david06

Attack vs. Defense

282 posts in this topic

Abnormal that outside TZ3 is a stalemate map for yearzzz - softcaps are not caps.

Few easy suggestions with easy coding for CRS, some can be complementary to others :

  • Double the numbers of AOs for each side during TZ1-TZ2. Death to turtles and hello dynamism & fun.
  • Cut supply in half. Too much supplies.
  • Kill JWBS. Ok well, 1.36 is coming.
  • Sets minimal distance from enemy cps to 200m instead of 400m for FMS.
  • Bring back the FRUs.
  • EWS alerts are 2 or 5 minutes deferred.
  • Cap timers back to 1 minute.
  • INTEL messages only shows where population is missing on your attacks.
  • Disable AO capture if population is over 3 or 4 vs 1 (active players in game world, no side switches, no 2nd account logging on the other sides, etc.)

 

Edited by matamor
2 people like this

Share this post


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

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

Take it you flunked math?

Let's see, 18 infantry flags, 9 armored flags....  1 hour move timers........... Can you do the math?  Apparently not.

Math and I get along just fine, thank you.  You deciding to act like a jerk about this rather than having a rational discussion doesn't change the simple fact that if you, as an axis player, want more tanks to play with, you need to be in areas where there are armored brigades, or bring them from where there are armored brigades available.  It is no different for an Allied player stuck in a town with a French Infantry brigade trying to hold against german armored brigade-sized attacks, except that French tanks are far slower than their german counterparts, thus take far longer to drive from town to town.  If the town that is being attacked doesn't have any armored brigades, and the opposition's brigades are armored, things will be rough, regardless of which side you are on.  It can be mitigated by the respective HCs mixing brigades---perhaps not perfectly but if having the same amount of tanks available to spawn in every town is the goal, then any pretext of historical accuracy needs to be thrown out of the window.

Before anyone thinks that getting rid of historical accuracy is a good idea, please remember the 18 years of Allied players in French-held territories being saddled with R35s running around with almost no chance of taking out a german tank in a nod to historical accuracy would have been wasted time, and would be over in favor of the red v blue model that getting rid of historical accuracy is, at its root.  One can't be for historical accuracy when it helps their side, and against it when it doesn't help their side, and while I am not accusing anyone of side bias specifically, each reader can judge on their own whether they were in favor of changing spawn lists when it was the other side taking it on the chin due to the goal of being historically accurate in equipment.

Having relatively accurate spawn lists is a good thing.  Overcoming a bit of a challenge is a good thing.  Having everything available all the time wouldn't be an improvement to gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, sydspain said:

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

I'm not sure that is an accurate statement to make, given there are other german tanks involved in the equation, most of which fully possessing of the ability to take shermans out of action.

 

S!

Share this post


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

Math and I get along just fine, thank you.  You deciding to act like a jerk about this rather than having a rational discussion doesn't change the simple fact that if you, as an axis player, want more tanks to play with, you need to be in areas where there are armored brigades, or bring them from where there are armored brigades available.  It is no different for an Allied player stuck in a town with a French Infantry brigade trying to hold against german armored brigade-sized attacks, except that French tanks are far slower than their german counterparts, thus take far longer to drive from town to town.  If the town that is being attacked doesn't have any armored brigades, and the opposition's brigades are armored, things will be rough, regardless of which side you are on.  It can be mitigated by the respective HCs mixing brigades---perhaps not perfectly but if having the same amount of tanks available to spawn in every town is the goal, then any pretext of historical accuracy needs to be thrown out of the window.

Before anyone thinks that getting rid of historical accuracy is a good idea, please remember the 18 years of Allied players in French-held territories being saddled with R35s running around with almost no chance of taking out a german tank in a nod to historical accuracy would have been wasted time, and would be over in favor of the red v blue model that getting rid of historical accuracy is, at its root.  One can't be for historical accuracy when it helps their side, and against it when it doesn't help their side, and while I am not accusing anyone of side bias specifically, each reader can judge on their own whether they were in favor of changing spawn lists when it was the other side taking it on the chin due to the goal of being historically accurate in equipment.

Having relatively accurate spawn lists is a good thing.  Overcoming a bit of a challenge is a good thing.  Having everything available all the time wouldn't be an improvement to gameplay.

Curious as to whether one side having armor without turrets and machine guns in 1944 fits the 'historical' or red vs blue argument?  

Share this post


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

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.  

I think it would make things a lot easier for folks if we could stipulate that neither French Infantry Brigades, nor german Infantry Brigades have much in the way of armor capabilities.  British Infantry brigades have matties, but (not having the TOE in-hand as I type this) are not as strong in their armored brigades--same goes for the French armored brigades.  My in-game experience tells me that when a german armored brigade comes into a town with no armored brigade to counter them, especially for the French, the battle will not go well for the Allied side.  I assume the experience is the same for german Infantry brigades coming up against Allied armored brigades.  On the rare occasions when I've spawned a matty, (and by no means am I claiming to be an expert tanker) I have done well when working with other tanks and Infantry, and not so well when going it alone, or having the other tanks manned by players working their own agendas.  On the even rarer occasions when I've been in a matty and the attacking germans have decided not to bring any anti-armor assets into play, I've had to guard against being sapped by the inordinate number of Infantry who can kill tanks---something that is not quite historically accurate, but that needs to be dealt with as best as I can.

