snappahead

support tanks

181 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, david06 said:

so this company that is extremely resistant to change all of a sudden has 1 or 2 guys making drastic changes to the spawnlists with no one checking on their decisions

If you check the changelogs for each new version you'll see that numerous changes, big and small, are continuously made.

The spawnlist is a joint effort that involves top management. Nothing gets introduced without their say so. I just happen to be in the front trench.

21 minutes ago, ian77 said:

1. 23 Matilda IIs were in France in 1940

We're not reenacting May 1940. The total number produced for 1940 is far higher than the 23 that were actually there. In all, nearly 3000 were produced.

21 minutes ago, ian77 said:

The allied SMG numbers are fantasy.

The allied SMG numbers, or rather their ratio to rifles, were correct in the first iteration. We subsequently changed that so that it is now a "fantasy" number. The same adjustment for gameplay holds true for a lot of equipment, e.g. the FG42. The number of medium panzers have likewise been adjusted up, at the expense of light panzers and 88/HT combinations.

Share this post


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

The message here that keeps getting missed is that the new list raised challenges that the old ones didn't, challenges that required a rethink of how equipment is used, how formations are used, how the game is played. It seems to me that the required rethink did not occur, instead most people simply forged on with the old behavior in the new list. This is akin to the paradigm shift introduced with the brigade system. The old list provided one set of enforced ways of playing the game as it certainly didn't offer unlimited supply - the thing is, you got used to that set of challenges. Now here's another set of challenges , let's see you adapt to them. 

no, you guys ignore any value the "challenge" removes from units.

your basically telling us we suck for not ATR'ing shermans, and beating SMG's in CQB with bolts.

 

just go back to the lists from November

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has gone way out of hand and only creates more concern among the few active players in the game, while the big issue, subscription fees, is still being ignored.

Will CRS ever understand that no matter what changes done to spawnlists they will have zero positive effect on numbers?

 

Share this post


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

Ya.  This is one of those things where we need to learn what didn't work and not Go There.

Another example of game, not warsim.

Yeah I have to agree. We've tried it and it wasn't fun. The forums were filled with inter-service rivalries as the air guys were at the throats of the ground guys (when HC picked which weapon to research), and when HC picked numbers it was the same with ATG and AA gunners complaining that everything was sacrificed for the tanks.

Essentially the SOP back then was sell of everything that CRS will allow you to in order to get more PzIIIH. It got silly since we would trade dozens of ATGs, AA guns, and trucks to get one extra tank. I remember at one point we barely had any 88s or HTs to tow them because the HC sold them all off. Even with CRS limits its pretty easy to know what the HC would do: sell off everything you are allowed to get away with and maximize the numbers of your premier tank. Anything else from a HC perspective is lunacy since the point if HC is to do everything to win the map. Player fun be damned.

Share this post


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

The message here that keeps getting missed is that the new list raised challenges that the old ones didn't, challenges that required a rethink of how equipment is used, how formations are used, how the game is played. It seems to me that the required rethink did not occur, instead most people simply forged on with the old behavior in the new list. This is akin to the paradigm shift introduced with the brigade system. The old list provided one set of enforced ways of playing the game as it certainly didn't offer unlimited supply - the thing is, you got used to that set of challenges. Now here's another set of challenges , let's see you adapt to them. 

The avenues to many different kinds of fun are as multifarious as ever.

I think this is the big disconnect here.

Can I potentially kill 12+ Mattie's with a well positioned 88? Sure I can, but what are the relative odds of the 88 consistently succeeding vs the Mattie's consistently succeeding. One version (lots of Mattie's) is a pretty expected mean outcome as it is very easy to be effective with that weapon. The 88 example is an outlier as on average it is very difficult to be successful in the weapon consistently to make a difference in a battle.

The same can be said about Allied SMG. Is it possible to defend a CP with mostly rifles? Sure, but that is an outlier. The more likely and consistent result will be that rifles will be steamrolled by SMGs. The same can be said about Axis Stugs... Is it possible to suppress an infantry spawn with nothing but HE rounds, bring in 251s with their MGs and protect them like previous diamonds and succeed with that method? Sure, but the odds are pretty slim.

