• 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
dfire

Allied Stratty

90 posts in this topic

Just now, csm308 said:

Deflection from the deliberate abuse being carried out by your AHC.

VR

Actually just responding to your post. The deflection is all on your shoulders because you understand the immense stupidity of bringing it up and are hoping to avoid further discussion.

Share this post


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

Balanced lists all the way around, every country, every tier.

 

May be a bridge too far for this crew's philosophy.

The problem is, as ever, who determines what is balanced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Balanced lists all the way around, every country, every tier.

I'm not sure what went wrong with all this historical accuracy, national flavor, realistic into dates. etc.

But something has completely gone off the rails.

Game play must come first, and balanced game play second.

Variances should be no more than 5 to 10% - and completely justified by historical reasons.

If a side doesn't have a piece of gear, then it gets substituted by a lower piece that is somewhat similar.

 

Infantry should be the most easy, every nation gets exactly the same amount per flag of flag type.

Every INF flag of every nation should have say 400 infantry, if french ARM flag gets 200 inf, then all other nations ARM flags get 200 also.

 

Lets take tier 0, lets say we go with base 200 rifles.  All nations should have 200 rifles then. German might be 180-20 italy split.

But, you say, french had semi rifles. Fine, give them some semi rifles (bearing in mind the 5 to 10% variance rule). Currently I think french get 2 in tier 0.  Fine, they can have them, but add 2 bolts to german as the substitute for missing semi's.

Tier 0 I think brits get 5 grenadier, german doesn't have grenadier yet, fine; give the brits their 5 grenadier, but add 5 bolts to german to substitute in for missing gear.

When germans do get grenadiers, give them 5 too and remove the 5 rifles that were substituted in.

 

Also what is with this ratio of rifles to SMGs in game atm?

There are like 72 SMGs per garrison (56 norm, 8 HC, 8 Res -rough count) and 145 rifles, when did we get to a 2 to 1 ratio?  That is way way to high imo.

Should be like 36 SMGs or so.  A ratio of 4 to 1 is far more realistic. (a few extra for NCO and RES makes sense though)

 

Giving brit garrison 56 and german 34 SMGs is simply ludicrous. (btw, fixed for 1 AB garrison only, so now even for this one unit type and AB number)

Giving brit garrison 23 FMS light ATGs, and german 8 is also ludicrous.

 

As final example, lets take DDs;  brits had way more than germans, so should brits get 400 and germans 40 (like historical?).

Of course not, to game balance upsetting.

I think the base right now is 5 DDs per flag, in this case we would let brits have 6; they get more because it is historical they should have more.

Five to six shows a historical flavor, but isn't game breaking balance wise. (though it does break the 5 to 10% variance rule)

 

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, csm308 said:

Its not a mistake that virtually all of the frontline towns on the approaches to our factories in the north are currently UK towns.  Then you look behind those UK frontline towns to a sea of Tricolor towns.  Geez, wonder what happened there? 

Everybody sees what's going on, but their side preference determines how they respond.

Edited by dfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

Actually just responding to your post. The deflection is all on your shoulders because you understand the immense stupidity of bringing it up and are hoping to avoid further discussion.

More deflection still.  We certainly can't have any accountability for the deliberate abuse by your AHC officers.

VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main exploit is the large amount of BEF towns that are south of the Meuse river valley that is from Namur to Liege

There are 15+ BEF towns south of that river valley plus it looks like Montfaucon was changed to use Brit air forces, i would need to log into allied side to confirm, but it looks that way  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like a detailed, numerically defined, official proposal from GHC as to what they believe is an appropriate distribution of not their own, but our forces.  Remember to include acceptable distribution ranges for French, British, and eventually American levels of ownership.  

 

I'm not sure why we should listen to the other team telling us how to deploy our army, but I think we should listen anyway in good faith.  If you think we crossed a line, I need that line to be well-defined.  