 

I fully believe that having Infantry brigades being equipped differently than armored bridades is not something that should even be up for discussion----they are different and should have different capabilities.  Arguing that german infantry brigades do not have a counter is not accurate---it is a challenge that needs to be overcome by better utilization of the assets involved, whether it be by mixing brigades to satisfy those who wish to spawn a tank in every battle, or by using towed assets more effectively.

Share this post


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

Curious as to whether one side having armor without turrets and machine guns in 1944 fits the 'historical' or red vs blue argument?  

The modeled german armor lacking in turrets lacked turrets during the actual war, and the modeled german armor lacking MGs also lacked MGs during the actual war, so I would have to answer that it fits 'historical'.

Just as the French having a plethora of woefully slow R35s is, while being a giant pain in the [censored] and making it more challenging to use them effectively, is historically accurate.

 

Think of this from a non-german point of view:  The german side has held a quantitative and arguably a qualitative superiority in tanks for the entire time the game has existed, and when Allied players whined about the woefully slow speeds of the R35 (for example), and the utter lack of ability for R35s to punch through (most) german armor, they have been told it is accurate, and to deal with it.  Now that spawn lists are closer (I won't say perfect, but definitely closer) to being historically accurate, some on the german side are up in arms about it, despite having the in-game ability to mitigate the challenges involved by mixing brigades, and by a better utilization of anti-armor assets other than tanks.

An R35 pulling up on an enemy FMS is going to do some damage, and that damage will improve if the R35 is smart enough to have an Infantryman with him/her.  If a german tank shows up, the fun time will end quickly, but if in addition to the R35 and the Infantryman, an ATG has come with, the R35 might have a chance to survive to the end of the 'battle'.

Just as surely, a Stug pulling into a battle with an Allied Infantry unit is going to do well, and they'll do even more damage if they bring an Infantryman with him/her to protect them and help them to locate targets.  The day the stug brings an Infantryman AND an 88 with them, will be a bad day for the Allies in that area.

Stugs not having a turret is a bummer---it must be a pain in the [censored] trying to figure out where the rounds that the French R35s are bouncing off of the impenetrable armor of the Stug are coming from, so the stug can pivot, fire on the R35s once each, and end the 'battle'...;)    It might pay, for credibility's sake, to ponder what it is like to be in that R35, with a turret, an MG, and almost no chance of surviving an encounter with a german stug regardless of how many rounds they can hit it with before the stug figures out where it is.  Point being, every piece of properly modeled equipment in-game is going to have advantages and disadvantages when compared to enemy equipment.  Finding a way around these challenges has been modus operendi for the Allies for well over a decade.  The new spawn lists do not eliminate these long-standing issues for the Allied side, and have caused other challenges for the Allied side, but they have added some challenges to the german side, to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

augetout is providing a excellent example of "dismissal from subjective/baseless speculation" there is no issue, just dump it into the generic lack of teamwork and leadership pile

instead of a constructive attitude, guys like him use anti constructive denialism to disregard any and all issues. without data and objective analysis.

 

the only thing that'll work is ignoring all talk without data, like what scotsman resorted to lol

 

Share this post


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

Abnormal that outside TZ3 is a stalemate map for yearzzz - softcaps are not caps.

Few easy suggestions with easy coding for CRS, some can be complementary to others :

  • Double the numbers of AOs for each side during TZ1-TZ2. Death to turtles and hello dynamism & fun.
  • Cut supply in half. Too much supplies.
  • Kill JWBS. Ok well, 1.36 is coming.
  • Sets minimal distance from enemy cps to 200m instead of 400m for FMS.
  • Bring back the FRUs.
  • EWS alerts are 2 or 5 minutes deferred.
  • Cap timers back to 1 minute.
  • INTEL messages only shows where population is missing on your attacks.
  • Disable AO capture if population is over 3 or 4 vs 1 (active players in game world, no side switches, no 2nd account logging on the other sides, etc.)

 

How does doubling the number of AOs for Tz1 and Tz2 improve battles?

Cutting supplies in half.  Too much supplies.  Hmmm.  Something to ponder----I believe dividing (or allowing said division) of Brigades into 2 or 3 regiments each would also add some flavor and potentially reduce available supplies for a given town.

Kill JWBS.   ??  I am sorry for not understanding the terminology on this one.

Setting the FMS distance even closer forces the game into even more of a CQB-fest----efforts to get the battles out of the towns would be more effective, imho.

