snappahead

support tanks

181 posts in this topic

If both sides are piling on CRS (or me), it must be balanced ;)

Methinks you're all too quick to call bias in either direction. We're here for YOU, whatever side you play, and we're totally open for constructive criticism and, yet better, constructive suggestions while we fine tune the balancing instrument. I must say though that a little bit less drama and doom/gloom would be much appreciated.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

The economic model is fine.

The economic model according to the economic models goals works.

 

The whole thing is a bad fit for gameplay though.

The half track $$$ disparity is silly. The rest of the kit is just less sillyness.

Share this post


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

The half track $$$ disparity is silly.

I agree. The Allies also need (armed) halftracks to kill the 251 disparity. And perhaps a more expensive Quad truck than the Morris CSDW to offset the sdkfz7 cost. And perhaps a 25 pdr or a 3,7 inch AA gun to offset the 88 disparity. 

Share this post


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

If both sides are piling on CRS (or me), it must be balanced ;)

Methinks you're all too quick to call bias in either direction. We're here for YOU, whatever side you play, and we're totally open for constructive criticism and, yet better, constructive suggestions while we fine tune the balancing instrument. I must say though that a little bit less drama and doom/gloom would be much appreciated.

I'm not calling bias.  I'm calling mismatch in an economic masterwork of history misapplied on two levels, valuation and unit building, for gameplay.

 

And a frightening level of lack of understanding about how the tools work in our nodal spawn castle game as opposed to the RW, and player psychology.

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


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

If both sides are piling on CRS (or me), it must be balanced ;)

Methinks you're all too quick to call bias in either direction. We're here for YOU, whatever side you play, and we're totally open for constructive criticism and, yet better, constructive suggestions while we fine tune the balancing instrument. I must say though that a little bit less drama and doom/gloom would be much appreciated.

But it is already too late - as jsilec just posted in another thread, the tanking game "is close to meaningless these days".

The playerbase are not arguing two different partisan points of view which might indicate the middle ground was right. It seems to be CRS against the paying and non paying customers, and few commercial enterprises can overcome that position, although CRS had a unique product, and even coke found out the hard way that loyal fans wont just buy anything. New formula panzer free WWIIOL is not the most popular version of WWIIOL.

S! Ian

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I'm not calling bias.  I'm calling mismatch in an economic masterwork of history misapplied on two levels, valuation and unit building, for gameplay.

 

And a frightening level of lack of understanding about how the tools work in our nodal spawn castle game as opposed to the RW, and player psychology.

And yet again I invite you to try and construct a fair and objective model to replace it, instead of pumping out more no-content criticism, passing the buck as it were. Yes, it's CRS's game, and we've chosen THIS model for the time being. If you can build a credible case for another, go right ahead.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I agree. The Allies also need (armed) halftracks to kill the 251 disparity. And perhaps a more expensive Quad truck than the Morris CSDW to offset the sdkfz7 cost. And perhaps a 25 pdr or a 3,7 inch AA gun to offset the 88 disparity. 

Umm.  The answer to the 88 is the RAF.  Always has been, but with the map marking AND general Axis malaise in the Luftwaffe department, 88s are near hunted to extinction and has a lot to do with Axis lack of enthusiasm for open-topped TDs (even though they are a big answer for getting cheap tubes out there- or should be, the weight you guys seem to be giving 88s is unnerving).

 

Don't get me wrong, I've always said the Allies were missing their whole huge arty arm, particularly the US and UK, and I never want to deny anyone their toys.  But if the 88 was so badazz in game as you guys seem to valuate them, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Share this post


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

the tanking game "is close to meaningless these days".

 

Because what? I'm hearing of plenty 2000+ meter kills so it can't be that meaningless - unless all you can think of is ONE kind of game - the depot campathon game.

Share this post


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

Umm.  The answer to the 88 is the RAF.  Always has been, but with the map marking AND general Axis malaise in the Luftwaffe department, 88s are near hunted to extinction and has a lot to do with Axis lack of enthusiasm for open-topped TDs (even though they are a big answer for getting cheap tubes out there- or should be, the weight you guys seem to be giving 88s is unnerving).

 

Don't get me wrong, I've always said the Allies were missing their whole huge arty arm, particularly the US and UK, and I never want to deny anyone their toys.  But if the 88 was so badazz in game as you guys seem to valuate them, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

So you're saying we get rid of the 88? 

