Roermond: Part 2

As requested, with voice narration – which might completely ruin it for you :)

I decided to run with the bulk of the remaining footage – runs at around 44 minutes. I had some footage of different vis levels and such but I mistook it for out-takes when I was freeing up some disk space for rendering :(

Again – still not a promotional video :) When I want to make a promo video, I’ll get a few buzzards filming so I can get multiple views so I can get multiple aspects, and I’ll run a release build with pretty graphics options turned on ;)

[Part 1 link for those just arriving]

(Pri/US Link) Roermond: Part 2 — 671Mb Windows Media Player 9 WMV Video
(Alt/Euro Link) Roermond: Part 2

UPDATE: Lower res version 260mb Media Player 9 WMV

Pri/US Link: Roermond: Part 2 Low
Alt/Euro Link: Roermond: Part 2 Low

Takes up where we left off, with the second wave of Axis troops trying to make the first bridge crossing…

42 Comments

671mb, tomorrow me thinks.

Ooooh 44 mins of video….NICE. DLing now!

Mac users can watch these WMV file by installing the free Flip4Mac plug-in for QuickTime. http://www.flip4mac.com/wmv_download.htm

It’s the official WMV codec provided by Microsoft through that 3rd part company.

Left my box at home rendering a couple more versions including a version that should be under 300Mb.

Ouch, looks like you guys are getting hammered if I’m only managing 115KB/s at a major telco. Wonder how many people are complaining about lag in the game right now. :)

I’m curious, I didn’t see any use of bouncing grenades. Did that feature get pulled? It seemed using bouncing grenades would be any easy way to clear the CP table without charging it.

Mortars have added a nice dimension to tactics, they were way overdue. Next, get those bazookas in-game KFS1!! :)

Allied teamwork could have been better in that fight. They may have withheld spawning their armor – good – but that’s hardly useful. With teamwork, they could have laid down a thick smoke screen in front of the AB so their armor could get out and maneuver behind the town for positioning. They controlled the skies, but there was little strafing. No use of resupply trucks. No attempt to maneuver, they just holed up in the depots. It was purely a static defense. I’m not trying to offend the Allies or anything, just some observations from the videos.

KFS1, the reason the Allied rifleman was just staring at the remote MSP was because he was waiting to ambush EI spawning from it not because he thinks he gets points for staring at it. =p

Good video, much better. It should be a promo video. There’s a lack of good WWIIOL videos on YouTube, might want to toss up a shorter version.

Please… upload it to save your bandwith in filefront.

You still can download de WMV in this web site, but you also can preview the video in flash on any platform, example:

http://files.filefront.com/Roermond+battle+wwiionlin7wmv/;8885045;/fileinfo.html

Ahh that was an awsome video KFS. Made me think so differently about the battle. I was only there for the tail end of it. I see myself in the end of the video as the axis capture the 2nd to last depot. I ran in there in a manner of ‘oh dear god I hope I survive long enough to make the capper have to shoot at me’.

Didn’t work =)

I made that little critique of Allied tactics earlier, but don’t think I didn’t take into consideration that the Allies were outnumbered …again. I’ve been checking the forces counter on the ww2ol page and they’re consistently outnumbered.

Here’s a novel (?) side-balancing concept for CRS:
The side that has a map-wide numerical disadvantage gets accelerated RDP.

The RDP system would automatically adjust according to imbalances that **exceed a certain threshold**. For example, a 10-15% imbalance would have no RDP effect, RDP would operate ‘normally’, but anything over 15-20% would shift RDP into high gear for the outnumbered side. The weaker side would get better weapons sooner. If the Allies can’t have a numerical advantage, then history shows us weapon quality — in conventional warfare –is the most effective equalizer. It won’t give them a consistent offensive advantage, but it will give them a defensive edge that reduces their chances of getting routed. This would help preserve Allied moral, thus encouraging Allied play. Of course, it would work both ways; if the Axis get outnumbered, they would get an RDP boost instead.

Although, as many have said, the Allies would benefit tremendously by replacing the British & French forces with one and only one force, like American forces or British-only forces.

1) if the Allied side were US forces it would appeal to more players, filling the sides more evenly

2) having only one set of weapons to learn would reduce the Allied learning curve tremendously

3) maximizes their skills and experience under one weapons set, eliminating the “switching” cost of going between two different weapon sets.

