lemkeh

Free Play Account
  • Content count

    365
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Green Tag

About lemkeh

  • Rank
    Advance Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
    Army
  • Preferred Unit

Recent Profile Visitors

773 profile views
  1. I think too, that adding the bayonet would be good. Also would be practical adding of possibility to strike by rifle butt. Moreover i will remind also about the shovel, which riflemen could too use as a weapon. Beside possibility use something other than rifle as a weapon, i mean also some additional activity on battlefield and around it. This may be an opportunity to help push a truck out of the mud (especially on rough terrain). Or a possibility to carry the wounded soldier to ambulance truck or to RTB building (wounded soldier or officer might be STO). Maybe some sort of help to engineer to make a defensive object (i mean, if they make it together, then more speedly). Here fits also such FMS, where soldiers can lie and wait others, to go together on attack. If that would be technically possible, then on second floor of depots might be bottles of "Molotov cocktail", which soldiers can pick up and throw through the window onto the enemy's annoying armor. One "cocktail" might not work, but several.. Also soldier might take one "cocktail" with him, and use it on the street (but he can't change his weapon without losing "cocktail"). Of course, much of this would be also available to other soldiers, not just riflemen. imho.
  2. I was ready to answer long time ago, but something went wrong and I did not have access to the forum. Now i tried something to put together. ......... Now about some asked points. I don't get it, why not all bridges? Okay, there might be some few bridges, which can be unprotected, like these in theme "Additional weak bridges", but i doub't that even they. Look, if you have unprotected bridges during the war, then you can't use them without a fear, because they might be mined by enemy saboteurs, when you have interest to use them again. Also you never know, when other bridges might be bombed by the enemy (mostly during offensive) and you will faced with problems of evacuatings, or manouvering your forces by using of remaining bridges and so on. Secondly. This give to you the"eyes" over these bridges, currently you are almost blind about your bridges. Also you, or any officers from your side can spawn there to inspect the area around bridge. That's real zone of your control. Though i don't know, who might be this "you" - HC, or OiC, or some voluntary commander, or a leader of the squad, who will be owner of this particular area. Again, this feature will be more like liberation of the hands of commander over this area, and at same times giving him the zone of control over this area (and the bridge). Placeable by HC... In current game with low pop this will be additional task, which needs much time and effort. Manual repairing of the sentinels boxes and so on, might needs too much attention from commanders (although i am not against some additional gameplay for engineers, if this will speed up this repairing work). IMO, if your forces captured a bridge, then after some time it will change from a no-man's-bridge to your bridge, where your soldiers (the bridge defending platoon) can to spawn. Why i suggested a feature of manual evacuating of platoon, when HC (or who else in his role) want destroy own bridge, then because i see this as a rare event, in a hopeless situation. About owning of the bridges and their value. I can't give the value to the bridge in game. I can only suggest to mimic its high value in real war. At least a little. And tried to explain it in "Engineer's ...." theme. If the breaked bridge in game don't interrupt moving of the supplies, then i can't change it. And same will be, if bridge is not your. Then you can't move your supplies over them, and haven't opportunity to help of advancing of your forces from another flank (as an example) etc. In short, if you have a bridge, then you have an advantage in time. IRL this may save thousands lives of your soldiers. In the game it add maybe only some options to maneuvers. Though maybe if some surrounded brigade (if there will remain at least something from brigades) want to retreat, but can't because bridges behind it is destroyed, or captured by enemy (which is even worse, by many circumstances), then Commander of the Brigade finds out the value of bridge. OK, i can't explain more, because there are sequences...if you haven't yet implemented A, then you can't go to B. No, why there is needed invisible barriers to infantry? IMHO, they may walk over bridge, if nobody shoot them. If they are enemies to AI-sentinel, he will try to kill them and if there is happened a shootout, then he or his mate will