Two accounts working closely: Is it cheating?

[fidd]

33 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

I acknowledged that ... and I know you mean well but I feel you are just repeating yourself now.  I remember Axis taking a lot of flack when they were winning camps and suggested ways to allies that they could play better, use better tactics. That did not go over well at all. (I was not one of those people, btw.  i mean I'm still learning this game in a lot of ways). I think everything should be on the table, so I don't mind it, but there is still a balance problem here. 

Cheers, I do pull Delem's leg once in while, but I'm perfectly sincere when I say it's possible to stop the great majority of Matilda attacks with tier 0 kit and being UP. They'll need to figure out how to do it, but it is eminently doable even with UP and the current problems with ATG's. Because I've thought this through, and know it's possible to do, I think it's reasonable to counter some of the squeals about the Matilda. There's no question that the current defensive tactics used by the axis in tier 0, and to a lesser degree in tier 1, are not working. My point is repeating those tactics without trying new ones, makes the axis, to some degree, the authors of their own defeat. Repetition of something that demonstrably is no longer working, is not a recipe for success.....

Regarding the "offering of advice". As far as I recall, the axis victories at the time this all kicked off, were largely consequent from TZ3 play with ludicrous imbalances, in the order of 50 : 3 on some occasions I personally experienced. Self-evidently no advice was going to make whit of difference in that situation. Until fairly recently, the axis numbers in game were fairly comparable to allies, they were giving ground for sure, but the numbers were adequate. That's a rather different proposition in terms of the relevancy and meetness of "advice" I think.

Edited January 23, 2021 by fidd

[hillstorm]

32 minutes ago, fidd said:

Cheers, I do pull Delem's leg once in while, but I'm perfectly sincere when I say it's possible to stop the great majority of Matilda attacks with tier 0 kit and being UP. They'll need to figure out how to do it, but it is eminently doable even with UP and the current problems with ATG's. Because I've thought this through, and know it's possible to do, I think it's reasonable to counter some of the squeals about the Matilda. There's no question that the current defensive tactics used by the axis in tier 0, and to a lesser degree in tier 1, are not working. My point is repeating those tactics without trying new ones, makes the axis, to some degree, the authors of their own defeat. Repetition of something that demonstrably is no longer working, is not a recipe for success.....

Regarding the "offering of advice". As far as I recall, the axis victories at the time this all kicked off, were largely consequent from TZ3 play with ludicrous imbalances, in the order of 50 : 3 on some occasions I personally experienced. Self-evidently no advice was going to make whit of difference in that situation. Until fairly recently, the axis numbers in game were fairly comparable to allies, they were giving ground for sure, but the numbers were adequate. That's a rather different proposition in terms of the relevancy and meetness of "advice" I think.

All I will say is that in life, as I'm sure also holds true in the game, thinking something through and actually accomplishing it are two different things altogether. From the novel I was going to write to the car I was going to fix, to the AB I was going to bomb with my stuka ... Everyone has a plan until it doesn't work and they are dead or scrambling for cover. 

I would suggest (and I mean this sincerely) considering coming axis for one camp, leading on some of these tactics and message me (I'll join you, if I'm online) because killing more matties sounds great to me. I know that might not be ideal as you are an allied player, nor are you obligated to help the enemy. But advice is only good so far as it's proven to work in battle. 

Anyway, none of this addresses why we can't have a better balance of Brit/French controlled towns. 

 

Edit: also, not to discount the pop balance issue you mentioned. That's a huge problem at various times and I don't know how CRS will make inroads on that. Things have been tried, and they don't seem to fully work. 

Edited January 23, 2021 by hillstorm

[hillstorm]

One of the best quotes ever:

 "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson

[fidd]

23 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

One of the best quotes ever:

 "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson

LOL. I'll have to remember that one. In my case, it's true however, as I've not been able to find a working counter to it as a method. It is literally idiot-resistant, and barring accidents, should work on most occasions, more or less whatever the alliies do.

