• 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
    • CHIMM

      18th Anniversary Event Awards!   06/23/2019

      This year we are giving out trophies and awards for the top players during the "Kill a RAT" event! We need the following players to contact @CHIMM at chimm@corneredrats.com with your physical address to mail these out.   @mook2  @dasei88  @c00per  @kardehk  @chau90  @kdped02  @Simcha  @pulfer  @bus0    
caydel

American Flags need more Springfields

67 posts in this topic

17 minutes ago, SCKING said:

 

Exactly like the highly subjective “fun” that gets thrown around. 

Except that, from what I see, the majority of the players agree with me. 

Some people's fun are exclusively taking down FBs. So that's supposed to mean that applies to all of us?  Just because a tiny minority like it? And are VERY vocal about it? 

When I see a LOT of people agreeing with what I have said, and expressing the same sentiments along the same lines, well...

 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

No, we shouldn't have red vs blue, but in some cases it's needed. Those cases are infantry vs infantry weapons regarding  99% of the infantry weapons. 

Infantry weapons are however not created alike. Even bolt action rifles differ. The knife would be the most equal piece of kit. In the LMG class there’s a clear winner, and that superiority cannot be adequately balanced. Did the Germans have semis? Yup, however not in numbers approaching the US whose Garand was standard issue. The Brits are likewise handicapped, but have other things going for them. We incorporate that difference so that each side has its own peculiar set of pros and cons. 

Edit: When the Stg44 is delivered, will it be general issue or have an equivalent on the Allied side? No, and no. What we will (or should) do however is limit it to its historical distribution which was two platoons (Sturm-Zuge) per one third of the German infantry divisions by December 1944. This would make the Stg44 ultra-rare - and we will likely have far more of them than was historically available. How do you propose we balance that?

Edited by BMBM
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

Except that, from what I see, the majority of the players agree with me. 

Some people's fun are exclusively taking down FBs. So that's supposed to mean that applies to all of us?  Just because a tiny minority like it? And are VERY vocal about it? 

When I see a LOT of people agreeing with what I have said, and expressing the same sentiments along the same lines, well...

 

It’s too subjective.. It’s fun to have a group of spitfires gang up on a stuka to see who gets the kill, certainly not fun for the stuka pilot though. But when the stuka pilot no longer decides to return because it’s not fun for him, it stops being fun for the spitfire pilots as well.. So fun for a group is not fun for both sides of the equation in the end. Fun is subjective, to you it’s fun, not necessarily others.

Share this post


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

Infantry weapons are however not created alike. Even bolt action rifles differ. The knife would be the most equal piece of kit. In the LMG class there’s a clear winner, and that superiority cannot be adequately balanced. Did the Germans have semis? Yup, however not in numbers approaching the US whose Garand was standard issue. The Brits are likewise handicapped, but have other things going for them. We incorporate that difference so that each side has its own peculiar set of pros and cons. 

Every veteran infantry player who has played both sides knows infantry equipement was well balanced...axis have the best LMG in game, allies have the best SMGs in game, allied rifles reload faster but have worst sight than axis, allied granades were worst to blow ais but better than axis to clear bunkers, etc...

I don't understand how someone who has played 62 infantry sorties in the last 1.5 years can say that axis had a superior equipment

Share this post


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

I don't understand how someone who has played 62 infantry sorties in the last 1.5 years can say that axis had a superior equipment

In the last 1,5 years I've been devoting ALL my spare time to developing kit. I'm surprised I even have 62 infantry sorties. What's more, it's both irrelevant and untrue - I have thousands of infantry sorties since year 2000, and the basic set hasn't evolved that much. I also don't think many would agree that e.g. French infantry kit is superior to German.

Share this post


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

In the last 1,5 years I've been devoting ALL my spare time to developing kit. I'm surprised I even have 62 infantry sorties. What's more, it's both irrelevant and untrue - I have thousands of infantry sorties since year 2000, and the basic set hasn't evolved that much. I also don't think many would agree that e.g. French infantry kit is superior to German.

You are barely a greentag if you think grease gun is worse than any german smg...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SCKING said:

It’s too subjective.. It’s fun to have a group of spitfires gang up on a stuka to see who gets the kill, certainly not fun for the stuka pilot though. But when the stuka pilot no longer decides to return because it’s not fun for him, it stops being fun for the spitfire pilots as well.. So fun for a group is not fun for both sides of the equation in the end. Fun is subjective, to you it’s fun, not necessarily others.

Not when you see a LOT of people saying the same thing. 

