Mosizlak

Reducing auto supply...

124 posts in this topic

doesn't change the fact that it's focusing efforts on removing gameplay aspects instead of improving and building new ones


like this thread, less autos all round (with a slight advantage to axis). too much of the focus is on the axis having that slight advantage in a overall nerf.

Share this post


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

but once it gets to later stages of the war where the Axis are being massively outproduced

But are they?
Did you keep up RDP and bomb the factories down?

36 minutes ago, major0noob said:

soo many nerfs...

When you can do something you should not do, and it gets change to something more correct, that is not a nerf

31 minutes ago, major0noob said:

doesn't change the fact that it's focusing efforts on removing gameplay aspects instead of improving and building new ones

It does improve gameplay aspects, unless you happen to be John Rambo?
 

3 hours ago, raptor34 said:

I agree. Hopefully, that will include more accurate Sherman to Tiger numbers as well. 

Until the US faction can be properly factionized, the RDP advancement stops progressing at T3
which is always going to basically jack that area up, and both sides are going to complain.

And if it is made 100% to the historic numbers, there are going to be complaints.

Germany deployed the 1st Tiger I's in what you might call in game Tier 2.5
What would be facing them would be M3 Lee/Grants and 75mm M4 Shermans along with the other brit armor
and M5 stuarts.
We'd have to fill in the M3s with some shermans as we do not have them yet.

The Tiger I would have low numbers as compared to other things, just the nature of it's design, expensive and slow to build.

It's production would normally wind down to a lower rate around Tier 3 for the faster and cheaper to build panther
which is everything the tiger is not, quick, mobile, much lighter, has a nasty HV gun and a nose like a ramp
that rounds dont like to stick to, so like the tiger, it is not exactly easy to kill frontally.

The 76mm gunned Shermans would not hit RDP until the beginning of tier 4, and ramping up to nearly but not totally
replace the 75mm by end of tier 5 RDP cycle

The M10 does not actually enter into the picture until T3 RDP cycle, just in time to hunt panthers
Though the 75mm sherman can kill both tiger and panther, you have to rely on maneuver, preferably with coordinated help
or assassination by ambush.
Sure you can punch the Tiger's nose under 1000m, but the margin of error is so small, you are likely to get pwned over 90% of the time.
The Panther, i am thinking not so much with that wedge for a nose.

Then things would get a bit interesting as the M10 would quickly be taking a back seat to the M18
Which may not introduce a new super gun, but it introduces something else.
Something that haul arse and quickly wind up pointing at you in a spot that you dont really want it pointing at,
mean while the 76mm gunner shermans have begun to come on board, and the brits have rolled out their 1st sherman fireflys
and Achillies sporting 17 pounders as well as a few archers

Next RDP cycle
The M10 would then take a back seat to the M36, and the 76mm sherman would overtake the 75mm

And some place in that there would be a Tiger II, which considering the extremely low numbers due to a very very long build time and expense
would probably perhaps only exist in like a specific Brigade flag (post garrison world) Along with its friend, the the M26 pershing
(And no not the super pershing, there was one unit in all of europe that went on a few joy rides)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Merlin51 said:

But are they?
Did you keep up RDP and bomb the factories down?

What?  I'm not talking about RDP.  I'm talking about RL GDP.

 

The total GDP of the Allied nations far surpassed that of the Axis.  It's not even close.  And that's before factoring in any type of effects from strategic bombing.  

 

It's been argued quite definitively that the strategic bombing campaigns cost the Allies more to enact than it cost the Axis in damage from a straightforward dollar-to-dollar comparison.  The only reason why it was in any way practical for the Allies was because of the vast resources available to them;  they could simply afford to run their bombing campaigns at a net loss because even then it would still shorten the length of the war.  

 

I think somewhere around 50% of all British war expenditure during the war went to the strategic bombing campaign.  Germany spent around 40% of their war expenditures on air defense.  

Edited by Capco
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

It does improve gameplay aspects, unless you happen to be John Rambo?

*indirectly*, while diminishing game aspects directly

adding shoulder fire or solving the deployed LMG's shoot me stance would directly improve aspects.

instead efforts are focused on second hand problems with underling broader problems, in this case the entire CQB gameplay is at fault but the LMG's are what's focused on.

 

there are better and bigger things that could be done.

the shoulder fire and deployed LMG's aern't my ideas; they're old, universally accepted, and 0 controversy ideas from the playerbase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, major0noob said:

*indirectly*, while diminishing game aspects directly

adding shoulder fire or solving the deployed LMG's shoot me stance would directly improve aspects.

instead efforts are focused on second hand problems with underling broader problems, in this case the entire CQB gameplay is at fault but the LMG's are what's focused on.

