• Announcements

    • PITTPETE

      NEW Career Subscriptions now available   06/08/2019

      The all new highly anticipated / requested "Career Based Subscriptions" are available through www.WWIIONLINE.com/account only, starting at $9.99! There are three new subscriptions being added; 1) All Infantry at $9.99/mo, 2) All Air Forces at $9.99/mo, 3) All Ground Forces (Army Persona) at $12.99/mo. Continue reading to learn more and get back into the fight now! View the full article on battlegroundeurope.com
david06

Attack vs. Defense

282 posts in this topic

ATTACK:
I can decide to support the HC and drive a truck to a new attack. After seven minutes driving and setting a halfway-decent FMS, about five minutes walking to and through an empty town, a little over 10 minutes waiting for the AO to drop and the radios to go hot, and few minutes watching the actual capture timer go down a defender casually strolls in and kills me. It's pretty predictable, basically rolling the dice to see how bored the other side is. 24 minutes of basically wasted time.

g2u3MRU.png

DEFENSE:
Or I can decide to sit on defense and snipe infantry coming in to town. 19 kills in 18 minutes. And I literally did not leave the spawn building, just spend the entire time either shooting from the windows or on top. I actually did a significant benefit to my side because I took out a bunch of auto weapons for the loss of a bolt-action. 

pjOehvx.png 

Why would anyone ever drive and set spawns in this game? This is why you have so many dead AOs and so much low pop, no one attacks = no content

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+10/ This sounds like an soldier's hour in a day of the real WWII: 

24 minutes recon in an enemy village. 18 minutes defending a strongpoint on the front line. 20 minutes writing up or reporting the AARs. 23 hours doing other stuff. Congrats. You have successfully simulated WWII. 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I drove an ms 15 minutes by myself then killed u 3 times while capping spawnable in feshaux just this afternoon lol ....good times!

Edited by Jsilec
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all the defenders have to do is show up to win...

when a attack fails, soo much is blamed on the attackers. nobody will admit defending is too easy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree with the fact that we should better balance the time required to join flags and regain control of a lost area, between attackers and defenders. Defenders are currently too powerful over attackers, except when there is a heavy populations unbalance. 

Altough we could continue to ease attackers’ setup with faster MSP deployment, I would personally prefer to decrease the defensive capabilities, e.g. by limiting/removing the use of depots:

- open defensive depot only when there is no AO (preventive ews defense)

- open offensive and defensive depots only when one of the ABs has changed control 

This could make it harder for defenders to identify where attackers are coming from and give more time for attackers to deploy. Attackers would also be encouraged to better coordinate and create stronghold points in town. Therefore Defenders would also need to regroup to regain territory control like we had before 2005.

The only incertitude is how easy and how often would AB be precamped? We would therefore eventually need to activate the use of rear FBs for defenders, even when ABs are up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah, nothing should be changed, that is just the nature of war, defending should be easier than attacking. the kicker is, you can't win by defense alone. Setting up an attack in the manner is which the OP illustrated,  in which one-two guys setup and hope to capture a spawnable before detection, then rely on teammates to drop everything at precisely the moment that spawnable is captured, is just [censored]-poor strategy. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sorella said:

You have successfully simulated WWII. 

 

You mean WW1. I have read a book by a guy named Guy Sajer, it was breathtaking. Was pretty much constant action. (eastern front though)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is worthy of a broader, more extensive discussion and ultimately a dedicated task group/project team with full CRS involvement. 

Fundamentally, attacking a town - or more accurately, setting up and implementing an attack that feels coordinated and engages and stimulates players - is way to hard, too sluggish, too prone to being shutdown, too reliant on small numbers of individuals, to drive gameplay forward.

Worthy of a topic of itself @ZEBBEEE @TMAN

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good luck... even after providing simple and solid data in various threads (on more than the FMS) my credibility and rep got attacked relentlessly. debating a lack of activity gets attacked / strawnanned / denied from every angle as well as personal trolling.

even capco got a taste of it. whoever does it will be pulling their hair out in frustration.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I drove an ms 15 minutes by myself then killed u 3 times while capping spawnable in feshaux just this afternoon lol ....good times!

there is a difference about having an opel ... or being able to drive ev trucks that anyone can barely hear ... plus being able to spawn uba smgs that easily take out a fully filled CP/bunker with 1 clip

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@major0noobthere is a difference between helping with situational report and objective analysis (always welcome from anyone), and free CRS-bashing.