Fundamentally this is where I see the disconnect that we are using outlier examples and asking players to adapt to a strategy that has a high chance of failure and be asked to do something that another side can do easily (Allied MG tanks mowing down EI at a depot, Axis SMG owning Enfields trying to assault a bunker). That isn't fun, it's a frustration.

I can adapt and get used to having my tooth pulled. But that doesn't mean I like it or would voluntarily recommend doing it.

 

Share this post


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

 

 

We're not reenacting May 1940. The total number produced for 1940 is far higher than the 23 that were actually there. In all, nearly 3000 were produced.

 

LOL ok so this is not now meant to be France 1940. Right.

1. There were less than 3000 Matildas of all marks built by the end of the War. Not by May 1940 - lol you are just making things up now to support your fantasy numbers. The Brits had less than 300 Matilda IIs operational by end of 1940. That is worldwide, not just deployed in Europe.

2. So if we are not redoing battle of France why your insistence that the axis players MUST embrace the axis light panzer column doctrine and adapt?

 

How can we possibly use logic or gameplay arguments if you think the UK had 3000 tanks in 1940, nevermind 3000 Matildas? Complete fantasist.

 

S! Ian

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

.

The allied SMG numbers, or rather their ratio to rifles, were correct in the first iteration. We subsequently changed that so that it is now a "fantasy" number. The same adjustment for gameplay holds true for a lot of equipment, e.g. the FG42. The number of medium panzers have likewise been adjusted up, at the expense of light panzers and 88/HT combinations.

What do you mean "correct"? This is not meant to be the Battle of France according to you, so correct how? Compared to what?

So if they get fantasy why not the other team too? Why do they have to suffer your ideas of what the Battle of France (which we are now NOT fighting) should have had available to use in action? Surely the definition of bias is doing something to help one side and denying the same to the other?

I hasten to add, getting rid of your SMG cull was a good choice for the game.

 

S! Ian

Edited by ian77
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if we have to use a model, I propose instead of continuing to use the foundational determinative numbers that we simply use game precedent - determine which version of the list, over the past 18 years, that created the best gameplay environment and work from that as a foundation. Eighteen years is a plenty large sample size for this!

From that base, we start asking questions.

First, how often does the manager desire supply to become a factor? Should supply concerns cause one town to fall a week? A night? Multiple times a night? Do we want to encourage division/Garrison linebreaks and  that supply metagame?

Second, how much time during an engagement do we want people to have access to new or first line war material? The first 30 minutes? First hour? Two hours?

Third, and this gets into the example of the Laffly W15, do we always want people to have access to deprecated material? When should that run out? Ever? If W15s were unlimited... would that even be a problem? If PZ2s were unlimited... would that be a problem?

These are the questions that the Curator, in concert with Management, should be asking. So determine the Management philosophy, communicate it to the customers, and accept and enact their feedback as to its implementation.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To expand on those last examples, I understand that management might well determine, "well, of course we want a limit on PZ2s! We don't want herds of lawnmowers riding across the countryside! It's too ahistorical!" And that's a reasonable position - but there are also reasonable counterarguments.

I present that to illustrate that once we break away from the idea that we're limited by some mysterious dollar costing table, it opens up a lot of "design white space", areas in which we can ask questions that weren't even possible before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further expansion - I'm at work, so this is all piecemeal of larger thought.

You might say, "but if we don't use some mechanic like costing, we'll end up with ahistorical battlefield engagements! You'd never have seen a 38t engaging a Firefly!"

First, LOL.

Second, this is a "self-healing" issue that advancing through the tiers resolves. If you spawn a 38t, it will survive only as long as it takes for my Firefly to aim at it. There are a few people who are willing to spawn deprecated material when they have the option for upgunned/uparmored... but there's not many.

Share this post


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

If you check the changelogs for each new version you'll see that numerous changes, big and small, are continuously made.

The spawnlist is a joint effort that involves top management. Nothing gets introduced without their say so. I just happen to be in the front trench.

We're not reenacting May 1940. The total number produced for 1940 is far higher than the 23 that were actually there. In all, nearly 3000 were produced.

The allied SMG numbers, or rather their ratio to rifles, were correct in the first iteration. We subsequently changed that so that it is now a "fantasy" number. The same adjustment for gameplay holds true for a lot of equipment, e.g. the FG42. The number of medium panzers have likewise been adjusted up, at the expense of light panzers and 88/HT combinations.

