• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
kgarner

Historical Spawnlists....

256 posts in this topic

We need to rethink this whole historical lists.

What does it mean exactly?

What I'm looking for (and thought) is gear comes into game as it did in real life.

So, no grease gun in 1940; that is easy.  Need to fudge one month on some date... sure - prolly ok, it is a game; fudge 1 year?  No.

 

The second is historical flavor in terms of makeup of gear.

In 1940, there should be more IIC than IIIB; easy.  There should be more rifles than LMGs, easy.

USA should have more semis than german or brits.  Is that 150, 100, 50?  Or is the make up 120, 100, 80?  Or in worse case maybe 180, 30, 0?

(with total rifle numbers evened out by bolts)

 

And third (and prolly where it starts getting gray) is the usage of said gear.

axis had FG-42, but KM didn't use them, should they get them? (they could have sent FG-42 to navy soldiers)

brits didn't use semi's, but the world had them, should they get them?

Here, I would say generally follow historical usage; however, game play has to come first.

 

Finally, a number of players have suggested splitting infantry and armored regiments up so they are more like real life. (me included)

This means fewer tanks in infantry flags, and more in armored flags.

The problem is,  it wasn't done evenly;  ALL infantry flags (all nations), need no tanks; just AGs, TDs and ACs if we are going to do this.

And, for game play; we should prolly still include a platoon or two of light tanks in every infantry flag -just for game playability.

(note, this goes away with 1.36 - the entire div and all the infantry/tanks are in town - so this should not be an issue)

 

For me, the hard and fast line is gear intro dates.  That's easy.

Actual production numbers and which units used them should be used for flavor (i.e. mimic real life somewhat), but not hard and fast rules - it is here game play needs to take precedence.

 

Finally, each nations flags should have near same infantry numbers; 1 sides ARM shouldn't have 500 infantry, with another only getting 300.  Variance there should be no more than 5% or so imo.

(note, I'm not talking make up of the units in flag - I'm just saying the total number of infantry in the flag should be near same)

So, if USA gets 300 infantry in ARM flags, so should germans; just USA might have 100 semis while germans only 30)

Edited by delems
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doc went through a lot more stress to get a balanced supply right

ignoring it and starting over is such a waste of time and a needless exercise in frustration

Edited by major0noob
2 people like this

Share this post


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

Good post @delems you summed up my feelings on the matter as well.

+1

S! Ian

 

Share this post


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

doc went through a lot more stress to get a balanced supply right

ignoring it and starting over is such a waste of time and a needless exercise in frustration

Unfortunately with the addition of new equipment to game and be thrown in to any tier just to get the new toys to the players without regard to it proper time introduction was going on. so going by DOC's TOE's became so inaccurate   .... dont  forget there was supply numbers just added for steam players all willy nilly .. 

 

The game has been changing and there will be trip ups here and there , just cant act like it is the end of the world and we are against the players.    

Share this post


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

Unfortunately with the addition of new equipment to game and be thrown in to any tier just to get the new toys to the players without regard to it proper time introduction was going on. so going by DOC's TOE's became so inaccurate   .... dont  forget there was supply numbers just added for steam players all willy nilly .. 

 

CC OHM.

 

13 minutes ago, OHM said:

 

........... just cant act like it is the end of the world and we are against the players.    

BUT this is exactly the perception of many players on side chat, and worse still, this is the impression of CRS on BOTH sides.

 

If CRS are just conducting temporary experiments with spawnlists then for crying out loud tell the players - ideally before you do it. But it is probably already too late for some players.

For everyday that goes by that a former player does not log in;

1. it becomes less likely he will ever return - we get into the habit of doing other things (probably explains why the "welcomeback" events have never really seemed to keep very many old players logging weeks later in)

2. it becomes more likely that one of his friends will not log in - this in turn leads to even fewer playing.

 

S! Ian

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually don't agree........ historical nonsense will never create equilibrium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, and I'm not trying to be overly critical, I have been playing this game since almost day one. And in that time I have almost never heard both sides screaming about the same problem at the same time. and what I'm seeing in chat in game, in my own personal forums for my squad, and being told by players is that they feel like they are being ignored. That they feel they are being railroaded to go one direction.  It doesn't seem like very many people are happy, and a lot of people are talking about how they don't feel like they're being listened to. If I can be very honest, some of them have told me that they feel CRS is just digging their heels in and refusing to listen. that may or may not be true, but perception is sometimes more important than reality.

 

everybody posting in this thread and so many of the other threads I've seen are doing so because we all love this game so much. there's not a single game on the planet that I have played for as long as I've played this game. We're all passionate about what we have here and the community that we built. So please don't take any of these criticisms as something directly against CRS or anything about nature. These are men and women who are frustrated, they're upset, and they just want some action taken.

