hateract

HC and 1.36

57 posts in this topic

I have not seen it so I want to separate and establish a thread for the specifics regarding HC's role in 1.36 and future plans for the organization and implementation thereof. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will still be placing AO's but  it will relieve the pressure valve from High Command officers, allowing them to refocus their leadership on building exciting missions, operations and overall massive game play. It will also give the player base a fighting chance regardless of population imbalance because supply will be available in every battle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoping the AOs as they exist now are gone soon as well and limited to bridges and as a signaling mechanism to direct non-squad players to the action.

In which case HC will hopefully be similar to how it was pre AO and TOE where it was more of an organization that acted more as a "squad round table" to organize large ops, spread squads along the front so that each had clear areas of operation, and use the ingame .HC tools to help exploit breakthroughs, organize RDP raids, and coordinate land defense and anti-RDP flights.

Actually now that you think of it, that is still a fair amount of work!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No more strategic layer for the game, just tactics. Officials will have to say another thing but it is what it is to my eyes. I will miss what flags represented.

Having no strategic layer is ok for a lot of people, I understand, but not for my taste. I will definatly step down from HC once 1.36 is in. My personal choice. I won't be needed.

I guess dozens or hundreds are hungry of joining in with new the system so the fun should be guaranteed. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hateract said:

I have not seen it so I want to separate and establish a thread for the specifics regarding HC's role in 1.36 and future plans for the organization and implementation thereof. 

Good idea to make this its own thread. From my testing so far, here is what I expect things to look like for a High Command officer:

  1. Management of AO placements (upon implementation of 1.36)
    1. Includes town and bridge objectives
    2. We do want to go to a player driven AO system.
  2. Management of move-able (supplemental) supply
    1. 2 Army Divisions per side
    2. 1 Air Force Division per side
    3. 1 Naval Division per side
  3. Supporting players and squads, side global communication of priorities
  4. Creating operations and coordinating squad cohesion
  5. Field leadership / Troop Rallying 
    1. Attack / Defense OIC
    2. Resupply / Interdiction Operations
    3. Mission / Mobile Spawn Deployment / ZOC establishment
    4. Setting up waypoints and mission orders to direct mission participants
  6. HC structure management / on boarding / training
    1. Redefining HC participation requirements
    2. This also includes associating Squads with the chain of command again
    3. Community recognition: Awarding officers, squads and players 

The bottom line is there's a lot of freedom and breathing room being awarded to HC officers by comparison to the current standards of today. HC participation should be FUN and part of game play instead of primarily being its own highly burdened beast. 

We are looking at incentivizing HC participation more so by providing the following access:

  • Access to the NCO class
  • Access to the Ammunition Bearer
  • Access to the "Officer" class
    • This will be an infantryman who can deploy a "Rifleman only" mobile spawn
  • Access to .allied / .axis at any rank in the ORBAT

We are looking at incentivizing Squad participation in High Command by:

  • Aggregating Squads to be part of a Brigade in the HC command structure
  • Having that Brigade leadership be associated with that Squad
  • Providing in-game Squad recognition to that Brigade
    • For example, the name of a Brigade would look like: Special Air Service (7th AST)
  • Squads who participate as part of HC will be rewarded with a premium Squad account

By doing all of these things we're hoping to see interest go up by all and for High Command to be entertaining and fulfilling without the major consequences of map management. There is intentional effort being made to realign HC into cultivating outstanding community relations and restore large scale, high participation battles and operations that are the hallmark of the "WWII Online Moment" (experience).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fell like the last one to come to the supper table on this one, so please be patient if I ask a question that has already been answered.

When you say that AO's will be player-driven, what and how exactly does this mean and work? When you have 30+ players in-game and everyone has a different objective/idea and cannot agree on anything, but an AO has to be placed, who does this work?

 

S!

 

Share this post


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

I fell like the last one to come to the supper table on this one, so please be patient if I ask a question that has already been answered.

When you say that AO's will be player-driven, what and how exactly does this mean and work? When you have 30+ players in-game and everyone has a different objective/idea and cannot agree on anything, but an AO has to be placed, who does this work?

S!

All good, I welcome questions. I'm referencing proximity based AOs, where players meet certain requirements like 15+ personnel within EWS range and they're given an AO. Something to that effect so that organized players can see the type of game play they want / are able to field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO.. that being said. We will still have to beg a RAT too place AOS if we have no HC on.. sounds great!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rebel357 said:

SO.. that being said. We will still have to beg a RAT too place AOS if we have no HC on.. sounds great!

