Supply list seems borked.

[pfmosquito]

This issue wouldn't be so important if the numbers weren't so tight to begin with.  As I said in the previous slugfest on this topic, last campaign I went through almost to the last week before I even broke 50 sorties with a smg to finally appear on the SMG list.  I couldn't find a SMG to save my life, and yet here we have another slugfest on the same topic, and I STILL struggle to find SMGs.

If the Allied only have 2 smgs and the Axis only have 1, then this headline is surely true:  "ALLIES HAVE TWICE AS MANY SMGS AS AXIS!" But it would be your typical #fakenews.  It is true, but trivially so.  In the realm of things, this 'advantage' doesn't amount to a hill of beans.  Now, keep that ratio and push those numbers up.  So, let's say it was 10 smgs vs 5 smgs.  Is it not the case that both sides are still going to be aching for smgs?  Is the success of one side vs another really in play?  What about 20 vs 10?  Somewhere along the line, the advantage becomes non-trivial.  60 vs 30 might start to get into that area for all I know, but given my difficulty finding smgs even with the more 'generous' allotment, I'm feeling like a SMG dies to an Axis tank's MG fire just as easily as a rifle does and if it is 2x more plentiful, perhaps that just means it is dying 2x more often, possibly making the 'advantage' a wash.  Dunno.  I don't have data for that.  I just know that I consider it miracle to find a SMG at all anymore.

Which I think raises another point.  I think we all acknowledge that there is a point where realism must give way to reality.  The reality is this is a game.  You don't have to take a troop transport over from America or the UK and then hitch a train to the front, every time you want to fight.  You spawn in, die, jump 500k to another town, spawn in, die.... and numerous other mechanical things that a GAME necessitates.  Perhaps the supply list thing needs to be untethered from historical considerations almost altogether.  Balance the lists as best you can, make sure there is actually enough of the things that people enjoy the most (clearly, smgs are more enjoyable than rifles, as 2 slugfest threads now reveal), balanced against the need for attrition to be a real factor.

Maybe if there was more meat on the bone to begin with, there would be less for the dogs of war to fight over.

There might be other ways to reduce the smg vs rifle advantage, like for example not allowing smgs to spawn from ANY fms, but only from captured spawnables (and the FB and AB of course).  Or some other idea which makes it so that SMGs, though more plentiful, are harder to get into the fight.

<----------------- runs for cover

[tater]

12 minutes ago, pfmosquito said:

There might be other ways to reduce the smg vs rifle advantage, like for example not allowing smgs to spawn from ANY fms, but only from captured spawnables (and the FB and AB of course).  Or some other idea which makes it so that SMGs, though more plentiful, are harder to get into the fight.

I complain about the SMGs (attacking me) all the time, but I realize it has less to do with the SMG, and more to do with how crappy rifle play is (when I shoot at an ei and miss him at decent range, and he pops off a single SMG round and hits me at what should be extreme SMG range). I think it takes too long to get a decent sight picture in the rifles. I seem to be a rifle against endless SMGs most of the time, I always thought that in any given town a snapshot of the inf in play on each side should be closer to a RL balance (ie: if 10-12 people are spawned in as inf on my side, I'd expect 1-2 SMGs, 1-2 LMGs, the rest rifles).

[Kilemall]

25 minutes ago, tater said:

I complain about the SMGs (attacking me) all the time, but I realize it has less to do with the SMG, and more to do with how crappy rifle play is (when I shoot at an ei and miss him at decent range, and he pops off a single SMG round and hits me at what should be extreme SMG range). I think it takes too long to get a decent sight picture in the rifles. I seem to be a rifle against endless SMGs most of the time, I always thought that in any given town a snapshot of the inf in play on each side should be closer to a RL balance (ie: if 10-12 people are spawned in as inf on my side, I'd expect 1-2 SMGs, 1-2 LMGs, the rest rifles).

People don't spawn in fire teams.  It's more 20-30 SMGs, then just rifles and the occasional masochistic LMG.

 

Game is basically telling us to fly in paras and use those rescue trucks, but people won't, too addicted to the time use sense of FMS and capture.

[gavalink]

The cp system is what causes everyone to spawn SMGs. If we went to a zone-based capture I think you would see an increased use of rifles and less reliance on SMGs.

[tater]

14 minutes ago, gavalink said:

The cp system is what causes everyone to spawn SMGs. If we went to a zone-based capture I think you would see an increased use of rifles and less reliance on SMGs.

Yeah, the CPs stink, and require that the very crux of ww2ol gameplay be the sort of gameplay where the game is at the absolute worse, CQB.

 

[Augetout]

11 hours ago, delems said:

Just sad it takes days to realize there is an error.

And at a big cost to the game, allies don't care much, I get it;  but it has destroyed axis side, even more sad, which ultimately impacts game as a whole.

I've tried to care, tried to make things better, got pretty much nothing but flak and ignored.

Guess it is what it is.  Btw, see all of 3 axis players online atm.

 

There is a great saying in AA:

First you lose the heart, then the mind, finally the body; then your gone.

I don't even play much anymore now, and that is troubling, if you get the point.

May the battle continue

 

Bollocks.  You are still presuming that there IS an error.  You are presuming the axis side 'is destroyed'.  Neither of which is established fact.  The game managers can explain to you why the spawn lists are as they are, and it may end up that it is a mistake---I dunno.  But neither do you.  As for the axis being 'destroyed', I'm not buying it.

Your problem, Delems, is that you are very slow to recognize when someone (or people in general) are trying to help, are not against you, and are not completely devoid of character in regards to side bias.  Given that, at times it is irrelevant that you 'care' or 'try to make things better', because it is lost in the flotsam of your constant and unwarranted jabs at the very people who are also trying to make things in-game better for all players.  If I didn't care, and/or if I was the side-baised automaton you consistently imply, I would have ignored your posts.  Instead, I took the time to contact game managers directly to see if there had been a change, and to see if there were any errors.  I then (poorly at first, but the effort was genuine) spawned into the game to check the numbers myself.  Your responses to my efforts that didn't have to happen is above:  "Allies don't care much", which returns me to an earlier point:  You don't even recognize when folks are trying to help, so it makes perfect sense that you would presume that nobody is willing to help, and it may be indicative as to why more people aren't always so willing to bother trying (to help you).

In the SHORT time I was in-game on the german side (I didn't spawn in, as I was there just to check numbers), I saw a steady stream of negative crap on side channel coming from you, Delems. 

Maybe, instead of lamenting the false premises that CRS is 'out to screw the german side' and the 'Allies don't care', you should take a long look in the mirror, pondering whether your constant stream of negative chat (oh hell, maybe I was just unlucky that I spawned in on the german side the ONE time you decided to blast the game on side channel), is helping the problems you perceive to exist, or is in part CAUSING them.

I sometimes wonder if instead of joining AHC, I would have reacted to the 8 or 9 Allied campaign losses in a row (or whatever it was---I've blocked it out, lol) by spewing venom disguised as efforts at 'help' constantly in the forums and in-game, and I then wonder if the Allied side would (finally) be in a position where winning 2 in a row might just happen, or if the Allies would still be getting clubbed like baby seals on a daily basis.  While I am under no illusion that I am the cause of recent Allied success, (that is an honor shared by a TON of Allied players other than myself), but I do know this:  I didn't become part of the problem.

 

5 hours ago, hillstorm said:

Dude. This isn’t my fight, but let me point out your apology started with “Meh,” and included the following snipe:

”None of that means the numbers are wrong in-game, and I understand the determined search for a reason for losing this campaign other than simply being beaten.”

uh, nice? 

The 'meh' was an expression of frustration directed at myself, Hillstorm----I truly hate making mistakes.  The statement 'none of that means the numbers are wrong in-game' is not a jab, but a statement of fact.  The other part isn't a jab so much as it is a simple acknowledgment that in other threads, folks are blaming Matildas, german 'turncoats', 'unfair' RDP, and now SMGs, for a recent downturn in german in-game success levels.  My apology for my research-error(s) was, and remains, sincere.

[major0noob]

The 2:1 autos ruined the game for the allies in nov-jan

It's not fun period.

 

Your fanboying too hard aug, this is a simple error.

 

[drkmouse]

Augunot. you r inccorect and jumping to bad conutions, Dellems began this "discution" on the premis that  ther is a problem with sgm numbers. and maybe tanks also

atm he is just gettign push back on it on the tune "They are even you are in ccorect" when in fact  HE is correct on the usable smg #"s are off axis vs brits'

and as the allies RIGHFULLY were  yuelling out when axis mg's wer  to big on ratio, the same peeps now who wer  screaming  bloody murder then, are now  more then ok when  they have the extra gear.  

That in is fact hypocracy;)     I Am Axis but I want a fihg  either side can win, woith neither have a arm tied behind ther back.

