Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

ZEBBEEE

AO mechanics: proximity concept feedbacks

AO-related feedbacks  

25 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

tater
23 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

It's intended to create a regional battle, free up the HCs to concentrate on managing that battle, not have AOs get pulled every 30 minutes cause D is out, more countryside battle, the town being taken isn't fight over it can be taken back and it's worth the trouble to try.

I think this is a brilliant way to have both uncertainty as to where the focus of an attack will be, and keeping players in a small enough area that tactical shifts can happen without even requiring RTBs (at least for vehicles).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
james10
13 hours ago, jwrona said:

Show me one, unified, concrete answer as to why this is on the roadmap and try to sell me on it.

Within the confines of the current AO system, i.e. a limited number of AO's available to both sides based on the entirely on the numbers of the smaller side (underpoped), the Proximity AO, using Infantry EWS as its primary but NOT ONLY decider would permit the player base to direct the placement of AO's especially in the absence online of HC players.

The system would ONLY manipulate an AO that was available and unplaced. This could be an additional AO as defined by the number of players in the smaller side (under popped) that has appeared OR an AO that has been made available due to the capture of the town it was placed on. There would be two principal functions of the proposed Proximity AO system as I see it.
1: The placement of an available AO on a town with the highest number of attacking infantry players (among other conditions such as FB and supply availability etc) as currently shown by the Infantry EWS on the town.
2: The removal of an already set AO to create an available AO to be placed as per above. The simplest methodology would use "No Infantry EWS" for a set period to initiate the AO removal process.

The actual removal process would report to the player base via the chat and would not be instantaneous. Also the player base would have the ability to prevent the AO removal at any time prior to the removal order being issued by simply having Infantry EWS appear at the town. This would reset the initiation timer to zero. An online HC Officer would also be able to veto the removal of an AO selected under the step 2, up until the Order for the AO's removal is issued, not dissimilar to the current practice for the placement and removal.

The Proximity AO system would not replace the HC ability to place and remove AO's but would reduce the absolute reliance on the presence of HC Officers being in-game 24/7.

Would that not be a desirable proposition?

Cheers.

Edited by james10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
16 hours ago, james10 said:

Within the confines of the current AO system, i.e. a limited number of AO's available to both sides based on the entirely on the numbers of the smaller side (underpoped), the Proximity AO, using Infantry EWS as its primary but NOT ONLY decider would permit the player base to direct the placement of AO's especially in the absence online of HC players.

The system would ONLY manipulate an AO that was available and unplaced. This could be an additional AO as defined by the number of players in the smaller side (under popped) that has appeared OR an AO that has been made available due to the capture of the town it was placed on. There would be two principal functions of the proposed Proximity AO system as I see it.
1: The placement of an available AO on a town with the highest number of attacking infantry players (among other conditions such as FB and supply availability etc) as currently shown by the Infantry EWS on the town.
2: The removal of an already set AO to create an available AO to be placed as per above. The simplest methodology would use "No Infantry EWS" for a set period to initiate the AO removal process.

The actual removal process would report to the player base via the chat and would not be instantaneous. Also the player base would have the ability to prevent the AO removal at any time prior to the removal order being issued by simply having Infantry EWS appear at the town. This would reset the initiation timer to zero. An online HC Officer would also be able to veto the removal of an AO selected under the step 2, up until the Order for the AO's removal is issued, not dissimilar to the current practice for the placement and removal.

The Proximity AO system would not replace the HC ability to place and remove AO's but would reduce the absolute reliance on the presence of HC Officers being in-game 24/7.

Would that not be a desirable proposition?

Cheers.

I'm not sure. Removing the requirement for HC being present to apply AO's may have the opposite effect to the intention, by suggesting to HCer's that their presence is not required so much - or that they don't need recruit HC'ers for a given TZ. And that still leaves the issue of Bde movements, and the suitability of attacks, which if sucessful, may precipitate Bde moves not in that sides interest.

