• Announcements

    • XOOM

      Volunteer PHP Developer wanted to revive the Gazette!   07/24/2019

      We're looking to properly revive the World@War Gazette and need a solid PHP developer to help take some work forward. If you have some skills with PHP and are looking for some experience and to bring important home page news / recognition for individual players back to WWII Online, I'd like to hear from you! Submit an inquiry to jobs@corneredrats.com with some details about your experience. You will need at least 10+ hours per week to contribute to the team. The Gazette's current status can be found here: https://www.wwiionline.com/resources#gazette
david06

Attack vs. Defense

288 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Oh, I assure you I've read them all at least twice. 

In my experience of the science world, "arbitrary, subjective and situational" is just another way of saying "we haven't figured out metrics and an analytical framework for this, so even though a cross section of practitioners tell us it's important, we're assuming it doesn't matter."

But good luck. I've put a few thousand hours into this enterprise, partly from the semi-inside as you're doing now, so I do hope it doesn't fail.

You're assuming too much. We discussed at length how to measure unit value and how to attain the mythical balance - which has never existed, because spawnlists were either infinite or heavily biased (again according to the best model we could create). And as Scotsman have said repeatedly, even the US Army couldn't come up with a "combat efficiency" value for their real world kit despite years of data gathering and deep thinking: how do you expect us to best them? If you have the magic bullet, don't sit on it but share the love.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

That's exactly how they do it. Scotsman looked up historic data and found how much these things cost to produce. Each side has an equal "budget" to spend, so things like a Tiger are more expensive than a Panzer II, hence you can't have as many of them.

Noting the differences in equipment cost and factoring that into the game ... but ignoring pre-war military budgets and total dollars spent ..... well that is the root of the issue it seems to me. So ... saying the UK had a 37% disadvantage i guess was prob more historical in 1939 than assuming they had ....

a) the same GNP

b ) allocated the same % of their budget to the military.

I am not advocating that you bake GNP and such into the game. Just pointing out that it is a game ... we are already fudging the numbers here and there. CRS chooses to reflect history in one respect, but not the other. So .... the argument of not being able to break from this cost bugetimg approach in certain areas is pute non-sense.

I get it this is a ww2 simulator. Yeah use budget costing as a guide ... but gotta be flexible. And no .... the whole game will not crumble to the ground if certain allowances are made for gameplay. That's all i am saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, choad said:

but ignoring pre-war military budgets and total dollars spent

We're also ignoring that the Allies out-produced Germany on the order of 3:1 to 5:1. We're ignoring Russia. We're ignoring things like pilot training, where Allied aircrew in 1944 had up to four years of training whereas German pilots got thrown in with a few months of basic training - if they were lucky. We're ignoring almost ALL of the historical stuff, except for bare production in equal currency (then-year dollars). We're just looking at the metal and the quality of work. All countries are equal in budgetary terms, or it wouldn't be fair. If you think Germany has a right to win the Blitzkrieg because they did duh, then you will have to accept that the Allied powers have a right to win anything post 1942. That's not how we operate.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BMBM said:

 

We're also ignoring that the Allies out-produced Germany on the order of 3:1 to 5:1. We're ignoring Russia. We're ignoring things like pilot training, where Allied aircrew in 1944 had up to four years of training whereas German pilots got thrown in with a few months of basic training - if they were lucky. We're ignoring almost ALL of the historical stuff, except for bare production in equal currency (then-year dollars). We're just looking at the metal and the quality of work. All countries are equal in budgetary terms, or it wouldn't be fair. If you think Germany has a right to win the Blitzkrieg because they did duh, then you will have to accept that the Allied powers have a right to win anything post 1942. That's not how we operate.

*sigh*

I agree with all of the things you pointed out! But ... the one measurable and historical truth that you are latching on to, and resisting any fudging on, is unit production costs. Do you understand how planting your stake in the ground on this and steadfastly using the budget cost argument to justify problematic toe disparaties is laughable to some? Given all of the other areas of the game where historical accuracy was cast asside in the name of gameplay and some other reason.....

