• 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

36 minutes ago, matamor said:

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.

Roger that.

 

TZ3 has vexed this game from the very beginning, imho.  In the early days, I was a TZ1 and TZ2 player almost exclusively, and it was very frustrating to watch all the gains made the day before be disappeared by the axis TX3/breakfast club crowd, each and every damn day.  I will say that now, being IN TZ3 most of the time, it is perhaps even more frustrating, 'cause most of the time the Allies simply do not have the numbers to stop them, regardless of how well we play as a team.  That, and while it used to suck, now it makes me feel guilty, as it is at least partially my 'fault' that the german side made the gains, as it happened while I was in-game, trying (unsuccessfully) to stop them.

 

I once had a friend who was big into the whole WoW crowd, and his characters (he had circa 5) were ALL bad/evil.  Given that he wasn't evil in the real world, I once asked him what the deal was with his characters ALL being evil, (I almost always play 'the good guy' in games).  His response has stuck with me for 10+ years now.  He said:  I play as evil characters because it's not proper to be evil in the real world.  I replied, well then explain why I always play the good guy, and he said "that's easy, you play the good guy in games because unlike in the real world, in games you get credit for being good."   Long story short, the solution is to find more people who want credit for being on the good side, so that the Allies have more people in-game during TZ3.  How to do that has been an unsolved mystery for 18+ years now.

 

S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

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

No, it is simply disagreeing with the conclusions you have reached.

 

56 minutes ago, major0noob said:

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

Again, No.  As stated, I'm not even convinced there is an issue with dead AOs, but if there is an issue, and where we would disagree fundamentally, is the cause for the 'dead AOs'.  My statements, which you have taken out of context and inserted them into your line of reasoning, are as originally stated, i.e. a general statement that many times in these forums I see issues conjured up out of thin air, being blamed on game mechanics, that in many instances have nothing to do with game mechanics, but in the gameplay style of the players involved.  I do believe attacks that are well organized do not end up in 'dead AOs', although a well-organized attack can be foiled by a better-organized defense and thus become a 'dead AO' when enough people on the attacking side have been convinced their efforts would be better spent elsewhere, (which is kind of the goal of a good defensive effort/plan, right?).

 

1 hour ago, major0noob said:

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 ]

I think you'll find it wholly unnecessary to 'hold me' to any statements I have made, or will make at some point in the future.  The beauty of giving honest 'testimony' is that I never have to worry about someone reminding me of that which I once said...

 

If a squad using teamwork couldn't get a single FMS up, then my first reaction would be:  Kudos to whoever was running the defense in that area.  It doesn't mean the attacking squad 'sucked'---again with taking leaps with my words that are not based in reality.  There is a difference between an attack failing, and an attack failing because folks aren't working together as a team.  Well organized attacks (and defenses) can and do fail on a daily basis.  There is another side to those instances, wholly devoted to making those well organized attacks and/or defenses, fail, and whoever does the better 'job' tends to win, given equal numbers.  Unfortunately, I've seen poorly planned attacks, and defenses that also work on occasion. 

 

Failing (or choosing not)  to work as a team does not by definition mean those involved 'suck' by the way, but just as surely, when not working as a team doesn't work, it shouldn't be assumed that it is somehow the game's fault for failing to reward poor play.  I hope you can see the difference between what I am actually saying, and what you are thinking I am meaning to say.  We're not married, thus this should be far easier to communicate! ;)  

3 people like this

Share this post


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

  I hope you can see the difference between what I am actually saying, and what you are thinking I am meaning to say.  We're not married, thus this should be far easier to communicate! ;)  

lol. Now this rings true.

:)

S!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the defenders don't even need teamwork, they simply need to show up.

there's a lot wrong with the development of a attack, some of the issues can be attributed to the players, but the tools to work with just make a bad situation worse.

 

to the point where the game utterly fails to generate activity.

 

 

i just logged in, all allied FMS's were over 2km out, and the axis ones were camped. rest of AO/DO's are dead.

Share this post


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

 

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.  

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. 

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.