Moderators never moderated ideas, only the way people discussed it, strictly regulated by the TOS.

If anyone feels he is victim of overmoderation at the cost of a missed useful debate he can always contact me at zebbeee@corneredrats.com from a business development point of view.

Just trust that the team is very aware of present issues, and is working hard on it. We can't just let it be repeated again and again as this is negatively impacting the experience or morale of new or returning customers. By adopting a negative attitude, some  contribute to make things even slower to progress. And this is a pity as we know that all of you here love the project as much as CRS does.

As I stated above, I personally agree with the fundamental observation as I have been claiming or supporting some of the changes that you -and others- made mention of. But not everything is possible, unfortunately.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

there is a difference between helping with situational report and objective analysis (always welcome from anyone), and free CRS-bashing

both have a history of dismissal from subjective/baseless speculation...

it's difficult not to come off as CRS-bashing when something is soo obviously a issue, or ignored. I'm serious, it really is. especially with fanboy trolling criticism (constructive or not) unchecked, always without objective analysis and data.

 

2 hours ago, ZEBBEEE said:

Just trust that the team is very aware of present issues

xoom said he didn't know about the db7 & spit DM issues... some didn't know about squads 0-tolerance side switching policy... as well as several other issues...

 

 

it's gotten to the point where legitimate bug reports are seen as trolling, or get flamed. finding or calling out a issue is CRS-bashing...

 

 

a task group will face the full force of this BS, even within the group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, nc0gnet0 said:

 that is just the nature of war, defending should be easier than attacking. the kicker is, you can't win by defense alone. Setting up an attack in the manner is which the OP illustrated,  in which one-two guys setup and hope to capture a spawnable before detection, then rely on teammates to drop everything at precisely the moment that spawnable is captured, is just [censored]-poor strategy. 

 

4 hours ago, Silky said:

This is worthy of a broader, more extensive discussion and ultimately a dedicated task group/project team with full CRS involvement. 

Fundamentally, attacking a town - or more accurately, setting up and implementing an attack that feels coordinated and engages and stimulates players - is way to hard, too sluggish, too prone to being shutdown, too reliant on small numbers of individuals, to drive gameplay forward.

both correct. open conceptual discussion of 'activity' or 'player-created content' would be good as might be the linked topics of Attack setups and player numbers since: 

ATTACKS: pretty much since the beginning of the game fall into 4 broad types: 

i) 1/2 FMS / Ninja a Spawn / Call 'Flood' : usually only successful with 2 AOs and slow enemy response and followup bunker ninja - but symptomatic of low server pop 
ii) Many FMS but with main ZOC / Tows + Gunline / Hold back Tanks / Attrition:  old school,  semi-co-ordinated, staged, more combined arms use, hours long 'big fight'
iii) Few but key FMS + Armour Column/Tank Rush : old old school: spawn is camped + cut and AB camped before enemy responds: symptomatic of either multiple AOs or severe overpop and/or squad co-ordination and setup 
iv) Desultory:  few FMS, come and go, hours long AOs, until they fade away and/or one of the other first 3 types occurs: most common nowadays

Most attacks these days start out as (ii) but end up as (iv) because of low numbers, smart fast defense + fms hunting unless a combo of squad(s), HC + vets setup and persist. 

Any discussion of Attacks/Activity might have to range, therefore from issues like server pop to attack/capture mechanics to new concepts like area capture keeping in mind that player desires and inputs will range from just wanting a longish, good, fairly even 'big fight' to others wanting to 'move the map' (ie. cap a town) no matter what style the fight is. This has been the basic tension of the game since the beginning, now exaggerated and made more frustrating by player numbers. 

Certainly 1.36 with town garrisons, etc. might shed some light once implemented on 'better fights' or 'more activity' but for those of us who might fondly recall the 'old days' it was a time of:
1) units in every town
2) capability to attack anywhere anytime (ie. no AO limit because no AO concept at all)
3) more robust population
4) multiple big squads looking for action and/or  creating their own

This old style also  had its obvious benefits, glaring negatives and forum fights. But in the end, simplistically, the cliche remains true:  more players = more activity = bigger fights.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's refocus on the exact notion that the OP is talking about.  

 

In our game, when someone says "player-created content", that's just another way of saying "attacks are set up by players".  You can sit in a town and build up your base and blah blah blah for hours on end, but eventually there's nothing fun left to do if no attackers come to challenge the defenders.  If everyone just sits in their bases all day and no one ever leaves their base, the game isn't worth playing.  

 

Apart from a spike in population here or there, it's a fact that this game has, on average, bled population since the beginning.  It's obviously a multifaceted issue, but one of the things that has remained consistent throughout the game's history:  attacking is harder than defending. 

 

On the other hand, another constant in development since the beginning has been development geared to help the attacker.  The FB, depot spawning, the mobile spawn, the FRU, the FMS... ALL of these are things are meant to make attacking less boring, more successful, and require less effort.  

 

Why do you think that is?  Personally, I think the answer is simple.  The reward-to-work ratio is significantly lower for the attacker than for the defender.  When the rewards are lower, less people are likely to do those things.  When people are less likely to set up attacks, there is less action.  When there is less action, there is less reason for people to play WWIIOL vs _______ game.  When there are fewer people playing, there are fewer people setting up attacks and creating action, pushing people even further towards defense than offense.  And the loop feeds back into itself ad infinitum until you get to where we are today.  

 

This is basic human psychology, and the state of the game today is in part a consequence of this key element in the game's design.  You can't have an enjoyable PvP game where the attacker ought to outnumber the defender 3:1 in order to succeed (i.e. the historic, RL attacker/defender ratio). 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sitting in a CP for 6 minutes provides zero incentive for me.  And 4 min just as bad if even pop.  I've completely stopped attacking.

Game went years with 1 min capture timer, time to go back to it.  No multi person bonus, keep the sliding scale for under pop.  Remove SD.

Might try cutting FMS time to 30 seconds.

Finally, placing and removing AOs (attack or bridge), should take no more than 30 seconds... not 5 minutes.

Edited by delems
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ebert101 said:

I have read a book by a guy named Guy Sajer, it was breathtaking. Was pretty much constant action. (eastern front though)

"The Forgotten Soldier"   Guy Sajer

One of the most intense books I have ever read.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a lot of threads/posts these days speaking about 'gameplay issues' that frankly, are not gameplay issues at all.

 

Worried about the safety of your truck while setting an FMS?  Bring an Infantryman, or friendly tank, with you.

Too difficult to cap a CP once the defense is alerted?  Stop trying to take CPs by yourself and calling it 'an attack'.

Having a hard time rolling your solo tank to within 500M of an enemy town so you can wreak havoc on defenders, without being killed?  Get ONE other person to spawn a tank, and move as a team towards your target---it'll work much better, I promise you.

 

Other examples exist I suppose, but in all honesty, what is getting really tiresome is people failing to understand that if you decide to do things by yourself, whether it is attacking, defending, guarding or capturing, setting FMS or hunting EMFS, your results are going to vary based on the skill and preparedness of those you are facing off against.  This is not a game conducive to a COD/MOH/rambo style of play----it just isn't.  Flaws in the game in days past masked that simple fact, but geez, folks, it's dangerous out there in the game environment.  Everyone not on your side in a given area is trying to find, and kill you, and they have lots of options on how to do it.  When you act alone, and get located, you are probably going to die quickly.  Continuing to act in a way contrary to what works (playing as a team, or hell, at least as a buddy pair), is not going to be a satisfying experience most times.

 

If you walk into an AB bunker by yourself bent on clearing and capturing that AB, it is not the game's fault that you die 9 times out of 10.  It's your fault for not bothering to get 1 or 2 friends to come with you.  (I guard my share of AB bunkers, and I can tell you plainly that if I die to a solo 'artist' I was either typing, or I screwed up---by the same token, when 3 EI run into that same bunker and I have failed to get a couple of other people to help guard that rather important piece of real estate, I am lucky to survive for a little while, and it usually ends poorly for me).

 

If your FMS is blown up while you are running into the town you are 'attacking', then that is on you.  Guarding a spawn is important, whether it is in a town, or in the field.  Choose not to guard your FMS, and expect it to die or be camped.  Expecting otherwise is ridiculous.

 

If not enough people are willing to run FMS to the AO, then the HC should probably pick a different AO, as it is clear to me that people are voting against that AO by not showing up.  This game isn't HOI----folks don't HAVE to follow your orders, thus leaders in this game have to be really good at leading as opposed to just being good at strategy.

 

The failure on the part of some players to realize that playing as a team is the way that works best, whether in the attack or defense, is not the fault of the game.  I would love to see 1/10th of the effort some in these forums spend on trying to 'change the game to make it easier for solo players to not die when doing basically stupid things', instead spent on team-building.  This game works just fine (not perfect, but fine) when enough people are playing as teams on both sides, as good battles almost always ensue.  This game breaks down when the majority of players do their level best to NOT play as a team.

 

Is the game perfect?  No

Fix, or work to lobby for fixes on actual gameplay issues.  I fully support that style of game improvement from within the community.  Just don't ask the game to cover for poor choices by the player(s) themselves and ask for the game to 'fix' it for them.

 

S!

 

 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the axis had some armor in their inf brigs...... attacks would be lot more worth setting up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, kgarner said:

if the axis had some armor in their inf brigs...... attacks would be lot more worth setting up

If the GHC would more effectively mix their Armor Brigades with their Infantry Brigades, the lack of armor in the Infantry brigades would be a moot point.

Similarly, when axis armored brigades come crashing into a town that AHC has decided not to put an armored brigade into town, especially if the defending unit is a French Infantry brigade, things don't go well for the Allies.

 

Neither is a gameplay issue.  Both are player-created challenges to overcome (or not).

 

S!

Share this post


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

If the GHC would more effectively mix their Armor Brigades with their Infantry Brigades, the lack of armor in the Infantry brigades would be a moot point.

Similarly, when axis armored brigades come crashing into a town that AHC has decided not to put an armored brigade into town, especially if the defending unit is a French Infantry brigade, things don't go well for the Allies.

 

Neither is a gameplay issue.  Both are player-created challenges to overcome (or not).

 

S!

74 Sherman vs 4 Tigers, there is no flag mix that can fix that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issues the game faces are population issues, all the rest is just minor in comparison really. As such CRS's main focus should be on that first, second, and third. It's time to stop catering to the cry babies that want this or that fixed, wah wah wah, this side has more of this, that side has more of that. Maybe CRS focus's so heavily on the other stuff is because, for now, that is all they have the capability to fix? I dunno......

 

About a week or so ago, playing on an underpop allied side in TZ3, I watched as the axis proceeded to soft cap a town. The few allied players had no option to defend the town (no HC was on). I was shocked on a couple different fronts on this.

While not a popular idea/suggestion I am sure, maybe to improve game play CRS needs to look long and hard at the way AO's are implemented. Less AO's = more action at a predefined place. Maybe when one side is severely underpop (>25%) they should not be allowed to have any AO, and the other side only have one, so the whole player base is focused at one location? And maybe the AO has an expiration time, if the town is not captured in "x" amount of minutes, then the AO expires and a new one must be chosen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** If the GHC would more effectively mix their Armor Brigades with their Infantry Brigades

Take it you flunked math?

Let's see, 20 infantry flags, 10 armored flags....  1 hour move timers........... Can you do the math?  Apparently not.

You tell me, how does 16.3 support both Zand and Kalm at the same time...........?

Now, if we had 2 ARM flags per div (each half current numbers), then we could split off the battalions and do that.

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

If the GHC would more effectively mix their Armor Brigades with their Infantry Brigades, the lack of armor in the Infantry brigades would be a moot point.

Similarly, when axis armored brigades come crashing into a town that AHC has decided not to put an armored brigade into town, especially if the defending unit is a French Infantry brigade, things don't go well for the Allies.

 

Neither is a gameplay issue.  Both are player-created challenges to overcome (or not).

 

S!

You are not understanding the problem.  Allies can counter an Axis armor brigade with their own, a player created challenge. Axis infantry brigades do not have the same armor capabilities, or even numbers for that matter, as an Allied infantry brigade. This is not a player created challenge and there are not enough armor brigades to overcome it.  FYI: Axis infantry brigades armor consist of 10 StuG IIIG's, 4 StuG H42's, and 4 232's.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.