Share this post


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

The strategic element of this game should not be underestimated in its importance, or popularity.  My guess is the number is far north of '20'.

if it was at all popular then I wouldn't see constant begging for people to join HC

the game is a MMOFPS, at the moment it does not have good pop beacuse the FPS experience is not good

insufficient roleplaying elements or inaccurate dollar cost values of spawnlists or whatever are not the reason for low pop, I have no idea why people are talking about these things when the thread is about the FPS game

when the unique strategic game here can get 1% of the concurrent players of Hearts of Iron then it might be labled "extremely niche", but it can't even get that (100+ HC officers per side at once would be unfathomable)

EoRckZK.png 

Share this post


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

Do you understand how planting your stake in the ground on this and steadfastly using the budget cost argument to justify problematic toe disparaties is laughable to some?

Sure, and I'm waiting with bated breath on an alternative model. This is the best and fairest we can do. If you have a better idea and can quantify it, be my guest. What is laughable, is the constant unsubstantiated sniping based on what "feels" right. Define and quantify your feeling and we shall listen.

Remember also that even with this model the Axis is favored because the one thing that the Allies had IRL which we can't provide here, is quantity over quality (except in marginal terms). Equal budgets does that. Thus the Axis have, in general, a qualitative, a quantitative and for the most part, a numerical advantage, relative to historical events and to in game realities.

 

Share this post


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

 quality costs because quality kills.

LOL so much for all your pontificating about historical production costs, now you say it is down to "quality" and quality is not an exactitude, it is a subjective judgement.

Incidentally I agree with you (as do so many others posting in the umpteen threads that keep referring back to spawnlists), and am delighted that we can now discuss spawnlists based on the quality and in game performance (killing power) of the modelled equipment, after all, quality kills. :)

Thank you

S! Ian

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ian77 said:

LOL so much for all your pontificating about historical production costs, now you say it is down to "quality" and quality is not an exactitude, it is a subjective judgement.

You don't want to see me when I pontificate ;)

I've been saying the same thing throughout. Higher production cost = greater quality. If you're opposed to that I don't know what to tell you. And no, it's not subjective - you'll have to ask Scotsman for the objective factors that went in the statistical model. Off hand, weight (more armor, greater weight), gun caliber, optics, number of engines, stuff like that. That's why an R35 costs more than a Vickers and a Heinkel more than a Stuka. These are all HARD scientific facts. We're not putting any mushy human factors in there, because they can't be quantified. 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

 

We're also ignoring that the Allies out-produced Germany on the order of 3:1 to 5:1. We're ignoring Russia. We're ignoring things like pilot training, where Allied aircrew in 1944 had up to four years of training whereas German pilots got thrown in with a few months of basic training - if they were lucky. We're ignoring almost ALL of the historical stuff, except for bare production in equal currency (then-year dollars). We're just looking at the metal and the quality of work.

All countries are equal in budgetary terms, or it wouldn't be fair.

So you/CRS choose to ignore what suits you and insist that the base economic cost cannot be ignored. You can make the BEF be 40% of the deployed ground troops in WWIIOL, when they were less than 20%. You can deploy fantastical numbers of matildas, because your economic model allows it, whether or not the UK had manufactured them by T0 or not. You give allied ground troops non historically accurate doctrine SMGs and Autos, because the game is broken without them (and thank God CRS did a U-Turn on that one).

You keep saying every country has an equal budget. Presumably the French plus the British plus the Americans equals the axis budget? Just checking in case there is another typo like 4 Pnz 3s or no pak36s etc etc etc.

