A way to encourage conserving reinforcements

[Isaak Johnson]

Also I question the ability of a game to fairly judge a persons ability, what if the best sniper in RO is unlucky a few times and gets kicked out of the sniper position ?

Which is exactly why the three ideas I suggested might not work very well, as much as we may like to hope or believe that it could make that judgement, we know that it cant.

Like I said, after reading all these good ideas, but then seeing how each of them cant seem to solve all the problems at once, I'm really wondering if we should be asking for the system to be changed at all.

 

[Solo4114]

The system will make whatever judgement it CAN be programmed for and whatever judgment it HAS been programmed for.

If someone has a notion that "The best sniper is someone with a high score" then that's what the system will track. If someone's notion is "The best sniper is someone who kills the most officers" then that's what the system will track.

But if someone's notion is "The best sniper is someone who maybe only makes three shots per map, but those three shots are (1) to kill an enemy MG that locked an area down, (2) to kill an enemy squad leader who was tipping the balance in a cap zone, and (3) to kill an enemy trooper who was about to toss a grenade, only to drop it and have it blow up two other teammates, then I kind of doubt the system can track that.


Which one would you guys say is the "best" sniper? Me, I'd go with the last one because his shots counted the most. Yeah, you can have a score of 25 from kills alone, but if those 25 kills aren't helping your team capture positons or aren't doing anything that a regular rifleman could do, what good are you?

 

[Teq]

Really like this idea, but i think it could be even better if modified.

First off make the group size configurable by the mapper, have the default at 1 so that it preserves the existing gameplay.

Second, make it so that if a player comes back to the spawn he is considered 'dead' so that he can help a group spawn quicker. I cant imagine anything wrse than a situation where someone is afk in spawn so the group cant spawn.

Good modification. I will add this to the main thread

 

[Isaak Johnson]

The system will make whatever judgement it CAN be programmed for and whatever judgment it HAS been programmed for.

That doesn't make any difference. Sure the dev's could add a system based on the players points or a "shoot to hit" ratio or somthing, and the code may work perfectly fine and allways work properly when certain criteria are met, but the decisions it makes based on that criteria can't be expected to be the right values for each different game.

So it doesn't matter if it CAN make the judgemants its programmed for, we can't trust that those decisions will be the best for each and every different game and situation that can arise.

It would be great if the game could be coded to recognize your third "best sniper" example, but so far only a real person can make that judgement.

 

[Solo4114]

That doesn't make any difference. Sure the dev's could add a system based on the players points or a "shoot to hit" ratio or somthing, and the code may work perfectly fine and allways work properly when certain criteria are met, but the decisions it makes based on that criteria can't be expected to be the right values for each different game.

So it doesn't matter if it CAN make the judgemants its programmed for, we can't trust that those decisions will be the best for each and every different game and situation that can arise.

It would be great if the game could be coded to recognize your third "best sniper" example, but so far only a real person can make that judgement.

Read on in my post. That's exactly what I was getting at. The system will do whatever it's told to do and can functionally do. But what it's told to do may not be the RIGHT thing. My discussion of the sniper who gets three kills, but those are three kills that tip the balance of the game is supposed to illustrate that (apologies if I wasn't clear).

Basically, scoring mechanisms are mechanical systems that can only reproduce what they're programmed to do, and within that limited programming, won't necessarily reward the most important things.



Let's say we're playing on Koenigsplatz. The German Tiger tank is completely locking down the Russians and preventing any advance. It's right over one of the ridgetops and while the infantry is doing a decent job of pushing back German infantry, the tanks are dead or unmanned, and the Russian team can't go over the ridge without walking into a hail of machinegun fire. Anyone who pokes more than the tip of his head out to take a potshot at infantry is going on a suicide mission because that tank will cut him to ribbons.

Let's say in this scenario that we're playing with a "limited lives" mutator of some sort, which has been programmed to punish people who die because the maker thinks that if you die, you're not helping your team. So each death costs you 3 points on your score.

