• 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

8 minutes ago, madrebel said:

The entire time period from mid 40 to dday has to be assumed for the French yet you’re going to limit everyone else to a reality that doesn’t extend to the French?

Or, the French could fight with their own designed-and-manufactured weapons, plus those limited imports for which they actually contracted prior to the historical Armistice...and US forces could show up in small numbers in T2.5 as the primary users of US weapons.

History IMO provides sufficient evidence of what (and when) French armaments would be through T2.

No more Framericans, at least prior to T3. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, madrebel said:

The France issue followed by the Italian issue forces your balancing hand. One day this needs to extend to the other euro co-belligerents as well as Japan. 

 

Lets get back to reality though. No P38 flying under French colors should have a super charger. The entire time period from mid 40 to dday has to be assumed for the French yet you’re going to limit everyone else to a reality that doesn’t extend to the French?

Hmm technically the Free French DID operate the F-5, a recon version of the P-38J.  But I would agree from our previous discussions that the P322 ingame today is a gussied up one that is reasonable to assume would have been done if the French were still in the war and ordering production, but not a model of the original.

Hmm, possibly best to create some Tier 1.5-2 P322 without the superchargers, then just do a straight up P-38F or J for both FAF or American pending something like the P-47D.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jwilly said:

History IMO provides sufficient evidence of what (and when) French armaments would be through T2.

I'm not sure how far we would get through tiers, depends one what one considered sufficient?

S40, Sau40, R40, Char B1 Ter, ARL 39, MAS40
These examples, you can not really argue with much, there is a physical thing to say Yea this ---------->
Things like the poor G1 on the other hand are so mired down in piles of paper and red tape and various different design submissions that i am not sure any of us could even agree on what it would be exactly in final form.

Edited by Merlin51
Why does the forum insist on truncating and breaking sentences?

Share this post


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

S40, Sau40, R40, Char B1 Ter, ARL 39, MAS40
These examples, you can not really argue with much, there is a physical thing to say Yea this ---------->
Things like the poor G1 on the other hand are so mired down in piles of paper and red tape and various different design submissions that i am not sure any of us could even agree on what it would be exactly in final form.

Ultimately the game is what CRS says it is.

The most consistent theme of discussions by both players and CRS about weapon availability and balance, recently and over the years, has been "historical availability".

Any effort to actually implement such a game-design stance, though, is doomed to failure if implemented literally. "Historical availability" inherently amounts to historical re-creation, but the game is designed to deviate from history in its event flow, and "historical availability" often becomes nonsensical in the context of changed historical events and timing.

My view is that CRS's marketing stance should be that the game implements historical availability as it would have been if historical events had been as they occur in-game, consistent with adequately balanced gameplay opportunities for both sides.

That would involve, at different times, CRS determinations regarding historical consequences, gameplay and balance.

So, CRS could determine that in the game's historical flow the G1 is introduced in T2 with a Sherman-equivalent engine/transmission and the long 47mm gun, evolving to the "fortress 75mm" gun for T3 and the Schneider long 75mm for T4; and the PaK 40 75mm-armed Marder II, built like the SdKfz131 version but on the already-modeled PzKpfW II (D) chassis for practicality, is introduced in T2 instead of T2.5 due to the unavailability to Germany in our game-flow of the Russian 76mm cannons and French Lorraine chassis used for historically-first-built Marder models. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Axis' equipment continued to evolve after the blitzkrieg while french Stopped their evolution from 1940. eventually they came back but mostly with lend lease equipment. BEF only continued their fight with their ground equipment in Africa but they continued to engineer new equipment though that probably didn't make the fight before the D-day (I still have to start reading the data books I bought about WWII)

I think we already have a fundamental historical issue since this simulation is about a scenario that considers Belgium remaining the main battleground until 1945. So theoretical engagement dates could have come sooner that they did.

Tier release dates based on first combat is thus an arbitrary choice, but I think the way Scotsman, bmbm and Xoom bring it up offers a good balance as well. It's just one way of doing it

Share this post


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

That is a pretty inaccurate statement IMHO. Nobody here is advocating for a reenactors' fantasy; rather to have vehicles introduced in some semblance of a historical fashion. I find it hard to see how that can be sacrificing the game's fun since this very model served it very well for many years. If anything an ad hoc system where vehicles are introduced without any historical context opens up pandora's box with one side claiming a CRS-biased agenda. A historical-based system makes things more clear and less up for debate because that is what historically happened. There will always be arguments no matter what CRS does, and the historical timeframe system that is balanced out by spawn numbers has its weaknesses too.

