BMBM

Starting Monday: The Hardest Campaign Yet

324 posts in this topic

DE inf: 4x Sdkfz 232, 3 StugB (and in tier 1 5x SPAA where Allies have none, + 10 Flak36, 12x pak38 (only 2 in tier0)
FR inf: 4x Panhard, 12x R-35, 4x DLC R-35, 7x Laffly W15
UK inf: 4x DAC, 6x Matilda, 8 Matilda CS.

Still think this is terribly unfair? Yes the Matildas are formidable, but without support and against flaks, paks and engineers they aren't impossible to deal with. This is to give you a WHIFF of what the thing was like IRL.

4 people like this

Share this post


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

DE inf: 4x Sdkfz 232, 3 StugB (and in tier 1 5x SPAA where Allies have none, + 10 Flak36, 12x pak38 (only 2 in tier0)
FR inf: 4x Panhard, 12x R-35, 4x DLC R-35, 7x Laffly W15
UK inf: 4x DAC, 6x Matilda, 8 Matilda CS.

Still think this is terribly unfair? Yes the Matildas are formidable, but without support and against flaks, paks and engineers they aren't impossible to deal with. This is to give you a WHIFF of what the thing was like IRL.

Good point .. I forgot about the Eighty eights and AT delta.

everyone has become accustomed to counting simple numbers without looking any deeper..which is precisely what those asking for gameplay balance insist on. 

4 people like this

Share this post


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

This ISN'T hard- Panzer General did it with it's linked scenarios-

 

tree.jpg

I finished a campaign from Poland to Berlin about 2 months ago.  After France, I did:

-North Africa (major)

-Middle East (major)

-Caucausus (major)

-Moscow 42 (intentional minor to play Kharkov)

-Kharkov (intentional minor to play Kursk)

-Kursk (intentional minor; screw playing Moscow again in 43)

-Anzio (major)

-D-Day (major!)

-Anvil (major but again I didn't want to jump straight to the Ardennes; intentional minor so I could play Market Garden)

-Market Garden (major)

-Ardennes (intentional minor)

-Berlin (major)

 

Level Bombers ftw!

Share this post


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

Those are r-35s aren't they....vs nearly 50 more ground personnel that can cap along with more trucks? A bit closer with the Brits but a good number of the mediums there are c/s tanks with no antiarmor capability at all whereas you have HEAT and AP on the stugs. Welcome to the wonderful world of balancing, where every change to any side is rejected as biased and unfair. 

You have to look deeper than pure numbers. This is what everyone in the forums has screamed about as necessary, including yourself. Would you like to see all AT capability remove from the Stugs to achieve balance while ignoring their historic loadout?

I personally like the new setups.  Its a challenge!

BUT, the tiers are clearly designed with the assumption of even pop.

As the current campaign shows, the playerbase has refused to show up, or worse, swap sides. 

I feel that not enough warning was given to allow the playerbase enough time to change tactics to suit the new reality.

 

Share this post


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

BUT, the tiers are clearly designed with the assumption of even pop.

There's no way of setting this up with population imbalance as a governing factor. What would you have us do, reduce the overpopulated side's equipment? That won't score high on the popularity meter. Giving them more stuff to go with the higher population? Even worse.

Speaking personally, I *always* play for the underdog. 

8 minutes ago, dropbear said:

I feel that not enough warning was given to allow the playerbase enough time to change tactics to suit the new reality.

Agreed - prep could have been more timely. It'll take a few campaigns to settle - and then we're likely into uncharted territory again with 1.36.

Share this post


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

Those are r-35s aren't they....vs nearly 50 more ground personnel that can cap along with more trucks? A bit closer with the Brits but a good number of the mediums there are c/s tanks with no antiarmor capability at all whereas you have HEAT and AP on the stugs. Welcome to the wonderful world of balancing, where every change to any side is rejected as biased and unfair. 

You have to look deeper than pure numbers. This is what everyone in the forums has screamed about as necessary, including yourself. Would you like to see all AT capability remove from the Stugs to achieve balance while ignoring their historic loadout?

the anti-inf capability and the matties utter dominance is completely ignored then?

 

2 hours ago, scotsman said:

Welcome to the wonderful world of balancing, where every change to any side is rejected as biased and unfair. 

i honestly don't care about sides, i swap mid-battle if i'm bored.

232's and stugs vs matties at a 1:1 ratio is insane... how the hell is a matty cheaper than a 232?

 

2 hours ago, Bmbm said:

DE inf: 4x Sdkfz 232, 3 StugB (and in tier 1 5x SPAA where Allies have none, + 10 Flak36, 12x pak38 (only 2 in tier0)
FR inf: 4x Panhard, 12x R-35, 4x DLC R-35, 7x Laffly W15
UK inf: 4x DAC, 6x Matilda, 8 Matilda CS.

