No supply in pockets

2nd-d.png 2nd-b1.png 2nd-b2.png

Phenomenal day today, I frapsed so much I ran out of disk space. In my eagerness to get back to battle I fixed the problem by deleting the offending movie. Doh!

We hit a peak – a long peak – of 9 AOs. Even if we hadn’t lowered the players required per AO earlier this week, we’d still have hit 9 AOs, we’d just have hit it 1-2 minutes later.

And the frontline was dynamic today. Wow. Lots of little small/softcap actions, although none of the softcaps I turned up for appear to have been soft – like the first week after paratroops were introduced all over again. And then the Axis managed to cut-off the entire 2nd Leger division (above), and the stakes went thru the roof. Didn’t matter how big or how little the fight was, you got the sense that it was personal now.

The 7 hour timer hasn’t eliminated brigade shuffling – and we didn’t want it to. I understand there are situations where it’s cheesey, even imersion spoiling. I was watching The war tonight and there was a WWII infantryman describing the way that divisions had been swapped in and out of the Hurtgen meatgrinder. The lactococci of this issue is the fact that you spawn at the enemy’s objective so when you swap a brigade in, it can potentially “teleport” inside an enemy blockade.

If the forums are any indication, it seems some players are getting their heads around both TOEs and the changes we made at the start of this week. Right now its a quiet chatter compared to the screaming torrent of the rest of the forum, but if you look hard for it you can see the evidence of pennies dropped ;)

Of course, there had to be something. Allied Paratroopers attacking Bastogne tried to bump an AB table showing a radio, waaaay before the radio could/should have been up. I think that’s got to be related to the ancient issues the strat-updater has always had pushing building updates to people — radio tables are implemented as buildings as far as strat is concerned.

It didn’t stop us hitting and sustaining a pretty good weekend peak. I’d been planning to play some EQ2 this weekend but I’ve been hooked in WWIIOL all weekend. Didn’t get any of the other stuff I’d planned to do; my cat is sulking because she’s had to make do with going out for walks on her own (which means she just sat by the door, she doesn’t like to go out on her own anymore).

This campaign is anything but a foregone conclusion, IMHO, I’d be surprized if it didn’t last several more weeks. If we can land a few extra FPS in another small patch, I think there’s a lot in there for returning players to sink their teeth into and give us a breather to work on fixes and cleanup and even more performance.

Ok – I thought writing would help me calm down. Instead, I’m dying to log back in and play another “few” hours. Damn it. Ok. Gonna walk the cat and watch Frisky Dingo over a cup or Horlicks.

G’night ;)

28 Comments

Completely mental yesterday, both HCs seemed to give each other headaches and the overall winner was the Axis by cutting off and depleting the division.

Saying that though, in previous incarnations of this game, the penalty for routing a div or passing a div would have been far greater, the penalty this time was manageable by the AHC.

I almost sound disappointed in that sentence :)

Problem is that currently breakouts are a completely impossible in the game as currently constituted. In fact trying to develop a breakout is when encirclements happen. We tried to breakout and got cutoff and when the Axis came pouring back into the hole we basically cut them back off.

Until CRS introduces more units, or allows units to be split into smaller maneouver elements, flanking movements, breakouts etc are just invitations to be cutoff. The HCs keep WANTING to try and do it becuase its what history has shown us can be down and we all have a little inner Rommel or Patton that wants to go marching across the countryside capturing great swathes of towns. Aint going to happen.

The 4 hour brigade getting sent off the map is not enough. Make it 7 hours like the resupply.

Everyone would like to SEE a breakout happen, but would that not simply mean, gameplay wise, a long string of soft caps would ensue?

I’ve only participated in a few soft caps before, and it ain’t exactly thrilling for the attacker.

A good guiding principle in the development and evolution of this game has been that most subscribers expect to be able to kill and be killed by other humans in a timely and regular fashion. Soft capping runs contrary to that.

Breakouts should offer thrilling gameplay for the attacker – the long orgasm after much forplay! RIght now, if my unit were to “breakout”, I would just go play somplace else.

For the defender, laying speedbumps in front of the breakout attacker should also be thrilling, especially if you know there is a chance help will be on the way, or that your actions will set the stage for a counter-attack.

CRS has never had a handle on how to put worthwhile “gameplay” behind the front lines. We need rear-area security forces, support elements, and reserve status units that CANNOT be placed on the front lines, but can be in place as targets for the breakthrough forces, and speed bump forces for the defender.

Trout

Breed: It’s 6 hours. It does need to be longer, and IMHO much longer for a manual “abandonment”.

Yes, I’d like to see punishment dealt out with the longer times for mis-placing your brigade or not even attempting to move it out of harms way when it needs to be swapped.

Soft capping is now a strategy, the game doesn’t revolve 100% around shooting other people in game on the battlefield. If that was the total essence of this game I would have left a long time ago. Just could then call this game medal of Honor Online.

