Tank supply imbalance

[BMBM]

2 hours ago, delems said:

Do that match best of 7 --- 12 s76 and 4 tigers ----  I'd guess the 12 s76 will win all 7.

Your premise is faulty. You will rarely if ever see massive fights where 12 Shermans advance against 4 Tigers on a pool table where everyone gets a turn-based shot. More likely you’ll have 1-2 Tigers and a couple of IVs and Stugs vs a smattering of uncoordinated Shermans, M10s and Stuarts, with combats being as uncoordinated and spastic as the players. Add in a couple of outliers - flankers, flank-flankers, canny ATGs and droves of ATS - and your clean premise is again anything but. What it comes down to, most of the time, is actual spawned in players - not spawnlist numbers.

[fidd]

8 minutes ago, BMBM said:

The Pzjäger I has been on the charts for a long time. As have the Panther, and several other notable [undisclosed] platforms for both sides. It’s only just that it was added, similar to the long-needed Pz3L (which seems to be mostly disregarded as ineffecient despite being anything but).

The 88 is hamstrung by slow push speed and towing requirement, plus being rather conspicuous even before it gets to fire - when it becomes yet more conspicuous prey. More 88s or faster 88s isn’t the solution here - it’s population at large. And less vegetation.

I completely agree. I hope it was clear I was not suggesting the Pzjgr 1 was not somehow "magicked" into game due to the Matty "problem" specifically. There's no doubt, however, as Xoom said as much in the video of it pre-release, that the need to get in-game was impelled by percieved issues with the Matty. I was not, am not, suggesting that this was in any way not correct and in accordance with the road-map.

[delems]

*** Your premise is faulty. You will rarely if ever see massive fights where 12 Shermans advance against 4 Tigers

Actually, I said take out 2 by 2, from a pool of 12 s76 and 4 tigers.

[delems]

*** It is not a lie. Delems admitted here publicly that this was the case

About 99% sure what I said was axis chose to stop playing.  Then I rephrased it, because I don't speak for axis nor do I actually know if others stopped playing. (though I could see fewer on - so inferred it)

And restated it as I chose to stop playing.

As I never use the 88, moot point regarding it -- can't stop doing what one never did.

[fidd]

Just now, dfire said:

I hate to say it, but if you ever wonder why people continue to disagree and often scroll past your posts without reading them, and often times "haha" them, it's because of posts like this. Also, I told you to try axis for a map a few months ago so you can see it in reality before making such out of touch suggestions and hilarious theories, but you were quick to make excuses not to and stuck around on the overpop side. Moral of the story: Play both sides before you tell the others what they need to do, people would have A LOT more respect for you, including me.

I do play both sides, but tend to cycle every few years, rather than every campaign. Moreover, I also play, like everyone else, where you feel at home. My recent disinclination to play axis is entirely driven by seeing some axis posters attempting to derive advantage through highly misleading use of selective "stats", and their hostility when taken to task over this. This is a fairly new wrinkle from some axis posters, when it was not the case, I viewed both sides without favour and was entirely happy to play both sides. These days, I view this sort of weaselly behaviour as inconsistent with a side I wish to play for. Simple as that. It certainly never used to be the case that axis players posted to an agenda talking up allied kit, and decrying their own, in order to seek advantage. 

Clearly, as evidenced by the reported lack of numbers on the axis side, I am not alone in either finding these new methods distasteful, or, being negatively affected by believing them to be true. The solution lays in your own hands: Stop briefing against your own kit and assigning non-existant virtues to enemy kit, and your numbers may recover. Simple as that.

 

[fidd]

8 minutes ago, delems said:

*** It is not a lie. Delems admitted here publicly that this was the case

About 99% sure what I said was axis chose to stop playing.  Then I rephrased it, because I don't speak for axis nor do I actually know if others stopped playing. (though I could see fewer on - so inferred it)

And restated it as I chose to stop playing.

As I never use the 88, moot point regarding it -- can't stop doing what one never did.

Actually, if you remember, you chose to claim that "it was a different campaign" to the one which I had not seen a single solitary 88 outside the AB. I let it go as that, because nothing would be served as to which campaign was the one in which 88's were being left in the barn, as by then it'd become fairly general behaviour for several campaigns on the trot. I never accused you personally of failing to use 88's, however, it was very clear to allied players, that for whatever reason, they were no longer being brought out, and that this behaviour was the back-ground against which campaign-specific tank v tank (only) stats were being advanced by you, Vonopo et al to suggest a loss rate of matildas that was literally unreal, and bore no resemblence whatsoever to the reality of using them, because it failed to take account of the progressive loss of most Matilda kills - loss of movement, blinding with smoke, sapping or other HEAT rounds.