I know these things have been discussed to death, but it’s for good reason. It’s very relevant to helping the game.

regards,

Zheriz, some great points on the lack of Allied strategy.

However, I took two sorties in the air during that fight, one as a blen and the other as a havoc IIRC. Want to know why no one strafed? Did you see the amount of people there? Try dive bombing, Stutters. Try strafing….Even worse. After the second sortie I almost ate it trying to bomb the FMBs, then went and helped on the ground.

Once I hit the ground, the enemy mortars were devastating. With reports of the bridge being repaired I tried to get out an AT gun, and only did after 3-4 respawns because I was instantly getting hit even before I left the building. Smoke may have cleared the way for some armor to get out, but even then, the upper part of the river bank was so covered with ET and EATGs that it was futile to get close.

It was one of the most entertaining battles that I have been a part of this campaign. I wish there were more opportunities that were similar to what this battle became.

Thanks for the insight Xenosis.

While we’re on the topic of performance/stutters….

… and forgive me for commenting so much :) …

but I couldn’t help but notice that the SpeedTrees are huge. I never noticed. I guess in combat the last thing one is concerned about is the killer trees …at least not since the end of opel rushes. =p

The trees in-game look like the redwoods of Oregon. In comparison to everything else, they’re mammoth. There is no discernible reason for it either, that I can tell, other than real world accuracy. While they may be the accurate height for European trees, that’s one piece of realism we could do without in the game if reducing the size of the trees can improve game performance. Assuming it does improve performance (seems reasonable that it would) CRS can easily reduce the height by 1/3 if not a full 1/2 . It would have zero tactical impact on ground combat. It’s not like inf and tanks are concerned about whether they can shoot over 50ft trees or not. Even if there is the rare occasion where it comes into play, it’s not worth the pervasive performance penalty on all players all the time – assuming it creates a penalty, which I would be surprised if it doesn’t. Even if it’s only a 5-10% performance improvement, it would be worth it cutting those monsters down a notch.

Regards,

Reducing the size of the trees would have no effect on performance whatsoever.

Performance of a 3d application has to do with the number of polygons that are visible at any given time. It doesn’t really matter if the polygon fills a quarter of the screen, or five pixels, it still takes the same amount of data transfer from disk to program to GPU to describe it.

In the case of SpeedTree, a smaller tree should be more efficient. If I understand it right, SpeedTree generates branches, ergo additional polygons, off the tree trunk. A shorter tree would have fewer branches. Fewer branches would also mean fewer ‘leaves’ for those branches, which are probably textured billboards or something. I’d imagine a smaller tree could get by with a smaller texture file. I’m no 3D expert, so maybe Jaeger55, Toto, or one of the Rats can comment on it.

As well, the trees could be smaller just from an aesthetic standpoint, so that tanks and buildings don’t look like toys next to them. But that brings us to a whole other issue of better, more realistic textures for the units. But that’s a whole other bowl of wax.

The Rats are working hard and doing a great job, there’s no faulting them there.

Nice flick!

Thanks for the commentary :)

At about 11:00 you “scoot” inside the destroyed building, and you say that “you lost the update somewhere”.

I’m seeing similar stuff regarding the AI (AAA mostly, but others too) where the AI is down in “real life/server time” but on my screen it is up and killing me. Impossible to take down when it is out of sync as such..

Any ideas how to repair it?

One thing hugely in the Germans favor was the advantage of Terrain. They held the High Ground in the form of the the RR line. They could safely maneuver and organize behind it while the Allies had to use their town and buildings to maneuver and organize behind. And once established in hull/base down positions along it, they could pound the Allied side with devastating suppressive fire. And the RR building was a Perfect location for a mortar position, well covered and forward enough to hit what needed hitting.

Still, the Allies should have been able to hold, IMHO…if they had been just a little Organized. They didn’t seemed Organized at all, just a bunch of Individuals hunkered down in their static defense…a Passive defense, mindlessly, individually, reacting to the situtaion and as such, forfeiting the Initiative to the Attacker. The West side of the bridge should have been a death trap for anything trying to cross. That battle was one of the few times as a Defender where 90% of their entire defense could have been focused against a single point of attack rather than having to defend against an attacker that could suddenly appear from any direction. Allies should have held.