Bring back FRUs.  Meh.  How many people need to be able to build spawn points before it is just ridiculous?  Anyone can spawn a truck and create an FMS.  HC Officers can set FRUs (right?  or is that planned for future return?).

EWS alerts are 2 or 5 minutes deferred------again, the objective is to have battles, not to increase the number of ninja-capped towns.  Not sure how this helps gameplay.

Cap timers back to 1 minute------again, how does this help battles improve in intensity and frequency, especially in low-pop times?  How does it encourage teamwork?

INTEL messages only shows where population is missing on your attacks------Not sure what you mean, here.

 

Making attacking easier seems to be the goal, and that's fine.  Doing so without negatively effecting gameplay will be a significant challenge.  The objective shouldn't be to allow 3 guys with a truck to sneak into a town and capture the spawnables before anyone knows they are there---that ruins gameplay across the board, and does not improve the ability to attack so much as it eliminates the ability to defend.

Share this post


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

Kill JWBS.   ??  I am sorry for not understanding the terminology on this one.

brigade warping.
like town under AO and contested and supply going down
and even though enemy presence is strong in the town, a fresh brigade can warp unhindered into the AB

I think that is at least the basic premise to the term

Share this post


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

Abnormal that outside TZ3 is a stalemate map for yearzzz - softcaps are not caps.

Few easy suggestions with easy coding for CRS, some can be complementary to others :

  • Double the numbers of AOs for each side during TZ1-TZ2. Death to turtles and hello dynamism & fun.
  • Cut supply in half. Too much supplies.
  • Kill JWBS. Ok well, 1.36 is coming.
  • Sets minimal distance from enemy cps to 200m instead of 400m for FMS.
  • Bring back the FRUs.
  • EWS alerts are 2 or 5 minutes deferred.
  • Cap timers back to 1 minute.
  • INTEL messages only shows where population is missing on your attacks.
  • Disable AO capture if population is over 3 or 4 vs 1 (active players in game world, no side switches, no 2nd account logging on the other sides, etc.)

 

I agree with pretty much all of this.  Although I recognize that some of it probably isn't doable, a lot of it probably is.

 

@augetoutJWBS = Jesus Warping Brigade System (coined by statamor himself).  It refers to the idea that brigades can magically move into the completely-camped AB of a certain town if a linking depot is still controlled.  I would argue that it's basically nonexistent today as a result of the greatly increased trickle timers, but that's what it means nonetheless.  

 

The INTEL messages are the SYSTEM messages that can say "Soldiers needed at Namur" for example.  

 

More fundamentally, I believe there is more stuff going when the attackers can use stealth to their advantage than when the defenders are fully prepared and are able to stop an attack before it starts.  Where you draw that line is up for debate, but where that line is drawn today makes for poor gameplay.  There would be more fun, more action, more intensity and less boredom if we implemented suggestions like the above.

 

S!

2 people like this

Share this post


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

augetout is providing a excellent example of "dismissal from subjective/baseless speculation" there is no issue, just dump it into the generic lack of teamwork and leadership pile

instead of a constructive attitude, guys like him use anti constructive denialism to disregard any and all issues. without data and objective analysis.

 

the only thing that'll work is ignoring all talk without data, like what scotsman resorted to lol

 

On the contrary, I believe you are providing an excellent example of 'if I say there's an issue there's an issue regardless of the facts involved'.

 

I'm not 'dumping' anything into a pile to be ignored.  Rather, I am pointing out that there are alternatives to the immediate 'we are getting screwed' attitude held by some people in this community all too often.

The game is brutal to those who refuse to work as a team.  That is a fact----and it is not generic, but systematic.  If a player chooses to work their own plan without working with others, they are going to suffer.  All talk about 'we should change the game to make my solo missions more effective' is fine and dandy, but have the character to recognize it for what it is, rather than the constant claims of 'bias', etc that spews forth whenever there is a change even proposed, let alone implemented.  I didn't cause that issue/challenge to exist.  It has existed the entire time the game has existed.  Recognizing that fact does not qualify me for being dismissed as not caring.  Quite the opposite.

 

The gripe that axis Infantry brigades don't have enough tanks is a valid one, if the game doesn't allow a way around it, like say:  Mixing brigades more effectively.

The gripe that axis Infantry brigades do not have a counter to Allied armor is a valid one, so long as the game eliminates anti-tank capabilities from the german side, which it doesn't.

The gripe that axis Stugs don't have turrets is a valid one, if red v blue is the 'new' objective.  I say new because for 18 years the german side has in large part reveled in the lack of armored punch available to the Allied side, as it is historically accurate.

 

I, like you, see significant problems with the game.  We just differ on how we deal with the challenges involved.

I see issues with the game's previous lack of support for in-game squads, so I have spent the last year working to rebuild Lafayette Federation, and working with CRS on solutions to the overall problems caused by a lack of squads' in-game presence.

I see issues with the game's over-reliance on the respective HCs to provide a positive in-game experience to players, so I've spent the last year helping in-game where I can, while working with CRS to decrease reliance on the HCs without eliminating them, while increasing the relevance of squads in-game.

