stankyus

New TO&E try out

149 posts in this topic

I don't accept the bushline thing anymore- you can now lay down a bunch of barbed wire that forces bushline ninjas to go around them out into the open, and plenty of hunter/protection teams go out literally baiting sappers to try and then shoot them.

 

RPAT is a definite issue due to range multiplying the difficulty level of protecting armor, but a lot of that can be handled with creating relocation positions with the engineers' ATG mound.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I don't accept the bushline thing anymore- you can now lay down a bunch of barbed wire that forces bushline ninjas to go around them out into the open, and plenty of hunter/protection teams go out literally baiting sappers to try and then shoot them.

 

RPAT is a definite issue due to range multiplying the difficulty level of protecting armor, but a lot of that can be handled with creating relocation positions with the engineers' ATG mound.

HEAT modeling update may come with the bug patch...its not correct and overstates RPAT effectiveness considerably. Its one many identified issues that will be addressed....as quick as is humanly possible. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I don't accept the bushline thing anymore- you can now lay down a bunch of barbed wire that forces bushline ninjas to go around them out into the open, and plenty of hunter/protection teams go out literally baiting sappers to try and then shoot them.

 

RPAT is a definite issue due to range multiplying the difficulty level of protecting armor, but a lot of that can be handled with creating relocation positions with the engineers' ATG mound.

I have personally always thought the bushes were are issue.

Current bushes are too tall so tanks can't see over them and engage at range. At the same time there is no ground concealment for the infantry. It's creates the bad situation where tanks have short engagement ranges.

I also agree with having some sort of barriers in place. The PPO is a start but it doesn't last long enough and current has issues with spacing... Maybe in the near future.

But like I believe you said earlier in a post the bigger issue is the wide-open flanks and 360 degree attack vectors. If we worked in creating are more realistic FMS system and actual front lines it would help solve many of the issues.

3 people like this

Share this post


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

As long as you have a flight model that doesn't allow impossible maneuver, has G limits,  and that will instead result in crash of the aircraft attempting them... 

Thats not fun gameplay!

Share this post


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

I don't accept the bushline thing anymore- you can now lay down a bunch of barbed wire that forces bushline ninjas to go around them out into the open, and plenty of hunter/protection teams go out literally baiting sappers to try and then shoot them.

Agreed.

Share this post


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

Do you not remember that some of us WERE simply players back then? I objected to several things in the the RPAT modeling...including saying without functional HE the tanks would be defenseless etc. It fell on deaf ears... too bad the old forums aren't around because you could go look it all up. I'm all for fun -and- accurate weapons performance....that and avoiding any side bias are what I promised everyone. Everyone I know of is doing there best to deliver on that. Keeping a mathematically unsound TOE with built in side bias is/was not an option...not if you want fair play for both sides. If there are temporary glitches in doing way with that side bias then all we can do is ask your patience and let us use the tools to fix it quickly. Going into an endless loop about us not understanding or wanting fun gameplay is silly. I would think you would be happy to have devs that -have- played since day one and know the full history of the game.

they are very slow to address problems, won't be surprised if this ToE is permanent despite allies not logging.

after a few days playing axis, i've tried allies and the auto situation is unacceptable.

 

see ya'll in a few months, no reason to sub if it's not fun

Share this post


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

Thats not fun gameplay!

 

3 minutes ago, major0noob said:

they are very slow to address problems, won't be surprised if this ToE is permanent despite allies not logging.

after a few days playing axis, i've tried allies and the auto situation is unacceptable.

 

see ya'll in a few months, no reason to sub if it's not fun

What a silly thing to say...no offense but it is...if you can't tolerate a day or two turn around with a volunteer staff on a US holiday...well...(Never mind that one responsible person isn't even in the US but in Europe on top of that. )

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

As long as you have a flight model that doesn't allow impossible maneuver, has G limits,  and that will instead result in crash of the aircraft attempting them... 

Sorry, you're going against your own views here. You have the power to fix the roof armor, so fix it. 

Historical accuracy.  

So what you're saying is that you have to fudge the roof armor of the panzers to improve gameplay...right? Historical accuracy be damned...in this case...right? 

 

Share this post


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

Sorry, you're going against your own views here. You have the power to fix the roof armor, so fix it. 

Historical accuracy.  

So what you're saying is that you have to fudge the roof armor of the panzers to improve gameplay...right? Historical accuracy be damned...in this case...right? 

 

Unreal...

That was Doc - not me....and you know it. The sins of the past are that...The inheritance is what it is...I can only do so much and work so fast. I am constrained by what I am allowed or not allowed to do to data...and as of yet I am not configured to build test clients...although I am fixing that now. 

By going ball on aircraft ammo that aren't ground attack we eliminated that as an issue. I haven't even gotten to G limits or a proper improved flight model yet to prevent you from flying in an unrealistic manner...which was one of the issues in the first place in that problem. If the flight model was better that wouldn't have been necessary in the first place. Nor has the armor been audited as we are trying to go to an improved armor model that does projectile tip off, spaced armor and other things to include a new shaped charge model. I suppose you did notice some side skirts recently?? You might check your patch notes. 

