• Announcements

    • CHIMM

      Operation Burning Skies   09/17/2019

      All pilots scramble!  Strap yourself in for this months Community event - Operation Burning Skies! This Sunday, September 22, 11 am – 5 pm server time. In honor of XOOM and friends showcasing WWII Online at the Oregon International  Air Show – our forces too will battle for superiority in Operation Burning Skies. High Commands are on high alert to rally their forces to victory! Lift off, and see a whole new world of WWII Online… Fearless bomber pilots make the skies rain down fire – our daring fighter pilots are in pursuit of their prey- as western Europe erupts in war on the ground below! Rally your squads, rally your buddies - Combined arms are back!  …Under Burning Skies! SALUTE!
stankyus

New TO&E try out

149 posts in this topic

There is a numbers issue in game but Allies definitely do not not help themselves at all. Capco is right as we were both in text chat. Allies can only muster 5-12 guys in an AO. But when they all do their own thing and rambo to areas and have zero comms, no wonder we get punished. There was literally just myself amd 2 4wings guys I see on discord regularly which is just freaking poor for a team based game. 

Another issue I witnessed was axis tactics. I witnessed it twice at Bavay and Mons. Bavay was the worst as 2 axis AFVs just headed straight for our FMS, capped it, took it down and then left the AO instantly. Yes effective at winning for axis but they held Bavay with 2 players but this right here makes it impossible for Allies to do anything and sure is hell not fun to play just getting mowed down the instant you spawn in. 

I have no ideas to prevent that from happening as we basically had 4-6 rifleman in the town who were all instantly screwed. I know I'm just going to get told to defend it, but Allies can't defend and attack at the same time, in the same AO with a numbers disparity and against that kind of tactic with zero comms. I personally don't see the smg numbers being an issue, it'll change as the time line progresses. 

Share this post


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

There is a numbers issue in game but Allies definitely do not not help themselves at all. Capco is right as we were both in text chat. Allies can only muster 5-12 guys in an AO. But when they all do their own thing and rambo to areas and have zero comms, no wonder we get punished. There was literally just myself amd 2 4wings guys I see on discord regularly which is just freaking poor for a team based game. 

Another issue I witnessed was axis tactics. I witnessed it twice at Bavay and Mons. Bavay was the worst as 2 axis AFVs just headed straight for our FMS, capped it, took it down and then left the AO instantly. Yes effective at winning for axis but they held Bavay with 2 players but this right here makes it impossible for Allies to do anything and sure is hell not fun to play just getting mowed down the instant you spawn in. 

I have no ideas to prevent that from happening as we basically had 4-6 rifleman in the town who were all instantly screwed. I know I'm just going to get told to defend it, but Allies can't defend and attack at the same time, in the same AO with a numbers disparity and against that kind of tactic with zero comms. I personally don't see the smg numbers being an issue, it'll change as the time line progresses. 

It is a numbers issue. Not side-balance. But aggregate numbers.

In this game you need a certain critical mass for combined arms to work. You can't run a restaurant and expect the chef to cook, bus tables, and clean the toilets all at the same time. Similarly if you don't physically have enough troops you can't afford to take 20% of your force and defend an FMS. When we have 50-100 players attacking a target its easy to spare 2-3 people to do (back then) FB defending duty.

A lot of these "issues" aren't really issues with the game per se, but more of an issue with numbers. Get enough numbers and you can afford the yahoos that go out and snipe form the church tower while you are trying to storm the bunker and need every body with a pulse in there. But if you have 10 players assaulting a town 2 guys sniping and doing their own thing is a big hit. Moral of the story is that we need to keep on working to increase ingame numbers and not go on a safari to slay some mythical beast that has been the cause of all our problems.

4 people like this

Share this post


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

It is a numbers issue. Not side-balance. But aggregate numbers.

In this game you need a certain critical mass for combined arms to work. You can't run a restaurant and expect the chef to cook, bus tables, and clean the toilets all at the same time. Similarly if you don't physically have enough troops you can't afford to take 20% of your force and defend an FMS. When we have 50-100 players attacking a target its easy to spare 2-3 people to do (back then) FB defending duty.