I see (and have seen since 2001) issues with the spawn list.  For the record, I have, for over 18 yeares now, been in favor of historically accurate spawn ratios.  While the current system isn't one I would have chosen, (that is not meant to bust on it, I am just being honest), it is far closer to being accurate than at anytime in this game's history, so at the very worst it is something to build upon, rather than tear down.

I see a need for improved marketing of this game, (and have since the early days).  So, I have been working with CRS to help their marketing efforts in whatever ways my small little brain can handle helping with, given my real-world experience in marketing for entirely an entirely different product-set.

 

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

The modeled german armor lacking in turrets lacked turrets during the actual war, and the modeled german armor lacking MGs also lacked MGs during the actual war, so I would have to answer that it fits 'historical'.

Just as the French having a plethora of woefully slow R35s is, while being a giant pain in the [censored] and making it more challenging to use them effectively, is historically accurate.

 

Think of this from a non-german point of view:  The german side has held a quantitative and arguably a qualitative superiority in tanks for the entire time the game has existed, and when Allied players whined about the woefully slow speeds of the R35 (for example), and the utter lack of ability for R35s to punch through (most) german armor, they have been told it is accurate, and to deal with it.  Now that spawn lists are closer (I won't say perfect, but definitely closer) to being historically accurate, some on the german side are up in arms about it, despite having the in-game ability to mitigate the challenges involved by mixing brigades, and by a better utilization of anti-armor assets other than tanks.

An R35 pulling up on an enemy FMS is going to do some damage, and that damage will improve if the R35 is smart enough to have an Infantryman with him/her.  If a german tank shows up, the fun time will end quickly, but if in addition to the R35 and the Infantryman, an ATG has come with, the R35 might have a chance to survive to the end of the 'battle'.

Just as surely, a Stug pulling into a battle with an Allied Infantry unit is going to do well, and they'll do even more damage if they bring an Infantryman with him/her to protect them and help them to locate targets.  The day the stug brings an Infantryman AND an 88 with them, will be a bad day for the Allies in that area.

Stugs not having a turret is a bummer---it must be a pain in the [censored] trying to figure out where the rounds that the French R35s are bouncing off of the impenetrable armor of the Stug are coming from, so the stug can pivot, fire on the R35s once each, and end the 'battle'...;)    It might pay, for credibility's sake, to ponder what it is like to be in that R35, with a turret, an MG, and almost no chance of surviving an encounter with a german stug regardless of how many rounds they can hit it with before the stug figures out where it is.  Point being, every piece of properly modeled equipment in-game is going to have advantages and disadvantages when compared to enemy equipment.  Finding a way around these challenges has been modus operendi for the Allies for well over a decade.  The new spawn lists do not eliminate these long-standing issues for the Allied side, and have caused other challenges for the Allied side, but they have added some challenges to the german side, to be sure.

I am talking about Tier 3, the same that started this map and would hopefully be around for all maps.  

Axis armor in Inf Brigades: 10 StuG IIIG & 4 StuG H42  - no  turrets or machine guns and the Axis figured out before 1944 that TD's needed mg's on them, see pic below with the mg guard on a StuG IIIG.

French armor in Inf Brigades: 10 M-10, 6 Sherman75, & 8 Stuarts  I'm leaving out the R-35's, Pan & 232's, and axis don't even have regular or DLC pz2c's

One side can suppress infantry and other soft units very effectively and one cannot without including an armored brigade on the attack or defense, which just isn't feasible. There is nothing red vs blue or historically accurate about it.  I don't think Inf and Armor brigades should be too interchangeable at all.  In fact I'm up for eliminating basically all armor from Inf brigades but that's probably not gonna happen.  

The R-35 only French tank? When did that exist?  Tier 0 French armor is no picnic but it only last a week or so of the map. It's certainly no worse than facing Matty's, the tanks that can kill infantry by the dozens with an mg, even the sappers!

28th_Division_Troops_with_Knocked-Out_Ge

Share this post


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

brigade warping.
like town under AO and contested and supply going down
and even though enemy presence is strong in the town, a fresh brigade can warp unhindered into the AB

I think that is at least the basic premise to the term

Ah, thanks!

 

Given that as an issue, my opinion would be that until a better system is designed (and in my opinion an improved system should be designed), I'll put up with the fresh brigades warping in (usually at the wrong moment in time).  I am in favor of getting rid of the fixed spawn points entirely, with the replacement system being based on (perfect-world) Regimental-level TOCs, placed as  PPOs by either HC Officers or responsbile squad leaders.  In that instance, moving a fresh unit into a town would have to consist of an Officer making his/her way from town A to near town B, and placing the new unit's spawn point manually into the game.  That's just my idea, though.

 

S!

Share this post


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

I am talking about Tier 3, the same that started this map and would hopefully be around for all maps.  