In this case, there are three troopers on one side of the ridge: the Squad Leader, a semi-auto rifleman, and a combat engineer. All three decide that they NEED to take out that tank, but they're also too far up to run back in the open and call artillery. So, the squad leader tosses a smoke grenade over the ridge, they wait for it to fog things up, and then all three charge over the hill. The combat engineer is going to try to take out the tank with his satchels. The semi-auto trooper is going to cover the combat engineer, and the squad leader is going to toss another smoker to screen them from infantry fire.

Before the SL can toss the second smoke grenade, a lucky German rifleman picks him off. That's one down. The German, seeing the infantry by the tank, runs to pick the other two off. The semi-auto rifleman opens up on him, managing to get the German to keep his head down just long enough for the combat engineer to toss both satchels. Then the German finally picks off the semi auto trooper. The combat engineer tries to run back to cover, but the German wings him in the leg and he ends up blown up along with the tank.

Now, with the mutator discussed (or any number of "fear of death" mutators with limited lives, etc.), we're punishing these three brave souls: the squad leader who did his job and tried to provide cover for the other two, the semi-auto who was crucial in allowing the combat engie to kill the tank, AND the combat engie who died while successfully completing his mission.

Do these guys deserve to be punished and given a negative score, forced to wait in a longer than normal respawn que, or lose their positions? Of course not! But that's the problem with mechanical systems -- they don't take circumstances into account because they CAN'T. They aren't sophisticated enough to do so. So, these three guys who did their job AND benefitted the team greatly (the team's now able to storm over into the Siegessaule), get screwed.


That's why I tend to be against things like this, among other reasons.

 

[Teq]

Read on in my post. That's exactly what I was getting at. The system will do whatever it's told to do and can functionally do. But what it's told to do may not be the RIGHT thing. My discussion of the sniper who gets three kills, but those are three kills that tip the balance of the game is supposed to illustrate that (apologies if I wasn't clear).

Basically, scoring mechanisms are mechanical systems that can only reproduce what they're programmed to do, and within that limited programming, won't necessarily reward the most important things.



Let's say we're playing on Koenigsplatz. The German Tiger tank is completely locking down the Russians and preventing any advance. It's right over one of the ridgetops and while the infantry is doing a decent job of pushing back German infantry, the tanks are dead or unmanned, and the Russian team can't go over the ridge without walking into a hail of machinegun fire. Anyone who pokes more than the tip of his head out to take a potshot at infantry is going on a suicide mission because that tank will cut him to ribbons.

Let's say in this scenario that we're playing with a "limited lives" mutator of some sort, which has been programmed to punish people who die because the maker thinks that if you die, you're not helping your team. So each death costs you 3 points on your score.

In this case, there are three troopers on one side of the ridge: the Squad Leader, a semi-auto rifleman, and a combat engineer. All three decide that they NEED to take out that tank, but they're also too far up to run back in the open and call artillery. So, the squad leader tosses a smoke grenade over the ridge, they wait for it to fog things up, and then all three charge over the hill. The combat engineer is going to try to take out the tank with his satchels. The semi-auto trooper is going to cover the combat engineer, and the squad leader is going to toss another smoker to screen them from infantry fire.

Before the SL can toss the second smoke grenade, a lucky German rifleman picks him off. That's one down. The German, seeing the infantry by the tank, runs to pick the other two off. The semi-auto rifleman opens up on him, managing to get the German to keep his head down just long enough for the combat engineer to toss both satchels. Then the German finally picks off the semi auto trooper. The combat engineer tries to run back to cover, but the German wings him in the leg and he ends up blown up along with the tank.

Now, with the mutator discussed (or any number of "fear of death" mutators with limited lives, etc.), we're punishing these three brave souls: the squad leader who did his job and tried to provide cover for the other two, the semi-auto who was crucial in allowing the combat engie to kill the tank, AND the combat engie who died while successfully completing his mission.

Do these guys deserve to be punished and given a negative score, forced to wait in a longer than normal respawn que, or lose their positions? Of course not! But that's the problem with mechanical systems -- they don't take circumstances into account because they CAN'T. They aren't sophisticated enough to do so. So, these three guys who did their job AND benefitted the team greatly (the team's now able to storm over into the Siegessaule), get screwed.


That's why I tend to be against things like this, among other reasons.

