dfire

Need Opinions Please

90 posts in this topic

16 hours ago, dfire said:

It would be hella fun to play a campaign with axis factories and frontlines switched to allied and allied factories and lines switched to axis. Axis need to push east and allies need to push west. I think it would make me dizy looking at the map, but it would be fun/hilarious/different. 

It would never happen and too many people would be against it, but just imagine haha. :)

It was done, Doc says it nearly broke the game.  Probably a never again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, matamor said:

Fought matties for years, been there, done that and will do again, we won and continue to win our shares of campaigns. That new excuse sounds like a poor little pink millenial bunny that just gets denied for his first time ever. 

The Matties in low numbes are not a problem.   The large deployed numbers of Matty CS coupled with 4 88s base in 1 AB towns and limited sappers, are.

What makes the Matty fearsome is not that 2lber, plenty of that to be had all over BEF forces, it's that camping armor/MG combo.

Share this post


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

"the hardest campaign ever" went all in on this...

guys need to start being clear: if they want a game, or a mil-sim and start using the preferred term.

This cannot possibly be true, unless the "hardest campaign" (I wasn't back at that point) was using a completely different game than the one in place now. Different capture mechanics, different comms, different spawn mechanics, different balancing, etc, ad nauseum.

That's what "all-in" would require, and the game would be better for it. Arguing that one tiny change to an existing (broken) engine is "all in for realism" and that has been therefor proved wrong is quite simply a bad argument. A more realistic feeling game would require many, many changes to start being called a mil-sim. I honestly don't think this game has the bones to even approach that, much less write it off as tried and failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SCKING said:

unfortunately some will not be happy until there are axis matildas and allied tigers and will still probably yell biased when they get blown up.

You cant take me off that list, viva la difference, but MATCHUPs with the more complex mutlitier pseudohistorical setup, you guys are not doing so well on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jsilec said:

Section 5 amendment 89 in book 12 of the rats rules and regs says csm must remove his speedo and walk backwards while singing its raining men in spanish whenever an ahc officer is out of line

Those Brooklyn hipsters must be driving you to madness.

Share this post


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

I get the attempt at an insult.  Truth be told I'm not qualified to be on the CRS staff.  I could code this game if it needed some Apple basic inserted...  Perhaps scrolling (with flashing no less)  "Quit whining (insert applicable side depending on who is winning maps)!!!" But that's about the extent of my coding abilities...  So like Johnson in '68 "I shall not seek, nor will I accept..."   In short, you're just wrong on that point.

My goal is to have as historically accurate game as possible, and I make no apologies for having that goal.  The Battle of France in 1940 is a unique time in history, where a country attacked some other countries and won in short order despite not having the best tanks, best air to air fighters, best artillery, or best ATGs.

Your goal of having an artificially balanced game is a valid goal.  It was 2001 when I started asserting that artificial game-balancing would end in failure.  My message is the same whether it seems to benefit 'my side' or not.  Some agree and some do not.  I wish more did (agree), with me far earlier in the game's development, as it would have freed up a ton of developer time that in essence was completely wasted on constant attempts to artificially balance gameplay.  Time that could have been spent doing more equipment models when CRS had ample developers.  Know that the game can NEVER be truly balanced until a red v blue scheme is decided upon.  Given that won't happen, we are again left with the choice between historical accuracy and artificially balancing gameplay, one of which had over a decade and a half to show itself to be the utter failure that it is destined to be.  One of which hasn't even been fully implemented as yet, if ever it will be.

We don't have the Ju-88 (it's being worked on now, but should have been done years and years ago), because CRS 1.0 wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

We don't have more ships for the folks who prefer naval stuff, because CRS 1.0 wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

We don't have parachuting sheep, because CRS 1.0... Wait, parachuting sheep aren't really all that important.

We don't have the B-25, B-17, Lancaster, Wellington, and anything resembling an Italian plane, because CRS 1.0 wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

We don't have the Panther, the Jagpanzer 1, and a slew of other vehicles to include a Jeep for cripes' sakes, because CRS 1.0 wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

Hell, we might have full-blown artillery by now if CRS 1.0 hadn't wasted time and effort attempting to artificially balance gameplay.

