• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
OHM

Tier changes and other stuff

231 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, stankyus said:

Yes the majority of the BEF grenadier ACES where in the blackhand.  MOZ made the HEAT grenadier look like childs play.. the squidrd of grenadiers.  For every shot I put on target I got 1 out of ten produce a kill.. excluding the 232 which was more like 1 out of 30.  I was able to track tanks which I often resorted to doing, but that was before they beefed up the track threshold.  I blame Moz for it getting removed.

Should have just used the thing like a sapper. Point blank and kill nearly every time. 

Share this post


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

The same could be said of the pak 38 in tier 0. The first delivery to German units was actually in 1940 but they didn’t see combat until April of 1941 on the Russian front because France had been defeated. The lull in combat was the reason for their later debut. 

Unless of course we are now doing “half tiers” which would mean CRS has lined it all up pretty well. 

IIRC the Pak38 delivery was late 40, possibly early 41, lots of tubes few carriages. Like wise the Pak40 that was put on Pak38 carriages IIRC - could have been the French 75 carriage for a earlier entrance..  The 17pdr pheasant for earlier Introduction which historically speaking was the only version to actually use the current ingame 17pdr ammo in anger.  The APC ammo which is historically incorrect for the version we have in game.  The 17pdr we have in the game used the most common of all - APCBC round. Not the rare APC round.  I don't know how many short 6pdr actually where fielded if they ever where. I think if we get half tiers a very good portion of the ATGs warrant possible earlier entrance. Of course we still are missing the French 75 HAA and Field gun and the CZ47 mm.

Share this post


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

IIRC the Pak38 delivery was late 40, possibly early 41, lots of tubes few carriages. Like wise the Pak40 that was put on Pak38 carriages IIRC - could have been the French 75 carriage for a earlier entrance..  The 17pdr pheasant for earlier Introduction which historically speaking was the only version to actually use the current ingame 17pdr ammo in anger.  The APC ammo which is historically incorrect for the version we have in game.  The 17pdr we have in the game used the most common of all - APCBC round. Not the rare APC round.  I don't know how many short 6pdr actually where fielded if they ever where. I think if we get half tiers a very good portion of the ATGs warrant possible earlier entrance. Of course we still are missing the French 75 HAA and Field gun and the CZ47 mm.

its an interesting problem. combat date for the pak38 is early 41 with Barbarossa. Whether or not they were ready earlier doesn't really matter as they weren't used until then seeing as that English channel prevented any interesting exchanges of fire by ground forces. so do we use production dates? delivery dates? or actual in combat dates?

Share this post


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

Should have just used the thing like a sapper. Point blank and kill nearly every time. 

Most my kills where very close, ranges I should have died but didn't.  That being said, sans not getting killed to the close in shots - there was nothing wrong with getting the kill. If I had a sapper, I could have sapped it.. or if molitov cocktails existed etc, or swarming the tank and dropping in a grenade..   Moz was making shots from 30m and killing tanks on the move interdicting tanks headed to town.

Share this post


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

its an interesting problem. combat date for the pak38 is early 41 with Barbarossa. Whether or not they were ready earlier doesn't really matter as they weren't used until then seeing as that English channel prevented any interesting exchanges of fire by ground forces. so do we use production dates? delivery dates? or actual in combat dates?

I think they are all relative depending on if the choice brings about gap in balance.. I tend to lean toward delivery dates as a baseline because you can fudge a bit depending on balance issues with excuse.. IE it enters ealier due to production for balance or the later combat date for if it upsets balance.  ( Warp items ( combat dates ( delivery dates ( production dates ) ...  ) ...  ) ...  ) AND possibly cases where there is no.. IE did the Italian forces have Panther Tanks in their ranks or where they supplemental German forces? I think gamewise when the M36 and Firefly enter the Italians have nothing close to counter them that I know of..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that CRS is cherry picking the "historical" entry dates is a bit rich when the game revolves around the french NOT  being routed in the Battle of France.

The initial implementation smacks of decisions made by like minded guys with noone pointing out the game play issues.  Axis wants 3Hs, allies get rifle grenadiers (across brits & french). History has been warped because of our starting campaign lines, but the devs have implemented historical dates that don't take this into account. Char2bs anyone?

 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

and weren't they like less than 10 ppl in the history of the game that were really effective with it - half of them in blackhand?

I was, took out 2 IIIGs in one mission.  But it definitely is a specialists' weapon and requires pretty close range to use.