I do play axis from time to time. I want to play the next campaign as allied, in case the Feb 1st news/patch releases the UC. However, I should be playing axis next circa April.

Edited January 23, 2021 by fidd

[KEMPI]

3 hours ago, hillstorm said:

Hmmm... I wonder if it is applying kills per crew member.. ATGs have two, but a tank might have 3 or 4. I have no idea. Yeah, obviously something wrong. 

It is based off what is classed as a kill.

 

So number 1 and 3 will give a credit each, Engine another credit or any critical kill on a tank like being double tracked and so on. You wont get the credit for 2 and 4 the extras come off critical's on the tank along with the crew.

Edited January 23, 2021 by Kempi

[hillstorm]

2 hours ago, fidd said:

LOL. I'll have to remember that one. In my case, it's true however, as I've not been able to find a working counter to it as a method. It is literally idiot-resistant, and barring accidents, should work on most occasions, more or less whatever the alliies do.

I do play axis from time to time. I want to play the next campaign as allied, in case the Feb 1st news/patch releases the UC. However, I should be playing axis next circa April.

Can you tell me in more depth, or just copy and paste here, what the tactic or innovation is? I've gone back through some of your recent posts and I see reference to it, but not what the actual method is. I think I probably did not go back far enough. 

Let me say, and we could probably go round and round on this, that just because a method works on the training server or in intermission doesn't mean it's going to be practical or successful on a widespread basis on the battlefield. There might be supply considerations that come to bear, there might be pop issues. It's possible a quick innovation on the part of the allies renders it useless or at least less potent. When something seems so out of balance as a nearly unkillable tank during a certain tier in the game, I think you can expect some skepticism that a quick change in tactics and approach is going to solve that issue. 

And again, we need to solve the imbalance between Brit and French-controlled towns. 

[OLDZEKE]

There are primary kills and secondary kills.  Primary kills are 1 kill = dead as in driver, gunner, gun, engine, with planes 1 wing. Those are flat out you are dead you may despawn in rtb range but you lost that vehicle from the list dead.

Secondary kills are like tracking/de-wheeling vehicles. Takes both tracks or all the wheels off  for a "vehicle lost even in rtb range dead" kill, and whoever knocks of the last track or wheels gets the kill credit. Only 1 kill awarded per mission on a player or 2 a player for the 1st crit on a player. 

The hurricane bug is a bug. For whatever reason if you hit a secondary kill part 1st you will gte a extra "hurricane" killed in your aar. It does not, best as I know carry over to CS&R page reporting.

[fidd]

Thanks for the offer, but it would patently be daft for me to tell the other side exactly how to defeat the Matilda led attack. I've given some hints as to where I think further thought and innovation may help, and also some indications of where current preoccupation with "stats" - for what they are worth - is leading you collectively away from, rather than to, a solution, or at least mine.

All I've come up with, for now, is one way (with variations) of changing tactics to increase the likelihood of success. Where there is one solution, there will be more, and figuring that out is both a job for the axis, and ultimately for their benefit, rather than it being spoon-fed to you, even by "your friend, the enemy". It's the exercise of solving this that will restore your fortunes, not the solution itself. 

I don't agree with you regarding the balance of British and French towns, however, I do think the axis should have the same capability to vary their TOE's across the front as we do.

[hillstorm]

3 minutes ago, fidd said:

Thanks for the offer, but it would patently be daft for me to tell the other side exactly how to defeat the Matilda led attack. I've given some hints as to where I think further thought and innovation may help, and also some indications of where current preoccupation with "stats" - for what they are worth - is leading you collectively away from, rather than to, a solution, or at least mine.

All I've come up with, for now, is one way (with variations) of changing tactics to increase the likelihood of success. Where there is one solution, there will be more, and figuring that out is both a job for the axis, and ultimately for their benefit, rather than it being spoon-fed to you, even by "your friend, the enemy". It's the exercise of solving this that will restore your fortunes, not the solution itself. 