 

AHC was in discussions about town ownership during some of the development of 1.36.  We fully expected a hardcoded town nationality distribution range and initially planned accordingly, but eventually CRS gave us the leeway to choose as we see fit within reason.  Obviously that means we cannot completely remove one nationality from the front line and to date I don't believe this has ever been done.  

 

Also, I just want to know, if the situation was reversed and the Allies had well over X% of their towns under French ownership instead, would you still complain that it's not right?  It's not the distribution itself that the problem itself, but where that distribution lies, isn't it?

Edited by Capco

Share this post


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

  If you think we crossed a line, I need that line to be well-defined.  

I just told u in my post before your post

When ahc starts placing BEF towns way south of the Meuse river line its "well-defined" 

I told u many months ago I had no issues with ahc placement of american forces instead of crs, however this issue is different and a clear exploit. Thanks Gore for using that term earlier on me, now it seems to fit well in this discussion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, csm308 said:

More deflection still.  We certainly can't have any accountability for the deliberate abuse by your AHC officers.

VR

Ok, I get it, you refuse to talk about it more here. A good thing about the forum is that it has a memory. Rest assured we will revisit your suggestion in future threads. 

Share this post


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

Ok, I get it, you refuse to talk about it more here. A good thing about the forum is that it has a memory. Rest assured we will revisit your suggestion in future threads. 

How much money do you want to bet those AHC officers who engaged in this deliberate abuse, get away scott free.  No disciplinary action, not even a pat on the wrist.  

VR

Share this post


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

I just told u in my post before your post

When ahc starts placing BEF towns way south of the Meuse river line its "well-defined" 

I told u many months ago I had no issues with ahc placement of american forces instead of crs, however this issue is different and a clear exploit. Thanks Gore for using that term earlier on me, now it seems to fit well in this discussion

I'm looking for acceptable percentage ranges of town ownership.  If you are suggesting that we must restrict the placement of our forces based solely on geography, that is a non-starter.  

 

The deployment of British forces in the South (and conversely French forces in the North) has been AHC standard operating procedure practically since brigades were first introduced.  Movable brigades was the mechanic that broke the infamous North-South divide.  That's exactly why we have the ability to swap town ownership in 1.36 in the first place.

 

For example, as you brought up with airfields, if the Allies cannot swap airfield ownership then that drastically limits our flexibility to deploy both countries airplanes across all sectors, which again has been Allied SOP for over a decade.  It would effectively create an aerial north-south divide once again.  We do not have enough air flags available to provide our pilots with the freedom of choice, and so our only alternative is the ability to change airfield ownership as we see fit and within reason.  

 

This is both a blessing and a curse for the Allies.  It takes a lot more work to manage our forces than it does for the Axis to manage theirs, but on the flip side we have more freedom of choice in regards to equipment, a hallmark of the Allied side.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** I'm looking for acceptable percentage ranges of town ownership.

Just guessing, keep it easy.

Early on, 50/50 french, brit.

Later 25/25/50 french, brit, USA.  Maybe 20/20/60.

 

Share this post


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

*** I'm looking for acceptable percentage ranges of town ownership.

Just guessing, keep it easy.

Early on, 50/50 french, brit.

Later 25/25/50 french, brit, USA.  Maybe 20/20/60.

Thank you for your input delems.  Much appreciated.  

 

Remember, I asked for ranges though.  What I mean is we can't just have one numerical distribution that we have to stick to.  Are we supposed to take a calculator out and count up all the frontline towns each time a town changes hands on the map to make sure we are at 50/50?  That'd be rather silly imo.  

 

For example, early on I feel like a fair distribution is a minimum of 30% british to a maximum of 50%.  That way we have some leeway and flexibility, and don't have to change swap two town ownerships at once just to maintain one hard set ratio. 

 

I hope that makes sense.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a rough count and got 10 French 19 UK, currently.  I am seeking access to information on whether any frontline towns were swapped.  As promised, I have posted in the AHC slack area that switching all frontline towns to the UK will not be tolerated.

I will be only too glad to report back whatever findings I end up coming up with.

Accusations about AHC abusing this rule are as yet unsubstantiated by factual evidence, and no, counting the towns is not evidence of foul play.  Given the Allies' habit of NOT changing frontline town ownership, the percentage of UK vs French frontline towns is most likely a function of which country got credit for taking the next town.  As stated earlier, we typically do not change ownership, and thus on some days, (when we push with French units), more of the frontline will be French.  On others, (when we push with the British units), more of the frontline will be made up of UK towns.

In the far north, for example, the cut of the Zees was accomplished with a French Division, hence the plethora of French towns in the far north.  The axis then sought to relieve the cut, and in the process beat up the French Division to the point where we ended up pushing with British units, which is why it may look like those far north frontline towns were 'swapped' to the UK, when in fact that is not the case.

Having said all of that, and to repeat myself:  It is NOT Allied 'strategy' to abuse frontline town placement.  All axis accusations to the contrary, there are plenty of us on the Allied side who prefer French equipment.  I've even heard a rumor that the Allied CinC runs a French unit that until the breakup of the BEF area and French area, fought almost exclusively in the 'dirty south' with French equipment, for the glory of virtual France!!!

If it is found that an Officer (or Officers) have failed to get that message, they will indeed be disciplined.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, csm308 said:

How much money do you want to bet those AHC officers who engaged in this deliberate abuse, get away scott free.  No disciplinary action, not even a pat on the wrist.  

VR

It is interesting that despite having not proven that said 'abuse' exists, you have already concluded that the 'abuse' will not result in disciplinary action.  I'm about done with being accused falsely by you, @csm308.  I'm not sure what your definition of honorable conduct is, but it falls well askance of my own.  I don't cheat, and I don't put up with cheaters in my unit, or on my staff in AHC.  Thankfully it's been a long long time since anyone who was a cheater decided that joining Lafayette Federaton was a good idea, and to my knowledge I have ZERO Officers who have given so much as an inkling that they might be inclined to cheat.  Maybe they are just 'really good' at hiding it from me thus far, but I highly doubt it.  I also don't cruise around the forums falsely accusing others of lying, and/or cheating.

 

47 minutes ago, kazee said:

I just told u in my post before your post

When ahc starts placing BEF towns way south of the Meuse river line its "well-defined" 

I told u many months ago I had no issues with ahc placement of american forces instead of crs, however this issue is different and a clear exploit. Thanks Gore for using that term earlier on me, now it seems to fit well in this discussion

You are working off an inaccurate assumption, @kazee   When I accepted the position of Allied CinC, I actually dreamed of going back to the Namur demarcation line for BEF and ArFr forces, but was advised by Allied Officers and CRS that the game's intention is to stay away from that sort of thing.  Something about the BEF and ArFr's past failures to cooperate resulting in poor gameplay for all players...  Thus, having UK towns well south of the Meuse is not only acceptable, but suggested by CRS.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

If you are suggesting that we must restrict the placement of our forces based solely on geography

That is exactly what I am suggesting

 

29 minutes ago, Capco said:

The deployment of British forces in the South (and conversely French forces in the North) has been AHC standard operating procedure practically since brigades were first introduced. 

Brigades are gone now, even more of a reason to have forces based on geographic locations 

 

31 minutes ago, Capco said:

That's exactly why we have the ability to swap town ownership in 1.36 in the first place.

That makes zero sense to me, post 1.36 should have nothing to do with this

12 minutes ago, Augetout said:

I am seeking access to information on whether any frontline towns were swapped. 

All you have to do is look at the map...how did BEF forces get so far south, did u guys have the BEF flag down there recently ? I havent played much this campaign but I doubt u guys did. How is Bouillon, Herb, Carignan all BEF. All you have to do is look at the towns behind and know they were switched. 

