Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

Mosizlak

Reducing auto supply...

Recommended Posts

delems

***  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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mosizlak
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. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
atgman

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
Capco
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.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BLKHWK8
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
Kilemall

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capco
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.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Augetout
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
BLKHWK8
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ian77
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 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ian77
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
minky
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
Kilemall
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minky
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
raptor34

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
BLKHWK8
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

*** 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
Capco
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
Kilemall
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
Kilemall
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capco

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
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BLKHWK8
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. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob

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
major0noob
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
raptor34

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...