try to call a help, which in turn opens spawning spots in bunkers to defenders of the bridge. If i means "battle", then i talk about a battle between attackers and this defenders platoon, who will be live players. They can spawns with all infantry weapons, including AT-rifles and bazookas etc (depends by Tier). To give them possibility to fight, i suggested a little different variant of bunker. Again, this AI-sentinel means more as a trigger, he are here to prevent simple taking over a bridge and can call a help from the HC (or who there will be capable to help). Of course, he can shoot and kill a pair of intruders, or a impudent truck driver, who try to rush over bridge. But that's it. What there should be, is roadblocks (obstacles) for wheeled transport. If friendly vehicles drives over the bridge, roadblocks may move. To stopping the Armor, i'm not sure. IRL you will have possibilities to mining the area, also to remote controlled mines. In the game this might be a game killer. I would prefer air forces for this job. That's for this suits all these tank busters (of course, the bunker platoon with AT-weapons can help too). For the air game overall...with one hand it will take away simple bombing of bridges (though will come more complex system with the reconnaissance missions) and with other hand it give much more battles over the bridgeheads, attacking of tanks etc. My main points is, that together with such relatively small effort (a model of sentinel' box with different colors, some roadblocks and signs, one new model of bunker for all bridges, and last but not least - a new AI-sentinel), you can have much more different gameplay possibilities. And this means MORE battles and much more simple way to newcomers to involving into game. Attack and capture an enemy bridge is much more understandable mission, that many current. I don't think it may have same glory like famous "Bridge crossing" map from AA, but who knows... If you look at the terrain around those bridges in the game, then what you will don't see? You will don't see supportive structures, minefields, several lines of barbed wires, search lights etc etc. That mean, that whole "rear" is bare land from defensive view. To compensate this "bareness", is added second bunker. You should don't take map as a battle of west vs east. The frontline might be much more complex, as on my made scetches (blue dots means paratroopers, who landed in rear and want to make march to bridge, which would be unprotected from this side). As you see, there might be several situations, when such bunker/pillbox would be useful for defending. Of course, if battle over bridgehead will last longer, then defender's engineers can build additional PPOs, but from first attack they can't aid. Also important, then you don't need to make changes on terrain, depending by who and from what side attack bridge. And about bunkers itself. Yes, they were not meant to be the structures, which supposed to hold away enemy's armor attack. Their main purpose was to give place to guards, who currently rest and some cover to guard team from bombers (bomb fragments). And guards itself are there mostly to prevent sabotaging. But. If there is needed, then they don't will retreat also from overwhelming enemy and will give a fight (maybe to have time to evacuate and blow the bridge, I do not exclude this). Now i must repeat, that's why i see as main force to attack and capture a bridge - the paratroopers. As one glorious military profession, which might hook the newcomers into game.
  3. Turning off names/units is good to immersion. Sadly there is one problem - then you can't distinguish one comrade from another even close. But this isn't realistic. I have long time ago suggested to make something like in old Red Orchestra (at least in earlier version) - you see names of your comrades, when they are relatively close, but names disappears, when they are a little further. RO had also one feature, when you see at your comrade through weapon sight, then its name is visible. But i doubt this is needed in WWIIOnline, because here friendly fire is off. If such feature would be in WWIIOL possible at least in hard mode, it would be appreciated.
  4. That everyone can mark everything on the map does not mean that it should be so, imho. Than more they marks, them more they will dissipate, but there is reasons to be together and fight next to eachother. IMO, the scouts profession could be additional military profession, which might be interesting to new subscribers. What about targets to STO Artillery, then i guess, there needs to be a filter - a commanding person (HC, OiC or mission leader), who will get this information from the scouts and decide, is those targets really important, and what to make with them - to attack them by infantry or to call bombers etc.