Still think this is terribly unfair? Yes the Matildas are formidable, but without support and against flaks, paks and engineers they aren't impossible to deal with. This is to give you a WHIFF of what the thing was like IRL.

yes! it's as unfair as 14 tigers vs 10 stuarts while telling allies to use 20 M5's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My own take is that this game unlike essentially any other game on the market actively tries to get around red vs. blue. Every other hand tries to find the "equivalent" weapon to counter the other side.

This is the only game where players are forced to be innovative and use a different class of weapon to counter an advantage the other side have.

It is a system that is both refreshing and takes you out of your comfort zone. Is it frustrating at times? It sure can be, but tgat is war and its makes the game more immersive.

That is why you get the "oh [censored]... Mattie's!" Sensation when they ar spotted which causes and psychological shift in the game as your side works to adapt their defense. Versus simply spawning what equivalent counter-vehicle du hour is.

It also promotes team play and combined arms since you now have to coordinate with your teammates to take one out as infantry. Versus ramboing it by spawning the counter weapon.

Yes it makes the game very hard for new players who are accustomed to a completely different playstyle and contributes to the steep learning curve. But it is always what makes this game an e notable challenge and has kept players coming back fir 18+ years.

Name another game with such longevity. If you exclude flight sims such as Warbirds and Air Warrior there are none that are still around with to my knowledge Ultima Online, and Everquest II which was released much later.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Speaking personally, I *always* play for the underdog.

CRS has been doing this for a living for going on twenty years. Marketing is entirely about understanding customer psychology. Old-CRS wasn't especially good at "getting" that.

It's readily observable that a large percentage of CRS's customers want to play for the winning side. In very basic marketing, that's called "bandwagon".

The fact that that doesn't apply to you, and maybe didn't apply to anyone from old-CRS either, is irrelevant to the need to understand the psychology of the overall customer base.

Quote

There's no way of setting this up with population imbalance as a governing factor. 

Not to put too fine a point on it, it's CRS's job to develop ways to make the two sides equally fighting-effective irrespective of population imbalance...at least if you want to maximize product success. You're trying to market a game, not just a simulation. Games need two sides that think they have a good chance of winning.

Perceived difference in fighting effectiveness balance is a key driver of population imbalance. If the game had dynamic mechanisms that kicked in within a given campaign to increase the fighting effectiveness of the lesser-pop side, that underlying driver of the bandwagon effect would be neutralized.

So would the imbalance-causing effect of large squads changing sides for gameplay variety or any other reason.

Or, you guys can stick to static spawnlists, and we can have another hundred and fifty oscilating-population campaigns. 

S!

Edited by jwilly
2 people like this

Share this post


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

the anti-inf capability and the matties utter dominance is completely ignored then?

 

i honestly don't care about sides, i swap mid-battle if i'm bored.

232's and stugs vs matties at a 1:1 ratio is insane... how the hell is a matty cheaper than a 232?

 

 

yes! it's as unfair as 14 tigers vs 10 stuarts while telling allies to use 20 M5's

You need to slow down and look at what you are writing...the force structure in total is equivalent...not individual platforms. Again you are too hung up on one vs one. What's the value of the 88 when the other side has no equivalent equipment? I don't see you complaining about that. Until you get past 1:1 you'll never arrive at the correct answers. The axis also had pak-38 moved into tier zero in small numbers as it should be historically. I could go on..but until you look at the balance of the total force structure and get out of your 1:1 box..well....

bmbm has shared a lot on total costing already, to include the fact that the allies are being penalized artificially in at least one cost instance to achieve game balance. 

If you in fact play both sides then your posts should reflect that...not a 100% pro axis viewpoint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, aismov said:

My own take is that this game unlike essentially any other game on the market actively tries to get around red vs. blue. Every other hand tries to find the "equivalent" weapon to counter the other side.

This is the only game where players are forced to be innovative and use a different class of weapon to counter an advantage the other side have.

It is a system that is both refreshing and takes you out of your comfort zone. Is it frustrating at times? It sure can be, but tgat is war and its makes the game more immersive.

That is why you get the "oh [censored]... Mattie's!" Sensation when they ar spotted which causes and psychological shift in the game as your side works to adapt their defense. Versus simply spawning what equivalent counter-vehicle du hour is.

It also promotes team play and combined arms since you now have to coordinate with your teammates to take one out as infantry. Versus ramboing it by spawning the counter weapon.

Yes it makes the game very hard for new players who are accustomed to a completely different playstyle and contributes to the steep learning curve. But it is always what makes this game an e notable challenge and has kept players coming back fir 18+ years.

Name another game with such longevity. If you exclude flight sims such as Warbirds and Air Warrior there are none that are still around with to my knowledge Ultima Online, and Everquest II which was released much later.

