Kilemall

Registered Users
  • Content count

    68,950
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    84

Everything posted by Kilemall

  1. Er. I do a LOT of scouting, people were doing scouting before we even had map marking. Don't need specialized units since everyone has binoculars and map marking. What IS missing is heavy firepower tools. An infantry scout that can accurately call in ship, bomber or artillery fire would need some rangefinding tools and a highly accurate locater so the firing unit can make a working solution to hit the area. Then the other needed component is STO for DD gunfire, bombers, and ultimately artillery. Artillery would IMO require breaking the spawn castle paradigm, so that's a thing.
  2. But but but then THE MAN is cramping someone's style! There are limited resources! Squad fun may be curtailed cause they can't go when and where they please RIGHT NOW. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand and am sympathetic to the plight of the squad leader trying to manage desired content fun for his guys within a very strict time window of squad night, and there is NO question that AOs runs right up against that goal. The iron law of AOs as presently constituted is a miserable experience for HCs and SLs under the best of circumstances with both cooperating fully, much less if one or both are being hissy jerks. That's another aspect of the NAO proposal with NAO on for a minimum two hours- still puts towns on notice re: defense but limits their number, doesn't kill attacks or defenses based on 1-3 FBs or FMS, density drops enough to get FMS setup but not so much that a town is gone or can't be recovered when the Horde moves on, squads know they can have at least an hour or two to setup what they want to do without being 'under the gun' or have the AO cut out due to pop change.
  3. You're assuming a lot here. As it stands, the mission system is not being described as fundamentally changed, and town/garrisons are effectively static brigades, at least from a database/ticket standpoint. So if it is like current supply re: ticket handling, then the ticket goes back to the originating 'unit'. Instead of going back to 110th Brigade or whatever, if you spawned from Charleroi it goes back to Charleroi Town Brigade. The originating town is the originating town and gets back it's tickets that aren't destroyed. Destroyed tickets would count down on the resupply timer and fulfill a replacement at the end of the timer for the ticket. So assuming I'm right, your issue is a non-issue. Now you COULD potentially despawn in a town then respawn like we all do for warp depots, and tanks should be able to respawn at the AB. But ticketwise, it's still 'owned' by the originating supply brigade, which in most cases are going to be town 'brigades', and you finally despawn/die in the tank it goes back to the originating town supply. Resupply missions are how you overstock now with brigades, has to be HQ, has to have mission with associated brigade in same division, target brigade has to be in a different town then source HQ. I don't know exactly how town brigades will handle this, but I presume it's going to require the same mechanism, source town to destination town and specifically resupply mission. What WILL be harder for Allies is both towns will have to be the same country.
  4. Sounds good, I always felt HC got a minimal level of design care with the ethos of 'players make the game', when it was and is core to the content of the game. Key aspects ARE buy-in, organizing and players naturally belonging to squads or adhoc groupings if squads aren't around, tools to do all this, superior UI to what we had before, not setting up so much resource friction (which will occur with squad-only play too, HC reduction/elimination is not a real solution), taking GREAT care with the spawnlists in interaction with the combat biome, and above all player culture driven by equipment, situations, people, relationships both human and coded, comms systems, and yes supply, MUST be a dominant consideration in everything done with this game.
  5. Well, it's a bit more then that. Too often we end up driving in a rut between FB and target, and it's 25% countryside fight cutting getting into camp/surprise infiltration position of either town or FB, 75% urban fights if the attack gets an established position. With Doc's experiment with the Bloody Battles version, I found myself driving in from odd towns to surprise other people driving around out there, and it was a big 20km around battle area with a lot more countryside in play. The hybrid supply makes this MORE possible as new supply to finish off the towns one direction or another pops up so AT hunters like me get a lot more chance to get in position, whereas in the current iteration you don't get a payoff most of the time as either the FMS get stuffed or the attack is over before one can get to where the action is.
  6. Actually, if I were redoing the RDP I would put in the railyards as a major bombing target on the same level as factories. Atlantic docks for Allied supply, particularly American.
