david06

Attack vs. Defense

288 posts in this topic

8 minutes ago, jwilly said:

That tactical gameplay issue...that cutting a supply road has no tactical meaning...is fundamentally the same problem as in the TOEs-per-budget-and-historical-mix discussion.

Under the recently added TOEs-budget system, each side gets an equal budget for weapons, and an historical analysis determines their mix of particular weapon types...with reasonable adjustments as needed to compensate for weapons not yet modeled and so forth.

The historical British and French T0 armor forces were equipped for battle. The historical German T0 armor forces were equipped for bypassing and disruption of supply movement, resulting in enemy force defeat via isolation. 

The game's mechanics do provide gameplay functionality for battle. They don't provide gameplay functionality for bypassing and disruption of supply movement, resulting in enemy force defeat via isolation.

If the gameplay offered both battle functionality and bypass/tactical-isolation functionalities, each side could fight the T0 war as they were equipped to fight.

Of course, the task of developing the original game was made easier by not having to simulate WWII's effectively-continuous lines and rear area security, because with no supply lines to disrupt, why bother?

But, now it's a problem. One of those above-mentioned woes, I guess.

Further - hybrid supply is designed to address one of the core gameplay issues that purportedly drove away players - that being the softcap either by way of flanking or encirclement/cut off. meaning, this type of gameplay is BAD for the health of the game which is why it is being designed out.

 

yet, we're still forcing 'history' at the TOE level all while designing out the ability to create/re-create historical/realistic flanking and cut off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the AO is active plus double inf EWs then flags can't  not be moved in?

Or AO active plus, double EWS and town contested.

That would simulate the fact of the town surrounded by enemy forces so reinforcement can't enter town.

I really miss the combination of ZOC plus attrition.

Edited by piska250
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2019 at 8:36 PM, major0noob said:

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

I will.

If pop neutrality is properly implemented (and we are much closer then I dreamed possible) I'd say crank up the offense advantage.

Share this post


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

I will.

If pop neutrality is properly implemented (and we are much closer then I dreamed possible) I'd say crank up the offense advantage.

I will as well........defense is so much more fun and easier.  Wait for the rush, kill as many as you can, repeat.  Now doing this when you are underpop you have more targets, but you can get over run rather quickly and then your fooked.

Edited by bmw
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time defending isn't easy is when people don't show up to defend lol.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, piska250 said:

What if the AO is active plus double inf EWs then flags can't  not be moved in?

Or AO active plus, double EWS and town contested.

That would simulate the fact of the town surrounded by enemy forces so reinforcement can't enter town.

I really miss the combination of ZOC plus attrition.

But those simulate combat-surround...close investment of the defender by attacking forces on all sides.

During 1940 fighting, and as the T0 German forces' armor is suited for, defending forces were isolated by having supply/reinforcement roads cut well to their rear...often without being engaged in combat at all.

The game mechanics need to provide a mechanism by which attackers can penetrate the enemy's line, then spread out behind that line, defeat the light rear area security forces and prevent forward movement of supplies and reinforcements...whether the enemy's forward forces are partly attrited and in need of reinforcements/replacements/supplies, or even unattacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, jwilly said:

But those simulate combat-surround...close investment of the defender by attacking forces on all sides.

During 1940 fighting, and as the T0 German forces' armor is suited for, defending forces were isolated by having supply/reinforcement roads cut well to their rear...often without being engaged in combat at all.

The game mechanics need to provide a mechanism by which attackers can penetrate the enemy's line, then spread out behind that line, defeat the light rear area security forces and prevent forward movement of supplies and reinforcements...whether the enemy's forward forces are partly attrited and in need of reinforcements/replacements/supplies, or even unattacked.

But balancing that out I think is an impossible task IMHO. Its hard enough to balance out the RDP war from being so important that one side can dominate the other, to being so insignificant that nobody even bothers.

