US garrison tank supply

[Dre21]

On 4/7/2021 at 9:05 AM, goreblimey said:

The real question is why are the French shafted yet again....

Cause they get bullied away from the Frontline by the Brits and American once they are in, in other words they get treated as an auxiliary unit by AHC.

[fidd]

7 hours ago, rotsechs said:

I see what you're saying Fidd but I can't envisage that as workable. Pop imbalance varies from all sorts of things. Even starting a campaign with 100 signed up on each side won't see 1 v 1 constantly. The game, if it is to move forward with a rewritten version 2 all singing and dancing, which should be the goal, needs players that pay. Restricting people won't keep them. 

Variable cap timers need to be supplemented if it's possible to code, with other variables. Fire base damage or fms damage. Things like that. I played more towards the end of 181 at all times of my time zone. Axis were udrp most of the time. When 1 side can match the other everywhere AND have the manpower to kill the udrp attack fbs + guard their own + dominate air = cap timers mean nothing. 

I've said many times that who wins means nothing to me. I'm not entrenched in a side bias position like some. The thing that frustrates me and I hope others too, is this could easily be the best ww2/fps/tactical/combined arms squad game/simulation and potentially run with hundreds in game. 

Probably needs to be a separate thread for this discussion that CRS get involved in.

Apologies Undercover for the blatant hijack. 

I'm not trying to "solve" pop balance with that method, so much as keep it unitially within reasonable limits, and in particular to keep severe imbalances which are cyclic in nature from happening. It is also targetted at the smallest number of most flexible players, relatively speaking, to get the job done. it does not apply as the campaign starts to be won by one side (70% towns?), and so inbalances caused by one side not logging in as often, or for as long, do not cause this to apply. It is absolutely NOT intended to "keep things balanced", merely to moderate severe inbalances to the point where game-mechanics would otherwise start to buckle under the strain. In doing so, the game is more likely to be fun for all.

Edited April 10, 2021 by fidd

[undercova]

16 hours ago, Dre21 said:

Cause they get bullied away from the Frontline by the Brits and American once they are in, in other words they get treated as an auxiliary unit by AHC.

Correct

 

Would love to see that all the mainland towns have french garrisons. Then brits and US get ONLY flag/division supply which they can move around as "spearheads" and/or attacking component

Ofc the same for England ... all garrisons are british

 

Look at 1939/1940 ... France and Belgium only had that British Expeditionary Force on mainland. Why cant we have it like that too ? This would also "solve" the Matty problem imo. Limited numbers on the map at the same time and allies have to use it wisely

[Dre21]

On 4/11/2021 at 1:47 AM, undercova said:

Correct

 

Would love to see that all the mainland towns have french garrisons. Then brits and US get ONLY flag/division supply which they can move around as "spearheads" and/or attacking component

Ofc the same for England ... all garrisons are british

 

Look at 1939/1940 ... France and Belgium only had that British Expeditionary Force on mainland. Why cant we have it like that too ? This would also "solve" the Matty problem imo. Limited numbers on the map at the same time and allies have to use it wisely

Cause it would make them stop playing , while the other side needs to listen to this was like this cause it's historical and this needs to be there cause that is where they were in real life.  And this Tank was a beast so deal with it , but totally ignoring that  Russian Tank battalions left the battle field when they heard Tigers were operating in a certain area and so on and on and on . List is long .

[Kidd27]

15 minutes ago, Dre21 said:

Cause it would make them stop playing , while the other side needs to listen to this was like this cause it's historical and this needs to be there cause that is where they were in real life.  And this Tank was a beast so deal with it , but totally ignoring that  Russian Tank battalions left the battle field when they heard Tigers were operating in a certain area and so on and on and on . List is long .

The game only models the equipment.

It doesn't replicate or simulate the personal feelings, beliefs, or doctrines of a country or its soldiers not even represented in game.

not the best example

[Kidd27]

On 4/10/2021 at 10:35 AM, Dre21 said:

Cause they get bullied away from the Frontline by the Brits and American once they are in, in other words they get treated as an auxiliary unit by AHC.

