US garrison tank supply

[goreblimey]

6 hours 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.

No , it’s just not worth spending time arguing over arbitraryvalues that are never going to be implemented. The people postulating armour equivalents , don’t even drive armour in the game , how relevant do you think your values are .....

[Kilemall]

13 minutes ago, goreblimey said:

No , it’s just not worth spending time arguing over arbitraryvalues that are never going to be implemented. The people postulating armour equivalents , don’t even drive armour in the game , how relevant do you think your values are .....

Pretty darn relevant given quite a bit of study of armor in terms of engagement ranges and angles, being in a squad that specialized in part on ATGs, and a lifetime of wargaming.

Better then sitting on our butts watching subs float away on the Cycle of Suck and not taking a shot at this.

[fidd]

11 hours 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 question that arises, is this: Do cyclic imbalances beyond what can be reasonably taken care of by SD and cap-timers, cost more more players than might be lost via applying some constraints to how badly the imbalance can occur?
 

I'm firmly of the view that had management of player numbers been part of the game design from day one, we'd not view it as anything other than sensible, normal, proportionate and warranted. It'd merely be something we accept. In all likelihood we'd all have had 2 squads, 1 on each opposing side, for the last 20 years, one to play if we became compelled to fight a campaign as allied, and one for axis.

[jwilly]

33 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

Better then sitting on our butts watching subs float away on the Cycle of Suck and not taking a shot at this.

To the extent that your argument is that CRS should use a valuation system and isn't already, I don't think that's valid.

Recall that the game stats system that was announced to players many years ago as a game benefit for them, was put in place partly so that CRS would have lethality statistics for every form of matchup. My understanding back then was that lethality information derived from aggregate stats was considered in subsequent valuations.

And more recently, Scotsman put forth an entirely different valuation system, which was tried for a while.

Your argument is just that the current valuation system doesn't work well. I agree, but it's a hard problem.

49 minutes ago, goreblimey said:

No , it’s just not worth spending time arguing over arbitrary values that are never going to be implemented.

My take has always been that CRS is open to cogent arguments as to how their systems might be improved. The valuations in question, if based on a rational system, won't be "arbitrary".

Edited April 15, 2021 by jwilly

[delems]

*** game stats system that was announced to players many years ago as a game benefit for them

Amazed at your faith, I don't believe for even 3 seconds stats are used in any way, shape, or form to guide dev.

 

I see it as two issues: 1) pop differences (and then the experience of that pop) and 2) gear differences.

Ideally, game gear (spawn lists) should be designed as if pop is relatively even.  Then, only pop or experience would matter.

Get the gear wrong - and pop/experience doesn't matter as much.

[jwilly]

12 minutes ago, delems said:

Ideally, game gear (spawn lists) should be designed as if pop is relatively even.

Why should CRS not take advantage of a key set of parameters available to them to partially offset an expected population imbalance?

Population imbalance has long been understood to be a positive-feedback system; that is, the side with greater population is very likely to smash the side with lesser population, all else equal, and this then attracts additional players to the winning side, resulting in instability in the game's marketability.

It's entirely sensible for CRS to adjust spawnlists so that the two sides have comparable likelihoods of prevailing, even with a population imbalance. This form of manual negative feedback offsets the positive-feedback instability that otherwise would dominate.

[goreblimey]

28 minutes ago, jwilly said:

To the extent that your argument is that CRS should use a valuation system and isn't already, I don't think that's valid.

Recall that the game stats system that was announced to players many years ago as a game benefit for them, was put in place partly so that CRS would have lethality statistics for every form of matchup. My understanding back then was that lethality information derived from aggregate stats was considered in subsequent valuations.

And more recently, Scotsman put forth an entirely different valuation system, which was tried for a while.

Your argument is just that the current valuation system doesn't work well. I agree, but it's a hard problem.

My take has always been that CRS is open to cogent arguments as to how their systems might be improved. The valuations in question, if based on a rational system, won't be "arbitrary".