Just what do you expect....you want me to rewrite the entire game and eliminate all prior ills and issues overnight?? Sorry but comments like that are simply uncalled for...if you want it done faster volunteer. More hands are always welcome. 

By the way...if projectile tip off vs armor thickness and impact angle had been put into the game none of that would have occurred or even been necessary....in spite of the flight modeling. The guys who wrote most of the legacy code didn't understand all the ins and outs of terminal ballistics. 

If you need further proof of that look what happened with application of proper munitions fragment data to the game human modeling. Because certain constants and code were guessed at (and commented that way in the code!) application of real data in mass and velocity distribution wasn't reflected properly in lethality. Fixing one area revealed improper coding in another. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scotsman,

keep up the very good work and effort.

I have been playing and paying since 2003 and contributed some significant (at least for me) amounts of cash through go fund me to help move things along.

It's a good sign that people are contributing and discussing and debating, as it shows people are "invested" in the game.

Still, I worry that some of the criticisms are detrimental to the team in terms of eating up their gumption and enthusiasm for moving the game along.

Anyway, keep at it and thanks for your hard work.

S!

 

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Sorry, you're going against your own views here. You have the power to fix the roof armor, so fix it. 

Ok, we fix the roof armor; you fix the 1000% too many aircraft in game.

Should be no more than 34 planes per FLAG per 24 hour day imo.....

Yes, that's right- 34 planes in a air flag, TOTAL .....  24 hour RDP timer on them......

Then you can have your tin roof. (oh, and don't forget to fix looping super sonic db7s and damage model first too)

 

I think all these new changes are great, perfect, no; but great to see some new variety in game that is more realistic - and balanced for fun.

Edited by delems
2 people like this

Share this post


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

scotsman,

keep up the very good work and effort.

I have been playing and paying since 2003 and contributed some significant (at least for me) amounts of cash through go fund me to help move things along.

It's a good sign that people are contributing and discussing and debating, as it shows people are "invested" in the game.

Still, I worry that some of the criticisms are detrimental to the team in terms of eating up their gumption and enthusiasm for moving the game along.

Anyway, keep at it and thanks for your hard work.

S!

 

Appreciate it Elfin...I have been a builder all along...If I was rich enough to buy the title outright and redo things right I would. Failing that all I can do is fix things as fast as I can. I have had my share of personal frustrations in things not moving fast enough for my own liking but I am a single guy. Xoom will attest to this...and he has been on the receiving end of some my HEAT rounds with my frustration....some undeserved btw because Im simply frustrated with things not going faster.. We are all volunteers, have families etc. 

Even if I go faster in doing new code or methods, fixing data, etc, I can only go as fast as the rest of the team in QAing the changes and testing them. To his credit he has eliminated some bottlenecks...so hopefully things will go faster. 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Sorry, but that doesn't make a fun and balanced game. 

Go for history then. The BEF was the only true mechanized force in the world. Let's model horses for everyone else.  When the US gets in, lets have the real tank to tank ratio, and plane to plane ratio.  Let's model mechanical breakdowns and see how that works. As tiers go by, Germany doesnt have enough fuel. 

Not fun. Neither is what we have ingame at the moment. 

Just wanted to reply to this with my opinion. I think there is a major difference between modelling intangibles (doctrines/logistics/build quality/fuel supply) that are infinitely up for debates both in timing as well as magnitude (how "bad" was Russian armor, how "bad" were French radios compared to German. Whereas modelling historical entry dates of weapons is more fixed and substantially less up for debate. One recreates the outcome of the war while the other recreates the weapons utilized in the war.

I think there is a healthy debate to be had regarding the merits of history vs. equivalent systems (red vs. blue). My own bias is that historical dates balanced by numbers is better than "equivalent" triads balanced by numbers.

In both you are still open to cries of bias, but can at least tweak numbers to arrive at as close to a happy medium as possible. With triads you place subjective weapon choice up for debate as well and have the never ending issue of "1943 Stuart!" Or "CRS took away the HEAT RG b/c the Axis whined."

Whats the best counter for the Panther? Ask 10 different players and get 10 different answers. Nobody will be happy. But with historical dates simply introduce it and adjust spawn numbers as appropriate. Same goes for Brit RG, put it back in and adjust numbers appropriately.

But that's just my own (biased) opinion on how things should be. In the end my hope is that we have a balanced system that is both transparent in the logic why something was chosen, and at the same time minimizes the possible avenues of debate regarding the appropriateness of the weapon choice. In my view historical dates are the only way to bring this about. Hopefully my rationale behind my opinions make sense! S! 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Sorry, you're going against your own views here. You have the power to fix the roof armor, so fix it. 

Historical accuracy.  

So what you're saying is that you have to fudge the roof armor of the panzers to improve gameplay...right? Historical accuracy be damned...in this case...right? 

 

I agree 100% make it historic!

The solution here is to fix the flight model by introducing G-limits, airframe stress, and control surface authority. 

Old-CRS fudged roof armor as a shortcut. I don't see anyone supporting that. But the fundamental issue is the flight model should have been fixed instead of changing deck armor values.