This is why the Engineer needs alot of score for Blowing up tanks... which is his speciallity..

The Normal infantry gets most points for killing infantry, so they are encouraged to coverfire.

Everyone within a certain range of the NCO will share kills with him and see his map orders and other benefits.

Practically this means in your scenario:

1) If the engeneer succeeded his task he scores 10 points, and dies in the try -3 points = 7+.

2) The Semi auto Shoots 2 germans to cover the Engineer = 3 points each kill +6pts... and he dies = +3.

3) The NCO being close to his men shares 50% of their kills +5 pts.. and dies -3 = +2.

So conclussion.. increase scores for the tasks each class should be doing... so they compensate for death penalty?

 

[Solo4114]

No, my point is that to try to give everything a point value is a fruitless endeavor because the game can't track the circumstances that make one action more valuable than another. That and the fact that in the end, because the game can't track the circumstances invovled in ANY action, score is meaningless.

What a player contributes to their team is entirely determined by circumstances.

Who's more valuable:

- The guy who runs into the assembly hall on Stalingrad Kessel, clears it of 3 Germans, gets it 97% of the way captured and is then picked off by a sniper, or the guy who ran in at 95% who manages to get 10 points for the capture when he only did at BEST 5% of the capturing work and NONE of the work clearing the room? The GAME values the player who COMPLETES the capture more than the player who did the bulk of the work.

- The MG42 operator who sets up in the Headquarters Square on Odessa, kills 0 people in the entire round, but also manages to keep the Russian attackers preoccupied and never lets them enter his portion of the cap zone....OR the Rifleman who kills four attackers approaching the tower the whole round, but because he wasn't in the cap zone, isn't there to defend it and it ends up being captured? The GAME values the Rifleman who can't defend worth a damn more than the MG operator who completely locks down an area but doesn't get any kills in the process.

- The player who gives an MG42 operator a magazine in the spawn, when said MG42 operator is picked off by a Sniper before he can fire off a shot....OR the player who gives an MG42 operator who's locking down an area and is short on ammo the extra ammo needed to continue locking down the area? The GAME values them both equally.


The point here is that any mechanical action that awards you with points (a) will not take into account the circumstances under which you perform the action, and (b) values ONLY the performance of the action itself, and NOT the resulting contribution to the team.

Thus, ANY point system can, at best, merely coincide with good teamwork. It encourages people NOT to be good teammates, but rather to be good at performing the mechanical action alone irrespective of context. The classic example in RO is giving ammo to an MGer. The act alone is what counts, not the context. So give it to him in the spawn, give it to him while you run by him when he's been leg-shot by a sniper and is about to get shot again and die, or give it to him when it's got four rounds and zero magazines left and you're fending off a determined assault. The game doesn't care WHEN or HOW you do it, only that you perform the task itself.

And that's why score in these games is largely meaningless. It doesn't show teamwork, it doesn't show high skill at anything but performing the physical task necessary to get points. To the extent it encourages teamwork, it does so indirectly. And you can still find much BETTER players out there who have low scores but who contribute a LOT to the team.


Tacking on new activities that give points doesn't resolve this problem. It merely creates new mechanical actions that are awarded points. You can try your best to encourage people to do X, Y, or Z, but in the end, the MAIN thing they'll do is perform the task that gets them the points, without respect to context.

Let's say we give engineers 6 points for blowing up walls and such. Seems fair, right? Pretty simple way to guarantee that they do their job, right? But easy to abuse. On Stalingrad Kessel, let's say the Russians have already taken North Railyard AND the Assembly hall and all that's left is the South Railyard. The Germans are putting up a hell of a fight, though, so all available bodies are needed in the south cap zone. One scorewhore of a player who happens to be playing as a combat engineer, however, decides he's gonna score himself an extra 24 points by blowing up four remaining wall sections at the North Railyard. Has he done ANYTHING to help his team? No. He's wasted time and simply performed a mechanical action that gets points.

