• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Crs Wants You!   01/18/2019

      CRS is looking for some volunteer live support chat staff.  Are you up for the assignment?  If so,  please send an email with your interest to,  Jobs@corneredrats.com
Mosizlak

Reducing auto supply...

124 posts in this topic

9 hours ago, BLKHWK8 said:

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

Last time I spoke with chaos, he alluded to the air supply being town-based (although I did voice my concerns about that).   That was a while ago.  

Share this post


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

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

Let me correct that for you, it IS impossible.

That may be true now with pop vs. current lists.  But I don't guess, I KNOW that for years I had to juggle air constantly, move forward whatever half supply brigades were left to keep em flying.  But again, RAF, FAF, and you don't GET IT or have lived it.

Share this post


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

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. 

Differ all you like.  I KNOW the RAF brigades emptied out and I could watch the pilots leave and the yellow, then red squares form.

The specific circumstance of X campaigns you allude to may be different, but the general rule of thumb was RAF supply was always on the knife edge of disaster.  Saying 'oh look there's a bunch of P38s' to an RAF guy means NOTHING.

 

Now if you mean kill supply within three hours of normal playtime like a single forward AF could be depleted, that's true.  But RAF supply definitely was measured in hours, and only the breathing space TZ3 afforded to restock tickets prevented a general failure of supply 24/7.

 

And air superiority/supremacy is not necessary.  Air denial or contested is good enough to disrupt CAS ops.

 

Nowadays I'll grant there is likely fewer pilots and more importantly fewer Axis pilots so the planes the Allies do fly aren't lost at the same rate.  That's different from asserting attrition wasn't possible with ToEs, which is absurdly false.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are entire threads in the AHC forums devoted to the topic of air power and air supply, whether it be managing our own or figuring out the RDP impact on the attrition of LW air brigades.  

 

I came up through the ranks in AHC as an air officer doing exactly that for the Allies.  I know first hand about the difficulties in managing the flyboys and their flytoys.  

 

The two things that killed the air game were the fishbowl effect and the addition/tweaking of AWS.  This is the first time I've heard the notion that the Allies killed the air game.  

Edited by Capco
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Last time I spoke with chaos, he alluded to the air supply being town-based (although I did voice my concerns about that).   That was a while ago.  

Ok I just got clarification that air and naval will be town based Garrison supply. There will also be one movable air flag and naval flag for each side. 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the RAF-only people are drama queens.

seriously, they get prissy when a spit variant is gone while the LW flew bugged flight models and the FAF fought 3:1.

 

screw their attitudes, tell em they have FAF supply.

Share this post


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

This is the first time I've heard the notion that the Allies killed the air game.

man, they (RAF-only) suck as teammates... they suck soo hard they refused to play with the LW when a top tier spit is gone. their attitude more than a lack of LW to fight make the air war boring.

 

me and a fellow squaddie made up the entire allied air force a few times, the RAF guys refused to lift vs E4's unless they had tier 2 spits...

i'm pure paternal curt with them. they deserve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of past experience, with current numbers, air flag attrition is nearly impossible to do in a meaningful way. If the air "garrisons" are structured realistically and with more or less accurate squadron numbers this might improve with 1.36. It should be entirely possible for one side to win air control over the battlefield by winning the fight, at least until reinforcements are flown in. On the topic of unit structures, I'd like to see fighter and bomber squadrons separate as far as flags go (no fighters in a bomber unit and likewise for bombers in a fighter unit). With 1.36 thought that might not be possible, save for the single mobile flag. Still, we could simulate each AF having a single fighter and bomber squadron each of whatever side currently owns it.     

Share this post


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

Regardless of past experience, with current numbers, air flag attrition is nearly impossible to do in a meaningful way. If the air "garrisons" are structured realistically and with more or less accurate squadron numbers this might improve with 1.36. It should be entirely possible for one side to win air control over the battlefield by winning the fight, at least until reinforcements are flown in. On the topic of unit structures, I'd like to see fighter and bomber squadrons separate as far as flags go (no fighters in a bomber unit and likewise for bombers in a fighter unit). With 1.36 thought that might not be possible, save for the single mobile flag. Still, we could simulate each AF having a single fighter and bomber squadron each of whatever side currently owns it.     

Just note that this is a double-edged sword with the lack of movable reserve supply.  

 

When ground supply is gone in one brigade or town, there's always another one to move on to for the next battle.  

 

When air supply is gone in a given sector, it's completely gone for the 12+ hours (or whatever the base resupply timer is currently at)... in that entire sector

 

That means if I'm a pilot, and all of the AOs are in the depleted sector, I basically don't have a game to play until the factories start replenishing those airfields 12 hours from now or until the AOs leave the depleted area.  