 

there are better and bigger things that could be done.

the shoulder fire and deployed LMG's aern't my ideas; they're old, universally accepted, and 0 controversy ideas from the playerbase.

There are a huge list of things that need to be done. We realize that, however there are limited resources and some of the stuff you mentioned require development resources that are assigned to higher priority area. For example fixing the prone issue would require coding, animations and sound effects to change. The changes xoom is proposing are more like levers that the values can be changed rather quickly and adjusted.

 

This next statement is not directed at anyone in particular so here it goes. The community asked us CRS for more transparency and communication. @XOOM has asked for thoughts (brainstorming) on how to fix a specific issue within the game for both sides. The playerbase then jumps to conclusions and starts arguing about side specifics and nerfs, instead of making alternative suggestions.

We have a major game play mechanic change on the horizon which requires a lot of changes to supply and role utilization of units. This needs to be tested in the live environment which is why supply has been changed for this campaign so it can be evaluated. The bombs we're another change as well (which I will be talking about soon)  which was to fix ahistorical performance.

Let's have a well thought out response with solutions other than, accusations of side bias and nerfing.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, BLKHWK8 said:

There are a huge list of things that need to be done. We realize that, however there are limited resources and some of the stuff you mentioned require development resources that are assigned to higher priority area. For example fixing the prone issue would require coding, animations and sound effects to change. The changes xoom is proposing are more like levers that the values can be changed rather quickly and adjusted.

you guys gotta understand i love ya and your game, we all do. we criticize and argue for the health of the game

we come up with ideas and are (justifiably) ignored due to the work involved to implement them. it's frustrating, but good to be grounded back to the reality of what can and can't be done to solve things.

 

the FB ping pong had a mess of solutions, we wound up arguing over things that were simply impossible to do. until a rat chimed in and told us what can and can't be done, the increased health idea worked, but it was buried under a heap of arguing fans.

 

my FMS talk gave me a hell of a bad reputation among forums, but most other ideas are outside reality. what i'm trying to say is, please ground us back into reality before we fracture into a mess of hate.

 

 

now that i know the sitting LMG can't be changed, as well as the shoulder fire LMG, i'll leave it alone.

but please understand, a nerfing attitude drive subs away in every online game, and to a greater extent so does boredom.

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that it can't be changed it's on the list, however the list is pretty big. 

Like I said I'm not directing it at you but the community at large. 

This team has had some.major breakthrus with development and we are listening, we just can't respond to All the ideas and can't implement all of them either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in no way interested in shooting a bolt action rifle. I cant hit anything when they aren't warping . Its spray and pray  or im out .

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

***  I cant hit anything when they aren't warping 

Can't we slow infantry sprint speed down by 20%?  Might solve a lot of lag issues?

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

So they want to give the Axis more historical advantages that they had early on, but once it gets to later stages of the war where the Axis are being massively outproduced THEN we gotta pump the breaks a little bit and think about gameplay balance?  I mean, we can't let the Axis fight the Americans without all those extra Tigers or the disproportionate amount of semi autos they get!

 

What a joke.  

Pretty much, and I'm an axis player mostly these days.   Complete cluster-F. 

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think hard before you wish your side has a "super weapon".

I will, and I am sure may other will, join the side with the "super weapon" 

Who will be left on the receiving end of that weapon,....no one.

In this case, start the campaign as Axis, just switch when "Axis are being massively outproduced".

Share this post


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

Think hard before you wish your side has a "super weapon".

I will, and I am sure may other will, join the side with the "super weapon" 

Who will be left on the receiving end of that weapon,....no one.

In this case, start the campaign as Axis, just switch when "Axis are being massively outproduced".

In no way, shape, or form am I asking for an accurate, historical representation of the Allies post 1943.  You know why?  Because that wouldn't be fair.  It makes for crap gameplay.  On the other hand, balanced sides make for the best gameplay.  

 

That's all I'm trying to highlight.  The game should never sacrifice balance for historical accuracy.  Ever.  Whether it's for the Germans in 1940 or the Allies in 1943.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Capco said:

In no way, shape, or form am I asking for an accurate, historical representation of the Allies post 1943.  You know why?  Because that wouldn't be fair.  It makes for crap gameplay.  On the other hand, balanced sides make for the best gameplay.  

 

That's all I'm trying to highlight.  The game should never sacrifice balance for historical accuracy.  Ever.  Whether it's for the Germans in 1940 or the Allies in 1943.  

I think this is the struggle because as soon as we start a campaign we are rewriting history. 

It is always a balance between historical accuracy vs game balance, red vs blue or simulation, game mechanic vs real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why I always say the spawnlists should 'feel' historical without being historical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BLKHWK8 said:

I think this is the struggle because as soon as we start a campaign we are rewriting history. 