Seemingly the case.

Allies have to manage 3 diff country sets. Its a foregone conclusion that when the US is introduced, they need to be involved.

Something has to give somewhere. The French hold a lower priority in equip in the later tier.

[tater]

The French are counterfactual arter 1940, and don't properly evolve. I like the French early in the game, but fighting late war Germans with a few more MAS40s is pretty annoying. Dunno what the tank situation is. To the extent the French are advanced via getting American gear, there's little difference.

[Dre21]

1 hour ago, Kidd27 said:

Seemingly the case.

Allies have to manage 3 diff country sets. Its a foregone conclusion that when the US is introduced, they need to be involved.

Something has to give somewhere. The French hold a lower priority in equip in the later tier.

Do they, but if the Allies hold their line and advance in Map who says that the USA ever would have send men, see how this plays out ? 

You say they have to manage , sure didn't seem like it the last map or the map before that , it was 1 the Brits with the French being a afterthought , and then once the USA came in , it was the Brits and the USA on the Frontline,  and the French forces were taking R&R on the French Riviera.

But I'm sure you looked at a different map then myself and all the other Axis players. 

Edited April 14, 2021 by Dre21

[tater]

If the whole Garrison system changed it might just fix itself.

Something like a total pool that Garrisons are pulled from, so if there are more towns of 1 army, then the Garrisons are smaller. How many towns are along the front as a range?

Roughly speaking, the balance of forces was that the US and France both exceed Germany in forces, and the UK has maybe 1/3 of Germany.

As inf, given the choice I play US, crippled gameplay wise though the rifles are (no HE so can't bust EFMS).

[Kidd27]

41 minutes ago, Dre21 said:

Do they, but if the Allies hold their line and advance in Map who says that the USA ever would have send men, see how this plays out ? 

You say they have to manage , sure didn't seem like it the last map or the map before that , it was 1 the Brits with the French being a afterthought , and then once the USA came in , it was the Brits and the USA on the Frontline,  and the French forces were taking R&R on the French Riviera.

But I'm sure you looked at a different map then myself and all the other Axis players. 

The US are introduced along a historical timescale of when they entered the war.

Are u suggesting that we dont see the US at all unless the axis are winning the map?  see how this plays out?  

Im not sure why it matters how AHQ determines where country brigades go.  There are 3 countries, they all gotta go somewhere. thats what has to be managed.

how do YOU suggest its done?

 

[fidd]

35 minutes ago, Kidd27 said:

The US are introduced along a historical timescale of when they entered the war.

Are u suggesting that we dont see the US at all unless the axis are winning the map?  see how this plays out?  

Im not sure why it matters how AHQ determines where country brigades go.  There are 3 countries, they all gotta go somewhere. thats what has to be managed.

how do YOU suggest its done?

 

The issue has not been about the Bde's, it's about the allied ablity to optimise the frontline for  the greatest number of British garrisons. This is held to be an advantage, despite the fact the axis have all their garrisons the same nationality! it's a glass half full/half empty comparison. If the axis felt the French to be the most competitive garrisons, then the axis would call foul if those became predominant. What may be needed to us to split the Axis into 3 armees, with 3 forms of garrison, 1 per armee, with no manual supply across armees. In effect the same as the allied nationalities. The axis would then be free to optimise their frontline in the same way the allies do, but also have the same restrictions on supply that the allies do. 

Much good may that do them!

The only sensible reason for doing this in my estimate, is that it would allow 3 different TOE templates for armoured Bde's in the Wehrmacht, in turn allowing units such as Tigers and Panthers, which do best in hilly or very open terrain, to be employed preferentially in such areas. Oddly, the axis don't whine about their current inability to do that, perhaps as they still view the Tiger in close-flat terrain, with its relatively short engagement ranges, as being an asset rather than a liability. Me, I'd rather have more TD's such as Achilles and Fireflies than fewer Tigers. But that's just me!