You still won’t be able to run the map in a day, or week. If enough brigades are knocked off the map, then breakouts will occur. Soft caps will limit and slow down the enemy response to your movements.

Separate Idea on a way to sustain breakouts: Just like there are conditions of victory, maybe there should be conditions to add more brigades to the field. A reward for advancing the battle field. Also losing brigades permanently on the reverse side. It would help accelerate the ending of the map.

so kfsone, the manual abandonment is a valid tactic?

If it is the wiki needs updating and the axis owe jamm40 an apology.

I would personally like to see the time delay for a brigade returning to be coded to be double or triple the time for it to resupply normally.

Having a brigade be completely routed should be a colossal mistake, and it should hurt, a lot.

Wrong person to ask. I would say it is, but that it should have had bigger ramifications (12-15 hours to reform). But I don’t know what the operational policies for HC staff are, so that’s merely an opinion.

Problem with making manual “abandonment” longer in punishment then you dont make it worth it and then the cutoff brigade will just head to the factories uninhibited and cause more harm to the game than pushing it off the map for 6 hours.

If I were HC and was frustrated with trying to get a division out from being surrounded, and manually routing it would be 8+ hours, I would head straight for the factories to force the enemy to bring a division back to defend behind the lines and force a hole.

Bad gamesmanship? probably.. Against the rules? No..

Koln was about 10-12 towns away and what supply the division had left could have caused alot of problems behind the lines, but fortunately AHC did not choose that route.

Uninhibited?

10% slower movement,
10% slower “transfer” (arrival of equipment at new destination),
NO resupply

I still think you would have taken the option once it was clear the Axis knew you were run down and no-longer a real threat if it meant 12 hours until you had the bde back.

Uninhibited unless they bring a division behind to stop you. But if they do that then they open up the thin lines as it is for a friendly division to come in and protect a hole for the cutoff division to get back through.

I personally think the AHC could have got out of that situation but when you are trying to make quick decisions, you get a narrow field of vision which is typical. I even had it when I was in the AHC when things were hot.

The weak points in the line were Leige, Ramet, Marche and Bastogne. The axis brigades could not have covered all of them without using a naval bde (in Liege) which could have been rolled with the brigade in the Huy area (going through the empty st.trud triangle) or by putting a vulnerable division on the line which they learned quickly in Ramet.

Brigade *movement* is too fast.

Leave all the penalties in – but limit the ability of brigades to move or reconstitute in the game equivalent of 2 days.

1 brigade movement for every 15 minutes on the map is 8 brigades moving in 2 hours. Plus – Naval and Air Brigades teleport in and out with little cost.

Slow it down.

*and* as a reality check on “break-outs”: Make supply take longer and longer for each successive soft-cap.

If softcap by brigade >1+n = resupply n*10% delayed. You get slower as you extend past your supply lines.

Then – you can let Allies and Axis move through the lines – but they better do it IN FORCE, and IN SUPPLY, or they will slowly run out of bullets, beans and gas.

Just to add historical perspective, most of the allied countries reformed and re-equiped existing regiments when they were combat ineffective due to loss of equipment (dunkirk) or casualties (D-day).

However, Germany in the 40s didn’t – the powers that be would form new regiments rather than add new conscripts into the existing weakened ones (and in my mind this was another one of those things that would hasten the downfall)

— asn

Having the ability to surrender a brigade should be allowed in my view. An extended period of training wouldn’t be a problem.

There are 2 main issues.

scking has already said one, the movement (albeit slowly) to the factories, totally in appropriate. You may find it becomes standard tactic near the end of a map.

The other issue is the enemy leave this dead division behind lines, they ignore it and move on, this dormant brigade then becomes a behind lines blight as the enemy para in and move the brigade in that fashion. Causing upset in the players.

To me the solution is cut off divisions should be allowed to surrender back to training and in a later version incur a longer return to line status.

Your going to bone yourself with the new +2 hour brigade movement rule. Some bonehead HC is going to make a mistake, and it will open up a hole in the front for 2 HOURS! If you think softcapping is bad now, go ahead with the +2 hour brigade movement rule. Not only will there be more softcaps, the Rommelettes will complain that it is WW1Online (HC will be afraid to move brigades.)

So your going to piss off both camps.

You guys should have listened to other players, not the idiot trolls who visit your forums. Has it ever occured to you CRS that you are listening to the WRONG CROWD?! You never listen.

Ah – now there’s a problem. The “CRS added the movement timer because of something players said” is a forum myth. We stated our intent for a longer timer before we released 1.27 and chose not to delay doing it because of a very negative response.

Of course, by your own definition, I shouldn’t be listening to you, because that would just be more CRS wrongness.

“Of course, by your own definition, I shouldn’t be listening to you, because that would just be more CRS wrongness.”

Your suppose to be able to discriminate between the good ideas and the bad ideas. How do you guys make the decision on who to pay attention to?