But the more clarity that is provided, the better.

what i'm trying to say is this is a video game. the reenactors/realism faction of which CRS is a part of is willing to sacrifice fun at every opportunity, going so far as dismissing fun as bad gameplay.

in this case, a gameplay balanced spawnlist is thrown out to appease the reenactors fantasies.

 

madrebel's one of the few that get this is a video game... you guys don't even register it. people sub to have fun, not to reenact and work.

less fun = less subs, it's this simple. the reenactors and CRS attack fun too much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I can appreciate the idea of historical accuracy and what’s trying to be achieved here but help me understand here....

I’ve been addicted to COD BO4 Blackout on PS4. Blackout, though a battle royale, is still strategic and requires team work instead of shoot em up, resplendent multi player.  I’ve put in hours upon hours upon hours into it. The PC version of BO4 has sky rocketed and I often compare it to WWIIOL. The PC world of BO4 has an insane amount of free advertisement based on world known players like Shroud, DrDisrespect and even Ninja. They aren’t playing a game based on historical accuracy or even for a particular piece of equipment. They play the game because it’s challenging, graphics and fun as hell. Call of duty brought out a ww2 version last release and it did very well but not as well as they projected because it was supposed to appeal to the “ boots on the ground” crowd vs the wall runners and futuristic weaponry etc. Nobody complained about historical accuracy on weapons or one sided fights. I kinda lost where I was going fully with this but surely there is some sort of even middle for everyone in WWIIOL? The rats, though do there best are appealing to a very small group of people in the world when basing this game off pure historical accuracy and historical functionality. If that’s what they want, so be it, but they aren’t going to grow or improve. The tank game is busted and for me that was the main reasons I logged in and did what I did. I dunno.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We’re not going down the reenactment path - strike that thought from your mind. We are responding to years’ worth of suggestions, complaints and comments - one step at a time. This next release will adress some of them, quite a few actually. And there is yet more to come, at a rather higher rate than heretofore. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NDA kicks in. I can say however that it spans every aspect from environment, terrain and vehicles of all sorts to performance, ui and gameplay. Bagfuls of good stuff coming down the pike.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What people seem to miss in this discussion is that the Japanese bomber Pearl Harbor in December of 41. The US immediately declared war on Germany as well. If France had not surrendered and still held ground on the mainland there is no reason to think that US forces and equipment wouldn’t have arrived earlier on the mainland in the form of US divisions. Thus the Sherman should still come into play quickly. 

Share this post


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

Or, the French could fight with their own designed-and-manufactured weapons, plus those limited imports for which they actually contracted prior to the historical Armistice...and US forces could show up in small numbers in T2.5 as the primary users of US weapons.

History IMO provides sufficient evidence of what (and when) French armaments would be through T2.

No more Framericans, at least prior to T3. 

mmhmm and the d523, the 530, the vg33/39 yeah i get it - its still fantasy. which i'm 100% on board with as long as its balanced but it is NOT historical. meaning, you can't go down the MUCH more interesting road with organic french designs while simultaneously forcing the other combatants to stick to history. you're going to have to move things around for the sake of balance.

 

because you have to do this, why even message this change that isn't or can't really be a change when you allow france to survive. its stupid.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

this is all irrelevant - the allied playerbase has SPOKEN - no allied HC on for 5+ hrs Axis capping towns with whole DIVISIONS IN THEM unopposed.

 

::initiate valley girl accent:: That’s like... so C120 and C121 for the Axis. ::valley girl accent off::

Share this post


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

What people seem to miss in this discussion is that the Japanese bomber Pearl Harbor in December of 41. The US immediately declared war on Germany as well. If France had not surrendered and still held ground on the mainland there is no reason to think that US forces and equipment wouldn’t have arrived earlier on the mainland in the form of US divisions. Thus the Sherman should still come into play quickly. 

you're jumping the gun a bit IMO. the US fleet and its capacity to ship stuff in late 40/41 was not stellar. the sheer volume of ships turned out between late 40 and 45 is one of the oft unsung human marvels of production. go look how many ships we built - its staggering.

not only a capacity issue though, the allies hadn't won the battle of the atlantic yet. you can't assume french shores would have been flooded with US boots/equipment as the wolfpacks were feasting. on that note, do we assume blechley cracks enigma in this game? if not, you have to wait for good radar before the atlantic is safe enough to land mass amounts of troops. 

further, if midway never happens and isn't a massive crushing defeat for the japanese ... how much does the US commit to france?

Share this post


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

you're jumping the gun a bit IMO. the US fleet and its capacity to ship stuff in late 40/41 was not stellar. the sheer volume of ships turned out between late 40 and 45 is one of the oft unsung human marvels of production. go look how many ships we built - its staggering.

not only a capacity issue though, the allies hadn't won the battle of the atlantic yet. you can't assume french shores would have been flooded with US boots/equipment as the wolfpacks were feasting. on that note, do we assume blechley cracks enigma in this game? if not, you have to wait for good radar before the atlantic is safe enough to land mass amounts of troops. 

further, if midway never happens and isn't a massive crushing defeat for the japanese ... how much does the US commit to france?

Why do US divisions have to show up in mass?  First an early trickle and then a flood. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

technically no reason. realistically you've got politics. the US would not have risked sending a single division unless they were likely to land safely AND can be resupplied. remember this early in the war the majority of the US population wanted nothing to do with foreign wars. while the japanese had attacked, if you ship over a lot of sons/fathers to fight the germans and get them sunk en-route your ability to galvanize further support for the war in europe is immediately in jeopardy.

none of that particularly relevant for a game, however this is a thread that is heavily discussing history and accuracy. in reality, the US didn't have the capacity nor the will to risk sending their own sons this early to fight the germans in france. especially when US weapon makers were making damn good money just shipping over vehicles.

 

lose a ship full of trucks with only the ships crew going down ... not a big deal. lose a ship full of humans ... very big deal. 

Share this post


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

We’re not going down the reenactment path - strike that thought from your mind. We are responding to years’ worth of suggestions, complaints and comments - one step at a time. This next release will adress some of them, quite a few actually. And there is yet more to come, at a rather higher rate than heretofore. 

 

On 12/16/2018 at 10:52 AM, XOOM said:

It means we are adjusting the introduction dates of equipment to be historically accurate.

page 1... throw balance out in favor of reenacting

your not going down the reenactment path, your a mile into it. it's not about realism and historical accuracy; there's a bunch of concessions made against fun for the sake of reenactment

 

like the 3min spawn build times. it completely ruined the steam release with single camped spawns: because build time was based on reenactment, instead of gameplay.

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, madrebel said:

technically no reason. realistically you've got politics. the US would not have risked sending a single division unless they were likely to land safely AND can be resupplied. remember this early in the war the majority of the US population wanted nothing to do with foreign wars. while the japanese had attacked, if you ship over a lot of sons/fathers to fight the germans and get them sunk en-route your ability to galvanize further support for the war in europe is immediately in jeopardy.

none of that particularly relevant for a game, however this is a thread that is heavily discussing history and accuracy. in reality, the US didn't have the capacity nor the will to risk sending their own sons this early to fight the germans in france. especially when US weapon makers were making damn good money just shipping over vehicles.

 

lose a ship full of trucks with only the ships crew going down ... not a big deal. lose a ship full of humans ... very big deal. 

And yet the US did just that in North Africa. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in november of 42. after enigma was cracked. after the battle of the atlantic was over and won. after many *edit* hundreds of destroyers were turned out of bath iron works. after many things, yes, the US eventually sent troops en masse. my grand father was a field surgeon on those boats as a matter of fact.

 

*edit* if you want a better understanding of this read about the liberty ship program. we built 2700 of these in 2.5 years starting in late 42. without these ships, we would not have been able to fight in europe.

Edited by madrebel
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

 

page 1... throw balance out in favor of reenacting

your not going down the reenactment path, your a mile into it. it's not about realism and historical accuracy; there's a bunch of concessions made against fun for the sake of reenactment

 

like the 3min spawn build times. it completely ruined the steam release with single camped spawns: because build time was based on reenactment, instead of gameplay.

The FMS is a gameplay construct that doesn’t re-enact anything. There are debates to be had about build times resilience etc. but in the end they are a fictional device for the sake of gameplay. In six deployments I never once popped out of an FMS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My non-reenactment-but-historically-consistent assumption for the game's backstory has always been that, if the Germans have not yet won in France, everything historically subsequent to France and dependent on the historically quick, low-loss France outcome has not yet happened.