 

 

 

[fidd]

20 minutes ago, dfire said:

Wrong (yet again). People aren't advocating for an advantage, they're advocating for balance. Your perspective is way off. I myself have no problems killing your equipment in this game. My posts in this thread are more on behalf of all the axis tankers that have unsubbed and are gone. If you want them to stay gone, more power to you. 

It was, and remains, as plain as a pikestaff, that during the "Matty problem" exchanges, highly selective tank v tank "stats" were being employed to create the suggestion that the Matilda was unkillable  by axis armour, and that this was the reason for 4 campaigns being lost. This agenda, in my view, did enormous damage to axis morale, and therefore numbers, but was wholly misleading, as it failed to recognise the actual loss rate of Matildas on both defensive and offensive AO's, which is circa 70%. I claimed this at the time, and was met with disbelief by those pedalling the tank v tank stats. Once the all v all stats were addressed, my personal estimate of 70% death-rate in the Matilda proved to be very very close to being accurate, which of course completely undermined the tank v tank stats then being bandied about by yourself and others, which allededly proved the Matilda was unkillable.

The fault was in zeroing in one aspect of the combat stats - tank v tank - and then extrapolating from that there was an imbalance. What actually occurred, was that you and others convinced other axis players that the 88 an axis tier 0 tanks were of no use, that these tank v tank stats were the "true" indicator of imbalance, axis tanks ceased playing or went allied, and you got caned as a result. This was entirely a self-inflicted injury. 

The oft repeated mantra that tier 0 was imbalanced became a self-fulfilling prophecy. You are now doing the same thing with the Sh76, which will doubtless obtain the same end-result. Only looking at both sides overall chances of town captures, of cp captures (and many other metrics our very poor stats cannot track) can a true assessment of the fairness of TOE's - given equal pop - be made. If you hone in only on tank v tank stats, as occurred throughout the Matilda debate, and only view stats of recent campaigns you've lost, then a highly misleading case can be states to imply imbalance. All I did was to point this out. If the axis pop has tanked, it because they bought into this nonsense.

Balance comes with numbers, not TOE's. Persuading your own side of the "imbalance" simply changed the numbers.

Edited May 26, 2021 by fidd

[jwilly]

There is no such thing as "balance" in a game that models completely different kit for each side. There is only a complex mesh of equipment performances, player skills and player numbers.

Apparently quite a few people don't want to play unless the equipment they prefer to play with, has an advantage...which they call "balance".

Edited May 26, 2021 by jwilly

[fidd]

18 minutes ago, jwilly said:

There is no such thing as "balance" in a game that models completely different kit for each side. There is only a complex mesh of equipment performances, player skills and player numbers.

Apparently quite a few people don't want to play unless the equipment they prefer to play with, has an advantage...which they call "balance".

Agreed. Having spoken via pm with some axis players, for my part, I consider this matter closed, so am withdrawing from this debate for now, a mutual understanding having arisen, and all that needed to be said, having been stated by both sides.

[drkmouse]

23 minutes ago, jwilly said:

There is no such thing as "balance" in a game that models completely different kit for each side. There is only a complex mesh of equipment performances, player skills and player numbers.

Apparently quite a few people don't want to play unless the equipment they prefer to play with, has an advantage...which they call "balance".

balance is a term   used ot say  use  at least have a 30 to 50% cahnce... not an adv. Those who want an non stop adv  seem ot be the allied nerf team, who def   a huge adv  non stop and   attack even a slight adc  axi smay have  wiht a single weapon...

all many of  are asking for is a chance to have fun ( and fun is not  sneeking out of a ab  using binaocs non stop  and then poof dead ot a inv  enemy  whos color is expaclty teh back goursn and cn kill you at  2000meters  one shot, while you cannot  even come clos eto the same. 9 on topof the having 1505  more  of thta same equip)

[goreblimey]

24 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

balance is a term   used ot say  use  at least have a 30 to 50% cahnce... not an adv. Those who want an non stop adv  seem ot be the allied nerf team, who def   a huge adv  non stop and   attack even a slight adc  axi smay have  wiht a single weapon...

all many of  are asking for is a chance to have fun ( and fun is not  sneeking out of a ab  using binaocs non stop  and then poof dead ot a inv  enemy  whos color is expaclty teh back goursn and cn kill you at  2000meters  one shot, while you cannot  even come clos eto the same. 9 on topof the having 1505  more  of thta same equip)

Presenting an alternative view does not qualify being referred to as the allied nerf team.