So yes, guilty as charged on being one of the folks who prefer going in a historically accurate direction.  It's not a new direction for me, and it is not side-biased in the least bit.  It's not a wish to do a recreation of WW2's actual events, either.  I fully believe that given a historically accurate set of equipment, accurately modeled, in historically accurate spawn ratios, that it would be completely good gameplay to let the players decide the outcome, and I have no doubt it would be even more fun in-game, with less wasted time on BS issues such as the list we dealt with just during the last campaign.

Imagine players accepting, as they do in each and every other WW2 game, that some of their equipment is going to work better than the other side's, and some of it isn't, without constantly worrying and/or accusing the game developers of somehow being on one side or the other...

Were you around for the full effects of the RDP set of rules, including just how much people stayed away when 'their' branch of their country was behind the curve?  No one who played then would be confused about what these pseudohistorical spawnlists were gonna do.

And that this is a false narrative as GMing spawnlists or doing gameplay/server coding is not the same thing as the models, they are separate disciplines?

This is ugly ugly experience talking, we all learned it once upon a time with years of painful player losses, I just don't see the need to relearn and experience more losses, nor do I see demanding 'whine less' as a viable action direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doc, your participation (showing your victory) in this post was the best thing I've read in recent times.
I'm from your time.
and I confess I miss that team.

S!

enemytank/kareca

Share this post


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

(...) a historically accurate set of equipment, accurately modeled, in historically accurate spawn ratios (...)

What would "historically accurate spawn ratios" even mean? There were 23 (or maybe 21) Matilda IIs (both types combined) in France/Belgium in May...but production was continuous, and if the BEF hadn't been smashed, more tanks could have been sent, if the Western Desert didn't need them more...but then, the changeover process for the six pounder was scheduled to begin in September. So, what tanks would have been sent to the BEF?

The S40 was scheduled to supplant the S35 on the production line in late fall. Ditto the B1ter. The R35 already was out of production...the replacement flow for the R35 should be R40s. Production of the P178 would have switched to the 47mm gun at some point in late summer or early fall. Production of the P201 and the S-chassis assault gun, and maybe the G tank, was likely in 1941. How can any of that be accounted for?

Surely the Germans would have responded to the six pounder by rushing forward production and tank-installation of the L/60 50mm, abandoning the 37mm guns and the L/42 50mm. 

For most of this, there are sparse historical records to consult in regard to what would have happened from August through the end of 1940, or in 1941. And, in any case, that history would be of a single set of circumstances. Reality is dynamic. If one allows event-changes in the progression of a war simulation, one must accept that history from that point forward is invalid without resolution of responsive changes, including to weapon development and production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DOC said:

details.

Or you could just hurl abuse at me for daring to put some of the record straight ... from some high horse you like to ride around on because (and I get why, high horses are awesome) it makes you feel good.

I'm not going to hurl any abuse at you.  I didn't when you were part of the development team and won't start now.  For the record, I'm not that good at riding horses, so acquiring a 'high horse' has never been part of my goal set, as the extra altitude makes falling off just that much more painful. :D

For the record, my assertions were stated as opinions, and any within the playerbase should realize that by definition our opinions have to be based on incomplete information.  I understand the pressures involved in the business end of things, and from before day 1 have been a voice trying in vain to get more folks on board with a simple mantra that I believe would have resulted in:  Better gameplay, more new equipment, and a maintained high level of interest from the original players, and those who entered the community later on.  Now that resources have been lessened, the mantra hasn't changed, and I still believe it will result in better gameplay, which should result in more players, which in the long run will result in more funding, more developers, and thus more new equipment.  Give us what was there, with historically accurate models, in historically accurate spawn ratios, and let the chips fall where they may.  Substitutes, and allowances have to be made for non-modeled equipment, and/or gameplay issues such as our current reliance on a CQB style of capturing territory, but other than that, the quest for a 'balanced' game is a fool's errand that will never satisfy more than a portion of the players at any given moment.  That is my opinion.  It is based on not having the same amount of information as you had back in the day, and it is accepting of the fact that business concerns outweighed developer concerns on a most likely regular basis.  It is thus my opinion that moving towards a more historical model, (which has not been perfect thus far), and away from a way of doing things that has proven itself to be less than effective, , will be a better solution than what went on before, with all apologies for lumping pre-CRS 2.0 into a less than accurate CRS 1.0. 