 

S! ian

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

You don't want to see me when I pontificate ;)

I've been saying the same thing throughout. Higher production cost = greater quality. If you're opposed to that I don't know what to tell you. And no, it's not subjective - you'll have to ask Scotsman for the objective factors that went in the statistical model. Off hand, weight (more armor, greater weight), gun caliber, optics, number of engines, stuff like that. That's why an R35 costs more than a Vickers and a Heinkel more than a Stuka. These are all HARD scientific facts. We're not putting any mushy human factors in there, because they can't be quantified. 

And according to HMG the Matilda cost £18,000 to build. That puts it 300% more than the figures I have seen for the Stug IIIB. When we ask you to justify your figures you always respond with we did the research and it is top secret.

S! Ian

Share this post


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

Off hand, weight (more armor, greater weight), gun caliber, optics, number of engines, stuff like that.

this is how you're arriving at the silly numbers and how you're claiming a stug3b 'costs' the same as a matilda.

first, you're taking the cost of it, then you're attempting to define a combat effectiveness in a vacuum and I'm guessing weighting 'optics' very high in that calculaton. how else can a short barrel 75mm AFV with no turret nor MG cost the same as a matilda when the real world costs don't even come close to 'the same cost'? the optics are ALREADY accounted for in the total cost. to apply them again after the fact is arriving at a bias conclusion.

the fact you continue to justify this continues to erode your position. how many more threads do we need before this over matches your mental armor block?

let me guess, 'you come up with the solution' ... uh huh. let's say someone did, how many threads would it take to actually get through? the answer - about as many licks as it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.

 

@XOOM - this doesn't make sense to many of your players. this topic has come up in many many threads, most get locked at some point as there is no apparent meeting of the minds. the model mostly works but falls down in certain edge cases that need some resolution.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ian77 said:

And according to HMG the Matilda cost £18,000 to build. That puts it 300% more than the figures I have seen for the Stug IIIB. When we ask you to justify your figures you always respond with we did the research and it is top secret.

S! Ian

the logical fallacy here is know as appeal to authority. you can't crack this nut as scotsman has X years in the real world with real weapons systems design. you won't ever be able to convince them as they've bought into this lock stock and barrel. in order to 'win' you'd have to out credential scotsman, since that isn't possible, 'the model' wins by default despite the obvious edge case issues we're dealing with on an otherwise pretty solid foundational model.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies to the OP, the thread has been derailed by yet another spawnlist debate.

Attacking is tough in this game. Defending is easier.

Attacking needs teamwork, leadership, morale, and numbers. Axis have this more of the time than the allies, therefore Axis win maps.

I saw Hamza trying to get an allied AO going yesterday, he used three accounts to set three frus to the AO to Lier, allies were overpop early T1, and he couldn't get anyone to join his attack. My excuse is I was in one of the spawnables on the DO.

S! ian

3 people like this

Share this post


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

Sure, and I'm waiting with bated breath on an alternative model. This is the best and fairest we can do. If you have a better idea and can quantify it, be my guest. What is laughable, is the constant unsubstantiated sniping based on what "feels" right. Define and quantify your feeling and we shall listen.

Whatever man .... after this i'm just done arguing the point with you. Your knee-jerk reflex when discussing this it to get hyper-defensive and ignore the substance of the argument. I will say it one more time..... I am all for historical introduction dates, all for your unit costing approach and even for your historic brig composition. What i am not for is an unwillingness to modify equipment numbers and brig composition when the disparity causes some pretty substantial imbalance issues.

Don't sit there and act like you are the target of naysayers in the back row throwing stones but not offering solutions. That simply isn't true. Many, many people have brought forward ideas or tweeks to the spawn list that they would like to see .... to balance it out a bit. I have not heard people advocating that you should take your work, wipe your rear with it, and light it on fire. Yet to me ... many of your responses seem to characterize any criticism as just that. The fact that you curl up in a defensive shell and refuse to hear any of it so as to defend the whole unit cost concept ... not my problem.

 

BTW .. i am an exclusively Allied player so don't write me off as an Axis blitz apologist.

