratio limits enforced to prevent stay all towns being US Army, and all airfields being RAF?  I would like to see a historical ratio of French and UK "control points" enforced in order to ensure that both nations are used as they should be historically. Just off the top of my head a Ratio of around 70:30 French to UK should be a starting point. As far as only having a single nation per airfield that is fine, it would give both the RAF and FAF sectors of responsibility.

If this is already captured within the design of 1.36 then disregard.

S!

 

Edited by raptor34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A percentage of ownership of available towns is something on the list. On day 1 release it won’t have that, but there’s a pretty good balance of officers and interested pilots to ensure multiple nations are well represented across the map. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to hear. For the early release, I'm sure it will be fine but I could quickly see it becoming an issue if not enforced by an Order of Battle rule set. I know the design is to avoid the UK/French split but at the same time with the new hybrid rules, I'm not even sure that it would be an issue anymore. I'd like there to be a sense of historical force levels and deployment for the campaign, at least to start.

Share this post


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

Good to hear. For the early release, I'm sure it will be fine but I could quickly see it becoming an issue if not enforced by an Order of Battle rule set. I know the design is to avoid the UK/French split but at the same time with the new hybrid rules, I'm not even sure that it would be an issue anymore. I'd like there to be a sense of historical force levels and deployment for the campaign, at least to start.

Historical force levels? You mean game historical?

cause in game we are missing roughly 1/2 of air and land troops. Their nation is not represented in game at all, nor their equipment, which made significant contributions in all operations in Europe. Right from day 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am well aware that we are missing much of the historical Allied OOB; what I was going for here is the approximate force ratio of French:UK controlled towns/harbours/airfields should match the relative force ratio in 1940. And some ratio will also have to be discussed for the US forces as well when they enter. Just throwing out numbers here but let's say that during the Battle of France (tier 0/1) that 70% of the forces involved where French and 30% UK then that ratio should be reflected in the towns. The whole point here is to avoid 99% of towns being US after they enter and or all AFs being RAF with no-FAF because they are often seen as less "competitive". If we can use the historical ratios as a base for town/harbour/AF control then ideally that ratio will be preserved in-gameplay.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ratios should be period historical with the HC given some +/- % choice to modify things. As was said worst would be if all ABs are American and all AFs British. It would be like have a North Africa theater without any Italian troops.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ratios being enforced is absolutely a priority, if for no other reason than not enforcing them would allow Allied HC to effectively remove content from the game.

As for historical period ratios, that kind of gets into unwieldy territory. A major selling point for 1.36 is to lighten the burden on all HC, and telling Allies "btw, if you have to change town ownership, make sure in Tier 1 you can't have less then 87% French, and Tier 2 it's 65% French, and Tier 3 is xx%" etc., and then add on to that when the US comes in. Modifying the ratios and the equipment lists in these brigades and garrisons is one of the only things left to CRS to attempt to balance the game with how deep into historical accuracy we're trying to have the game model, and restricting ownership ratios takes yet another thing away from being able to balance the game. So it might be something we explore, but there are a lot of reasons not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balance be damned! Personally not something I'm worried about, but as I've said many times I tend to the historical/realism side of any argument on game design. I hear your concerns though and I think we agree that there needs to be something that enforces a reasonable historical limit on the ratios of each side. Guess we will find out. 

As well I'm sure HC players will be able to handle the limitations of having only X many units to deploy of one nationality vs Y many units of another. I think of it as the role HC should be playing to still give it strategic value. Either way, it is far less of a constant responsibility than it is now, HC would not always have to be online to deal with this question. Where do we want US forces for an attack and where can we hold the line with say a French or UK unit. Same goes with air power. 

Edited by raptor34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. What’s to stop AHC from switching all frontline AFs to British?

2. What’s to stop AHC from creating an unholy mix of FR-BR-FR-FR-BR-US-BR-US-FR towns with no realistic bearing whatsoever? 

3. With fewer movable brigades, do you think demand thereof will increase or decrease?

4. If the answer to 3 is that it will increase (less supply generally means higher demand), how do you think this will affect HC? Will the demand for active and 24/7 present HC increase, remain unchanged or decrease?