Agree completely ... it's not red vs blue... technology swings back and forth across all platforms. The only viable path is to equalize total economics and materials. You still might have inferior individual equipment at some point...or as with the allies and the 88...be completely  missing you're equivalent weapon. The balance equation has to account for that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

CRS has been doing this for a living for going on twenty years. Marketing is entirely about understanding customer psychology...someone at CRS should get that by now.

It's readily observable that a large percentage of CRS's customers want to play for the winning side. In very basic marketing, that's called "bandwagon".

Not to put too fine a point on it, it's CRS's job to develop ways to make the two sides equally fighting-effective irrespective of population imbalance.

Perceived differences in fighting effectiveness balance is a key driver of population imbalance. If the game had dynamic mechanisms that kicked in within a given campaign to increase the fighting effectiveness of the lesser-pop side, that underlying driver of the bandwagon effect would be neutralized.

So would the imbalance-causing effect of large squads changing sides for gameplay variety or any other reason.

Or, you guys can stick to static spawnlists, and we can have another hundred and fifty oscilating-population campaigns. 

I've always been a believer that when it comes to even pop the marginal effect of an extra Matty or two, or more SMGs is pretty minimal. Maybe in one focal battle or another it can make a difference but players will find a way to adapt.

Its more a numbers thing. Players choose to log vs not log more because of perception of being rolled and not because of the makeup of the spawn list. Now I understand that one does contribute to the other, but it's more a factor that players on the "winning side" log in more and the opposite is true for the losing side.

Which is why I think the real solution is in using F2P to balance out the side numbers:

And second most important is transparency on the part of CRS (which they have been doing) and educating the playerbase on the design and rationale.

Add in better tutorials that actually explain the ebb and flow of WWIIOL gameplay rather than the current "this is how you shoot a gun in a FPS game." 

Those 3 systems would go far to alleviating many of the issues we face. Oh and the nasty habit players always having if whining on their side chat that CRS is in the tank for the opposite side. It's the tinfoil hat brigade pretty much every night. Point #2 and Scotsmans work should help this.

S!

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

CRS has been doing this for a living for going on twenty years. Marketing is entirely about understanding customer psychology...someone at CRS should get that by now.

It's readily observable that a large percentage of CRS's customers want to play for the winning side. In very basic marketing, that's called "bandwagon".

The fact that that doesn't apply to you, and maybe didn't apply to anyone from old-CRS either, is irrelevant to the need to understand the psychology of the overall customer base.

Not to put too fine a point on it, it's CRS's job to develop ways to make the two sides equally fighting-effective irrespective of population imbalance...at least if you want to maximize product success.

Perceived difference in fighting effectiveness balance is a key driver of population imbalance. If the game had dynamic mechanisms that kicked in within a given campaign to increase the fighting effectiveness of the lesser-pop side, that underlying driver of the bandwagon effect would be neutralized.

So would the imbalance-causing effect of large squads changing sides for gameplay variety or any other reason.

Or, you guys can stick to static spawnlists, and we can have another hundred and fifty oscilating-population campaigns. 

S!

Well the spawn lists could be made dynamic now the base work has been done based on server population. Start a thread on it. That will play into the gripes about not being able to spawn your desired equipment due to low population  state though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who wants to take a crack at designing the ultimate WWIIOL environment, here you go. I promise to review every submission.

1 hour ago, jwilly said:

Perceived difference in fighting effectiveness balance is a key driver of population imbalance.

Mkay, design spawnlists based on gut feeling. I get it.

 

1 hour ago, jwilly said:

If the game had dynamic mechanisms that kicked in within a given campaign to increase the fighting effectiveness of the lesser-pop side, that underlying driver of the bandwagon effect would be neutralized.

More gear usually doesn't help the losing side. Less gear for the ostensibly winning side only makes for peeved customers.

1 hour ago, jwilly said:

Marketing is entirely about understanding customer psychology.

I've been in the marketing business for 30+ years. I have a pretty good handle on what makes people tick, and nothing of what you're saying is news or greek to me.

 

Edited by Bmbm

Share this post


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

Anyone who wants to take a crack at designing the ultimate WWIIOL environment, here you go. I promise to review every submission.

 

Need some parameters.

how much green tag gear is required at say t2?

what does crs want weighted more highly, realism or balance?

whats the budget? I only see a budgetary number for Luft air as an example but not for Luft bombers as an example.

What are the tabs at the top?

Be happy to help but need more info to do it well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all put way too much into an 88; I'd trade it out for a pak 38 any day; or a mattie CS.

Not sure why you all can't see having 14 nearly unkillable MG platforms in your infantry flag, vrs 4 armored cars with MGs looks odd.

However, I do like how we are trying different setups, just think about how that setup impacts game.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, delems said:

You all put way too much into an 88; I'd trade it out for a pak 38 any day; or a mattie CS.

Not sure why you all can't see having 14 nearly unkillable MG platforms in your infantry flag, vrs 4 armored cars with MGs looks odd.

However, I do like how we are trying different setups, just think about how that setup impacts game.

Sorry but that is mad talk. A properly deployed 88 can decimate an attack or be used very well on the offense. Problem is players no longer know how to use it properly.

I find it ironic that in this thread Axis players are insinuating CRS Allied bias due to infantry support tank numbers in INF BDE, while in the other thread Allied players are insinuating CRS Axis bias in another thread on these forums due to SMG numbers in the INF BDE.

Just saying it's important to have a global spawn pool perspective and not just look at 1:1 match ups between equipment in the same class. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm....

Matties, over a 1000 kills and 6+ KD.

88, 161 kills and 1.34 KD.

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

My own take is that this game unlike essentially any other game on the market actively tries to get around red vs. blue. Every other hand tries to find the "equivalent" weapon to counter the other side.

This is the only game where players are forced to be innovative and use a different class of weapon to counter an advantage the other side have.

It is a system that is both refreshing and takes you out of your comfort zone. Is it frustrating at times? It sure can be, but tgat is war and its makes the game more immersive.

That is why you get the "oh [censored]... Mattie's!" Sensation when they ar spotted which causes and psychological shift in the game as your side works to adapt their defense. Versus simply spawning what equivalent counter-vehicle du hour is.

It also promotes team play and combined arms since you now have to coordinate with your teammates to take one out as infantry. Versus ramboing it by spawning the counter weapon.

Yes it makes the game very hard for new players who are accustomed to a completely different playstyle and contributes to the steep learning curve. But it is always what makes this game an e notable challenge and has kept players coming back fir 18+ years.

Name another game with such longevity. If you exclude flight sims such as Warbirds and Air Warrior there are none that are still around with to my knowledge Ultima Online, and Everquest II which was released much later.

This is by far one of the best post I have seen in a long time.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Hmmm....

Matties, over a 1000 kills and 6+ KD.

88, 161 kills and 1.34 KD.

this... how can nobody see it?

whats more it takes 2 people to use a 88 while only one to use a matty

 

1 hour ago, scotsman said:

If you in fact play both sides then your posts should reflect that...not a 100% pro axis viewpoint

i don't like seal clubbing as allied. matties vs 232's and stugs is not sport.

its pro NFL vs pee-wee, there's nothing to be proud of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, delems said:

Hmmm....

Matties, over a 1000 kills and 6+ KD.

88, 161 kills and 1.34 KD.

This can be quite simply explained in that the matty spawns into the ab or fb and is immediately available and mobile. The 88 requires a tow, hopefully to a good position, and with infantry support at very least. A properly used 88 can decimate allied armor, but when left in the spawn pool is as useless as tits on a bull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, delems said:

Hmmm....

Matties, over a 1000 kills and 6+ KD.

88, 161 kills and 1.34 KD.

Which direction is the map moving again?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gripe is the disparity of the number of autos between the sides. 

You can argue about matties and 88s all day long, but the only argument worth a damn is infantry. 

When one side has many more SMGs than the other, that's gonna weigh heavily on the campaign's outcome.  People don't wanna use rifles vs auto weapons in close combat. 

I'll guard all day long if I have an SMG. Make me do it with a rifle vs SMGs? I'm out of that town, or at least I'm using something other than infantry. 

Share this post


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

Sorry but that is mad talk. A properly deployed 88 can decimate an attack or be used very well on the offense. Problem is players no longer know how to use it properly.

I find it ironic that in this thread Axis players are insinuating CRS Allied bias due to infantry support tank numbers in INF BDE, while in the other thread Allied players are insinuating CRS Axis bias in another thread on these forums due to SMG numbers in the INF BDE.

Just saying it's important to have a global spawn pool perspective and not just look at 1:1 match ups between equipment in the same class. 

exactly - either way CRS will not win unless the players look at the entire weapons pool. Hey at least we are out there and trying...better than doing nothing for a decade. 

1 hour ago, delems said:

Hmmm....

Matties, over a 1000 kills and 6+ KD.

88, 161 kills and 1.34 KD.

is that for C/s or all matties? 

Share this post


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

Which direction is the map moving again?

Campaign wins and losses are not tilted by equipment balance or imbalance. That is decided by who is actively playing in a time zone with no opposition.  Campaign wins and losses mean almost nothing  as a result.

Where equipment imbalances ruin the fun is in timezones where there is actually a fight to be had. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is for all matties, I'm not judging right or wrong, I'm just saying the 88 is nowhere near as good/useful as people claim it to be.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.