That said I agree that there is a core issue with the new ToE implementation based on historical ratios and how the game is fundamentally played. It forces both sides into straight jackets regarding tactics that they never really used, while at the same time affecting players ability to enjoy the game with the vehicle/weapon system of their choice. Certainly there will be time when supply runs out, or prime-level weapons like the Tiger or Firefly fly out of the spawnlist like hotcakes... but that is something players understand since it is a game and not everyone can have the best of the best at the same time.

But the current system where for example early on the Allies were lacking SMGs, or how currently the Axis have functionally no tanks that are a threat to infantry in the Infantry Brigades, or any number of other issues I think is pretty concerning since it tries to emulate the tactics of history, but outsides of the real confines and scenarios in which that occured. No matter how hard we try... we can't use the StuH42 to shell the enemy to oblivion since buildings have only 1 damage state.  Same can be said about any number of other weapons matchups that have been mentioned in these forums recently.

Fundamentally I think there are two main issues with the current system:

1) Historical production costing doesn't take into account how WWIIOL is player, so you have a divergence between the production value of a weapon and the WWIIOL-combat value of a weapon. The classic example of this is the Matty vs. StugIII. Technically "similar" in production value... but which will you pick if given the choice?

2) Historical costing/ToE makeup doesn't account for outliers. Classic example of this is not enough SMG in Allied (British) brigades, or no/minimal numbers of MG-armed tanks in Axis infantry brigades. Those are two huge gameplay outliers that weren't picked up in the statistical analysis of production costs.

IMHO we should use production costing as a place to start, rather as the end-goal. Since gameplay shows us that if you only account for production costs, and not in-game combat effectiveness, the game can become imbalanced. I hope that with 1.36 we will return to the Doc-era (pre-Tiger mania) spawn lists that are unified across the front and balanced, I like historical introduction years, but this needs to be carefully balanced as well. This way tankers can play with their tanks, the SMG mafia can spawn their autos, and pretty much everyone has the opportunity to play with the toys they like the most. Balance out the numbers appropriately. "National flavors" of weapons systems will come naturally with the vehicles themselves. The Allies always will have the heavy tanks in Tier0, the Axis always will have the Tiger to play with.

Lets keep those weapons in there, but balance the numbers out so they create even matchups within the game, and not on an economic production cost spreadsheet.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, potthead said:

I must also add.. I hate ToEs for the reason of making attrition near obsolete, giving the power to a few and rendering the efforts of many useless

Many times GOOD Attack setups have become useless as just a new brigade rotates in when the tactic of moving from ZoC to close in on town is called for and everyone gets murdered due to some magical stuff coming via underground tunnels.

It has left such a bad taste in many squad leaders mind that many have left.. many just dont bother to setup on attrition attacks .. 1.36 can not come early for that ONE purpose for me. 

Pfft.  And what of the valiant effort of the defender that has held out until reinforcements arrive?  They are to lay supinely while the attackers inevitably romp?

 

Now, the real problem is too many damn brigades got added and the edge rules rewarded bunching the brigades in the center, creating too much supply density.  Plenty of fixes for all this, including the easiest trickle timers already programmed just change values, but a moot point to argue about.

Share this post


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

I will as well........defense is so much more fun and easier.  Wait for the rush, kill as many as you can, repeat.  Now doing this when you are underpop you have more targets, but you can get over run rather quickly and then your fooked.

The 2 AO minimum I'm reading that is intended for 1.36 will do a lot to maintain action, but unless Pop Neutrality is RELIGIOUSLY APPLIED it will only result in more TZ3 rolls and the occasional TZ1-2 overpop romp.

 

Given how readily the tickers are moved for complaints either way, I don't see this prerequisite being fulfilled consistently.

 

And so we will have DIFFERENT problems.

 

What I've been after all along is that EVERYBODY has a chance, any TZ, any relative pop level, to attack and defend successfully if they play smart.  This 24/7 ideal continually eludes, and unfortunately people inevitably argue for some aspect that takes away someone else's play to support their preferences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ i just logged in and tiger004's fake EWS mission is listed as most active

the rest of the allied AO's have no EWS

 

axis AO has no EWS...