It is always a balance between historical accuracy vs game balance, red vs blue or simulation, game mechanic vs real world.

Making a fair game where both sides have an equal chance of winning doesn't have a counterbalance.  There's nothing worth sacrificing it for.  

 

You at CRS are following that exact policy at this very moment with the extra Tigers and semi autos.  If we had historical numbers we wouldn't have a game.  You decided that it's more important for the Axis to be competitive than to be modeled accurately.  (I completely understand the rationale about the extra Tigers basically standing in as infantry support vehicles, but I strongly disagree with where that line has been drawn.  Hopefully the introduction of the Panzer IIIL will get rid of this mess.)

 

If at any point you have started to sacrifice game balance for completely superficial things like historical accuracy, you've gone down the wrong path.  This is a game first and foremost.  

 

Nothing trumps balance and fairness.  Nothing.  

3 people like this

Share this post


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

Making a fair game where both sides have an equal chance of winning doesn't have a counterbalance.  There's nothing worth sacrificing it for.  

 

You at CRS are following that exact policy at this very moment with the extra Tigers and semi autos.  If we had historical numbers we wouldn't have a game.  You decided that it's more important for the Axis to be competitive than to be modeled accurately.  (I completely understand the rationale about the extra Tigers basically standing in as infantry support vehicles, but I strongly disagree with where that line has been drawn.  Hopefully the introduction of the Panzer IIIL will get rid of this mess.)

 

If at any point you have started to sacrifice game balance for completely superficial things like historical accuracy, you've gone down the wrong path.  This is a game first and foremost.  

 

Nothing trumps balance and fairness.  Nothing.  

The French campaign of 1940 offers a unique opportunity to have a game that is both historically accurate and has balanced gameplay.  The available equipment was about even both in numbers and in performance.  Yes, this weapon system was better than that weapons system, but in this early part of the war we are still able to see the different design styles different countries came up with, i.e. there were tradeoffs.  (matilda heavily armored, but slow, pzII fairly fast, but not a lot of punch for its main gun, and so on).

 

From there, which is tier 0, it becomes a bit more messy to figure out how to proceed.  CRS botched this sort of thing in the early days, imho, but having said that, the 'add 1 for axis and 1 for the Allies plan, given historically accurate models and performance, is a pretty good ideal to stick to.

 

The players should decide if one side is going to be massively outproduced, in the form of strategic bombing, (and perhaps later, via naval blockade, or even U-boat blockade, who knows).  We all know that modeling everything just isn't feasible.  Picking a good representation, and adjusting numbers so as not to screw up the game in later tiers, is the best we can hope for.

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Capco said:

Making a fair game where both sides have an equal chance of winning doesn't have a counterbalance.  There's nothing worth sacrificing it for.  

 

You at CRS are following that exact policy at this very moment with the extra Tigers and semi autos.  If we had historical numbers we wouldn't have a game.  You decided that it's more important for the Axis to be competitive than to be modeled accurately.  (I completely understand the rationale about the extra Tigers basically standing in as infantry support vehicles, but I strongly disagree with where that line has been drawn.  Hopefully the introduction of the Panzer IIIL will get rid of this mess.)

 

If at any point you have started to sacrifice game balance for completely superficial things like historical accuracy, you've gone down the wrong path.  This is a game first and foremost.  

 

Nothing trumps balance and fairness.  Nothing.  

I think you will see an adjustment this campaign with numbers.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎08‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 1:53 PM, BLKHWK8 said:

There are a huge list of things that need to be done. For example fixing the prone issue would require coding, animations and sound effects to change. The changes xoom is proposing are more like levers that the values can be changed rather quickly and adjusted.

 

So it is a partial fix, which will be viewed by one side as reducing the effectiveness of "their" LMG, but with out improving the flaws . Moving and shooting LMGs should be removed/fixed, but you have to implement the "improvements" at the same time, otherwise all that you are doing is removing an ahistorical bonus, and not providing any of the historical advantages. 

 

As to supply numbers, the reduced supply is beginning to grow on me, that said not being able to spawn an smg, and seeing plenty in red reserved supply is very frustrating. Many comments of cancel your full subscription and just get a DLC SMG.  Attrition has returned. 

How long does it take to resupply an item to the spawn list, presuming optimum RDP etc?

 

S! Ian 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Kilemall said:

That's why I always say the spawnlists should 'feel' historical without being historical.

+1 S!

 

Share this post


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

Making a fair game where both sides have an equal chance of winning doesn't have a counterbalance.  There's nothing worth sacrificing it for.  

 

You at CRS are following that exact policy at this very moment with the extra Tigers and semi autos.  If we had historical numbers we wouldn't have a game.  You decided that it's more important for the Axis to be competitive than to be modeled accurately.  (I completely understand the rationale about the extra Tigers basically standing in as infantry support vehicles, but I strongly disagree with where that line has been drawn.  Hopefully the introduction of the Panzer IIIL will get rid of this mess.)