As far as 2000m shots go , again you spout rubbish, 2500,3000 m  possible with axis equipment. Your hyperbole gets the better of you again, or is this a morning post that we have to remind you of ?

Edited May 26, 2021 by goreblimey

[drkmouse]

4 hours ago, goreblimey said:

Presenting an alternative view does not qualify being referred to as the allied nerf team.

As far as 2000m shots go , again you spout rubbish, 2500,3000 m  possible with axis equipment. Your hyperbole gets the better of you again, or is this a morning post that we have to remind you of ?

even some of your tanker  admit they can kill stug  panzer g  at  2K ( out of  sigh trankge of  axis tnaks btw  with teh foliage we have now)

[drkmouse]

6 hours ago, goreblimey said:

Presenting an alternative view does not qualify being referred to as the allied nerf team.

As far as 2000m shots go , again you spout rubbish, 2500,3000 m  possible with axis equipment. Your hyperbole gets the better of you again, or is this a morning post that we have to remind you of ?

lets take a closer  look at my staement  about   the nerf allied team sahl we?

A) non stop  wanting  lmg  nerfed as a laser  +  cp clearing  killling machine.  Def  the  toomy gun depsite  it also  being  a laser shoter  and   cp clering machine

b:  campain to get  pak38   remvoed form  tier ) beacuse was not used  by axis on western fornt  dryuing  that tme period    : def  the bontosn being in the british spwn list  deptie  not beign in  teh  birt  spwn list AT ALL dyurin gtha time period and only in the next  BECUSE FRANCE FELL and they got there bostons

C) campiained   to get  fg42  removed form  front lines ( aka  inf diev) thoug   germain y used them that way...)   DEfending rigoslry the use of  brit  af on the man land DESPITE them not useing them that way

D) DEF the HGE  disparity of  armor number   in us  flags vs germainsy  whiel at SAME time   compling  frehc  flags are  not bi genough ( suing the oposte agurment  dep on  if us or french brough tup)

E) do i need go on?

as  for your snipe at my "morning post" non are directed at you ...  wish i coudl say same back

[stikyfingr]

13 hours ago, BMBM said:

The 88 is hamstrung by slow push speed and towing requirement, plus being rather conspicuous even before it gets to fire - when it becomes yet more conspicuous prey. More 88s or faster 88s isn’t the solution here - it’s population at large. And less vegetation.

So can the 88 be a 1 account piece where the tow and gun are 'as one', like the spaa stuff. Driver, gunner, bino man. Deploy gun once stationary. 

It that feasible? Or nobody even thought of it before? 

[stikyfingr]

Just 1 last thing from me. 

Going back a few years, this thread raised the question of US flag armour numbers.

Try Axis v these flags while underpop, never mind balanced pop. 

There IS a slight discrepancy in numbers. I don't think it's huge, having played with both sets, but it is there. Pop being an amplifier for it. For me it either gets adjusted a bit or Pzr4H gets more and Pzr4g gets less. 4H was the most produced 4 variant I think and ran 43 onwards. 4G was not in prod by our tier 3/4/5 etc. Tier 4 should be all 4H + Stugy and a smattering of 3s. 

[undercova]

22 minutes ago, stikyfingr said:

So can the 88 be a 1 account piece where the tow and gun are 'as one', like the spaa stuff. Driver, gunner, bino man. Deploy gun once stationary. 

It that feasible? Or nobody even thought of it before? 

you mean this ?

https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/germany/8.8cm-Flak18-(Sfl.)-auf-schwere-Zugkraftwagen12t(Sd.Kfz-8).php

[Kidd27]

1 hour ago, stikyfingr said:

 

There IS a slight discrepancy in numbers. I don't think it's huge, having played with both sets, but it is there. Pop being an amplifier for it. For me it either gets adjusted a bit or Pzr4H gets more and Pzr4g gets less. 4H was the most produced 4 variant I think and ran 43 onwards. 4G was not in prod by our tier 3/4/5 etc. Tier 4 should be all 4H + Stugy and a smattering of 3s. 

I can get behind tweaking numbers.

CRS cant create a "correct" finite number that is meant for everyone to spawn, and still allow 1 player to spawn unlimited numbers.