You can call it subjective, I call it the prevailing thinking when it comes to this. 

Also, syd is spot on. Spot on. 

PS: You're comparing apples to oranges. I'm specifically talking about infantry weapons. 

Edited by Mosizlak
2 people like this

Share this post


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

You are barely a greentag if you think grease gun is worse than any german smg...

I'd prefer if you didn't assume what I think and make up straw men as you go. So what do you think of the Stg44 then - will that lead to a hot influx of Allied players do you think? What will we balance it with?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M2 carbine, riding the same time warp as the grease gun, for balance and fun! 

I'm kidding, and like the historical setup. What I'd suggest is more shermans.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I'd prefer if you didn't assume what I think and make up straw men as you go. So what do you think of the Stg44 then - will that lead to a hot influx of Allied players do you think? What will we balance it with?

I thought it was being introduced with the M2 carbine?  Allies will get another automatic rifle. It's not on par with the stg44, so I few extra M2s should be added. 

Not a 6-1 ratio. 

A sprinkle here and there. 

I've made my opinions known, as have a lot of other people. 

Have a nice day, gents. 

Edited by Mosizlak
spelling
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I suggest are French and Belgium partisans and the Germans using a lot of captured allied equipment, lol.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The grease gun enters tier 3, so no more time warp there. Nope, not more Shermans. In fact, a few less.

Share this post


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

I thought it was being introduced with the M2 carbine?  Allies will get another automatic rifle. It's not on par with the stg44, so I few extra M2s should be added. 

The US are getting the M1A1, not the M2. The French will likely get a few too, the Brits - none. There will be NO equal to the Stg44, but that seems to be OK with at least 60% of the playerbase.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

It’s too subjective.. It’s fun to have a group of spitfires gang up on a stuka to see who gets the kill, certainly not fun for the stuka pilot though. But when the stuka pilot no longer decides to return because it’s not fun for him, it stops being fun for the spitfire pilots as well.. So fun for a group is not fun for both sides of the equation in the end. Fun is subjective, to you it’s fun, not necessarily others.

This, too.

Share this post


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

You are barely a greentag if you think grease gun is worse than any german smg...

Thompson is killer.  The others, less so.

Share this post


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

The US are getting the M1A1, not the M2. The French will likely get a few too, the Brits - none. There will be NO equal to the Stg44, but that seems to be OK with at least 60% of the playerbase.

Then that's a mistake, again. 

The historical date tiers are gonna sink your game. 

Now, have a nice day, gents.  :D

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

Then that's a mistake, again. 

The historical date tiers are gonna sink your game. 

Now, have a nice day, gents.  :D

 

Why a mistake?

I get what you're saying about this being a game, and that balance is WAY more important than historical accuracy. As a "historical accuracy" guy, I'll nevertheless absolutely agree that balance comes FIRST, period.

But obviously you don't need red vs blue equipment sets to have side balance. Post Scritpum is a nicely balanced game (after some trial and error), despite the fact that all US riflemen can choose the M1Garand as default, but German riflemen are restricted to Kar98k only. Yet the sides most definitely *are* balanced overall, as anyone who plays that game would acknowledge. This was achieved through clever choices in terms of *overall* equipment sets rather than on a per-weapon basis.

I see zero need to balance on a weapon-per-weapon basis; we don't need to be hypothetical about the consequences, like I said, we can look at how things worked out in other games. So while I agree with the mosizlak doctrine (balance trumps historical accuracy, always), I see no reason that the STG44 needs an "equal" (especially since it had none!)... I think the way they did it in PS was to use total ROF (from infantry; how many total rounds either side can put out per soldier per unit time) as one measure for balance...

Edited by xanthus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not an equal, but something close or something sexy. 

The semi auto M1A2 is not that weapon. The M2 might be. 

What does the M1A2 carbine bring to the table? A semi auto carbine with a cartridge that is less powerful than the M1 Garand?  2 more rounds than the Garand? So far that's the only minor thing better than the Garand. 

That's why I think the M1A2 carbine is a mistake. It brings nothing to the table except some variety, and the existing Garand does everything better than it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If eventually the infantry physics code takes weapon momentum into account for weapon movements (accelerations and decelerations), including rotation, light carbines will have the same advantages as SMGs over rifles, auto rifles and LMGs...less time to aim. Not sure when that will occur, though.

But more generally, not every weapon chosen for modeling has to be unambiguously better than what's already modeled. To a significant extent, the marketing appeal of more weapons is just their variety. A game with every common WWII infantry weapon modeled will be more fun to many customers than one with only the best weapons modeled. And, in that regard, it makes sense to model the common weapons first, before getting into the very-limited-use ones.

