drkmouse

CALL to ALL WW2 online players

115 posts in this topic

I'd consider going allied next campaign as long as I dont have to leave GHC and will also have AHC privileges well over there.... Might have to talk it over with squad to though.

Share this post


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

I'd consider going allied next campaign as long as I dont have to leave GHC and will also have AHC privileges well over there.... Might have to talk it over with squad to though.

I don't think the system allows you to be in both OrBats at once (@B2K?).

 

You'd have to work it out so that GHC will reserve your spot for you until you return, and then when you do return they'd just place you in the OrBat without having to go through OCS again.  

Share this post


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

I'd consider going allied next campaign as long as I dont have to leave GHC and will also have AHC privileges well over there.... Might have to talk it over with squad to though.

This would be a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Capco said:

Anyone who does come over for some temporary assistance, I'd only ask one thing.  Try to make it a point to lead by example. 

 

The Allies need a culture shock of some sort to snap them out of this rut.  Like the lack of chat comms thing mentioned earlier.  Even something as basic as seeing other people actively using the chat bar could help the Allies start to communicate more.  

 

If people come Allied so the Allies get a pity campaign, that will be good for our short-term morale... but eventually we will just fall back into the same rut unless the side's culture dramatically changes.  

 

@parasit tried this a couple campaigns ago and it frustrated the heck out of him, so be prepared!

Capco I do that every single time , last time I was made OIC of an attack AO even that my name tag at that time showed Feldjgr ( now we need to leave the squad if we want to switch I guess some weren't to happy to die by my hands) 

I think we sustained the attack for about an hour till they finally got close enough to take down the FMS I did set . 

 

Also did that with my F2P account and instantly stood out cause a green tag that uses comms like I did rather stood out like a sore thumb.  But then my F2P tag is dre22 lol so not too hard to figure it out.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

allies are in the slow surrender phase after loosing a few rows of towns, axis do it as well.

it happens every single map... slugging it out in the initial line (+- a few backline towns), followed by one side getting some key towns, then the other side logs in less. loosing towns fast is typical at this stage

 

 

during the slugging and key towns phases: allies had no HC on for several hours at a time, it was bad during euro prime.

Share this post


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

http://www.campaigncharts.com/

This shows Allies were over pop this campaign 53% to Axis 47%

Which is a percentage of time, and ignores by how much each side is overpopped - which the graph shows is pretty drastically in the Axis favor particularly at the end of US prime and throughout TZ3. 

The "population by day" graph is also pretty telling. Thanks for pointing this out!

Edited by Randazzo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, actonman said:

http://www.campaigncharts.com/

This shows Allies were over pop this campaign 53% to Axis 47%

The population balance by campaign simply looks at the total number of unique player names detected. It does not provide any indication how much they played, .... just that logged a sortie really. I should probably put a little more long winded explanation on there.

So yeah, as others have pointed out. The Axis have more players who clearly log large TOM over the course of a campaign. Seems Allied have a larger percent who play less TOM.

Edited by choad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, actonman said:

http://www.campaigncharts.com/

This shows Allies were over pop this campaign 53% to Axis 47%

ckJLpiF.png

OK.

Note that the high pop time of day is a bump at the left of this graph, and the entire bit on the right where the red is way above the blue.

Edited by tater

Share this post


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

I don't think the system allows you to be in both OrBats at once (@B2K?).

 

You'd have to work it out so that GHC will reserve your spot for you until you return, and then when you do return they'd just place you in the OrBat without having to go through OCS again.  

No, it does not.  It used to back in the day, however some umm 'creative' individual swapped sides and pulled every flag back to training when one sides HC wasn't on (back in the day before a supply level was required).  So CRS 1.0 intentionally coded cross-side HC out of the game.  Not sure the coding effort that'd be required to undo-it 

Also is against the current AOC, however that's pretty easy to change. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

http://www.campaigncharts.com/

This shows Allies were over pop this campaign 53% to Axis 47%

There were certainly some periods of allied op during and before wbs...even 2 days after wbs we had massive op rolling towns....and then 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

step one of increasing player population is stop stigmatizing having more population than the other team, the whole point of a single global server is to bring as many people online as possible

it's not like a dozen newbs can't get pinned down by a single player in an armored car anyway

and having experienced players come over is nice, but maybe you should stop making everything in game so difficult that a side needs a roster of experienced players to sustain basic game functions

it's only going to get worse because the allies have an increasingly-limited number of players that will do all the artificially difficult chores in this game, and axis can just wear those players out then the allies will be on defense 100% of the time

this isn't that different from fighting other corps in EVE online where the whole corp goes rudderless one a few key players get distracted/occupied/burnt out