  7. I was there too, and I was literally the Allied strategic advisor officer when AOs came in. I remember the CinC, Deputy CinC and mine's shared horror at the prospect of having AOs shouldered on us. We KNEW it was going to be putting a lot of anger on HC for a playerbase used to just jumping in the truck and 'making trouble', and in no way did we ask for them. I can't speak for the Axis HC, but I have to think they weren't any happier about it then we were, given the strong squad situation on that side. AO is a function of mapsize, player density for content generation above opel rushing, forcing battles, and related defensive setup/battle over signaling. HCs got the function because they are there and I suspect to put a minimal bones down payment on the promise of a command system. This was clear even in the early days as the map grew bigger. They knew they would have 20+ town frontages with the mapsize, so this had a lot to do with it's relatively early development. Incorrect conclusions about functions will lead us to design error.
  8. That's your experience as an Axis guy. Allies were bleeding people from the beginning. Simplicity at the cost of being beat on for years? Ya. No thanks. Did my time on that one. I want to play a game. 'Player initiative' also opens things up to a lot more destroyed supply to no good end. On one level that's fine, the toys are there to destroy and be destroyed, but when a big squad rolls through, gets it's jollies and logs, then the people left have to deal with the mess trying to hold it together. Did that for years too. No I don't miss TRoF, I'd like a war game not a tribal scrum and screw everyone else. There are other solutions then no AO. Does the current system work? No. But that doesn't mean an open system will either.
  9. That I don't have a problem with. I do have a problem with a complete return to TRoF, I want to play in a war not a tribal game with panzers, wide open fronts with density issues or overpop EWS AO advantage.
  10. I was there. It was a big deal. I won't rehash it, but it was. Especially the little slimeballs that would cap a town 'wrong' and kill overstocking unless the Allies intentionally allowed a town to be capped so it could be recapped back to the right country. Don't get me started on AF politics.
  11. Er, despawns likely will go back to originating town if the mission itself was not a resupply mission in the first place. Which, you shouldn't be able to do a resupply mission to an enemy town.
  12. I think it's important to note for people not around then that AO as you are using the term referred to Areas of Operation that were assigned/agreed to by squads to be responsible/active for as opposed to the coded AO today that indicates what towns can be captured/must be defended.
  13. Whie I agree that org tools are what has been missing all along and we had extensive discussions with Rats 1.0 on this point, I fail to see how tying squads to brigades, whether moveable or not, is going to be conducive to good play. Yes you will get the 'our town' 'our brigade' loyalty and comradeship thing going, but it will be tied to whatever location that is and if you undo AOs then it becomes a matter of which squad night is on and either people stay with their unit and let the whole front collapse (but their brigade is okay up to the point it's defending their factories, yaay us) or people have to go to where the enemy squad night is, forego their operations for their squads on their brigades, and for TZs that are perennially underpop for their side the overpop side will get the 'our brigade' org/pop bonus and the underdogs won't. If you go EWS AO then the overpop side will be able to open up several AOs to the underpop side's some or none. Promoting from squad leadership into HC functionality and coding it, PROPERLY, was ALWAYS the move, so I'm happy to read this, but NOT happy to read of a wide open map when you don't have the density to populate it- you risk the content devolving into the classic 'opel rushes' or OJ Pearl Harbors, not hard battles that garrison supply promises.
  14. The moment the map got about 10 towns wide, a wide open map was an invite to suck. Hell. No.
  15. It is. But at least the Rats made the effort to have the variability in, which is major. The two division count is WAY too low if for no other reason then multi-country differentiation, but we can discuss that.
  16. Gawd I hope not.
  17. Boy you have been gone a long time. No such thing as 'area of operations' except for navy guys starving for AOs. That whole thing, gone with AOs, and so a long time. Since each side would deploy an NAO, there would be two areas in play at once, with actually almost as many towns in play as the whole front, but with more depth rather then length. If they can't find something appealing in something like an average of 12 towns in play, with no AO yanked out from under them for hours, not sure what else you can expect.
