Tank supply imbalance

[tater]

2 hours ago, undercova said:

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

When I pop on late at night here, it's nearly always not enough people to possibly mount any defense at all. 3-4 vs... dunno how many. 20+?

Supply balance is certainly different with different pop levels, I agree, and I'm not saying to balance based on TZ3. My point is that numbers dominate everything, and complaining about how many of units X equates to 1 unit Y is pointless as overall numbers change everything.

If you have a zillion inf pouring in, your tanks are safer because any inf AT (or ATGs) have to run that gauntlet. The UP side is always on the back foot, and since attackers have the advantages that defenders should have, they start off behind, and catching up is difficult.

The only way to objectively measure relative unit capability is to come up with a testing regime that ignores player numbers.

Then in the actual game, disparities are not related to whatever the ratio of controversial units is, but player numbers. (and seek balance on those somehow)

[drkmouse]

20 hours ago, fidd said:

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.

Bs again....  only one  who was putgn out  hilghy slelective were  those def teh matty....    every unit that even had a chance to klil themattty wer used.... ( and  of those  the 88 and   sapper  were easy peasy tokill, come ot think of it all wer eays peasy to kill and on  spanwing had a  very  small chance of  servigal to kill ratio) the map  moves and the FACT that allies  tried ansd sitl try  to make all front line  tonw brit to use the amtty who how ubber it is. alone.. 

and your "personal est of a 70% death rate is alffable , sorry ,   so how many kills does a camping mattty av  before  they are evenly made unusable? how many die before they kill X amount of  counter units? am not  persuading my own side, once more   blaimign the vitctums bs     in each of the past FOUR OF   FIVE maps  yes 4  OF FIVE axis came out   op at start and wer STILL pushed bakc, once it became  undeneabla amperent  that there was  a  unfun axpect to being lemming to a killing machine did the numbers drop, not becuse  I personly made them drop.  you give  me way too much  cred on influencing peeps now a days.

[undercova]

1 hour ago, tater said:

When I pop on late at night here, it's nearly always not enough people to possibly mount any defense at all. 3-4 vs... dunno how many. 20+?

Supply balance is certainly different with different pop levels, I agree, and I'm not saying to balance based on TZ3. My point is that numbers dominate everything, and complaining about how many of units X equates to 1 unit Y is pointless as overall numbers change everything.

If you have a zillion inf pouring in, your tanks are safer because any inf AT (or ATGs) have to run that gauntlet. The UP side is always on the back foot, and since attackers have the advantages that defenders should have, they start off behind, and catching up is difficult.

The only way to objectively measure relative unit capability is to come up with a testing regime that ignores player numbers.

Then in the actual game, disparities are not related to whatever the ratio of controversial units is, but player numbers. (and seek balance on those somehow)

i took part in many TZ3 raids ... when axis took many towns in a row ... and ive seen many ETs and EAs out to "slow" down the axis attack. absolutely a wrong priority of unit selection. like 2-3 allied infantry defending a town while there are 2-3 allied tanks out and like 2-3 planes up in the sky. no surprise you lose a town then.

 

i remember that a few days ago axis were overpop and rolling in TZ3 too ... but at every AO you could find 2+ allied players going straight for the Tiger(s) and not respawn in town to hold CP. they just stayed outside town and went only for the high tier axis tanks

certain allied players just dont log into game anymore when they see that potthead is online in TZ3. fits to the usual allied behaviour every campaign (at least in the past) ... when most allies didnt play at all or randomly only ... UNTIL US troops or french Shermans show up in allied supply list and magically allied overpop moved the map east. this happens less because of multiple allied victories in a row combined with constant absence and leaving of many veteran axis players since last year.

[undercova]

1 hour ago, tater said:

When I pop on late at night here, it's nearly always not enough people to possibly mount any defense at all. 3-4 vs... dunno how many. 20+?