It's very complex, with all sorts of potential unintended side-effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
james10
5 hours ago, fidd said:

I'm not sure. Removing the requirement for HC being present to apply AO's may have the opposite effect to the intention, by suggesting to HCer's that their presence is not required so much - or that they don't need recruit HC'ers for a given TZ. And that still leaves the issue of Bde movements, and the suitability of attacks, which if sucessful, may precipitate Bde moves not in that sides interest.

It's very complex, with all sorts of potential unintended side-effects.

The intention is to allow in-game players to manipulate the AO placement and removal, specifically at the times there are NO HC Officers for that side in-game. If a HC Officer IS in-game they can easily veto what ever the players were doing if it appears to them to be a bad thing.

At present there are times where there are no HC Officers in-game. That side is crippled and at the mercy of the Auto AO system, IF an AO needs to be placed. This methodology at least reduces some of the impact of HC Officers being AWOL.

As for "potential unintended side-effects", well if they are illuminated they can be addressed.

Yes the successful attack may precipitate the requirements for brigade movements, however the presence of a brigade is a bonus as the heavy lifting is preformed by the Garrisons. Ultimately it only becomes relevant if the attack is successful. A successful attack has to be good for the side that was attacking. If it ended up being a huge battle even better for both sides.

Select a problem and alleviate it. Just saying it is "very complex" doesn't solve anything.

Cheers.

Edited by james10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

Sorry I wasn't "intending to solve anything", I was simply trying to convey that I've not come to a firm conclusion about it, but remain concerned how it will play out for the reasons stated -  the "unknown unknowns" as it were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

idk, I see lots of new players trying the game, few stay... why?

There has to be a way to keep the action going and make it last.

But, w/o totally throwing out the strategic play and large map.

I'm thinking, move all EWS to 1500m.

Then, change all MS so they can be no closer than 500m. (LMS, TMS 500, FMS 600)

This will require attackers to setup and move in.

Once they capture a CP, they can move MS up.

IF we get proper front lines, so MS can't set behind.... then we can allow infantry MS again.

Change 2 AO requirements to at least 10 more players than what it is now... so harder to get to 2 AOs.

Finally, set captures to 2 min max.

We really need to look at how battles can be setup and sustained - players stay with good battles.

 

The extreme over pop issue needs to be fixed too; asap.

Simply ridiculous the game allows over 3 to 1 odds.

Game must not allow anyone to spawn in if already at 3 to1 in game world.

Fix it, and fix it now.  This is a no brainer.

 

Also, air should never be able to see ground/surface targets at night, another no brainer, fix it now.

 

Allowing the attacker to set MS 250 from town, and trucks to get 700m from town does nothing to help promote fights.

It forces town fights and already camped towns.

Make the attacker work their way in somewhat.... but not to much.

Reward them with faster capture timers if they get in.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

Good for you Delems, sincerely,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foe2

I feel the biggest issue for player retention is the game does an awful job of explaining itself so new players have no idea what is going on. However that's is a different discussion from Prox AOs. So let's not try and derail the discussion on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

Yeah, great post @delems.

Those are all things that could be done with almost zero work, but someone would need to not do it piecemeal, but all those things at once.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwrona

I said I was done, but someone (and a non RAT to boot!!!) gave a concrete answer to my question that the official rep didn't really answer, so I'll get to that in a second, but first credit where it's due:

Holy F @delems. I can't say I like ALL of these... but I like MOST of them. It would take a bit of change in the playerbase: Preparing to establish a ZOC at 700m from town and working our way in rather than a "fandabidozy" FMS at 1 sprint from the CP. Not sure that the "action-crazy" players we have, or the players we're trying to target would be up for that... but good. I like. 

 

On 11/13/2020 at 4:09 AM, james10 said:

Within the confines of the current AO system, i.e. a limited number of AO's available to both sides based on the entirely on the numbers of the smaller side (underpoped), the Proximity AO, using Infantry EWS as its primary but NOT ONLY decider would permit the player base to direct the placement of AO's especially in the absence online of HC players.