Ya’ll oughta convert your movies to DivX and upload them to:

http://stage6.divx.com/

Mandydog, you’re right about the terrain. I didn’t ignore that, but the other things mentioned didn’t help either. Although technically, they held the highest ground, which was control of the sky over the battle.

But it’s not all the Allied’s fault. I hope the Rats will forgive me for saying this :), but I’m convinced that the design of the Allied side makes it inherently weaker than the Axis side. The campaign record speaks for itself; what is it now 1 to 4 Axis win ratio? I mention some of the reasons for the inherent weakness in my post above. And there’s more reasons on top of those but I won’t get into it, it would take pages.

ya’ll have a good friday now ya’ hea’

Everything in the game is weaker than something, otherwise nothing would die.

“Everything in the game is weaker than something, otherwise nothing would die.” — KFS1

That’s a bit glib for a complex and important game issue to players. But it’s your ball, you do with it as you please. :)

Best regards,

It’s truer, more rational and less glib than “I’m convinced that the design of the Allied side makes it inherently weaker”. It’s the fundamental basis for balance in the game. Nothing glib about it.

I think we’re talking about different things or we’re just misunderstanding each other. Let me try saying it in a different way:

On the whole – when we take all the design pluses and design minuses into consideration for the Allied side – the Allied side in the game has a lower net force value than the net force value of the Axis side. ‘Design’, in my sense, includes not only tanks, planes, etc, but all the other elements of the game. As such the Allies are more likely to lose despite their best efforts. This disadvantage wasn’t intentional by CRS, it just turned out that way for various reasons.

Based on WW2OL’s total 35 campaign record, the Axis on average win 66% of the campaigns; the Allies win only 1 in 3 maps. If we look at the last two quintiles (the last 14 of 35 maps) the Axis are winning 71% of the campaigns.

What’s interesting is that this performance has been consistent despite all the huge changes in the game over the last 6 years. It implies that if a design issue really exists, then it has been there since the game’s inception, which makes it a fundamental design issue.

Anyway, just to clarify what I meant. Many players share the same view on this topic as you know.

You can’t use the entire 35 campaign record though, and have it have ANY BEARING AT ALL on the current game. Things have changed INCREDIBLY with the integration of brigades, and then again with TOE. It has NOT been consistent across all the periods.

You have to look at it in terms of pre-brigade, and post-brigade pre-TOE. Those are completely different beasts from the WW2OL of today.

When you look at it that way, pre-brigade it was incredibly Axis heavy. Post brigade but pre-TOE, it was balanced. Post TOE, Axis are not doing well at all.

Eh, you missed what I said about quintiles in my last post. You’re argument is recognized and accounted for. It’s way late at night, I forgive you. =p j/k

I’ll just link the little sheet (PDF) I did earlier. Right-click to download.

Also, click here and you’ll quickly see that by nature I’m very thorough and measured.

Eh, you missed what I said about quintiles in my last post. You’re argument is recognized and accounted for. It’s way late at night, I forgive you. =p j/k

I’ll just link the little sheet (PDF) I did earlier. Right-click to download.

Also, click here and you’ll quickly see that by nature I’m very thorough and measured.

Your comment about Post-TOE and the Axis not doing well is premature. We”ll need many more maps to have enough samples to get an idea of the impact TOE.

Eh, you missed what I said about quintiles in my last post. You’re argument is recognized and accounted for in those figures. It’s way late at night, I forgive you. =p j/k

I’ll just link the little sheet (PDF) I did earlier. Right-click to download.
http://home.roadrunner.com/~cbb4/analysis.pdf

The trend shows the Allies are actually doing worse than before.

Also,
http://home.roadrunner.com/~cbb4/
click there and you’ll quickly see that by nature I’m very thorough. Idle chatter is not my way.

Your comment about Post-TOE and the Axis not doing well is jumping the gun. We”ll need many more maps to have enough samples to get an idea of the impact of TOE.

That’s really all I’m going to say about this. It’s a complex topic and a blog is not the place for it. Maybe one day KFS1 will do a teamspeak blog chat, then we can have it. :)

nite,

Obviously Krenn is right that campaigns prior to Brigades and TOEs are irrelevant to analysis of the current and future games.

In any case, the aspects of the game over which KFSOne provides creative oversight…the macro mechanics and integrative systems…are balanced and working effectively. If there are balance problems at present, they’re attributable either to a side attractiveness differential, or gameplay object effectiveness issues…which in a direct sense aren’t KFSOne’s turf.