  5. With a subheading - Capturable bridges. As I wrote in the previous topic “Engineers' missions” LINK about the high cost of such an asset as a bridge, the question may arise, what can the high value of bridges give to the game? And i can give a simple answer - the gameplay. But i will try to explain more. As you could understand from the subheading, i talk about capturing of the bridges, what might add to the game much more different gameplay, than their simple destructing (what too sometimes might to happen, by serious reasons). But how to make such capturing more interesting to participants? You need to make it more complex. I suggest a such scheme - at both ends of bridge will be a sentry's Box. With road blocks on the road bridge and signs on the rail bridge. Now, in these boxes will be AI-sentinels. I understand that many is against adding new AI. But who have been in the Army and at times also as a sentinel, knows that this is a very boring job. You can't compare it even with guarding a CP, because in CP is high chance, that someone will come and try to kill you. But you know how many are in the game the bridges? There will be much less chances to see any visible movement, not to mention an attack to a specific bridge (which could be bypassed by the enemy during advance somewhere else). How i see this AI-sentinel. He would be a man with a rifle, with a bayonet attached. Also he should wear a greatcoat. Most of time he would be in a sentry box (guard shack). When he are in this box, he will be invisible from outside. Here he would be in relative safety. How? Because in situation of an overwhelming danger, he can (supposedly) hide in a bunker, which you can see on 1-st picture. What isn't unusual. That's mean, air attack can't kill him, if he are in this box (shack). Also you can't kill him, shooting from afar, through doorway. He (supposedly) can sleep, semi lying in one corner (which too isn't unusual..). But of course you can kill him, when he are outside of the box. He may be a little tougher than players, but one rifle bullet in the head or two bullet in the torso should kill him. His movement (visible) would be very limited. He could have move out of the box and move again in to the box, no moving over the bridge or around. But would be good, if he would be capable to shoot from standing position, from kneeling and from lying position, depending by situation. On 2nd picture you see its possible shooting area. Of course, he cannot see 360 degrees at the same time. There is needed some solution, where he will see on 90 degree at one time (as example), and that might change on clockwise or counterclockwise every 1-2 minutes. From box he will see less, but not much less, i suppose. As you have read, he would be a rifleman. I guess a better than average rifleman. Not a sniper, and even not a marksman, but nevertheless. I guess, the trigger to turn him to be alerted, will be something 500 meters for infantry and 800 meters for armor. In case of the armor it will be simple (it's very visible, noisy, more distinguishable, and very danger) he will give immediately alarm to bunker (by field phone), and in bunker is sitting (supposedly) a supporting platoon. That's mean, here will be opened mission with spawning in the bunker, where the players can to spawn, to have to play role of this "supportive platoon". Also this alarm will sended to the HC (or to OiC or to the squad leader or who else will be responsible for this territory and the bridge). Who can then give order (missions) to air players, to attack this armor. In case of the infantry, this need to be more tricky. He's unsure, whom he see. The time between being alerted by infantry and to the time of sending alarm must be delayed. Maybe something around 2 minutes (with shooting it may be shorter). But of course, he must act. After being alerted, he will quit from a shack and aim the rifle at assumed enemies, with with a loud order to stop. If they don't stop or they will open fire, he begin shoot them. You have not forgotten, that on one bridge will be two sentinels? As you see, a task of eliminating of two sentinels and preventing of large spawning from bunker will be very hard. Involving of at least two good snipers will a little simplify this task. But even then, a battle is almost inevitable. But that's what the infantry and armor are for. This don't prevent a large group from capturing a bridge, but can prevent to do this to a small group if they don't play very cunningly. What isn't unusual. Why such intricacy? If you were watched the movement of hands, you already understand, where I'm going. Yes, we have paratroopers in the game. Such tasks is for them. Also they have ability to land on both sides of river and attack both sentinels at same time. That's great advantage. Can a sentinel see their landing? Of course, if they are already on the bridge. And he wll begin to shoot them. If they are yet in air, then i am not sure (maybe when he will be outside of shack). But what will alert him for sure, it will be an airplane, what will fly low. And he will alarm the bunker , HC and whom else. Therefore the pilot of airplane, who want to aid the paratroopers to accomplished