There is a huge difference between a war game and the reality it is trying/claiming to simulate. 

In reality, an army had CONSCRIPTS. People were going there not to have FUN. They were going there, knowing its more than likely they wont come back home. 

Push the realism to the limit of Hysterical spawnlists, and you might end up having to conscript players to play. And, you have no mechanism to enforce that, as opposed to a state. 

So, this insistence that MAXIMUM hysterical realism, in all aspects of the game, including production dates, numbers, etc. is at best, stilly, at worst, down right stupid. And, to add to it all, hypocritical. Because you just mention that it is not the numbers deployed, it is the numbers produced that matter. Wait, so are simulating the battlefield (game was called, after all, Battleground Europe) or are we simulating the production of equipment in a given period of the war, and distributing said equipment to the PB so they can simulate a war that NEVER happened. Because, you see, you just mention that it is not the number of troups/equipment deployed that matter, it is the number PRODUCED that matter..... 

WOW. 

Also, there is a huge assumption one makes if they decide to go the Hysterical realism route. That the sides were balanced in economical aspects during any period of the war. Which is obviously, not true. So, base your spawnlists on history, and you end up with imbalance. Simple...

Edited by bogol

Share this post


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

LOL ok so this is not now meant to be France 1940. Right.

Forgive my confusion. You seem to want reenactment as far as Matildas are concerned, but not as regards other weapons?

57 minutes ago, ian77 said:

1. There were less than 3000 Matildas of all marks built by the end of the War. Not by May 1940 - lol you are just making things up now to support your fantasy numbers. The Brits had less than 300 Matilda IIs operational by end of 1940. That is worldwide, not just deployed in Europe.

The number I stated was the entire production run, not the 1940 total. The Matilda does exist in the game thru tier 0 to tier 2,5 (mid-42). Its production matches that of all variants of the PzIVD to PzIVG, yet in game the two PzIV models outnumber the Matildas by a fair margin. The "deployed in Europe" argument holds no water - we include all production for all tanks, regardless of theater of war: if we were to give Germany only panzers that were deployed to Europe it'd be a mighty short list. Are you sure you want to go there? Are you sure that you want historical numbers of ETO-deployed Shermans in game? I think not, and we do NOT have historical numbers in game - but we do have something approaching historical ratios in game.

1 hour ago, ian77 said:

What do you mean "correct"? This is not meant to be the Battle of France according to you, so correct how? Compared to what?

"Correct" is what I explicitly stated: we started out with the historical rifle:smg ratio for each nation (as well as other ratios, e.g. light:medium tanks and rifles:mortars) - and subsequently changed that to reflect game realities.

I understand FULLY the axis concern of not having enough turreted panzers; of the allies not initially having enough SMGs; of the semiauto disparity; of depot/fms spawnability; of the great volume of A13s, S35s, Shermans and numerous other concerns with the novel TOE - do not think otherwise. I and the team are looking at this DAILY and working on balancing multiple concerns into a curated list that merges historical production ratios, historical TOE, objective cost valuation AND game realities. The biggest hurdle remain the quality/quantity balance - simply put, if you have cheap wafer tanks and crappy optics you get more of them if historical production numbers support it.

 

Share this post


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

if you have cheap wafer tanks and crappy optics you get more of them if historical production numbers support it.

Thats all thats needed to suppress a CP/spawn, if the tank has an Mg.

In game there is limited use/value to see the expression in his face when a 10.5cm He fail to kill him.

On the other hand, with an Mg and just a silhouette of an Ei, the optics are good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Matilda II, according to HMG publication was the most expensive UK massed produced tank the UK deployed in WWII - c.£18,000 GBP.

It is not a cheap wafer tank with crappy optics. At first I thought you were just digging a hole, now it seems it was the rabbit hole leading to Wonderland that we are falling through. But you wont even let the axis have crappy wafer tanks, 25 PzIIs in an armoured flag and zero allocated to infantry support. Oh those cheap wafer Matildas......

Glad you and the rest of CRS are on the ball checking the game daily, great catch on there being zero Pak36s to spawn, the 10 HTs to tow 65 heavy guns, and spotting that you could not spawn the Flak38 from depots, nevermind it was even meant to be FMS spawnable. From this we have to presume that you guys do not even tell each other what can and cannot spawn from FMSs and depots, because if you are checking it daily surely one of you spawned in game to use the new gear and thought everything was just dandy?

 

S! Ian

 

Edited by ian77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading some of the comments in here makes it hard for me not to swear. 

Remember we are all volunteers doing our best to keep this game moving  forward, believe it or not we have jobs, we have families, we have lives away from here.

Step up, join us, help test things or even create models, textures or fix bugs in the code.

It's so easy to just sit in the forum complaining about everything, put yourself in the volunteers position and think about how he or she might feel reading your comments after giving up their own time.

Everyone has an opinion on how x y z should work, should the game be changed just to make you happy?

2 people like this

Share this post


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

It is not a cheap wafer tank with crappy optics.

You must really exert yourself to misread everything I say. Of course the Matilda isn't included in that category. The A13 is, the Vickers is, the Crusader is, the PzII is. 

So, do you want history or not? Do you want reenactment (23 matildas!) or not? Make up your mind.

Edited by BMBM
Forgot the poor old Crusader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want a full reenactment (historical) spawnlist for Tier 0 BMBM :)  Always been a dream of mine to play WW2OL with limited reinforcements (LONG RDP) plus fully historical TOE to game out a full campaign of the Battle of France, or at least as close as we could get to history. Though I don't think you were asking me in this case. S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

There is a huge difference between a war game and the reality it is trying/claiming to simulate. 

In reality, an army had CONSCRIPTS. People were going there not to have FUN. They were going there, knowing its more than likely they wont come back home. 

Push the realism to the limit of Hysterical spawnlists, and you might end up having to conscript players to play. And, you have no mechanism to enforce that, as opposed to a state. 

So, this insistence that MAXIMUM hysterical realism, in all aspects of the game, including production dates, numbers, etc. is at best, stilly, at worst, down right stupid. And, to add to it all, hypocritical. Because you just mention that it is not the numbers deployed, it is the numbers produced that matter. Wait, so are simulating the battlefield (game was called, after all, Battleground Europe) or are we simulating the production of equipment in a given period of the war, and distributing said equipment to the PB so they can simulate a war that NEVER happened. Because, you see, you just mention that it is not the number of troups/equipment deployed that matter, it is the number PRODUCED that matter..... 

WOW. 

Also, there is a huge assumption one makes if they decide to go the Hysterical realism route. That the sides were balanced in economical aspects during any period of the war. Which is obviously, not true. So, base your spawnlists on history, and you end up with imbalance. Simple...

I'm not sure why you feel the need to go full 'fox news' on this by attempting to characterize a move by a wwii simulator towards a more accurate simulation, as being 'hysterical'.  Also not sure why you would think it proper to accuse anyone in this community of being "at best, silly, at worst, down right stupid".  We're all adults here, and should be expected to act thusly.

The goal is to provide historically accurate performance modeling---when it's wrong, CRS works to fix it.

The goal is to provide historically accurate spawn ratios, or as close to it as is possible.  When things are nastily out of whack, CRS works to fix it.  You're not asking for a fix, though, as much as you are asking for a ahistorical advantage to be returned.  Try for a second to think of this from a different point of view, say from an Allied player:  You have an advantage in tank speed, and (with the stug and/or 88s) have the ability to pound Allied bases with impunity from a range where the Allies don't have many good counters.  You already win the vast majority of campaigns, and somehow still manage to portray the axis side as being 'the underdogs' with straight faces.  Now you want more tanks in Infantry Brigades.  Could you understand why a good share of Allied players might conclude that all arguments to the contrary, what you folks really want is a game where you always have what you want to spawn exactly where you want it, in ways to ensure that you always win?  Maybe I have it wrong, but how much of an advantage in equipment do you need in order to be happy?  

It will most likely never progress to a point where everything is completely accurate spawn ratio-wise, as the axis certainly would not to be outnumbered everywhere they went (in later tiers).  So, if you could take a step back and take a look from a less angry point of view, you might see that the axis is already deriving an advantage by NOT having to deal with being out-produced in later tiers.  In early tiers, the axis has to be careful with where they place armored brigades--the Allies have to be careful as well.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, augetout said:

The goal is to provide historically accurate performance modeling---when it's wrong, CRS works to fix it.

The goal is to provide historically accurate spawn ratios, or as close to it as is possible.  When things are nastily out of whack, CRS works to fix it.  You're not asking for a fix, though, as much as you are asking for a ahistorical advantage to be returned.  Try for a second to think of this from a different point of view, say from an Allied player:  You have an advantage in tank speed, and (with the stug and/or 88s) have the ability to pound Allied bases with impunity from a range where the Allies don't have many good counters.  You already win the vast majority of campaigns, and somehow still manage to portray the axis side as being 'the underdogs' with straight faces.  Now you want more tanks in Infantry Brigades. 

quite nearly every unit in the game is a counter to the 88mm, and the stug can't even cover a depot while infantry capture

if this is the sort of thought process that BMBM and others subscribe to then it explains why such awful decisions are being made

also the simulation part of "military simulation" comes from things like flight models, infantry weapon ballistics, stress models etc. not from copying and pasting world war 2 unit TOE spreadsheets

you could delete the FPS game, use your historical spawnlists and literally go move flags and roll dice to decide town ownership, there is nothing simulator about using them

 

allies lose because they don't have a core of infantry players when infantry are mandatory to move the map, they only go on offense during US prime and don't take the initiative outside of that time zone, so if axis turtles for 6 hours of the day it's GG they'll eventually win

axis want tanks in infantry brigades because for 10+ years every dev has said responded to any complaint about enemy tanks with an admonishment to "use combined arms", and CRS just up and removed tanks from infantry brigades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, david06 said:

allies lose because they don't have a core of infantry players when infantry are mandatory to move the map, they only go on offense during US prime and don't take the initiative outside of that time zone, so if axis turtles for 6 hours of the day it's GG they'll eventually win

axis want tanks in infantry brigades because for 10+ years every dev has said responded to any complaint about enemy tanks with an admonishment to "use combined arms", and CRS just up and removed tanks from infantry brigades

This is some  truth right here. When populations are low and only 1 AO is active with maybe 20 people per side fighting over a town, axis will have 20 infantry, allies will have 20 tanks. Allies LOVE their tanks for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 10:23 PM, aismov said:

Don't agree on this one. I remember what it was like and it was poisonous. Usually one branch would get sacrificed (mostly Luftwaffe for the ground guys) which generated a lot of bad blood. The playerbase also didn't like numbers being cut down for campaign victory purposes at an expense of fun gameplay purposes. Its not really the fault of the HC... it is their job to work to win the map and use all the tools at their disposal. So if that means selling off every Panzer II and piece of scrap metal to squeeze 1 more PzIIIH into the spawnlist they would rightly do it since their job was to win the map, and not necessarily to make the game fun for new players needing those crappy tanks to rank up, or niche players who maybe enjoyed Panzer hunting with the wacky laffy.

That's easily fixable.  Just keep the branch budgets separate.  

 

Give this power back to the HCs while fixing the problems that made it a headache.  Then CRS doesn't get to be the pincushion.  

2 people like this

Share this post


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

You already win the vast majority of campaigns

They are completely due to TZ3. The equipment, hc, and squads are insignificant compared to TZ3's map dominance.

 

There's nothing imbalanced about the old ToE, the total kills and k/d were within reasonable limits. The only imbalance is a $$$ value that iscompletely irrelevant in the game world.

 

3 people like this

Share this post


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

There is a huge difference between a war game and the reality it is trying/claiming to simulate. 

In reality, an army had CONSCRIPTS. People were going there not to have FUN. They were going there, knowing its more than likely they wont come back home. 

Push the realism to the limit of Hysterical spawnlists, and you might end up having to conscript players to play. And, you have no mechanism to enforce that, as opposed to a state. 

So, this insistence that MAXIMUM hysterical realism, in all aspects of the game, including production dates, numbers, etc. is at best, stilly, at worst, down right stupid. And, to add to it all, hypocritical. Because you just mention that it is not the numbers deployed, it is the numbers produced that matter. Wait, so are simulating the battlefield (game was called, after all, Battleground Europe) or are we simulating the production of equipment in a given period of the war, and distributing said equipment to the PB so they can simulate a war that NEVER happened. Because, you see, you just mention that it is not the number of troups/equipment deployed that matter, it is the number PRODUCED that matter..... 

WOW. 

Also, there is a huge assumption one makes if they decide to go the Hysterical realism route. That the sides were balanced in economical aspects during any period of the war. Which is obviously, not true. So, base your spawnlists on history, and you end up with imbalance. Simple...