You can always find a way to “prove” your side is weaker, and there have certainly been times when such proof was valid. Certainly, if you look at either Allied country individually the Axis might seem to have certain advantages.

That’s the thing with balance, you don’t get to choose which bits of if you stack against which others. The Allies, compared to the Axis, have a vast equipment list and the ability to mix it up. The Axis have none such, they have a single list which is stacked up against whatever blend the Allies throw at them. Some fights are made easier and others harder, but the same holds true in equal proportion to both sides, and thus balance is retained.

A thought I had about the side imballance; could the timer used for CP capture be linked into the side numbers? For example, if the axis had 50% more players, the cap would take 2 mins, instead of one (figures for illustration only). It seams to me that maps are won during the low pop times, as demonstrated when the BC joined allies for a campaign. Just a thought. :)

A few things,

Nowhere did I say this is KFS1’s responsibility in the game. So no putting words in my mouth please.

Krenn’s point is valid. I don’t dispute that. I took account for it, it’s why I did a quintile breakdown — to look at the trend in segments. Prior campaigns are not, however, irrelevant. We’re not rolling dice here. There is a system at work and players have memory.

I didn’t say the data “proves” my hypothesis. And you notice I use the word hypothesis, not law or theory as if my argument is somehow irrefutable. It’s not. The data shows a trend, that’s it. I didn’t make up the trend. It’s just there in the data. I have a hypothesis as to why it may be. I cannot prove correlation or causation between my hypothesis and the data since I can’t run experiments on the game. :) I can offer a lengthy carefully considered and reasoned explanation of my hypothesis but I really don’t want to type up 20 pages, so I’m just going to leave it be. It’s the weekend, we all have better things to do. If ya reeeeally want to wack this discussion around we can do it on Teamspeak or something.

That’s all I have to say about that here. I don’t want to hijack KFS1’s blog.

Regards and enjoy this nice sunny Sunday across the USA. Weather.com shows clear skies across the USA. :)

Again I say…convert these Movies to DivX and upload them onto DivX’s sight: Stage6

http://stage6.divx.com/

DivX is so much prettier than youtube.

This has to be one of the coolest things I’ve seen in awhile. I’m seriously tempted to re-up my subscription after watching it.

I didn’t say you did say it proved anything. I’m making the point that selective viewing of data can always provide a conclusion compatible with the selectivity – as in viewing the entire history of the game vs recent history – I, and I believe CRS, acknowledge there have been imbalancing things in the past – most recently the split between two countries on one side, even before which the early game trend had begun to balance.

“This persona has an average height of 4 ft” – is the person 8 years of? Was that over their life time? Are they still growing? Averages are magical wonderful things that can be made to say all sorts of things by adapting parameters.

Then we are in agreement. Although, my focus is on the trends; for the very reasons you mentioned about averages. That PDF has two pages, be sure to see the second (I updated the formatting for clarity).

Things don’t appear to be balancing. The trend has worsened for the Allies. See the sheet . BUT, what I mean by balancing and what CRS means by balancing are probably very different things (different criteria).

We have a failure to understand each other. This is the problem with talking about complex things in short text posts, there is no sense of intent, nuance, etc. to ensure the message is accurately received. If you believe my intent was to be malicious, you would be mistaken.

I need to make two factual corrections:

I’m an Axis player. I always have been. So this is not linked to grinding an axe for the Allies.

The three – two, since one is a draw – missing campaigns from the data were not intentional. I was aware of the draw, which I excluded because it was neither a win or loss, but I wasn’t aware the data was missing two campaigns. I used the following sources, which I thought was a complete data set at the time:
http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/axisplaynow/axis_awards_display.php
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm?
SETVIEW=forums&POST=1504106&GAMEID=34&bhcp=1

I’m a pragmatic person, if I make a mistake somewhere I admit to it. The data set was incomplete, it was an honest mistake. If I may point out, you made the mistake of assuming that I’m an Allied player and that somehow this was all about Allied sour gripes. This may have distorted your perception of my messages. So there are mistakes to go around for the both of us.

As I said, a definite failure to understand each other.