High Command officers will be extremely less burdened and have more incentives to participate than they have, pretty much ever.

Until we get these proximity based AOs functional, people should be prepping to rejoin High Command recognizing the burden will be less and the experience more enjoyable. 

On another note Rebel, you're going to have a crap load more Air Supply across the game world :).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@xoom couple comments:

1) player driven AO could be done day 1 if you were able to just tweak the Auto AO. put in a touch of code that checks: No HC on? Current AO population < 25% of players on side? New AO > 5 players? Then clear old AO and place new AO.

2) You could also set the minimum AOs to 2, and allow HC one and AutoAO one AO.

3) Squads need to be the main driving force of the game, to whit, team play has be a primary focus of you development, not First Person shooter: I would suggest

     a) move current AI Towers to cover approaches to town, so that an attacking force must take out the AI and keep it down to maintain an attack. (Team work)

    b ) allow free to play accounts to create missions, place fms, and drive trucks. (That way they will learn how to lead and work as a team from day 1)(otherwise they simply don't learn those skills )

   c ) put navy in every town that has water. Again, this is for team play, allowing Navy to be used as a effective unit far more often.

There are more, but this simple changes would massively improve team play.

 

Others would include giving Mission Leaders the ability to set area wide WayPoints. Allow OIC to make coloured or highlighted messages in Target Chat Channel. and so on.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me for being the negative one... how and why would HC levels go up? The main reason to be HC has been removed and if we make player based Aos  there is literally no point to having HC, motivating and communicating don't work because a large portion of the players these days do not listen or even look at the comm box.

I appreciate that the current system is far from perfect and needs tweaking but as a HC officer I find the flag system added whole different side to gameplay. Without the movable flags like we have now AO's will just be another fight they will have no strategic relevance.

 

I have to say im not entirely looking forward to this change, almost feels like a part of the game that made it so unique is being removed 

4 people like this

Share this post


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

Forgive me for being the negative one... how and why would HC levels go up? The main reason to be HC has been removed and if we make player based Aos  there is literally no point to having HC, motivating and communicating don't work because a large portion of the players these days do not listen or even look at the comm box.

I appreciate that the current system is far from perfect and needs tweaking but as a HC officer I find the flag system added a whole different side to my gameplay. Without the movable flags like we have now AO's will just be another fight they will have no strategic relevance.

I have to say im not entirely looking forward to this change, almost feels like a part of the game that made is so unique is being removed 

That's alright Spacecam, happy to answer. Checking your join date (2005) you may recall in the past, the High Command served a purpose without the Brigade system in play. Good news is, some of what you desire (the Brigade system) is remaining in tact, but with another layer added on top of it. We will still provide some move-able units as we've mentioned a few times now, it just won't be as detrimental when officers are not online.

Out of curiosity, are people not realizing we will have some move-able units on day 1 introduction of Hybrid Supply? Hybrid Supply by definition means the combination of move-able units with static garrisons.

WWII Online is not what it is because of move-able brigades alone, we should make that clear. It's about the combined arms, substantially more realistic experience, and grand scale MMO capability. This is all happening because of the aforementioned problems with our existing method of running map operations. We have to do something bold, and that means stripping some things down to start back from basics, this time with the option to add back on once systems and organizations stabilize.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@xoom two division is not actually going to be strategically valuable is it? Honestly, that's not really leaving the brigade system in play is it? Garrison supply is a great idea, but it should not be the nearly singular form of game play. You really do need brigades, which is why they were introduced in the first place, and I'll point out, they were introduced while removing garrison supply against the advice of some at the time if you recall.

5 Army Divisions per side.  Don't forget you are expanding the map considerably, and you will need to provide front movement opportunities in those new areas as well. With 2 divisions you will end up 90% of the time with no opposition divisions to face. Massively limiting strategic options and opportunities.

Take some time, think about before you respond.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,  i see the benefits of the changes. And hope they have the desired effect.

Imagine the impacts of Human nature on the following.

The player looks at webmap or logs in and sees his side is getting flogged. 

The players thinks i had better join in an help my side.  Or the player thinks i want to do the flogging and not be flogged and joins the stronger side.

or i am not going to log in unless my side is winning. 