Supply balance is certainly different with different pop levels, I agree, and I'm not saying to balance based on TZ3. My point is that numbers dominate everything, and complaining about how many of units X equates to 1 unit Y is pointless as overall numbers change everything.

If you have a zillion inf pouring in, your tanks are safer because any inf AT (or ATGs) have to run that gauntlet. The UP side is always on the back foot, and since attackers have the advantages that defenders should have, they start off behind, and catching up is difficult.

The only way to objectively measure relative unit capability is to come up with a testing regime that ignores player numbers.

Then in the actual game, disparities are not related to whatever the ratio of controversial units is, but player numbers. (and seek balance on those somehow)

also ... allies are extremely strong in post TZ3 ... mostly recapping the axis TZ3 caps within just 1-3 hours every day. as you can see it swings back and forth all the time

[tater]

1 hour ago, undercova said:

i took part in many TZ3 raids ... when axis took many towns in a row ... and ive seen many ETs and EAs out to "slow" down the axis attack. absolutely a wrong priority of unit selection. like 2-3 allied infantry defending a town while there are 2-3 allied tanks out and like 2-3 planes up in the sky. no surprise you lose a town then.

Yesterday (or the night before?) it was 3-4 of us total. No tanks. No planes. 1 of the 4 might have been an ATG.

This isn't a side based complaint on my part, BTW, being grossly overmatched sucks universally.

As for poor unit choice, if I spawn in and there are not more Allied defenders than CPs by some margin, I don't even bother playing the game the server cares about (capping/guarding). I just try and shoot people without getting shot since "winning" is completely impossible. If that involves grabbing a zook and taking out a tiger? What difference does it make, the town is lost anyway.

Edited May 27, 2021 by tater

[delems]

Two questions.

First, if tanking numbers and gear is so fair.

How come many axis tankers have said it is unfair with their words, their actions (not playing) and money (unsubbing).

 

Second, don't you think maybe just 1 axis tanker would have figured it out and still be playing and teaching the rest of the tankers what to do?  Not one bright axis tanker after 20 years of playing?

Edited May 27, 2021 by delems

[tater]

58 minutes ago, delems said:

Two questions.

First, if tanking numbers and gear is so fair.

How come many axis tankers have said it is unfair with their words, their actions (not playing) and money (unsubbing).

 

Second, don't you think maybe just 1 axis tanker would have figured it out and still be playing and teaching the rest of the tankers what to do?  Not one bright axis tanker after 20 years of playing?

I came back a few years ago (2018?) after a long time away. I have to say that the bulk of that time I was on, I thought the game pretty much consisted of spawning into a contested town (Allied), and watching it fall, with enemies really everywhere. Most of my posts were about how impossible defense was, because all I ever saw was the handful against many situation. It might be the hours I chose to play, but at the time we lost the campaigns as well.

At that time Axis posts were telling us that it was all the fault of "morale."

Turned around, that probably would ring as false to you as it did to me at the time.

The only way to test is to have even sides and see how it turns out, then adjust the population. If the loses scale with being UP, but it's decently balanced pop neutral, then it's the pop, not the units or abundance of units. If one side repeatedly wins with even pop, then that side might have an eqp advantage (quality or quantity—or both).

[kazee]

Hmmm, wonder if i should get involved in this thread...probably be abit to harsh for most however I will state the truth

I have not been around the forums or in game for many months and after reading replies from a rat in here, no reason for this 20 year vet to resub. Its quite sad and pitiful some of the responses and also quite easy to debate against them

yes there is a major armor imbalance...if its all about numbers and some have said, then give the axis 50% more tigers since if u say its about numbers, then they wont even be used or spawned in

Also Tiger does have an armor leak, seems to be right side of main gun (when looking head on to the tank)  that and the gun being de-gunned way too often made me rage unsub.  even a qa team member mentioned it a few weeks ago when i was roaming around in here....probably never be fixed though so no point