S!

Share this post


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

Were you around for the full effects of the RDP set of rules, including just how much people stayed away when 'their' branch of their country was behind the curve?  No one who played then would be confused about what these pseudohistorical spawnlists were gonna do.

And that this is a false narrative as GMing spawnlists or doing gameplay/server coding is not the same thing as the models, they are separate disciplines?

This is ugly ugly experience talking, we all learned it once upon a time with years of painful player losses, I just don't see the need to relearn and experience more losses, nor do I see demanding 'whine less' as a viable action direction.

I was there for the discussions leading up to the full effects of the RDP set of rules, and (as you did, if my recollection is correct) I didn't think player-controlled RDP was going to be anything but a disaster. 

You and I disagree on the effects of historical-based spawnlists, clearly.  

It's not a false narrative, as (my opinion) the efforts at artificially balancing gameplay at least in part guided what was modeled, and when it was to be modeled.  Instead of me having to prove that a system not yet even fully implemented (if it ever will be) works, can't we just deal with the fact that artificially balancing play lists, and modeling choices, hasn't worked?  The axis crowd was happy when they had the ability to clear a room with MG34s---the Allies weren't.  Now, the Allies are happy that there's one less gamey part to the game, and there's a bunch of angry axis.  The ROF on Allied tanks was changed way way back in the day for a reason I am unaware of, (it might have been a mistake, or it too might have been done to balance gameplay, I really don't know) undoubtedly making Allied tankers happy, and axis tanker unhappy.  The ROF for Allied tanks was downgraded/fixed awhile back, undoubtedly making it rougher on Allied tankers, and (hopefully?) making axis tankers happy that a flaw was located and fixed.  Just when has a non-historical change to the equipment set, or spawn lists/numbers, resulted in positive vibes for all concerned?  Is it even possible?

I could end up being completely wrong in my zeal for adhering to the mantra of:  Give us what was there, with historically accurate modeling, in historically accurate spawn ratios, but can there really be any doubt that not bothering to try it has showed itself to be less than successful?

 

My lord, get that the coding joke was directed AT me (by me) and not at others.  

Edited by Augetout

Share this post


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

I'm not going to hurl any abuse at you.  I didn't when you were part of the development team and won't start now.  For the record, I'm not that good at riding horses, so acquiring a 'high horse' has never been part of my goal set, as the extra altitude makes falling off just that much more painful. :D

For the record, my assertions were stated as opinions, and any within the playerbase should realize that by definition our opinions have to be based on incomplete information.  I understand the pressures involved in the business end of things, and from before day 1 have been a voice trying in vain to get more folks on board with a simple mantra that I believe would have resulted in:  Better gameplay, more new equipment, and a maintained high level of interest from the original players, and those who entered the community later on.  Now that resources have been lessened, the mantra hasn't changed, and I still believe it will result in better gameplay, which should result in more players, which in the long run will result in more funding, more developers, and thus more new equipment.  Give us what was there, with historically accurate models, in historically accurate spawn ratios, and let the chips fall where they may.  Substitutes, and allowances have to be made for non-modeled equipment, and/or gameplay issues such as our current reliance on a CQB style of capturing territory, but other than that, the quest for a 'balanced' game is a fool's errand that will never satisfy more than a portion of the players at any given moment.  That is my opinion.  It is based on not having the same amount of information as you had back in the day, and it is accepting of the fact that business concerns outweighed developer concerns on a most likely regular basis.  It is thus my opinion that moving towards a more historical model, (which has not been perfect thus far), and away from a way of doing things that has proven itself to be less than effective, , will be a better solution than what went on before, with all apologies for lumping pre-CRS 2.0 into a less than accurate CRS 1.0. 

S!

a fair response and I appreciate your clearing up your position and doing so with aplomb S!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accurate ratios in a spawn list are pretty much meaningless in this game. The number of units in any given AO/DO are 100% a function of the number of players actually there, and what they chose to spawn (since there is zero limit on what people can spawn until things run out).