Share this post


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

1. What’s to stop AHC from switching all frontline AFs to British?

2. What’s to stop AHC from creating an unholy mix of FR-BR-FR-FR-BR-US-BR-US-FR towns with no realistic bearing whatsoever? 

3. With fewer movable brigades, do you think demand thereof will increase or decrease?

4. If the answer to 3 is that it will increase (less supply generally means higher demand), how do you think this will affect HC? Will the demand for active and 24/7 present HC increase, remain unchanged or decrease?

1

 Point 2, as you put forward, is the greatest concern for me. As far as demand on HC goes I believe it will be less. Possible example: Frontline is "normal", no HC on for say 6 hours. Axis attack in a sector and quicky win 2 towns. There is no Allied HC on to move in the "extra flags" which hampers the defence a bit but either way the defenders have the ability to defend with what supply is available in each garrison, as well as run resupply operations. HC logs on, moves in extra flags for a counter attack if avabile and the campaign moves on. HC players will still have a role to be online for, which is still a good thing I believe, but at least even with an enemy breakout, the defenders can try to hold ground until the situation changes.

This is going a bit off the topic of my first post but the thing I am most interested in seeing in 1.36 is the limited supply. Garrisons should be easy to attrition, requiring reinforcement and re-supply in order to bring that back into the campaign. While I like maneuver warfare and TOEs, the current system just ends up being flag "warping" and almost endless supply, not to mention depot "warp" pipes combined with it. Moving back to 1.36 I hope to see relatively low capture timers combined with limited supply so that map movement is still very much in play even without TOE.

 

Share this post


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

1. What’s to stop AHC from switching all frontline AFs to British?

2. What’s to stop AHC from creating an unholy mix of FR-BR-FR-FR-BR-US-BR-US-FR towns with no realistic bearing whatsoever? 

3. With fewer movable brigades, do you think demand thereof will increase or decrease?

4. If the answer to 3 is that it will increase (less supply generally means higher demand), how do you think this will affect HC? Will the demand for active and 24/7 present HC increase, remain unchanged or decrease?

1. No information about hard limits on those kinds of things has been released publicly.

2. The fact that you can't overstock any equipment that way, so the Allies will be willfully shooting themselves in the foot to do so. What's to stop them from doing that today with a mix of brigades getting all tangled up? There are range limits, but those are generous enough to have the exact distribution you lay out. If you're not upset about it today, I don't see how you can be upset about it going forward.

3. Demand by the playerbase might increase because they want to see a different mix-up of supply in a given area and only HC would be able to do that, but the absolute requirement to have it will be entirely eliminated.

4. Demand for 24/7 HC will absolutely decrease because they will no longer be required in order to play the game.

 

Overall, what you're going to see is the current "WE NEED HC ON IN ORDER TO PLAY!!! NO HC ON, WE'RE LOSING! BETTER LOG OFF!" to "WE NEED HC TO GET A SLIGHT LEG UP ON THE ENEMY! NO HC ON, WE CAN MANAGE BUT WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL!". HC will still have an ability to affect the strategic layer and thus local gameplay, and so players will always demand HC in order to get every advantage possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be like it was back in 2005-2006. HC will be a force multiplier acting as a strategic role by interacting between squads and coordinating operations with some work to move flags. Right now it is exactly backwards where the 1-2 HC that happen to be on are trying to do everything.

 

Back to the topic at hand. There have to be some mechanisms in place. I think BMBM was getting into the idea of logistics along a broad front where you would have Brit/French/US trucks crisscrossing paths each supplying their one unit. But at the same time we want to avoid the old stasis that was seen with fixed town ownership along the Namur line.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking forward to TBS.

I just want to make sure that we can overstock all equipment and not just Allied faction equipment.  With overstocking coming back into play, this is a big deal and a huge failure of the old TBS system.  We have already had the ability to stack faction divisions in a town so that function is not new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my understanding, only one "faction" can hold a town and spawn equipment/receive resupply from other towns of the same "faction". If this design is true, I support it because it will encourage Allied HC to make strategic decisions on where they want to place the garrisons and flags of the nation in question in order to support resupply operations. This helps simulate "areas of responsibility" for each nation and makes the logistics more realistic I would argue. I do not want to see a completely mixed supply system with no order to it what-so-ever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, raptor34 said:

To my understanding, only one "faction" can hold a town and spawn equipment/receive resupply from other towns of the same "faction". If this design is true, I support it because it will encourage Allied HC to make strategic decisions on where they want to place the garrisons and flags of the nation in question in order to support resupply operations. This helps simulate "areas of responsibility" for each nation and makes the logistics more realistic I would argue. I do not want to see a completely mixed supply system with no order to it what-so-ever. 

