Tank supply imbalance

[delems]

*** My concern, is that when the Panther comes in

Ya, been hearing this for over what, 20 years?  Axis still has tier 2 tanks vrs tier 4. (ok, Pz IVH might be tier 3 - and we get what....3)

Here is a fair USA/germ tank list:

12 s76 vrs 4 tigers and 8 panthers.

18 s75 vrs 6 IVG and 12 IVH

 

Until the fairytale panther is here, it should be 4 s76 and 10 s75.

Edited May 17, 2021 by delems

[choad]

48 minutes ago, delems said:

it should be 4 s76 and 10 s75.

Lol

[goreblimey]

1 hour ago, delems said:

*** My concern, is that when the Panther comes in

Ya, been hearing this for over what, 20 years?  Axis still has tier 2 tanks vrs tier 4. (ok, Pz IVH might be tier 3 - and we get what....3)

Here is a fair USA/germ tank list:

12 s76 vrs 4 tigers and 8 panthers.

18 s75 vrs 6 IVG and 12 IVH

 

Until the fairytale panther is here, it should be 4 s76 and 10 s75.

Finally you have shown your true colours. Ffs if you think that is balanced you should just leave now.

And still the stugs are just conveniently forgotten. Not including the fact you also receive more ATG guns.

[delems]

*** And still the stugs are just conveniently forgotten.

11 to 10 is even enough;  12 to 4 is BS and you know it.

ATGs are even enough too - find the spec, can't see the log in your own eye.

ATG: USA 34, Germ 35 -- and that includes 4 worthless 88s for the most part.

[goreblimey]

26 minutes ago, delems said:

*** And still the stugs are just conveniently forgotten.

11 to 10 is even enough;  12 to 4 is BS and you know it.

ATGs are even enough too - find the spec, can't see the log in your own eye.

ATG: USA 34, Germ 35 -- and that includes 4 worthless 88s for the most part.

A hurried post i meant to say guns of 75mm or over just to keep the comparisons in Top tier. Given that the 76.2 is pretty much untowable as well.

[goreblimey]

Havent we been down the s76 to Tiger parity road before...how did that work out ?

[drkmouse]

2 hours ago, goreblimey said:

Finally you have shown your true colours. Ffs if you think that is balanced you should just leave now.

And still the stugs are just conveniently forgotten. Not including the fact you also receive more ATG guns.

stug are   agains  m10's   so were is his  try ecoloers? other than asking for a ballanced   list????

[goreblimey]

Sherman 76s are 4 times more likely to die from ATG fire than a Tiger in this campaign. 

When Facing US forces, Tigers account for approx 30% of S76 kills. S76s are killed by enemy armour 50% of the time. Tigers are killed by enemy armour 70% of the time. S76s account for 50%.

Quite obviously  Allies need/use tanks to remove Axis top tier. Axis have a far more nuanced system. Highlighting the more general vulnerability of Shermans and therefore the need for more beyond a mere balancing off against the Tiger numbers.

Of course the Axis math experts will go back to simple arithmetic ' Theres more shermans than panzers '. There has to be, its as simple as that. Is it as many as the US have currently ? Probably not far off. Is it as few as the French have , no bloody way.

[drkmouse]

25 minutes ago, goreblimey said:

Sherman 76s are 4 times more likely to die from ATG fire than a Tiger in this campaign. 

When Facing US forces, Tigers account for approx 30% of S76 kills. S76s are killed by enemy armour 50% of the time. Tigers are killed by enemy armour 70% of the time. S76s account for 50%.

Quite obviously  Allies need/use tanks to remove Axis top tier. Axis have a far more nuanced system. Highlighting the more general vulnerability of Shermans and therefore the need for more beyond a mere balancing off against the Tiger numbers.

Of course the Axis math experts will go back to simple arithmetic ' Theres more shermans than panzers '. There has to be, its as simple as that. Is it as many as the US have currently ? Probably not far off. Is it as few as the French have , no bloody way.

ge  maybe cuase ther are no axis tanks to kill them?????

[goreblimey]

7 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

ge  maybe cuase ther are no axis tanks to kill them?????

The only reason Tiger K/D isnt better is the other arms are stealing their kills. 

[stikyfingr]

15 hours ago, N8 said:

Jesus, it’s like reading an English class book, while reading Fidd’s posts.

Could be worse. Kilemall and Jwilly could join in. 

[stikyfingr]

What I notice on these types of threads is that there is rarely anything from somebody who could actually explain, without giving it all away, how things are arrived at. 

Apart from Bmbm, who managed to type 2 entire letters before Fidd sent him back to sleep (joking fiddy), CRS remain silent. 