A lot of these "issues" aren't really issues with the game per se, but more of an issue with numbers. Get enough numbers and you can afford the yahoos that go out and snipe form the church tower while you are trying to storm the bunker and need every body with a pulse in there. But if you have 10 players assaulting a town 2 guys sniping and doing their own thing is a big hit. Moral of the story is that we need to keep on working to increase ingame numbers and not go on a safari to slay some mythical beast that has been the cause of all our problems.

Absolutely. I think there has been a lot of finger-pointing at Tiers and TOE where numbers and morale are more to blame I'd say. This isn't to take away from continuing to improve and develop the wargame but your comments on critical-mass are spot on. A few can only do so much.

Share this post


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

Moral of the story is that we need to keep on working to increase ingame numbers and not go on a safari to slay some mythical beast that has been the cause of all our problems.

This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.. 

um.. My underlying objection probably is better suited to addressing the extreme nature of infantry class disparities all at once. I think as the map moves and the disparity closes in, we will run into it again but flipped in the US favor. While part of me says, let's do it simply because some of the comments about how it's not really a big deal as we are witnessing.. without the population the im not sure that can be illustrated. Never the less the potential negative effects of it are there. 

My original post is not that I logged in frustration, but because I had not seen vets say screw this and log very often. It was primarily because I did not believe matamors allegations. The fact is I heard 12 or more vets say this over a four hour period. Dre mentioned nouvion. I was there, even killed a bunker capper with a riffle. He mentioned all the r35s out... it's what we had. It was being used for what it was designed for as a infantry support tank. And because guys were saying over chat, I'm grabbing a tank, I keep getting mowed down.  We were overwhelmed and when the stugB was heard the atgs went like fire crackers out of the supply pool and died. I was only able to spawn grenadiers and riflemen. Many of the guys sat back to snipe, and stopped trying to take caps back because soon as they entered the got mg34 rounds in them and even if they killed the guy, more autos whipped them out. The infantry supply was going very fast and guys figured I can kill something if I don't enter the cp and hopefully kill more than they can. The majority of our squad left to get in front of another axis attack before the end, I left when my depot was down to atrs. That was mb 45 minutes, that's how fast it went. 

Ill play with these tough conditions, but that's me. Others don't and won't, but I can say over the past two years my motivation is often tempered with my previous experience.  Some of these vets are just tired of living in a underpop, outraged, out armored and outgun existence... And though I believe great strides have solved those issues and I am very happy with it, IF WE GET TO T3.5. Going straight into a extreme TO&E that introduces serious balance in supply numbers issues that hit at the core of the games objective. The flag building... its like cold water in the face after what has been a rare win as of lately, to just more of the same. The allies need to build and mend what has been broken for so long.. introducing the catalyst back, so soon and so extreme does nobody good. Baby steps, not rope swings.

5 people like this

Share this post


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

I'm not sure where you are getting this notion that things aren't being addressed. The initial Matty numbers were changed and CRS has been very upfront that numbers change in Tier1 and will again be reassessed for the next campaign. Similarly PPOs have been discussed and are being looked at as well but there are real grieving/clipping issues that need to be QA'd first.

And for the record I've been having fun. Last campaign and this campaign. I appreciate the Matty challenge personally. Hence my sub. S!

 

they were addressed, but there's the initial implementation, the thinking that it was a good idea that gets to me.

this is my main gripe, the grease gun was hands down, the absolute worst weapon i've ever used in gaming. the 3min FMS reduced 3 AO pop to a single FMS and nothing was done for 10 months. RPATS killing off the tank game getting a pathetic nerf. it just goes on and on...

they're making progress, but they're always taking one step forward and a leap back. the FMS is a perfect example of this, it was undoubtedly a step in the right direction, but battles are not nearly as active as the inf-FRU.