So let's say we want to PUNISH people like this. Yeah! We'll MAKE 'em get into the cap zone. If they don't get into a cap zone 2 minutes after spawning, they start losing points at 3 points per minute. Well, let's take the same scenario I just mentioned and modify it a bit. The Russian engineer runs over to one of the near walls of the North railyard, instead of taking the usual route right into south from the exit from assembly hall that's already watched by Germans. He doubles back out of Assembly, sneaks up to the wall at North, blows the wall open, and then proceeds to take the underground approach to the south railyard. When he makes it to the South cap zone, he's just in time to provide flanking fire on three unsuspecting German defenders who were otherwise perfectly protected from a frontal attack, and his contribution tips the balance in the cap zone, allowing his team to win. Only trouble is, it took him four minutes to work around to the flanking position without drawing fire. Should he be penalized for his actions? Hell no! He's the guy responsible for his team winning the map! Or one of them, anyway.

But again, the mechanical system only reproduces what it's programmed to do. It can't take context into account. Thus, mechanical systems and point incentives are generally meaningless and while players may get nutso about how many points they have, changing the system can lead to BAD results just as easily as it can encourage good ones.

 

[DukNCover]

*applaudes*


Solo is officially dubbed - Sir Solo

 

[Rich_Zap]

I totally agree

 

[CCCP Kirby]

To all you control freaks who want to force their way of playing on other gamers:

STFU already and get a life.

 

[Isaak Johnson]

Read on in my post.

Ok, now I see what you ment, when I read your post (I did read the whole thing. ) it sounded to me like you were saying the opposite, sorry for the confusion.

 

[Teq]

No, my point is that to try to give everything a point value is a fruitless endeavor because the game can't track the circumstances that make one action more valuable than another. That and the fact that in the end, because the game can't track the circumstances invovled in ANY action, score is meaningless.

What a player contributes to their team is entirely determined by circumstances.

Who's more valuable:

- The guy who runs into the assembly hall on Stalingrad Kessel, clears it of 3 Germans, gets it 97% of the way captured and is then picked off by a sniper, or the guy who ran in at 95% who manages to get 10 points for the capture when he only did at BEST 5% of the capturing work and NONE of the work clearing the room? The GAME values the player who COMPLETES the capture more than the player who did the bulk of the work.

- The MG42 operator who sets up in the Headquarters Square on Odessa, kills 0 people in the entire round, but also manages to keep the Russian attackers preoccupied and never lets them enter his portion of the cap zone....OR the Rifleman who kills four attackers approaching the tower the whole round, but because he wasn't in the cap zone, isn't there to defend it and it ends up being captured? The GAME values the Rifleman who can't defend worth a damn more than the MG operator who completely locks down an area but doesn't get any kills in the process.

- The player who gives an MG42 operator a magazine in the spawn, when said MG42 operator is picked off by a Sniper before he can fire off a shot....OR the player who gives an MG42 operator who's locking down an area and is short on ammo the extra ammo needed to continue locking down the area? The GAME values them both equally.


The point here is that any mechanical action that awards you with points (a) will not take into account the circumstances under which you perform the action, and (b) values ONLY the performance of the action itself, and NOT the resulting contribution to the team.

Thus, ANY point system can, at best, merely coincide with good teamwork. It encourages people NOT to be good teammates, but rather to be good at performing the mechanical action alone irrespective of context. The classic example in RO is giving ammo to an MGer. The act alone is what counts, not the context. So give it to him in the spawn, give it to him while you run by him when he's been leg-shot by a sniper and is about to get shot again and die, or give it to him when it's got four rounds and zero magazines left and you're fending off a determined assault. The game doesn't care WHEN or HOW you do it, only that you perform the task itself.

And that's why score in these games is largely meaningless. It doesn't show teamwork, it doesn't show high skill at anything but performing the physical task necessary to get points. To the extent it encourages teamwork, it does so indirectly. And you can still find much BETTER players out there who have low scores but who contribute a LOT to the team.


Tacking on new activities that give points doesn't resolve this problem. It merely creates new mechanical actions that are awarded points. You can try your best to encourage people to do X, Y, or Z, but in the end, the MAIN thing they'll do is perform the task that gets them the points, without respect to context.