[warspite]

5 hours ago, stikyfingr said:

What I notice on these types of threads is that there is rarely anything from somebody who could actually explain, without giving it all away, how things are arrived at. 

Apart from Bmbm, who managed to type 2 entire letters before Fidd sent him back to sleep (joking fiddy), CRS remain silent. 

CRS volunteers are told not to get involved in these forum threads.

Xoom is really the only true Rat and he seems MIA in recent years

[jwilly]

29 minutes ago, warspite said:

Xoom (...) seems MIA in recent years

ln the forums last Friday, plus a few minutes ago. Doesn't seem unreasonable.

I expect he has a life outside of this endeavor, plus he presumably has a second job to make ends meet.

Edited May 18, 2021 by jwilly

[BMBM]

Supply is handled by the GM (Ohm) with assistance from myself regarding list design and with oversight/final say by the boss, Xoom.

The current list is based on what we produced for ”the hardest campaign” - based off then-USD production cost/unit and equal budgets per faction, furnished by Scotsman - a list that has subsequently been amended in who knows how many incremental revisions.

You may argue as much as you like for any other setup, however, the production cost and equal budget premise is as fair and equal as we can make it (although one might argue that DE is given far more clout than it historically had, what with its economy being 1/10 of the Allies. That, a significantly overstrength DE, is the tradeoff we have to make for playability). Certainly game stats or arbitrary pool table comparisons, is not.

[XOOM]

3 hours ago, warspite said:

CRS volunteers are told not to get involved in these forum threads.

Xoom is really the only true Rat and he seems MIA in recent years

I encourage many CRS to stay connected with our players, that is the difference between CRS as a developer (staying connected to our player base) and every other game developer out there.

My forum activity is lower these days but my responsibilities have grown exponentially, I am in the "fight" (so to speak) harder than ever trying to advance the game and company forward. My job is predominately supporting our leadership team and personnel but I do maintain a decent presence on the WWII Online FB group page and Discord. 

2 hours ago, jwilly said:

I expect he has a life outside of this endeavor, plus he presumably has a second job to make ends meet.

My Wife has to compete for my time given all that I invest here. WWII Online is my exclusive focus and responsibility these days, but there was a time where it was split.

[Kilemall]

2 hours ago, BMBM said:

Supply is handled by the GM (Ohm) with assistance from myself regarding list design and with oversight/final say by the boss, Xoom.

The current list is based on what we produced for ”the hardest campaign” - based off then-USD production cost/unit and equal budgets per faction, furnished by Scotsman - a list that has subsequently been amended in who knows how many incremental revisions.

You may argue as much as you like for any other setup, however, the production cost and equal budget premise is as fair and equal as we can make it (although one might argue that DE is given far more clout than it historically had, what with its economy being 1/10 of the Allies. That, a significantly overstrength DE, is the tradeoff we have to make for playability). Certainly game stats or arbitrary pool table comparisons, is not.

There are distinct problems with that approach, not the least of which it doesn't begin to address how our equipment and battlefield and production is NOT that of WWII and more importantly is NOT A GAME.

[Kilemall]

9 hours ago, stikyfingr said:

Could be worse. Kilemall and Jwilly could join in. 

I can hear you, yanno.

Don't worry, somebody will say something that will trigger my essay gun.

[Kilemall]

Yaa sorry on that one Delems, Panthers are something on the Tiger order of power- better gun, better frontal sloping, more vulnerable to the sides.

If we are talking 12 Fireflies then that would be arguable.  But we aren't.

 

The S75/IVG-H thing is closer, I'd have to look at that IVH frontal armor to get a feel for that.  The Tier 2 75mm gun is no slouch, but it can be tough for the IV to stay in the pocket.  OTOH it's optics in the open coupled with it's gun make it a great long range weapon, just not good for the camp work it takes to finish towns.  OTOH, bazooka AND sapper sideskirt stops count in large amounts.

[jwilly]

2 hours ago, BMBM said:

The current list is based on what we produced for ”the hardest campaign” - based off then-USD production cost/unit and equal budgets per faction

This is a further argument, if gameplay balance is the goal as opposed to weapon-choice false-feeling-of-superiority, for Fidd's proposal that the Germans would be much better off with fewer extremely expensive Tigers and Panthers,  and many more cheap-and-effective Marders.

But fundamentally I continue to hold my view as expressed when Scotsman first pitched the idea of "equal budgets": it's a dumb way to manage a PvP wargame that can only succeed if both sides are satisfied that they have about equal abilities to accomplish the artificial actions required to defend and attack.

[kareca]

CRS chose (wrongly, in my opinion) to make a SIMULATOR and not a game
The result is this.
So I've been gone for a while. I hope it will change yet.