Well, that's been done already and was a huge issue back in the day. Allies had a perpetual disadvantage with overstocking supply. I'm specific to overstocking, not shared ownership. So if a BEF town sits next to a French, I can overstock the French town with BEF supply. That's a manual player initiative, not a coded one. It further lessens the potential of minimizing any faction to the maximum. I can overstock a BEF brig with some m10s for long range tank engagement, or put some 17pders in a French or US owned town. Which means having BEF towns scattered around. 

The old issue of overstocking were two allied factions rubbed up against each other, overstocking was cut to only similar linking town ownership. The Axis in that same region could pull overstocking from all linking towns. I don't see why we can't because we have been sharing town ownership with the brigade system for years already with no problems. If we don't allow it, it's a step backwards and punitive to the allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the town you wish to overstock is British, then you will only be able to put British supply into it as part of the additional pool of supply.

That same logic currently applies to Brigades.

Think of all the dependencies of the user interface, associations with personas and by country, and think of how missions work. 

This isn't really a bad thing, it keeps it straight forward.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense to me, thank you for the clarification Xoom. 

Edited by raptor34
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, raptor34 said:

Makes sense to me, thank you for the clarification Xoom. 

Happy to help. It's really catching momentum and our guys are gunning to get it out before the new year. S! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, XOOM said:

If the town you wish to overstock is British, then you will only be able to put British supply into it as part of the additional pool of supply.

That same logic currently applies to Brigades.

Think of all the dependencies of the user interface, associations with personas and by country, and think of how missions work. 

This isn't really a bad thing, it keeps it straight forward.

Well I respectfully disagree with the currently applied brigades. We most certainly can have 3 factions in a town now. Its JWBS that is going away that allows for town sharing of equipment. Without JWBS, that function (which I am glad to see go) we are only left to maintain it is the overstocking feature - overstock replaces JWBS.  This would not be such a big deal if the Axis had a fully functioning Italian force that also puts up a barrier to the feature. IN the later tiers when we have 3 factions on the map, even more overstocking barriers will be present. I know back in the day when I played Axis we often attacked towns that shared this barrier. The Reinforcements if presented with a successful defense could not RTB and had to drive back or lose the equipment, nor could respawn at the AB in case the town was counter attacked after a town was taken. This left a hole in the supply from the reinforcement town, while in the Axis side that despawned equipment went into the AB supply right away. It was a big issue and not allowing for it does not eliminate it but brings it back.  That is a step backwards, not just a step backwards but one that firmly plants the foot in a pile of doggy doo.

You all are already discussing putting on percentage limitations to the factions.. which is a negative. The approach can be solved as a positive because there will be zero need for the limitation as I outlined above. We wont want to do it. There are very few decent BEF equipment items in the later tiers and its becomes the target and ugly step child in the game. However if we as in Allied PB, have the will to utilize what is available the BEF no longer has to be the ugly step child of the game and certainly not such a target. Everyone knows it which is why there is this discussion going forward put forth by Axis players to make SURE there is a percentage of allied factions on the map. They don't want to lose the soft underbelly of the allied forces because they KNOW the BEF will disappear and quite possibly the French due to the Mas 40 and god awful LMG. Well TBH, in later tiers if I where HC, that's exactly what I would do as it stands now.

I'm not being critical for the sake of being a doche, I am being critical in the sense that there is a better approach that eliminates the negative effects of artificial barriers and will be received well by the Allied PB.  I sure you are aware the allies are bleeding players. I want to build them up. I hope you thoughtfully consider this and through the Allied PB a bone here.

I also would like for you to thoughtfully consider my post about the Garrison / Brigade difference thread.