 

If at any point you have started to sacrifice game balance for completely superficial things like historical accuracy, you've gone down the wrong path.  This is a game first and foremost.  

 

Nothing trumps balance and fairness.  Nothing.  

Yet those imbalances exist on both sides. Due to the capture mechanisms defining the use of very tiny airspace and nearly infinite supply which negates boom and zoom tactics the Axis have had an inability to control airspace directly above towns. The effect has been that the CAS support squads disappeared a long time ago and most of the fighter pilots quit. Sorties at times are 3 to 1 or even 4 to 1 in favor of the Allies. The Axis effectively lost an entire branch of their forces. The only solace was CRS incompetence in the form of HE modeling that allowed air to have a lesser effect. That situation has gone on for over decade. Far longer than the Tiger problem with balance. Yet you don’t seem to mention that issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, minky said:

Yet those imbalances exist on both sides. Due to the capture mechanisms defining the use of very tiny airspace and nearly infinite supply which negates boom and zoom tactics the Axis have had an inability to control airspace directly above towns. The effect has been that the CAS support squads disappeared a long time ago and most of the fighter pilots quit. Sorties at times are 3 to 1 or even 4 to 1 in favor of the Allies. The Axis effectively lost an entire branch of their forces. The only solace was CRS incompetence in the form of HE modeling that allowed air to have a lesser effect. That situation has gone on for over decade. Far longer than the Tiger problem with balance. Yet you don’t seem to mention that issue. 

The rest of your critique may be valid, but the supply one I don't buy. 

 

Having been in a former game life a long term serving officer that spent months at a time on the air logistics issues and often did the rotations when air officers weren't around, I can tell you the Allied supply was not infinite and never was.  Keep in mind that something like 70-80% of the Allied pilots prefer RAF rides, so the RAF brigades bleed out FAST and they DON'T go fly French when they are out Britside, they log.

The DB-7s are preferred for those in the know because of the more powerful bombs but some like the Havoc I guess because of the RAF branding, so the issue is less with those.

But for fighters, Allied supply is effectively HALF that of Axis.  If you see some French top rides after RAF is depleted, that's because a few French pilots showed up and no one has used them.

Luftwaffe should NEVER run out of planes given the total situation.  Heh, I think the new brigade thing is going to hurt the Allies because the RAF on tap/on demand won't be available, but I think the Axis is going to discover new levels of supply pain not experienced before.

 

The lack of turn fighters may well be a fun factor issue to be addressed,   But supply hasn't been.  Does have to be carefully handled with the new town thing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

The rest of your critique may be valid, but the supply one I don't buy. 

 

Having been in a former game life a long term serving officer that spent months at a time on the air logistics issues and often did the rotations when air officers weren't around, I can tell you the Allied supply was not infinite and never was.  Keep in mind that something like 70-80% of the Allied pilots prefer RAF rides, so the RAF brigades bleed out FAST and they DON'T go fly French when they are out Britside, they log.

The DB-7s are preferred for those in the know because of the more powerful bombs but some like the Havoc I guess because of the RAF branding, so the issue is less with those.

But for fighters, Allied supply is effectively HALF that of Axis.  If you see some French top rides after RAF is depleted, that's because a few French pilots showed up and no one has used them.

Luftwaffe should NEVER run out of planes given the total situation.  Heh, I think the new brigade thing is going to hurt the Allies because the RAF on tap/on demand won't be available, but I think the Axis is going to discover new levels of supply pain not experienced before.

 

The lack of turn fighters may well be a fun factor issue to be addressed,   But supply hasn't been.  Does have to be carefully handled with the new town thing.

I beg to differ. There are two ways to gain air superiority in WWIIOL. Deplete supply or win the airspace over town. The Axis has only ever had one option. Boom and zoom to deplete supply. TOEs effectively ended that option. You see the results in player numbers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that we see significantly reduced air supply for 1.36 with more realistic squadron/wing numbers and composition. I agree that air supply is almost impossible to meaningfully attrition with TOE.  

Share this post


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

I hope that we see significantly reduced air supply for 1.36 with more realistic squadron/wing numbers and composition. I agree that air supply is almost impossible to meaningfully attrition with TOE.  

I believe in the first release the Air flags will be movable (I will double check) and not available at every airfield. @XOOM might be able to shed light, but also might be a topic to start in the 1.36 Forum

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** I agree that air supply is almost impossible to meaningfully attrition

Let me correct that for you, it IS impossible.

 

*** first release the Air flags will be movable

Absolutely terrible if true.  What about navy then?

 

Everything in supply with a motor should be cut in half imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.