I don't agree with you regarding the balance of British and French towns, however, I do think the axis should have the same capability to vary their TOE's across the front as we do.

I get it. So you'd like to keep the solution to yourself, but keep dangling it in argument whenever an axis posts about the "matty issue" or the imbalance ... or, as some would say, start hand-wringing about it. I'm not really into playing Clue or solving puzzles. When allies had a problem with the FG 42, they presented K/D numbers, made consistent arguments, and CRS responded. I didn't like it, but that's what happened. Oh well. 

[fidd]

14 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

I get it. So you'd like to keep the solution to yourself, but keep dangling it in argument whenever an axis posts about the "matty issue" or the imbalance ... or, as some would say, start hand-wringing about it. I'm not really into playing Clue or solving puzzles. When allies had a problem with the FG 42, they presented K/D numbers, made consistent arguments, and CRS responded. I didn't like it, but that's what happened. Oh well. 

I'm trying to get you lot to put your thinking-caps on and figure out - or at least try to - new ways of doing things, to find your own solution, your own improvements. By and large, with humanity, the knowledge that something can be done, even if you don't know how to do it, imparts sufficient impetus to efforts to solve the problem that it is solved, perhaps differently, by those who previously only knew it was possible, but not how, until they looked at the problem themselves. On occasion that spirit of inquiry, of trying new experiments, leads to a discovery far more profound than the original "problem".

You'll see this time and again in many walks of life. I'm an amateur engineer and inventor, and I've learned more by looking at seemingly intractable problems, than I ever have by reading solutions.

Edited January 24, 2021 by fidd

[hillstorm]

1 minute ago, fidd said:

I'm trying to get you lot to put your thinking-caps on and figure out - or at least try to - new ways of doing things, to find your own solution, your own improvements. By and large, with humanity, the knowledge that something can be done, even if you don't know how to do it, imparts sufficient impetus to efforts to solve the problem that it is solved, perhaps differently, by those who previously only knew it was possible, but not how, until they looked at the problem themselves. On occasion that spirit of inquiry, of trying new experiments, leads to a discovery far more profound than the original "problem".

You'll see this time and again in many walks of life.

Okay I have to smile here, I can tell you are really being sincere. I really think that, so cheers, no ill will and I can appreciate an approach toward innovating and learning new strategies. 

But I can only suggest to you what the response would have been to the infamous "unbeatable" FG 42 dilemma if an axis had provided this kind of message, this kind of solution, to the allied veterans as a way for them to "solve" their FG 42 problem. And to be clear, there probably were some solutions there, too (how about carpet bombing any town where there were known to be spawned FG 42s for example, LOL).

The response from your side would have been outrage. "Learn to do better" is just not well-received on this forum on either side. 

So I get it, but the numbers don't lie, and things are just in a sorry state for those of us on this side of the aisle. Anyway I think it's time for me to move on from this for now, camp's almost over anyway, we'll see what the next camp brings. 

[fidd]

Thanks. I wasn't in game during the FG42 debacle, so I only know what I've picked-up about it on the forums since coming back in game less than a year ago. I think my take on it would have been this:

I have no problem with FJ's using the FG42. I have no problems with it being better than (I presume) the Sten. I would have enormous problems with it being allocated on too numerous a basis, or ie outside of FJ units, or within FJ units able to spawn in regular towns, without there also being a compensating loss of ability to drop FJ's. I would also have been highly opposed to FG42's being able to be used by non FJ units. (my limited knowledge of the weapon was that it was LW only) Primarily, on all counts, because I far prefer the historical to the counterfactual.

I do not know, and perhaps you can enlighten me, as to exactly how the release of the FG42 became so acrimonious, but if I had to guess it's because some bloody silly marketing manager thought to make them "widely available", to units that ought not have them, and then after the allies had exploded at this, the axis in turn exploded when they were withdrawn. Just as they did when the 3h/pak38 were removed from tier 0, having erroneously been left in the TOE after the half-tier experiment.