The numbers can and will always be off, and always open for debate. (or biased arguments)

[stikyfingr]

3 hours ago, undercova said:

you mean this ?

https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/germany/8.8cm-Flak18-(Sfl.)-auf-schwere-Zugkraftwagen12t(Sd.Kfz-8).php

That would do. 

[stikyfingr]

2 hours ago, Kidd27 said:

I can get behind tweaking numbers.

CRS cant create a "correct" finite number that is meant for everyone to spawn, and still allow 1 player to spawn unlimited numbers.

The numbers can and will always be off, and always open for debate. (or biased arguments)

Agreed.

Numbers can be tweaked and tweaked again or tweaked back if the first set was found to be correct.

[tater]

One possibility is a new kind of MSP.

ATG prime mover sets the MSP, and it clones the prime mover (the MSP looks like the vehicle).

The spawn list has ONE ATG in it (an 88 in this case), plus the infantry associated with an 88 for defense (a  squad?).

 

Another possibility is to add the ability for ATGs to become a "walking MSP" themselves for defensive infantry. Same deal, a fixed number that does not resupply. So if you control an 88, and there are reports of ei heading your way, you turn on the MSP, then send a "Need defensive inf for ATG /j tater" in chat.

That still doesn't solve the problem of it being far, far, far too easy to take out ATGs (I'll note it is also too HARD to take them out in some cases, like shooting at one with a rifle that is chasing you on foot). ATGs have 2 crew that can't move, and an 88 should have many more than that. One getting shot should not kill it, that's absurd. ATGs and AAA all need a "duck" or "seek cover" key. Gun can't move or shoot when seeking cover, but crew not available to get shot (and reduced risk from HE as well). Ideally at the very least the CO gets a rifle, but with the defensive spawn possibility, at least if it gets plinked the crew can seek cover (duck key), then spawn def inf. The whole paradigm for ATGs is terrible. In addition, crews would certainly be able to switch jobs. No real 88 was taken out of action because the guy that usually did the aiming was killed or wounded. Another takes his place. A new DM needs to be invented that allows for the number of crew guns actually had.

[fidd]

2 hours ago, Kidd27 said:

I can get behind tweaking numbers.

CRS cant create a "correct" finite number that is meant for everyone to spawn, and still allow 1 player to spawn unlimited numbers.

The numbers can and will always be off, and always open for debate. (or biased arguments)

"Tweaking numbers" is simply double-speak for 'cooking the books', CRS engineered results that would be unreflective of the efforts made by the bulk of players, and unreflective of the equal-pop equal chance of town captures our tiers and TOE's represent. In short, it's a handicap system, a victory tax if you will. Applying that really would kill the game, as once uncorked, that particular genie cannot be put back in it's bottle, and no campaign win is worth the name. All that would be left is an old game with indifferent graphics and a lot of very old and creaky mechanics - and no point. The game would become indistinguishable from permanent intermission.

Likewise making attrition behave as suggested above would create so many "odd" results - captures - that were prevented or caused by the one player respawning endlessly, as to also bring the whole basis of the game in disrepute.

That's just silly.

The way to restore axis numbers is to cease claiming allied kit is unkillable, that allies have too many tanks or that the sky is otherwise falling, talk up your victories, narrow-escapes or exceptional personal efforts. Even of you ultimately lose the campaign. Numbers come from positivity. The reverse is true of unremitting moaning. That, afterall, is how you got into this mess. It is just daft to complain about US TOE's when those same TOE's have been in force during axis victories when the UP has not been in effect.

It's always the numbers.

 

 

[tater]

4 minutes ago, fidd said:

It's always the numbers.

Yeah, maybe it's because I almost always play infantry, but I see nothing but numbers. Some attacks with Allied OP in the last few days have been rolls. We had so many I didn't even bother going near a CP. In the same time period I have been on in tz3 when there were 3-4 of us vs 8 ETs, 3-4 FMS all with inf pouring out of them. I didn't bother going in CPs then, either.

 

I would like to see a real test that shows how the tank situation plays out when the sides are actually even. Like an event where the AO is curated as to player numbers, then see how the tank supply balance plays out.

[undercova]

5 hours ago, tater said:

Yeah, maybe it's because I almost always play infantry, but I see nothing but numbers. Some attacks with Allied OP in the last few days have been rolls. We had so many I didn't even bother going near a CP. In the same time period I have been on in tz3 when there were 3-4 of us vs 8 ETs, 3-4 FMS all with inf pouring out of them. I didn't bother going in CPs then, either.

