ZEBBEEE

Garrison Vs flag role suggestion

42 posts in this topic

Interesting wargaming in this topic. 

 garrisons' TOE could be adapted to be defense-centric, while flags' TOE could be attack-centric.

Or Eventually letting (ground) flags supply latest tiers units only.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frontline = every town on the frontline has supply . The numbers and what type of units have yet to be determined.  This supply numbers maybe determined by how many AB's  are in a town.   (these numbers are not to be taken as final!!!)

1AB = 100 inf 

2AB =200 inf 

3AB =400 inf  

or we have one amount for every town say 250 inf

 

backline = percentage of what the frontline town is 

Movable brigades = This is the tricky part.  How many divisions will there be. These movable brigades supply numbers still need to be determined. 

My thinking on this is 3 or 4 divisions = 12 or 16 brigades .

A North , South and One or Two center divisions 

At the start of the Campaign these divisions will be lined up well behind the frontline and will be moved by the HC to the area where the CinC has laid out the plan of attack.   

This will still give the strategic value of movable units , not just reinforcements units.   

 

All of these different types of units can be change in supply numbers before each campaign as to not have everyone the same and it become a stale repetitive map over and over . 

 

I am reading all of these thread and i am trying to fit all the pieces together . I know i am going to mess somethings up and get roasted for it but we are going into a new area that we have not gone before and it will be a learning experience 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@OHM that sounds very reasonable to me. Changing them map to map sounds interesting too. Just a quick guess based on the map would map it for a brigade for every 2-3 frontline towns, assuming no stacking. Tweaking spawn pools is to WWIIOL what death and taxes is to real life!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great discussion, it's good to hear peoples opinions, it gets the mind thinking about how things may play out.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

 

But don't you think that this system is becoming dangerously reliant of having 1) HC offers on at all times and 2) competent Map OIC? I could see a lot of potential bad blood and finger pointing if a field-promoted Map OIC makes a wrong move or complaints that the biggest squads are dominating where the brigades go because they have all the votes. In my opinion we should strive to simplify the entire Brigade/HC system. Have garrisons along the front allowing play when are where players want. Keep brigades in there but make their presence a nice addition but not a game changer that requires their constant presence.

Using your example for Tier 0, what if a French garrison still had say 5 Chars and 15 S35s. Impressive force which you can overstock +X% as deemed by CRS from a rear town to make a solid attack force. Now bring the brigade into the picture which would add say 3 Chars and 8 S35s to the spawn pool. This way squad players can spawn Chars when and where they want for maximum tactical flexibility, while HC still has a strategic role to help support breakthroughs or planned operations by positioning brigades that give the spawn pool some extra heavy metal to roll down the road into the enemy town.

I see you concern with the "brigades" becoming second fiddle to the "garrison" which I agree from a nomenclature standpoint sounds funny, but I honestly think it is just that.

Which is EXACTLY why I said no chars in garrison towns. The same can be applied to Mattie's, tigers and S76. Garrisons should be one tier behind so we don't get insane equipment imbalance issues. The brigades distinction would be that it has the top tier equipment. No more matty or tiger maps, they are destructive.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, XOOM said:

All I am saying is there has to be a balance in how we manage this. Anyone who says, to hell with balance, is not thinking clearly and should be removed from the design discussion.

 

On the lighter side, I think I just got called out by @XOOMfor saying "Balance be damned!" in my other thread! B)  Noted. If I disappear you know where to start looking... S!

 

Share this post


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

On the lighter side, I think I just got called out by @XOOMfor saying "Balance be damned!" in my other thread! B)  Noted. If I disappear you know where to start looking... S!

You seem to be level headed overall, just be sure to take a step back before becoming singularly focused on something and going all-in at all costs. We have a game to run, which needs to be enjoyable. There is a degree to which the history books can only go so far, to the point of removing the fun factor. Remove the fun factor, game over. 

Share this post


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

Which is EXACTLY why I said no chars in garrison towns. The same can be applied to Mattie's, tigers and S76. Garrisons should be one tier behind so we don't get insane equipment imbalance issues. The brigades distinction would be that it has the top tier equipment. No more matty or tiger maps, they are destructive.

Hmmm I guess I'm just not understanding in that case. To me if you restrict the best units to brigades only, you create a situation where you are reliant on either the HC or Map OIC, or at the very least reliant on the right brigade being in the right town in the right time. For example lets say you squad wants to hit Sedan by the closest brigade is in PVille and Charleroi, wouldn't this cause problems for squads who want to for example attack Sedan but all of a sudden are only Tier0 armor to use? It seems you are restricting the time and place of attack based on brigade availability which may or may not be there, leading to a ruined squad night or planned operations.