The system would ONLY manipulate an AO that was available and unplaced. This could be an additional AO as defined by the number of players in the smaller side (under popped) that has appeared OR an AO that has been made available due to the capture of the town it was placed on. There would be two principal functions of the proposed Proximity AO system as I see it.
1: The placement of an available AO on a town with the highest number of attacking infantry players (among other conditions such as FB and supply availability etc) as currently shown by the Infantry EWS on the town.
2: The removal of an already set AO to create an available AO to be placed as per above. The simplest methodology would use "No Infantry EWS" for a set period to initiate the AO removal process.

The actual removal process would report to the player base via the chat and would not be instantaneous. Also the player base would have the ability to prevent the AO removal at any time prior to the removal order being issued by simply having Infantry EWS appear at the town. This would reset the initiation timer to zero. An online HC Officer would also be able to veto the removal of an AO selected under the step 2, up until the Order for the AO's removal is issued, not dissimilar to the current practice for the placement and removal.

The Proximity AO system would not replace the HC ability to place and remove AO's but would reduce the absolute reliance on the presence of HC Officers being in-game 24/7.

Would that not be a desirable proposition?

Cheers.

If THIS is the way it's going... I can start to feel less insulted. The CURRENT solution is (as always) if you're on a time zone with no HC, just apply for HC. Just for that time that you feel alone without an HC to give you what you need (ESPECIALLY BRIDGE AOS!!! Holy schnikes, how critical 1 bridge can be to stopping one side's momentum, if you can't get an AO/DO on it, you're [censored] out of luck. If prox AOs are a thing, bridge objectives need a rework as well). That being said, the number of Allied Officers who don't do jack (sometimes I don't even think they read blue chat) is astonishing.
A quick bit of statistics: Currently we have 44 Officers in the list. I can tell you with 90% confidence, as I haven't been on all hours this map, about 8 or 9 are capable of running MOIC (I'm talking being able to think about flag moves, manage 2 AOs and 2 DOs, direct traffic when boots are needed elsewhere), and you can add another half-dozen guys who are capable of being good OICs at AOs/DOs, communicating to MOIC about how that is going, leading troops, using .allied, etc. That's 15 of 44. Furthermore, over the first 7 days of campaign, we've had a total of approximately 7 hours without an AHC officer online (and more than that where some of the other 29 dorks refuse to do their duty).
So maybe we're on to something with the effectiveness of HC and the lack of coverage. 

Proximity AO would then make SO MUCH SENSE as a way to "fill the gap" between these dozen effective HC being online. A proximity AO to move an AO placed by SYSTEM or when there is no officer online is BRILLIANT. A proximity AO to take one with no EWS is EXCELLENT. A system where HC can VETO this shift is even BETTER sounding (A 2nd AO popped up 2 nights ago, and one of the "ineffective" HC logged in about 5 mins before and without telling a soul proposed an AO on luxembourg with 1 FB to it... I damn near whacked the guy on the head with a fecking stick, picture 20 players all with ideas like that... you wouldn't wanna HC). So if that's the way this is going as a stop-gap to supplement the HC and tactical ideas, I'll shift myself to a more "supportive" stance. @james10 way to freaking go buddy!

Share this post


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

Not sure that the "action-crazy" players we have, or the players we're trying to target would be up for that... but good. I like. 

Note that since he is on the "on-sides" MSP team, he said that walking MSPs could become a thing—which they can with on-sides rules.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
7 hours ago, foe2 said:

I feel the biggest issue for player retention is the game does an awful job of explaining itself so new players have no idea what is going on. However that's is a different discussion from Prox AOs. So let's not try and derail the discussion on that.

Great big neon arrow pointing to 'what is going on here' material, and discord auto activation and access from game on first login.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

I just spawned into a town, the SECOND EWS went off.

I got truck out 200m and then enemy was there--- 2 min into AO.

I got MS up,  MS was camped at 4 min into AO.

The EWS range and MS ranges are absolutely stupid.

By 6 min I left the town, SMGs were in town killing.

CPs aren't even close to being hot.

I couldn't have got to town and tried to setup any faster.

Yet, camped, MS down and ei all over town in less than 6 min.