It's a simple truism of the game that players can suffer all sorts of things, but NOT the removal of something they've come to rely on or expect. I've since been encouraged to see one or two of the rats post that they've learned their lesson, and will never introduce anything in larger numbers than are sensible in the long term, precisely to avoid this sort of "rowing back" on initial TOE, be they Tigers, FG42's, STG44's or er.... Vickers VIc's!

If I'm off-beam about the FG42, please forgive, I wasn't here, didn't see it, and have only picked up a few clues as to what did happen, in passing. If different to my surmise, I'd appreciate a potted history avoiding the more flagrant fibs if possible! <g>

[fidd]

30 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

Okay I have to smile here, I can tell you are really being sincere. I really think that, so cheers, no ill will and I can appreciate an approach toward innovating and learning new strategies. 

But I can only suggest to you what the response would have been to the infamous "unbeatable" FG 42 dilemma if an axis had provided this kind of message, this kind of solution, to the allied veterans as a way for them to "solve" their FG 42 problem. And to be clear, there probably were some solutions there, too (how about carpet bombing any town where there were known to be spawned FG 42s for example, LOL).

The response from your side would have been outrage. "Learn to do better" is just not well-received on this forum on either side. 

So I get it, but the numbers don't lie, and things are just in a sorry state for those of us on this side of the aisle. Anyway I think it's time for me to move on from this for now, camp's almost over anyway, we'll see what the next camp brings. 

I hope, in fairness, that you'll see I've tried not to imply "learn to do better", so much as "try new stuff and see if anything works". I fear that I do have a little form for twisting the odd tail on occasion, but this was genuinely meant as encouragement to think about defences differently, and to try new things. The one thing that is certain, is that carrying on with the same tactics and responses will assuredly result in many more miserable tier 0's for the axis; so any tactical innovations, whether they work or not, are much more positive and helpful than remaining "poorly placed".

It's like that quote attributed I think to Edison when someone berated him for not achieving a working light-bulb filament, despite 1000 attempts. He's said to have disagreed, and stated "that he now knew 1000 ways NOT to make them". Even failure has value, provided it is a new failure.

Edited January 24, 2021 by fidd

[KEMPI]

1 hour ago, OLDZEKE said:

It does not, best as I know carry over to CS&R page reporting.

If you check tankers stats, usually they get tank kills the kills will show a higher figure than the unit kill list on the stats page.

[KEMPI]

@OLDZEKE

 

[OLDZEKE]

I'll have to test to see if the "hurricane" kills add to cs&r kills. 

That's what I do, I test to try and determine there is a bug and then develope a definitive replication method that a dev can then follow to find the root issue causing the bug. 

I do not game manage nor forum moderate so I do not have a opinion as to what is a cheat.  

[goreblimey]

Easiest way to see it in action for us is on the training server , you get notified green text when you achieve a kill on the target . You also recieve a notification as the target despawns.

[jwrona]

8 hours ago, hillstorm said:

Anyway, none of this addresses why we can't have a better balance of Brit/French controlled towns. 

Last I checked its ~19 Brit towns to ~11 French (frontline), including a few brit towns with French brigades and vice versa. For reference, map start is a similar, yet inverted ratio of 8 Brit and 15+ French (plus brigades where that applies). 

[delems]

Ya, don't count all the Zees and SE towns -- they all started French.

I do see 3 towns captured that went French..... feeling guilty?  But, 5 others today went brit.

Regardless, enjoy your indestructible tank.... I had 6 sorties today.

Game is a farce atm and you know it.  We all know it.

[ZEBBEEE]

12 hours ago, hillstorm said:

Anyway, none of this addresses why we can't have a better balance of Brit/French controlled towns. 

It's hard to agree on hardcoding a balance just because of an initial deployment organization in May 1940. In our game France is still figthing in 1941 and  1942, and UK *could* meanwhile have sent more troops over the channel.