26 minutes ago, B2K said:

No, it does not.  It used to back in the day, however some umm 'creative' individual swapped sides and pulled every flag back to training when one sides HC wasn't on (back in the day before a supply level was required).  So CRS 1.0 intentionally coded cross-side HC out of the game.  Not sure the coding effort that'd be required to undo-it 

Also is against the current AOC, however that's pretty easy to change. 

if HC were just sort of super-players with the ability to promote/demote missions on the active battles list, temporarily suspend spawning at facilities, have access to scouting units etc. they could swap sides without so much liability

but they can't do anything tactical like that because they are designed as strategic whatevers with control over spawn lists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with the game since the early years has been that changes are made to balance sides for the sake of winning campaigns. Focus more on the simulation and design rather than balance. The entire game's history has been a snowball effect of "help allies win more." Now you have equipment that is "overpowered" and a fantasy with horrible damage models. You can't and never will control who plays which side. Let the cards fall where they are and cut the bias for the sake of balancing one side or the other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the overpowered Allied equipment, that's rich.

Damn i love this community!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Underpop 20 hours a day in average

At least it makes more targets to shoot at!

Campaign lasts longer than I thought.

Share this post


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

All the overpowered Allied equipment, that's rich.

Damn i love this community!

Just keep reminding yourself, we only see the stuff that floats to the top...

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m all for everything as realistic as possible. Including logistics, population, reliability, industrial might, resource availability (oil), etc. Real life equipment occurred in a context, and separated from that context it makes little sense.

Share this post


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

Problem with the game since the early years has been that changes are made to balance sides for the sake of winning campaigns. Focus more on the simulation and design rather than balance. The entire game's history has been a snowball effect of "help allies win more." Now you have equipment that is "overpowered" and a fantasy with horrible damage models. You can't and never will control who plays which side. Let the cards fall where they are and cut the bias for the sake of balancing one side or the other. 

>>> 35-38 Tigers deployed in North Africa, nov 1942 – may 1943. The maximum number of Tigers operational at peak force in Tunis was about 15-20 units. 

>>>180-190 Tigers deployed in Italy, jun 1943 – may 1945. The average number of Tigers available at any given time since their deployment in Italy was about 30-40 units, with a probable peak at about 50.

>>>230-240 Tigers deployed on the western front (France/Rhine defense) 
Out of these, about 150 were present during the Normandy campaign (June – Aug 1944). About 60-80 were available at peak force. Only 4-5 Tigers escaped from Normandy, but it appears that they were all blown up/abandoned on their way back anyway. 

The rest of 80-90 Tigers used on the western front were mostly Tiger II’s, deployed during the Ardennes offensive and subsequent battles (dec 1944 – may 1945). No more than 30 were available at any given time, and never en masse. 

>>> ~ 1300 Tigers deployed on the eastern front (72%), between aug 1942 and may 1945. The maximum number of Tigers deployed in the east was about 350-400 units, in late 1943. Out of these, no more than 250 were operational at peak force. 
 

This game has to be about balance WTF do you think the axis are doing with anything near the levels of equipment they have otherwise LOL. You have access to the complete Historical deployment of Tigers on the western front with no issues of availability, In response the British deployed over 4000 17 Pounder equipped vehicles. So that is the Balance that helps the axis all the time. Are you willing to play with those cards and see where they fall ?

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news Darkmouse, It will be good to have you. And can you please bring alee1 back with you? He's one of our rare spawnable guards. And Kacman too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, now I remembered something else I posted many years ago. It was probably 10-15 years ago.

The whole Brigades/supply paradigm is dumb.

The abstraction is that there is some larger group of men/units, and the handful of available players serially plays them. That's fine, but having the most stuff in a spot locally---at one time---is what drives things.