 

Like @ian77 said, The longer this goes without a resolution, the more people you lose, the more that won't come back. That's just a fact, and it's not specific to this game, it's just a fact.  So please, for the love of this game, love of the community, the love of everything we built here since 2001, listen to the players. Right now both sides are screaming with a united voice for something. Listen to them

7 people like this

Share this post


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

Unfortunately with the addition of new equipment to game and be thrown in to any tier just to get the new toys to the players without regard to it proper time introduction was going on. so going by DOC's TOE's became so inaccurate

for the sake of acceptable gameplay (game balance), inaccurate introduction dates are more acceptable than a wildly imbalanced gameplay supply.

you guys are just repeating tigers vs m10's, but on multiple levels and scales.

 

 

Scotsman put work in, but so did DOC.

he went through a lot more frustration to get in a acceptable gameplay state, the hyper-historical & real life $$$ supply will never be able to match it. for christ sake, axis prime movers are 2x the $$$ as their allied counterparts and any game vs real-life differences are ignored (88's need 2 ppl/every unit in supply isn't spawned and positioned), it's silly.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright guys, learning in long long interactions with Rats 1.0 and 2.0, you don't get what you want done until you help them solve their problem that caused them to act in X way.

 

In this case, getting a veritable cornucopia of toys pouring into the lists and needing to be able to incorporate them quickly into functional spawnlists, in this case both TBS and the hybrid brigades, and do it faster and more 'accurately' to provide a differentiated variable battle experience that is always dynamic, but is deemed by both Rats and players as 'fair opportunity' for each side overall with varying TZs and 'side strength'.

I would posit an extra bit in there, that the more organized side wins any given 6-hour TZ regardless of relative pop and that a side can recover from a disastrous 3 days and come back to win a campaign, but that's my focus.

 

So post solutions, not just 'I wants' and 'this is problems', and you are more likely to persuade the Rats of a course of action.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

he went through a lot more frustration to get in a acceptable gameplay state, the hyper-historical & real life $$$ supply will never be able to match it. for christ sake, axis prime movers are 2x the $$$ as their allied counterparts and any game vs real-life differences are ignored (88's need 2 ppl/every unit in supply isn't spawned and positioned), it's silly.

And Axis LMG and Tiger is good enough to kill any 2-4 of their counterparts, while I agree that manpower usage sinks such as 88s are something to watch, the dedicated HT it needs can also do double duty for FMS and Axis can get more done with less with other units.

 

I would argue the 88's true manpower sink is the increased AA and infantry cover it needs to stay alive and the one piece of equipment that isn't going away or number altered, the map mark for the air guys to kill it.  You have to look at the air game ultimately and that's  a whole nother ball of mess.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my point was regardless of performance and game restrictions, the only thing that matters is $$$ under the current supply.

even operational use is moot under it, like Kampfgruppen and attached units. only accountants supply (with a brigade being the smallest unit), irrelevant to in-game and real life deployment.

 

it's really silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if there is anyone that still doesn't realize how bad of an idea it is to use real-world dollar value to balance a representations of a unit in a video game then just look up the pak 36 stats this campaign lol

there are only 4-5 of them in each brigade and they have more tanks killed than the Flak 36 

for some reason we have no cheap and mobile light ATGs, but plenty of expensive and awful 88mm guns with prewar ammo that can't even frontal shermans from 1100m or so

if you are going to beta test some economic element in a FPS game at least be smart about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, david06 said:

if there is anyone that still doesn't realize how bad of an idea it is to use real-world dollar value to balance a representations of a unit in a video game then just look up the pak 36 stats this campaign lol

there are only 4-5 of them in each brigade and they have more tanks killed than the Flak 36 

for some reason we have no cheap and mobile light ATGs, but plenty of expensive and awful 88mm guns with prewar ammo that can't even frontal shermans from 1100m or so

if you are going to beta test some economic element in a FPS game at least be smart about it

+10

We're going to use a manufacturing cost basis? OK.

But...given that the game is not a close simulation of real war and isn't supposed to be...what is the justification for giving each side economically inefficient numbers of the various modeled weapons?

Too few of relatively inexpensive items with high spawn-demand, too many of very expensive items with lesser spawn demand. Mismatches between weapons and necessary support elements. The list goes on.

Odd, but this feels like a complex side-to-side balance mechanism.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If CRS wants to be in the business of balancing the sides...... they would do better simply asking certain players or squads to play on 1 side or the other for a campaign or 2...... maybe create some kind of incentive program for this.  Plus they could be hush hush or completely open in that sort of endeavor as it would be mainly up to the player...... jimmy rigged spawn lists has a game hurting outcome no matter what.

Share this post


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

 maybe create some kind of incentive program for this

yeah like being able to create UMS, sorry LMS without being HC under the JWBS come-to-an-end-after-13-yearzzz-of-TOEs era.

 

Share this post


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

yeah like being able to create UMS, sorry LMS without being HC under the JWBS come-to-an-end-after-13-yearzzz-of-TOEs era.

 

I really hate your crap Mata- just not the case.