 

6 people like this

Share this post


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

in this threads derailed topic, sacrificing FPS gameplay (gameplay balanced spawnlists) in the name of reenactment/simulation gameplay (real life $$$ spawnlists).

aspects of the tactical layer has been sacrificed by the new ToE; 8 matties and the removal of panzers from the axis inf flags while removing panzers from axis inf, and the complete dismissal of basic game functions, like axis need 2x the supply$  for half track, as well as ignoring the capabilities of every single unit. for the sake of a simulation based ToE

 

there are more examples of sacrificing needlessly and ignoring the consequences. this isn't the first time the devs sailed full speed into an iceburg a mile away. they've proven themselves blind man, saying there is no iceburg isn't helping their ship stay afloat.

Changing the spawnlists does not sacrifice FPS gameplay---it alters it, makes it more challenging, makes it more re-playable, by giving MORE variables to consider when attacking or defending.  You have seen Bmbm's posts where he has pointed out ad nauseum that the spawnlists were NEVER properly balanced.  They may have been in your opinion, but they weren't, and part of the effort at moving towards a more historically accurate spawnlist is to correct the imbalances that have existed in this game for years and years.  Imbalances that arguably are the root cause of problems existing on the Allied side for well over a decade, that received crickets from you, help-wise.  Where was your outrage at the imbalances that existed before?  Were they as vociferous as they are now, when imbalance isn't the issue, but 'balance' that doesn't favor you is?

You say that game issues caused the Luftwaffe to arrive somewhere between nonexistent and severely degraded in effectiveness, and you have cited ahistorical performance issues, to which I and others have pledged their support in finding remedies for.

 

You claim that without putting panzers in every brigade (some are even advocating having them in every blessed town), that 'attacking is too hard, and defending is too easy', and yet every night I play TZ3 the germans are taking towns without using any tanks at all, sometimes from towns/brigades with panzer brigades IN them.

'Nobody is going to bring tanks from another town because it is too much effort and the game is flawed for thinking otherwise', but yesterday, an Allied attack on Anhee (that I participated in) was a scintilla away from taking the town, until, wait for it....  axis players brought tanks from the town behind Anhee, and crushed the attack, (S! to those involved, btw, it was a fun fight, and though the Allied attack failed it was a blast).

You claim the AOs are dead, but when I spawn in 5 minutes after you post it, the AOs are packed with activity.

Relatively historically accurate spawnlists do not equal reenactment, and do not sacrifice FPS gameplay.  They cause adjustments at the strategic and tactical layers of this game.  Adjustments that are perfectly capable of being made by the players involved, on both sides, and will result in better campaigns and better overall gameplay.  All that and CRS is perfectly willing to make changes if/when errors and/or imbalances occur.

All that and we're probably 2 months away from 1.36, which will throw all of these discussions into the weeds, (no doubt replacing them with others).

I believe if you took a step back, you would be at significant risk of seeing that you and I are not enemies (except in-game when you are playing for the dark side), and that you and CRS are not enemies, either.  Neither is the playerbase the enemies of CRS----we ALL want the game to succeed.  We ALL want more players in-game.  We all want the Allies to win every campaign... wait, that's just me. ;)

 

S!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, david06 said:

if it was at all popular then I wouldn't see constant begging for people to join HC

the game is a MMOFPS, at the moment it does not have good pop beacuse the FPS experience is not good

insufficient roleplaying elements or inaccurate dollar cost values of spawnlists or whatever are not the reason for low pop, I have no idea why people are talking about these things when the thread is about the FPS game

when the unique strategic game here can get 1% of the concurrent players of Hearts of Iron then it might be labled "extremely niche", but it can't even get that (100+ HC officers per side at once would be unfathomable)

EoRckZK.png 

Your assertion fails to note that most of the veteran players HAVE served in the respective HCs, some for years and years, (many multiple times, and most returning for additional tours of 'duty' from time to time), and it fails to understand that even players (like myself) who do enjoy the strategical layer of the game do not always have the time necessary to properly serve in the HC(s).