The only way to implement any sort of unit balance is to force people to spawn things in the right ratios such that if there are 10 inf in town, they represent a squad (1 LMG, 1 SMG, and ~8 rifles on average). The problme with this, of course, is that the town unit is a "Brigade" and each person is not a member of an infantry squad, but they are serially a member of different squads, in different parts of town. This was always the issue with the game---and it's extremely non-trivial to deal with, likely impossible.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

a fair response and I appreciate your clearing up your position and doing so with aplomb S!

Is that the weed talking?

Share this post


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

Accurate ratios in a spawn list are pretty much meaningless in this game. The number of units in any given AO/DO are 100% a function of the number of players actually there, and what they chose to spawn (since there is zero limit on what people can spawn until things run out).

The only way to implement any sort of unit balance is to force people to spawn things in the right ratios such that if there are 10 inf in town, they represent a squad (1 LMG, 1 SMG, and ~8 rifles on average). The problme with this, of course, is that the town unit is a "Brigade" and each person is not a member of an infantry squad, but they are serially a member of different squads, in different parts of town. This was always the issue with the game---and it's extremely non-trivial to deal with, likely impossible.

+10/  plus inherently by the cap the cp/town mechanic the game is mostly CQB forcing ahistorical unit choices by players no matter whether the lists are historically accurate or not

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, sorella said:

+10/  plus inherently by the cap the cp/town mechanic the game is mostly CQB forcing ahistorical unit choices by players no matter whether the lists are historically accurate or not

Players need to use the units available for the required tasks, and unfortunately since the game requires CQB (arguably the very worst sort of play in the game), it leans heavily on SMGs. Within the extant game system, my idea to best deal with this would be to have much smaller spawn lists, that drain to zero units, then resupply. Instead of seeing nothing but SMGs until they are gone, then seeing enemy rifles and knowing they are low on supply, I'd much rather see a mix of units---I'm more often than not playing a rifle anyway, so I'll admit this doesn't bother me, though YMMV. My goal would be that the large majority of inf you see should always be rifles, and that the units most needed in a capping/clearing pinch, the SMGs, would not all get used up at the beginning.

Making the game work well given the map scale, and number of available players (even at the best population time the game has ever had) is not an easy problem, and it's made far, far harder by the lack of computer controlled units ("AI" is used in game, but while "artificial," the in-game version is definitely not "intelligent."). This was my opinion from before release, honestly. Bots of what are not player units  (whatever term you want) are really the only way to solve the critical issues of population, relative unit strength, persistence in the field, and balance. People here hate that idea---irrationally, IMHO. It's likely beyond the scope of what is even possible, of course, but that's really the silver bullet. In such a game world, if a town has a Company of inf, those inf would all be in the game persistently in their foxholes or in buildings. Players would not spawn in at a depot, FMS, etc, they would simply take over that unit already in the game. These bots would fight only defensively alone, and would only act in an offensive way with some player control. Ie: if a player spawns into a Squad of AI inf, he's ML, and can then give the other 9 guys orders (or even serially control them, as in Ghost Recon). Set up LMG for a base of fire, set up some rifles covering a likely approach, then assault himself ordering a few more to follow him. AIs have a FOV (that can rotate now and then), and automatically engage when attacked, or if enemy is in that FOV. Player gets killed, and they shift to the next unit in the squad. Sigh. Not possible, I know.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Augetout said:

I'm going to ignore the first part, as it is my understanding is that the ammunition audit was needed because of CRS 1.0's failed efforts at artificially balancing gameplay...

.88s kill Matildas at a 1.64 ratio, historically.  My humble advice would be to get some folks who are willing to use that weapon, if Matildas are a concern.  It's not that the Matilda isn't killable, it's that folks on the german side aren't using the weapons that easily kill it.  I'm not sure how that could possibly be anyone's fault but the players who are choosing not to spawn the 88s that kill Matildas.

S!

Environment changed, 300m silent FMS setup is an entirely different beast from MSPs or raw driving in people.  FRUs were similarly silent and had inf more easily setting, but it took time to walk in the inf, EWS went off and the FRUs could be blown with MG bursts/one grenade/tank blast/bomb etc.  And less people overall means less available for towing- imagine a scenario with no M10/S76/RPATs where people told you the thing to do is use 17 lber against Tiger. 

The other issue is so few 88s vs. a near like number of Matties.  In the history of the game, I've NEVER seen a near 1:1 ratio of Matties to 88s like this.  Soft survivability vs. hard counts.