Share this post


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

This is where your analysis blows way off course.  The hatred of TOEs had nothing to do with the variability they provided.  It was the poor implementation and unrealistic nature of brigade movement that was the problem.  Sure camps happened before TOEs.  They also happened post TOEs.  What irritated people was TOEs effect on tactical gameplay.  Squad leaders could come up with a great tactical plan, execute it perfectly, battle over a town for 3+ hours, get the town surrounded, and then have the whole thing ruined by some noob pushing a single button with one hand while eating a Cheeto with the other hand having never actually spawned into the game world.  The unrealistic warping of entire divisions with no physical manifestation of movement in the game world didn't provide variability.  Rather it provided the most laughable unrealistic gameplay mechanic that managed to drive the good tactical leaders from the game.  The real world equivalent would be Patton's 3rd Army suddenly popping up in the middle of Bastogne instead of actually having to move across country and fight from outside in for a rescue of the 101st Airborne.   Unfortunately a first person shooter MMO that simulates warfare needs tactical leaders for game play.  Even now, look at what @XOOM complains about the most, players not stepping up to create that "WWIIOL Moment".  The players that used to create those moments were driven from the game for the most part.  Their efforts were constantly stymied by the button pushing Cheeto eating noob that couldn't otherwise couldn't manage a over .3 K/D in the game world if they wanted to.  Many of these folks couldn't figure out tactical gameplay and loved the flag movement because it actually gave them a purpose in game other then being a continuous pop up target for the rest of us.  

Had TOEs been implemented differently, they wouldn't have been a problem.  Had we instead frozen brigade movement into a town that was AO'ed and opened up the back line connected FBs for reinforcement purposes we would have had better dynamic because rescue forces would actually have to move to the fight in the game world.  Even the MS, UMS, FRU, and FMS as gamey as they are were a better designed dynamic.  At least they had a physical thing in the game world that could players could engage to stop.  Some would say they are stopped too easily.  Ask @major0noob, he will tell you all about it.  

As for the current CRS approach, it sounds like they are moving to historical introduction dates.  It's an approach I can respect, even if I don't like it.  It leaves players to deal with the actual historical disadvantages faced during the war for both sides.  Fair enough.  Before the approach the was to move things around for an assist for one side in some areas while leaving the other side to languish in other areas because of "historical accuracy".  The approach was inconsistent and quite frankly unfair.  At least now CRS has a leg to stand on given that they can point to a solid historical reason for decisions.  

The bulk of my analysis in that post was about spawnlists, of which camping is a subset and expected end point in whatever iteration of the game we have, as long as the game revolves around capture of nodal spawn castles.  So, to me a side issue of the main one re: the spawnlist build principles.

 

But I'll play ball.

 

Any of these WWIIOL design things have a LOT of interconnected layers to them, and the one I was opining was about variability NOT being desirable to the campers.

The rescue function of ToE brigades was indeed an aspect of that variability, and one that was manageable if the Rats had consistently run shorter lists that could be emptied faster or trickled slower.  Plenty of that in the Barracks and no need to rehash, other then to say to me that variability was desirable and the edges taken off, and it's not realistic to expect an underpop force to have a chance at break through for a rescue.  A locked brigade move mechanic however was right out, independent of the no defense hope, again proposed for Pearl Harbor play, that would do all sorts of bad things with locking up front movement with AOs.  Detestable. 

To me rescue was a minor aspect of ToE variability that had a much larger value- more brigade types, different countries, differing supply states and numbers of ToEs already there or moved in/out combined with the inherent variability of the nodes themselves made for a constant change.  A small town might be a speed bump brushed aside with a softcap one time and and a huge Armageddon the next.

I did propose an open FB mechanic, which sort of happens with the old AB bounce/FB open, but not the same.

But a moot point, we're getting 3/4 of the old game and no real improved HC tools, celebrate the change back to a 90% tactical kampengame.  Yay.

 

So bottom line, we disagree, and not looking to reopen the whole ToE thing, we can do that in another thread if you like, I'm concentrating mostly on spawnlist build and opportunity under the new system.

 

Edited by Kilemall
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are intro dates by available for inventory, deployed with units, or first combat use?

Share this post


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

The fact that CRS is cherry picking the "historical" entry dates is a bit rich when the game revolves around the french NOT  being routed in the Battle of France.

The initial implementation smacks of decisions made by like minded guys with noone pointing out the game play issues.  Axis wants 3Hs, allies get rifle grenadiers (across brits & french). History has been warped because of our starting campaign lines, but the devs have implemented historical dates that don't take this into account. Char2bs anyone?

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

Are intro dates by available for inventory, deployed with units, or first combat use?

Thus far we’ve stuck to first organized combat use. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

Er, don't you guys see a slight problem with that?

To start the ball rolling, when was the first French combat use of the Stuart, Sherman, M10, and towed 3 inch?

Also, it's been argued that French forces must have used some of the Brandt HEAT RGs in inventory before the Armistice, but there apparently is no evidence of that. There is evidence that they were used by the Resistance, and then by French forces during liberation...but that's much later, not 1940.