 

You can say "yeah well you can just fly from a different sector," but that's the air-equivalent of telling someone on the ground to attack a town without owning the FBs.  If that was your only option, you probably wouldn't stay logged on very long.  

 

The same is true for pilots. 

 

EDIT:  The movable air flag will help alleviate this somewhat, although there should probably be 2.  I'm not sure what nationality it will be represented as for the Allies if there is only 1.  

Edited by Capco
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Just note that this is a double-edged sword with the lack of movable reserve supply.  

 

When ground supply is gone in one brigade or town, there's always another one to move on to for the next battle.  

 

When air supply is gone in a given sector, it's completely gone for the 12+ hours (or whatever the base resupply timer is currently at)... in that entire sector

 

That means if I'm a pilot, and all of the AOs are in the depleted sector, I basically don't have a game to play until the factories start replenishing those airfields 12 hours from now or until the AOs leave the depleted area.  

 

You can say "yeah well you can just fly from a different sector," but that's the air-equivalent of telling someone on the ground to attack a town without owning the FBs.  If that was your only option, you probably wouldn't stay logged on very long.  

 

The same is true for pilots. 

 

EDIT:  The movable air flag will help alleviate this somewhat, although there should probably be 2.  I'm not sure what nationality it will be represented as for the Allies if there is only 1.  

I fly Allied and I have no problem flying in support from different sectors if required. Not all pilots have a problem with flying 10/15 min to get to a target. We have a half-scale map, it really doesn't take very long to get anywhere. I know that some pilots are all about the short-range furballs but its far from being everyone. 

Share this post


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

EDIT:  The movable air flag will help alleviate this somewhat, although there should probably be 2.  I'm not sure what nationality it will be represented as for the Allies if there is only 1.  

I am not quite sure how they will do that.
Maybe 1 small HQ with 1 small BDE attached for brit and same for french due to split factions
And either same for axis, or a single larger one for axis, though doing it the same as allies will make it easier later
when you have to figure out the same thing for the italian air force?

Though i think we would normally have enough AF's, until the map swings deep one way or the other, to be able to run resupply missions
which are also great n00b pilot training.
I remember having those back in the day, with a vet pilot leading and teaching some maneuvers while enroute
 

Share this post


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

 

 

The two things that killed the air game were the fishbowl effect and the addition/tweaking of AWS.  This is the first time I've heard the notion that the Allies killed the air game.  

Revisionist history at it's finest, Cap. :(

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, major0noob said:

the RAF-only people are drama queens.

seriously, they get prissy when a spit variant is gone while the LW flew bugged flight models and the FAF fought 3:1.

 

screw their attitudes, tell em they have FAF supply.

Ok, we'll see how sanguine you are if we get Italian fighters, which should be better turn fighters, and then you get 190 guys squawking about their rides being cut in half, or Italian guys not happy their stuff runs out.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, major0noob said:

the RAF-only people are drama queens.

seriously, they get prissy when a spit variant is gone while the LW flew bugged flight models and the FAF fought 3:1.

 

screw their attitudes, tell em they have FAF supply.

Screw their attitudes, FMS guys can drive trucks.

 

How does that grab you?

Share this post


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

Differ all you like.  I KNOW the RAF brigades emptied out and I could watch the pilots leave and the yellow, then red squares form.

The specific circumstance of X campaigns you allude to may be different, but the general rule of thumb was RAF supply was always on the knife edge of disaster.  Saying 'oh look there's a bunch of P38s' to an RAF guy means NOTHING.

 

Now if you mean kill supply within three hours of normal playtime like a single forward AF could be depleted, that's true.  But RAF supply definitely was measured in hours, and only the breathing space TZ3 afforded to restock tickets prevented a general failure of supply 24/7.

 

And air superiority/supremacy is not necessary.  Air denial or contested is good enough to disrupt CAS ops.

 

Nowadays I'll grant there is likely fewer pilots and more importantly fewer Axis pilots so the planes the Allies do fly aren't lost at the same rate.  That's different from asserting attrition wasn't possible with ToEs, which is absurdly false.

It doesn’t much matter does it? I and others like me won’t touch this again at all until the LW can compete in a meaningful way to contest the airspace right above AOs. That means a fighter that can turn and provide real support for CAS pilots. The LW is dead.  It’s  Mingus and a couple other guys now and then.