 

 

At best when assessing capability, it has to be within the context of the rules in play at the time.  Historical kill ratios mean little.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jwilly said:

What would "historically accurate spawn ratios" even mean? There were 23 (or maybe 21) Matilda IIs (both types combined) in France/Belgium in May...but production was continuous, and if the BEF hadn't been smashed, more tanks could have been sent, if the Western Desert didn't need them more...but then, the changeover process for the six pounder was scheduled to begin in September. So, what tanks would have been sent to the BEF?

The S40 was scheduled to supplant the S35 on the production line in late fall. Ditto the B1ter. The R35 already was out of production...the replacement flow for the R35 should be R40s. Production of the P178 would have switched to the 47mm gun at some point in late summer or early fall. Production of the P201 and the S-chassis assault gun, and maybe the G tank, was likely in 1941. How can any of that be accounted for?

Surely the Germans would have responded to the six pounder by rushing forward production and tank-installation of the L/60 50mm, abandoning the 37mm guns and the L/42 50mm. 

For most of this, there are sparse historical records to consult in regard to what would have happened from August through the end of 1940, or in 1941. And, in any case, that history would be of a single set of circumstances. Reality is dynamic. If one allows event-changes in the progression of a war simulation, one must accept that history from that point forward is invalid without resolution of responsive changes, including to weapon development and production.

This.

The minute we step into Tier1, whether old tiers or new minitiers, we are in speculative historical ratio land.  Yes we could use actual produced numbers, but our 'reality' has France holding out far longer then a few weeks, and would the same production choices have been made?  How many 6lbers would have been made instead of 2lbers if the BEF wasn't forced to Dunkirk and no heavy equipment?  How many IIIHs and 88s would Germany have put into emergency production after getting a load of fighting S35s, Chars and Matties for any extended period?  How many DB7s and P40s would have been made if there was a France still there to buy them and what would be the price point of increased production?

 

We can make informed decisions that give look and feel, but ACTUALLY trying to match historical ratios is a far greater chimera to chase then balanced RICH gameplay.  The GAME comes first.

 

Share this post


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

Environment changed, 300m silent FMS setup is an entirely different beast from MSPs or raw driving in people.  FRUs were similarly silent and had inf more easily setting, but it took time to walk in the inf, EWS went off and the FRUs could be blown with MG bursts/one grenade/tank blast/bomb etc.  And less people overall means less available for towing- imagine a scenario with no M10/S76/RPATs where people told you the thing to do is use 17 lber against Tiger. 

The other issue is so few 88s vs. a near like number of Matties.  In the history of the game, I've NEVER seen a near 1:1 ratio of Matties to 88s like this.  Soft survivability vs. hard counts.

I still see on-sides MSPs as being critical (love that linked MSP idea where blowing one turns on the previous one), and I think there should be a sort of heavy FMS for the large ATGs. Frankly, I'd reuse the FMS we have for it, and have all the other MSPs be smaller, and easier to blow (particularly if the linked thing was possible).

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Environment changed, 300m silent FMS setup is an entirely different beast from MSPs or raw driving in people.  FRUs were similarly silent and had inf more easily setting, but it took time to walk in the inf, EWS went off and the FRUs could be blown with MG bursts/one grenade/tank blast/bomb etc.  And less people overall means less available for towing- imagine a scenario with no M10/S76/RPATs where people told you the thing to do is use 17 lber against Tiger. 

The other issue is so few 88s vs. a near like number of Matties.  In the history of the game, I've NEVER seen a near 1:1 ratio of Matties to 88s like this.  Soft survivability vs. hard counts.

 

 

At best when assessing capability, it has to be within the context of the rules in play at the time.  Historical kill ratios mean little.

So if I understand you correctly (and I might not, one never knows), players, mainly on the axis side lobbied CRS to decrease the distance on FMS set up and EWS distance for trucks, due to their claims that it 'was too hard to attack' and that 'defense was too easy', and the unintended consequence of that wish being granted is that now the 88 is not as useful?  Instead of imagining your scenario, imagine if hardly any Allied players bothered to spawn M10s, etc., and then tried to make the case that CRS was against them due to the Tiger not being more easily killed. 