Edited by major0noob
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, major0noob said:

Jesus Christ i just logged in and tiger004's fake EWS mission is listed as most active

the rest of the allied AO's have no EWS

Take a kayak

 

Edited by matamor

Share this post


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

Jesus Christ i just logged in and tiger004's fake EWS mission is listed as most active

the rest of the allied AO's have no EWS

 

axis AO has no EWS...

Well I just looked and there was hvy ews at allied AO and message said that Lier was libbed so axis AO had capped something. Axis FB to Lier now allied so that AO is probably done, but allies had to work to lib and get FB.

But, yeah nothing is happening....

S! Ian

Share this post


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

Pfft.  And what of the valiant effort of the defender that has held out until reinforcements arrive?  They are to lay supinely while the attackers inevitably romp?

 

Now, the real problem is too many damn brigades got added and the edge rules rewarded bunching the brigades in the center, creating too much supply density.  Plenty of fixes for all this, including the easiest trickle timers already programmed just change values, but a moot point to argue about.

To me, if a town is under attack NO supply should be able to get in unless it is moved by players and fight their way through the terrain (at least for duration of an average fun attack I.e 2-4 hours minimum)...in an average players gaming session there must be an outcome at a tactical level. Either defender wins and attacker runs out of supply or attacker kills the defenders and caps the town.

if the defender holds and kill atrackers supply then attacker should run out as wel and should not be able to move a whole new batch of new supply by just clicking a button and wait x amount of time (which is very short in our game) and then keep hitting the poor defenders...

I enjoyed the Strategic layer of ToE but I think it makes the tactical scene much less valuable which I find more fun than playing the flag game.

the strategic layer is nowhere near close to real world time scale... it is sooo fast paced (1 hour flag timers and few min trickles at a time) only to be impeded by capture of the link CP.. maybe at least if there was FB to blow to stop that link of supply by defending an Fb that takes 30 charges to blow ... way too easy on most towns to recap a cp and hold for 3 min till new flag moves in.

also the fact that movement of supply is in players hand, the expectation will be to always have best toys.... whereas when we did not have the option we had to fight with the supply that was left... attrition was FELT and accepted... 

I made a post years ago about the disparity between time scale of tactical battles (I.e when a player drives a tank it moves same as real life speed) and the strategic side ( trickle timer and flag movement) ..  strategy if it was to be kept (even as hybrid supply) should be much much slower. Like 12 or 6 hour timers.. you order a unit to move... they got to take time as much as it would in real life to mobilise and move to next town.. maybe half as much at least... 

but all that are too complicated to code and all it does is serve a small group of HC players.. as opposed to the tactical side which everyone is part of.

town sequencing and advancing on the map is still quite enough strategy element for the game...

my 2cents anyways.

S! Potthead

 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


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

What I've been after all along is that EVERYBODY has a chance, any TZ, any relative pop level, to attack and defend successfully if they play smart.  This 24/7 ideal continually eludes, and unfortunately people inevitably argue for some aspect that takes away someone else's play to support their preferences.

That is my utopia as well... battles last 2-4 hours on average ... every now and then a quicker attack and sometimes a longer 6-8 hour battle... buts that’s it... each time zone taking a few towns or losing few towns and everyone having fun battles using the simulated equipment we have in a combined arms mode and nothing truly awesome possible without teamwork! We must be forced to evolve to use team play or lose towns... or fail to take towns if attacking without teamwork (includes and most absolutely requires leadership as well so leader have a role to play as well whether HC or not) 

potthead

Share this post


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

yo potthead, the new minimum standards of attacking are currently set for your level.

think it's sustainable?

 

i mean, anyone can log in; see all the state of AO's and make their own conclusions, but these guys kind of put you on a pedestal here

p.s. photobucket is behind a pay wall, imgur is free

Waisted so much time on stupid photobucket... even searched ages to find the old account log in hehe..