At this point it’s the Axis equivalent of the Tiger imbalance except it’s at year 14.  I keep my eye out here but I don’t hold out too much hope for a fix. It’s far more palatable when I’m not spending money on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, minky said:

It doesn’t much matter does it? I and others like me won’t touch this again at all until the LW can compete in a meaningful way to contest the airspace right above AOs. That means a fighter that can turn and provide real support for CAS pilots. The LW is dead.  It’s  Mingus and a couple other guys now and then.

At this point it’s the Axis equivalent of the Tiger imbalance except it’s at year 14.  I keep my eye out here but I don’t hold out too much hope for a fix. It’s far more palatable when I’m not spending money on it. 

So what is the fix?

Italian fighters should be more maneuverable, but likely will have E problems against advanced Spits.

Fantasy planes?

262s?

RAF can run out of planes in an hour?

I can tell you from years of personally experienced beatings, those BnZ tactics could clear out a lot- it's just a time pressure problem setting up to get the E for another pass, which greatly effects truck/FMS placement as it just takes a quick strafe spritzing to end a setup threat.  AA trucks haven't seemed to solve it.

 

Here is another thing to consider- the game values change greatly with who is playing.

The Tiger in the hands of DM79, Tormented and others of their caliber is a whole different beastie then average Tiger guy.

Large numbers of 109/190 guys can sweep the skies and lead Allied pilots playing to decide the Axis is overpowered.

PzIIIs, sad as they are in general, are a whole different animal when there are enough infantry supporting to prevent sapping or AT gunning.

 

If you allow enough player agency to use spawnlists as a toolkit and not an historical reenactment, inevitably players will use them in optimized min/max fashion that will defy simple point value mechanisms and analysis.  Have enough to mix and match the right scissors/rock/paper, and you can crush less numerous/organized foes. 

 

But allowing that to happen as a design also means that the players have to allow for the possibility that they may lose, or not have the best stuff on hand to fight with.   Which I don't think would be a problem if it were a variable event, but pop/org patterns can persist over weeks or months and alter any gameplay/list alteration the Rats can reasonably set for all TZs and situations to where even long time players don't come back like you mention.

 

The key then is that you analyze by combat role within the intended combat biome/gameplay experience in attacking and defending and make sure all roles are covered.

 

Now if players don't do them, well you make sure it's reasonable effort for reward.  If its cultural then you have to consider that, even as maybe you don't entirely cater to everything that side 'likes'.

 

I can think of a simple fix to the CAS question- pilots don't see map marks, unless they are from a specialized only 2-5 Forward Observers.  Ground units see marks and can text/voice pilots, FOs get special colored smoke canisters and map marks- or the smoke canisters cause a map mark to go up.  FO should likely also have a rangefinder.

 

Fixes a LOT, and doesn't involve questionable modeling decisions.

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


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

So what is the fix?

Italian fighters should be more maneuverable, but likely will have E problems against advanced Spits.

Fantasy planes?

262s?

RAF can run out of planes in an hour?

I can tell you from years of personally experienced beatings, those BnZ tactics could clear out a lot- it's just a time pressure problem setting up to get the E for another pass, which greatly effects truck/FMS placement as it just takes a quick strafe spritzing to end a setup threat.  AA trucks haven't seemed to solve it.

 

Here is another thing to consider- the game values change greatly with who is playing.

The Tiger in the hands of DM79, Tormented and others of their caliber is a whole different beastie then average Tiger guy.

Large numbers of 109/190 guys can sweep the skies and lead Allied pilots playing to decide the Axis is overpowered.

PzIIIs, sad as they are in general, are a whole different animal when there are enough infantry supporting to prevent sapping or AT gunning.

 

If you allow enough player agency to use spawnlists as a toolkit and not an historical reenactment, inevitably players will use them in optimized min/max fashion that will defy simple point value mechanisms and analysis.  Have enough to mix and match the right scissors/rock/paper, and you can crush less numerous/organized foes. 

 

But allowing that to happen as a design also means that the players have to allow for the possibility that they may lose, or not have the best stuff on hand to fight with.   Which I don't think would be a problem if it were a variable event, but pop/org patterns can persist over weeks or months and alter any gameplay/list alteration the Rats can reasonably set for all TZs and situations to where even long time players don't come back like you mention.

 

The key then is that you analyze by combat role within the intended combat biome/gameplay experience in attacking and defending and make sure all roles are covered.

 

Now if players don't do them, well you make sure it's reasonable effort for reward.  If its cultural then you have to consider that, even as maybe you don't entirely cater to everything that side 'likes'.