I understand the frustration with less players currently in-game meaning less are available for team-oriented and seemingly necessary if the Matilda is to be dealt with in-game as opposed to cutting their numbers (done for this campaign) or coming up with new equipment (done bunches of times in the past) to appease the gripes of folks who, if they chose to spawn 88s would erase a self-created problem.  Anecdotal evidence, but I spawned a CS Mattie yesterday due to an AB that was more populated by enemy Infantry than friendly Infantry, and once moving out of the AB became 'the next task' I was hit from who knows how far away and one-shotted by (presumably) an 88.  To use the logic that is being used by some in this thread, my response should be to go to CRS now and gripe that there should be more Matildas, because they aren't as survivable as they were when axis players didn't bother to spawn 88s.  If the data says otherwise, they should ignore it?  I mean no offense, truly.  It just seems like a problem that is player-created, to me.

Of course historical kill ratios mean little in a discussion where you are arguing that the 88s aren't worth as much as advertised.  This is especially true when the historical K/D ratio of the Matilda is central to the argument for altering the game somehow to make it easier (I would say even easier) to kill.  How is it important that CRS adjust for the kill ratio (historical or campaign by campaign) of the Matilda, but at the same time CRS should disregard historical k/d numbers for the 88?

Thus far in 167, the Matilda has 29 kills, 5 of which are enemy tanks.  For whatever reason no kills or deaths versus the 88.  

The 88 has 29 kills on Allied tanks, with 6 deaths from Allied tanks.  They have more kills when throwing Allied Infantry into the mix (and more deaths, too).  It's 1 and 0 versus the CS Matilda---I only mention that to emphasize the fact that I guess I'm the only one thus far dumb enough to drive out of an ab when there's an 88 around, in a CS Matilda...

 

Small sampling, and it will be interesting to see how the data progresses during the campaign.

For the record, I wasn't a fan of moving the EWS/FMS distance closer.  I did not anticipate that some would later conclude that to be a reason why the 88s, which weren't being spawned before the change was made, is somehow less than useful, though.

I dunno, maybe it all does boil down to less players equaling the 88 being less effective.  Since the whole series of discussions regarding  Matildas and 88s started, I've actually seen more 88s in-game than before it allegedly became an issue.  I mean no offense by saying 'allegedly'.  I do this due to my belief that it is not an actual problem.  The SMGs disparity turned out to be a real issue despite other reports to the contrary that I initially parroted.  I would (I don't fly these days but I understand the gripes) think that the 'fishbowl' is a real issue.  Had the ROF on the Somua (and Charbis1) been found (by Hatch) to be incorrect, then that too would have been a real issue.  I just believe that if one chooses not to spawn a weapon that can kill every tank in-game at long range from Tier 0 thru the last tier, then the problem is player-caused.  If/when the Allies don't guard an AB bunker, it isn't the Mp40's fault that we didn't hold the bunker, right?  If AHC can't convince players to drive trucks to set up FMSs (as has sometimes been the case, I might add), is it the game's fault that there aren't more FMSs, or is it a player-caused problem?  I could argue that there are less truck drivers because there are less players in-game, too.  Would that seem credible to you?

I expect a result of these conversations will be a continuation of increasing usage of 88s, which is a good thing for the game as a whole, because regardless of the cause, it isn't good for gameplay when one weapon holds power over all others.  If, at the end of a couple campaigns when the 88s are actually being used, it ends up that the Matilda is still impossible to kill, then and only then would I be willing to consider this to be anything but a player-caused issue.

 

S!

Edited by Augetout

Share this post


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

So if I understand you correctly (and I might not, one never knows), players, mainly on the axis side lobbied CRS to decrease the distance on FMS set up and EWS distance for trucks, due to their claims that it 'was too hard to attack' and that 'defense was too easy', and the unintended consequence of that wish being granted is that now the 88 is not as useful?  Instead of imagining your scenario, imagine if hardly any Allied players bothered to spawn M10s, etc., and then tried to make the case that CRS was against them due to the Tiger not being more easily killed. 