Similarly, lets say that as a squad you are holding 4-5 towns in a front, your HC deems that brigades are of higher value somewhere else, and you get slammed with an armored attack from a brigade with armor one tier above yours. I think that would cause a lot of frustration from the players asked to defend a hopeless position and bad blood with the HC ("you pulled out the brigade and left us out to dry with no support!"). More importantly, since the better tier armor is only in brigades even if you wanted to manually resupply your town since the brigade is not close by you can do nothing about it. But lets say that every town had the same equipment and brigades only increased the supply a bit. Then that same squad would only have themselves to blame since they could have overstocked the frontline town with more armor since they know there is an armored brigade knocking on their front door.

I see your point of having Mattie's/Tigers in brigades and thus only in certain parts of the front. Which is 100% agree is the more realistic/historical way to do it. But would the playerbase like that kind of system where you log in and can't play your favorite unit because of factors outside of your control? I can also imagine where this system could be abused by players or large squads that are well connected in the HC that magically always happens to have the best brigades at their beckoning and disposal while blue tags and smaller squads are left with the less desirable/older tier equipment.

Share this post


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

Hmmm I guess I'm just not understanding in that case. To me if you restrict the best units to brigades only, you create a situation where you are reliant on either the HC or Map OIC, or at the very least reliant on the right brigade being in the right town in the right time. For example lets say you squad wants to hit Sedan by the closest brigade is in PVille and Charleroi, wouldn't this cause problems for squads who want to for example attack Sedan but all of a sudden are only Tier0 armor to use? It seems you are restricting the time and place of attack based on brigade availability which may or may not be there, leading to a ruined squad night or planned operations.

Similarly, lets say that as a squad you are holding 4-5 towns in a front, your HC deems that brigades are of higher value somewhere else, and you get slammed with an armored attack from a brigade with armor one tier above yours. I think that would cause a lot of frustration from the players asked to defend a hopeless position and bad blood with the HC ("you pulled out the brigade and left us out to dry with no support!"). More importantly, since the better tier armor is only in brigades even if you wanted to manually resupply your town since the brigade is not close by you can do nothing about it. But lets say that every town had the same equipment and brigades only increased the supply a bit. Then that same squad would only have themselves to blame since they could have overstocked the frontline town with more armor since they know there is an armored brigade knocking on their front door.

I see your point of having Mattie's/Tigers in brigades and thus only in certain parts of the front. Which is 100% agree is the more realistic/historical way to do it. But would the playerbase like that kind of system where you log in and can't play your favorite unit because of factors outside of your control? I can also imagine where this system could be abused by players or large squads that are well connected in the HC that magically always happens to have the best brigades at their beckoning and disposal while blue tags and smaller squads are left with the less desirable/older tier equipment.

Wait.. I do understand what you are saying.  HC issues.. I get it. I am confused about the HCs role all together also. This is a hybrid system.. Brigades and Garrison..  Brigades are moveable, garrisons are strictly TBS. So I am under the impression HC will still be moving Brigades or some other manual brigade moving system. Otherwise it would not be a hybrid but TBS only.

 

To your second point.  Not having a brigade in your sector is not a issue for attacking. Garrisons can attack each other or a brigade. This is where the PB can tip the scales with overstocking efforts.. Ill address your concern about Garrison supply with lesser gear in the next point.

 

Its my understanding that the Brigade will cover less of the front - IE less divisions on the map.  Restricting the top tier gear I gave an example earlier. Its like this.

T-0 Garrisons top teir AFVs.

S35, A13, P4D. 

T-0 Brigades will have the top teir gear.

Char, Matty, StugB

The rest of the T-0 equipment is avail in both Garrison and Brigade.

 

T-1 Garrison top tier AFVs

Char, StugB, Matty

T-1 Brigades will have the Stu, PzH and Cru2.

The rest of the T-1 equipment is avail in both Garrison and Brigade.

 

T-2 is a toss up on how to handle Garrison supply simply because there is a major jump in lethality and armor.

So I suggest that T-2 Garrisons have

S75, P4G, and CH3

T-2 Brigades

StugG, M10, CH5 - BEF does not have a TD but the CH5 does have a few HEAT.. I'm not sure that is a big deal in light of things simply because ATM the CH5 is borked - it lacks the ability to adjust range so we really don't know its AT effectiveness yet.