 

I can think of a simple fix to the CAS question- pilots don't see map marks, unless they are from a specialized only 2-5 Forward Observers.  Everything else has to be marked, and FOs get special colored smoke canisters.

 

Fixes a LOT, and doesn't involve questionable modeling decisions.

 

We time warp units forward in time for the sake of a playable game. We introduce units  later in time for the sake of a playable game. We pretend friendly fire never existed for the sake of a playable game. We have entire divisions that move via Star Trek transporters instead on roads that I’m told facilities gameplay.  We want to alter the cone of fire to two different states on the same weapon for the sake of a playable game. Yet correcting one of the largest imbalances in gameplay?  Babble babble babble lets keep doing the same thing and keep expecting a different result. Insanity. 

Luckily I don’t have to pay for it. 

Share this post


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

 

We time warp units forward in time for the sake of a playable game. We introduce units  later in time for the sake of a playable game. We pretend friendly fire never existed for the sake of a playable game. We have entire divisions that move via Star Trek transporters instead on roads that I’m told facilities gameplay.  We want to alter the cone of fire to two different states on the same weapon for the sake of a playable game. Yet correcting one of the largest imbalances in gameplay?  Babble babble babble lets keep doing the same thing and keep expecting a different result. Insanity. 

Luckily I don’t have to pay for it. 

Not overly helpful. Many of those things are trying to be fixed as well. I'm trying to argue for limited supply so that either side can control the airspace given enough effort. LW rides are not the problem, I've lost my wing enough times to know that. Zippy I owe you a dogfight if you are reading this. 

Share this post


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

Not overly helpful. Many of those things are trying to be fixed as well. I'm trying to argue for limited supply so that either side can control the airspace given enough effort. LW rides are not the problem, I've lost my wing enough times to know that. Zippy I owe you a dogfight if you are reading this. 

Eh you are arguing with saronin, you cant win, if you win he will just change his position, therefore making it so you cant win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the addition of AWS, the primary way the Axis would gain air superiority was BARCAP (Barrier Combat Air Patrol) and Vulchcap (4lyfe).  The best way to shoot down a plane that can out-turn you is simply to not allow it to start turning.  This isn't rocket science.  

 

Again, it was not the Allies that killed the air game.  It was AWS (a BnZer's worst enemy) and the fishbowl effect (which everyone hated regardless of side but again also disproportionately affected BnZ by limiting visual distance).  

 

Please stop trying to pin this on the playerbase.  

Share this post


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

Please stop trying to pin this on the playerbase.  

i was talking about the current state, there's a significant portion of allies refusing to fly without tier 2 spits.

it's common knowledge they won't even lift in tier 0.

they flat out refuse to fly FAF...

 

 

their refusal to play takes a lot of excitement out of the air game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, major0noob said:

i was talking about the current state, there's a significant portion of allies refusing to fly without tier 2 spits.

it's common knowledge they won't even lift in tier 0.

they flat out refuse to fly FAF...

 

 

their refusal to play takes a lot of excitement out of the air game.

Word.  I don't disagree.  

 

It was aimed at minky's assertion about the past, not you bud.  

Share this post


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

 

We time warp units forward in time for the sake of a playable game. We introduce units  later in time for the sake of a playable game. We pretend friendly fire never existed for the sake of a playable game. We have entire divisions that move via Star Trek transporters instead on roads that I’m told facilities gameplay.  We want to alter the cone of fire to two different states on the same weapon for the sake of a playable game. Yet correcting one of the largest imbalances in gameplay?  Babble babble babble lets keep doing the same thing and keep expecting a different result. Insanity. 

Luckily I don’t have to pay for it. 

Ok, again- what is your solution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the main topics of conversation haven't changed a great deal since I have been away! :D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, fearny said:

I see the main topics of conversation haven't changed a great deal since I have been away! :D

:) Yup

Hey what about (yes "whataboutery" going on here)

DLC for tanks (extra tanks that is or planes even) ...pay some more...play some more ;)

Perhaps a 20 per map or per month thingie...

No better equipment...but a guarantee you can spawn at least X a few more times for Y timeframe.

Ok...only half joking on this. Who knows... lol

or

DLC rebuild factories.  You pay X for the factories to be rebuilt asap...so you get more materiel indirectly. ;)

Ok...only half joking on that as well. 

At the end of the day...or week...or whatever... People have only so much time to play.

Personally I am less concerned about NOT having something in supply...I just work around it or go to another unit, ground or air etc....

I think imbalance can be balanced through good squad play. That's half the fun. You and your squaddies against the odds.

All alone, on the other hand can suck quite badly.

S!

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.