 

[vanapo]

On 4/10/2021 at 8:24 PM, fidd said:

I'm not trying to "solve" pop balance with that method, so much as keep it unitially within reasonable limits,

Putting a bulkload of restrictions on players and force them to play one side (probably against their wil) or not playing at all (while still paying) doesn't seem like a big motivation to me to build up a playerbase.

It also wouldn't address the biggest problem and that's that losing players tend to lose interest, winning players tend to keep playing. That's just a general tendency you can't fix without the authority to court-martial those who quit. As nobody of us here has the numbers of players dropping off/switching/reducing their hours if their side is losing, it's hard to estimate how big the impact of this factor is. My guess would be that it's huge for the non-die-hard players which should make up the bulk of the playerbase. And it would be interesting to see if spawn delays and cap timers do anything to reduce this factor. Personally, I play axis only - but that's just because of my personal connections to the players of that side. I wouldn't change teams even if we would have constand max SD. As I pilot, I don't care for cap timers. I would switch teams however, if the other side would be losing 3 campaigns in a row. Just because I value a healthy game over one fun campaign. I have to admit though - I normally take a break after two or three campaigns. So this did not occur yet. Allies are untroubled by my presence so far.

Back to the topic: Reducing the immediate impact of overpop is one thing, but the major problem is the snowballing effect of the losing side losing more and more players over time. Most other games adress this natural dropout of losing players through different means: Short match duration f.e. so the losing side won't suffer too long and has a fresh start in sight. You can give the side that's clearly winning the opportunity to shorten the match - or you give the side that's clearly losing the battle some opportunity to either achieve a powerfull comeback (if a certain requirement is fulfilled) or fail and thus end the match more quickly. In general, if you can't even out the forces you should encourage staying on or changing to the losing side. That's better than disrupting players on the winning side.

I have to say, I don't see any game mechanics to encourage losing players to stay on the ball in our game.

[Kilemall]

1 hour ago, fidd said:

The issue has not been about the Bde's, it's about the allied ablity to optimise the frontline for  the greatest number of British garrisons. This is held to be an advantage, despite the fact the axis have all their garrisons the same nationality! it's a glass half full/half empty comparison. If the axis felt the French to be the most competitive garrisons, then the axis would call foul if those became predominant. What may be needed to us to split the Axis into 3 armees, with 3 forms of garrison, 1 per armee, with no manual supply across armees. In effect the same as the allied nationalities. The axis would then be free to optimise their frontline in the same way the allies do, but also have the same restrictions on supply that the allies do. 

Much good may that do them!

The only sensible reason for doing this in my estimate, is that it would allow 3 different TOE templates for armoured Bde's in the Wehrmacht, in turn allowing units such as Tigers and Panthers, which do best in hilly or very open terrain, to be employed preferentially in such areas. Oddly, the axis don't whine about their current inability to do that, perhaps as they still view the Tiger in close-flat terrain, with its relatively short engagement ranges, as being an asset rather than a liability. Me, I'd rather have more TD's such as Achilles and Fireflies than fewer Tigers. But that's just me!

 

What is needed is disciplined spawnlist building where any and all 3 Allied countries are equal to the Axis list.

[Kilemall]

44 minutes ago, vanapo said:

Putting a bulkload of restrictions on players and force them to play one side (probably against their wil) or not playing at all (while still paying) doesn't seem like a big motivation to me to build up a playerbase.

It also wouldn't address the biggest problem and that's that losing players tend to lose interest, winning players tend to keep playing. That's just a general tendency you can't fix without the authority to court-martial those who quit. As nobody of us here has the numbers of players dropping off/switching/reducing their hours if their side is losing, it's hard to estimate how big the impact of this factor is. My guess would be that it's huge for the non-die-hard players which should make up the bulk of the playerbase. And it would be interesting to see if spawn delays and cap timers do anything to reduce this factor. Personally, I play axis only - but that's just because of my personal connections to the players of that side. I wouldn't change teams even if we would have constand max SD. As I pilot, I don't care for cap timers. I would switch teams however, if the other side would be losing 3 campaigns in a row. Just because I value a healthy game over one fun campaign. I have to admit though - I normally take a break after two or three campaigns. So this did not occur yet. Allies are untroubled by my presence so far.