The LW holds all the trumps in the air game except for one regimen, and that's best on-the-deck-turnfighter (OK, 50 cal is better, but that's true for RL as well) - unless the pilot knows what he/she is doing. Speed, climb, roll: axis advantage. All they need is a turnfighter to have ALL the advantages.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

And yet again I invite you to try and construct a fair and objective model to replace it, instead of pumping out more no-content criticism, passing the buck as it were. Yes, it's CRS's game, and we've chosen THIS model for the time being. If you can build a credible case for another, go right ahead.

I surely can, got a spawnlist spreadsheet that's usable and cross-indexed with half-tiers?

You won't shut me down with that kind of comeback, you gotta know better.  But yes it does appear you guys are going to stick to your guns, and player input isn't getting across as to the error in the CRS approach.

 

I've been working it through past few weeks, you'll forgive me if I didn't have Scotsman's months and methodology ready to trot out in 4 weeks since this whole thing blew up.

First thing was to decide if a QJM/BPV type valuation was of value, but I think the issue is gameplay, so more valuate individual abilities and then cross-reference against countries so you can have competing sets without being strictly red vs. blue, AND be able to prosecute an attack or defense, which different units can do better or worse.

So less a single number or specific total brigade number goal, more a total attack/defense capability and matchups down to the individual unit level.

Once you have that, I think plugging in units will mean it will become very apparent what sort of units are required and how many of x new units can go in.

Errgh, just thought about air, I am NOT good at valuating that, yet it is a factor for ground if for no other reason then AA and CAS potential especially for soft targets- like 88s.

Annoying, this being logical thing.

 

 

Share this post


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

Because what? I'm hearing of plenty 2000+ meter kills so it can't be that meaningless - unless all you can think of is ONE kind of game - the depot campathon game.

The quote is not from me, but a returning allied vet.

As for lone wolf tankers in Fireflys Tigers and Achilles picking each other off at 2000m+ I wonder where you are hearing about it plenty? Side chat?

So, your logic is because there are some kills at 2000m+ then the combined arms aspect of the game is working just fine?

And as for players giving suggestions on what spawn lists should look like, when Capco did this in a previous thread you derided him for giving the axis "a 30% " advantage. Way to encourage the players to suggest alterations.....

But, every thing is fine and dandy because you have lots of reports of 2000m+ kills.

Great news.

S! Ian

 

Edited by ian77

Share this post


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

So you're saying we get rid of the 88? 

The LW holds all the trumps in the air game except for one regimen, and that's best on-the-deck-turnfighter (OK, 50 cal is better, but that's true for RL as well) - unless the pilot knows what he/she is doing. Speed, climb, roll: axis advantage. All they need is a turnfighter to have ALL the advantages.

That's ridiculous arguing re: 88 termination or even gimping, of course not.  However, map marking NOT visible to pilots UNLESS it is a special infantry Forward Observer and otherwise ground targets have to be marked by colored smoke, yes.

The other thing I would have done is not deploy a shield 88 until the advanced ammo version, when they were used a lot more for anti-armor work.  Identity distinction and definite upgrade.

 

I'd gather that's what that one fellow is pushing for in getting Italian fighters.

But that guy's got a point, Nodal Spawn Castle, so controlling the airspace up close counts for much more then what happens 4km up.

And using a Bofors virtually identical for all countries against CAS, there is a world of difference engaging a Stuka vs. a DB-7. 

Share this post


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

It would be great if we the player base could get a clear cut answer how and which way they are going to handle things, are we doing the historic route or are we doing playability.

From my observations, it's historic except where the game can't handle it gracefully.

Case in point for Axis's favor is the Stielhandgranate. Until the Splittering fragmentation sleeve in 1942, it was a purely concussion grenade, sans extremely minimal fragmentation from the pieces of the grenade ripping apart. However, concussion isn't modelled correctly, and all of the Axis infantry would have to be duplicated and make a nightmare of supply lists and stats in order to have both pre-1942 concussion grenades and 1942+ frag sleeve grenades. So 1940 Axis gets 1942 grenades.

This is a game limitation preventing the authentic implementation of something.

If there aren't game limitations preventing something from being authentic and historic, then they're being made authentic and historic.

