Tank supply imbalance

[raptor34]

The future is why I am here

Edited May 19, 2021 by raptor34

[BMBM]

8 hours ago, Kilemall said:

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.

There are distinct problems with ANY approach. We have yet to see a model that gives us a more objective and scientific ground for comparison/valuation. This is especially true as we add more diversity of kit. 

You people seem to think that that list, since dumbed down towards tit-for-tat, or even the current list, was/is a reenactment list, or a ”simulation” list as opposed to a ”game” list. 

It is not.

Had we gone fully historical the game would be unplayable, grossly imbalanced in certain sectors and specifically wrt budget. If so, Axis would *never* win. To function, Axis must be brought up to level (QV) without making their arguably more qualitative kit tip over that delicate balance point - which is an aggregate of multiple factors. Past versions of the list were easier to manage - there were fewer items, less cogs, but also a systemic fault in that quantity was never used as a quality in itself.

There are other things we cannot factor in that are far more important towards tactical domination and ultimately map win: size of the army (population), morale (population/leadership/ToM/results) and training (skill, mindset).

[stikyfingr]

9 hours ago, Kilemall said:

I can hear you, yanno.

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

Superb reposte sir !!

[delems]

*** There are other things we cannot factor in that are far more important towards tactical domination and ultimately map win: size of the army (population), morale (population/leadership/ToM/results) and training (skill, mindset).

Agree.

And, I'm sure it is not that easy to come up with a) balanced lists and b) lists that have enough gear to play, but not so much that it is too much so never really attrit.

But, you can't tell me you really think 12 s76 vrs 4 tigers is even or fair?

Same for 18 s75 vrs 10 IVG/H?

Then, 3 Stuart vrs x2 IIIL?

(forget 38t, IIC, IIIF, IIIB, IVD - shouldn't even be in spawn list tier 3 on-- give IIIH to DLC)

And while there are a couple IIIN and IIIH - they in no way make up for the extra 16 s76/s75.

And, won't even mention (ok I will) the 5x DAC can kill every panzer, every tier.... 232 sure can't do that.

USA tank list is completely out of whack imo.

Edited May 19, 2021 by delems

[BMBM]

30 minutes ago, delems said:

But, you can't tell me you really think 12 s76 vrs 4 tigers is even or fair?

I’m totally disinterested in pool table discussions. Your X vs Y scenarios never play out as such in game and are wholly misleading. Again and for the last time, you have to factor in population, situation, skill, morale, terrain, phase of battle and other factors (eg surprise, use of cover and smoke, air superiority, optics etc) - using simple numbers is simply leading you up the garden path to lalala-land.

[delems]

*** I’m totally disinterested in pool table discussions.

So purposely ignoring facts?

If all those other factors are exactly even for a given hour or two....

Then the 12 - 4 doesn't change that?  Because it does - it is not fair, it is not even.

How can you be so blind?  12 > 4.  Period.

So, same skill, same players, same effort. -- 12 to 4 is not the same.

But, so be it, we will continue to see axis players stop playing and leave until this tank balance is corrected is my guess.

[undercova]

if 12 S76 vs. 4 Tiger is fine by CRS ... why not give axis back the FG42 to garrison and flags ??!?!??

[Kilemall]

8 hours ago, BMBM said:

There are distinct problems with ANY approach. We have yet to see a model that gives us a more objective and scientific ground for comparison/valuation. This is especially true as we add more diversity of kit. 

You people seem to think that that list, since dumbed down towards tit-for-tat, or even the current list, was/is a reenactment list, or a ”simulation” list as opposed to a ”game” list. 

It is not.

Had we gone fully historical the game would be unplayable, grossly imbalanced in certain sectors and specifically wrt budget. If so, Axis would *never* win. To function, Axis must be brought up to level (QV) without making their arguably more qualitative kit tip over that delicate balance point - which is an aggregate of multiple factors. Past versions of the list were easier to manage - there were fewer items, less cogs, but also a systemic fault in that quantity was never used as a quality in itself.

There are other things we cannot factor in that are far more important towards tactical domination and ultimately map win: size of the army (population), morale (population/leadership/ToM/results) and training (skill, mindset).

I would not argue most of your points, and have often said the new increased kit REQUIRED a systematic approach to spawnlist building and that it be a lot more rigorously flexible to accommodate constant new items.  Or if you have done your work right, players are the primary determinant of outcome.  That's a big part of the sell, that a player's little action has big effects and is all part of a team effort.

I would disagree with the assertion that quantity wasn't a quality, the original RDP set had hard limits as to how much kit could intro based in large measure on their cost as well as tier availability.  If you are talking a logarithmic type curve of the highest end items for their tier such as Matties and Tigers, no it didn't.