Back to the topic: Reducing the immediate impact of overpop is one thing, but the major problem is the snowballing effect of the losing side losing more and more players over time. Most other games adress this natural dropout of losing players through different means: Short match duration f.e. so the losing side won't suffer too long and has a fresh start in sight. You can give the side that's clearly winning the opportunity to shorten the match - or you give the side that's clearly losing the battle some opportunity to either achieve a powerfull comeback (if a certain requirement is fulfilled) or fail and thus end the match more quickly. In general, if you can't even out the forces you should encourage staying on or changing to the losing side. That's better than disrupting players on the winning side.

I have to say, I don't see any game mechanics to encourage losing players to stay on the ball in our game.

The Cycle of Suck is the enemy- Pop Neutrality is the cure.

[hillstorm]

@vanapo, so many good points in your post above. I couldn't have said it better myself. 

To add to it, don't lay the blame for pop imbalance at the feet of squads. Squads keep this game alive, they keep players playing (and playing more) - the fact that they log in with numbers at a certain time probably has to do with many factors (they've likely polled their members to find what is the best time/availability), and the game should adjust to them, not vice versa. 

I played this game very sporadically before I joined a squad, and I probably would have drifted away from it altogether. The game changed for me entirely when I joined a squad. I actually became a paying customer after that point. So we need to encourage squad activity while finding ways to leverage that into helping pop balance on both sides. 

I've never fully considered myself an "Axis-only" player. It's just kind of worked out that way, mainly because of my squad affiliation, but if we want the game to survive we should all be more for the game first, and our side preference second. When allies lost several maps in a row, I almost finally made that switch for a camp to help them out. At the last second I got cold feet, simply because I didn't know anyone over there (and I would've had to leave my squad). The social aspect is a big deal to me. Turns out, the allies didn't need my help at all (lol), they rolled that map. 

No solutions offered in this post. Just a perspective. I've offered my ideas before on side choice and availability to help pop balance, but at the moment I don't even remember what they were, and they all seem to get lost in the ether to what sometimes feels like an unsolvable problem. 

Edited April 14, 2021 by hillstorm

[Dre21]

5 hours ago, Kidd27 said:

The US are introduced along a historical timescale of when they entered the war.

Funny there is that word again that seems to be working for the Allies whenever they see fit but disregard it when it should be applied.

Odd how this works,  but at least you are lock step with your fellow players I gotta give you that much .

[Kidd27]

1 hour ago, Dre21 said:

Funny there is that word again that seems to be working for the Allies whenever they see fit but disregard it when it should be applied.

Odd how this works,  but at least you are lock step with your fellow players I gotta give you that much .

Funny how you avoided the question of how they should be introduced. Roll of the dice? Rock paper scissors?

but at least you are consistent in providing no relevant insight. I gotta give you that much.

Edited April 14, 2021 by Kidd27

[Kidd27]

5 hours ago, fidd said:

The issue has not been about the Bde's, it's about the allied ablity to optimise the frontline for  the greatest number of British garrisons. This is held to be an advantage, despite the fact the axis have all their garrisons the same nationality! it's a glass half full/half empty comparison. If the axis felt the French to be the most competitive garrisons, then the axis would call foul if those became predominant. What may be needed to us to split the Axis into 3 armees, with 3 forms of garrison, 1 per armee, with no manual supply across armees. In effect the same as the allied nationalities. The axis would then be free to optimise their frontline in the same way the allies do, but also have the same restrictions on supply that the allies do. 

Much good may that do them!

 

 

I agree

[Kidd27]

4 hours ago, Kilemall said:

What is needed is disciplined spawnlist building where any and all 3 Allied countries are equal to the Axis list.

Thats loaded.

"equality" has been trying to be achieved for 20 years. 