They are so far

[Kilemall]

26 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Why should CRS not take advantage of a key set of parameters available to them to partially offset an expected population imbalance?

Population imbalance has long been understood to be a positive-feedback system; that is, the side with greater population is very likely to smash the side with lesser population, all else equal, and this then attracts additional players to the winning side, resulting in instability in the game's marketability.

It's entirely sensible for CRS to adjust spawnlists so that the two sides have comparable likelihoods of prevailing, even with a population imbalance. This form of manual negative feedback offsets the positive-feedback instability that otherwise would dominate.

Problem with that approach is the Cycle of Suck- pop ratios due to differences in leadership, a game change perceived or experienced that gives/dashes hope, hissy fits, etc.  can, have and will change outside of the reaction speed of the list bulders, and so you are constantly chasing 'the right numbers' for balancing because they changed out from under you.  Then a side that was under all of a sudden gets pop superiority and takes that overpowered list and beats the new underpop side all to heck with it.

The other problem is worse- the game then becomes who can appeal successfully enough to CRS to get lists to 'win' with.  Heavens, that would be horrible if it happened.  It would release a poison of 'CRS favoring X', which of course is not the case more like they are favoring retaining both sides for subs and content, but then it contributes ultimately to more who unsub dispirited.

It's got to be a game.  You CANNOT mess with this or take shortcuts.

[Kilemall]

59 minutes ago, jwilly said:

To the extent that your argument is that CRS should use a valuation system and isn't already, I don't think that's valid.

Recall that the game stats system that was announced to players many years ago as a game benefit for them, was put in place partly so that CRS would have lethality statistics for every form of matchup. My understanding back then was that lethality information derived from aggregate stats was considered in subsequent valuations.

And more recently, Scotsman put forth an entirely different valuation system, which was tried for a while.

Your argument is just that the current valuation system doesn't work well. I agree, but it's a hard problem.

My take has always been that CRS is open to cogent arguments as to how their systems might be improved. The valuations in question, if based on a rational system, won't be "arbitrary".

I don't want to hit this too hard, but the valuation system apparently correlates some baseline aggregation of real world stats with production potential per tier.  That's not a valuation in terms of game function, game sim 'reality' and game role.  So good stuff for a scholarly work on WWII armament production and possibly some thesis/analysis work on what a force mix/industrial policy should be, but NOT a valuation oriented towards game results.

[delems]

*** to partially offset an expected population imbalance

Because as kile says, no way rats can update spawn lists fast enough to account for pop differences.

That is a COMPLETEly losing proposition. Fail, Fail, Fail.

Spawn lists must be designed for even pop.

Then, only experience of that pop and pop imbalance will upset it.

Obviously then, other factors must try to compensate for pop imbalance.

[Dre21]

On 4/14/2021 at 3:31 PM, Kidd27 said:

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.

I already answered that question , but I guess you missed it , it's just above my last comment I made ,but here just for you once again,  I said maybe the USA would not commit forces if the map goes east.  Now that was rough and hard to understand .

But I guess that is not alright with you either , why have a Nation in game if it does not see action in the game , I'm sure historically ( and cause you Allies love the Historic aspect so much when it comes to this game)the USA would have said NO to forces in Europe if the map would have went EAST and commit all it's might into the Pacific Theater , I'm sure you would even agree with this point or not ?

So you guys can stop complaining that you have to juggle 3 Nations , then it's only 2 and it seems it must be tough too cause maybe that's why everything turns into Brit, but according to one of your HC guys it's a delicate balance that you guys can't just turn stuff Brit but there is a certain way to do so

Is it this ?

So it's not complicated to have a Brit guy hiding somewhere that when it comes to capping that AB to have him get in there to turn it Brit but it's to hard to keep 2 nations balanced on the map? Now this is a pure stab in the dark but only way I can think of that a town turns Brit in a French sector. Cause apparently one can't just put  a Garrison into a town willy nilly or a Flag.

Edited April 16, 2021 by Dre21