Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


tater last won the day on June 19

tater had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

87 Vet

About tater

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
  1. I probbaly posted and agreed to it, I have made similar posts about a sort of player controlled "AI" where the player has inf that "follow the leader," and the player can serially take them over for aimed fire. They would all have a minor shooting as AI capability at some very short range, in the direction they were facing (determined by the player, obviously).
  2. I'd be interested what would happen if all the SMGs were identical, except the visual models. It's been a LONG time, but I recall testing showing the different dispersion patterns of the SMGs. Different single shot accuracy, etc. Unless someone did RL testing with guns firing period ammo, and shot remotely while clamped down as a control, I'm not sure how anyone could model differing recoil/dispersion accurately. What if (no idea if this is true, bear with me) the MP40 is substantially more effective than other SMGs in game? I haven't timed the Mauser in game vs my own, but it's not jarring to me, and in RL, the bolt on the 98k actually blocks the sight picture, anyway (under the assumption the bolt didn't hit you in the nose, lol). The difference between the ww2ol No.4 mkI and my SMLE, OTOH is stark enough I don't need to directly compare them. I can cycle my SMLE while in the sight picture (and pretty fast). The game simply does not allow this. Maybe the MP40 is indeed better than the other SMGs (I don't personally like it in RL, but that's not definitive), but then why not model other weapons with their advantages? Maybe it's just better enough (in game stats) that it needs to have fewer to be balanced? (again, I have no idea, just throwing stuff out there to consider)
  3. How can anyone answer than MSP should be less easily camped? Seriously? People want a tardis, and they want it to be a bunker, too? The only way I see less easily camped as a possible thing would be the linked MSP suggestion (ML places MSP with truck, then can place a FRU within a short distance of the MSP, then a FRU within a short distance to the first FRU, and so forth. When one gets blown, or the ML pulls it, the previous FRU comes back online. Camp a FRU, and the inf start spawning 150m away (closer to the initial MSP), instead (whatever that distance is).
  4. There's already way too much stealth in this game. Too much stealth, and simultaneously too much information. And also too much porosity. EI are everywhere, all the time. We have no cover, but we can full run through bushes. We can hide in attics inside the supposed "army base." On sides rules, for all MSPs, then what they look like literally doesn't matter, they can be invisible for all I care if they are in enemy territory. That or they should be visible (maybe from the air). I always thought all MSPs should have a finite spawn list, and their size/strength should be scaled to that spawn list. If it's a squad, the MSP should be, well, a truck. A platoon? 3 trucks. And so forth. Want to mass forces? Mass forces, literally via the trucks. Deploy truck, then it stays put as the spawn point. If the truck gets killed, some of the units remaining are lost, some go to resupply. Put them as close as you like with the truck paradigm, because losing them is not without cost (some of the units are gone). The stealth FRU things could stay (on sides).
  5. I answered "other" on question 4 largely to lump a few together as a subset of "all of the above." I think 2 and 4 are the major reasons, and (rarely) 3 happens. The first answer, "Stealth" is absurd, since MSPs represent the massing of infantry someplace. Anyone wanting stealth should walk, real armies didn't have teleporters. Number 2, spawning closer to the target is what they are really for, and their added value, so I suppose I should have answered "2." Spawning closer to mission members, number 3, would be an added value if MSPs moved forward with the ML somehow, but in reality that does not happen, and except in special cases dictated by game geography, where people spawn and where they go are often disconnected. 4 sometimes happens, mostly when they figure out where the MSP is, and you have some chance to defend it.
  6. I agree 100% with @delems. I selected more easily destroyed, because with the current 360 paradigm, I literally think they should explode if I (or anyone else) so much as look at one (even if they don't see, it, just sweeping their eyes, lol) "behind the lines."
  7. I think for old towns, this would be a lot of work. I'm all for doing the same with the depot for the test i suggested (literally replace every depot with some 1 story building with the same footprint). I think for this to be easy for devs, it literally have to be renaming some buildings as the CP/Depot, and they are just globally replaced.
  8. That's an interesting idea. Uses pop, but likely also has the plus of making the weapon more effective. A "carrot" version of this would be to have spawn delays, but multi-crew never have spawn delays. A better idea might be that you can join a vehicle "in flight" as crew, with no spawn delay, ever.