I have to say two things: 

A. It is unsustainable only because it has been made so that many other leaders don’t find it is worth to setup due to brigade movement making attrition muchmuch less more important than it should be... I mean why spend 45 min to setup and 4 hours to fight only for it to be all rinse and repeat with one brigade movement click of HC ( I am aware of how long it takes for brigades to move and how fast supply trickles in)

B. No idea why I have been singled out on the pedestal guess Merlin really had fun in the Mouzon AO couple of weeks ago as he helped cover a ZoC we had setup between 1-2k and kept it for hours with ATGs/Bofors/Air Tank and inf ... there have been and are many more effective tactical leaders than me that I have learned from and still learning each week as I tag on their squad nights and have fun being led by amazing folks and play my part in the team. I will name some NON HC and HC ones that come to mind quickly but list is much much much longer, Fasjr02, Aunghouse.., ..Dinker..Vagnluv, Vonik, Gagamel, Sw1, Larslot, Fenir, Cometus, Jamm40, Catfive, HG, Kilemall, Aeropaus, Monashy, Mundegarri, Lipton, Stankyus, Cse644, darthmarty, Martigan and many many many more....

S! Potthead

Share this post


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

That is my utopia as well... battles last 2-4 hours on average ... every now and then a quicker attack and sometimes a longer 6-8 hour battle... buts that’s it... each time zone taking a few towns or losing few towns and everyone having fun battles using the simulated equipment we have in a combined arms mode and nothing truly awesome possible without teamwork! We must be forced to evolve to use team play or lose towns... or fail to take towns if attacking without teamwork (includes and most absolutely requires leadership as well so leader have a role to play as well whether HC or not) 

potthead

Absoutely correct, 3 hour battles with meaningful destruction of supply, either 4 hour cycles so the players that killed it get to play it, or 10-12 so their side enjoys the gifting.

8-12 hour epics all the time are boring, so are 40 minute overpop or no pop captures or constant ninja.  You want a wide variety of possible outcomes and no average they tend to other then the meat and potatoes 3-hour battle.

 

We disagree on the methodology, but.... ya.

Share this post


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

To me, if a town is under attack NO supply should be able to get in unless it is moved by players and fight their way through the terrain (at least for duration of an average fun attack I.e 2-4 hours minimum)...in an average players gaming session there must be an outcome at a tactical level. Either defender wins and attacker runs out of supply or attacker kills the defenders and caps the town.

if the defender holds and kill atrackers supply then attacker should run out as wel and should not be able to move a whole new batch of new supply by just clicking a button and wait x amount of time (which is very short in our game) and then keep hitting the poor defenders...

I enjoyed the Strategic layer of ToE but I think it makes the tactical scene much less valuable which I find more fun than playing the flag game.

the strategic layer is nowhere near close to real world time scale... it is sooo fast paced (1 hour flag timers and few min trickles at a time) only to be impeded by capture of the link CP.. maybe at least if there was FB to blow to stop that link of supply by defending an Fb that takes 30 charges to blow ... way too easy on most towns to recap a cp and hold for 3 min till new flag moves in.

also the fact that movement of supply is in players hand, the expectation will be to always have best toys.... whereas when we did not have the option we had to fight with the supply that was left... attrition was FELT and accepted... 

I made a post years ago about the disparity between time scale of tactical battles (I.e when a player drives a tank it moves same as real life speed) and the strategic side ( trickle timer and flag movement) ..  strategy if it was to be kept (even as hybrid supply) should be much much slower. Like 12 or 6 hour timers.. you order a unit to move... they got to take time as much as it would in real life to mobilise and move to next town.. maybe half as much at least... 

but all that are too complicated to code and all it does is serve a small group of HC players.. as opposed to the tactical side which everyone is part of.

town sequencing and advancing on the map is still quite enough strategy element for the game...

my 2cents anyways.