The rest of the T-2 equipment is avail in both Garrison and Brigade.

 

T-3 Garrison supply

S75, M10, CH3, StugG, P4G.

T-3 Brigade Supply

S76, Tiger and CH7.

The rest of the T-3 equipment is avail in both Garrison and Brigade.

 

You can draw a conclusion that with effort the Garrison can become just as deadly as the Brigade.  I think this will help prevent the threat of Matty or Tiger maps. The thought of weeinie tank battles and columns, more balanced tank engagements become more the normative.. but most of all it does hand back a lot of the PB ownership to effect the outcome of battle.

As to the point of not being able to get the gear you want.. Well, its that way now on the allied side - every 12 hours there are exactly 23 Matties available in T-0. That's friggen rare. I go maps without getting to spawn one. Its been that way for 10 years, though I don't recall BEF players making forum posts about not getting the gear they want to play. I just don't think its that big of a deal. The upside to it is that PPL who do play with the Tiger - they are going to have to play smart and not roll their tigers down mainstreet which I see all the damn time. I'm specific to the Tiger because that was such a big complaint back when the Tiger entered into the game at 5 per AB.. IE some towns had 20 available because they have 4 ABs.. Yet there are not enough of them.. I had to drive my tiger up for 3 towns behind the lines.. That's was simply math, everyone had to have one. I flew a stuka mission over one of the Allied towns under attack and I counted 58 Tigers from 1k to 500m from the edge of town and still ppl where complaining about how hard it was to get one. They where simply depleting all the supply with in 3 links from the front line for an attack.  I don't want to ever see that happen again.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is a fair system you have there. I could see it being balanced out with garrisons having ATGs to potentially counter threats from upper tier vehicles, since I think the last thing people want and potentially would worry about is having a column of PzIIIH descend on a town of Vickers and A13s like a colony of baby seals. Luckily with the hybrid system we could pretty easily test out both methods since it just involves tweaking the spawn pool for each group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2018 at 5:44 PM, aismov said:

I think that is a fair system you have there. I could see it being balanced out with garrisons having ATGs to potentially counter threats from upper tier vehicles, since I think the last thing people want and potentially would worry about is having a column of PzIIIH descend on a town of Vickers and A13s like a colony of baby seals. Luckily with the hybrid system we could pretty easily test out both methods since it just involves tweaking the spawn pool for each group.

The ATGs will be there.  It is certainly hard to go toe to toe in a A13 with a PZH, but I would bet that brigades will be matched with brigades like we do now. Likewise I dont think the Axis want to go toe to toe with out the 88 or StugBs against Matties.  That being said, all the gear needs a rewrite in how they balance out.  Dont discount the sappers also.

Just FYI - I know the Cru2 is a T-1 AFV, Id almost think its more balanced to be the T-1 Garrison tank and the matty the Brigade tank. It holds its own vrs the PzH.. The Cru2 I think is more balanced with the Garrison force than the Matty.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@stankyus The name "garrison" is ultimately my fault, and I apologize for the misnomer. Abstractly, the Town-Based Supply elements represent committed frontline forces. Think of divisions with their units spread along a front. They do not represent a historically-accurate "garrison" of forces by any means. Brigades (the movable variety) represent un-committed forces that can be shuffled along the front.
 

I used the word "garrison" because these are static forces associated with specific towns, and modelling said static forces to visually represent a division-or-higher being spread along a front and moving as the front moves was considered far too much of a headache.

 

The goal of stopping soft-caps is an important but inferior goal to reducing the absolute requirement of a highly-active, highly-competent cadre of volunteers who are forced to play desk jockey shuffling flags around 24/7 in order for either side in the game to have fun and be able to actually play. That is why "garrisons" are not small little forces specifically for defense and are instead an abstraction of committed frontline forces with much more significant supply than one might think of when one hears the term "garrison".

1 person likes this

Share this post


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


@stankyus The name "garrison" is ultimately my fault, and I apologize for the misnomer. Abstractly, the Town-Based Supply elements represent committed frontline forces. Think of divisions with their units spread along a front. They do not represent a historically-accurate "garrison" of forces by any means. Brigades (the movable variety) represent un-committed forces that can be shuffled along the front.
 

I used the word "garrison" because these are static forces associated with specific towns, and modelling said static forces to visually represent a division-or-higher being spread along a front and moving as the front moves was considered far too much of a headache.