 

I would like to see a real test that shows how the tank situation plays out when the sides are actually even. Like an event where the AO is curated as to player numbers, then see how the tank supply balance plays out.

there is a difference between overpop in TZ2 (US prime time) and TZ3 (AUS prime time)

TZ2 overpop (US) / scenario: allies are overpop

- slight equipment imbalances get multiplicated a lot => overpowered units and/or available amount of units => attacker has crushing dominance on the battlefield

- defender is able to cover ALL CPs because the base number of online is higher than in TZ3 but heavily outnumbered in infantry ratio

- defender can spare infantry to blow up efrus

- mostly 2 AO limit so the defender is split up in 2 towns

 

TZ3 overpop (Australia)/ scenario: axis are overpop

- slight equipment imbalances barely have any effect => a lost unit can be easily replaced

- limited amount of defenders => lucky if you have 1 guard per CP. also might happen that the defender cant cover all CPs => risk of getting overrun => need to recap and hold bunker

- defender has to guard CPs AND blow up efrus

- 1 AO limit so the defender can focus on defense of 1 town

 

the amount of players per task is a good indicator imo

 

this is why you cant take TZ3 as a reference and balance the game because of it !!

Edited May 27, 2021 by undercova

[fidd]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Yeah, maybe it's because I almost always play infantry, but I see nothing but numbers. Some attacks with Allied OP in the last few days have been rolls. We had so many I didn't even bother going near a CP. In the same time period I have been on in tz3 when there were 3-4 of us vs 8 ETs, 3-4 FMS all with inf pouring out of them. I didn't bother going in CPs then, either.

 

I would like to see a real test that shows how the tank situation plays out when the sides are actually even. Like an event where the AO is curated as to player numbers, then see how the tank supply balance plays out.

This is definitely a worthwhile trial, although, it'd have to be conducted in such a way that the result wasn't deliberately influenced to sway the result for a particular end or agenda. It's hard to see how that could be accomplished. I think the safer fashion is simply measurement of all the variables in the data CRS has access too, but we lack, and leaving it up to them.

[fidd]

59 minutes ago, undercova said:

there is a difference between overpop in TZ2 (US prime time) and TZ3 (AUS prime time)

TZ2 overpop (US) / scenario: allies are overpop

- slight equipment imbalances get multiplicated a lot => overpowered units and/or available amount of units => attacker has crushing dominance of the battlefield

- defender is able to cover ALL CPs because the base number of online is higher than in TZ3 but heavily outnumbered in infantry ratio

- defender can spare infantry to blow up efrus

- mostly 2 AO limit so the defender is split up in 2 towns

 

TZ3 overpop (Australia)/ scenario: axis are overpop

- slight equipment imbalances barely have any effect => a lost unit can be easily replaced

- limited amount of defenders => lucky if you have 1 guard per CP. also might happen that the defender cant cover all CPs => risk of getting overrun => need to recap and hold bunker

- defender has to guard CPs AND blow up efrus

- 1 AO limit so the defender can focus on defense of 1 town

 

the amount of players per task is a good indicator imo

 

this is why you cant take TZ3 as a reference and balance the game because of it !!

I think TZ3 cannot be used as a reference, for the simple fact it is that TZ that the populations of both sides are the most volatile, both over hours, and over months/years, and also because that is the period when game-mechanics are at their most disfunctional, dependant on whether or not HC is on one side or the other, or both, the varying number of AO's, SD and all the rest. Furthermore the degree of imbalance is always magnified by LP.

Although it's been a long time since I've played TZ3, but it's only a matter of a few months ago that imbalances in TZ3 were in excess of 9:1 in axis favour, as measured by allied players who wanted to establish the numbers involved. You will note that none of those axis players felt that playing the game at such odds was in any way wrong, when this was raised on the forums at the time.

And this is the whole of the actual problem, right there: Imbalances are tolerated by both sides when it's in their favour, and bitterly complained about when it is not. Until that changes in terms of being generally accepted when the OP is in your side's favour, there is simply no way to deal with it in a meaningful fashion. As someone who has frequently posted on the need for player numbers to be managed, with the minimum numbers required to be compelled to change sides to bring OP/UP within sensible limits - I get told that this or that player will unsub if ever he is once forced to play other than his chosen side. Ironically, many of the same posters currently lamenting the lack of axis numbers are the ones also vehemently opposing a graduated, sensible and minimum intervention to correct same.

Go figure.

People need to decide, do they want managed numbers, or accept that there will be periods, hours, days, weeks, months, many months, where their side takes a caning because of numeric imbalances?