mission of capturing of the bridge, will be fly high, something over 1500 meters and in cloudy weather only over clouds ( i don't remember which weather system is currently in game). Which might to make this mission more difficult, but at same time more interesting and demanding of skill. As a rough example, there might be mission of capturing the bridge with two airplanes, in first plane would be a scout (or small team of scouts), who lands firstly, but on some distance from the bridge. And he (they) will begin to watch at bridge by using the binocular (to see, is here someone besides sentinels or not). If not, he will give this information (by presumable radio station) to second airplane, who flies around here and wait a good moment. But even for them it shouldn't be so simple. Where's hidden a trick? In the bunkers..They wouldn't be only as place to (supposed) hiding of a sentinel from the aerial bombing. And the places to spawn to "bridge guarding team". But they would be also places to make "inspection missions". What is that? In my vison they would be so - any player in officer rank from side of the bridge owner can do an inspection mission (though maybe is needed that players, who want to make such mission, should to play during a campaign only on one side). How this mission will look? Officer will be spawn in one bunker and will make a walk over bridge to another bunker. If here is nothing strange, he will quit from mission and mission will be accomplished. His gamename stay in log. But if there is something strange, or is there an attack on the bridge, he can raise the alarm and die like a hero. A little bit about the bunkers. As you see on 1-st and 2-nd pictures, they will laid relatively close to the bridges. Also their doors (doorways) will be always pointed to the bridge. Why? That's mean, doorway are under control of sentinel. Second. If bunker on one bank are captured by enemy, that mean, you don't own anymore this bridge (owning a bridge implies owning both ends of the bridge). Therefore your main interest (as owner of the bridge), will be defeat attacks of enemy, which come from outside. Also as you see, around bunkers will be some anti-tank obstacles and barbed wire. On 3rd picture you see approximate layout of inside. The main point is, that from doorway you can't shoot and kill who freshly spawns (there will not be the direct view from doorway to spawn). This green pentagram will be a place to spawn. And this red dot will be a spawning switch. If enemy's soldiers reach this point, then spawning function in this bunker to owner soldiers is disabled. But in another bunker they can spawn. How long...there is needed a trigger, because if you lost one end of bridge, that mean you isn't anymore an owner of bridge. Now, bunker, what were captured by enemy, will become to a no-man's-bunker (what belong to nobody, and where nobody can't spawn). After some time, if defender don't capture this bunker again, whole bridge become a no-man's-bridge, with all its consequences. If attacking side will captured both bunkers, then there is needed some time to become as owner of the bridge. And on 4rth pic you can see a possible appearance of these bunkers. I haven't touched one theme, how you can destroy your own bridge, if there is serious reason for this. This might be tricky. Because if this bridge belongs to you, then your soldiers guard it, defend it. You can't just bomb it into ruins with them. That would mean a tribunal. Also not all bridges were mined by defenders. That isn't so foolproof solution. There might happened accidents, or enemy's saboteurs can use these explosives. OT. IIRC, i read somewhere, that during invasion in Low Countries Germans paratroopers was at least once capable to extinguish a match cord, which was set in fire by the bridge defenders. But then again, not all bridges were mined. Therefore i guess, if you are a commander, who are responsible for that bridge, and you have serious reasons to destroy it, then firstly you need to evacuate own people from there. You will make a mission or give order, to evacuate the sentinels (and supposedly also the guard platoons) from bridge. From the road bridge presumably by truck, from the rail road bridge maybe on something other. What benefits will this bring to the game. Need i something to say else? You will have many new battles in the countryside (where is most of the bridges). Because in cities is also the bridges, this will add some new tactical maneuvers to battles for cities, new zest. The paratroopers will finally have proper missions to do. You don't forget number of bridges in game? That's it. But. There might be one big problem, as we know. A task to make a proper AI-sentinel might need much time and effort. Though he might be useful to replace also old AI. If this will be a problem, then i suggest Plan B. Plan B might be: Make these sentinel shacks. Also the road blocks, signs and the bunkers. That's mean, all objects and features except AI-sentinels. This might work even in so truncated variant. Of course, not so good, but at least something will be where to develop in the future. IMHO. ......................... ... ... ... .......................