Share this post


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

If eventually the infantry physics code takes weapon momentum into account for weapon movements (accelerations and decelerations), including rotation, light carbines will have the same advantages as SMGs over rifles, auto rifles and LMGs...less time to aim. Not sure when that will occur, though.

But more generally, not every weapon chosen for modeling has to be unambiguously better than what's already modeled. To a significant extent, the marketing appeal of more weapons is just their variety. A game with every common WWII infantry weapon modeled will be more fun to many customers than one with only the best weapons modeled. And, in that regard, it makes sense to model the common weapons first, before getting into the very-limited-use ones.

Sure, and the M2 carbine would be a much better choice than the M1A2 carbine. 

It brings variety, and it brings something that will at least be OK compared to the stg44. 

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M2 wouldn't arrive until cycle 8 (early T5)
M1 has 15 round capacity, Garand has 8, so that is almost double capacity, not just 2 rounds.

M1 also has more knockdown power than the thompson, and is better at range up to about 200m.
M1 has a lot less kick than the M1 Garand, and is a smaller and lighter weapon, should work well
in medium and close range combat
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's consider another example.

The British will get their #68 HEAT RG in T0. My assumption is that the French will get the Brandt 50mm HEAT RG in T1, i.e. the second half of 1940, based on available historical information that some were used then from the 150,000 just received into Army warehouses and awaiting development of the training process for them. The British and French HEAT RGs were effective against tanks of their period, reliable, and available in ample numbers.

The Heer, though, didn't get a HEAT RG until early 1942, and that one was very weak. They didn't get an improved, reasonably effective one until late 1942...T5.

The Fallshirmjagers got a weak and unreliable HEAT RG in early 1941, just in time for Crete. They muddled along with that weapon until the first Heer HEAT RG was available, at which point the Fallshirmjagers scrapped all of their own version.

How should that be handled in-game? Should the Germans have to struggle along with equal numbers of an entirely inferior weapon, available much later?

Or should they get something else that's available early and more effective for the same game-role?

Neither the British nor the French ever had a "HEAT sapper charge" weapon. Those weapons of theirs in-game are imaginary. The Germans, though, did have an early version of such a weapon, probably in T0 or T1...the HHL 1. It had about as much penetration as the British and French HEAT RGs. Then later the Germans developed the HHL 3 series, which was the conceptual basis for the game's current HEAT sapper charges even though it looked completely different.

It seems obvious to me that there's no point in modeling weapons that are so poor performing that players will think of them as useless. That's why the criterion should be balanced effectiveness, not just balanced numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starting point should be historical gear at historical timelines.  Too bad so sad your side don't have something. (and is wrong for 200 matties start tier 0... that is off)

Then, adjust a bit to balance out game play.

Game play has to come first ultimatley - but keep the historical aspect as much as possible imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SCKING said:

It’s too subjective.. It’s fun to have a group of spitfires gang up on a stuka to see who gets the kill, certainly not fun for the stuka pilot though. But when the stuka pilot no longer decides to return because it’s not fun for him, it stops being fun for the spitfire pilots as well.. So fun for a group is not fun for both sides of the equation in the end. Fun is subjective, to you it’s fun, not necessarily others.

the tanks and inf are in the exact same situation man.

they weren't under the gameplay balanced supply

 

16 hours ago, BMBM said:

Edit: When the Stg44 is delivered, will it be general issue or have an equivalent on the Allied side? No, and no. What we will (or should) do however is limit it to its historical distribution which was two platoons (Sturm-Zuge) per one third of the German infantry divisions by December 1944. This would make the Stg44 ultra-rare - and we will likely have far more of them than was historically available. How do you propose we balance that?

with its K/D vs other inf. then lower the rest of the auto's in axis to make up the difference

nobody cares if it cost 50,000$ or 5$ IRL. we want to play a game

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we already have a "gameplay equivalent" to the stg44..... its called the fg42.  But at the current ratio ........ every single fg42 that spawns has to kill at least 5 us M1's whenever they are up against a US brig to be worth its salt  Do the allies not have a unit equivalent to the fg42..... no, they don't......... do the US brigades have a significant advantage over the Germans infantry, overall???...... absolutely.  The slight superiority of the axis lmg and the existence of fg42's (in there current numbers) does not make up for the *cough* imbalance of *cough* "historical" numbers.

History is meant for history books.....

Video games are meant for gaming.....

Edited by kgarner
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.