Axis can complain about the LMG changes, but only if the Allies complaining about last year's bomb changes was totally fine. When that happened, a lot of Axis were like "Yes, historic accuracy!" And a lot of Allies were like "You're literally killing the game, I'm unsubbing!"

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Almost like the shoe is on the other foot and no one wants to bring up the bomb change.

 

Just because French tank reload speeds are ahistorical now and in the past doesn't mean they won't get hit at some point. Don't take "there are higher priorities" to mean "we'll never do it" when there is a ton of evidence of CRS correcting things of the game that help and hurt both sides.

 

Spawn lists are the one area of the game where CRS can implement game balance since all of the other areas are dedicated to historic authenticity as works in progress. I'm with @jwilly on this one: balancing the spawn lists by cost isn't bad in and of itself, it's just that CRS hasn't picked a distribution that lends itself toward game balance.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

That's ridiculous arguing re: 88 termination or even gimping, of course not.  

But that is the standard response... just scroll up to see the "right we will get rid of all the halftracks then" or "we will get rid of all the 251s then" type comments. Everything to ridiculous extreme, and certainly not asked for by the players.

Sadly it is just seems to be players being gotten rid of at present.

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IM sorry but it has to be said...... Bmbm your total nescience of how gameplay mechanics actually function in-game and in real time/situations is not just obvious..... its downright frightening.  You obviously have alot of power over the spawnlists..... you ought to know how they actually function in game..... I very much appreciate your passion for the game, and the time you have put in to help make it something better and more fun......... but for the love of god man...... plz make some time to get in and actually play for a few hours every few days..... I think your perceptions will be much more attuned to the PB if you can find a way to make that happen.

3 people like this

Share this post


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

And yet again I invite you to try and construct a fair and objective model to replace it, instead of pumping out more no-content criticism, passing the buck as it were. Yes, it's CRS's game, and we've chosen THIS model for the time being. If you can build a credible case for another, go right ahead.

Wow, the capitalized THIS speaks louder than it cries. It speaks volumes... 

Besides being somewhat sarcastic, I actually think it implies that THIS model is THE model CRS believes the game WILL continue to be based on. And THIS is scary. 

Edited by bogol

Share this post


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

IM sorry but it has to be said...... Bmbm your total nescience of how gameplay mechanics actually function in-game and in real time/situations is not just obvious..... its downright frightening.  You obviously have alot of power over the spawnlists..... you ought to know how they actually function in game..... I very much appreciate your passion for the game, and the time you have put in to help make it something better and more fun......... but for the love of god man...... plz make some time to get in and actually play for a few hours every few days..... I think your perceptions will be much more attuned to the PB if you can find a way to make that happen.

Maybe a little history is in order.

Bmbm is one of the first Allied CinC of the game, ever.  I've seen lists where he is considered #1 #2 or #3, so I guess it depends on how you start the CinC counting.

He worked with me and Allied CinCs and senior officers many years later in an air HC advisory capacity.  I know him to be knowledgeable and smart, particularly about the air game.

Scotsman, I never worked with per se. but I knew what sort of background he had and in our few brief discussions at conventions he was exactly The Guy the Rats should have been listening to all along for the sim models, and I also knew he wants an accurate sim, nothing more.  In fact one could look past the situation and see this whole master equipment historical cost thing is just his way of trying to get to fair and accurate.

 

So, this isn't fun for me to pillory their work, and no doubt expended very hard effort to come to their honest sweat equity conclusions.

But pillory I must, because there are deep-seated 'missing knowledge sets' or something that's not clicking in their heads about this issue.

Rats 1.0 would get this way too, and it was about as much fun dealing with that.  Some things sank in, and it took player leaders they trusted to at least get some things done.

I expect most of us in this thread are not on that list for Rats 2.0.

Edited by Kilemall
3 people like this

Share this post


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

And yet again I invite you to try and construct a fair and objective model to replace it, instead of pumping out more no-content criticism, passing the buck as it were. Yes, it's CRS's game, and we've chosen THIS model for the time being. If you can build a credible case for another, go right ahead.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll try my hand at it and post on the forums with an @ for you... some point between now and Sunday? Hopefully I have time.

Share this post


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

Well, first of all, why have a 1943 timeline and have 1944 tanks involved? Balance of course.