The Allies are doing better lately. This is a recent development after years of losing disproportionately to the Axis. If we start at the top, my argument was that the Allies suffered a disadvantage from having a split force and they suffered a switching cost from having twice the number of weapons. This made them less effective at fighting the Axis than they would have been without those hinderances. That was my argument. CRS has repaired some of those splits recently (the Allies able to share CPs, etc) and we may be seeing that the Allies have indeed shed those encumbrances that hindered them the past 6 years.

Or there could be something else entirely at work recently that is causing the Axis to lose. There are many things that may be causing this. We will have to wait and see what happens over many more future campaigns to determine whether the recent wins are a new pattern or an aberration.

Regards,

The trouble is you’re basing your interpretation and analysis on the presumption of failure. You’re applying newtonian analysis to quantum physics.

Grr – when I was cleaning out the moderation queue I appear to have deleted my comment that Zheriz is responding to.

Please provide the log of this fight for analysis.

Everything mentioned above are great technical points on the balance of game play. Technical not in a programming sense, but in regards to game play and facts. Getting caught up in semantics can be fun word game but a big variable is being left out.

The big Variable left out of all of this is the human interaction equation. Group interaction and cohesion play a major force in moving the map. These go in cycles, while the Axis only have to deal with 1 group. The allies played with two distinct groups. Leadership may not win you the game, but it sure can lose it for you. It’s been rare for the allies to get both groups operating in unison. Prior to TOE’s The Axis only had to deal with one command chain, while the Allied played Patton vs Montgomery almost every map. TOE’s have helped flatten out the command structure on the allied side into a single command.

I think for the first time both sides are on a level playing ground from this perspective. Which ever chain of command can commincate and persuade their side to play as a group will win.

Still with all things balanced, trying to make a trend out of something is the same as trying to find trends in flipping a coin. The odds are still 50/50.

Geez folks.. CRS put the game in early ww2 scenario meaning historicly allies would be pawned all the way to dunk.. and out. I joined during a win in campaign 32 or so wich was fun. But followed by a few losses where we were outnumbered almost 2:1 i accepted the scenario and prepared for dig’ins and coordinated attacks.

Now with the toe’s the team with the best attention span gains the most oppertunities and ghc did not catch up on that. Fun to roll over on them but i do miss battles like Roer..although at 4fps i mostly watch it as a movie then beeing able to join in hehe.

I’d wait a few more campaigns and see if axis can get themselfs to get challenged like axis have been for years. Having to run around after each axis ball is something different then the puhsing we been doing since toes.

Biased ? RL was also biased as allies came to the stage with outdated equipment. So why complain ? Unbeatable ? Havent seen nothing ingame that didnt die at some point.

And good point on the comms Breed. Allied side was a mess before with ch6 as common chat. Now we at least all know what status we are at and side channel seems to be clear of common chat/spam.

I’m in for TE2.. hope it comes with a discounted new pc :p

“I’d wait a few more campaigns and see if axis can get themselfs to get challenged like axis have been for years.”

Was ment to be;

“I’d wait a few more campaigns and see if axis can get themselfs to get challenged like ALLIES have been for years.”

where we were outnumbered almost 2:1

You may have just been casually exagerating or being trite, but I have to call bullshit because I’m tired of people casually repeating that kind of crap until they convince themselves and call us liars when we say it ain’t so.

Since we added spawn delays there has never been an instance of the sides being outside 60:40 except when the arena is locked.

Prior to that, the highest imbalance had been 62:38, which actually occured between the introduction of side selection delays and spawn timers.

We always said that if and when side balancing became an issue we’d do something about it, and that’s how the selection delay came about and subsequently the spawn delays.

Some people really have a problem perceiving the world except as a steady state. We said “There is no numbers issue, if there starts to be, we’ll do something about it” and then later we did something about it. There were relatively small side imbalances. 99% of what people experienced as an “imbalance” was pure and simple perception – top of the list was that the vis system only reserves slots for 4 friendlies so if you got into a big fight, you always appeared to be imbalanced. That’s still true, but most people are running med/high vis so they can see a hell of a lot more people before the limit starts to kick in.

Still, the forums filled with idiots saying “Oh, I thought there was no numbers issue?”

There are a whole assortment of “numbers issues” but there never has been “a numbers issue (singular)”.

I’m venting – don’t take it personally, genxs.

I watched the 1st and am downloading the 2nd… I know that I snuk over and capped a CP in that battle… that was FUN TIMES

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: