• Announcements

    • XOOM

      Volunteer PHP Developer wanted to revive the Gazette!   07/24/2019

      We're looking to properly revive the World@War Gazette and need a solid PHP developer to help take some work forward. If you have some skills with PHP and are looking for some experience and to bring important home page news / recognition for individual players back to WWII Online, I'd like to hear from you! Submit an inquiry to jobs@corneredrats.com with some details about your experience. You will need at least 10+ hours per week to contribute to the team. The Gazette's current status can be found here: https://www.wwiionline.com/resources#gazette
hateract

HC and 1.36

64 posts in this topic

19 hours ago, XOOM said:

High Command must demonstrate that they're capable of handling this. We'll be monitoring organizational skills within AHC / GHC command, growth and placement of officers, and routine activity levels by HC officers.

Right now, we're comfortable with providing two Divisions to start and see how things go. But we are requiring the community to work together as a collective team to unlock more capabilities. The game's operation and health are dependent on that.

We still need everyone to experience 1.36 and we can all make some better assessments from there.

I have to agree with @XOOMthat we will need some time recruit, rebuild and reorganize AHC and GHC a fashion that will suit the new 1.36 environment. We won’t be there on Day 1 - we can plan and prepare for it in advance all we like, but we will have to have a shake down period to see what we really need in HC.  Starting off with two ground divisions will be fine - we can make adjustments after we get a Campaign under our belt.  

In all honesty, right now both HCs are so understaffed that it will still be a challenge just to keep the movable divisions wecwill have effectively deployed during the first 1.36 campaign anyway.  The Navy and Air commands in particular just have a handful of officers, and in the 1.36 environment these must be built back up to provide the ingame leadership these branches will need.  

The key to making 1.36 a success is to build up the squads so they again have critical mass to run ops - either on their own or working together with other squads on agreed objectives.  Healthy squads will give us a pool of active players and leaders  that we can incorporate into a more robust, fun and effective HC for both sides.  

The unique factor that makes this game what it is working together as team to achieve tactical and strategic objectives against equally matched REAL opponents that are worthy of the effort.  WW2OL is not a lone wolf eye candy tits and gore first person shooter; it’s not a test of how fast you can manipulate a game console.  This game has depth, endless replay interest, quality historical accuracy and physics, multiple layers to appeal to different interests, and a real sense of  community. THAT’s why so many of us are still here after 15 years and passionate enough to spend our time arguing about how to improve it.  Let’s not forget that.  

For now, we all need to put our shoulders behind 1.36 and take advantage of this opportunity to keep growing the game.  THEN we can figure out how to make it even better. 

LaFleur - AXIS CINC 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2018 at 5:31 PM, choad said:

I know it has been suggested before, so this isn't my idea. But maybe future iterations could have more flags to move around than the initial release will. The trade off would have to be something along the lines of ... the moveable flags would be comprised of the better armor, better atgs, new tier equipment and surplus inf. Garrison flags comprise the core inf supply, prior tier armor and atgs and maybe current tier armor in few numbers. I dont know ... perhaps there is a happy middle ground to be had there. But i think your initial plans are at least a good baseline starting point.

 

What squad is going to make the effort to organize a squad night if they are not guaranteed 1) equipment and 2) the ability to attack in a place/time of their choosing.

I am all for keeping some form of strategic layer, but we simply cannot have HC controlling flags that are required to fully play the game. Both because an HC officer may not be available at that exact time of the day, and more importantly what do you do when you have competing interests such as three squads, one north, one central, and one south but only 2 divisions to spare. Who gets the short stick? And more importantly are those players going to show up to the next squad night if it is going to be another raffle to see who gets the brigade?

Squads were essentially run as a quasi-business. You can't make strategic plans for your business unless you have your supply chain intact and a reasonable ability to predict what the market is doing. No business can operate not know if next week the power will be on, or whether the merchandise delivery is going to come 3 days late. It is the same with squads. Organizing operations is a hard thing, and most squads want squad nights to be a meaningful event. If it succeeds, great. If it fails, well we have to do better next time. But players are not doing to go through all that effort if they can't be 100% sure that tanks will be there and an ability to attack a town will be present (or that their AO won't be pulled by HC).

Which, as a side note, is also why if we go to a proximity-AO model that is triggered by X number of players within EWS range, there simply has to be zero limits on how many concurrent AOs can be placed for the same reason as above... imagine spending 1-2 hours preparing for a squad night, you get within EWS range, and the message pops up on the chat *No AO Placed. Concurrent AO Limit Reached* You can imagine the number of rage-quits that are going to happen.

Edited by aismov
2 people like this

Share this post


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

@XOOM Forgive me if the I misspoke. I understand the concept of starting with less for a tighter command and control structure as far as number of divisions. I am more curious/concerned about the freedom of movement of the bdes on map. Will bdes be given freedom of movement or another bde be added so that units can move according to the same rules we he have now, Obviously it of great concern for many to maintain a "strategic" aspect of the game in addition to the solutions provided via garrison supply. So, again, just to make sure I am clear, and not rambling lol, will bdes have freedom of movement, rather than being "tied" to their DIV HQ and thus restricting strategic options/deployments?

The same rules that apply to Brigades today, in all ways, will remain the same. At least at this stage.

Share this post


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

I just want to say I hope garrisons are extremely low supply and are only being added to provide defense during off hours when HC is not moving divisions. 

The general playerbase from what I have seen gets much more excited about a town if it is meaningful to the front line and brigade placement. The flags add value not only to HC gameplay but to players who want to see the front line develop in meaningful ways. Please do not reduce this game to simply "which side can capture 300 villages first"

Garrisons are not here for purely defensive purposes. They are also not here to try and make the Brigade system work. They ARE here because the Brigade system is failing, and the HC are not showing up as much as they should be. By the way... we don't hold that against these volunteers. We're simply out of options to rely on good faith and hopes in this regard at this stage.

It feels like hundreds of good officers with good intent have tried different methods to internally self-correct the HC systems. It isn't working, at least right now. So we're going to turn the dial down on their dependency.

I'd just ask everyone to not assume worst case scenario, be open minded, be realistic with where we're at today, and be prepared for some changes. We'll be here listening and making improvements where we can, both in advancement (like we are now) and when it's actually play tested thoroughly. I'll say this again: our first iteration of supply will likely not survive first contact of campaign play, meaning we'll have to make adjustments. And we're prepared to do that.

3 people like this

Share this post


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

 

What squad is going to make the effort to organize a squad night if they are not guaranteed 1) equipment and 2) the ability to attack in a place/time of their choosing.

I am all for keeping some form of strategic layer, but we simply cannot have HC controlling flags that are required to fully play the game. Both because an HC officer may not be available at that exact time of the day, and more importantly what do you do when you have competing interests such as three squads, one north, one central, and one south but only 2 divisions to spare. Who gets the short stick? And more importantly are those players going to show up to the next squad night if it is going to be another raffle to see who gets the brigade?

Squads were essentially run as a quasi-business. You can't make strategic plans for your business unless you have your supply chain intact and a reasonable ability to predict what the market is doing. No business can operate not know if next week the power will be on, or whether the merchandise delivery is going to come 3 days late. It is the same with squads. Organizing operations is a hard thing, and most squads want squad nights to be a meaningful event. If it succeeds, great. If it fails, well we have to do better next time. But players are not doing to go through all that effort if they can't be 100% sure that tanks will be there and an ability to attack a town will be present (or that their AO won't be pulled by HC).

Which, as a side note, is also why if we go to a proximity-AO model that is triggered by X number of players within EWS range, there simply has to be limits on how many concurrent AOs can be placed for the same reason as above... imagine spending 1-2 hours preparing for a squad night, you get within EWS range, and the message pops up on the chat *No AO Placed. Concurrent AO Limit Reached* You can imagine the number of rage-quits that are going to happen.

Yeah but there are no proximity based ao's, at least to start. So HC will need to be there anyways to place AO's. I was just suggesting a way to give them a few more tools ... given that aspect is not going away.

I would love to see it, but absent that, may as well give them a bit more. 

Plus, with lesser burden to bear .... the hc numbers should grow.

 

But yeah, i am with you all the way. In a perfect world prox. based AO's would be wonderful. I just fear we will be talking about that aspect of it this time next year ... so .... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lafleur @bmw @Merlin51 You guys make a lot of excellent points.

It would be very reasonable to tie, even if just by policy, a certain unit to a certain part of the map. Both sides did exactly that in WW2, eg Canada in the Low Countries.

one of the reasons I picked 5 divisions is bacuse as it sits, the map is reasonably divided into 5 zones (4 for sure):

north of the Muse

the Muse loop

Along the Muse

South of the Muse 

and extended south 

but also to represent the equipment that is in BGE: American, British, French and hopefully Canada.

So at a minimum I would have thought 3 :: Brit, Yank, French.

Share this post


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

@Lafleur @bmw @Merlin51 You guys make a lot of excellent points.

It would be very reasonable to tie, even if just by policy, a certain unit to a certain part of the map. Both sides did exactly that in WW2, eg Canada in the Low Countries.

one of the reasons I picked 5 divisions is bacuse as it sits, the map is reasonably divided into 5 zones (4 for sure):

north of the Muse

the Muse loop

Along the Muse

South of the Muse 

and extended south 

but also to represent the equipment that is in BGE: American, British, French and hopefully Canada.

So at a minimum I would have thought 3 :: Brit, Yank, French.

I would set it at 4 minimum- 1 Brit 3 French, then Americans arrive 1 Brit 2 American 1 French.

Then Axis could be 3 German 1 Italian whenever that's done.

Alternatively, divisions don't have to be what they are now- you could have the light divisions of the past, 2 brigades 1 HQ, or variable sized divisions-  American divisions were twice as big as anyone else's plus attached formations, and the Germans made an art out of having different 'flights' of division designs with adhoc Kampfgruppes.

 

Incidentally when I was doing a lot of advisor work for the Allies, I divided up the map into 3.5 sections-  Zees would be the .5 section, Antwerp to Namur, Namur to Sedan, Sedan to edge. So I'd express basic divisional start plans as 3-3-3 or a heavy south plan as 3-2-4.

 

Edited by Kilemall
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few thoughts.  

Just off the top of my head, I can imagine that div's and brigs in 1.36 are going to serve more as a balancing function than anything else...... with a 1 rear town garrison supply we are going to run into alot of situations where a frontline town has 6 back line links for the defends and only 2 or 3 for the attackers..... a division will be needed to balance that anomaly.

I think 2 ao's is going to have some hard consequences.  AO's are necessary because they bring the population together for big fights.  So they are very much necessary..... but that necessity adds hardship to HC.... to squads.... and to mobility/autonomy of action.

Ways to negate the negative consequence of the necessity for AO's

1) HC can place AO's but maybe they shouldn't always be placed...... maybe they should only be placeable at certain population increases.  SO have 1 ao that is proximity ..... and have 1 that is HC controlled when the population can absorb it.

- if this system is adopted than other gameplay functions will need to be adjusted....... Like maybe cp's can be captured without an ao being placed on that town but the bunker can't be captured and town ownership can't be transferred...... and the incentive to attacking or defending a cp in a town without an ao could be supply drivin....... like lets say you capture Depo x in town Y..... and if you hold depo x for z amount of time.... then supply in town Y is reduced by whatever amount.  This will add a dimension to none AO game space..... will give under pop some advantage......and I believe will ultimately lead to big more epic AO battles....... though they might be less frequent and more dependent on population numbers.  The AO battles that did take place though would be truly epic..... and would probably require a lot of planning (at HC level on OP's and also with overstock and resupply).

Edited by kgarner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno that seems like needless complexity to me. I was always very much for simplifying game mechanics.

I personally would prefer not having AOs, but understanding that things like moling and solo-caps are an issue, a simple proximity AO system would be the best and just leave it at that. Could be easily tied to the EWS levels, if infantry becomes heavy EWS then an AO is automatically placed.

The other thing to consider is what to do on low pop situations. If you have 25 vs 20 players it will be next to impossible to defend all towns in a way that wouldn't exist if it was still underpop but 80 vs 100.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with what I addressed above the most likely outcome would be that cp supply missions would be the norm during low pop.....and big AO engagements would be high pop....... I play mostly breakfast club hours so its in no way in my benefit to suggest that town flips should be limited during low pop hours..... but for the good of the game I think it would be ideal.  The trick would be offering some type of game function that is still entertaining for low pop players..... which is why i suggested cp/depo supply op's..... its the only thing I could imagine myself.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you raise an important point of having things to do in low-pop situations. I think that CP capture without an AO (and thus no AB capture) could have a lot of unintended consequences particularly for new players who cap CPs and then wonder why there is no fight.