Share this post


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

To start the ball rolling, when was the first French combat use of the Stuart, Sherman, M10, and towed 3 inch?

D Day probably, minus the stuart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the French is one of many concessions we have to make in order to have a game at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Bmbm said:

Well the French is one of many concessions we have to make in order to have a game at all. 

I should say D Day because of a reason.
France lost, they surrendered.

D Day was when the free French reformed army would finally return, with lots of friends.

Beyond the point of capitulation, there is only a small bit of plausible advance in technology, the rest is speculative.

Though if france does not fall and yet germany remains as embeded into france and Belgium and the Netherlands, as they do in game, 
R&D and Production in country is going to be hampered and probably would not have been able to advance well anyways, in which case
they will need to purchase from outside.
 

Share this post


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

Well the French is one of many concessions we have to make in order to have a game at all. 

That's really the point everyone is trying to make.  You have to make concessions when it comes to historical accuracy or else you don't have a fair and balanced game.  That's why we had triads.  That's why the French get American equipment they never had in 1941.  That's why the Tiger is (was?) T3 and not T2.  I assume that's why the Axis get fantasy HEAT rounds and the Allies get fantasy satchels.  

 

Hence why everyone is in a hubbub about these changes.  I've already said it before but I'll say it again:  

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.

Edited by Capco
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trick is to make the right, and balanced, concessions. Triads become less important the more kit we introduce, as will halftiers. Not so in the olden days (eg flak30 debacle). Certain other imbalances will persist longer, such as the artillery deficit. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so we're going to move the 109F4 down to tier 1 or are we going to leave it in tier 2 and increase it's power to the proper 1350hp for tier2? Production, delivery, and combat for the 109F4 was mid 41, full power cleared Feb/42 .The 109G6/U4 we have is a complete fantasy for tier3 as the 30mm was likely limited to field test scenarios/numbers. What about the 190A4? That is a tier2 plane by all accounts - meaning production, delivery, and combat dates are all 1942. If you want a tier 3 190 that's the A5 or A6 (A6 has more reuse potential).

How about the HE-111H2? No longer produced or delivered in 1940, the H3 was contemporary and rolling off the lines in 1940.

 

the appeal to authority you're trying to do here with " The trick is to make the right, and balanced, concessions." slow your roll yoda - you're a player no different than us. we've all been here just as long or longer than you and we're all sighing heavily right now as "here we go again down stupid decision lane". meaning, just because you're a volunteer on the 'other side' doesn't magically mean we all forgot the previous 18 years where many good and bad decisions were made relative to equipment and tiers. any back pedal of any kind on time-warps for balance sake will be a critical error and greatly limit any thoughts of co-belligerent axis forces.

 

it has to be done or you've got an existing tier set that doesn't make much sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To counter, I believe BMBM and CRS are on the right track here. WITH the introduction of half-tiers (though I fully support working with what we have now until its updated) CRS will have the ability to model the technological arms race that made up much of the war. With half-tiers they gain a lot of flexibility to model these temporary "imbalances" better, though calling them "imbalances" is incorrect, it is modelling more accurate TOEs for the time period in question as part of a history based wargame. 

On point see brought up almost constantly is the issue of France. In our game France may, or may not, fall. Without going into a detailed discussion of that topic, it was entirely possible for France to have held its ground in 1940 and to carry the war into 1941 onwards. What I think we need to ask ourselves is what assumptions are we going to make about that outcome regarding the French TOE? It is easy to assume that US aid would have extended to the French along the same lines as the UK and we can use that data (when the UK received certain pieces of equipment) to help us model how France should develop its TOE.

In short, history (and likely history outcome alt-history) can be the only arbiter of the question of more realistic TOE. Otherwise, we are just moving things about randomly to address this balance point or that. 

Note: This post was made very quickly to due time issues today. I’d more than support a conversation about how best to model WW2OL, in light of how it starts from a point in history and then diverges over the course of a campaign. I know most of us are passionate about getting it right and recreating the time period to best extent possible. S! 
 

Edited by raptor34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you force gamers to play at gross disadvantage, even for a little while, you're not going to have players log in or only log in when they have the advantage.

 

case in point, t0 allied pilots. where are they all? they seem to show up when tier1 rolls around and they get cannon spits. this is a horrible idea.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understood why they do that. Spit 1 is more than capable even in Tier 3. In T0 and T1 I personally find it to be the best plane on any side for defensive flying which is what I prefer. It is what I mostly fly if I play RAF only for the whole map except some forays into the Spit 9 when I get really outnumbered. 

Share this post


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

you're a player no different than us.

You might want to wait a week or so before submitting your end-of-year review ;)

As for the rest, you’ll just have to wait and see I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.