  6. A little revised variant of a post, what i previously deleted. At first i guess, the Scout need to have at least sergeant rank. Also he may be a profession in some different branches. A infantry scout, a navy scout, a pilot scout, a paratrooper-scout, maybe even more. In my vision his loadout (if he acts alone) might look so (exception for the pilot-scout) - a dagger (a little more lethal than a knife and maybe with possibility to kill AI too, though this need other AI). Pistol and its ammo. Some different grenades. Submachine gun and ammo. Yes, a submachine gun as their main weapon. They don't need to fight at long distances. Even more, they need to hide and try to avoid to be noticed. Also the rifle, as a more bulky weapon, will detain the scout, when he overcome obstacles and crawling. And as self-defense weapon in an emergency, SMG is superior. And this will be not against history too. But, if he is not alone, and there will be a group of scouts (even a mission with some target), then will be good to have possibility for different loadouts (maybe one carbine or a sniper rifle per 4-5 men, explosives, time bomb, a small inflatable boat, suitable for carrying by one person, a wire cutter, a mine detector, light vehicles etc etc.) Of course, then is needed also a lobby, to form such missions. What kind of missions the scouts can perform? In my previous topics i gave some examples, as the photographing of some objects, to give a data to HC. Or searching important objects etc. Before implementing them is very difficult to bet. About marking of important objects. (Again with exception of pilot-scout, which work will be different and need different approach) . Many of us remember old times, when the marks was need approving by mission leader. If similar nightmare we don't want to repeat, then we need to avoid situation, when other soldiers can demand from the scout to mark something (what he actually don't see). How? Then we need to recall, that in WWII soldiers already used field cameras (to take photos and selfies etc.). And even some pre-war cameras had the rangefinders. Now, if we compile these facts, we can to make so, that to place an accurate mark on something, the scout need take a photo of this object from a certain distance. When he take a shoot, there might be atleast two options - to place a mark, or save the picture but not to place a mark (as a placeholder for advanced gameplay in the future). Now, who will see those placed marks? I suppose, they will be visible for all, who have same target or object to defend (there is needed one clarification, these targets might be in same area, not exactly same CP etc). But i suggest to make these marks visible for pilots in another form. One example. The map will consist a grid, every side of square will be 100 meters. If the scout place a mark, then sides of square, where is this mark placed, will be colored to red on the pilot map. Something so.. That means an approximate place.
  7. Update. These were some old (and not very old) texts, which i wanted once to post, but wasn't sure, because of reducing of strategic layer in the game. But i will post them nevertheless, maybe they will be useful in future, when plans will change. That will become three topics, which are somewhat tied to each-other, though not very tightly. Mostly about the bridges. Many of us have some posts about bridges, even i. Such strategic points cannot be ignored, but they have been ignored for a long time. I understand, that some moments will not be welcomed by some other players, but that's my vision. .................. Now I'm going to go a little further. A little more specifically about bridges repairing missions. But before it, i want to touch theme of destroying of the bridges. We all know, that bridges had high value for logistics in the war. For the army, a bridge could have more valuable than a village or even a small town behind it. To repair a bridge you will need many men, resources, etc...and time. And sometimes the time have highest value in this list (especially on the war). Therefore high commands from both sides in the war very carefully looked at destroying of bridges. Logically, there was such circumstances, when meaning of bridge was much more important to your enemy, than to you, then you have all reasons to destroy this bridge. But even then, this required planning and preparations. Displaying those circumstances in the game is very difficult, almost impossible. But the game can try. I suggest such a variant - pre-AO (or pre-Destroying objective/target). HC (or volunteer OiC or who else will be responsible for a particular sector of the front) will give the pre-AO mission. The mission will be to photograph a certain bridge on enemy territory or on no-man's-land. Now mission will be visible in the pilot players missions tasks. Who of them will be interested, will take this mission, and it becomes inactive to others (until this player will fulfill its mission or perish in battle). If player don't fulfill this mission by any reason, it become again active to others. To sadness we currently don't have the scout planes. Therefore, developers could take any weakest aircraft and add to it the possibility to photograph ground targets (it will become a scout variant of this airplane). To no have dependency only on pilots, might be possible to distribute these missions also to players in some other branches. Example, this mission can be accomplished by pair of paratroopers, who could be landed relatively near to this bridge, make a risky tour to close to this bridge, take a photograph of it and return to home front. And such variants could be more. It will also be useful to introduce a reconnaissance specialist (a scout) into the game, who may be part of the infantry, parachutists (and, as mentioned, part of the aerial branch). Who will make this trip to enemy's bridge on foot, on truck, on car, on parachute, or maybe on boat etc. After that HC (or volunteer OiC or who else will be in charge) will have 'important data' about this bridge and he is ready to call to destroy it. Also this variant allow to detach 'attack objective' from 'defend objective', for the bridges. This mean get rid from automatic DO, if enemy had put on the bridge an AO. You will have visible activity of enemy (circling airplane, small group