What's equal? is it parity? numbers?

the equipment isnt the same so, "equal" isn't as cut and dry an answer as the word suggests. Units dont convert to a math equation.

How many Panhard = 1 Tiger?   How many 232s = 1 Sherman? (rhetorical)

Advancing Tiers further complicate Equality.

[Kilemall]

1 minute ago, Kidd27 said:

Thats loaded.

"equality" has been trying to be achieved for 20 years. 

What's equal? is it parity? numbers?

the equipment isnt the same so, "equal" isn't as cut and dry an answer as the word suggests. Units dont convert to a math equation.

How many Panhard = 1 Tiger?   How many 232s = 1 Sherman? (rhetorical)

Advancing Tiers further complicate Equality.

I have a thread going in Motor Pool on this very topic.  The centerpiece is PRECISELY a numeric valuation, of the unit's capabilities and then truing up total brigade/garrison capability AND game roles.

The most interesting thing is all the people who wahh wahh wahh about different balance issues are not touching the topic with a 20 foot pole.

My theory?  They don't actually want balance, they want their advantage and not be hobbled by other people's advantages.

[tater]

28 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

I have a thread going in Motor Pool on this very topic.  The centerpiece is PRECISELY a numeric valuation, of the unit's capabilities and then truing up total brigade/garrison capability AND game roles.

The most interesting thing is all the people who wahh wahh wahh about different balance issues are not touching the topic with a 20 foot pole.

My theory?  They don't actually want balance, they want their advantage and not be hobbled by other people's advantages.

I think it's a great idea, and I think it might be possible to get to a rough sense of unit vs unit parity in terms of value in some objective way, but the whole list in actual gameplay gets more complicated.

Like you could have a weapon that 1v1 rules, but in practice due to gameplay incentives, they never leave the veh without getting camped.

 

[tater]

LOL, what we need are bots to play whole campaigns.

Like get AlphaZero to play a few million campaigns against itself, and if one side always wins, tweak spawn list, and rerun.

[undercova]

4 hours ago, Kilemall said:

What is needed is disciplined spawnlist building where any and all 3 Allied countries are equal to the Axis list.

what if allies get 1 set of supply then ?

garrison / inf / armor / hq ... and they consist of ALL countries (brit / french / us). mix it all together in 1 pool ... but less amount like we have atm. like axis have atm with italien smg and rifleman in their supply. could do the same for allies so they have all 3 country supplies in it. will be a long list to scroll down at the end of the war ... but offers allies all sort of supply.

instead of brit / french / us flag ... you can simply use the allied symbol

Edited April 14, 2021 by undercova

[Kilemall]

Just now, tater said:

I think it's a great idea, and I think it might be possible to get to a rough sense of unit vs unit parity in terms of value in some objective way, but the whole list in actual gameplay gets more complicated.

Like you could have a weapon that 1v1 rules, but in practice due to gameplay incentives, they never leave the veh without getting camped.

 

Very true, and part of the reason why the current valuation on real world capability/production numbers isn't going to cut it, as our equipment does not exist in a 1:1 perfect sim.  ATGs probably should be cut in price simply because not only do they roll slow but takes an extra person to haul anywhere (except the FMS ones).

[Kilemall]

1 minute ago, undercova said:

what if allies get 1 set of supply then ?

garrison / inf / armor / hq ... and they consist of ALL countries (brit / french / us). mix it all together in 1 pool ... but less amount like we have atm. like axis have atm with italien smg and rifleman in their supply. could do the same for allies so they have all 3 country supplies in it. will be a long list to scroll down at the end of the war ... but offers allies all sort of supply.

Not interested, if for no other reason then we had that in the early going, it was bizarre rolling out Chars and A13s, and the different tactical problems each country difference presents really is a major feature set.  Churchills Crus Fireflies and such are different then the classic US set.

Ironic that the ToE elimination is such a problem, eh?

Because of the differences in capabilities, we almost HAVE to design by total role and potential rather then exact 1:1 armor, inf, etc. or K/D.