 

15 minutes ago, Augetout said:

Accusations about AHC abusing this rule are as yet unsubstantiated by factual evidence,

Wrong...unless u can prove the BEF flag was down south or BEF airborne troops capped Bouillon and Herb then the accusation is valid. Im not blaming anyone just starting and showing it was done (ownership change)

 

19 minutes ago, Augetout said:

All axis accusations to the contrary

Once again they are not accusations, just look at map. I dont want anyone disciplined since they had the ability to do it. My main beef is how we go from here and what needs to be addressed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one would be perfectly happy with AORs for the BEF and ArFr, including air force units. I always disliked the intense Brig mixing of pre 1.36.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last point...u guys want BEF town ownership in the south ? Fine, but u should have to move the BEF 1st division flag down there to do or have BEF airborne troops cap the enemy cps.

It would not be such an issue if they supply was not so screwed up...but it is. 

Share this post


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

All you have to do is look at the map...how did BEF forces get so far south, did u guys have the BEF flag down there recently ? I havent played much this campaign but I doubt u guys did. How is Bouillon, Herb, Carignan all BEF. All you have to do is look at the towns behind and know they were switched. 

Inaccurate, @kazee  Looking at a flag does not prove anything, hence why I am seeking information on how those towns got the flags they got.  As stated above, CRS actually suggests mixing up the town ownership, which may end up being the reason if it isn't simply because a british unit took the town in question.

 

4 minutes ago, kazee said:

Wrong...unless u can prove the BEF flag was down south or BEF airborne troops capped Bouillon and Herb then the accusation is valid. Im not blaming anyone just starting and showing it was done (ownership change)

I'm from 'Merica, where we're innocent until proven guilty, which hasn't happened.  I cannot be forced to prove a negative.  I have said I will look into if the frontline towns have had ownership changes, and if so how and why.

6 minutes ago, kazee said:

Once again they are not accusations, just look at map. I dont want anyone disciplined since they had the ability to do it. My main beef is how we go from here and what needs to be addressed 

I appreciate your generosity in regards to disciplinary action, but if it happened and I find out who did it, disciplinary action will be forthcoming, and will be based on a 'knowing' vs. 'doing' problem.  If they didn't know, then they'll be instructed, and we'll move on.  If they knew and did it anyway, they will be disciplined thusly.   We got here based on an accusation that is not substantiated by factual evidence, so my humble bet is nothing really needs to be addressed, although I will reserve final judgement on it until I have all the facts involved.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

One last point...u guys want BEF town ownership in the south ? Fine, but u should have to move the BEF 1st division flag down there to do or have BEF airborne troops cap the enemy cps.

It would not be such an issue if they supply was not so screwed up...but it is. 

Again, if it was up to me there would be a return to the Namur demarcation line of BEF in the north and ArFr in the south.  While I was away from the game, I guess that became an untenable deal, so the 'u guys' you are referring to isn't me.  It is, however, most of the Allied player base, and CRS, who prefer a 'mixing' of the 2 forces.

S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

One last point...u guys want BEF town ownership in the south ? Fine, but u should have to move the BEF 1st division flag down there to do or have BEF airborne troops cap the enemy cps.

It would not be such an issue if they supply was not so screwed up...but it is. 

It has been my official recommendation to AHC as DDOP CO since the arrival of 1.36 to deploy the 1st BEF Division in the south as a matter of course, and likewise to deploy one of our two French divisions in Belgium.  

 

Bringing over troops via para plane just to capture a city as one particular nationality was a phenomenal effort and worthy of praise, but at the same time it was an Achilles' heel to the Allies and one that the Axis simply never had to experience at any level.  

 

It has already been deemed a net detriment to the Allies to have a North-South split.  There is no need to re-litigate this and uninvent the wheel just to have the exact same problems crop up.  