Your conclusion that the population is where it is due to the 'FPS experience not being good' is an opinion,  just like some others in the thread are of the opinion that the population is due to the current spawn lists.

HOI is a great game, no doubt, and it has a lot of loyal players, no doubt.  (I'm still debating whether to continue sticking with HOI2, or move up to HOI4).  HOI's strategic layers are deep, effective, and awesome----and they aren't as challenging as the strategic layer in WWIIOnline is.  In HOI, when I send a division onto the attack, it attacks no questions asked.  My 'leadership' is not questioned, and has zero bearing on how the division's attack will go beyond whatever enemy forces are awaiting their arrival.  In WWIIOnline, it is a whole different animal.  Having a strategical 'plan' is just the very beginning of the challenges involved in leading in WWIIOnline.  Having been in real world military, and being a huge fan of HOI, I can say that without question leading in WWIIOnline is far more difficult than HOI, and it is far more difficult than leading in the real world military, (caveat/qualifier being that I never had the responsibility of leading troops into an actual battle, which would have a significant chance of changing my conclusions).  Players have every right to not follow your plan, your 'orders/requests', and so on.  Players spawn what they want when they want, and use the equipment how they want.  Making an attack and/or defense work effectively in WWIIOnline's environment requires a special level of leadership abilities that doesn't exist/isn't required for HOI, or for that matter, the real world.

Share this post


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

the optics are ALREADY accounted for in the total cost. to apply them again after the fact is arriving at a bias conclusion.

The cost of the optics is only applied once and yes it's included in the total cost. I fully understand that you don't like the model, particularly since you're not privy to its details, or its effects - I get that. But until someone comes up with a better model, this is it. And no, I'm not saying the current budget disposition is final - there may yet be tweaks. All I ask is try to keep this constructive and civil. 

Share this post


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

Read again. Combat effectiveness (QV) isn't factored in because it can't be objectively defined. Production costs IS impartial and objective, and funnily/bizarrely enough also to some degree reflective of what we as general players (subjectively) perceive as a unit's combat effectiveness. 

 

Yet wargames have done this for decades.

 

And somehow Trevor Depuy did too and created a working predictive total force model.

 

Hmmmm.   HMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

What i am not for is an unwillingness to modify equipment numbers and brig composition when the disparity causes some pretty substantial imbalance issues.

There is no such unwillingness. 

Share this post


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

Yet wargames have done this for decades.

And somehow Trevor Depuy did too and created a working predictive total force model.

There's no game like our game. If you, by your own devices and/or helped by Depuy or whomever you may want to call on for support, can define a formula that takes human and situational factors into account - go for it. I am, sad to say, not brainy enough to devise such a thing. 

Share this post


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

I fully understand that you don't like the model

then you're fully wrong. the model is mostly fine, as ive said countless times. the edge cases though aren't being addressed. worse many comments indicate you don't even think its a problem cause, you know "the model" is fair and balanced. in most cases it is that, in others due to whatever factors, it isn't.

fix those and the arguments go away. dig your heels in and you'll continue to have this conversation.

Share this post


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

the edge cases though aren't being addressed.

Like the Matilda, the B1bis, the Tiger and what else? I have a hard time artificially pumping up the $ value of these units, or any unit in isolation, based on what factors exactly? The same X value would have to apply to any such edge case - and where does one draw the line? How come the Churchill is absent from the equation? What happens when the Tiger II, the Panther, the PzJ IV, the Ferdinand, the Lee/Grant, the various flakvierlings, the M16, the Sherman Jumbo and the Lancaster gets into the game?

Show me the math here, because I simply can't see it. Not trying to be obtuse but we have to use something else than our gut feeling in defining balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Capco said:

While this is true to a point, it's also true that having an AO up is not a negative if it is drawing in a lot of defenders that would otherwise be attacking.  And with everyone's propensity to freak out at the first sight of light EWS, it frequently works.  Even if the AO has no attackers and just few defenders going to bust the FB, that's 3 fewer guys that could be capping at the DO.  