Share this post


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

I really hate your crap Mata- just not the case.

Haters gonna hate, always been. I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let's be honest, the 'balance' and 'historical' words come from the mouths of crs themselves. They say 'historical' to justify something, then say 'balance' to justify something else. Seems hypocritical to me.

i.e., Tiger tank too powerful, have to give allies tanks from 1944 for 'balance'. Can't have me262 because it didn't enter the war until 1944, have to be historical.  They play both sides of the fence, and when you do that you lose credibility 

edit: or even better, german support tanks have no machine guns....have to be historical...it never ends

Edited by snappahead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding from the past almost-couple-of-decades is that CRS's first goal is balance. Both sides have to show up, or CRS is out of business. Hardly anything makes both sides' respective partisans happy...their default state, it sometimes seems, is unhappiness. So, what CRS really is balancing is the unhappiness of one side's partisans vs. the unhappiness of the other side's.

No one ever thinks the other side is as unhappy as they are, so none of the affected partisans can usefully participate in determining when the game is balanced.

But once balance is as good as it can get, CRS's secondary goal is historical flavor, which is key to marketing.

Share this post


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

My understanding from the past almost-couple-of-decades is that CRS's first goal is balance. Both sides have to show up, or CRS is out of business. Hardly anything makes both sides' respective partisans happy...their default state, it sometimes seems, is unhappiness. So, what CRS really is balancing is the unhappiness of one side's partisans vs. the unhappiness of the other side's.

No one ever thinks the other side is as unhappy as they are, so none of the affected partisans can usefully participate in determining when the game is balanced.

But once balance is as good as it can get, CRS's secondary goal is historical flavor, which is key to marketing.

I'm with ya, and I get it. I realize that with tigers, the allies get crushed without something to counter. And I'm all for the firefly and Sherman 76...the allies need those, even though it may not fit the 1943 history of the war. That being said, when the axis side mentions having an me262, or anything to balance out the very severe imbalance of the air war, it gets shot down as not historical time wise and it will make it red vs blue. In fact, they add flying tank killers to make it even worse...???. You can't have it both ways, that's all I am saying. If you are going to balance things, balance it all, don't be selective about it, be fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Balance" doesn't mean what one side or the other thinks is "fair". It also doesn't mean equal non-chronology, or comparable weapon sets, or both sides getting their best stuff. It instead means that both sides' players...overall, not for any particular subset of the game...show up in about equal numbers. 

From a game company perspective, if one side has an overall population advantage on average, the game isn't balanced.

[Note that I am not part of CRS. My responses here are only my opinions.]

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no........ balance is equal opportunity.  One side will be better than the other.... and will win.  Robbing any side of that ability = game death

Jwilly.... I see you are active here in the forums quite a bit, and I respect what I think is your passion for the game.  But your last sortie was campaign 14........ so I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, snappahead said:

Well, let's be honest, the 'balance' and 'historical' words come from the mouths of crs themselves. They say 'historical' to justify something, then say 'balance' to justify something else. Seems hypocritical to me.

i.e., Tiger tank too powerful, have to give allies tanks from 1944 for 'balance'. Can't have me262 because it didn't enter the war until 1944, have to be historical.  They play both sides of the fence, and when you do that you lose credibility 

edit: or even better, german support tanks have no machine guns....have to be historical...it never ends

Check current game.
Tiger iirc is currently coming out in T2 where it should, t2.5 when it gets fine tuned
Dont think the S76 and firefly's are coming out in T2? Should be T3, until we finish properly factioning US so RDP does not halt.

They come out in T3 only because they have to presently as RDP stops at T3, so 1944 never actually gets here, T3 is "OK dump the goodie basket, everything left goes in now"
but that will not always be the case, and we will eventually be able to have 1944 and 1945 and then things can further move to their respective places

me262, mostly we simply do not have a model and mechanics for it, i dont know that anyone in present CRS sees it as a balance issue
it is a unique aircraft and always will be, there never was any allied counterpart for it in WWII
Though, it will probably actually result in not being the best received new thing the game gets.
More will probably hate it than love it, and that's on the LW side, it is a very hard thing to fly and use well.

There are other air improvements that will give pilots a lot more bang for the buck, so an me262
probably is not high on the priority ladder, but not because of balance, just cause it does not give a lot back for the time spent.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I'm with ya, and I get it. I realize that with tigers, the allies get crushed without something to counter. And I'm all for the firefly and Sherman 76...the allies need those, even though it may not fit the 1943 history of the war. That being said, when the axis side mentions having an me262, or anything to balance out the very severe imbalance of the air war, it gets shot down as not historical time wise and it will make it red vs blue. In fact, they add flying tank killers to make it even worse...???. You can't have it both ways, that's all I am saying. If you are going to balance things, balance it all, don't be selective about it, be fair.

Fwiw, right now in regards to historical tier progression, the Axis have a fighter edge in every tier until the Spit IX and P-38 come out.  The edges are slight but they are there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.