 

The goal of stopping soft-caps is an important but inferior goal to reducing the absolute requirement of a highly-active, highly-competent cadre of volunteers who are forced to play desk jockey shuffling flags around 24/7 in order for either side in the game to have fun and be able to actually play. That is why "garrisons" are not small little forces specifically for defense and are instead an abstraction of committed frontline forces with much more significant supply than one might think of when one hears the term "garrison".

Thank you for clearing this up. When you describe it that way much of the design decisions on 1.36 that have been posted thus far make much more sense. The use of the word "garrison" wasn't the best choice for that vision, as you said.  

Share this post


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


@stankyus The name "garrison" is ultimately my fault, and I apologize for the misnomer. Abstractly, the Town-Based Supply elements represent committed frontline forces. Think of divisions with their units spread along a front. They do not represent a historically-accurate "garrison" of forces by any means. Brigades (the movable variety) represent un-committed forces that can be shuffled along the front.
 

I used the word "garrison" because these are static forces associated with specific towns, and modelling said static forces to visually represent a division-or-higher being spread along a front and moving as the front moves was considered far too much of a headache.

 

The goal of stopping soft-caps is an important but inferior goal to reducing the absolute requirement of a highly-active, highly-competent cadre of volunteers who are forced to play desk jockey shuffling flags around 24/7 in order for either side in the game to have fun and be able to actually play. That is why "garrisons" are not small little forces specifically for defense and are instead an abstraction of committed frontline forces with much more significant supply than one might think of when one hears the term "garrison".

Then the original goal for garrison is not to stop soft capping?

 

you see I hate to say it, wha you are describing is going back to strictly TBS, this is contrary to what the pb has asked for period. 

We asked for maneuver warfare without soft caps.

you did not coin the word garrison, we did.

im sorry but I'm getting heated a bit, garrisons WAS NOT A CRS IDEA, it was OUR idea, NOT CRS. Don't say it is, it's blatantly false. We asked for it. It's insulting to say otherwise. Matter of fact, it truly pisses me off because I see what you are doing, I was not born yesterday. 

 

Lets cut through the BS, I hate to be so blunt, but this crap has to end.  

I see a snow job, sorry. 

The problem with TBS was insane supply, tiger and matty maps, faction barriers, etc. the problem with brigades was softcapping and avoidance fights, lack of HC.

THE SOLUTION, is lesser geared none top tier everywhere mini factories, LONGER AO timers, overstocking, pop AO or voting. You are giving us too much supply, tiger and matty maps, barriers etc all rolled into one. It will produce, not because I say it, game history proves it, a complete clusterfuk. I see zero difference between the picture you are painting than nothing less than a roll back to a strictly TBS game of old with the old problems. This is not new. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be wary in saying that the playerbase wants maneuver warfare. Players like the abstract idea of a strategic layer but also want the freedom to move and fight. 

The hurdle has always been HC for multiple reasons and relying on someone to strategically position brigades at all hours of the day doesn't address the unintended consequences of that system.

Hybrid supply will certainly have its own unintended consequences such as more attritional battles, potentially greater supply, and more of a focus on players taking responsibility for the logistical side of things. But it eliminates the big unknown of "what is HC going to do today."

With hybrid supply I can guarantee a squad that on this day, this hour, equipment is going to be ready for your operation. Can you give that same guarantee with a brigade system that holds the best equipment and is in control of the HC?

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Then the original goal for garrison is not to stop soft capping?

 

you see I hate to say it, wha you are describing is going back to strictly TBS, this is contrary to what the pb has asked for period. 

We asked for maneuver warfare without soft caps.

you did not coin the word garrison, we did.

im sorry but I'm getting heated a bit, garrisons WAS NOT A CRS IDEA, it was OUR idea, NOT CRS. Don't say it is, it's blatantly false. We asked for it. It's insulting to say otherwise. Matter of fact, it truly pisses me off because I see what you are doing, I was not born yesterday. 

 

Lets cut through the BS, I hate to be so blunt, but this crap has to end.  

I see a snow job, sorry. 

The problem with TBS was insane supply, tiger and matty maps, faction barriers, etc. the problem with brigades was softcapping and avoidance fights, lack of HC.

THE SOLUTION, is lesser geared none top tier everywhere mini factories, LONGER AO timers, overstocking, pop AO or voting. You are giving us too much supply, tiger and matty maps, barriers etc all rolled into one. It will produce, not because I say it, game history proves it, a complete clusterfuk. I see zero difference between the picture you are painting than nothing less than a roll back to a strictly TBS game of old with the old problems. This is not new. 