Axis armor in Inf Brigades: 10 StuG IIIG & 4 StuG H42  - no  turrets or machine guns and the Axis figured out before 1944 that TD's needed mg's on them, see pic below with the mg guard on a StuG IIIG.

French armor in Inf Brigades: 10 M-10, 6 Sherman75, & 8 Stuarts  I'm leaving out the R-35's, Pan & 232's, and axis don't even have regular or DLC pz2c's

One side can suppress infantry and other soft units very effectively and one cannot without including an armored brigade on the attack or defense, which just isn't feasible. There is nothing red vs blue or historically accurate about it.  I don't think Inf and Armor brigades should be too interchangeable at all.  In fact I'm up for eliminating basically all armor from Inf brigades but that's probably not gonna happen.  

The R-35 only French tank? When did that exist?  Tier 0 French armor is no picnic but it only last a week or so of the map. It's certainly no worse than facing Matty's, the tanks that can kill infantry by the dozens with an mg, even the sappers!

28th_Division_Troops_with_Knocked-Out_Ge

Well admittedly, I was referring to Tier 0 more than anything else.  Tier 3 is 1943 basically, right?  If the axis side possessed Stugs with MGs in 1943, then by all means they should be modeled thusly, and in the meantime substitute vehicles be added to the german spawn lists for tier 3.  If they didn't have them until '44, then they should get them then, and if they had 'em in '42, they should get them then, again, with substitutes until they are modeled.

 

I do not say 'if' to imply not agreeing with your assertion, Krusty.  I say 'if' because I lost my entire library of useful reference books in my divorce 8 years ago, and haven't reconstituted it fully as yet, thus I cannot quickly grab a book and confirm or deny said assertion. ;)

 

S!

Share this post


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

On the contrary, I believe you are providing an excellent example of 'if I say there's an issue there's an issue regardless of the facts involved'.

 

I'm not 'dumping' anything into a pile to be ignored.  Rather, I am pointing out that there are alternatives to the immediate 'we are getting screwed' attitude held by some people in this community all too often.

The game is brutal to those who refuse to work as a team.  That is a fact----and it is not generic, but systematic.  If a player chooses to work their own plan without working with others, they are going to suffer.  All talk about 'we should change the game to make my solo missions more effective' is fine and dandy, but have the character to recognize it for what it is, rather than the constant claims of 'bias', etc that spews forth whenever there is a change even proposed, let alone implemented.  I didn't cause that issue/challenge to exist.  It has existed the entire time the game has existed.  Recognizing that fact does not qualify me for being dismissed as not caring.  Quite the opposite.

 

The gripe that axis Infantry brigades don't have enough tanks is a valid one, if the game doesn't allow a way around it, like say:  Mixing brigades more effectively.

The gripe that axis Infantry brigades do not have a counter to Allied armor is a valid one, so long as the game eliminates anti-tank capabilities from the german side, which it doesn't.

The gripe that axis Stugs don't have turrets is a valid one, if red v blue is the 'new' objective.  I say new because for 18 years the german side has in large part reveled in the lack of armored punch available to the Allied side, as it is historically accurate.

 

I, like you, see significant problems with the game.  We just differ on how we deal with the challenges involved.

I see issues with the game's previous lack of support for in-game squads, so I have spent the last year working to rebuild Lafayette Federation, and working with CRS on solutions to the overall problems caused by a lack of squads' in-game presence.

I see issues with the game's over-reliance on the respective HCs to provide a positive in-game experience to players, so I've spent the last year helping in-game where I can, while working with CRS to decrease reliance on the HCs without eliminating them, while increasing the relevance of squads in-game.

I see (and have seen since 2001) issues with the spawn list.  For the record, I have, for over 18 yeares now, been in favor of historically accurate spawn ratios.  While the current system isn't one I would have chosen, (that is not meant to bust on it, I am just being honest), it is far closer to being accurate than at anytime in this game's history, so at the very worst it is something to build upon, rather than tear down.

I see a need for improved marketing of this game, (and have since the early days).  So, I have been working with CRS to help their marketing efforts in whatever ways my small little brain can handle helping with, given my real-world experience in marketing for entirely an entirely different product-set.

i've said dozens of times.

failure to function without X (teamwork/leadership/HC/etc) = bad

fun with X , and playable without = good

 

there's a fundamental point people miss when talking about activity. forcing the game to rely on X and utterly fail without are the reasons for dead times.

from bottom to top, can't cap without teamwork, can't push into town without ZoC & teamwork & leadership, can't make a spawn without T&L/pre-setup/single FMS task-force/etc, FB's drain leadership (they're usually the ones blowing), HC on/off will paralyze the game.

unless it's soo blatantly obvious like the HC on/off, any issue with the games failure to function is deflected and denied.

 

you say you see a lot of issues, look in game at all the dead AO's throughout the day. is it not a issue?