If you don't think this step isn't the most crucial in what happens in the game next/now you are bonkers.  

For some reason, there seems to be far less loyalty to a side, especially with new players. and very little determination to get stuck in a fight for your side no matter what is going on. 

Maybe its a generational thing i don't know, i just see the changes proposed as worthwhile but if players have no loyalty supply in every town won't help if none is there to use it. 

It may even add fuel to the fire. if the side is dominating and is drawing in players only looking for easy kills. Every town has garrison supply, therefore the easy kills will come even more if only a few; log in to the weaker side and try to fight back.  at present, this cant happen in a town with no supply.

Perhaps incentivization of team/side loyalty could be considered. Ie you nominate your side pre-campaign, at the start you get (something) that you lose if you swap sides or gain something the longer you stay. 

SW1

 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse my direct and to the point 2 cents. But taking away the flag babysitting for HC will give them more time to direct the attacks like in the old days.      ATG’s Needed SE!!     need more spawns west!!    Swap attack to blanks spawn!   And to just be a general cheerleader.      Etc etc.    we will always have a strategic avenue to play with.    Don’t give up the command just yet.  Give it a chance to grow on you.  Your side and fellow HC need you.  

 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dragoz said:

@xoom two division is not actually going to be strategically valuable is it? Honestly, that's not really leaving the brigade system in play is it? Garrison supply is a great idea, but it should not be the nearly singular form of game play. You really do need brigades, which is why they were introduced in the first place, and I'll point out, they were introduced while removing garrison supply against the advice of some at the time if you recall.

5 Army Divisions per side.  Don't forget you are expanding the map considerably, and you will need to provide front movement opportunities in those new areas as well. With 2 divisions you will end up 90% of the time with no opposition divisions to face. Massively limiting strategic options and opportunities.

Take some time, think about before you respond.

I agree that as size of playable area increases, it would be worthwhile to look at the number of Army Divisions per side. We want to have action and see the front line move in more than one area of the map at a time.  Two divisions may not be sufficient for this given restrictions on moving units of one division more than one link away from another.  We can see how initial roll-out performs with town supply - CRS can always make changes as necessary based on actual experience.   But I have no problem starting off with two - good idea -to start small, and a lot easier to add something later than to take it away. 

If at some point we went with three divisions, perhaps we could figure out way to keep them each within a certain zone - north, central, south, to avoid having big stacks aggregated that have to be (and can only be) moved by HC.  If the goal is to have movable divisions available to support player-driven  AOs, then they need to be close to each front - takes a lot of HC time and effort to get a unit moved from North to South even behind the lines in short timers, and everyone with an AO in progress will be clamoring for them.  Could do something like that even without hard-coding - just make it a standing rule that no more than one division at a time can be engaged on any particular AO/DO, or that a particular division can’t be moved north or south of a certain line. 

But having more than one movable division to cover any one part of the front could make the movable units too much of a determining factor on whether an AO is successful, which runs counter to player-driven AO concept and puts HC back on the hot seat to move supply all the time to really make things happen. I suppose we will just have to see how things play out with two movable divisions and then assess whether any adjustments are needed necessary down the road. 

LaFleur -AXIS CinC 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back when I joined the game in 2003 and HC shortly thereafter ( shout out to Dwalin! my first real friend in the game) there were no "AO's" being placed. They generated themselves by squads attacking towns. You had to watch the map to anticipate the moves. There were lots of fires being put out but a major attack always reared its head and you knew where it was coming...the rest were just moles or good attempts at a distraction.  It seems like we are moving back partially to those days which is a good thing. 

HC back then was not the HC of today.  It was a lot harder to break into and advance up the chain.  It was almost a position that people looked up to to a certain degree.  It took me a good 3 years to get to Country Command for the Axis side.  Orbats were full.

Squads were more associated with HC and each squad had a rep that was in HC.  Squads were associated with certain AO's or areas of the map (not the AO's as far as generating attacks).  North, Central and South.  All areas had some sort of action and needed to be tended to. The pop was so much bigger we had squads just dedicated to certain areas of the map and it was their responsibility to "patrol" or defend that area.  If that area was dead HC shifted you to the hot zone for the night.

HC put plans in place based on the squads in the areas and had them work together.....it was a great thing back then.  HC was like the coach and the squads were the players. Squads were king back then, they were really the ones who controlled the game and how it was played out. HC gave them the playbook and they ran with it.