[kazee]

on a side note....using numbers on how much a piece of armor 'cost' a country 80 years ago is not a good nor smart path to go down...this is a freaking game people play and 80% of the playerbase i bet does not even know a system like this is even in place nor would they even care how much one tank costs...they just want to play the game

Plus the rdp factor and bombing factories and re-supply time has not even been taking into account in this thread...that advantage alone is huge for the already titled armor supply

 

[kazee]

oh i see the axis got the pz 1 now haha 

here is your gnawed up bone with no meat left on it....so sftu  axis players 

why even waste the time developing this 20 years later, kind of a slap in the face

we are nerfing your lmg but u will get the Ju88....ahhhh that was 2.5 years ago right ?

[delems]

*** oh i see the axis got the pz 1 now

We haven't had a tier 0 with it in yet, so not really sure how it will do.

But, it is better than nothing; many think it will be too vulnerable to ei / ea.

Prolly need to give it a couple tier 0 maps to find out.

[kazee]

5 minutes ago, delems said:

*** oh i see the axis got the pz 1 now

We haven't had a tier 0 with it in yet, so not really sure how it will do.

But, it is better than nothing; many think it will be too vulnerable to ei / ea.

Prolly need to give it a couple tier 0 maps to find out.

yea i hear you but imho its a complete waste of man hours to develop it...one ei rifle with the many fms out there

so u guys have not even had it in game yet ?

[delems]

Is in game recently, but not for tier 0.

[drkmouse]

On 5/26/2021 at 6:55 PM, 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 ?

and  axis can kill at  3K  LOLOL ALL  ammo but edd and i think boffers times out  way before then,  showing  your alternatvei facts huh?

[goreblimey]

23 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

and  axis can kill at  3K  LOLOL ALL  ammo but edd and i think boffers times out  way before then,  showing  your alternatvei facts huh?

I can quite easily 1 or 2 shot sherm76 frontally at 2800m , tested . If shots time out at 3k so be it. Slightly more plausible than your claim that StuG were being slaughtered frontally by French 25mm guns hey.

You publish to much emotional rhetoric, keep to the provable truth , you might be better off.

At least Delems tries to put some fact based argument up

Edited May 28, 2021 by goreblimey

[jwilly]

8 hours ago, tater said:

The only way to objectively measure relative unit capability is to come up with a testing regime that ignores player numbers.

That statement is premised on "relative unit capability" not having a synergism aspect.

That is, scale would not affect how the game works in ways other than just numbers.

I would argue that we have observational evidence that scale substantially affects how the game works.

And if so, it's not valid to extrapolate relative unit capability from a testing scale to greater or lesser scales.

[dm79]

You are fighting a losing battle if you try and argue about pop and the amount of units one side has over the other, these arguments have been going on since the start of the game and they will never be ok or right that's a fact. Both sides are and have always have argued that it's not fair depending on who is losing at that moment, even if some of the arguments have merit. 

What you can argue for is for the units in the game to operate as close as possible to known datasets. Correct me if i am wrong but the RATs are committed to making the units, amour, penetration and physics as historically accurate as possible, within the limits of the game engine while trying to keep it enjoyable. This is and always has been the guiding principle of the game in my eyes at least.

With that in mind you paying customers should be pressuring them to make sure things such as amour leaks, overmatch, normalization, amour values and penetration values are all correct backing up your arguments with real world data or examples in game. Call them out on it get them to check things, show you things are correct. I don't feel the overmatch mechanics in game are correct or even working at all, and nothing BMBM has said has diswaded me from that view but i remain open minded. 

Like i said a few pages back before all pointless arguments drowned it out, if overmatch is done correctly in game you are not going to need to argue about a lack of tanks to deal with inflated Sherman numbers as all your HV 75mm tanks are going to be able to penetrate the fronts of Sherman tanks out to about 1km.

[tater]

13 hours ago, jwilly said:

That statement is premised on "relative unit capability" not having a synergism aspect.

That is, scale would not affect how the game works in ways other than just numbers.