of paratroopers etc) in your backyard. If HC have an experience, he will made right decision, which again don't meant that he is forced defend it). As you see, with relatively small details you can add more content to the game. Now about repairing of the bridges. This was every now and then mentioned, that repairing such objects as big bridges is a very difficult task, not mention about it in wartime. Of course, in game, where factories can repaired in several hours, is hard to make repairing of bridges more complex. How then to keep 'virtual importance' of bridges and at same time not to put 'living player' into work for many hours? I suggest, that engineer would spawn with engineer's truck, would go by truck to the bridge and places there a PPO of a construction site. Yes, a PPO with looking like construction site and maybe even with sounds of repairing, which can stay there for hours until bridge get repaired. In my humble opinion, such repairs should take significant time, maybe even a couple of days. And of course, such repairing activity can be interrupted by enemy. You may ask, why i suggest to make it so difficult and long? Then it WAS very difficult and time consuming. Also this will add reasons to implement into the game the pontoon-bridges. As i will expect, their placing will be take several hours (and not days, as for the repair of the destroyed bridge), IMHO, also by using construction site PPO and might be interrupted by enemy. There may be questions why no auto repair? IMO, firstly there might be some tactical circumstances, why BOTH sides might be occasionally interested by that a bridge stay destroyed. And secondly, destroying of bridges may be less frequent than currently and therefore it would be like some kind of notable event. And now we are faced with a logical question: why is needed to make them to be destroyed less frequently.... I will continue this in next topic - Guarded bridges. LINK ....................
  8. If a hedgerow allow to place them in such configuration, then why not. Because this "trench" isn't mean to be as obstacle to enemy' soldiers or tanks (though maybe to wheeled transport). If such "a hedgerow trench" will have same color as terrain, and have another shape than current hedgerows in WWIIOL parks...Sadly, soldiers can't lean on them, to be capable to shoot. Also they supposedly isn't bulletproof. But as placeholder, to find something more better in future, these hedgerows-trenches maybe might work. Yes, i know, that making holes in current terrain is no go. That's why i suggested such a "trench-wall". Is there a way to use a rag-doll physics to place such a large object, or a chain from several parts, which together will make such an object? Which later will become a STO, until it disappears?
  9. I expected that the terrain can be an Achilles heel. But there are extenuating circumstances. This object isn't meant to defense, which needs more careful placing on landscape. Occasionally yes, but its main task is to offer to spawned soldiers moderate concealment, disguise, to give a little time to gather strength, to be ready to attack together. Imagine, that to attack one big city, there would be several such trench-FMS's. And when ordered to attack, given by the one mission leader or OIC, all these men will rise and run into the attack. With fighting cries and shouts of curses in the voice chat.That's the area, where WWIIOL can beat most of shoebox shooters. If you do not use even such opportunities, then what else? About more simplicity. It IS simple. Technically it would be a short wall, which has shape of trench inside, and a mound outside. Bottom will be terrain, as it is. That yellow area on picture are there only to show schematically, where soldiers can be half-lying and shoot the enemies. All textures can be same as currently has infantry's foxholes. Even a tree or two, that could remain at the bottom of such a trench would not be a problem. Though maybe will be a problem, if tree will be through wall. That's why i guess, these trenches need some algorythm to place, because, sadly, ML can't quit from truck to place it better. What about this wooden hutch. Yes, it is the place to spawn light AT and AA weapons. But why not build it together with whole trench? My opinion is, that sometimes ML need just quick attack, without attracting an attention from enemy (what such weapons can do). If ML completed some of its first assignment, then he may allow to engineers build one or more such objects inside trench. Or may not. With this you will give to ML some tool to have different outcome of the attack (different objects needs different approaches). PS. I've read, that trucks still have loud audio. How that is possible? This problem was pointed years ago, i remember it mentioned in previous year, when i played game. And nothing had changed? I don't get it. I remember sitting in defense, reading text in chat, that someone seen enemy's truck. Then some luckiest kills this truck. At first it's an funny moment. At second time you say "OK, maybe next time we see fight too". At third time it get boring and you start to search to some another AO/DO (or quit). If i came to play a war game, then i don't want to hunt a helpless truck. I want to see on the sight of my weapon the guys who can shoot back, who can outsmart me, and whom i can outsmart too. I want to fight. And such "feature" like hear the truck from long distance is a flawed game mechanics, which only interrupts the battles. If it's because of the difficulty of working with audio, then that might be understandable (but not during years and constantly declining numbers).But if it is intentionally by the devs...Then it's a disappointment. Second. Here and there is posts about that even nowadays is possible to place FMS in enemy's rear, and spawn from there a small army. Which too is far away from realism. Again, there were several suggestions years ago, (#metoo), that the game needs some kind of "frontline", when you can set the FMS only in "your" zone. And this zone would change due advancing of your (or enemies) side. Something like if your side will captured a CP, then its surrounding will be also in this zone, where your side can place a FMS. And so on. IIRC, I even posted some maps on the forum about it. But the suggestions did not bring any attention.
