• Announcements

    • XOOM

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

      We're looking to properly revive the World@War Gazette and need a solid PHP developer to help take some work forward. If you have some skills with PHP and are looking for some experience and to bring important home page news / recognition for individual players back to WWII Online, I'd like to hear from you! Submit an inquiry to jobs@corneredrats.com with some details about your experience. You will need at least 10+ hours per week to contribute to the team. The Gazette's current status can be found here: https://www.wwiionline.com/resources#gazette
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
choad

Philosophy for armor supply in garrison vs moveable brigades

8 posts in this topic

During the beta campaign we got a preview with how supply lists will look in the new half tier system alongside the new hybrid town based supply. I have one suggestion that I would like to throw out there as we start to zero-in on how to balance garrison supply vs. moveable flag supply.

In general – when a new piece of equipment is introduced, and it is available in limited numbers, I would say place it more-so in the moveable flag rather than the garrison. My criteria for this would be – either it is a high-end performer with no true rivals for the tier and/or newly available to campaign in what is supposed to be limited numbers. A couple examples…….

When the Tiger was introduced, IIRC there were 2 per garrison flag. Maybe during the beta campaign their introduction was pushed back in the name of balance I don’t know? Anyways …. why not have them initially only attached to the armored flag and not yet in the garrison? Fast forward to Tier 5 as another example, let’s say the III L makes it’s debut. Maybe make it so each garrison has 1 of them – and then the armor flag has 5. In contrast – each garrison would have it’s full 16 IV G’s (in that same tier 5) and the moveable flag would have something closer to 4.

Similarly on the Allied side you could say the same thing about the Matilda. Having 5 in each garrison to start the campaign seems a bit off. Maybe only have 1 or 2 in each garrison and have 4 or 5 in a moveable flag. On the flip-side, a garrison would have higher numbers of lesser equipment like the A13 (keep the 12 that it has in tier 0) and an armor flag would have only 4 in tier 0.

You get the idea.

I remember a couple campaigns ago when things were switched up so that once again the Tiger had a more accurate date of introduction. An argument was made by Bmbm or Ohm or someone, I will paraphrase . “The initial introduction would be in such limited numbers that it would be a kind of an oh my God, all-hands on deck moment in an effort to take out this unicorn”. Well having 2 Tigers per garrison when they are first introduced is hardly that.

In the end – I would like to see the moveable flags be equipped with more of the top tier equipment rather than just have supplemental supply in a similar distribution to the garrison. The moveable flags become more of the hammer that they should be.

If this path was taken, maybe it would make sense to double the number of moveable armor flags as well. I think there are 2 armored flags per side right? Well make it 4. Overall, they may have less equipment in them but it would be weighted towards the better stuff.

I think this would accomplish a couple of things.

  •  It provides a way to more accurately simulate equipment that should be available only in low numbers (in a historically accuracy sense).
  •  It provides HC with a few more flags to move, which I know some would appreciate.
  •  I think overall you could use this to more easily manage the total tank supply in the game, and prevent it from becoming over-the-top too much available supply.
  •  It can be a lever used to wrangle in equipment that does not have a true competitor in it’s historically accurate introduction date (tier). As stated – the Matilda and the Tiger are prime examples. Allows you to maintain historically accurate introduction dates without there becoming silly imbalances.

 

I tend to think this approach makes the most sense for armor and not as much for infantry. You could do it with respect to infantry as well – but the overall differences should not be as exaggerated.

 

 

Edited by choad
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I like this idea in general, I'm not sure it will fly with Xoom.  Anything that makes flags more powerful or shifts more supply to them is a big no no, at least until both HCs are healthy enough to prove otherwise.  

 

"waaah I wanna use my tiger but no HC online waaah" kinda thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If true, that would be a shame. The flags are as powerful as you wanna make them. Rip a bunch of the repetitive stuff out of them then. They dont need to have 50 smgs and 150 rifles plus 20 232's in them!

And on the flip side 2 tigers in every garrison to start out (when introduced) is kind of a joke ... so what are we even talking about here.

Edited by choad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** In the end – I would like to see the moveable flags be equipped with more of the top tier equipment

I'd say no.

This only makes the game more dependent on HC to move flags so players can spawn 'the good stuff'.

If anything, movable flags have to have less supply and be lesser gear - more role as supplement - not provide the hammer.

I can hear the cries now 'HC won't move a flag in so we have no Tigers - I'm out".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok then delems ..... i say that i could agree with you if CRS gives up the pipe dream of historical intro dates of equipment. Go back to try to balance it based on nothing but your gut. Absent that i disagree that there should be 5 Matildas in every garrison in tier 0 and 2 Tigers in every garrison in their entry tier. It is just silly.

Share this post


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

Nothing about this game is historically accurate if that was the case axis would already have the me262 ju88 and panther tanks.

Yeah but u are aware that there was/is an attempt by CRS to introduce the weapons that we do have in their historical tier.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

being able to teleport tanks directly on top of the objective is a game-killing ability, I have no idea why you would want to make it more powerful

On 4/30/2019 at 9:06 AM, choad said:

The moveable flags become more of the hammer that they should be.

If this path was taken, maybe it would make sense to double the number of moveable armor flags as well. I think there are 2 armored flags per side right? Well make it 4. Overall, they may have less equipment in them but it would be weighted towards the better stuff.

I think this would accomplish a couple of things.

  •  It provides a way to more accurately simulate equipment that should be available only in low numbers (in a historically accuracy sense).
  •  It provides HC with a few more flags to move, which I know some would appreciate.
  •  I think overall you could use this to more easily manage the total tank supply in the game, and prevent it from becoming over-the-top too much available supply.
  •  It can be a lever used to wrangle in equipment that does not have a true competitor in it’s historically accurate introduction date (tier). As stated – the Matilda and the Tiger are prime examples. Allows you to maintain historically accurate introduction dates without there becoming silly imbalances.

 

I tend to think this approach makes the most sense for armor and not as much for infantry. You could do it with respect to infantry as well – but the overall differences should not be as exaggerated.

the flag system is so terrible that CRS just gutted it and they are advertising the new version as an improvement, because they know that so many players left the game over it

tank supply is trickier to manage with strong flags than with weak/nonexistent ones, because instead of supply being uniform across the map and being naturally throttled up/down by the distance to the frontline, it's concentrated in little player-controlled stacks that may or may not be deployed properly

the minor boost to asymmetric balance by being able to bring in a matty or tiger earlier is far outweighed by the immense balancing challenge of HC being able to have a pack of them teleport in to the armybase like magic

Share this post


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

being able to teleport tanks directly on top of the objective is a game-killing ability, I have no idea why you would want to make it more powerful

Not as much as having the exact same amount of supply for top tier equipment in every single garrison! Some of this stuff was supposed to be in limited numbers and pretty rare when it first enters the campaign, and your position is that every town on the front line along with the town behind it, ought to have 2 Tigers or 7 Matilldas. Ahhhhh yeah right! LOL.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.