S! Potthead

Gotta say I utterly despise town sequencing by size/supply correlation.  I'm gonna really hate that if CRS reimplements it.  Lot more fun if it was variable town supply and a big town can have a small garrison and small towns can be bursting.

 

I don't buy the time thing at all, most every town is less then 20 minutes drive, and the trickle timers if done right, 15 minutes to even start and 1 hour minimum to complete preferably 2, would be just dandy for both the attacker getting a chance to finish, the defenders having to fight smart and hard as the stuff came in, plenty of time for the attackers to move in finishing supply, stop nopop rolls as the supply literally isn't there to move on very quickly, and bouncing brigades out would cost dearly at linking CPs and force the smarter map people to not pile on huge numbers of brigades and have reserve units ready to supply linking depots and move back in.

 

The only people to lose out on that deal are air guys with no patience for waiting on supply arrival.

 

But, eh, too late for doing that all the way.

 

Best you not make the time scale argument, else supply should not come back in 4-12 hours, rebuilt garrison/divisions shouldn't come back in 12-24 hours and Tiers should not be 5-7 days.  Brigade movement IS in scale with those other events.

 

But I do agree that ToEs without proper trickle movement, too many brigades, and too big spawnlists to available player pop does overwhelm tactical attrition a LOT of the time.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

ot more fun if it was variable town supply and a big town can have a small garrison and small towns can be bursting.

You will be able to kind of do that dynamically, i forget the overstock amount, but i think it may be 100%
you could pump up a small town single AB to double capacity and hit a 2AB town that might only have 1.25% natively with 200%

Share this post


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

The game mechanics need to provide a mechanism by which attackers can penetrate the enemy's line, then spread out behind that line, defeat the light rear area security forces and prevent forward movement of supplies and reinforcements...whether the enemy's forward forces are partly attrited and in need of reinforcements/replacements/supplies, or even unattacked.

Agreed. It would however require a complete rewrite and redesign of the game. Can't realistically be done with the current strat system.

Share this post


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

I will name some NON HC and HC ones that come to mind quickly but list is much much much longer, Fasjr02, Aunghouse.., ..Dinker..Vagnluv, Vonik, Gagamel, Sw1, Larslot, Fenir, Cometus, Jamm40, Catfive, HG, Kilemall, Aeropaus, Monashy, Mundegarri, Lipton, Stankyus, Cse644, darthmarty, Martigan and many many many more....

S! Potthead

and Liluh. yeah, and Fenir. and JamieG from BTZ. 

Share this post


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

Absoutely correct, 3 hour battles with meaningful destruction of supply, either 4 hour cycles so the players that killed it get to play it, or 10-12 so their side enjoys the gifting.

8-12 hour epics all the time are boring, so are 40 minute overpop or no pop captures or constant ninja.  You want a wide variety of possible outcomes and no average they tend to other then the meat and potatoes 3-hour battle.

 

We disagree on the methodology, but.... ya.

I honestly don’t mind what methodology is used if the outcome is above ... 

I want to log in, work with others online, attack or defend and kill and attrit for 2-4 hours and have an outcome for that battle most of the time .. stalemate sometimes is ok but not most of the time..

The reason I am so hell bent on about 1.36 is the end to JWBS (supply rotation that ruins tactical game play at price of strategy for few hc players) I am sure it is far from perfect. it will make it so large organised groups will dominate Via teamwork and will bring its own issues but my god the end to the thing I have hated most maybe in sight! I think that alone should see attacks be made much more doable not easier. 

Suggestions to make attacking easier in tactical sense are not what I am in favour of.. (I.e. Inf FRU) 

Defending is easy because attrition really does not matter as much as it should which is the OP for the thread... I agree in current state attacking is much harder to have outcome and hence being done less and less in organised fashion. I think town supply will solve a major part of the root cause not the symptoms... it will still take time for teams / squads to form again and benefit from being organised and setup attacks. 