Share this post


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

i've said dozens of times.

failure to function without X (teamwork/leadership/HC/etc) = bad

fun with X , and playable without = good

 

there's a fundamental point people miss when talking about activity. forcing the game to rely on X and utterly fail without are the reasons for dead times.

from bottom to top, can't cap without teamwork, can't push into town without ZoC & teamwork & leadership, can't make a spawn without T&L/pre-setup/single FMS task-force/etc, FB's drain leadership (they're usually the ones blowing), HC on/off will paralyze the game.

unless it's soo blatantly obvious like the HC on/off, any issue with the games failure to function is deflected and denied.

 

you say you see a lot of issues, look in game at all the dead AO's throughout the day. is it not a issue?

There's a balance - and this is where most over look.   

Problem is that for every player X's This = awesome...... there's payer Y who thinks the same exact thing is 'biased game breaking garbage'.   Somewhere in between those two extremes is a middle point.  

it's easy to sit on the side and toss stones into the glass windows (I used to do it).  The hard part is figuring out how to either stop those stones from being thrown, or making the glass strong enough to have them bounce off. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You simply fail to see that axis have no armor in INF flags with MGs.

Allies USA gets 12 tanks, 7 TDs and 4 ACs, which all have MGs.  Axis has 10 TDs, 0 tanks 4 AGs and 4 ACs. (none with MGs btw, but the AC)

(note, USA AC can kill every tier panzer......  axis AC can't even kill all the tier 0 tanks).

 

Every allied flag has tanks and armor to attack with;  only 1/3 of the axis flags do.  Hence, allies can attack with 30 flags, axis can attack with 10 flags......

You see the picture yet?

Share this post


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

You simply fail to see that axis have no armor in INF flags with MGs.

Allies USA gets 12 tanks, 7 TDs and 4 ACs, which all have MGs.  Axis has 10 TDs, 0 tanks 4 AGs and 4 ACs. (none with MGs btw, but the AC)

(note, USA AC can kill every tier panzer......  axis AC can't even kill all the tier 0 tanks).

 

Every allied flag has tanks and armor to attack with;  only 1/3 of the axis flags do.  Hence, allies can attack with 30 flags, axis can attack with 10 flags......

You see the picture yet?

this should be solved with half tracks? (literally the current ToE balancing philosophy)

 

b2k, the biggest issue is you guys are soo far off the rails: obvious stuff is outside your view and ignored. it's silly even, the |1 half track > 2 tanks| is is just...

11 hours ago, major0noob said:

it's difficult not to come off as CRS-bashing

 

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


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

The day the stug brings an Infantryman AND an 88 with them, will be a bad day for the Allies in that area.

Until Rebel shows up.

Share this post


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

i've said dozens of times.

failure to function without X (teamwork/leadership/HC/etc) = bad

fun with X , and playable without = good

 

there's a fundamental point people miss when talking about activity. forcing the game to rely on X and utterly fail without are the reasons for dead times.

from bottom to top, can't cap without teamwork, can't push into town without ZoC & teamwork & leadership, can't make a spawn without T&L/pre-setup/single FMS task-force/etc, FB's drain leadership (they're usually the ones blowing), HC on/off will paralyze the game.

unless it's soo blatantly obvious like the HC on/off, any issue with the games failure to function is deflected and denied.

 

you say you see a lot of issues, look in game at all the dead AO's throughout the day. is it not a issue?

I believe your equation is fundamentally flawed, in that the game does not fail to function without X (teamwork/leadership/HC/etc).  The game functions fine whether players choose to play rambo style all by themselves, or in teams.  Their success levels go down significantly when deciding upon a solo plan, and that's where the points diverge.  You seem to believe it is a flaw with the game, whereas I believe it is not a problem with the game as much as it is a problem with the chosen play-styles.  The game allows solo players.  It rewards teamwork.  It functions in etiher case.

 

Disagreeing with you is not 'deflecting and denying'.  By all means please take a step back and see that reaching sweeping conclusions about another person's motivations is almost certainly destined to be inaccurate, as yours (in regards to me) absolutely is, (inaccurate).

 

I am hearing different numbers, i.e. that in-game numbers are up, the time spent each day in 2 AOs is higher than it has been in the recent past.  So, if overall numbers in-game are up, (and they are), the 'dead AOs' you speak of aren't caused by a lack of people, thus your conclusion that we're 'down on ingame numbers because of the new spawnlists' is by definition, inaccurate.

 

Having said that, I have seen some dead AOs here and there.  Finding the accurate root reason(s) behind this would seem to be an important task.  It may be that our overall in-game numbers are up, but that veteran numbers are down, (for example, and hypothetically speaking).  I know during the timezone(s) I typically play in (TZ3 during the week usually with a dash of tz1 and tz2 thrown in as often as feasible), I am seeing more veterans, both on the Allied side, and (based on CSR) on the german side.  TZ1 and/or TZ2 might have different things going on, and I cannot speak to it on the information I have available.

Share this post


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

You simply fail to see that axis have no armor in INF flags with MGs.