Let's say we give engineers 6 points for blowing up walls and such. Seems fair, right? Pretty simple way to guarantee that they do their job, right? But easy to abuse. On Stalingrad Kessel, let's say the Russians have already taken North Railyard AND the Assembly hall and all that's left is the South Railyard. The Germans are putting up a hell of a fight, though, so all available bodies are needed in the south cap zone. One scorewhore of a player who happens to be playing as a combat engineer, however, decides he's gonna score himself an extra 24 points by blowing up four remaining wall sections at the North Railyard. Has he done ANYTHING to help his team? No. He's wasted time and simply performed a mechanical action that gets points.

So let's say we want to PUNISH people like this. Yeah! We'll MAKE 'em get into the cap zone. If they don't get into a cap zone 2 minutes after spawning, they start losing points at 3 points per minute. Well, let's take the same scenario I just mentioned and modify it a bit. The Russian engineer runs over to one of the near walls of the North railyard, instead of taking the usual route right into south from the exit from assembly hall that's already watched by Germans. He doubles back out of Assembly, sneaks up to the wall at North, blows the wall open, and then proceeds to take the underground approach to the south railyard. When he makes it to the South cap zone, he's just in time to provide flanking fire on three unsuspecting German defenders who were otherwise perfectly protected from a frontal attack, and his contribution tips the balance in the cap zone, allowing his team to win. Only trouble is, it took him four minutes to work around to the flanking position without drawing fire. Should he be penalized for his actions? Hell no! He's the guy responsible for his team winning the map! Or one of them, anyway.

But again, the mechanical system only reproduces what it's programmed to do. It can't take context into account. Thus, mechanical systems and point incentives are generally meaningless and while players may get nutso about how many points they have, changing the system can lead to BAD results just as easily as it can encourage good ones.

Well agreed But, on the other hand, It can be done, but the system will have to be quite complex.. And I dont think very few persons would actually bother creating such a system...

I made a scoringsystem once that rewarded individuals for winning the round by experience points.
It also rewards staying alive and punish death.

There was a few simple exploits to solve regarding AFK's and Teamstacking, but that could be fixed easily. Some bigger expoilts like hacking and such.. Which I havent solved yet.

Example:
How to gain/loose XP:
* surviving 1% of total gametime played would give you +0.5 XP.
* Winning a round = +25xp (may vary according to mission)
* Loosing a round = -25xp (may vary according to mission)
* Dieing = -1xp
* Teamkill = -5xp
-------------------------------------------------------------------
* If you join the game late (IE 50% time remaining you will not score)
* At the end of the round, your xp is recorded on a stats server.
* Minus score at the end of round will be substracted from your total xp - thus you are able to De-rank.
------------

My idea is to encourage players to win the round, then gets points recorded for that... This includes heroic and non-herioic behaviour..

IE if you bleed the reinforcements, sorry no score for ya.
If you die too much cause of "heroic behavoir", sorry no score for ya.

Now what do ya think?

 

[Ullis]

The guy who runs into the assembly hall on Stalingrad Kessel, clears it of 3 Germans, gets it 97% of the way captured and is then picked off by a sniper, or the guy who ran in at 95% who manages to get 10 points for the capture when he only did at BEST 5% of the capturing work and NONE of the work clearing the room? The GAME values the player who COMPLETES the capture more than the player who did the bulk of the work

- The MG42 operator who sets up in the Headquarters Square on Odessa, kills 0 people in the entire round, but also manages to keep the Russian attackers preoccupied and never lets them enter his portion of the cap zone....OR the Rifleman who kills four attackers approaching the tower the whole round, but because he wasn't in the cap zone, isn't there to defend it and it ends up being captured? The GAME values the Rifleman who can't defend worth a damn more than the MG operator who completely locks down an area but doesn't get any kills in the process.

- The player who gives an MG42 operator a magazine in the spawn, when said MG42 operator is picked off by a Sniper before he can fire off a shot....OR the player who gives an MG42 operator who's locking down an area and is short on ammo the extra ammo needed to continue locking down the area? The GAME values them both equally.