I understand the frustration with less players currently in-game meaning less are available for team-oriented and seemingly necessary if the Matilda is to be dealt with in-game as opposed to cutting their numbers (done for this campaign) or coming up with new equipment (done bunches of times in the past) to appease the gripes of folks who, if they chose to spawn 88s would erase a self-created problem.  Anecdotal evidence, but I spawned a CS Mattie yesterday due to an AB that was more populated by enemy Infantry than friendly Infantry, and once moving out of the AB became 'the next task' I was hit from who knows how far away and one-shotted by (presumably) an 88.  To use the logic that is being used by some in this thread, my response should be to go to CRS now and gripe that there should be more Matildas, because they aren't as survivable as they were when axis players didn't bother to spawn 88s.  If the data says otherwise, they should ignore it?  I mean no offense, truly.  It just seems like a problem that is player-created, to me.

Of course historical kill ratios mean little in a discussion where you are arguing that the 88s aren't worth as much as advertised.  This is especially true when the historical K/D ratio of the Matilda is central to the argument for altering the game somehow to make it easier (I would say even easier) to kill.  How is it important that CRS adjust for the kill ratio (historical or campaign by campaign) of the Matilda, but at the same time CRS should disregard historical k/d numbers for the 88?

For the record, I wasn't a fan of moving the EWS/FMS distance closer.  I did not anticipate that some would later conclude that to be a reason why the 88s, which weren't being spawned before the change was made, is somehow less than useful, though.

I dunno, maybe it all does boil down to less players equaling the 88 being less effective.  Since the whole series of discussions regarding  Matildas and 88s started, I've actually seen more 88s in-game than before it allegedly became an issue.  I mean no offense by saying 'allegedly'.  I do this due to my belief that it is not an actual problem.  The SMGs disparity turned out to be a real issue despite other reports to the contrary that I initially parroted.  I would (I don't fly these days but I understand the gripes) think that the 'fishbowl' is a real issue.  Had the ROF on the Somua (and Charbis1) been found (by Hatch) to be incorrect, then that too would have been a real issue.  I just believe that if one chooses not to spawn a weapon that can kill every tank in-game at long range from Tier 0 thru the last tier, then the problem is player-caused.  If/when the Allies don't guard an AB bunker, it isn't the Mp40's fault that we didn't hold the bunker, right?  If AHC can't convince players to drive trucks to set up FMSs (as has sometimes been the case, I might add), is it the game's fault that there aren't more FMSs, or is it a player-caused problem?  I could argue that there are less truck drivers because there are less players in-game, too.  Would that seem credible to you?

I expect a result of these conversations will be a continuation of increasing usage of 88s, which is a good thing for the game as a whole, because regardless of the cause, it isn't good for gameplay when one weapon holds power over all others.  If, at the end of a couple campaigns when the 88s are actually being used, it ends up that the Matilda is still impossible to kill, then and only then would I be willing to consider this to be anything but a player-caused issue.

 

S!

Interesting hypothesis. I’m going to throw out the same challenge I’ve given to everyone who has ever touted the 88 as a super weapon. To date no one has ever taken me up on it.

Show me how it’s done. Take an entire campaign and use nothing but 88s and show me how effective they are. Prove it on the battlefield. Not in theory. Not in an academic argument. Spawn the thing in game and show me the massive K/D. You seem to be asserting that life long Axis players don’t know how to use it. Maybe they don’t. Maybe it’s up to you to show them how it’s done. Take the challenge and post your CSR results. 

Share this post


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

Those Brooklyn hipsters must be driving you to madness.

J isnt a hipster? He certainly sounds and acts like one.

Share this post


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

I was there for the discussions leading up to the full effects of the RDP set of rules, and (as you did, if my recollection is correct) I didn't think player-controlled RDP was going to be anything but a disaster. 

You and I disagree on the effects of historical-based spawnlists, clearly.  

 

I could end up being completely wrong in my zeal for adhering to the mantra of:  Give us what was there, with historically accurate modeling, in historically accurate spawn ratios, but can there really be any doubt that not bothering to try it has showed itself to be less than successful?

 

Allies quit in droves when SMGs were "accurately" allocated in the spawn lists - it was simply impossible for the allies to cap a town or defend a town when it was allied 10 rifles v 20 axis SMGs (the same "accurate" lists that saw 8 Matties v 25 PzIIs). We had 3 AOs every night in the run up to that map, it ended in an allied win in T6 iirc. Then with the "accurate" spawnlists we were down to just 1 AO and it was very rare to get 2AOs. "The hardest campaign ever" was the greatest self harm of recent years, if not ever.