  9. I'm revisiting this after a comment by @gavalink in another thread. Take @delems original idea to get people out of the depots, and add in something akin to my suggestion above for a wide open CP with a few small areas to hide. I wonder if it would be possible to try this. Find SOME building with the same footprint as a CP (or anything smaller) that is wide open (a stone barn?), and set the texture to capture, then play it on intermission or something. My specific idea is say the graveyard concept. You have a tomb that has a turn in it (like the CP closet). Capping in there has you staring at a wall. Everyone else can be outside, obviously. To clear the "CP" you need to throw a nade into that tomb, basically. Otherwise, the place can be covered from all the surrounding buildings, and in fact a decent chance at capping means securing the area that has LOS to the capture area. Note that you can still chuck smoke, and get a guy into the tomb, and the enemy will have to get boots in to clear that tomb, but a single guy in there would take a while,a nd the fight becomes broader than the fights inside the CP.
  10. Agreed. Perhaps a few things added to make the ATG more survivable, but also alter the paradigm that has ATG patrolling around as mobile hunters. 1. ATGs get effective cover/concealment as you suggest as PPOs (rural, sandbag, and perhaps even a rubble version) 2. Build time for these new PPOs is substantial. Goal is that while moving around (hunting), it's not really doable. Current inf show standing with e-tools for a build, have it so when an ATG is making a PPO, a few static inf with e-tools appear all around the ATG a few meters. Doing this is harder to hide... 3. ATG ammo supply if simply deployed is massively lowered, and increases to the current levels only with PPO placement.
  11. No, I agree, but I think that crewed weapons need to have an ability to seek cover, abandon their guns, etc. LOL, me, too. I shoot a rifle, LMG, whatever at an ATG/AAA, and it never dies, meanwhile, i'f the ATG is me, I've literally been killed by an SMG firing from a window at 400m in a Camle. It always feels weird, I agree. This is a huge problem in general, because it feeds the idea there is some bias, when if we all talk about it, we all see the same thing on both sides. As an ATG/AAA I seem to die to pretty much anything, yet I have shot at them, and had no effect. FWIW, many times as a camle, I have the gunner dead, and I undeploy and run back to RTB the thing to not waste it. Yeah, I'm all for rounds hitting them that would wreck the weapon wrecking the weapon. I'm just saying everything about them in game is kinda wrong on all levels. A short list: 1. The move too fast, and carry too much ammo, which lets them... 2. They drive around hunting, like tanks. This is largely because... 2a. The spawn paradigm places weapons that should be out in the field in the middle of town, and since all defenses are reactive, they need to unrealistically move fast to ever leave the spawn points. 2b. They have too much ammo for the same reason, they are not pre-positioned with ammo someplace, they have to carry it, since there is no mechanism to visibly resupply them. 3. The crew can only each do 1 job, so losing any crew effectively kills the weapon. 4. The crew also cannot seek cover, the gun is not suppressed, it runs away, gets killed, or stays effective. 5. New crew cannot join. 6. Too easy to spot, no good physical cover (or emplacements). 7. Too hard to spot (6 and 7 are both true, lol). 8. No noise moving. 9. While 8 is true, they have zero defense against ei, when all the crew should in fact be armed. 10. ? (I'm sure there's more).
  12. I'm all for that, but it seems vastly harder to get added to the game. This thread is about what could be added without a magical increase in subs, etc. Small changes to existing stuff... The guns drive around hunting because it was the only way to get them out of town to the places where any commander would have placed them the day he got to the town to defend it. It all goes to the spawn at a point in town paradigm, where the troops should spawn in the field (including ATGs). The attackers would have to then go back oldschool, and tow guns, or a truck can spawn an ATG MSP that only has a couple guns, (and the ammo that it could carry for them). The guns would then not be able to move much, and would not have loads of ready ammo, they'd have to be near the ATG MSP (perhaps designed to shield them, like a giant foxhole object vs the FMS). Anyway, since ATGs on defense (where they would likely be most effective) are required by gameplay to be reactive, they have to move too fast, and have to carry too much ammo. Another kooky idea (part of it I proposed in another thread maybe): If there is no AO, defensive ATGs can move at a super fast rate of speed over the ground, like inf running, but no stamina issue. They can only do this within some distance of a friendly facility. If there IS an AO, then attacking units can drive their ATGs at this fast speed, with with a long exclusion zone from an enemy facility/town. This is to encourage setting the AO BEFORE attacking, instead of after FMS are in place, and ei already running in, or actually in town. Once the AO is set the defensive ATGs drop to an incredibly slow speed, slower than they move now. They have very little ammo (I'm