OMG !!!! YES !!!! they are not historical spawnlists!!!! they are HYSTERICAL SPAWNLISTS!!!!!!!

Share this post


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

They are completely due to TZ3. The equipment, hc, and squads are insignificant compared to TZ3's map dominance.

 

There's nothing imbalanced about the old ToE, the total kills and k/d were within reasonable limits. The only imbalance is a $$$ value that iscompletely irrelevant in the game world.

 

I am fine with folks having opinions that differ from my own.  You should point out, however, that your assertions are opinions.  There may have been 'nothing wrong about the old ToE' from your viewpoint, but from others there sure was.  Your opinion is that 'the only imbalance is a $$$ value...' that YOU believe is 'completely irrelevant to the game world'.  To others, it is relevant.  Aside from the obvious fact that most players do not bother to post in these forums, overall the reaction to moving towards more historical spawn ratios has been positive, or positive with need of tweaks.  Those who believe as you do, (and this doesn't make you anymore incorrect or correct on this issue) are not the majority.  I mention this to bring context to the point that while your opinions matter, they really should be stated as such as opposed to having them pose as facts, and you should understand that most folks are in favor of historical accuracy wherever possible, thus you and others should be mindful of who falls under the umbrella that you and others are seeking to dismiss and/or insult into submission.

 

44 minutes ago, david06 said:

quite nearly every unit in the game is a counter to the 88mm, and the stug can't even cover a depot while infantry capture

if this is the sort of thought process that BMBM and others subscribe to then it explains why such awful decisions are being made

also the simulation part of "military simulation" comes from things like flight models, infantry weapon ballistics, stress models etc. not from copying and pasting world war 2 unit TOE spreadsheets

you could delete the FPS game, use your historical spawnlists and literally go move flags and roll dice to decide town ownership, there is nothing simulator about using them

 

allies lose because they don't have a core of infantry players when infantry are mandatory to move the map, they only go on offense during US prime and don't take the initiative outside of that time zone, so if axis turtles for 6 hours of the day it's GG they'll eventually win

axis want tanks in infantry brigades because for 10+ years every dev has said responded to any complaint about enemy tanks with an admonishment to "use combined arms", and CRS just up and removed tanks from infantry brigades

Your statements regarding the 88mm are accurate, provided the axis side just parks one in the middle of nowhere with no intentions regarding combined arms----when used as anything resembling an actual combined attack (or defense) the 'every unit is a counter' falls askance of accuracy, as most of said equipment has no prayer of wading through the sappers, ATGs, and Panzers that SHOULD be in between the 88s and whatever we are hoping to use to kill it/them.

The stug's model isn't conducive to cutting a depot.  None French tanks are conducive to hasty defenses.  None French tanks are capable of beating their german counterparts to high ground, or hull down positions outside of towns.  These 'issues' listed have been issues since the very beginning of the game.  Folks who didn't like it were told "it's historically accurate that your tanks are so slow, figure out a way around it".  Now, our French tanks are still slow, as is accurate, and the side that  wins the vast majority of campaigns thinks life is too hard because their Infantry brigades don't have enough panzers with MGs, despite it being an accurate depiction of 1940 german Infantry brigades, (less the horses).  The 232 works well in covering depots, provided the 88s and Stugs, etc., (in an Infantry brigade) have taken care of the Allied armor in that area.

Not having more panzers in your Infantry brigades does not preclude the axis from using combined arms, so your assertion that the axis wanting more panzers in Infantry brigades is due to the wish to use combined arms, does not match the facts.

I get that you're bent on insulting anyone who disagrees with your point of view.  Your definition of simulation being different than mine is duly noted.  Your opinions on why the Allies lose the majority of campaigns, and have over the entire time of the game's existence, (other than I guess for a period of time when I was not in-game, sadly), is also duly noted.  It's hard for me to believe that from the early days of this game the german side 'just has better players', but who knows, you might be right.  I've been hearing different variations on that (what I and I hope others would consider to be false) idea for 18 years now, and I have yet to see the folks who subscribe to this theory come over to the Allied side and 'show us how it is done'---at least not successfuly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** You already win the vast majority of campaigns

Completely false.

Since map 100 record is 30-28-2.  No where close to a majority.

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.