Completely ludicrous.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOC

Would the successful removal of all "holy crap !" and unanticipated or unintended outcomes actually be an improvement ? Is not war a constant state of unintended consequences having to be dealt with ? 

"No plan will survive first contact with the enemy" was born of this experience. It is almost the very definition of the environment of warfare.

Share this post


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

Would the successful removal of all "holy crap !" and unanticipated or unintended outcomes actually be an improvement ? Is not war a constant state of unintended consequences having to be dealt with ? 

"No plan will survive first contact with the enemy" was born of this experience. It is almost the very definition of the environment of warfare.

Yeah, the way the game is now, yes, it's idiotic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

The issue, it seems to me, is that inadvertently CRS has built a game that plays in TZ3 as if it's single player against weak AI intended to let the player win.

To simplify the programming, the UP side acts as the AI. 

Games attract customers that fit what they offer. CRS's game fits OP players that need/want easy repetitive psychic income, and UP players that either quickly leave, or are trying to maintain their accomplishments in TZ 1/2, or in some manner get psychic income from being defeated over and over. 

***

How about continuously running two instances of the game...one that auto-pauses whenever the pop ratio is less balanced than 1.5:1, and the other that auto-pauses whenever the population is more balanced than 1.5:1...?

Share this post


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

I just spawned into a town, the SECOND EWS went off.

I got truck out 200m and then enemy was there--- 2 min into AO.

I got MS up,  MS was camped at 4 min into AO.

The EWS range and MS ranges are absolutely stupid.

By 6 min I left the town, SMGs were in town killing.

CPs aren't even close to being hot.

I couldn't have got to town and tried to setup any faster.

Yet, camped, MS down and ei all over town in less than 6 min.

Completely ludicrous.

I agree completely. Although we've differed in the past, but this is what we've been experiencing in TZ3 - and worse  - for years on end. So, it's at least two issues, principally lack of player numbers management within sensible constraints, and wholly inadequate modelling of a 'standing defence' within the EWS/AO implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

The issue is, I reacted as fast as possible, and couldn't get a truck past 200m out of town.

So I set the MS there, 2 min later it was camped.

EWS range is way to close for trucks, it allows no time for defender to react.

And MSs setting up 300m from town are way to close too.

Share this post


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

The issue is, I reacted as fast as possible, and couldn't get a truck past 200m out of town.

So I set the MS there, 2 min later it was camped.

EWS range is way to close for trucks, it allows no time for defender to react.

And MSs setting up 300m from town are way to close too.

Welcome to the Allies' last few campaigns.

Fun, huh?

<Shrug> since both sides won't see their way to ensuring the fun of the other side through action or supporting dev initiatives except for what they want right NOOOOOOOOOOW, then enjoy the Cycle of Suck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

*** Welcome to the Allies' last few campaigns.

Stop with your allied/axis bit.... getting old.

Maps are 7-7-2 last 16...... 

This has nothing to do with axis or allied.

It's getting the EWS and MS ranges set so attackers can attack, yet defenders have time get out.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

I've said much the same thing. I never remember if I spawn instantly once EWS goes off, I assume I despawn, make a mission, etc, and it might take 1-2 minutes after I see EWS for me to be spawned in.

Bottom line is that if players spawning in with some range of minutes makes a difference, the game is broken.

Let's take a perfect version of the game WRT "numbers" and pop balance as a baseline. In such a game, the players still play for whatever side, and sometimes we see crazy imbalance in players. The difference is that in this perfect version every single spawn list is 100% spawned in, all the time. All are AI bots unless a player wants to spawn in, respawn, etc, in which case a player simply takes over an AI. This is not ww2ol style AI, it's almost indistinguishable from a human. They even figure out how to array themselves defensively as groups, how to assault cooperatively, etc. In short kinda magic, but this is a thought experiment.

If the AI literally equals an average human (like you could not tell it was not a real playerthe vast majority of the time), then the game is instantly better, obviously. Full pop, everywhere. Attacks that require 2:1 or 3:1 will require moving forces up such that you can actually attack with 2:1 or 3:1 odds.