[Augetout]

15 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

Augunot. you r inccorect and jumping to bad conutions, Dellems began this "discution" on the premis that  ther is a problem with sgm numbers. and maybe tanks also

atm he is just gettign push back on it on the tune "They are even you are in ccorect" when in fact  HE is correct on the usable smg #"s are off axis vs brits'

and as the allies RIGHFULLY were  yuelling out when axis mg's wer  to big on ratio, the same peeps now who wer  screaming  bloody murder then, are now  more then ok when  they have the extra gear.  

That in is fact hypocracy;)     I Am Axis but I want a fihg  either side can win, woith neither have a arm tied behind ther back.

I disagree.  The perspective I am coming from is that IF there is an issue with the spawn lists, CRS will respond to it.  I don't pretend to understand the budgeting process the spawn lists go through, but I DO know that CRS will respond if in fact it is an error.  I also take issue with the false implication that myself and other Allies are somehow 'giddy' over now having a (perceived) advantage in SMGs.  I've been in-game a lot these past few campaigns, and I haven't seen too many battles get to the point where attrition is the deciding factor----the last battle of last campaign is one example, but in the interest of full disclosure, depleting Frankfurt of supplies in SMGs, etc. took over 11 hours to accomplish.

My entrance into this thread is based on being falsely 'called out' (along with the rest of the Allies) for not caring about a potential issue.  From there, I have contacted the game managers directly, and done research on my own (initially faulty research, meh, but my intentions were genuine), in an effort to help the situation.  My efforts on this issue are not finished, in point of fact.

Having said that, any 'slowness' to recognize a potential (and it remains to be seen if it is an actual issue or is by design) issue on the part of myself and the rest of the Allies is not based on side bias, but instead is based on not seeing/noticing a lack of SMGs in any of the battles I've been a part of in 165.  To have that associative task (I haven't seen a lack of german SMGs thus it is likely there is not a lack of german SMGs) be cast in a sinister light is offensive, and if it is not disingenuous it certainly is not based in fact.

@drkmouse you are a retired Axis CinC, so you know as I do, that as CinC I do not want a potential Allied victory to be tarnished by a game issue or by a false set of accusations.  I also would derive no enjoyment from having beaten the axis side, if that victory was indeed due to something other than what I feel it will be based on:  The Allied team doing a better job than the axis team.  Part of the Allied team's resurgence has to be based on a belief that it is possible.  Allowing an issue with the game to be perceived by the Allies as having 'given' us a victory would be counterproductive to what AHC is trying to do for the Allied side. 

As stated earlier, IF the SMG numbers were showing themselves to be an issue in battles, which in my experience in 165 they have not, then I would be more inclined to view this as an actual issue.  Given that the SMG numbers have not had a noticeable effect on the battles I've been in, it took me a bit of time to recognize it as being a potential issue, as opposed to being just another excuse in a string of excuses as to why the german side is not beating the Allies like baby seals, as they have perhaps become too accustomed to.  Now that I've recognized a potential issue, and despite being insulted and wrongly accused of various 'offenses', I am still trying to figure out what is going on, if it needs to be remedied, and if not, why not. 

[kazee]

Wow a lot of loss of respect for many allied players here within this thread and jumping on Delems back is not helping your cause

Delems and I have had 1 or 2 disagreements in the past but that was always about flag movements or lack thereof, however he knows i have much respect for him do to his love for the game and his desire to have the best gameplay possible, and once again he is correct about these supply issues and if allied players can not go in and see the major discrepancies in supply, then they have blinders on...and that seems to be the case after reading this thread

Yes smgs are a major issue (50% more is a major problem) but 14 Crusaders at tier introduction is a joke, no reduction in 2 pnders when 6 pnder is introduced in new Tier is a joke. Pak36s always have their numbers reduced when the pak 38 is introduced. Still no increase in 88 number....4 per ab is the lowest its ever been. I can go on and on, but why do it only to fall on deaf ears

Yes Ohm it has been going on for 3 campaigns and if you are so blind not to see the issues when reviewing your supply lists... then you should be nowhere near the supply lists. 

You can have your forum mods ban me or cut access , i really don't care because I wont be around to see it. 

The supply lists are a freaking joke and if you or any other players cant see it then it's really a shame things have gotten this bad.

edit: spelling

 

 

Edited July 11, 2019 by kazee

[tater]

I'd be curious to hear the rationale for the UK numbers.