I would argue that we have observational evidence that scale substantially affects how the game works.

And if so, it's not valid to extrapolate relative unit capability from a testing scale to greater or lesser scales.

We need boundary values.

One is how the vehicles compare objectively.

The other is fairly open-ended. How does the best tank compare in a battle where the best possible tank is against infinite enemies with lesser equipment (including RPATs, etc).

Clearly once outnumbered enough, literally any unit is defeated or mission killed. Tanks don't cap, so you could have a tank sitting in the AB that cannot be killed, but is tracked, and it is harmless. It eventually has no ammo, it can't capture, ignore it.

The complaint here is the ratio of S76 to Tigers. Under the assumption that the number should not be identical for each side, the question is how many more S76. 3:1 is said to be too many. Is it 2.75:1? 2.5:1? 1.75:1?

Objectively comparing them at least sets a boundary. If testing showed 1v1 loss rates that were closer to 50/50, then I would say that they need to be nearly equal.

[drkmouse]

*The complaint here is the ratio of S76 to Tigers. Under the assumption that the number should not be identical for each side, the question is how many more S76. 3:1 is said to be too many. Is it 2.75:1? 2.5:1? 1.75:1?*

why are you miss  directing  what the argumetn is? the argumtn is  not  EQUALamount  but  an amount that has a chance ot be over come  in a fiar  figth... and  those numbers a clrely way beouynd that.

[tater]

9 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

why are you miss  directing  what the argumetn is? the argumtn is  not  EQUALamount  but  an amount that has a chance ot be over come  in a fiar  figth... and  those numbers a clrely way beouynd that.

Can you not read?

You are literally saying what I said.

"Under the assumption that the number should not be identical for each side, the question is how many more S76."

That says not equal. What the actual ratio is can only be determined via testing. Actual play doesn't work because the skew of player numbers breaks literally everything.

[drkmouse]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Can you not read?

You are literally saying what I said.

"Under the assumption that the number should not be identical for each side, the question is how many more S76."

That says not equal. What the actual ratio is can only be determined via testing. Actual play doesn't work because the skew of player numbers breaks literally everything.

damb   dyslexia  did not see the NOt in sentce 9 even read it  2 teims(

my opoliges and explains my shock at your change i stance 

[BMBM]

3 hours ago, dm79 said:

I don't feel the overmatch mechanics in game are correct or even working at all, and nothing BMBM has said has diswaded me from that view but i remain open minded. 

Overmatch IS in the live game and IS working to specs, as our internal logs reveal. I will have to defer to Scotsman for a full technical explanation but in my understanding overmatch occurs when the projectile diameter is in the region of 3x or more compared to the opposing plate. This, given sufficient joules of kinetic transfer, will stove in the much thinner plate - in addition to penetrating. If the projectile does not meet these criteria (armor too thick, projectile caliber too small) it may yet penetrate unless it glances off, given sufficient velocity and caliber. IOW, you’ll typically see armored cars and light tanks as victims of overmatch rather than tanks (frontal engagements). This effect is however not represented by the visual damage model.

[kazee]

2 hours ago, tater said:

The complaint here is the ratio of S76 to Tigers

The complaints here is also that 40% of the shermans are s76s. 30 total shermans for usa and 12 are s76s equals 40%

I don't know much about production numbers during ww2, but 40% seems high...just a quick basic search is saying M4A3 (76) # produced 1,925 ?  Tiger 1 # produced 1,300 ?

If those numbers are correct, then........

Like i said not sure if these numbers are correct but Jwilly probably would know

[tater]

I'm for getting whatever the balance should be right. The annoying thing about player numbers is that the idealized case could get the numbers exactly right, but then player numbers break it. Course then there could be limitations based on OP/UP to deal with that.

[delems]

I see 5 French towns now --- out of 30......

Center towns suddenly going USA,  Bast, Wiltz.

Edited May 28, 2021 by delems