 

I think we all want accurately modeled weapons/ballistics/etc but they have to operate in a game world where gameplay and balance must outweigh supposed historical accuracy. 

 

S! Ian

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

This cannot possibly be true, unless the "hardest campaign" (I wasn't back at that point) was using a completely different game than the one in place now. Different capture mechanics, different comms, different spawn mechanics, different balancing, etc, ad nauseum.

That's what "all-in" would require, and the game would be better for it. Arguing that one tiny change to an existing (broken) engine is "all in for realism" and that has been therefor proved wrong is quite simply a bad argument. A more realistic feeling game would require many, many changes to start being called a mil-sim. I honestly don't think this game has the bones to even approach that, much less write it off as tried and failed.

"all in", with respect to their capabilities. we both know the stuff you listed is not possible atm : /

they spent soo much work on something that did not pay off at all. if you were in game with the rest of the subscribers; it was crystal clear, people hated it

 

it always happens, not just here but in every game. screwing gameplay for the sake of genre never ends well

Share this post


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

Allies quit in droves when SMGs were "accurately" allocated in the spawn lists - it was simply impossible for the allies to cap a town or defend a town when it was allied 10 rifles v 20 axis SMGs (the same "accurate" lists that saw 8 Matties v 25 PzIIs). We had 3 AOs every night in the run up to that map, it ended in an allied win in T6 iirc. Then with the "accurate" spawnlists we were down to just 1 AO and it was very rare to get 2AOs. "The hardest campaign ever" was the greatest self harm of recent years, if not ever.

 

I think we all want accurately modeled weapons/ballistics/etc but they have to operate in a game world where gameplay and balance must outweigh supposed historical accuracy. 

 

S! Ian

As I stated earlier, allowances in the form of substitutes for un-modeled equipment, and for gameplay issues, such as our current over-reliance on CQB fights, have to be made.  That is to be expected, and is different than the leaning towards a red v blue environment, or the proven to be ineffective method of attempting to artificially balance gameplay based on a 'matchup' system, etc.

My opinion only, and I've stated it before, but in May of 1940 a country that didn't have the best tanks, the best fighter planes, the best artillery, or even the most tanks (depending on how we arrive at the number of tanks) etc. crushed an Allied force that did have all of those things.  It is a unique period in time when the weapon systems in use essentially balanced themselves out even before the action/reaction phases of weapons development really hit their stride, sometime after the historical end of the Battle for France.  Allied tanks (some) were better than axis tanks, but then again the axis had the Stuka, and the 88.  French artillery was better, but then again, the axis had the luftwaffe to even (or better) things out whatever marginal disadvantage they suffered from in artillery.

I think 163, which was billed as the hardest campaign ever, actually was the last time the axis won, but I understand your point.  It was indeed almost impossible for the Allies to take ground.  Simply put, no allowance was made for the game's over-reliance on CQB.  Once said allowance was made, in-game player populations returned to their previous levels, if not higher due to the positives associated with 1.36 .  I was one of the Allied folks who suffered from the short-term lack of SMGs, and admittedly it was very frustrating.  It got fixed, and we moved on.

The Matilda issue is different, in that the remedy is already in-game, (my opinion).

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Matty numbers as presently used, 2 per AB + 1 CS, are not an issue if the axis have anywhere near decent player numbers. When the number of matties was more, and with axis numbers down, then the Matty becomes an issue for axis/the game (I think Canukplf had a KD in a Matty of 99.0 map before last - not a 99 kill mission, an overall KD of 99.0!) Maybe it should only be 1 of each type per AB and a bunch in each Brigade flag? but really, so long as axis have anything like equal player numbers the handful of Matties are not breaking the game. Too many matties = Game Breaks.

As Tater and others keep saying, we have game mechanics that necessitate playing the game a certain way. Too few allied SMGs = Game Breaks.  We can dream about massive changes, and WWIIOL 2.0, but the game is what it is, and we have to make what we have work.

Allies lost all the post "Hardest Maps" and 1.36 up to 3 maps ago, when a bunch of axis vets either went allied or just stopped playing. This map, many are back including Sorella & Co, a bunch of AEF are wearing grey, and all seems rosey once more for team axis.

 

S! Ian 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.