Nominal infantry units had pretty similar ToEs for small units (except the French to didn't really field many SMGs in a standard way, though that likely changes after contact with the Germans), and it was my understanding that SMGs were usually more support/armor/rear unit weapons early in the war. Maybe if they reevaluate the supplies based on this thread, they might have more SMGs in Garrisons (bump all to UK level?), and fewer (all sides) in Brigades to get closer to the nominal 1 for every 9 rifles or so?

(I'm Allied, BTW, and I think the numbers need to be even, or if not, a well argued reason that I find convincing (I'm fine if the UK really did have a lot, but in that case, I know the French had almost none (at least through whatever tier the BoF was), so it cuts both ways).

Edited July 11, 2019 by tater

[Jsilec]

If smgs are that far off then change them....if there is a reason why its purposely different then lets hear it....maybe these spawnlists are leftovers from axis domination for a prolonged period and they adjusted ?

[ch0ad]

56 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

Augunot. you r inccorect and jumping to bad conutions, Dellems began this "discution" on the premis that  ther is a problem with sgm numbers. and maybe tanks also

atm he is just gettign push back on it on the tune "They are even you are in ccorect" when in fact  HE is correct on the usable smg #"s are off axis vs brits'

and as the allies RIGHFULLY were  yuelling out when axis mg's wer  to big on ratio, the same peeps now who wer  screaming  bloody murder then, are now  more then ok when  they have the extra gear.  

That in is fact hypocracy;)     I Am Axis but I want a fihg  either side can win, woith neither have a arm tied behind ther back.

I for one can throw in with ya. I would like to see infantry numbers balanced and introduced during historically accurate times.  Not as easy with tanks given people can conveniently ignore the differences to support whatever argument they want to make. (i.e. smoke/infantry support tanks vs. tank killers).. But what do i know .....

[kazee]

7 minutes ago, Jsilec said:

If smgs are that far off then change them...

agreed, however they have already said everything is fine

and as I stated smg numbers are only part of it, I forget to add the 5 Stuarts they get now and no Stuarts for the French....haha my god its just beyond humorous....freaking morons in control now that have zero knowledge of past supply lists over the years and years we have played.

[hillstorm]

As an Axis player, even with a mistake in supply (if that’s what it is), I wouldn’t see this victory as tainted. This camp is a clear and definitive allied win and a difference in smg numbers would not have changed that. 

Just bear in mind though that for a side that is losing, and badly, anything that seems wrong or out of balance is really magnified. There is a frustration factor. Those of us still logging in are doing whatever we can to keep the fight going but things that would normally roll off our backs, might not in this scenario. Thus my post last night about my gun not firing. It’s happened before and annoyed me, but not enough to make a post about it. Last night, on the brink of defeat, it set me over the edge big time. 

Any dedicated player just wants to know their concerns are being heard, I think. 

[kazee]

13 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

As an Axis player, even with a mistake in supply (if that’s what it is), I wouldn’t see this victory as tainted. This camp is a clear and definitive allied win and a difference in smg numbers would not have changed that. 

agreed, however that is not the point nor the discussion at hand nor have i seen anyone say that is why the campaign was won 

topic is the supply lists are screwed and its obvious...it has no outcome on the campaign, two different topics 

And it's not a 'mistake' it was intentional plus a few other changes to gameplay that made it happen

[delems]

A few things.

First, all of you projecting this axis defeat blame game... it is all in your OWN head, in your OWN mind.

I have never once said axis is losing because of gear.  Never, you are making it up.  (bus, aug)

 

I have simply pointed out gear discrepancies (missing numerous additional ones that kazee has found).

Because, I believe each side should have a fair chance, gear wise.

56 to 34 SMGs is not fair, everyone knows it, there is nothing to debate; it is a known fact - just fix it. (42 to 34 isn't fair either)

 

Maybe I should state where I am coming from, imo every unit type should be identical in infantry numbers.

DLC numbers should be the same in every nation.

Reserve numbers should be the same in every nation.

When allies had less engrs (in USA I think it was), I spoke right up and said engrs should be the same in every nation.

 

kazee is right, there are still many other areas that seem to have incorrect numbers in them.

ATGs.

Sappers.

Tanks, I don't tank enough to really know, but if one side has 20 more tanks than the other, then yes, something is off.

 

Edited July 11, 2019 by delems

[Scking]

Ohm is aware of your concerns and others and I am sure he will take a look at everything. Im going to lock this now.