The score system is fine as it is. As a response to your examples (I understand that your point was not to use them to detract the point system. I'm still using them as they are such fine examples of the points raised by other people generally as to why the point system should be changed):

1. 9 times out of 10 he won't be killed by the sniper at the last minute, thus getting the 10 points as well as the 3 points for the kills

2. Nobody's gonna keep anyone preoccupied in RO unless he kills a lot of the other guys, thus getting a lot of points

3. This one's a but more tricky. I think 2 or 3 points would do the trick too. These so-calles "scorewhores" would still give ammo, as it's still easier than killing two enemies and faster too. To teamwork-types this change wouldn't make a difference as they weren't giving ammo for points in the first place.

Lastly, leave experience-systems to role-playing games, please. What next, you have to be level 5 to use the sniper rifle? Realism units can award all the Iron-Crosses-with-Double-Swords-and-Multiple-Leafs and "For Outstanding Valor: Unit Sniper for Life"-medals they like. Realistically speaking, I bet that not all the snipers in real-life WWII were outstanding marksmen. They probably had their own share of snipers and MG-shooters who were afraid to die and just wished they were home in Bavaria with their lovely Frau and kept their head down.

 

[dogbadger]

Firstly I dont agree with any increase of spawn times- RO is for the most part trying to recreate reasonably large scale conflict. With just 32 players supported, you further destroy the illusion that your on a busy battlefield.

Last time a death and/or kills count was suggested I posted this...

Not sure I'm into this death count idea myself, especially with regards an attacking team.
Hanging back and camping is ok and a natural instinct for many but this idea would further encourage it by penalising bravery.
Yes survival benifits the team because death loses reinforcements, but the game itself benifits from people getting stuck in sometimes.

Want the scoreboard to reflect the player's true impact on the reinforcements?
Kill to death ratio

-and would still go with this if an scoreboard incentive to remind a player of obligations to the reinforcements was needed.

However I sort of like Milk's idea about limited re-spawns for specific classes- but only on an individual level rather than team. As said though, this could throw up problems.

In my experience most veteran players could not really give a toss what their score is if their team wins.

Do you believe this because thats what veteran players claim, or you gather this from behavior during games?
I not sure I agree with that, I'm sorry.I'm not calling you a liar Nestor as I presume this is your approach to the game, but I think that makes you a rare breed. It's human nature to want to see a benchmark of performance, a reward for efforts and ability. People want to be on a winning team but also want to be seen as one of it's most effective players.
Most would agree that only by rewarding exactly the correct amount of points for various actions, will it be ensured that point chasing and helping the team become one.

The question is, how closely does the scoring actually reflect your true efforts to the team? Not quite closely enough for many it seems, so threads like this crop up and people post intelligent, well thought out, but ultimately over-complicated solutions. Solutions which, if we are being honest, are unlikely to be implemented.

So the more I'm thinking about it, the more I like the idea of removing scores completely. If all you can acheive is to be on the winning team, the surely all your efforts will be devoted to that goal? Would a scoreless FPS be a first?

Forgive me if this is madness, I have just come home from a 12 hour night shift. But at the very least, if it was put to the vote, it would be interesting to see who genuinely doesn't give a toss about their score.

 

[yourpal]

Now for the topic of my post.... One of the things that always frustrates me about the game play of Red Orchestra is the widespread disregard for conserving reinforcements. On maps such as Konigsplatz, Odessa, and StalingradKessel, it seems that unless the defending team is completely whipping the opposing force, they will usually lose the battle by running out their reinforcements. Even on servers with experienced players, despite admonitions to "watch reinforcements", the common impulse of most defenders is to run themselves into the meat grinder in an attempt to kill the enemy. Obviously that's one way to win, but when the number of reinforcements are stacked against you, a better strategy is to hang on and hold objectives.

Why do people always do this?

I like how RO is set up with respawn, to me it represents the reinforcements following behind the point men. However, it turns out to be reincarnation too, but I like it played this way, and this is why there is a limit of reserves.

The problem is not the game, is the person playing the game. As we all now know, when we are in a game with two teams of team players, very tough, fun, hard fighting, various skilled players participate (realism), to produce a high action fun 20 mins or whatever. At the same time, we run into these guys who only want to be a problem, and they are most likely that way in real life, you see them at the office. They Do not care about tactics, team play, reinforcements or whatever. So I do not want to be limited or penalized because of the trouble makers. You will tell them, reinforcements are low, time is long, blah blah, and they cuss you out and run out the reinforcements, do not play in the cap zone area for the team, and then tk you for not playing their way.