AHC officers like @colt and @jwrona are making appreciated efforts to keep a balance, for the sake of fun. Creativity and adaptability is somehow part of our overall expectation regarding a player-lead organization, and in a perfect would they should play as they please, using/exploiting all the designed features as they wish, and see how players find creative answers. But in some cases the unbalance is caused by the game as it is in an unfinished state and still being improved. We understand the frustration of the axis side, and appreciate the patience and efforts shown by the GHC officers such as  @delems. February 1st you'll see what's coming asap to help!

We would appreciate to have less attacks as it definitely hurt morale of staff, every time that happens. 

[OLDZEKE]

10 hours ago, goreblimey said:

Easiest way to see it in action for us is on the training server , you get notified green text when you achieve a kill on the target . You also recieve a notification as the target despawns.

I know it reports extra kills in the chat. That does not mean those record to the cs&r page. We have had a ticket for the hurricane kills added to aar bug for awhile now. Have tested a few attempts at fixes, and I thought at one point we released a patch with a fix and then it went sideways again... but that may be me miss remembering. It needs fixed regardless of if it’s recording those as cs&r kills or not.

[KEMPI]

6 hours ago, ZEBBEEE said:

It's hard to agree on hardcoding a balance just because of an initial deployment organization in May 1940. In our game France is still figthing in 1941 and  1942, and UK *could* meanwhile have sent more troops over the channel.

AHC officers like @colt and @jwrona are making appreciated efforts to keep a balance, for the sake of fun. Creativity and adaptability is somehow part of our overall expectation regarding a player-lead organization, and in a perfect would they should play as they please, using/exploiting all the designed features as they wish, and see how players find creative answers. But in some cases the unbalance is caused by the game as it is in an unfinished state and still being improved. We understand the frustration of the axis side, and appreciate the patience and efforts shown by the GHC officers such as  @delems. February 1st you'll see what's coming asap to help!

We would appreciate to have less attacks as it definitely hurt morale of staff, every time that happens. 

What about if French Divisions could only to move to French Garrison towns forcing French to be used on the frontline?

So if we want the freedom of movement, then these towns would have to be changed over.

Of course we would need a revamp on supply issues when switching towns, as it's current state is buggy unless you switch within 2 minutes. 

 

[B2K]

53 minutes ago, Kempi said:

What about if French Divisions could only to move to French Garrison towns forcing French to be used on the frontline?

So if we want the freedom of movement, then these towns would have to be changed over.

Of course we would need a revamp on supply issues when switching towns, as it's current state is buggy unless you switch within 2 minutes. 

 

We used to dance that dance - what ended up happening in the germans would only attack 1 nationality, leaving the other to rot.  They would keep a buffer of 1 town along the edge of the nation split to keep the other-nation flags from moving in. 

[delems]

*** what ended up happening in the germans would only attack 1 nationality

Isn't that EXACTLY what allies are doing?  Attacking with 1 nation? (entire front line brit)

Let me see, so it is a problem if axis focuses on half the map.. and attacks there..... but not a problem if allies make every town brit and then attacks all the map?

 

I see nothing wrong with half map brit and half French (frontline). (it use to be 30% brit and 70% French with flags)

Of course, allies will use brit to attack with as better.  And, OF COURSE, where axis can they will attack French (weaker).

(and note, I am HC... I know exactly how axis picks towns to AO --- cause I DO IT.  And yes, given everything equal, we would attack French town first, but we attack many brit towns also, as it makes strategic sense)

Each side will use their strengths and try to exploit the others weakness.

Just right now, it is 100% allied strength.  And 0% axis.

[B2K]

2 hours ago, delems said:

*** what ended up happening in the germans would only attack 1 nationality

Isn't that EXACTLY what allies are doing?  Attacking with 1 nation? (entire front line brit)

Let me see, so it is a problem if axis focuses on half the map.. and attacks there..... but not a problem if allies make every town brit and then attacks all the map?

I would like for you to point out where I said it was not a problem?  PLEASE.   Or maybe you can at least stop putting words into my posts.