 

Has CRS (xoom) ever considered selling to any interested company with conditions to take the game / simulator forward?

I know that it is not easy to maintain this structure.

 

[undercova]

the idea of the supply and this game should be to have a wide variety of units available per side ... mostly who are on a par to each other. So a Tiger vs. Firefly/S76 ... a IV G/H vs. S75 ...

But seeing the number it shows a big difference between it that needs to be adjusted

 

Also ... this game is NOT about virtual and real events happening. Like a certain tier stands for 1944 for example and then say ... the US has massive overproduction of equipment so there needs to be big shift in the supply list too. so in the end we could also say that russia lost the eastern campaign and all axis troops moved to the west front !! then suddenly there is a big shift of axis equipment to the BoF area. if if if if if if ....

The game needs to address this in a neutral way. a balanced way. like other games already do it. they only pick units on both sides that are about equal or have the most identical combat value ... and then fill up the spawn lists with 1 vs. 1 availabilty. although these games mostly use "credit" systems where you "buy" your unit. so in the end you have to pay more credits to spawn the high end equipment.

 

this discussion about spawn lists being unbalanced could be easily stopped by chosing the system i proposed some time ago. it covers:

- pop imbalance 

- RDP damage

- personal spawn list / preference

 

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by undercova

[fidd]

1 hour ago, jwilly said:

This is a further argument, if gameplay balance is the goal as opposed to weapon-choice false-feeling-of-superiority, for Fidd's proposal that the Germans would be much better off with fewer extremely expensive Tigers and Panthers,  and many more cheap-and-effective Marders.

But fundamentally I continue to hold my view as expressed when Scotsman first pitched the idea of "equal budgets": it's a dumb way to manage a PvP wargame that can only succeed if both sides are satisfied that they have about equal abilities to accomplish the artificial actions required to defend and attack.

I am not "proposing" Marders - or any other vehicle for the axis, that's not my proposal to make. If the axis wish to proceed down the "few-uber" tanks route, by majority, that's their prerogative. What I have been doing in relation to Marder is identifying the limitations of the Tiger within our current game mechanics, working on the premise that these mechanics are unlikely to be greatly changed going forwards, and suggesting more poorly armoured TD's is a better proposition in flat terrain, than "better" armoured (from poor to indifferent) PV IV variants and Stugs whose armour remain eminently killable at most in game ranges.

Others views may differ. For example, a case could be made that the primary effect of Tigers - and similar vehicles is the gain in player numbers, and it's this, rather than the Tiger's actual combat ability within out game which counts. There may be a "popular" choice here of the Panther heavy late tiers, but an "unpopular but more effective" choice which confers less fragility to axis armoured Bde's by using Marder/Hetzer type vehicles to partially replace the Stugs an IV's.

[raptor34]

So many negative waves man - At least the Scotsman model was trying to apply some logic to the problem. Still really enjoyed "the hardest campaign", but that's me.

Perhaps specific campaigns with different win conditions and supply is the way forward from a historical perspective. With the current alt-history campaign I almost feel like doubling down and just asking the question, "How would a war on the western front logically extend is France is able to hold in 1940?" and go from there. I enjoy realistic what-if, and I think you can make WW2OL work in that, as it has been for almost 20 years. This also opens up unique unit options like more French vehicles that didn't quite have time to come into service historically. 

Going forward to WW2OL 2.0 we will need to ask that question once again - Do you create a series of operations with historical victory conditions, supply, and units to recreate the war or go alt-history? I've long thought that more focused campaigns/operations would not only be more historical, but they would also link together and give players a feeling of moving through the various parts of the war, no tiers and odd equipment holdovers required. Victory is calculated on performance in relation to historical, or based on time. 

[TEX64]

4 hours ago, kareca said:

CRS chose (wrongly, in my opinion) to make a SIMULATOR and not a game
The result is this.
So I've been gone for a while. I hope it will change yet.

 

Has CRS (xoom) ever considered selling to any interested company with conditions to take the game / simulator forward?

I know that it is not easy to maintain this structure.

 

 

Maybe one day Xoom will write his personal history re WW2OL - disagree with him this way and that - but he really stepped up as has the CRS Team to not only keep the dream alive but to advance the ball further toward the goal.

If you want a peek into the future of WW2OL . . . you need to sign up for the virtual convention and listen, take some notes, and think about what it was like the first time you spawned into WW2OL because you need to think about that emotion and the possibilities for the game back in 2001.  Each of us should be proud that we helped get the game to this point after 20 years but others have done some VERY heavy lifting and I know they are excited to talk about what lies ahead for the game.

!S,

tex