 

[slyder73]

So what? What about when we lose because he keeps running into enemy fire, depleting our reinforcements?



NOT TRUE. Gawd. The movie "Enemy at the Gates" was a nice movie. It is not very accurate. The Russians had no real supply shortages, that charge was in there to be dramatic.


(Why does everyone seem to base their knowledge on that movie?)



EDIT: Spraduke beat me to it.

The Russians did have a serious shortage of weapons and clothing, transportation and food from summer 1941 when the Germans invaded right up until Winter into Spring 1943. It took this long for them to pack up and move/rebuild their industrial capacity further East in the Urals. This is why the lend lease program from the Western Allies was in effect, to keep the Soviets in the fight.
The movie Stalingrad may not have been completely accurate, but the Soviet Red army did indeed lose 4.5 million soldier in the first 6 months of the war to casualty but mostly capture. They had no transportation to get withdrawing troops out of the way of the panzer groups moving rapidly across the front. Soviet soldiers were starving to death in 1941/1942, many had no winter clothes, no boots and no ammunition. Most did have rifles, but did not know how to use them. There were no tanks or airplanes to speak of.
After Fall 1942, the industrial capacity really came online in the Urals. The shortages stopped and the MASS MASS production of tanks/planes/guns/ammunition began. In Stalingrad, this started to filter through, though the German siege was broken by a tank encirclement, not by the Red Army in Stalingrad.
After winter 1942 however, the Soviets had more tanks, guns, ammunition that than they could get soldiers called up for. By the end of the war in 1945 the Red Army had conscripted nearly 30 million soldiers in all capacities and had had 8.5 million killed, plus many millions more as wounded and captured.
LOL, there....apparently I have too much time on my hands!

As for the original topic of re-inforcements. Nothing more is as aggravating as when you have half of your team communicating, planning and doing some real teamwork; and they plan to withdraw on a map like Konigsplatz to conserve those last 10 percent....and you keep seeing the 5 or 6 guys keepign on charging forward to fight and die and using up all the last of the reinforcements.
There isn't a whole lot we can do about them. THey aren't on here reading this, they don't care about teamwork or what people say or type to them in game. Most likely they are just used to other games if they aren't new, and are very selfish. They play for themselves and since conserving re-inforcements means sometimes giving up those charges and waiting around under cover for the benefit of the team....well, you get the idea.

All I can think of is to find a good server where the majority of players are regulars who know the maps, and there is a LOT of voice communication. If there are a half dozen guys using voice to say the same idea, lots of those selfish players will follow, just because it's human nature to follow a crowd. If you are stuck in a server where you see this happening, get on your VOIP and call to them by name, it's 50/50, either they will realize they are being watched and thus lacking the anonymous idiocy will follow the plan or still won't care. You have nothing to lose.

 

[[DBDUK]ImIgRaNt]

personally i don't mind the current system. true reinforcement loss is annoying but tbh i like the tension when its down to the last few defenders with 1 min to spare.

This is just an idea but how about Spawn time accumulation? There more times you die the more time gets stacked onto your average spawn time. This way someone who dies twice as much as the average on their team gets penalties. Someone who has had the best K/D ratio so far gets bonus off their time?

 

[Zetsumei]

If some sort of punishment would be implented in dying DO not bind it to scores because atleast 50% of the community does not give a jack **** about scores.

Accumulating respawn time or per player a set amount of lives (depending on class aswell) is the best solution. Afcourse some players die that did good things but that doesn't change anything. The real heroes are usually the ones that die... What you want is for people to play more cautious. Heck completely remove points i'd say ... But give people som sort of stat system where they can see howmany maps out of howmany played were won. This in a ranking system next to that the ability to compare individual info like K/D ratio, Kills per Hour ratio. Hit percentage with different weapons. But all of those not in a ranking system.

The most annoying targets to kill are those just outside a capzone they are just as valuable as those inside a capzone...