  18. I do agree that the spawning paradigm needs changing and needs to be organically organizing. However, I think you are looking at the wrong aspect of the problem. Two major issues with spawning- 1) Game uses the spawn castle paradigm- capture the spot, stop or start the spawning. Therefore our fights end up revolving around depots, bunkers, bases, FMS and FBs. Good thing is it clearly creates a desirable objective with real pain to either you or your enemy depending on who controls it, and a clear paradigm throughout the game. Bad part is it creates a spawn castle fight all the time, which makes the character of our ground fights urban at least 75% of the time, and rewards infiltration tactics and the Axis kit is not really built for armor assault at least through the first two tiers. 2) Mission based spawning tied so hard to one mission/one spawn and the loss of spawn kills the mission effectively or literally, fractures organization as people abandon whatever 'natural' org would arise around it. Multiple missions means multiple markers and supposed leaders, only leaders often don't take care of their spawns or particularly lead, and if they do want to lead an attack or a recap they have to leave their spawn to do so. My solution to all of the above is Go from 'join a mission/spawn only here' to a Task Force 'spawn multiple places/supply sources' all on one TF map, so you join a TF rather then a mission and you have a TF leader that is coordinating activity. Squads could be their own TF and exclude, or adhoc TFs could be formed from operational groups, a 94th type org, or an HC leading an operation. Multiple TFs can be on an AO or DO. TF selects which AO/DO they are on and can switch. TF commander gets all spawnlist feeds for supply state impinging on the AO/DO. TF subsumes the default target channel for most players- this will help with new players so they aren't so lost when an AO moves on. Code an AO/DO commander, who takes the position whether HC, HC selected or some KOTH mechanism. Commander gets tools only he gets including special views and gets autolinked both to HC channels if they aren't HC, and the TFs associated with the AO/DO. Automatic ingame command/comm system. Randomized area spawning- basically FMS can be set up as the center of an area units using the spawn can spawn in at. Probably the spawn setup guy could set the size of the area, tight and specific to say any open area within 200m. AB/FB might still be the only heavy location otherwise it would get weird quickly, but everything else would be a lot more survivable. In a longer range change for say WWIIOL 2.0, it would be lovely for a leader to build his TF from whatever points he earns as a player and a leader, we really get that tactical leader persona rather then X rank gets Y better toy, and we still get the toybox solve your own war system but with organic leadership invested in the solution and results.
  19. Hmm, I think this is a pipe dream. Instead, people will just race to AB camping positions like they used to, and that will be that. Might get OJ back if you got rid of AOs too.
  20. I'd make it a separate plane type for each side, has to be towed then glides and lands, wherever it is when it stop there it is, pilot switches it to UMS mode, severe spawn limits of say 2 rifles and one of the common MGs/semis per cycle, easily destroyable. Looks like the likely candidates can be towed by 111s, Ju-52s, C47s and even Stukas, so no need for special towing planes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_CG-4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DFS_230
  21. Well, I don't know what they are as I usually bring up issues in the Barracks, hard to have a conversation about what I haven't read. Link where you have listed them?
  22. Well, if I understand what you want, sounds like you want historical unit and formation spawning and organization organic to each formation type, and a hard push to fight as the WWII units actually did. Thing is, the game always had more of a 'make your own war' toolbox approach- solve your own tactical and strategic problems with the tools on hand. The weapons themselves alter tactics and force players to at least respect and problem solve the more powerful ones, and use powerful weapons to overcome numbers and/or terrain/supply/spawn advantage. But operating units and groups of players as a recreationist hardcore simulation- no, I don't think that is going to work, or be a feature that will bring in more players. What IS missing is better organic organizing tools- it's not what units can spawn in what order, but getting players organized as part of just spawning in and playing. Squads did, can and still do that, but they are not the default play unit in 24/7 when it's not squad night, and we need adhoc grouping and org on a scale larger then missions.
  23. I am curious about the criteria of SD and it's refresh rate, if they have spread it out over several minutes as an average like I suspect you could have drastically different pop at spawn time from the average over the last 15 minutes. Also, any of the pop things aren't going to distinguish between land and air/navy, an air squad could pop in your side and still leave you short on the ground.
  24. I'm curious Minky, what are the balance issues you are concerned with? Perhaps the current crew has made changes that you are unaware of? I have Star Citizen money in being an original backer but have chosen not to expend effort in it as those forums are at once more toxic and more carebear then I can stomach. I do however have an official fizzy drink I named and I think affected their thinking re: modularity in ship design. They are going to have to show me SQ42 before I put another dime in. They also did not put in real physics as promised, the ships should fight less cinematically and more hard intertia if they had delivered.