Share this post


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

Well I respectfully disagree with the currently applied brigades. We most certainly can have 3 factions in a town now. Its JWBS that is going away that allows for town sharing of equipment. Without JWBS, that function (which I am glad to see go) we are only left to maintain it is the overstocking feature - overstock replaces JWBS.  This would not be such a big deal if the Axis had a fully functioning Italian force that also puts up a barrier to the feature. IN the later tiers when we have 3 factions on the map, even more overstocking barriers will be present. I know back in the day when I played Axis we often attacked towns that shared this barrier. The Reinforcements if presented with a successful defense could not RTB and had to drive back or lose the equipment, nor could respawn at the AB in case the town was counter attacked after a town was taken. This left a hole in the supply from the reinforcement town, while in the Axis side that despawned equipment went into the AB supply right away. It was a big issue and not allowing for it does not eliminate it but brings it back.  That is a step backwards, not just a step backwards but one that firmly plants the foot in a pile of doggy doo.

You all are already discussing putting on percentage limitations to the factions.. which is a negative. The approach can be solved as a positive because there will be zero need for the limitation as I outlined above. We wont want to do it. There are very few decent BEF equipment items in the later tiers and its becomes the target and ugly step child in the game. However if we as in Allied PB, have the will to utilize what is available the BEF no longer has to be the ugly step child of the game and certainly not such a target. Everyone knows it which is why there is this discussion going forward put forth by Axis players to make SURE there is a percentage of allied factions on the map. They don't want to lose the soft underbelly of the allied forces because they KNOW the BEF will disappear and quite possibly the French due to the Mas 40 and god awful LMG. Well TBH, in later tiers if I where HC, that's exactly what I would do as it stands now.

I'm not being critical for the sake of being a doche, I am being critical in the sense that there is a better approach that eliminates the negative effects of artificial barriers and will be received well by the Allied PB.  I sure you are aware the allies are bleeding players. I want to build them up. I hope you thoughtfully consider this and through the Allied PB a bone here.

I also would like for you to thoughtfully consider my post about the Garrison / Brigade difference thread.

In my example, I was referring specifically to Garrisons and how they will work, not Brigades. And while yes as it currently stands that might be an option, it's not too often you have all three countries represented in a single town.

The Axis are not influencing CRS's position to provide some limitations on Allied factions, that stems as part of the design to consideration to ensure the Allied Officers, who manage the control of these Garrisons, do not flip 100% map supply to US Forces in Tier 3 (as an example), or otherwise. BEF and French Army equipment has a place in WWII Online at all tiers, and if we don't do something like that, we suspect strongly, as outlined in your example above, this will occur, which will have an adverse affect on players who enjoy that content.

I understand the past issues with regards to Allied supply, and therefore the ability to flip ownership in certain areas was key to the 1.36 design. Yes, it will be imperfect, but it will be better. Mind you there will still be some moveable divisions (as you know) to help supplement this.

The way this has been designed, at least for the time being, is how it will be because it's absolutely critical that we get 1.36 rolled out at the earliest opportunity for the player base. Our current brigade system is causing tremendous harm to the game due to its dependency on High Command officers, which continue to be in short supply / availability. 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

You all are already discussing putting on percentage limitations to the factions.. which is a negative. The approach can be solved as a positive because there will be zero need for the limitation as I outlined above. We wont want to do it. There are very few decent BEF equipment items in the later tiers and its becomes the target and ugly step child in the game. However if we as in Allied PB, have the will to utilize what is available the BEF no longer has to be the ugly step child of the game and certainly not such a target.

I think that nobody posting here in 2018 is a hardcore Axis or Allied partisan (ok, I'm sure there are a few diehard holdouts somewhere). A lot of us got that out of our system years ago and we want the game to succeed for all sides. But I think it is unrealistic to think that the Allied Commander wouldn't flip every airfield to British and every town to American if given the opportunity... after all its the smart thing to do. If we were in North Africa and I was the Axis Commander, guess what I would do... kick every last Italian off the continent with all their crappy equipment. But the question to ask is how will that affect the sense of realism and gameplay. Yes, this is all make believe, but it has to be grounded in some sort of reality based on actual WWII history.

A Battle of France without the French is like reading Hamlet without the Prince.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exciting news for sure, a hybrid system will be an awesome change for both the players and high command.