I also agree with equipment being valuated on combat potential, not K/D.

What I disagree with is integrating historical cost into that valuation, and seemingly no adjustments for the reality we experience on the battlefield.

 

Exhibit A, the 88.  Yes theoretically it's a kill everything in 2km death machine with optics to match.

It was an expensive gun to manufacture.

But on a practical basis in our game, it's not so valuable.

It involves more player manpower to maneuver and tow.

It's soft yet large nature makes it easy prey to air units, ironically the thing it was RL designed to kill, yet it doesn't have effective AA fire.

Our marking systems in game belie a level of communication and instant 'marking' for ground targets not seen on the RL battlefield until Blue Force Tracker- created about the same time as the game.  88s are particularly affected by this.

And above all, the porous nature of our lines and density and 'offsides spawning', the lowest infantry can sneak through the area and kill them.

Wasn't that way in the early going of the game because of the different terrain and nature of the game reality they operated in. 

 

Any valuation system that does not account for our game's 'reality' is doomed to 'get it wrong'.

Yes, that involves judgement, not the fetish for Pentagon-type spreadsheet truths.

K/D based analysis is a variant on such things and doesn't tell the truth, but neither does this current method.  They should not be ignored and help make informed decisions, but never be crutched on, and include game reality performance in their valuation.

[Elfin]

Maybe it's time to reinstate the choice of TOE by HC for a map?

(within limits of course)

Given that players are concerned, then "said" players can do HC and set up the TOE as they see fit for an upcoming map.

That at least would take the heat off of CRS and put it on players.

Then again ....there is the risk HC for a side...will be unable to agree on deployment.

If players don't step up.....then CRS can be the default situation.

Perhaps fewer concerns from players will arise.

 

[raptor34]

54 minutes ago, Elfin said:

Maybe it's time to reinstate the choice of TOE by HC for a map?

(within limits of course)

Given that players are concerned, then "said" players can do HC and set up the TOE as they see fit for an upcoming map.

That at least would take the heat off of CRS and put it on players.

Then again ....there is the risk HC for a side...will be unable to agree on deployment.

If players don't step up.....then CRS can be the default situation.

Perhaps fewer concerns from players will arise.

 

100% 

More campaign variety, more interesting map set ups, only fellow players to blame, not CRS

[delems]

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?

Edited May 20, 2021 by delems

[stikyfingr]

On 5/18/2021 at 9:17 PM, XOOM said:

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. 

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.

Vast majority should appreciate that reply. Ty.

[goreblimey]

7 hours ago, delems said:

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?

Look it takes 3 axis to fight fair......

try 1 tiger vs  1 s76 that can respawn twice

[Kidd27]

20 hours ago, delems said:

*** I’m totally disinterested in pool table discussions.

So purposely ignoring facts?

If all those other factors are exactly even for a given hour or two....

Then the 12 - 4 doesn't change that?  Because it does - it is not fair, it is not even.

How can you be so blind?  12 > 4.  Period.

So, same skill, same players, same effort. -- 12 to 4 is not the same.

But, so be it, we will continue to see axis players stop playing and leave until this tank balance is corrected is my guess.

stop picking out a part of the entire equation as proof of an imbalance.

The whole equation includes ALL equipment. not just the 2 you've decided to pick out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kidd27]

12 hours ago, delems said:

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?

why do the axis get 3 players? how bout he gets the tiger and you get the s76.

when you die you can respawn and drive back to find him again.

[Kidd27]

15 hours ago, raptor34 said:

100% 

More campaign variety, more interesting map set ups, only fellow players to blame, not CRS

i believe the "HC controls too much of my fun" was an argument for ditching HC pick 'ems

[N8]

34 minutes ago, Kidd27 said:

stop picking out a part of the entire equation as proof of an imbalance.

The whole equation includes ALL equipment. not just the 2 you've decided to pick out.

 

ok

28 minutes ago, Kidd27 said:

i believe the "HC controls too much of my fun" was an argument for ditching HC pick 'ems

ok

31 minutes ago, Kidd27 said:

why do the axis get 3 players? how bout he gets the tiger and you get the s76.

when you die you can respawn and drive back to find him again.

ok

[fidd]

51 minutes ago, Kidd27 said:

i believe the "HC controls too much of my fun" was an argument for ditching HC pick 'ems

I think most HC officers would laugh their heads off at the notion of HC "controlling" much of anything, beyond where and when an AO is placed. Personally I'd like us to move away from "cookie-cut" TOE's for Bde's, and would like to see more variety, especially, but not limited to, the axis Bde's, who I think would really benefit from being able to optimise their TOE's for the terrain.