I'm with Augetout and most of what he outlines (and well-written at that).  The game is one of the hardest pvp games out there - solo or team.  The 'working' as a team thing is correct analysis -just that it can come about (and it does come about no matter what ppl say - because towns do get capped, the map does move and one side or other does win campaigns) in different ways - making it complex to sift through solutions/discussions: 

Successful Attacks
1. co ordinated teamplay in general = lots of ppl online, standout MOIC or AO OIC or AO Squad/OIC or just battlefield leaders / MLs doing stuff and directing traffic
2. squad/vet setup = still happens often just fewer and smaller squads
3. overpop steamrollers = usually tz3, side varies 

The ease of defense, especially with low numbers, exaggerates the failure or stagnation of prime-time AOs just as pop imbalance exaggerates the ease of tz3/breakfast club town caps and rolls - for either side. 

One broad, non-tactical (ie. guard fms/ support armour etc)  example of teamplay which covered a few years of the game was back in the late 2000s was when an allied player/squad (was it Monashy? or Matamor?) called for and set up 'The Block' - an adhoc group of allied players/small squads (we were part of it as the old BTZ squad) to stop the Axis Breakfast Club/TZ3 rolls - which had been a  fairly consistent, campaign-winning feature of the game over a condensed time-span. We all just showed up /logged in for TZ3 and simply 'blocked' the axis rolls - changing the momentum and morale for the Allied side in the upcoming TZ, which resulted in a set of 3/4 campaign wins in a row runs over a few years for Allieds. 

Another, more tactical example was a series of 'Helter-Skelter' Ops during which Allies in a 2 or 3 AO TZ (usually primetime, often weekend) would do a traditional squad/vet 3 MS-based ZOC AO setup on say 3 towns simultaneously; as soon as it became clear which town had the weakest defensive setup, after 20 /30 minutes, a full-switch was called on comms and almost every Allied soldier showed up at the chosen AO, usually with a backup para drop and/or armour column on the way, whilst the other 2 AOs were abandoned. Town gets capped, then rinse and repeat. 

Easy to say and do with reasonable pop, hard but not impossible to do with focused teamplay and low pop. 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pros and Cons to both for sure. 

One one hand with Defense, it's you and your squad (or even just you!) held up in a bunker in some godforsaken bombed out city. Fending off wave after wave of enemy forces. Smoke grenades covering their advances, one by one your fellow soldiers die and your running low on ammo fast. It's a rush and certainly one of the easier ways to rack up on kills. 

On the other hand you have Offense...

You spawn in and the task is clear; occupy the enemy bunker and secure the town. Only thing in your way is a couple dozen enemy players with nothing better to do and nowhere better to be and camped out in nearly every building and alleyway.  Some people don't like the bother of possibly walking/running/driving for over ten minutes to be instantly killed. I find no other adrenaline rush better. Each life on the attack is so much more valuable. So every victory no matter how small is all the more rewarding. 

Bottom line for me really is that the more people involved, the more fun it is no matter if I'm attacking or defending. Should be the same for you. What I find beautiful about this game is that there's a role for everyone. Like being on the defense more? Awesome! Grab yourself an LMG, hook up with a small team for support and fill the fields with the bodies of fallen enemy infantry foolish enough to try and take your town. You do you!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squad does attack/defense the best. Take inspiration from games who do it better I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the general statement I can make here is, anything that we can consider at CRS to improve player fun, happiness, therefore retention and conversion, is worth consideration and discussion. Therefore I have asked our team internally to discuss and review this topic. 

By saying this, it's purely an acknowledgement, nothing more. 

4 people like this

Share this post


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

it shouldn't be assumed that it is somehow the game's fault for failing to reward poor play. 

That’s a Bingo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, major0noob said:

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.

 

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.

srsly ?

that long in game and doesnt know about the loop da loop DB7 being almost invulnerable to 20mm cannons and AA fire ?

or the spitfire that can fly slower and faster than everything ... turns on penny coin ...  taking loads of hits from any kind of caliber

 

if he really didnt know about it ... then i am asking what kind of game he is playing ???

since day 1 in this game i experienced this stuff ... on my own and seeing it happening to others

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, the damage models of the DB and the He-111 are almost identical. And both can loop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, major0noob said:

i just logged in, all allied FMS's were over 2km out, and the axis ones were camped. rest of AO/DO's are dead.