 

I have been out for a little bit so I’m curious, how hard would it be to modify the actual equipment tables to just reflect a Brit/French split for the garrisons, while keeping the  Brigades as separate, unique supply? You’d have to modify the German flags to match any decimals (can’t really have half of an S35) but that wouldnt be awful.

 

Course, the persona system might get a little confused...

Edited by COMPANY0
Corrected Verbiage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, COMPANY0 said:

Exciting news for sure, a hybrid system will be an awesome change for both the players and high command.

I have been out for a little bit so I’m curious, how hard would it be to modify the actual equipment tables to just reflect a Brit/French split for the garrison flags, while keeping the mobile flags as separate, unique supply? You’d have to modify the German flags to match any decimals (can’t really have half of an S35) but that wouldnt be awful.

Course, the persona system might get a little confused...

We talked about this very early on in our discussions, super complicated, long story. As you mentioned the UI flow, historical statistics, the hard coded ownership of the unit on both the host and client directory... very involved.

Initial suggestions wanted to see one unified owner per town / flag to keep things simple and focused. 

Also, good to see you around here, dude. S! 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2018 at 2:24 PM, XOOM said:

If the town you wish to overstock is British, then you will only be able to put British supply into it as part of the additional pool of supply.

That same logic currently applies to Brigades.

Think of all the dependencies of the user interface, associations with personas and by country, and think of how missions work. 

This isn't really a bad thing, it keeps it straight forward.

it about links and tickets. If Axis takes a town and despawns, the supply then goes into ovestock supply, new ticket is regenerated at origin. If allies attack and take town, rtb for non-aligned faction goes back to origin. No overstock, no new supply ticket generated. It develops a supply imbalance, a issue known for ages for us who played back in the day. The link barrier deals with the availability limitations to pool supply and you will see again the targeting of barrier towns. It is a problem. The solution is to make the overstocking slot generic, and you will save a lot of heartburn in the future. I don't know how to stress the point any more than this. It might seem minor but it really isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2018 at 5:01 PM, stankyus said:

I'm looking forward to TBS.

I just want to make sure that we can overstock all equipment and not just Allied faction equipment.  With overstocking coming back into play, this is a big deal and a huge failure of the old TBS system.  We have already had the ability to stack faction divisions in a town so that function is not new.

If you're asking if Axis can also overstock, the answer is yes.

It seems to have escaped the entire playerbase once TOEs went out, but you can still overstock supply. Like, today, live, in the game. It's just that no one does it. We're just spotlighting the possibilities with Hybrid Supply.

7 hours ago, stankyus said:

it about links and tickets. If Axis takes a town and despawns, the supply then goes into ovestock supply, new ticket is regenerated at origin. If allies attack and take town, rtb for non-aligned faction goes back to origin. No overstock, no new supply ticket generated. It develops a supply imbalance, a issue known for ages for us who played back in the day. The link barrier deals with the availability limitations to pool supply and you will see again the targeting of barrier towns. It is a problem. The solution is to make the overstocking slot generic, and you will save a lot of heartburn in the future. I don't know how to stress the point any more than this. It might seem minor but it really isn't.

Making overstock generic and resolving the associated stats and persona issues is likely another 6 months of development, and that might be too optimistic given how many man-hours the volunteer devs can donate to the cause. It's a preposterously tangled mess that would involve completely re-writing the entire way the game handles supply. 1.36 has taken forever itself, and it avoids making any major changes to the way supply is handled in the game. If we started out with that goal in mind 1.36 still wouldn't be ready this year, because we'd still be exploring and trying to figure out how the supply works. It is simply not feasible (nor was it feasible prior) on any reasonable timetable, especially since the community has been at CRS's throat about 1.36 for months and months now.

Yes, not being able to despawn a BEF soldier in a French town and have that BEF soldier stay there is a disadvantage compared to Axis who doesn't have to worry about it. That's why Allied HC should endeavor to keep sane groupings of same-country-owned towns along the front. We've also taken into consideration the SYSTEM AOs to ensure that they can't screw things up.

We're doing as much as we can to mitigate any disadvantage the Allies have without literally ripping away one of the largest components of the game and starting from scratch. It's not that you're not stressing it enough, or that we're discounting the issue as minor, it's that the resolution of said issue is not feasible at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.