In the above, the game is always "balanced" as much as the strategic system is balanced. If both sides had identical force structures, the outcome would be a function of equipment quality alone if the AI played itself. This might be a fairly complex interaction, and might drive novel strategies by the AI (assault with these units, hold with a different unit, etc).

Let's say for argument even the eqp and supply etc is then tweaked such that winning the map is a coin flip. Perfect balance in this "control" setting. One side might have better gear which would win 100% of the time, but the other side then maybe gets more of this and that until it is 50/50. All this minus players. Whole maps played millions of times and the system learns, but it is adjusted to be balanced.

Now add in players. If a typical player is better than the AI is, or even if "vets" in game are better than AI just a little, then the number of players in a given fight might well drive the outcome even then. Things pretty much 50/50, and the relative player pop is the deciding vote...

I would think in this thought experiment that even with AI bots completely filling the spawn lists at "meh" human level, the relative balance of real players would be the important factor. If that was true, you'd still need to balance by tweaking the AI down for the OP side I bet.

None of the above will happen, the point is to get a feel for what needs to change for the game to work properly. It seems to me the game ends up "pay to win," where payment is "number of players." the side that antes in more players wins, period.

I tend to think some sort of force multiplier for the UP side is needed.

Share this post


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

*** Welcome to the Allies' last few campaigns.

Stop with your allied/axis bit.... getting old.

Maps are 7-7-2 last 16...... 

This has nothing to do with axis or allied.

It's getting the EWS and MS ranges set so attackers can attack, yet defenders have time get out.

Map win or losses are neither here nor there, if the time you personally go to play, is the one where this is your routine experience. Winning a map where better gameplay exists in the TZ's where you don't  play, is not much of a compensation.

It's for this reason that I keep banging on about TZ3. We simply cannot afford poor gameplay in this TZ, because that causes two possible outcomes. 1. The UP side logs in less, exacerbating the problem. 2. People unsub, ditto. If TZ3 (in numeric balance) is therefore 'dynamically unstable', - which in aviation means any departure in roll pitch or yaw automatically worsens without correction from the pilot - then the outcome of that numeric balance will likely determine the outcome of the campaign, and over time, the viability of the game itself.

Truck speed is the issue here really, as much as the above, and oddly enough, likewise collider-less hedgerows, which make it more difficult to see or interdict said trucks, as well as providing easy invisible movement for infiltrating ei. I've said for years that the 1.26 "Vietnam" patch was the single worst most ill-considered and damaging patch this game has ever had, bar none. The terrain is as much at fault here as min-distance FMS's and EWS settings.

There is a problem here. Running on the presumption that UC's will be able, as 251's are, to set MSP's, then if truck speeds are curtailed, then APC's will simply replace (in use) the now slowed trucks.

This seems to me to suggest that any curtailment of truck-speed, probably needs to be fairly modest in scope, at least until colliderless hedgerows are dealt with. 

Instead, I think we need to examine whether all units should be immediately available from an FB or AB or depots. In other words, if there needs to be a controlled sequence to what units are available, from where, in order to:

1. Prevent pre-camping of FB or AB

2. Give defenders ample time to arrive in a town with EWS before there are EI within 1500m, ATG 2000m or ET's 3000m; BUT prevent, by the same token, units approaching the FB

3. Weight these sequences for TZ, imbalance and overall pop.

In short, the game is in a mess, and it's going to take a lot to sort out,

 

 

Share this post


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

Would the successful removal of all "holy crap !" and unanticipated or unintended outcomes actually be an improvement ? Is not war a constant state of unintended consequences having to be dealt with ? 

"No plan will survive first contact with the enemy" was born of this experience. It is almost the very definition of the environment of warfare.

If your morning cup of coffee suddenly cracked and the contents landed in your lap, that "holy crap" moment might provide amusement for your work colleagues, but not much for you, especially if you'd paid for it.

If your boss issued you with a cup the bottom of which had a large and jagged hole in the bottom for you to use - no other being available - then the idea of keeping using said cup might seem ludicrous, and no doubt after a week of watching you drop your coffee in your lap, you colleagues might cease to laugh too.