  10. Since I mentioned in one theme a trench with a length of 30 meters as one possible FMS, I took the time to draw an approximate scheme. How in my vision this can work. A mission leader (or team leader) came by truck to the place, where he think to make FMS. He will place its FMS there, and this FMS will be only a trench. Players from its team will spawn on bottom this trench. If they don't move and lie on bottom, they don't see what is around trench. Also they are relatively safe (until close distance). If they crawl on on yellow area, they can see and of course to shoot enemy. If they will stand on their feet on the bottom of the trench, then i guess they can shoot too (i'm not sure about location of eyes of avatars in current game). Now, an engineer, who will spawn in this trench, can place a wooden construction (which is similar to current FMS) INSIDE of this trench. From this wooden hutch will spawn light AT and AA guns. As you see on the scheme, to leave this hutch, they will use some kind of wooden walkway. Not sure about direction of leaving of these guns from trench. Maybe this will be ML or engineers decision. I guess in one trench might be maximally 2-3 such hutches. If there will be a road, where ML want place such FMS, then this trench will be split on two (together they will be ~ 30 meters long). Maybe will be possible somehow get around trees (with a little bit of geometry change). About deleting this FMS by enemy. Of course if enemy's soldier put its foot on this trench, this will disable its functionality as spawn point (forever). What will be other triggers, which will make same, i im not sure, this requires "field trials". I guess, even after eliminating such FMS, the trench might to stay at some time. And will disappear after some time. Until then, there would be a sign which shows, that this object is disabled (maybe some sign on language of this side, who destroyed this FMS. If Germany, them something like "Achtung, minen!". Now, what benefits will this give to game. I think, this will give to infantry much more realistic option to advancing to target. They will be more spread (at least in first stage), which will bring in more feel of that they attacks a target from a trench (which was quite usual in ww2). With new grass this would be even more spectacularly. In addition, on last stage of destroying of this FMS, might be happen some good skirmishes, which too wouldn't be redundant for game. Also, such FMS will give a better opportunity to soldiers to wait to its comrades, to attack the target together, in proper formation and maximally effective. etc. imho.