Doesn’t this statement ring alarm bells for anyone else? The fact that the game allows this to happen as much as it does happen is not the player’s fault. 

 

I know people who would play the game regularly if this wasn’t regularly the state of the map. If you guys want more players, you need to fix what is keeping players away in the first place.

 

Fixing the game by fixing the number of players is completely backwards logic because that’s not how games succeed.

 

People don’t play the game because the gameplay is bad. The gameplay isn’t bad solely because not enough people play the game.

Edited by Capco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 2 km jog is nothing. Any closer and it will be camped, like the German ones mentioned. In this case it’s the players who create the gameplay. How is that a design error, and how do you propose we fix it?

Share this post


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

FYI, the damage models of the DB and the He-111 are almost identical. And both can loop.

Sure the 111 can loop, super slow I might mention , if it gets the chance to do so if it's not already on fire. 

Db7 and 111 dmg model almost identical , is that why the 111 has flames coming out right away after the 1st ea pass and the DB does not ? And then pulls a loop while the 111 might loop but already on fire? 

Asking for a friend? 

I heard MO complain enough about the Havoc and DB and think he is one of the best AAA gunners in game . If I'm not mistaken he has plenty video footage too.

Share this post


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

A 2 km jog is nothing. Any closer and it will be camped, like the German ones mentioned. In this case it’s the players who create the gameplay. How is that a design error, and how do you propose we fix it?

What is the jog speed, about 10km/h?  That's a 12 minute jog.  

 

How the heck are the 5 players attacking town A supposed to clear a non-spawnable depot they just capped if their spawn point is 2km away?

 

My own proposal to help alleviate the staleness of the gameplay would be the tweaking of the HC officer unit into what I outlined in my Light Infantry FRU proposal thread:  

 

 

I'd also cherry pick some of the other ideas posted by others, namely:

-EWS delay for towns (anything more than 1min is probably overkill though)

-Lower cap timers

-Lower AO placement timers from 5min to 1-2min

-Lower CP hot timer from 10min to 4-6min

-Increase bunker hot timer from 10min to 15min

 

 

 

I personally would like to see a cut in supplies per flag by about 30% (more cuts to armor, less to infantry and especially autos) WHILE lowering the base resupply timer from 15 hours to 8-12 hours.  15 hours makes for a pretty terrible HC situation when you have flags completely drained.  It's more efficient to get your flag bounced to training and come back than it is to wait for it to resupply, especially in cases of RDP damage.  That literally makes no sense and is a direct consequence of how these timers are set.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I did NOT read every post and not sure if it was mentioned. 

 

But (and maybe CRS can do that now already ) .

Defenders only get to spawn in AB and CPs that are linked with the towns they hold , the other CPs that are linked with the attackers towns are dead CPs aka not spawnable. That way both sides have to travel yes defender still has a shorter route but the attacker can set up a better ZOC, and a defender does not spawn right next to a building you are trying to cap. Depending on CP building locations of course.

Only thing I would propose is that the link CPS for the defenders get the ability to spawn light to medium armor so that, cut and spawn camp the AB doesn't become the norm again .

 

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dre21 said:

Db7 and 111 dmg model almost identical , is that why the 111 has flames coming out right away after the 1st ea pass and the DB does not ?

The DMs are virtually identical. The dural skin, the airframe sections, the damage components and their threshold values - all are more or less the same.  The bullets/shells however are not, and it's easier to get a high deflection shot on a Heinkel than a DB because of its lower airspeed. These values are however about to change - but for now and for the past 17 years they have been quite generic.

 

44 minutes ago, Capco said:

What is the jog speed, about 10km/h?  That's a 12 minute jog.  

 

So? Enough time to gain good SA and work forward in bounds, maybe even cover the tank you might have brung.

 

46 minutes ago, Capco said:

How the heck are the 5 players attacking town A supposed to clear a non-spawnable depot they just capped if their spawn point is 2km away?

 

You're assuming they die. You're also assuming that they're not working as a team. 

The shoe is always on the other foot, isn't it? As an attacker you want the action to be close and instantaneous, as a defender you want to have some time and space to set up a decent defense and NOT have the enemy spawn on your doorstep - which all but invalidates ATG and AA play. Put the FMS too close and it's easily spotted and camped, put it too far away and people can't be arsed to jog. WE are not setting your FMSs other than by defining the minimum distance - the players are.

Share this post


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

The DMs are virtually identical. The dural skin, the airframe sections, the damage components and their threshold values - all are more or less the same.  The bullets/shells however are not, and it's easier to get a high deflection shot on a Heinkel than a DB because of its lower airspeed. These values are however about to change - but for now and for the past 17 years they have been quite generic.

 

So? Enough time to gain good SA and work forward in bounds, maybe even cover the tank you might have brung.

 

You're assuming they die. You're also assuming that they're not working as a team. 

The shoe is always on the other foot, isn't it? As an attacker you want the action to be close and instantaneous, as a defender you want to have some time and space to set up a decent defense and NOT have the enemy spawn on your doorstep - which all but invalidates ATG and AA play. Put the FMS too close and it's easily spotted and camped, put it too far away and people can't be arsed to jog. WE are not setting your FMSs other than by defining the minimum distance - the players are.

LOL - so you jog in with your tank (of course if you are an axis inf flag good luck finding a panzer!), the tank audio telling every defender in 1500m where it is. So not much forward bounding and good SA - your own tank drowns out other audios.

You get your five inf to the CP, set up your cuts, get your tank in position, and then you start to cap. How many you put in the CP? Three inf? So you have 2 cutters and the tank? Ei spawns checks or tries to check CP and gets shot by MG.

He broadcasts - "250 hitting XYZ CP" (I use 250H as an example of a very effective coordinated squad.) A buddy shows up to help the defender, and between them they die 20+ times, but they smoke or kill the cutters, then the cappers who need 5 mins to cap. One or two of the assault squad begin the long run in from the fru, but the two defenders can die and respawn from various depots in a few seconds. The attackers cannot get back to the CP to keep a cap timer running from 2km out. Eventually, a Pan or DAC will find and camp the fru and that is another attempted attack thwarted, or Rebel/Rans/Any Good Pilot spots it and bombs it four times.

Even if the assault team succeeds, and they win the spawnable, the game mechanics are against them, because they will have just 8 or 10 smgs/lmgs available to spawn from depot supply.

We know that attackers need more strength to succeed, the overpop side has that strength, but is then neutered by the slow cap timers. Even in heavy OP you are looking at ninja caps to get things rolling, or such ridiculous pop advantage that the game is pointless playing for both sides.

Of course, what really would happen with your ridiculous 2km fru is that most spawning in would complain about it, and despawn after having headed off to target going MIA and wasting supply. The new greentags will run around shooting and stabbing each other, throw smoke and grenades, just in case the defenders had not already realised a fru was out there, and then eventually they run to the target after many PMs and text chat. They then get mown down, try it once or twice more and go try another game. The defenders shoot the few green tags and wait for you to return every ten or so minutes, and then they too log out to go do something more fun.

There are numerous times in TZ1 when we have had two AOs and both allied AOs have zero ews, and one axis AO has either none or light inf only. The last two maps we did not seem to have all that many 2 AO situations, and again only the axis AO was active.

 

I dont know how we get more days like yesterday (Sunday) and the epic battle for Kalmthout. Allies attacking, for an hour+ and the AO kicked when Axis libbed AB for the first time. Then a further immediate AO for over 7.5hours! Altogether the action ran for 9 hours and flags were being kicked/rotated again and again with axis bringing in frus and panzers from nearby towns, it was great fun. The problem is we get just one or two days like that in a map now. They are the exception, and we need them to be closer to the norm.