 

AOs always have a purpose imo, even if it's just the threat the AO itself imposes.  And Allied TZ3 players are some of the best guys to work with.  

I am going to respectfully disagree, but that all comes down to just how Underpop and low pop you are. It doesn't take a rocket scientist on the Axis side to figure out they have the advantage in numbers (cap timers do that for them). So if Axis is trying to defend a town with 7 people and Axis are attacking with 14, losing two people on the allied side to go setup a fms, etc etc, wait to cap, etc, is all just wasted time while the DO town gets overwhelmed. They could get the same interaction (the players that wanted an AO, and at least serve some purpose, if they instead attacked an EFB that was supplying the town that was under attack. 

I am not going to claim it never works as you suggest, but I will claim it is much more often a liability than it is an asset. 

Share this post


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

There's no game like our game. If you, by your own devices and/or helped by Depuy or whomever you may want to call on for support, can define a formula that takes human and situational factors into account - go for it. I am, sad to say, not brainy enough to devise such a thing. 

Well, I am not personally acquainted with him and he's dead, but his institute lives on and plenty of books about.  I expect Scotsman is conversant with his work, since if nothing else Trevor would have probably messed with acquisition pitch justifications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_N._Dupuy

https://www.amazon.com/Trevor-N.-Dupuy/e/B0034OOF4G%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share

https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AT+N+Dupuy&s=relevancerank&text=T+N+Dupuy&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1

Dupuy (darn was spelling it wrong) developed the QJM, Quantitative Judgement Model, which using principles from ancient warfare until modern, predicted the lopsided victory in Desert Storm.  It Rocks.

Here's a simplified look at the QJM- it takes entire books to do properly, but you can get the idea here-

https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Planning/Simplified_Wargaming.htm

Oh lookie there, terrain.  Who knew.

It's bigger younger brother, TNDM, is a professional analysis set for sale.  Obviously beyond CRS' budget and certainly mine, and I'm sure the references to diskettes date the software.  But the underlying process is still functional.

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/tndm.htm

 

The wargamer faction in the think tank wars are not popular in weapons acquisition and force building policy as they have a tendency to not really care about institutional politics and 'not invented here', but results independent of whose skin is in the game, or gets burned. 

 

In a wargaming forum some pros watch, we set off a USAF officer that was NOT happy about characterizations of what happened in the Balkans, even though the facts are there.  Same thing with QJM, which involves (GASP SHUDDER) human judgement for the inputs.  But damn, it yields better results.

 

Anyway, ya, this is where I'm coming from, along with decades of wargames with point values for units in scenarios.  Even if it's not a straight up scenario but by points of how 'well you lose', even in historical scenarios forces have to be quantified to judge how to balance victory conditions.

 

This isn't new.  And, the wargaming approach WORKS.  Professionally.

https://www.strategypage.com/wargames-handbook/chapter/9-7-iraq.aspx

 

 

Share this post


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

Like the Matilda, the B1bis, the Tiger and what else? I have a hard time artificially pumping up the $ value of these units, or any unit in isolation, based on what factors exactly? The same X value would have to apply to any such edge case - and where does one draw the line? How come the Churchill is absent from the equation? What happens when the Tiger II, the Panther, the PzJ IV, the Ferdinand, the Lee/Grant, the various flakvierlings, the M16, the Sherman Jumbo and the Lancaster gets into the game?

Show me the math here, because I simply can't see it. Not trying to be obtuse but we have to use something else than our gut feeling in defining balance.

you're not trying to be obtuse, but you're doing a great job. "show me the math" when you know we can't as we don't see the back end. you're asking us to do the impossible while standing on your appeal to the authority of the infallible model.

 

Quote
ob·tuse
/əbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/
adjective
adjective: obtuse
  1. 1.
    annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

 

pretty spot on.

 

fix it or don't - i'm done arguing and supporting the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.