S! potthead 

 

P.s I have been and remain to be a huge fan of tournament PN idea.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I have to say two things: 

A. It is unsustainable only because it has been made so that many other leaders don’t find it is worth to setup due to brigade movement making attrition muchmuch less more important than it should be... I mean why spend 45 min to setup and 4 hours to fight only for it to be all rinse and repeat with one brigade movement click of HC ( I am aware of how long it takes for brigades to move and how fast supply trickles in)

S! Potthead

 

I completely agree. The warping supply into a town has been one of the worst parts of ToE, it wasn't liked by players when it was introduced and its just one more thing in a long list of ToE trip-ups that helped chase away squads. With attrition like you said in your previous post you know you are doing something with every unit you take out. How many times did we used to call out over the chat to play smart and wear down the enemy spawn lists? I haven't had that feeling since 2006 since you can count on it that at some point in the battle a flag will get moved in and suddenly 50 more tanks start coming out of the AB.

It effectively negates any battlefield tactics since it boils down captures to who can either ninja cap the AB when defenders aren't suspecting, or overwhelm the defenders with sheer numbers. Smart tactical play is pretty useless since supply is for the most part more or less infinite (at least at the current population levels). Bringing back TBS/attrition/interdiction wont be a silver bullet. But it will at least start slowly turning the ship to a better course and give players reason to come back.

For too long the game was designed to cater to HC and players who rather play the meta/strategic flag game at the expense of the greater majority of the players who came to WWIIOL for the tactical experience with some strategic flair thrown on top. We chase away the capability for squads to plan their attacks (AOs), removed the capability to overstock/plan for attacks (ToE), removed the ability to tactically plan an attack and attrit the enemy (flag movement). Without a reason to exist squads evaporated.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

You will be able to kind of do that dynamically, i forget the overstock amount, but i think it may be 100%
you could pump up a small town single AB to double capacity and hit a 2AB town that might only have 1.25% natively with 200%

I'm talking more like default is

Small 1 AB .75%

Medium 1 AB/Small 2 AB  1.0%

Large 2AB+ 1.25%

 

And NOT doing that, rather that it's randomized every time on load, so you never know what is under there.

 

Might want to do that between armor and inf brigade garrisons too, although at some point it gets crazy unwieldy without a basic template you can load from that has a GUI front end, not painful text whatever that is, sounds almost like manual SQL commands.

Share this post


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

I'm talking more like default is

Small 1 AB .75%

Medium 1 AB/Small 2 AB  1.0%

Large 2AB+ 1.25%

And NOT doing that, rather that it's randomized every time on load, so you never know what is under there.

Might want to do that between armor and inf brigade garrisons too, although at some point it gets crazy unwieldy without a basic template you can load from that has a GUI front end, not painful text whatever that is, sounds almost like manual SQL commands.

Dunno, but I think we are going down the road of needless complexity.

I was on discord with a greentag a few weeks back and one of the biggest issues was the amount of complexity and him simply having no clue WTF was going around him. For us it is easy to figure stuff out since we've been doing this since day 1; but for many new players just wrapping their head around the idea as simple as not being able to spawn because an FB has been blown by the enemy is a huge hurdle.

Yes, a lot of this is poor documentation IMHO (we desperately need a solid gameplay manual), but a lot of it is simply the game being complex. I think this is natural given what we are trying to simulate and achieve here, but I'm a fan of the KISS principle. The more simple it is, the  better. Which is why I'm a fan of the same spawn lists in every town along the front. No need to explain to players why you can't spawn a Tiger in this town but can in that town. For WWIIOL veterans that may be ok, but for guys first trying the game out on steam they will look around, see bad graphics, and be "yeah, not wasting my time trying to figure this [censored] out."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New guys won't be spawning Tigers for at least a month or two.

Plenty of other reasons for them to be confused.

I suspect the original design document was to NOT provide a manual and that new players would bond with old ones over learning how to play the game.

Wonder how many potential subs wandered out the door that way.

Acclimatization and explanation is the FIRST thing you do for retention especially with the complexity even in the 'dumbed down' versions of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.