Say there was a town with as many brigades in it as you can have (I know squat about the HC stuff, so I'm making up numbers, and I'll say there are 3). It is attacked by ONE Brigade. The attack should obviously fail, and if numbers in game were anything like balanced it probably does I will assume. But in this scenario, the defenders are low pop, and they only manage to spawn 6 guys. So each guy literally represents a half a brigade. The attackers in this example have huge overpop, and attack with a couple dozen guys. So 24 attackers vs 6 defenders. The local imbalance obviously rolls the town, but it gives lie to  the idea that the town ever had 3 Brigades in it, attacked by 1.

Is there any way spawning can be limited relative to local pop weighted by relative Brigade strength?

Attackers could mass as many units as they like for the attack itself---old school. They spawn at the FB, and roll towards the target. 100 guys if they like, from one Brigade.

Respawning is limited, however, to the number of defenders as a function of units actually spawned in that DO.

So in the above example with 24 (1Brg) v 6 (3Brg), the attacks would literally not be able to respawn from the attacking Brigade at all, until they were down to a single guy, then someone could respawn to replace him such that it would be fair brigade wise (2 attackers vs 6 defenders would be fair given relative Brigade strength and number of players on the low pop side).

This still rewards organized attacks, because you'll note I do not limit initial spawns at all, only respawns. So organized attacks would be spawning a bunch of guys at the FB, once ready, set AO, and move out. If the defenders spawn a bunch, that allows the attackers to respwn to match the relative Brg strength. Note that it goes both ways.

Say 6 people from 3 Brigades attack 1 Brigade. If the defenders spawn 6 defenders, the attackers can at any given time have respawns up to 18 total players in that AO.

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


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

>>> 35-38 Tigers deployed in North Africa, nov 1942 – may 1943. The maximum number of Tigers operational at peak force in Tunis was about 15-20 units. 

>>>180-190 Tigers deployed in Italy, jun 1943 – may 1945. The average number of Tigers available at any given time since their deployment in Italy was about 30-40 units, with a probable peak at about 50.

>>>230-240 Tigers deployed on the western front (France/Rhine defense) 
Out of these, about 150 were present during the Normandy campaign (June – Aug 1944). About 60-80 were available at peak force. Only 4-5 Tigers escaped from Normandy, but it appears that they were all blown up/abandoned on their way back anyway. 

The rest of 80-90 Tigers used on the western front were mostly Tiger II’s, deployed during the Ardennes offensive and subsequent battles (dec 1944 – may 1945). No more than 30 were available at any given time, and never en masse. 

>>> ~ 1300 Tigers deployed on the eastern front (72%), between aug 1942 and may 1945. The maximum number of Tigers deployed in the east was about 350-400 units, in late 1943. Out of these, no more than 250 were operational at peak force. 
 

This game has to be about balance WTF do you think the axis are doing with anything near the levels of equipment they have otherwise LOL. You have access to the complete Historical deployment of Tigers on the western front with no issues of availability, In response the British deployed over 4000 17 Pounder equipped vehicles. So that is the Balance that helps the axis all the time. Are you willing to play with those cards and see where they fall ?

I'm not talking about historical deployment or equipment. This game will never be historical in terms of grand strategy or deployment. I'm talking about damage models and equipment.  Axis equipment has been nerfed since 2001. What I'm saying is the answer has always been to make this game balanced to help allies win more campaigns. You can't control who plays more or the quality of players that plays a side. In the old CRS days the answer was to always nerf axis equipment. Not much has changed in that regard. Same song and dance for years. The game should not be about winning campaigns. Should be about having equipment and simulation that makes sense in terms of what they did on the battlefield historically. 

Edited by snipey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note also that this creates another use for paras. It's a way to add fresh troops contrary to the respawn cap. Attackers can also just fill trucks with guys and drive them in if they like. This is really a throttle on MSPs and spawnable depots only. Havign to drive replacement troops in slows things down a little for the underpop people, and it also creates a way for those replacements to be interdicted (unlike them magically popping out of a depot).

Share this post


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

Axis equipment has been nerfed since 2001. 

Fantasy narratives like this is part of why we can't have nice things.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like I said the allies need infantry players to do all the difficult and even menial tasks that the game requires

new tank and plane toys just draw more players away from infantry which ultimately hurt their side

maybe if FBs were point captureable by ground vehicles, but right now literally everything requires not just infantry but experienced infantry

basic objectives like depots don't even appear on the HUD (this is jarring for modern FPS players)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.