Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Silky

  1. I think there is a problem with the FB as a mechanic, even if I don’t personally subscribe to the idea of permanent FBs FBs do not currently encourage PvP, a function of the detonate/demolition attack requirement, which makes all-out assault non-viable and lends itself to ninja tactics and combat avoidance. The requirement for FB attack and defence to be precisely balanced also hugely detracts from the gameplay. If you’re a defender trying to hold against stronger attacking force, you end up sniped over and over as you spawn in. If the situation’s reversed, and you’re a weaker attacking force against a rugged defence, you can almost guarantee you won’t get it down. That balance to generate rewarding play is very fine.
  2. The point is possibly that the current mechanism still draws players away from PvP areas of the game. Too often we’re either seeing players guarding FBs against attacks that don’t come, or we’re tying players down to take down FBs which aren’t defended
  3. I guess the question is what happens if a town is under attack and the defenders spawn at their FB and deploy FMS or armour to suppress the FB attacking their town Could be stupid, could be interesting
  4. Target Channel is a flawed mechanic. It would be better to model comms channels on AOs rather than lock them around missions
  5. I’m all for major changes to the impact of the strat bombing air game. What I don’t want to see is a huge cut to the impact without something replacing it The act of long range high alt bombing is a genuine selling point to this game and I’m loathed to see it destroyed again unnecessarily
  6. So you presumably want high alt level bombing entirely removed from the game?
  7. You're conflating game design and exploiting game design. By that logic, people stab each other with knives, therefore we should ban knives The game rules encompass it all, air, land and sea. You may as well complain that the armour game/players negatively impacts the infantry game/players, or that the infantry game negatively impacts the ATG game, or the AAA game negatively impacts the CAS game
  8. So if it were up to me, my approach would be not to model the game around the real time tasks and tweak or simulate that, I'd model the game events around what time players might think is reasonable, ie market research. If market research indicates that players liable to be sucked in and subscribe to a naval sim play eg 4 hour missions, you model the missions on what the real game can cater for 3-5 hours, which might equate to a transport distance of about 60 miles, which equates to the width of the Channel at the edge of the populated map we have today. So you could say doing the basic transport might take 3 hours, similarly Den Haag to Weskcapelle. Enemy activity to intercept these convoys would have to owrk off a mobile spawn system that would deliver action on average within that same 3-5 hour window There'd need to be an element of selection and planning (and enemy knowledge) of the convoys for this to work but I think as a niche, technical element, this would be a fantastic addition to the game. This would echo my preference for the Air War, which I believe would work much better if there were a select target (eg "4 HOUR BOMB TARGET PORTSMOUTH/KOLN") that is known to all sides that delivers maximum effects, and acts the same as AOs do in the current game.
  9. So the answer is to distill it down to the most basic common denominator? So your game of chess removes its RDP checkers layer (even though that game was in fact part of the game design and a huge contributor to the actual game this game is a simulation of...) but then you know what? That knight moves funny, and only certain types of players play know how to use the knight properly, so yeah - it needs to go. That bishop, with its funny diagonal moves, that doesn't fit with the straight pawn game most players want, so please remove it. Those rooks, and that downright bizarre castling manoeuvre - that is way too weird and idkwtf is going on, so that must also now be removed from the game, for the good of the players. And then you're left with move pawn, take pawn, move next pawn, take pawn rinse repeat ad infinitum. I would hazard a guess if you ask people to list key elements of the western front on WW2, they'd say D-Day, Spitfires, Tiger tanks, Blitzkreig,Dunkirk and the Dambusters The Air War must be a part of this game for anyone to consider it a serious attempt at WW2
  10. Personally, I like that the game is multi-layered and more complex than fight for the town, win/lose. Fight for the next town, win/lose. Repeat ad infinitum I’d like to retain a complex game with many facets, including RDP resupply timers and moveable units on the map.
  11. Ah, I thought being shot had a ragdoll value
  12. When ragdoll came in, it was a big patch but now it’s almost forgotten. How about a campaign with the effects increased, to mix things up?
  13. 1) Design a naval game that mirrors the RDP game - something technical and specialised - and then develop it as a sub-game to sit alongside the ground war, with its own XP rewards etc, revolving around escorting or intercepting supply merchant ships 2) Advertise 3) Profit
  14. Isn’t it just a value in a database?
  15. RDP bombing is one of hidden gems of this game. It’s a technical, specialised mini-game that is incredibly rewarding to participate in, A’s bomber, escort or interceptor. It should be celebrated as a fantastic addition to the ground war
  16. In this time of crisis I hereby recommend OT assume a temporary home in General Discussion. I hereby nominate myself to be the leader of our exiled community, assuming the honorary title General Discussion Stay safe, people
  17. Rear FBs should permanently be up. HQs should be rear-line supply hubs, able to reinforce towns under attack or about to attack via the rear FB
  18. It’s not rocket science. Being good is a real skill, no doubt. But to be adequate is not a major thing, especially if the aim is disaster avoidance But anyway, I think the discussion has reached a conclusion
  19. I honestly don’t understand the resistance @BLKHWK8 No issue in the game is surely more important than providing a game to play? When system places an AO on a town where the FBs aren’t owned, the game effectively shuts down. When there’s no HC on to move a single unit back to provide a fight, the game shuts down and more importantly, drives players away. All you’d need is a single account, OKW1 and AHC1, for people with game responsibilities to log in and make the type of HC move which is game-critical.
  20. So create system HC accounts that GMs could log in just to place AOs and make basic, game-maintaining moves This isn’t a difficult solution to what is a critical game failing
  21. Would it be difficult to train the Rats and GMs to do basic moves? I don’t think it would. The game would be immeasurably improved by more people able to step in If GMs can’t be given tools, create accounts specifically for the purpose. The game is at stake, this really matters imo
  22. Rats and GMs should assume HC duties if there’s no HC on imo, that’s a no brainer as far I’m concerned. Basic AO placement and essential Bde movement is not rocket science and one indivudual could do both for both sides simultaneously if required.
  23. I’m not sure I see the merit here tbh Some of the best action is in and around the CPs. Why would we want to limit new players from these adrenaline-rush moments?
  24. I don't know if I can see it working, unless a re-AO operates totally outside the AO mechanic. For example, it could be that a new town remains hot after the AO finishes, but that would leave players spawned in doing nothing, and town captures usually have such local numbers supremacy that I don't think that would work. What you could do is tweak the timers so a unit moving in to a freshly captured town has a 1-5 hour time of almost zero supply, leaving it wide open to counterattack. But I'm not sure of that. You almost want for a town to be captured and for then immediately to be facing heavily supplied FBs with reduced cap timers, FMS deploy timers and increased top tier tickets, greatly favouring a side that loses the town but has enough about it to immediately launch a counter. Maybe, when a unit it bounced, all supply left in it when it bounces is made available for FB-origin attack town missions, in addition to the supply that it fell with, doubling up the supply available for an immediate counter. Dunno. But I like the idea of giving a huge capability for a side able to organise itself to retake lost ground, given the way battles played out in 1944 Normandy