As Scotsman said... sins of the past.

Edited by aismov
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me the same 3 keep trashing what we are doing here.  I find it hard to judge something until it is run its full course.   Until  we run a full campaign  and look at all the data it is all just noise. 

This is how we set the campaign up and we are going to run it till the end.  And the next campaign will most likely be a different setup also .....   The old same set up after same set up is over .... Stuff was getting really boring around here. 

 

I suggest time relearn how to play with all the equipment and stop playing easy mode!!!    

 

(that kinda sounds like someone we all know)

 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

As tiers go by, Germany doesnt have enough fuel.

That remains to be seen.
Do they retain Cargill and Royal Dutch Shell etc as they might very well do in game?
Suppose they may have some fuel then

No one gets affected by those kinds of event outside the game theater where they can do nothing to promote or prevent them, otherwise
in tier 5 as the axis prepare the invasion of London after successfully taking all of France and gaining a large foothold in east England, suddenly a red flag appears, out of no place, on the east side of Berlin and drives into Berlin and the allies win the campaign even though the axis hold 80% of the map.
And other odd unfun things like that.

Quote

Go for history then. The BEF was the only true mechanized force in the world.

Yes and in tier 0, and the French army had more tanks and more men than anyone else, they actually had a large number of trucks of every origin too
But that is not how it works, that is not how TOE is done.
TOE is an artform designed to give the correct historical flavour and yet in the big picture maintain a fairness, you just have to back up enough to see the entire picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You shouldn't ask for player feedback and then lash out at us for giving it.  Players and CRS are both getting very defensive in this thread and it's not helping the discussion frankly.  

 

We get why you went this route.  On paper it makes sense.  

 

However, it looks like it didn't work.  It was a learning experience.  It showed us that you have to be very careful when you are not matching up infantry 1-to-1 in the TOEs.  Giving one side a 10% advantage in SMGs for flavor is functionally different than giving one side a 50%+ edge.  And then to add that wrinkle in for the Allies at a time when they aren't very healthy as a side was just a bad judgment call.  

 

That has nothing to do with RL history and everything to do with gameplay mechanics.  You are much safer when you mess around with the vehicle numbers in your attempts to create historical flavor because vehicles don't capture territory. 

 

Infantry numbers should probably stick to parity in quantity more often than not.  Just tell us that you'll stick to that mantra moving forward and a lot of these complaints will go away next campaign.  

 

By all means, please continue to play with the TOEs and make them more entertaining.  Let this campaign play out.  Then remind yourselves how much the infantry thing pissed people off this campaign, and go from there.  

 

S!

3 people like this

Share this post


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

Gameplay and balance should always come before complete historical accuracy.  Always. 

If we're so into total realism again, let's unfudge the panzer roof armor and let the 50 cals run wild like they used to. Everyone up for that again? 

This

Share this post


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

I agree 100% make it historic!

The solution here is to fix the flight model by introducing G-limits, airframe stress, and control surface authority. 

Old-CRS fudged roof armor as a shortcut. I don't see anyone supporting that. But the fundamental issue is the flight model should have been fixed instead of changing deck armor values.

As Scotsman said... sins of the past.

Even with a fixed FM .50s will shred tanks. At low speed you’re not pushing the bounds of the airframe, its control surfaces, nor what a pilot could sustain. Zero fear of death will make sure that some pilots will figure out how to light up paneers in this game.

idc either way, thicker top armor or not, just saying.

Share this post


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

This

Sure as long as you are also for a better flight model that will rip your wings off if you exceed G of fly unrealistically 

Share this post


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

Sure as long as you are also for a better flight model that will rip your wings off if you exceed G of fly unrealistically 

you seem  to think....the people who fly wouldn't like the most realistic  flight model they can get ........you are flat wrong.

Edited by themouse
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Sure as long as you are also for a better flight model that will rip your wings off if you exceed G of fly unrealistically 

The hangar has been begging for this since inception. However, like i just pointed out ... at low speeds a wing over, cut throttle, and a hard pull out won’t hurt a p40 or its pilot. Nor will it affect any single engine fighter in game or to be added.

400+mph pull out, sure, but a modified Cuban 8/wing over burst the top of the tank is WELL within AC limits.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

you seem  to think....the people who fly wouldn't like the most realistic  flight model they can get ........you are flat wrong.

A lot will, but they wont say anything.
Some will not, they will venomously hate it when they get it, and they will light up the forums and discord and game chat.

Share this post


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

Even with a fixed FM .50s will shred tanks. At low speed you’re not pushing the bounds of the airframe, its control surfaces, nor what a pilot could sustain. Zero fear of death will make sure that some pilots will figure out how to light up paneers in this game.

idc either way, thicker top armor or not, just saying.

Probably not if you look at .50 cal ball penetration vs roof armor and impact angle...light AFV maybe...I'd have to look at the data vs range...but harsh looks kill semisoft vehicles. About 8mm at 500 meters for ball. You can compare that to roof armor. Engine covers on Matilda are 20mm before impact angle is applied. Add tip off and it's even less. 

G limit and other flight model issues are well on the radar...but point taken on players gaming the game. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.