[N8]

ok

9 minutes ago, fidd said:

I think most HC officers would laugh their heads off at the notion of HC "controlling" much of anything, beyond where and when an AO is placed. Personally I'd like us to move away from "cookie-cut" TOE's for Bde's, and would like to see more variety, especially, but not limited to, the axis Bde's, who I think would really benefit from being able to optimise their TOE's for the terrain.

ok

[choad]

1 hour ago, Kidd27 said:

stop picking out a part of the entire equation as proof of an imbalance.

The whole equation includes ALL equipment. not just the 2 you've decided to pick out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

He will never do that because he knows his brittle argument would start to fall apart like a cheap suit.

[rob]

My solution to the 12 to 4 ratio would be 12 Sherm 76 to 4 Tiger and 8 Panther. I'm really hoping that's the path forward. 

[fidd]

57 minutes ago, rob said:

My solution to the 12 to 4 ratio would be 12 Sherm 76 to 4 Tiger and 8 Panther. I'm really hoping that's the path forward. 

There is no "solution", because there is no "problem". just as there was never a "mattty problem" in respect of axis tier 0 armour was essentially unable to KO Matildas. There has been a series of ill-advised terrain changes, and FMS implementations/short EWS range for trucks, all of which created a terrain problem in rendering defensive ATG's near useless. As the 88 was only effective means of despatching Matildas at a decent range, this created the Matty problem. In the same way, this "12to4" problem is no such thing, because the stats that matter are those covering the probabilities of taking a cp, and of taking a town. The actual composition of the TOE's can be pretty much anything.

There's also the overall server-pop situation to consider. The axis have a HUGE advantage in low pop where 4 players can spawn Tigers, whereas the allies, especially in attack, have to spawn at least double that just to attain a rough parity. I presume, and I am guessing here, that these issues are all fed into Xoom's "ouija-board" when TOE's are set for any given tier. If the axis were up against 12 to 4 (simultaneously) 24/7, and across the front, then there might be some grounds for reviewing it, were tank v tank stats the only consideration in arriving at what constitutes a good TOE.

I would think if and when the Panther comes in, you'll see a reduction in the number of Tigers - current numbers widely over-represent the type - and some Panthers, 8 may be a little over-optimistic! ...and hopefully some as yet undevved Hetzers/Marders to leaven the mix. So long as we have this bloody-awful terrain, it's likely that any axis TOE featuring Tigers and Panthers will find itself in trouble in flat terrain, and doing rather well in hilly terrain where longer engagements are possible. As the Panther is even more vulnerable to hits from the side, than the Tiger that same marking/ease of flanking which is currently seeing the Tiger underperform in flat terrain is likely to be worse than with the Tiger. So this, again, like the "matty problem" is first and foremost actually a terrain problem. 

If you first instinct on reading this is to boil with rage, consider this: The Pak40 is the best ATG in game, both with optics, ease of concealment, and hitting power/low dispersion. it is also currently nearly useless in defence, like every single other medium ATG in game, because of the terrain, marking, clouds of aircraft and FMS environment. If the terrain foliage was reduced, significantly, bush-tunnels done away with, and ATG's were generally able to be towed out roughly within 1000m of town before there were eyes on that same ground, then, we would not be so hung up on the numbers of this or that tank.

Edited May 20, 2021 by fidd

[N8]

34 minutes ago, fidd said:

There is no "solution"

And there is no "need" for these unnecessary paragraphs.

[rob]

On 5/19/2021 at 9:03 AM, BMBM said:

I’m totally disinterested in pool table discussions. Your X vs Y scenarios never play out as such in game and are wholly misleading. Again and for the last time, you have to factor in population, situation, skill, morale, terrain, phase of battle and other factors (eg surprise, use of cover and smoke, air superiority, optics etc) - using simple numbers is simply leading you up the garden path to lalala-land.

We're already in lala -land, BMBM. Mostly due to terrain and the FPS solo style of the vast majority of players. One of those can be fixed, the other not so much.

[tater]

@Kilemall has his thread about rating equipment that is a good idea, the question in my mind is how to do so empirically.

If we could spawn equipment in some featureless part of the map, so all possible engagement ranges could be tested it might be interesting.

Have a meeting engagement between 2 tanks. Say tiger and S76. Other than them spawning beyond gun range, that's it. If one gets killed, the winner stays in game, and the loser spawns another of the same type. This continues until the one that won the first engagement dies. The number killed is the relative strength. Maybe do 2 runs, one with 1 tank stationary, then switch and make the previous stationary close range, then compare?

If you get a situation where one can always win (say a tiger vs an A13, and the A13 never gets close enough to hurt the tiger), then redo the experiment with 2 A13 at the same time, then if that  cant win, add another, etc. Multiples of the same type might be able to flank and hit from behind.

No idea here, but SOME way to actually test.