 

S! Ian

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

So? Enough time to gain good SA and work forward in bounds, maybe even cover the tank you might have brung.

You're assuming they die. You're also assuming that they're not working as a team. 

you're not getting better situational awareness than me while I'm sitting on the 3rd floor or roof a spawn building

you're also not exercising any sort of bounding overwatch lol, you have 500+m to go and either you walk through a predictable bush line or in flat open fields, lag and tall trees protect you far more than any attempt at suppression

If I do get tagged by someone I can respawn back in the building probably before your stamina bar recovers, it's about 15 seconds with a fast computer and SSD

you are talking about a completely different game or maybe a vision of the game, but you are not talking about the game I played this weekend

 

5-7 people are the definitive small team both in game terms and in real life military forces, I can't understand why 5 people working together are told to screw off and "that's not good enough, get more people you deserve to fail"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ian77 said:

if you are an axis inf flag good luck finding a panzer!

According to my sheets the German infantry brigade in tier 3 has 4x PzIII-N, 4x Sdkfz 232, 10x Sdkfz 251, 8x Stug IIIG and 4x StuH 42. With the exception of the 232 and 251 they are all referred to as panzers - even if they don't have turrets or machineguns.

3 hours ago, ian77 said:

your ridiculous 2km fru

It's not my ridiculous 2 km FRU, it's the player's who set it. Personally I prefer jogging from the FB, but that's just me. I'd rather have ONE good and long immersive mission than ten frantic minimum distance ones, but again, that's just me.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for. Guaranteed capture/success for the attacker? That the defender is to be given no notice of ongoing preparations or pending captures? What distance do YOU think is ideal for a MSP?

- - - -

3 hours ago, david06 said:

you're not getting better situational awareness than me while I'm sitting on the 3rd floor or roof a spawn building

Duh. If I check out the countryside and find nothing that means it's safe for others to advance - and even set up a MSP somewhere along the route. I will also establish that there's a sniper in the 3rd story building and alert people to the fact. 

 

3 hours ago, david06 said:

you're also not exercising any sort of bounding overwatch lol, you have 500+m to go and either you walk through a predictable bush line or in flat open fields, lag and tall trees protect you far more than any attempt at suppression

You're assuming that I blithely traverse open ground or navigate in predictable bushlines, that I'm droning right in to the observed and covered facility. 

 

3 hours ago, david06 said:

5-7 people are the definitive small team both in game terms and in real life military forces, I can't understand why 5 people working together are told to screw off and "that's not good enough, get more people you deserve to fail"

I don't think anyone is telling anyone to screw off. But if those same 5-7 bodies bumble in intermittently along an ant trail and don't even try the barest minimum of teamwork, why, yes, they deserve to fail, should fail and will fail - do you propose that such (standard, uncoordinated) action should be rewarded with success? Failure is a great motivator for learning and improving, far more so than idle nonconstructive complaining. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it shouldn't be assumed that it is somehow the game's fault for failing to reward poor play. 

it's the game's fault for allowing poor play in the first place. Rule #1, it's the resposibility of the developer to protect the player from himself. You cannot blame the player for playing how he does, we play in the intention that the game is built. I mean, it's safe to say any mechanic or feature has some type of behavior-effecting intention right? We play that intention, which is most certainly in the game's hands. If players are playing poorly, avert them away from it using your game building powers.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


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

don't even try the barest minimum of teamwork, why, yes, they deserve to fail, should fail and will fail - do you propose that such (standard, uncoordinated) action should be rewarded with success? Failure is a great motivator for learning and improving, far more so than idle nonconstructive complaining. 

the defenders are exempt from this forced failure BS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** According to my sheets the German infantry brigade in tier 3 has 4x PzIII-N, 4x Sdkfz 232, 10x Sdkfz 251, 8x Stug IIIG and 4x StuH 42.

I see no IIIN in axis infantry flags...... at least not yesterday, in game. (not what some sheet says)

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from the above link

german inf brigade armour:

SdKfz 232 Scout Car 4      
StuG III G 10      
StuH 42 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.