Share this post


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

Inaccurate, @kazee  Looking at a flag does not prove anything, hence why I am seeking information on how those towns got the flags they got.  As stated above, CRS actually suggests mixing up the town ownership, which may end up being the reason if it isn't simply because a british unit took the town in question.

Then explain it to me like I am a moron...how does Sedan (french) attack Bouillon and then Bouillon becomes brit ? Is there something I dont know? Wouldn't those capped cps in Bouillon be capped by french forces ?

18 minutes ago, Augetout said:

but if it happened and I find out who did it, disciplinary action will be forthcoming

See that is the problem at hand...why discipline an officer when the ability to do so (change ownership) should not even be there in the first place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't treat you like a moron, @kazee as I wouldn't appreciate it anymore than I appreciate being accused of being a liar and/or a cheat by others.

24 hours ago the webmap shows 11 French, 13 Brit

12 hours ago the webmap shows 13 French, 14 Brit

6 hours ago the webmap shows 13 French, 18 Brit

3 hours ago the webmap shows 12 French, 18 Brit

A little while ago the webmap showed 11 French, 18 Brit

 

As I said in an earlier post, most of the time the Allied Officers (myself included) don't bother changing town ownership at all, leaving it to whatever country's forces gets credit for taking the new town.  The ratios over the past 24 hours as shown on the webmap are not out of whack, and are indicative of the axis taking a couple of French towns while the UK took a few axis towns.  Some towns may have been changed to put UK forces in the south, but it was not done nefariously, and it was not done in the extreme.  I have asked CRS (and they have answered) as to whether or not there is a tool that would allow me to see how many frontline towns were changed manually.  Given their answer (not possible) and given my discussions with Allied Officers, I am confident in reiterating the point that changing 'all' or 'nearly all' of the frontline towns to UK ownership is not part of our strategy, nor would it be tolerated if it was done in the extreme as has been accused in this thread.  A couple towns in the south were made British to allow for some British equipment to appear in the south, which is well within our instructions from CRS.  The Officer(s) in question did not do so to 'exploit' the game, and in fact only a small number of towns had their ownership changed.

Had the frontline towns been changed as part of a diabolic plan to exploit the game, then by definition disciplinary action would be necessary.  I am not one to allow cheats/exploits just because the game hasn't figured out how to stop them.  Honor matters in this community, and it is one of the reasons I am still in this community, as well as being a reason why I either haven't gotten into or stayed in, other gaming communities, (I'm looking at you, SOCOM community members...).

Changing ownership should be a part of the game.  Understand that in the fantasy world some believe we operate in whereby only the 'invincible' matildas are behind the Allies taking ground, an inability to change town ownership would result in a frontline made up entirely of British flags.  Perhaps later in campaigns it would result in nothing but U.S. flags.  In either event, neither of which will happen btw, people who prefer a different country's equipment would be left out in the cold, which CRS would frown heavily on.

As far as I'm concerned, this matter is closed, and AHC has been absolved of any guilt relating to the inaccurate accusations regarding any exploitation of the frontline towns' ownership.  I have communicated with AHC that any such exploitation will not be tolerated, and I am confident that no such thing occurred.  I realize this answer might not satisfy those who may have a preconceived notion that either myself or other AHC Officers would be inclined to cheat, but in the end those folks are going to reach that conclusion no matter what I say or do.

S!

Edited by Augetout
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate all the thought provoking replies and arguments and counter arguments.

 

My final thoughts are simple... Agree on a general ratio of towns per faction and have hc just take a 30 second glace over the map once or twice a day to make sure the ratios seem correct to the eye. No need to count numbers up or any bs. Who gives a [censored] if one side owns a few more than another, because obviously it's probably not intentional. Nobody will probably bat an eye. 

I'm not going to get involved in the equipment toe, faction geography, blame game, etc. arguments that spawned because none of those were the point of this post, and I dont have an issue with anything involving those personally.

With that said, I rest my case here

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.