Everything the Germans did after France was dependent on the major expansion of the German army that could occur due to the very low losses and quick finish in France, which allowed at least one and sometimes two cadres to be extracted from every France-experienced division and used to form new divisions. It was that rapid, efficient expansion of the German army that allowed Greece, Russia and North Africa to occur.

So, with France still ongoing and losses continuing, there is no Russia invasion and the Ribbontrop-Molotov Agreement remains in place; there is no German Balkans/Greece invasion, the Italians are in Albania and the British are in Greece; the German Crete invasion doesn't happen; the Italians are in Tunisia, having lost Libya to the British, and that front is an uncomfortable stalemate; the US invasion of North Africa doesn't happen.

But, the US is ready to contribute forces to Europe starting in 1942. So, a small US force...in game terms, a division...is added to the Allied side in T2, or when the mechanics allow, in T2.5.

Share this post


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

My non-reenactment-but-historically-consistent assumption for the game's backstory has always been that, if the Germans have not yet won in France, everything historically subsequent to France and dependent on the historically quick, low-loss France outcome has not yet happened.

Everything the Germans did after France was dependent on the major expansion of the German army that could occur due to the very low losses and quick finish in France, which allowed at least one and sometimes two cadres to be extracted from every France-experienced division and used to form new divisions. It was that rapid, efficient expansion of the German army that allowed Greece, Russia and North Africa to occur.

So, with France still ongoing and losses continuing, there is no Russia invasion and the Ribbontrop-Molotov Agreement remains in place; there is no German Balkans/Greece invasion, the Italians are in Albania and the British are in Greece; the German Crete invasion doesn't happen; the Italians are in Tunisia, having lost Libya to the British, and that front is an uncomfortable stalemate; the US invasion of North Africa doesn't happen.

But, the US is ready to contribute forces to Europe starting in 1942. So, a small US force...in game terms, a division...is added to the Allied side in T2, or when the mechanics allow, in T2.5.

1) Italy hit the South of France in June. Long or short battle, the Italians were there (late but there) so its safe to presume that had the battle waged on longer, Italy may have broken through the southern alps and ... at the least had to be dealt with.

2) us contribution "starting in 42" imo should be worded better. November of 42 isn't the same as January 42 ... its as easy to say t3/43 as it is to say November of 42. further, without all the things you listed what may have happened with the liberty ship program? likely still happens but perhaps not as many?

 

ALl is assumed and none of it historical. i'm all for it though as long as its balanced. history is f'n boring and has been done to death. alternate histroy that is still grounded in history is a LOT more interesting. for reference, hearts of iron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, madrebel said:

in november of 42. after enigma was cracked. after the battle of the atlantic was over and won. after many thousands of destroyers were turned out of bath iron works. after many thigns, yes, the US eventually sent troops en masse. my grand father was a field surgeon on those boats as a matter of fact.

There is no way Operation Torch was planned, supplied, and troops put on the move before enigma was completely cracked.  It’s not as though it was cracked and one day the Allied forces could suddenly read everything. It was an ongoing effort by both side with new versions of enigma and constant crypto analysis. To say that enigma was cracked and that was that vastly over simplifies it. 

I’ll give you that the battle of the Atlantic was taking place but I’m guessing military planners would have wanted to avoid Normandy at all costs. Keeping France in the war would have been paramount in this alternate scenario. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you not understand cryptograhy? once you crack the code, yes, you can read everything you intercept immediately. day after day blechley cracked the code faster and faster until it was trivial. now, not all allied forces could read all intercepts that is obviously correct. however, Churchill knew, Eisenhower knew, all the top brass knew. The battle of Kursk was known 6 weeks in advance allowing the russian to build the largest kill box in history. enigma won the battle of the atlantic.

 

none of that is really debated. now, without cracking the code US and British ship borne radar still eventually win out but when? further, without cracking the code britain starves. if britain starves the western front or would be western front folds as the US has no 'safe' place to hop from new foundland, to greenland/ice land, landing in England.

 

i think you grossly under-estimate what cracking that code did and how it influenced events. further, once the days code was cracked, Turing's computer was free to run statistical analysis on ALL the data available allowing the allies to, for the first time in human history, analyze the ENTIRE war effort algorithmically. the allies were fighting the first computer driven war while the axis were using slide rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.