Informal Poll Winner - Engine Update

[Zveroboy1]

I don't really have time to study this in depth right now and already spent more time on this than I should have but...

1/ The whole thing is not super useful without providing the details of the test, but it is still interesting I guess. Did you just do this or is this an old test?

trench troops take 90% of casualties in the first 30s of shells landing and immediately abandon the trences

That seems to indicate it is an old test made when pixeltruppen just fled under artillery fire instead of staying put, so I am not sure how relevant it is.

2/ It seems to show that trenches are just plain awful. That much is obvious. It is even shocking really how they perform a lot worse across the board compared to foxholes.

3/ Buildings offer a protection that's nearly ten times as good as foxholes in the open according to the data here. And they should be better that goes without saying, but ten times? It is going to be rather hard to reproduce engagements like El Alamein or Birk Hakeim. Foxholes in forest versus buildings is close yeah, but really the sample size is tiny so I'd be careful about drawing conclusions based on this alone.

4/ "They are great but you cant expect them to act like forcefields making your infantry immune to fire. " Please be so kind as not to put words into mouth or make me say things I never said. If anything this test makes me more convinced that fortifications need to be beefed up, trenches big time and foxholes if I was going to give a ballpark figure, I'd give them a 15% boost or so.

[holoween]

10 minutes ago, Zveroboy1 said:

I don't really have time to study this in depth right now and already spent more time on this than I should have but...

1/ The whole thing is not super useful without providing the details of the test, but it is still interesting I guess. Did you just do this or is this an old test?

 

trench troops take 90% of casualties in the first 30s of shells landing and immediately abandon the trences

That seems to indicate it is an old test made when pixeltruppen just fled under artillery fire instead of staying put, so I am not sure how relevant it is.

2/ It seems to show that trenches are just plain awful. That much is obvious. It is even shocking really how they perform a lot worse across the board compared to foxholes.

3/ Buildings offer a protection that's nearly ten times as good as foxholes in the open according to the data here. And they should be better that goes without saying, but ten times? It is going to be rather hard to reproduce engagements like El Alamein or Birk Hakeim. Foxholes in forest versus buildings is close yeah, but really the sample size is tiny so I'd be careful about drawing conclusions based on this alone.

4/ "They are great but you cant expect them to act like forcefields making your infantry immune to fire. " Please be so kind as not to put words into mouth or make me say things I never said. If anything this test makes me more convinced that fortifications need to be beefed up, trenches big time and foxholes if I was going to give a ballpark figure, I'd give them a 15% boost or so.

1. trench vs foxhole comparison was last patch but the behaviour still exists.

2. Agreed Trenches are awful

3. Id expect buildings to have a far better cover rating than foxholes in the open so as far as im concerned no surprise or problem there. Equally Foxholes in dense terrain provide great cover which is again something id expect. The reason i dont have a larger sample size there is because ive been doing such comparison tests quite a bit in cm and while there are usually some outliers in every test the small sample size is enough to give a rough idea which is enough for me. It really doesnt matter to me if the foxhole cover is 90% or 100% as effective as buildings but rather that its comparable.

 

4. That wasnt directed at you specifically so sorry if that came across as such. Ive had that discussion now several times and usually the issue is that too much is expected of defenses.

Also i dont disagree that defenses could get a boost but i think foxholes are in a good place. Trenches though are just plain aweful and really need a buff or preferably proper narrow and deep trenches need to be added rather than the wide and shallow ones we currently have.

[Zveroboy1]

Yeah no worries, it is all good. We both feel strongly about this so a few sparks are to be expected but it was an interesting discussion. And it turns out that perhaps we don't disagree that much about the whole thing.

Now tell us what is the one change you want the devs to add to the engine to put the thread back on tracks.

Edited August 19, 2020 by Zveroboy1

[holoween]

49 minutes ago, Zveroboy1 said:

Now tell us what is the one change you want the devs to add to the engine to put the thread back on tracks.

The ability to split Squads in whatever way i want. The current system works reasonably well and for doctrinally ridgid armies is great but for more flexible ones it really misrepresents what they could/can do.

 

But since were in dreamland let me add more things.

Better arty control by allowing barrages to be modified by intensity and allowing a mix of ammunition used.

The ability to have more than 1 player per side for pbem

Larger maps so properly deploying and using forces becomes possible especially in the modern games.

Recrewing of crew served weapons

[mjkerner]

The ability to tell which floor your P-truppen are on in buildings, without having to jockey the camera around to try and figure it out. Moving and fighting in built-up areas (like Berlin) is/is going to be a bitch!