• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Hells Gate   03/24/2019

      Break through the lines, and enter Hells Gate!!! This will be the next CRS organized event.  Lead by the High command from each side.
      Free Premium Access for the event
      Date: 3/30/19 Time: 11:00 AM Server time/ 12:00pm EST/ 1600 GMT
BMBM

Starting Monday: The Hardest Campaign Yet

324 posts in this topic

One Idea: could HC be involved into the budget allocation for each respective side? This would really make for some dynamic campaigns, imo. 

I do realize this is double edged sword, with the danger of HC being blamed for yet one more thing. However, I do believe its worth giving it a try. Might increase interest in HC, and lead to more unpredictable campaigns. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, bogol said:

One Idea: could HC be involved into the budget allocation for each respective side? This would really make for some dynamic campaigns, imo. 

I do realize this is double edged sword, with the danger of HC being blamed for yet one more thing. However, I do believe its worth giving it a try. Might increase interest in HC, and lead to more unpredictable campaigns. 

if we go here again, cause this was already done - hc CANNOT exclude items to pay for other items. there MUST be a minimum quantity of everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not my decision but, there would be limitations to what kit they could buy/sell, with caps and minimums. We're also attempting to stick roughly to historical production ratios (however simplified) so the impact would probably be minimal. I think HC engagement is better served by being directed to rallying and leading troops than becoming mired in lengthy discussions with CRS of what to swap and why they can't trade item X for item Y in the desired numbers.

Share this post


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

One Idea: could HC be involved into the budget allocation for each respective side? This would really make for some dynamic campaigns, imo. 

I do realize this is double edged sword, with the danger of HC being blamed for yet one more thing. However, I do believe its worth giving it a try. Might increase interest in HC, and lead to more unpredictable campaigns. 

That of course was my dream back in the day, to build out custom brigades and have some features not in the roadmap (yet).

This actually WAS done, the HCs DID choose tiers and numbers within constraints.

It.... did not go well.

Share this post


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

It.... did not go well.

No, it was not implemented well
I think there should have been more of a cap on it as to exactly how much you can change it
otherwise it is just human nature to want to pawn off all the old dusty for just one new big shiny
til you have 20 people trying to figure out how to share the single new shiny

Share this post


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

One Idea: could HC be involved into the budget allocation for each respective side? This would really make for some dynamic campaigns, imo. 

I do realize this is double edged sword, with the danger of HC being blamed for yet one more thing. However, I do believe its worth giving it a try. Might increase interest in HC, and lead to more unpredictable campaigns. 

At this time with HC being very low numbers we feel there efforts would be better suited in recruiting and training new officers. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

It.... did not go well.

Yup. It was a never ending cycle of finger pointing and recrimination. Within your own side. The Luftwaffe guys cried foul to the tankers getting the PzIIIH saying they got hung out to dry. And when HC would prioritize the 109F4, the exact opposite happened with ground guys saying is HC is pandering to the oblivious flyboys who orbit overhead as we lose town after town like a row of dominos.

It was an ugly time.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2019 at 0:58 AM, scotsman said:

Could we do microgames that allow you to contribute to the larger game offline thus reducing sunk time? Yeah and I have some ideas there. It's  all a matter of time and resources. I'm all ears...I just don't see a holy grail  or a magic wand solution here. 

That's the only way to do a reasonably marketable naval-vs-naval/air game...because realistic naval action requires solutions for interaction radius, interaction list prioritization, water terrain, night functionality, etc. that are incompatible with what's needed for the ground game.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2019 at 3:20 PM, minky said:

"I up, they see me, I'm down"

Realistic movement only works with realistic vegetation to disappear into, or cover-objects to duck behind.

If you're "down" on terrain that mostly provides zero concealment and very little cover, you're a bullet magnet. You definitely don't want to use realistic tactics on unrealistic terrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2019 at 7:46 PM, scotsman said:

I'm for a longer render distance ... will poll the folks and see how far it can be pushed reasonably. 

Isn't the limiting factor the processing of the interaction list?

In a heavily populated area (not that we have had many of those lately), rules must be run to select the max-interaction-list number from every unit within the interaction radius. If the interaction radius is increased by ~40% in an environment with evenly distributed units, the number of units that must be priority-processed is doubled. It's hard to write rules that sensibly "know" whether to include infantry at 1200 meters or other enemy units at only 750 meters.

Or is the proposal to also go to the next increment (presumably doubling) the max size of the interaction list?

Share this post


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

Isn't the limiting factor the processing of the interaction list?

In a heavily populated area (not that we have had many of those lately), rules must be run to select the max-interaction-list number from every unit within the interaction radius. If the interaction radius is increased by ~40% in an environment with evenly distributed units, the number of units that must be priority-processed is doubled. It's hard to write rules that sensibly "know" whether to include infantry at 1200 meters or other enemy units at only 750 meters.

Or is the proposal to also go to the next increment (presumably doubling) the max size of the interaction list?

64bit for the memory overhead + move the sort logic to an un-used core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, blggles said:

Dunno about new players, but new map would bring a lot of old players back for a look. 

Quote

'paying attention'

Quote

What would be the biggest pull for new players? A new theater not modeled in other titles? 

Libya, 1941, British and various allies vs. Afrika Korps and Italian Army. Lots of relevant object modeling already done. 

http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/415906-switch-to-ur4/?do=findComment&comment=6305727

http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/415906-switch-to-ur4/?do=findComment&comment=6305876

http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/415906-switch-to-ur4/?do=findComment&comment=6305960

http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/415906-switch-to-ur4/?do=findComment&comment=6305996

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of note regarding a new map: it is something of a game-play opportunity, where things like no static/all mobile FBs and other such might be tried. And it wouldn't need any more extent than a CP or two in order to be used for intermissions or special events. As with the current it could be used as it is developed for a nice change of pace. And, since the original map was all of a dozen or so CPs (don't remember the exact number) there's no reason official campains might not start at completion of the 12th CP or so (though a win in North Africa or Norway, or the like, couldn't be based on captured production).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm, no new theaters; want to add something N, S or E to our existing map - fine.

First AO goes to Europe, 2nd Africa........ but only 1 game world and map.

Want to add Russia, great, 3rd AO can go E.

Share this post


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

That's the only way to do a reasonably marketable naval-vs-naval/air game...because realistic naval action requires solutions for interaction radius, interaction list prioritization, water terrain, night functionality, etc. that are incompatible with what's needed for the ground game.

I don't disagree ... it is all time and resources. Maybe I can find time... other than a worldwide naval game like that, is there something that could be done on the division, corps or army level that's more focused and less time consuming to produce? 

Share this post


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

Isn't the limiting factor the processing of the interaction list?

In a heavily populated area (not that we have had many of those lately), rules must be run to select the max-interaction-list number from every unit within the interaction radius. If the interaction radius is increased by ~40% in an environment with evenly distributed units, the number of units that must be priority-processed is doubled. It's hard to write rules that sensibly "know" whether to include infantry at 1200 meters or other enemy units at only 750 meters.

Or is the proposal to also go to the next increment (presumably doubling) the max size of the interaction list?

Soon as I get the code environment set up I'll start having a look see. I have long wanted the game to run separate threads on unused processors...specifically moving detonation ballistics to an unused core. It's been a while since I coded anything like that..and when I did it was image processing for robotics. That won't happen overnight...but every journey starts with a first step. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Uhm, no new theaters; want to add something N, S or E to our existing map - fine.

First AO goes to Europe, 2nd Africa........ but only 1 game world and map.

Want to add Russia, great, 3rd AO can go E.

In progress already... it's the what follows that would attract the most players that's the million dollar question

Share this post


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

I have long wanted the game to run separate threads on unused processors

I got 8 processors
And ain't using any of them
:) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Merlin51 said:

I got 8 processors
And ain't using any of them
:)

 

Testify... we need more programmaing hands. 

Share this post


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

Uhm, no new theaters; want to add something N, S or E to our existing map - fine.

First AO goes to Europe, 2nd Africa........ but only 1 game world and map.

Want to add Russia, great, 3rd AO can go E.

Historical France/Belgium (the current game) wasn't contemporaneous with historical Balkans/Greece, or with Germany's involvement in historical Libya/Egypt.

The original CRS vision for the world strategic game would only have worked if the player community was willing to accept alternate historical events subsequent to outcomes and timelines that didn't match history. In forum discussions of that issue over the past years, the general weight of community comments has been insistance that outcomes must be historical so that subsequent theaters can be fought per their history as well. That forced-outcome approach of course would prevent the simulation from being a game.

In discussions in the old Design/Beta Forum, it was clear that CRS hadn't particularly thought through how to handle individual-theater outcomes different than historical, and there wasn't actually a plan for how to make a workable world strategic game.

But, individual theater games would work, without an interconnecting concept or dependent linkage. My understanding from CRS discussions was that if/when they eventually were able to add a second theater, that likely would be how they'd handle it.

The backstory for a Libya game could be structured exactly like the backstory for the France/Belgium game, i.e. all history for that particular theater before that game's start date remains in place., along with contemporaneous events in other theaters not significantly affected by events in the game theater. Actions and outcomes in the game theater do determine history there.

For a Libya game with a nominal start date of June 1 1941, that'd mean that the Germans won France/Belgium, no invasion of England occurred, the historical Balkans/Greece events prior to game-start (including Crete) have occurred, and Malta remains in Allied hands.

Share this post


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

Historical France/Belgium (the current game) wasn't contemporaneous with historical Balkans/Greece, or with Germany's involvement in historical Libya/Egypt.

The original CRS vision for the world strategic game would only have worked if the player community was willing to accept alternate historical events subsequent to outcomes and timelines that didn't match history. In forum discussions of that issue over the past years, the general weight of community comments has been insistance that outcomes must be historical so that subsequent theaters can be fought per their history as well. That forced-outcome approach of course would prevent the simulation from being a game.

In discussions in the old Design/Beta Forum, it was clear that CRS hadn't particularly thought through how to handle individual-theater outcomes different than historical, and there wasn't actually a plan for how to make a workable world strategic game.

But, individual theater games would work, without an interconnecting concept or dependent linkage. My understanding from CRS discussions was that if/when they eventually were able to add a second theater, that likely would be how they'd handle it.

The backstory for a Libya game could be structured exactly like the backstory for the France/Belgium game, i.e. all history for that particular theater before that game's start date remains in place., along with contemporaneous events in other theaters not significantly affected by events in the game theater. Actions and outcomes in the game theater do determine history there.

For a Libya game with a nominal start date of June 1 1941, that'd mean that the Germans won France/Belgium, no invasion of England occurred, the historical Balkans/Greece events prior to game-start (including Crete) have occurred, and Malta remains in Allied hands.

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

 

tree.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, choad said:

Ok - you may want to double check the infantry numbers as they exist in the game. Not saying this wasn't intentional (obviously I have no clue), but in case it was not - here is what I saw:

Brit Inf Flag - 364 infantry 

Brit Armor Flag - 260 Infantry

French Inf Flag - 369 Infantry

French Armor Flag - 313 Infantry

German Inf Flag - 410 Infantry

German Armor Flag - 284 Infantry

Did some checking and this is what to expect in tier 1. Infantry numbers are largely the same as in tier 0, give or take 10. Numbers include DLC and limited equipment. WRT infantry discrepancies, the somewhat larger DE count is tough to even out as it would leave a shortfall in specific categories that need to be equal and/or available for game purposes (DLC, Italians, sappers, engineers) or need to be greater for historical/doctrinal reasons (can't cut semi/auto, can't leave the Germans with way less rifles, can't increase Allied semi/auto count etc). 

tier1-comparison.png

Share this post


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

can't believe you guys think 7 pieces of armour is balanced vs 27 & 18...

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.