  11. I will try to explain my view. Around WWIIOL exist (and was existed) many games, that described themself as simulator, and others not. Many people played them and at least theoretically many of them would find the way to WWIIOL and stay here. Because game call himself "best WWII simulation experience around" and theoretically have many strenghts to be attractive to these players. Low numbers say otherwise. Then where is the problem? I can't say, that "question about simulation" is the main problem. But because i touched it, i will try to describe this part. I'll start from afar - about infantry. We all know many games (and demos of those games), which recreate so called infantry battles in WW2. Most of them are(were) close combat battles, some of them have also more large maps to give more wide perceptions. What is here to simulate? Not so much, the environment of battle (AAA games advertise destructable objects), realistic buildings, beautiful nature, close to realistic sights on the weapons, normal movings of players' avatars, beautiful death to comrades, terrible death to enemies etc etc. This really not so much different from WWIIOL. But can we call these games as simulator? Doubtful. About infantry i will continue below. For now i will say a little about boundaries. Yes, even a simulator, which try to simulate something, have its limits (not only technical, but also as game logic). As an approximate example, if you want to play a WWII submarine simulator, then last what you want will be in game an occasional urge to pee for your avatar, when you are with your thoughts in battle. Or a drunken view, when you look through the periscope. Which don't mean, that people in WW2 didn't need to pee, or they were never drunk in battle. But then, what have almost all simulators? The missions. Yes, missions, where developers (and some modders) tried to recreate some situations, moments, battles, emergencies, surgery, harvesting of the trees etc, depending what they try to simulate. If we take a specific theme of WW2, then sims about it are trying simulate mostly historical battles, with their battle order, formations, obstacles, enemies, limited supply etc. Most close to this in WWIIOL were RDP raids by bombers. If we take another example, then spawn camping by tanks looks not as armor combat simulation. But what else they can do? If we return to infantry, then we all see its weakness in WWIIOL. Without proper formation and battle order, they run yes, like ants to the sugar...and die like flys. Ok, these are details, my main humble opinion is, the game need to look at game missions through eyes of players, who plays such simulation games with missions. If here is such players, then even better, they might to give some suggestions about preffered missions. And the gaming community might think how to recreate them here. Game have great potential and can offer to interested by it an opportunity of battles against living players, what might make such missions even more valuable. Will this kill other gameplay? I doubt. The gameplay with missions and the instant combat can coexists, if we finds proper solutions to linking them on a common battlefield. imho.
  12. OK. But i asked because you wrote that HC would be focused to attack only.
  13. You are right, that's not about direct combat zone. And i didn't mean that. Yes, one link behind frontline would be good. They all arrived (imaginable) to the station, and then go by the trucks to combat zone. It's like last link, which was simulated in previous game. And there were always a problem, imho. Soldiers and artillery guys should not look for transport to get to the battle. This problem was partially solved by spawning in FMSs, FRUs etc. But now the armor and artillery stayed without covering by infantry. (OT. Several times were suggested to give to the artillery a towing truck as part of the unit. I suppose, that CRS think, that they will lost money due that. But maybe is something other, what they may give to Heroes, maybe the bicycle or even a motorcycle, as a tool?). But what with the armor? Again, there were suggestions to split infantry to pure infantry (which can spawn in all these FMSs and depots. And the mechanized infantry, which spawn in same locations, where spawn the armor. Now, pure infantry will have the instant combat gameplay, like it is today. But mechanized infantry will be more like previous infantry from old WWIIOL. Though their transporting to combat need of better solution. Would be a good variant, if at least three armor vehicles is spawned, then there automatically spawn also a truck (or more), which will have a function to follow such a column. Maybe is needed a separate opinion exchange to find a best technical solution to do it. Of course, the manually driving trucks will stay, (like for the pure infantry), to have more maneuverability, when it is needed. Now, someone will ask, how this long s**t belong to theme of spawning in railroad station. But i guess, directly, because such mechanized infantry and armor can to spawn on the Rail station, and to drive to combat zone.Though here is also one problem. There is too few stations at all. Where is rural stations? They too is needed to implemented. Now you will have more variants to maneuvers, more different modes to play game etc. But as i said, firstly is needed to allow to spawn on captured station only for combat engineers/pioneers/combat sappers. I guess, nobody doubt that tracks and area needs a verification before using (this is needed to be as additional game play, not as annoying obligation). If there is a connection by rails, then on the imaginable rail road vehicle. If there isn't connection, then maybe by using a truck, or even an engineer's truck. Something like here Engineer's missions And one question, have someone a proper map of railroads in Europe in 1940 year?
  14. If already to do , then maybe a little more complex - after capturing of Rail station to allow there to spawn firstly only for combat engineers/pioneers (who supposedly will arrive there by using the railroad car or handcar), to preparing station to arriving all other soldiers and armor. To simulate the inspection of railway tracks and cleaning the area from the mines.
  15. I did not follow the development of the theme of the garrisons. Who will lead the defense and who will command the garrison?