Allies USA gets 12 tanks, 7 TDs and 4 ACs, which all have MGs.  Axis has 10 TDs, 0 tanks 4 AGs and 4 ACs. (none with MGs btw, but the AC)

(note, USA AC can kill every tier panzer......  axis AC can't even kill all the tier 0 tanks).

 

Every allied flag has tanks and armor to attack with;  only 1/3 of the axis flags do.  Hence, allies can attack with 30 flags, axis can attack with 10 flags......

You see the picture yet?

I see the picture you are hoping me to see.  Again, if the germans should have Stugs with MGs on them (in '43 or '44, whichever ends up being accurate), then by all means they should be modeled, and substitutes should be given to the germans until the Stugs with MGs are modeled.  You will have my full support from the Allied side on this issue of historical accuracy, as you would in any discussion where the solution lies in historical accuracy as opposed to red v blue, or an insistence on maintaining the false advantages held by the germans in the armored area for years and years.

Share this post


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

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.

It took maybe 5 minutes to grab some screen caps and post to the forum, I already have much more than that in play time this weekend. I also have more kills this campaign than you at the moment despite being a F2P bolt so don't play that game. Also if you didn't notice, when I was working to support the team I got nothing, meanwhile when I played as a solo depot sniper I cleaned up in kills.

Anyway you sound like you really know what you're doing though, I see a lot of comments on team-building so do you mind posting a video or screenshot of your last op? I always read about how proper attacks are supposed to be so easy but I don't see anyone doing it (even allied prime tank rushes are a cinch to shut down compared to years ago). I also don't see how it can be done, considering what people are describing would take much higher player density than there is now. Even something as simple as "get tank support for the FMS" is a huge can of worms.

It would also be nice to know what motivates you to drive so many trucks to town, because my conclusion is that it's a pointless and generally awful experience, and I won't be bothering with it anymore.

Share this post


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

I believe your equation is fundamentally flawed, in that the game does not fail to function without X (teamwork/leadership/HC/etc).  The game functions fine whether players choose to play rambo style all by themselves, or in teams.  Their success levels go down significantly when deciding upon a solo plan, and that's where the points diverge.  You seem to believe it is a flaw with the game, whereas I believe it is not a problem with the game as much as it is a problem with the chosen play-styles.  The game allows solo players.  It rewards teamwork.  It functions in etiher case.

zeebee was talking about objective analysis, this is all subjective conjecture...

 

28 minutes ago, augetout said:

Disagreeing with you is not 'deflecting and denying'.  By all means please take a step back and see that reaching sweeping conclusions about another person's motivations is almost certainly destined to be inaccurate, as yours (in regards to me) absolutely is, (inaccurate).

5 hours ago, augetout said:

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'.

the rest of the post just further places the blame of dead AO's on the players, without data.

 

34 minutes ago, augetout said:

Having said that, I have seen some dead AOs here and there

you're still denying the scale of dead AO's man.

 

33 minutes ago, augetout said:

Finding the accurate root reason(s) behind this would seem to be an important task.  It may be that our overall in-game numbers are up, but that veteran numbers are down, (for example, and hypothetically speaking).  I know during the timezone(s) I typically play in (TZ3 during the week usually with a dash of tz1 and tz2 thrown in as often as feasible), I am seeing more veterans, both on the Allied side, and (based on CSR) on the german side.  TZ1 and/or TZ2 might have different things going on, and I cannot speak to it on the information I have available.

when i get data, i'm holding you to this.

 

going to start a AO record and try interview the guys involved. even when a squad using teamwork couldn't get a single FMS up, guys like you just said they sucked instead of swallowing their pride and admitting there's something wrong. [ foreshadowing : P ]

Share this post


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

Making attacking easier seems to be the goal, and that's fine.  Doing so without negatively effecting gameplay will be a significant challenge.  The objective shouldn't be to allow 3 guys with a truck to sneak into a town and capture the spawnables before anyone knows they are there---that ruins gameplay across the board, and does not improve the ability to attack so much as it eliminates the ability to defend.

Thanks for your comment. Attack and defense. I just tried to find better way to encourage attackers.

TZ3 deciding 80% of the campaigns the last 100 maps is also impacting negativelly gameplay by attacking, and they do ninja-capping, a lot.

I think this is also an avenue to look at and bring it more available to other TZs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, david06 said:

It took maybe 5 minutes to grab some screen caps and post to the forum, I already have much more than that in play time this weekend. I also have more kills this campaign than you at the moment despite being a F2P bolt so don't play that game. Also if you didn't notice, when I was working to support the team I got nothing, meanwhile when I played as a solo depot sniper I cleaned up in kills.

Anyway you sound like you really know what you're doing though, I see a lot of comments on team-building so do you mind posting a video or screenshot of your last op? I always read about how proper attacks are supposed to be so easy but I don't see anyone doing it (even allied prime tank rushes are a cinch to shut down compared to years ago). I also don't see how it can be done, considering what people are describing would take much higher player density than there is now. Even something as simple as "get tank support for the FMS" is a huge can of worms.