The reflexive answer is "go blow some FBs." But you can't expect players to do that all day every day.

I was talking to a squaddie who was around during the steam release and one issue he mentioned was that new players didn't understand the HC/AO system and wanted to start their own attacks. But got frustrated when they realized they couldn't.

I think the most simple solution is to have proximity AOs, and in low pop/severe overpop increase the time until the bunker table is hot. At the end f the day we want action at all time zones, but don't want the negative consequences which aren't necessary one town being captured, but map rolls where 10+ towns fall like dominos overnight.

This way you can still cap and there are consequences to capping (can capture the town) but big map rolls become harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm for players starting Their own AO BUT number of AOs should be defined by the numbers of the underpopulated side.

Like 20 defenders minimum for every AO

Additionally, an AO should have a minimum of attackers so it could be launched.

One of the worst experiences this game have is, when there are more than 1 AO and one of them is a 2vs2 AO.

The typical sleeping AO where you are to spend half an hour sitting inside the spaneable waiting for that only ei to appear in it.

I prefer on or two massive battles than 6 small ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/4/2019 at 5:22 PM, piska250 said:

I'm for players starting Their own AO BUT number of AOs should be defined by the numbers of the underpopulated side.

Like 20 defenders minimum for every AO

Additionally, an AO should have a minimum of attackers so it could be launched.

One of the worst experiences this game have is, when there are more than 1 AO and one of them is a 2vs2 AO.

The typical sleeping AO where you are to spend half an hour sitting inside the spaneable waiting for that only ei to appear in it.

I prefer on or two massive battles than 6 small ones.

Agree that there should be a minimum number of players needed to get the AO running. This is important to prevent moling and solo-caps. But there number of AOs can't be limited because if you do that you are going to run against the problem of squads wanting to do an operation, spending all the time doing set-up, and then greeted by a system message that they can't have an AO. Thats a perfect recipe to have squads who are coming back with some goodwill to the game to leave and not bother with it.

Now I think there are some real technical issues that need to be looked at and creating a system that can't be gamed, so for example the same 5 guys (or 10, or whatever the auto-AO number would be), don't go around the map tripping AOs, despawning, and then moving to the next town. One fix I could see would be that 5 players trigger the AO, which stays active for 5 minutes (table timers stay at 10 minutes), and if there isn't an average of 5 attacking players within say 1 km of the AB, the AO gets auto-removed and there is a cooldown period of say 15 minutes before a new one can be tripped. This way you allow players to attack where they want, but they have to put in the legwork to maintain the AO active. If it drops below X players it automatically gets cleared within 5 minutes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2019 at 5:10 PM, aismov said:

Agree that there should be a minimum number of players needed to get the AO running. This is important to prevent moling and solo-caps. But there number of AOs can't be limited because if you do that you are going to run against the problem of squads wanting to do an operation, spending all the time doing set-up, and then greeted by a system message that they can't have an AO. Thats a perfect recipe to have squads who are coming back with some goodwill to the game to leave and not bother with it.

Now I think there are some real technical issues that need to be looked at and creating a system that can't be gamed, so for example the same 5 guys (or 10, or whatever the auto-AO number would be), don't go around the map tripping AOs, despawning, and then moving to the next town. One fix I could see would be that 5 players trigger the AO, which stays active for 5 minutes (table timers stay at 10 minutes), and if there isn't an average of 5 attacking players within say 1 km of the AB, the AO gets auto-removed and there is a cooldown period of say 15 minutes before a new one can be tripped. This way you allow players to attack where they want, but they have to put in the legwork to maintain the AO active. If it drops below X players it automatically gets cleared within 5 minutes.

...

Waaaait a minute.

Okay, so:

- No limit on AOs

- AOs are proximity triggered by minimum amount of players

- AOs have to maintain minimum amount of players to continue to exist, even if town is contested

 

I think the issue you run into is that if the one side has 100 people on and the other has 60, one side is going to have a lot more AOs possible and use that to pressure the enemy. There needs to be something in the system to prevent overpop abuse. Maybe... increase the number of minimum players a side needs based on population disparity %, with a maximum of 20% of the online players for a given side?

If something can be figured out to protect underpop, that might be a great idea, and no overly complicated proximity system has to be put together due to AO limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.