 

 

to sum up my lack of faith in CRS, and why i only sub for 2 months of the year

the pre-implementation thought process, making fun low priority

refusal to see problems: the FMS's battles vs inf-FRU's battles, there's no doubt the inf-FRU had more active battles. spit's. RPATS.

finally the lack of critical action when a problem is addressed. the RPATS nerf, RAF cannons wiping out up to 4 mobile spawns.

 

i just brought those problems up as examples.

my point is the low-fun attitude, denialism, and weak problem solving action are making it difficult to support the game.

 

enough squad mates have unsubbed... the thing i absolutely hate is the reasons they unsubbed are dismissed by the rats and denied in the forums.

Share this post


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

sure is hell not fun to play just getting mowed down the instant you spawn in. 

Camping happens.....and for this game Im not sure what the solution is.  No matter what you try to do as far as static spawns it will be the nature to camp.  It would need to be a dynamic FMS idea to try and reduce camping..........I am assuming you are talking about spawning in for a FMS.  If its a depot then you can spawn in from a non-camped depot in another part of town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bmw said:

Camping happens.....and for this game Im not sure what the solution is.  No matter what you try to do as far as static spawns it will be the nature to camp.  It would need to be a dynamic FMS idea to try and reduce camping..........I am assuming you are talking about spawning in for a FMS.  If its a depot then you can spawn in from a non-camped depot in another part of town.

It was an FMS, I don't know if its possible (not a coder) but having FMS  as a spawn area rather than a spawn area would alleviate some of the ease camping am FMS has. 

Share this post


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

Camping happens.....and for this game Im not sure what the solution is.  No matter what you try to do as far as static spawns it will be the nature to camp.  It would need to be a dynamic FMS idea to try and reduce camping..........I am assuming you are talking about spawning in for a FMS.  If its a depot then you can spawn in from a non-camped depot in another part of town.

 

1 hour ago, aleca said:

It was an FMS, I don't know if its possible (not a coder) but having FMS  as a spawn area rather than a spawn area would alleviate some of the ease camping am FMS has. 

I would tend to think that FMS camping is essential. If it's not thoroughly suppressed, it's almost impossible to get infantry close enough to place satchels if there are any ei spawning. 

Share this post


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

 

I would tend to think that FMS camping is essential. If it's not thoroughly suppressed, it's almost impossible to get infantry close enough to place satchels if there are any ei spawning. 

 

Camping should *never* be essential; the fact that it is in this game is a giant clue that something is wrong.

 

In Post Scriptum, camping is all but eliminated: whenever a certain threshold of enemy players are within a certain range of your spawn point, that spawn point becomes compromised, and spawning is temporarily disabled. The enemy *still* has to destroy the spawn point if they want to stop you from spawning there for good. You have to spawn from somewhere else and dislodge the enemy to rescue your spawn point. It works perfectly, and it could work just as well in our game too.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, caydel said:

I would tend to think that FMS camping is essential. If it's not thoroughly suppressed, it's almost impossible to get infantry close enough to place satchels if there are any ei spawning. 

I don't have an issue of taking an FMS, as you said, suppressing an FMS to destroy it is needed. It's the farming kills that makes it no fun. 

I like Xanthus' idea of a similar Post Scriptum mechanic to sort this and get back to actually fighting a war! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, xanthus said:

 

Camping should *never* be essential; the fact that it is in this game is a giant clue that something is wrong.

 

In Post Scriptum, camping is all but eliminated: whenever a certain threshold of enemy players are within a certain range of your spawn point, that spawn point becomes compromised, and spawning is temporarily disabled. The enemy *still* has to destroy the spawn point if they want to stop you from spawning there for good. You have to spawn from somewhere else and dislodge the enemy to rescue your spawn point. It works perfectly, and it could work just as well in our game too.

+1

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, xanthus said:

Camping should *never* be essential; the fact that it is in this game is a giant clue that something is wrong.

In Post Scriptum, camping is all but eliminated: whenever a certain threshold of enemy players are within a certain range of your spawn point, that spawn point becomes compromised, and spawning is temporarily disabled. The enemy *still* has to destroy the spawn point if they want to stop you from spawning there for good. You have to spawn from somewhere else and dislodge the enemy to rescue your spawn point. It works perfectly, and it could work just as well in our game too.

The one difference is that in shoebox games you start of with a fresh server so you will never been in a situation where the enemy can infiltrate potentially all your spawn points.

In WWIIOL since we are a persistent map you can be in the situation where the enemy can stack an undefended town and push back your spawn points.

Now I don't think that model is a bad one but it would require a paradigm shift away from the current 2-town model (attacking FB and defending town) to a 3-town model (contested town really in no mans land and each side has an FB from their adjacent towns.

The issue with that system is that it gives the attacking player a heavy advantage an incentives a new type of "soft cap light" where you would simply wait for defenders to despawn and quickly rush in to push back all the defenders spawn points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a question - IRL - Stalingrad. Were the Germans camped?

*edit*

Falaise pocket - were the Germans camped?

In the Ardenes - were the Americans camped?

In Egypt - were the British camped?

Edited by madrebel
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

just a question - IRL - Stalingrad. Were the Germans camped?

*edit*

Falaise pocket - were the Germans camped?

In the Ardenes - were the Americans camped?

In Egypt - were the British camped?

In real life they didnt get to respawm. Cant really compare RL to a computer game....and I dont say that disrespectfully....

Edited by bmw

Share this post


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

just a question - IRL - Stalingrad. Were the Germans camped?

*edit*

Falaise pocket - were the Germans camped?

In the Ardenes - were the Americans camped?

In Egypt - were the British camped?

In all the above cases, the camped side had an opportunity to at least defend and stay alive. Being killed before you even get chance to move on the exact same terrain pixel is not comparable as you have zero chance to breathe, let alone defend yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, stankyus said:

Many of the guys sat back to snipe, and stopped trying to take caps back because soon as they entered the got mg34 rounds in them and even if they killed the guy, more autos whipped them out. The infantry supply was going very fast and guys figured I can kill something if I don't enter the cp and hopefully kill more than they can. 

While you raise many good concerns, I read this and wonder if it was an actual coordinated attempt to rush as a group or the typical trial o’ lemmings leading to those deaths as it often is.

Its hard to nail down auto disparity as it’s own major underlying issue, I believe Asimov said it best - the game just needs a particular population to simply function on its most basic level

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it’s tought when your side throws the towel 5 meters away. I salute the fighters that keep playing with motivation, with a rifle, dying and racking kills for their side and that don’t blame the system. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

In all the above cases, the camped side had an opportunity to at least defend and stay alive. Being killed before you even get chance to move on the exact same terrain pixel is not comparable as you have zero chance to breathe, let alone defend yourself.

read more on the falaise pocket - there was no chance. its was an absolute slaughter.

 

My point really is camping at times is a RL tactic. However, I'll join the chorus and add - tactical retreats are a MUCH more desired RL tactic that the game hasn't really ever done well. I'll also agree that our static spawns do lead to camping as the default way to win and that too is inferior to say more diverse mobile spawn options perhaps mobile spawns and area capture as the defacto 'way' we should be playing in the future with CP fighting, hold at all costs type fights either for tactically important cities or tactically important areas being the minority.

just saying - camping IRL happens in warfare. its not 'unrealistic' in and of itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2019 at 11:53 AM, scotsman said:

good point... new buildings ARE coming...I'll ask if we can somehow work multiple capture points into a given large structure too. 

I guess my own frustration is that we really are getting the wheels turning - the game is going to evolve much more rapidly than it has over priors years. I keep hoping the players can and will change with it... if progress is what we all want, CRS cant make an omelette without breaking eggs...meaning the gameplay will change as code, assets, etc change. 

Its not peculiar to our game...other titles wrestle with this too. If everyone simply digs in and refuses to change or give though, Im not sure what CRS can do about that. 