It would also be nice to know what motivates you to drive so many trucks to town, because my conclusion is that it's a pointless and generally awful experience, and I won't be bothering with it anymore.

I'm not sure what you are basing your conclusions on, to be honest.  I don't believe you'll ever see a post in these forums from me, claiming that I am the best player or anything close to it, thus I am not sure why your kill count being higher than mine has any relevance at all.  If you took my remarks to be directed at you personally, you are mistaken.  I will not be dragged into a contest of bona fides.  In the end it is a pointless errand, as regardless of how long either of us has been in this community/game, and regardless of what we have done while in-game, BOTH of our opinions, so long as they match up with a semblance of factual evidence, are valid, even as we disagree.

 

I sense a biting sarcasm that is unnecessary.  We are not enemies, @david06 , and while we may disagree (if we disagree), it does not make either of us the lesser.

 

Different people have different styles of play, and that is not at issue here, to my knowledge.  In the timezone I typically play in, (TZ3), the Allies aren't doing much more than attempting to hold the line against determined attacks coming at us from the axis side, thus I tend to gravitate more towards helping to defend depots and then the AB bunker.  If I get there early enough, I might go EMFS hunting, and if when I spawn in there's a brief lull between axis attacks, I'll help with FBs.  You most likely have a different set of priorities, and that's fine.  What motivates me (in-game) is trying to do what I think will help the Allies the most at any given moment.  To my mind, it has always been difficult to get people to sit in a depot and/or ab bunker and defend it, thus I tend to do that much of my time in-game. 

 

The need for a bunch of FMS to an objective is in and of itself borne of an unwillingness to defend FMS, right?  If an FMS is placed along a covered route, and is even lightly defended, it will last long enough to get significant numbers of troops to the objective, which is the goal.  It is unrealistic to think that the enemy is not going to seek to destroy the FMS, so failing to defend it is a choice that ends up not working out so well, thus causing the need for the multiple FMS that both sides end up calling for.  It's kind of like a fish laying thousands of eggs hoping dozens will survive, rather than a mother bear keeping track of her cub until they reach maturity.  Both systems work, but I think folks are finding that the fish method is not working well right now, and are blaming the game rather than taking a look at the root cause, i.e. folks not keeping their FMS' defended.

 

You mentioned that getting tank support for an FMS is a 'huge can of worms'. ' Why' is the question, then.  Is it, as some would conclude, that there's not enough players in-game to fill that need?  Or, as I am asserting, is it that there's not enough people willing to fill that need?  The in-game numbers suggest that it is the latter.

 

What motivates me, and/or other players, is as varied as the shape of snowflakes, I would guess, and that's ok.  Fun is the goal for each of us---it's the definition of what constitutes 'fun' where there ends up being lots of different answers, and again, that's ok.  What's not ok is to play a game that depends largely on teamwork, refuse to work as a member of a team, then blame the game mechanics for the lack of perceived fun that ensues.  It isn't COD, where you're one of a small number of people on a team spawning randomly across a small map, being able to depend on a steady supply of 'bad guys' to engage, in the full knowledge that even failing/losing is a feeling that will only last about 2 minutes, until the next 'battle' loads up.  In WWIIOnline, if an attack fails, there's consequences that can ripple outwards for quite awhile.  If a defense is run poorly, an entire campaign could be put at risk.  Following along with the COD reference:  In that game I have to worry about the camper guy(s), the run and gun guys, and sometimes the folks who work in pairs.  I have to think about how to avoid rifles, automatic weapons, the occasional mine, and the occasional bombing run (or whatever) borne of someone having a long-enough kill streak...  It's checkers----a fun time no doubt, but in the end, checkers.  WWIIOnline is a different level of brutality.  In addition to the stuff I have to keep track of in COD, I have to keep track of ATGs hidden in bushes, PPOs that can deny or delay my entry into an area, Tanks, Airplanes, and if I'm in the wrong damn town---Boats for cripes sake.  A little higher up the scale in the direction of leading, I have to make sure the FBs necessary to feed my attack remain intacts.  All of them looking to kill me, while either capturing my territory or denying me the ability to capture theirs.  If my side fails, I don't get to restart as if nothing happened in the same map area.  Instead, that town is lost (or that attack has failed perhaps leaving us vulnerable to attack in that area).  More chess than checkers.  In my mind far more rewarding, and far far far far far far more frustrating.  In COD, there might be a real 'twitch god' on the other team, but odds are I'll have to deal with him for a grand total of 15 or so minutes---checkers.  In WWIIOnline, every time I spawn into a battle, there's a decent chance that Itsbrad, or Potthead, or Agave, or Nkelly, or Nily, or any of a list in the dozens, are going to be there, doing their level best to kill me----chess.

 

End ramble, except to say that, warts and all, WWIIOnline is the best game in its genre, period.  That doesn't make it perfect, but it is the best, and by a wide margin.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.