No, i just answered that.
RDP stops at T3 because of how the US was initially put into the game, this was done before we got here.
I don't know why crs1.0 ran into that roadblock, i'm sure it was not exactly what they planned, and i am not sure why they could not address it, perhaps lack of time or resources etc.

No one here is doing it for balance, they simply cant go someplace else because the someplace else is not here, Yet.

If we were doing it for balance, we would not have put the tiger back into it's rightful place (or as close as we can get until the tiers are subdivided) or sent the M3 sub machine gun off to its more proper location

Share this post


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

I agree. The Allies also need (armed) halftracks to kill the 251 disparity. And perhaps a more expensive Quad truck than the Morris CSDW to offset the sdkfz7 cost. And perhaps a 25 pdr or a 3,7 inch AA gun to offset the 88 disparity. 

Instead of having permanent/integrated LMG mounts on infantry carriers, maybe that vehicle class should have code that allows LMG infantry to deploy their weapons into a vehicle mount.

The Lorraine 38 and 39 APCs and various French halftracks and cars utilized this approach.

GSZal10Aug08_003_zpswaawccm3.jpg

So did the Universal Carrier in some instances in regard to its Bren mount and an AA mount, and so did some SdKfz 250 and 251 APCs and the Kubelwagen.

***

If such LMG-deployment code existed, it also could be used in conjunction with an LMG-AA-tripod PPO.

Edited by jwilly
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, a few things:

 

The good.

First, absolutely love all the new gear - 'worthless' or not.  Flak 36, Flak 38, StuH, IIIL, IIIN etc. great!  It is imo fantastic to have a variety of gear in game - and if we can model some things (even if not used much) so much the better for the game - (yes get 231 in and keep the 232 in list)  Sd Kfz 7/2 is just pure sexiness now - (I'm to sexy for this game....)

Second, keep up good work of bringing historical aspects into the game (reload times, ammo, 1 man turret effects, etc.)

 

The less than good.

If anyone thinks the air game is even or slanted LW, I think that is totally wrong, except maybe the FBs, (even though axis only gets 1 bomb vrs 2).  Now, rarely flying, maybe I'm off here - but don't think so.

I'd trade 88s for pak 38s any day. (sure, keep 2 or 4 in spawn list)

Any tank, TD or AG without a MG should cost at least 10x less than a tank, TD or AG with a MG.  Yes, TEN TIMES.  If a StuH cost 100 bucks, a viky should cost at least a 1000.

One Mattie CS tank (with a MG) should be matched by 10 StuH. (ok m10 has backwards MG - maybe only 2x)  The MG is that important in this game (maybe not irl?).

The 251 is slow, loud, has a big white target on the hood and has a MG gunner that dies within 10 seconds of contact with the enemy - They should cost maybe 20% more than a truck at best?

 

In summary, love the way things are moving generally speaking.  But, there are some very disturbing points about how this game is actually played and the spawn lists, need to keep the spawn list evolution going based on how game is played - not just reality.

 

Finally, I hope nearly all effort is going into fixing the beyond tier 3 issue then???  As it seems to be a big point with balance.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we should just go back to the system of letting the HC's pick how to use their RDP dollars

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** we should just go back to the system of letting the HC's pick how to use their RDP dollars

No way.

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

we should just go back to the system of letting the HC's pick how to use their RDP dollars

I think perhaps you would not like that terribly much, it was not well liked in the 1st iteration.

It basically devolves down to give up 30 of these and 20 of those and all of these for 12 of that, and then the spawn list looks terribly devoid
of all supporting and expendable gear, and gear for lower ranks etc.
A lot of players were not thrilled with it.

I also imagine it caused a lot of internal HC hostility as one branch would trade off another branch's assets for more of it's own.
 

Share this post


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

IM sorry but it has to be said...... Bmbm your total nescience of how gameplay mechanics actually function in-game and in real time/situations is not just obvious..... its downright frightening.  You obviously have alot of power over the spawnlists..... you ought to know how they actually function in game..... I very much appreciate your passion for the game, and the time you have put in to help make it something better and more fun......... but for the love of god man...... plz make some time to get in and actually play for a few hours every few days..... I think your perceptions will be much more attuned to the PB if you can find a way to make that happen.

This x1000. This is what many people think, but are too afraid to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.