thinking a handful of rounds), as well, but within some range of a truck or friendly facility, they get resupplied (as an ammo box does now, but perhaps at a slower rate. Like they get dosed a couple shells, then a long time lag, then a couple more. They can build up extra shells (oversupply), but if they move more than a couple meters they are back down to their super low ammo, and have to build up supply again. So the truck or facility (or FMS?) distance might be much farther than current resupply, but much more metered (2 shells every few minutes, it's an abstraction of runners bringing ammo). Maybe the closer the truck/CP, the faster the reloading (time between reloads added is the distance in meters divided by something in seconds?). The idea here is that the artillery can be placed, but not easily moved, and as long as it stays put, it can have ammo supply build up.
  13. I'm torn by this, frankly. I'd like that to be the case, but then again, the gun crew should also not be limited to only doing one job or the other. You could not load and aim at the same time, but with one 1 gunner you could load, then aim, then fire, right? If they spend any work on the AAA/ATGs, I'd make it so that infantry can join a gun if the crew is dead, if the gun was still functional. A gun that gets sprayed with MG fire might no longer have a crew, but the GUN is just fine, and any nearby infantry could simply man it as required. The same goes for tank crews, BTW, if 1 guy is killed, was it possible for someone to swap places at all? If yes, then that should be a thing as well. I'd use that opportunity to let players take over the AI as well... Also, gun crews should be able to seek cover (during which time they can't shoot the gun, obviously). They need the small arms they all carried, as well. I would call it an abstraction that represents the fact that guns are too easy to take out, and cannot be remanned.
  14. No, we don't. EWS goes off. Some players have to notice this, despawn where they are to get eyes on the town, and often times, even the first person spawning in gets shot at by ei already in town. Maybe you then grab a truck and drive out for DFMS setup, but the enemy is already around. I want to attack people away from towns, since fights in town SUCK most of the time. Anything inside 50m (*100?) is warpy garbage. The UI is supposedly changing anyway, BTW. I would suggest having the "active missions" show the AO/DOs with total activity, then once you select one, it shows the missions. The persistent DFMS are in effect auto generated missions, which should exist anyway for every depot, since the handful of defenders need to run all over town checking CPs from the second they spawn in, because troops magically infiltrate every town (towns are not attacked 99% of the time in this game, they are infiltrated). I do. I cap... then I guard what I cap. It's functionally identical play to defense as the game is now. People who play tanks a lot might have a different POV, since they, you know, stay out of town for at least part of the fight. The infantry game is rush in, cap something. If everyone runs out as soon as the CP falls, then you end up having to recap it. If you stay, you guard, and possibly die, and have to then effectively recap it. Once you're in town attack/defense are IDENTICAL, except the defender of a spawnable can get to the CP faster (more likely for the town defender as a function of linked towns). I'd add that your attitude is like many people years ago. People are expected to sit around in empty towns guarding if they want to not be softcapped, I guess. Fun, really fun. Otherwise, every single defense is pretty much reactive. Enemy starts taking town, defense gets people to zerg in and throws it back, or they don't. Note that this means every single attack is the same as well. Boring. A good persistent, DFMS setup could be something that requires an attacker to deal with in a way that's actually, you know, an ATTACK.
  15. Now we have: Town A ----- FB_A<-B ----------- FB_A->B -----Town B This persistent DFMS would often result in: Town A --- DFMS_A --- FB_A<-B ----------- FB_A->B --- DFMS_B --- Town B You capture Town B, and blow FB_A->B, which opens your attack FB to town A (FB_A<-B). Town A likely has one of their DFMS set to be between Town A and each attacking FB they are worried about, so when you form at attack at FB_A<-B, you likely look for the DFMS as you go. Any you find, you mark, and send troops to take out. If this happens before EWS, this is likely trivial, but it does slow you by a few minutes. Since this would become SOP, people would likely not put those DFMS in exactly close/likely places, instead, you'd want to put them places where you'll want to have defensive force to blunt an attack. The goal here is to get defensive fighting out of town a little. When your side is on defense in general, or when you are simply doing the work of defense (SOMEONE has to do it, after all), it is crappy gameplay to run to a CP, then guard it. Fun night, staring at a wall. I'd rather spawn where I get to move around, and shoot things, instead of staring at a sliver of space, shooting when someone walks in front of me. That part still happens, but at least there's some fun before it becomes boring/frustrating work vs warpy ei (we're all warpy).