Good old boys club? yes it existed contrary to what anyone said.  You had to play the "game".  It was a task taken with seriousness back then.  People will think, "really" its a game but it was a game taken seriously at that time.  I remember HC meetings that lasted hours...some on IRC...some on TS and some on both depending the time and who was where and in what timezone............Do they even have them anymore??  It was really great time to be in HC.......those were the glory days. Lots of fun.....FUN, that's what it is supposed to be.

Hopefully were are moving back to that type of game play where the HC will set the plan and let the squads do the job. Back then no one joined the HC for the puffy pants.  We need the old vets back as they are the ones who remember how its done.

Im older now 52, and 1.36 has me thinking HC again with the changes. Hopefully its a move in the right direction but I think it is.

We need a healthier population because when this game was populated there was nothing like it in this genre on the market..........NOTHING.  Before CRS 2.0 it seemed the game was on its last legs.......it was sucking wind due to apathy and bad direction.  Ever since XOOM has taken over the game and it's development as moved forward more in 1-2 yrs that it did the previous 5.  Thanks to people who care about the game, a lot of which are made up of volunteers and thru the donations and crowdfunding.

People complain because they care, they care about a game they are passionate about. It can be frustrating at times but its been like what 17 yrs ?? We still complain because we love the game and what it is and what it can be and what it will become.

S!

 

8 people like this

Share this post


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

@xoom two division is not actually going to be strategically valuable is it? Honestly, that's not really leaving the brigade system in play is it? Garrison supply is a great idea, but it should not be the nearly singular form of game play. You really do need brigades, which is why they were introduced in the first place, and I'll point out, they were introduced while removing garrison supply against the advice of some at the time if you recall.

5 Army Divisions per side.  Don't forget you are expanding the map considerably, and you will need to provide front movement opportunities in those new areas as well. With 2 divisions you will end up 90% of the time with no opposition divisions to face. Massively limiting strategic options and opportunities.

Take some time, think about before you respond.

Remember that you will not need brigades to ensure map equipment coverage.
You will instead use them to strategically enhance a chosen area.
And even if you find your self in a position unopposed by an opposing division, you may very well wind up with your arse handed to you on a platter
by organized players and squads working at a garrison level.

It is easier, i think, to start with a small amount and increment in small increases if and when gameplay and research show it to be needed,
than to put in too many, and then go try and remove them after people have them.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am of the mind that 3 divisions for North/Center and South would be best. My biggest question is, are BDES going to still be tied to their HQ flag with movement restrictions. I feel if we want to keep the total number of BDEs down the freedom of movement is essential. Perhaps even keep 2 divisions but add another BDE in there, 2 divs with 4 bdes would equate to 4 "BCTS" that could be better allocated throughout the map. It is still a driving concern, that with present mechanics we will not see much activity from divisions outside of major cities... (Antwerp for example could be likely that 1 div from each side is allocated to that area and stagnant for a long time, not providing the intended content and leaving only 1 div to cover the rest of the map) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a concern that by keeping the AOs in place it will severely limit squad participation in 1.36, having a proximity-based AO is a good solution but I think the details here are important since it won't take too many pulled AOs or an inability to place an AO due to some sort of AO limits for squads to not show up to the fight. I understand there is big issue with things like overpop caps, moleing, and diluting the playerbase over a large part of the map, but I think there needs to be a dynamic map, unpredictability, and most important of all the ability of the squads to have an iron-clad guarantee that when they have a squad night they will have the ability to do an operation and see it through the end irrespective of the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dragoz said:

@xoom couple comments:

1) player driven AO could be done day 1 if you were able to just tweak the Auto AO. put in a touch of code that checks: No HC on? Current AO population < 25% of players on side? New AO > 5 players? Then clear old AO and place new AO.

2) You could also set the minimum AOs to 2, and allow HC one and AutoAO one AO.

3) Squads need to be the main driving force of the game, to whit, team play has be a primary focus of you development, not First Person shooter: I would suggest

     a) move current AI Towers to cover approaches to town, so that an attacking force must take out the AI and keep it down to maintain an attack. (Team work)

    b ) allow free to play accounts to create missions, place fms, and drive trucks. (That way they will learn how to lead and work as a team from day 1)(otherwise they simply don't learn those skills )

   c ) put navy in every town that has water. Again, this is for team play, allowing Navy to be used as a effective unit far more often.