What we have here is a game, the sum of which game-mechanics are analogous to coffee-cup with a bloody great hole in the bottom. Tippex, chewing-gum, spit-and-hope fixes, repainting the cup a different colour, are simply NOT going to render it serviceable. It requires a number of aspects to be fixed, all of which need to be done, for the overall fix to work.

That said, it's a remarkable game - when it's working well - and it has a lot of potential still.

My chief recommendation would be that the component changes required for the overall fix to work, be identified, extensively argued for and against, and that suite of fixes be a self-contained portion of the road-map, visible to all, and rigorously discussed and continuously polled by a large body of players who have more than 10 years in the game, By the same token, changes considered by CRS that are apparantly outside the scope of that suite of fixes, be similarly discussed, at the earliest stage possible, to allow  a consensus between CRS and the player-base that what the marketing manager is agitating for is actually a smart idea at all. That should forestall most of the holes-in-the cup foul-ups.

The reason I suggest 10 years and more for polling purposes, is that this confers experience as to things tried previously, which had overwhelmingly negative impacts, contrary to expectation; also periods when things worked better. 1.26 is I think a good example, as it dumbed down the armour and infantry game terribly, made armour thickness more or less irrelevant by contracting engagement ranges and made a linear defence of a town impossible (when combined with FMS's/MSP's), whilst also rendering ATG's in defence essentially 2 shot weapons, if indeed they get a shot off at all.

So, yes, removal of fundamentally broken game-mechanics and terrain issues is both essential and pressing. "holy crap" moments will still occur, but they'll be due to guile and ability, use of ground, not because there's a hole in your coffee-cup every morning.

 

Edited by fidd

Share this post


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

Instead, I think we need to examine whether all units should be immediately available from an FB or AB or depots. In other words, if there needs to be a controlled sequence to what units are available, from where, in order to:

Interesting idea.

I tend to not see armor in town right away, I react to EWS, and it's in the infantry. I'd say the primary limit should be on trucks, honestly (that or the ability to place FMS). Course if trucks were limited from the FB, they would spawn them from the town, and give truck speeds that just doubles or triples travel time or so—on our mini map not a huge deal. Roll trucks... wait longer... set AO. When EWS goes off, the troops still only have to go a few seconds more to get into town (sprint speed times the typical reaction time to EWS).

The three most galling things as a TZ3 defender to me (both examples are responding quickly after EWS goes off)?

1. Spawning in to a fresh EWS and getting shot from pretty close range just trying to get the lay of the land, with an ear towards hearing a truck. Yeah, I might be on the depot roof, but the "bang" that kills me generally comes from the building next door, not from a sniper 500m away (just as likely it's an SMG).

2. Hearing an AC or tank CLOSE, and it's literally driving around town almost on top of the AI killing it. I did that the other week, despawned rifle, respawned ATG, 232 comes around the corner (I was on the last side of town with AI I guess), I killed it right after it killed our AI.

3. Trucks driving in circles around town. Set FMS, keep driving, either as a distraction, and/or to set better. Trucks should either get to set an FMS or they should set an ammo crate, and either they do, it should be only once.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

I've always thought the "all the toys being tipped out of the box at once" approach was if not flawed, then was sub-optimal, and having mini-spawnlists within the greater one, used up sequentially with the releases of particular units being optimised for development of "better battles" was a better model. It's such an obvious way of managing the application and timing of forces moving from the TOE into the game-world, that I think it was perhaps a 'missed opportunity; not to have made it possible from the world go once TOE's came in. It could always be amended or discontinued if it worked poorly. Such mini-TOE's would also lend themselves readily to the scalable spawnlist idea I mentioened a while back, where a Bde or Garrison's TOE changes with server pop/Imbalance to help attritional captures occur off-peak, where the "peaktime" TOE's are manifestly very large. 

Such a change, would in turn allow for the "roll trucks and swamp with armour TZ3 attack" into something slower-paced but satisfying for both sides - something that's not happened in that TZ for a very long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...