The brigade concept doesn’t sound like Killer’s original plan. Where did that idea come from?

Killer, Gophur and Doc. At last year’s con Killer was telling people it would probably take an hour or two to move a brigade when we had TO&Es.

Maybe you shouldn’t believe everything you read in forums.

PS – Since the 2 hour rule there has been a 30% in placement of fighting AOs. There have been a lot of softcaps this campaign because of how things were deployed, but despite that there has been a LOT more actual fighting.

“A town in no-mans land that neither side own, but they both have the town either side of it.

Allied town — xx ——– FB — Empty town — FB ——— xx — Axis town

Axis come around and blow Allied FB behind the empty town :-

Allied town — FB ——– xx — Empty town — FB ——— xx — Axis town ” DOC

Whos idea was this? This rediculous thing looks like something I read on the forums a couple months ago, written by a player not a dev.

You guys really aren’t thinking ahead, I think your getting your ideas from players.

One good proof is mobile spawns in TOE environment. The reason maximum distance deployment limitations (1,400 meters?) on mobile spawns were originally put into place is so someone couldn’t drain one town of all its sappers-snipers-LMG’s in a matter of minutes by spawning and despawning. Now with TOE, that really doesn’t matter anymore, but the original rule remains even though the reason for the rule doesn’t.

So, Jimbo = Zebbee?

I thought you said you were reading the blog? I first described that mechanism … 2 years ago?

FBs are destroyed by sappers. Destroying an FB is how you describe control over it. Is it the best mechanism or is it the best mechanism that can be achieved without changes to the terrain we are waiting on TEII to make? Until we can replace FBs with something else, FBs are a control indicator over a link and they are controlled by sappers.

quantus qualiter est.

So to enact a no-mans land battle, where one side is not spawning under the other mans gun, you need FBs. To have an FB in our game, it must be destroyable. To make an FB destroyable, it must open its counter which must in-turn require destruction.

status quo: this is the mechanism that comes with defensive firebases, its not a new mechanism, all that’s new is that having a brigade a town away from a contestable town opens a defensive firebase. The possibility of an unusable enemy-FB between the two as a result of a sapping action is merely a facet of the defensive firebase system.

When a man crosses a road, he first looks left and right. Your charge of not looking ahead is amusing.

Please, step into the road.

BTW – Thank you also for the highly entertaining demonstration of exactly the sort of selective gorging on forum material that keeps me merely browsing the edges of the forums.

The changes we’re introducing for the next campaign are in lieu of longer-term plans. We already described and discussed many of the changes we want to bring about through TOEs and through other, essential, ground work we hope to do in the host, client and systems of the game. Some of our scheduling is dependent on what we see in the game – which is sometimes expressed in the forums.

Of course, as an obvious forumite, it will be hard for you to see the forest for the trees, or truth for your closed eyelid obscuring the view. I’m sure Émile Borel would be happy to explain how some of what we do has been described or suggested by someone in the forums at some time. But our response is to what we see in-game, and is pulled from ideas and plans we have in-house.

You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, and free to continue seeing canals on mars.

I’m sorry, but I just noticed this and have to enter:

“The reason maximum distance deployment limitations (1,400 meters?) on mobile spawns were originally put into place is so someone couldn’t drain one town of all its sappers-snipers-LMG’s in a matter of minutes by spawning and despawning. Now with TOE, that really doesn’t matter anymore, but the original rule remains even though the reason for the rule doesn’t.”

??? Is *that* the reason for distance deployment limitations??? Even if it were, why would it not matter under TOEs? If anything it should be *more* applicable, because supply is more precious. Besides, it prevents nothing of the sort.

I thought the distance limitation had something to do with gameplay, ie preventing people from driving all over the map and spawning infantry everywhere behind enemy lines. Bad enough you can do it 1.4km behind… ;-)

PS. I, for one, think the new FB rule sounds great.

It’s an idea that’s has been brought up here variously by myself and others a number of times in comments – I’m not sure if I’ve outlined it directly in a post except when I discussed the “new FB” rules, maybe, back on blogspot??

I’ve brought it up on the forums and any idea you care to name has been “invented” on the forums by players at some point – I’d be astonished if yello1 or zeebee don’t have 2-3 variants of it.

Lutorm – 1400m rule – there are probably dozens of forum threads where it’s been said by someone. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the purpose stated by Mo, Hatch, Gophur, Killer, Doc or myself. Nope. It can’t possibly be anything to do with making sure that MSPs are placed near fights, constraining the search area for an enemy MSP to a reasonable range or keeping you from putting an MSP so far from one place that it “happens” to be near something else.

Hmm – I’m confused, do I remember sitting in on the design of that and raising those issues while coding it, or did I just read that from a fanboi in the forums?

Hey its your money.

I’m not Yello1. Yello1’s ideas sounds like they came from an tax CPA lawyer.

Leave a Reply

Name and email address are required. Your email address will not be published.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

%d bloggers like this: