Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

Tank supply imbalance


Recommended Posts

delems
Posted (edited)

*** 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 by delems
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • delems

    31

  • fidd

    31

  • drkmouse

    25

  • BMBM

    18

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Tell ya what bmbm. Put yourself where your words are. Pick town - you get 1 tiger. 3 axis will take s76, best of 7 matches - let's see who wins?

So when will this be fixed ? Went onto both sides and wrote down all possible tank supply numbers https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OtN0mK1AXhUBkah4qSSSBU0x8EAcvHTj_wVuZIuD97A/edit?usp

*** Define the even fight. Define equal skill. Come on, you know exactly what this means. Take current spawn list - 12 s76 vrs 4 tigers. if 2 dm79 take out s76, and 2 dm79 take out tige

choad
48 minutes ago, delems said:

it should be 4 s76 and 10 s75.

Lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
goreblimey

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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????

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?????

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
Posted (edited)
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 by jwilly
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • CORNERED RAT
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.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • CORNERED RAT
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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

S!

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.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
dfire
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, jwilly said:

 

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 agree. Without typing an entire essay, the "budget" approach is a bad, flawed approach a PvP war game. No wonder why there's so many people unhappy and so many have already left. *sad face*

Edited by dfire
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
undercova
Posted (edited)

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 by undercova
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...