There are more, but this simple changes would massively improve team play.

 

Others would include giving Mission Leaders the ability to set area wide WayPoints. Allow OIC to make coloured or highlighted messages in Target Chat Channel. and so on.

 

On day 1 of 1.36, we will be changing the current 1 AO minimum, to a 2 AO minimum. Going beyond that at the moment and introducing new code / variables won't make it into 1.36 on initial release. But we will be working towards that sooner rather than later. 

Naval will be in every single town where there is a Docks and Deep water port.

Air Force will be in every single town where there is an Airfield.

Paratroopers will be in every single town where there is an Airfield.

AI placement changes is a bit more intensive and will add to the production / testing cycle, probably no changes here on initial roll out.

Will think on the free player recommendations some.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, hateract said:

I am of the mind that 3 divisions for North/Center and South would be best. My biggest question is, are BDES going to still be tied to their HQ flag with movement restrictions. I feel if we want to keep the total number of BDEs down the freedom of movement is essential. Perhaps even keep 2 divisions but add another BDE in there, 2 divs with 4 bdes would equate to 4 "BCTS" that could be better allocated throughout the map. It is still a driving concern, that with present mechanics we will not see much activity from divisions outside of major cities... (Antwerp for example could be likely that 1 div from each side is allocated to that area and stagnant for a long time, not providing the intended content and leaving only 1 div to cover the rest of the map) 

We are starting with 2 Divisions, and will add some more Brigades to those existing divisions OR add another Division, when we feel High Command is properly staffed and functional / capable of handling more. We're starting small very purposefully.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Excuse my direct and to the point 2 cents. But taking away the flag babysitting for HC will give them more time to direct the attacks like in the old days.      ATG’s Needed SE!!     need more spawns west!!    Swap attack to blanks spawn!   And to just be a general cheerleader.      Etc etc.    we will always have a strategic avenue to play with.    Don’t give up the command just yet.  Give it a chance to grow on you.  Your side and fellow HC need you.  

That's precisely correct. We're refocusing all of the energy from flag management, to driving game play / operations / organization / communication.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, hateract said:

(Antwerp for example could be likely that 1 div from each side is allocated to that area and stagnant for a long time, not providing the intended content and leaving only 1 div to cover the rest of the map) 

I would just like to point out that presently, if one has not looked at Antwerp, to roll it one would have to defeat
3 Army Garisons
1 Air Garrison, complete with paratroops
3 Naval Garrisons, complete with their ground forces.

I am not sure there would be much need to station 2 entire divisions in Antwerp to be left to just idle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dragoz said:

@xoom two division is not actually going to be strategically valuable is it? Honestly, that's not really leaving the brigade system in play is it? Garrison supply is a great idea, but it should not be the nearly singular form of game play. You really do need brigades, which is why they were introduced in the first place, and I'll point out, they were introduced while removing garrison supply against the advice of some at the time if you recall.

5 Army Divisions per side.  Don't forget you are expanding the map considerably, and you will need to provide front movement opportunities in those new areas as well. With 2 divisions you will end up 90% of the time with no opposition divisions to face. Massively limiting strategic options and opportunities.

Take some time, think about before you respond.

The Divisions we're adding retains the Brigade system, in its exact current function on top of an additional layer. Please remember, this was not going to make it at all in our original 1.36 design - marking CRS listening to a portion of its player base and making a compromise / change into the games design.

As I mentioned a few moments ago in a different post, we're adding 2 Divisions per side. The purpose of this is to allow High Command to rebuild itself and our confidence (CRS) that HC can handle these things. Divisions / Brigades can be expanded and reduced as we see fit, and we reserve the right to do that based on how the game's operation is functioning.

The game's operation doesn't literally mean HC / player driven operations. It literally means from our perspective the smoothness by which things are running. We aren't trying to be unfair with our HC or show a lack of appreciation, this is just the reality of where we are at today. There were many officers who stopped logging in after a brutally long Campaign. This is so detrimental and game breaking, I know I am preaching to the choir at this stage but I must continue to bring it up because it is the baseline logic by which 1.36 was spawned in the first place.

Strategy is not singularly based on the Brigade system alone. It is based on how players drive the map and the outcomes which are produced, which towns are taken, operations that occur, and so on.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.