Soft-capping towns has led to massive cut offs which directly motivate one half of the player base, while totally demoralizing the other half. This primarily occurs due to lack of High Command officer participation to make the necessary map adjustments. The number of folks who know how to do this, and for that matter are willing, has been a disintegrating number for sometime. While our current HC rosters have about 70+/- officers in each, I am being briefed that we have about 1/3 of those officers currently active this Campaign. This has been going on for awhile and will not change without the design of the game being adjusted. This is not good for the health of the community, and it's certainly not good for business.

CRS Community Management has tried, for years to help make some corrections where necessary. The continued theme remains that the HC demand is too intense and needs fixing. The ability for massive cut offs to occur, are having a devastating effect and is long past being fun. People stop logging into the game instead and "give up until the next campaign." Squads do not have the ability to form on their own and are beholden to HC in almost every way, including having their attacks ripped out from underneath them because 1 guy decided he wants to do something differently.

It's hard for me to understand how this can still be something advocated for given all of the years of play we've seen where it has produced bad outcomes like I've outlined above.

We have not published any supply numbers or specifically how things will work. I have recently commented to say that Brigades will likely have somewhat of a higher number of supply available, and that what ever is released on Day 1 likely will need to be adjusted after true play testing has occurred.

I'd like to say one more time that originally we had not planned for Brigades to be in the picture at all for 1.36, and given some feedback we reconsidered and have decided to implement a small number of units to offer some supplemental (optional) way for HC to help bolster battles, like they should. The squads and players need to drive the war with the help and support of High Command. HC needs to go back to serving the community in the original manner that they were intended for, which has long since been a lost art in cultivating excellent community relations and more routine operations / out of game planning.

Change is necessary, change is uncomfortable, being able to adapt and overcome is required. Being the pessimist is always easier than being the optimist. This is the direction we have chosen to go, and here we are talking to you and sharing our feedback as to the why, with a great deal of supporting reasons. You are being heard but that does not mean we're going to jump up and down and change all of our plans, when we're so close, when so much has been done.  That doesn't mean you're not valued, that's just how things work at this stage.

All of this stems from seeing problems at hand, attempted solutions not producing the results we were hoping for, and making important changes to secure the game's operational health. 

Share this post


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

Then the original goal for garrison is not to stop soft capping?  The original goal of the garrison units is two fold a)to stop soft-capping, and b ) to mitigate the need of having an HC present at all times.  With auto-AO, and every town being a potential attack source, the requirement of the HC to be present at all times will not be as critical. 

 

you see I hate to say it, wha you are describing is going back to strictly TBS, this is contrary to what the pb has asked for period.  Its not strictly Town based supply.  There will be a maneuver component as well, the big difference being the lack of HC online will no longer be a complete and utter show stopper.  

We asked for maneuver warfare without soft caps. The only way for these to co-exist is to have supply at every defensive point.  So you either get maneuver warfare, or no soft-caps.  It's been shown map after map that players will softcap if given the choice between a soft cap and a hard AO.     

you did not coin the word garrison, we did. Actually the concept, verbiage, and terminology of a 'garrison' predates anyone on this forum by centuries.  

im sorry but I'm getting heated a bit, garrisons WAS NOT A CRS IDEA, it was OUR idea, NOT CRS. Don't say it is, it's blatantly false. We asked for it. It's insulting to say otherwise. Matter of fact, it truly pisses me off because I see what you are doing, I was not born yesterday. 

 

Lets cut through the BS, I hate to be so blunt, but this crap has to end.  

I see a snow job, sorry. 

The problem with TBS was insane supply, tiger and matty maps, faction barriers, etc. the problem with brigades was softcapping and avoidance fights, lack of HC. 

THE SOLUTION, is lesser geared none top tier everywhere mini factories, LONGER AO timers, overstocking, pop AO or voting. You are giving us too much supply, tiger and matty maps, barriers etc all rolled into one. It will produce, not because I say it, game history proves it, a complete clusterfuk. I see zero difference between the picture you are painting than nothing less than a roll back to a strictly TBS game of old with the old problems. This is not new.   As has been discussed elsewhere, not every town across the entire map will have supply available at all times.  This will serve to put a top limit on how much of what can be brought to bear at  any specific point on the map.  There are a number of differences between .36 and what the pre-TO&E game was.  Though with the return of town based supply, the counter-supply/overstock fight also comes back.  

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.