You don't need new buildings or capture areas you just need to stop forcing infantry to sit in a tiny 5m² box for several minutes. This is basic FPS stuff the solution isn't elusive. The game mechanics changed from the defender being able to spawn twice, maybe three times before a depot was captured to a dozen times or more with absolutely no change in level design. If you're afraid of  towns falling too quick with reasonable capture timers just make it 30-40 minutes before the bunker radios go hot. 

 

To solve the other problems you just need to stop listening to what some players claim and start analyzing how the game is actually played. For example how many players told you that "the rifle is the best weapon in the game"? It's complete nonsense. Auto weapons are king in this game (far more than they were in real life) for a variety of reasons. Rifles are utter garbage here, far worse than they are in other WW2 games. That's why you are caught off-guard with players telling you they won't play unless they can use SMGs despite you putting in a lot of effort listening to people when you made the new TO&E. There there are plenty of other situations.

 

I just played a bunch of sorties in Lokeren and all the big issues affecting gameplay are readily apparent; none of this stuff requires a new engine in UE4 or new coding work it's just rule tweaks. You guys don't even have a publisher, you have total creative control so I'm not sure why you keep all these bad decisions in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2019 at 8:11 PM, madrebel said:

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.

Even I used to kill panzers with the 50cals, and I never did it at high speed, either.   

Lazy loops over the target at low speed lol. Not ripping wings off like that. 

Why does everyone think that we were doing 600kph dives and pulling out at 50 feet ?  Anyone ever watch spdycpu strafing tanks with his p38? LOL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 5:01 PM, Capco said:

As of the moment of this post:

 

Axis Rifleman:  0.87 K/D

British Rifleman:  0.61 K/D

French Rifleman:  0.58 K/D

 

 

That's what happens when you give one side a decided advantage in SMGs.  

 

After playing for about 8 hours straight today, everything I thought was bad was unequivocally confirmed.  The Allies don't stand a chance without parity in auto supply.  

 

In one instance today, a single Axis division took on 2 Allied divisions at once and beat them both back, taking 3 towns in the process.  Even with a considerable overpop advantage, no side should be able to do that to another side's infantry supply without losing a head of steam.  

 

That.  Is.  Disgusting.  Period.  End of story.  

Anyone could see it...I thought. 

Guess I was wrong on that account lol. After playing this game for all these years, you'd think the people making it would see the same things we do. 

The 50% more SMGs thing I would have thought was an Onion article lol, it's that absurd. 

Share this post


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

Anyone could see it...I thought. 

Guess I was wrong on that account lol. After playing this game for all these years, you'd think the people making it would see the same things we do. 

The 50% more SMGs thing I would have thought was an Onion article lol, it's that absurd. 

And like others have said, the map isn't moving west solely because the Axis have more SMGs, but you can be damn certain that the Allies weren't having as much fun defending with rifles these past few days.

 

Thankfully the debacle is over and we can move forward.  It's good that CRS realized how bad this was, otherwise they wouldn't have breached their longstanding tradition of not making adjustments mid-campaign.  They will only do so in exceptional circumstances, and this was clearly one of them.

 

Even though it was initially a mistake, I still give them credit for rectifying the issue as soon as they did.  I don't think they will ever make this mistake again.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, gt3076r said:

While you raise many good concerns, I read this and wonder if it was an actual coordinated attempt to rush as a group or the typical trial o’ lemmings leading to those deaths as it often is.

Its hard to nail down auto disparity as it’s own major underlying issue, I believe Asimov said it best - the game just needs a particular population to simply function on its most basic level

Well yes, my squad did while canukplf cut with a r35. We were successful in getting.. it's the clearing and holding that's hard. Once the stug destroyed the r35s... it was a matter of time.

certainly population has a lot to do with amplified experience. That being said, I played quite a bit of BEF prior to adding the M1s. The Axis still ate through our infantry supply big time, and that was during high pop and even with being over pop. There is a reason why the BEF has the M1 in supply now. So, while I believe there are many factors involved, we do know that regardless of pop, the autos and semi autos do play a good part in over powering sides with fewer to none like the BEF. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.