tater

Registered Users
  • Content count

    12,219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

tater last won the day on September 11

tater had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

151 Salty

About tater

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
  1. Years ago I thought that the truck MSP should be a thing, and it should hold a truckfull of troops. Maybe slopped up just slightly. Basically a heavy squad, and a single ATG (maybe 1 AAA, too). I'd delete the units from the AB or depot when they spawn, too. If the truck is killed, the guys are lost from the list. MSPs represent massing forces, it would be nice if you had to, you know, mass forces. If 10 people were to attack a town, and each one made a mission and spawned a truck, they've have the ability to spawn some 120+ infantry under such a system. If the spawnable depot was as it is now, that takes care of the rest (and gives spawnables more real purpose than they have with MSPs everywhere). If CAP spotted a bunch of trucks and got them... that attack might be quite compromised. Heavy squad might be 10 rifles, and 1 of everything else (LMG/SMG/Grenadier/Sapper/Engie/AT/mortar).
  2. Yeah, why is this? They made the FMS intentionally a size that the units allowed to spawn fit inside (else why limit the ATGs to the tiny ones), then they place the spawn point OUTSIDE. I thought the entire point of the FMS object was to sort of hide the teleporting troops. At least if you see someone come out of a bunker (or 10, like a clown car) it suspends disbelief a little vs them appearing Star Trek style in front of you.
  3. Excellent points.
  4. Yeah, seems like they should be rear area forces capable of holding against some attacks, but not offensive forces. BDEs are not meaningful unless they are substantially more powerful than garrisons.
  5. Yeah, this leads to the exploit of spawning inside a tank, but in this case it would be the CHOICE of the tank to be exploited. I assume that there is a head shake if you try and deploy a FRU inside a tank, right? So at least it cannot be exploited the other way. Oh, and give the STUG any MGs it should have (that sorta goes without saying). Regardless, I don;t think the solution to the clear problem of no defensive weapons on one kind of armor is to screw up infantry/ATG spawning. (also, I've said before that with some improvements to ATGs, and on-sides MSPs, etc, I'd get rid of AT satchels). Wait, another thing. The Stugs need MGs, but you know what else lacks any defensive capability at all, that it certainly, organically had it? All the ATGs and AAAs. Every single gun crew was armed. All of them. Rifles, pistols, SMGs at the very least (and semi and even some full auto M! carbines for the US, which we utterly lack). So while the stugs have every right to complain about a lack of MGs, every single ATG for every country lacks the extra crew positions that tanks take for granted.
  6. I'm torn here, I actually hate that the game requires camping by design. On one level, I hate exploits like this, but honestly, the problem is the touch a tank and die thing. Let the vehicles do this (park on spawns), but eliminate the rule that touching one is death. Everyone is happy. Tank spawns on MSP spawn point, place my rifle charge inside tank that I spawn inside, problem solved.
  7. I was at Deal earlier suppressing an EFMS (with a rifle) waiting for an engie to blow it (it was covered by a tiger, BTW). Mobile spawns represent the massing of forces. OK. Linked Depots (spawnables) are the same, but predate FMS. For over water operations (real water, not rivers), I think all the spawnables need to go away. As always, I think MSPs should have on-sides rules, and those rules would be such that current MSPs across any large stretch of water should be completely impossible. The on-sides rule would be no MSP placement any farther than the distance between the spawn point of the unit placing the MSP, and the center of town, with an exclusion zone for enemy facilities of a few hundred meters. This alone would make most invasions not a thing from an FMS standpoint, though I suppose there might be a few towns where that distance might leave a sliver of land for current MSPs. Added to that would be unlinking any towns that cross water, so no spawnables. Want to invade? Fine, load troops up on an AK, steam to a coastal town, and invade. I realize this has some issues given the current game, so I'll allow a new MSP. Make the AK itself the MSP. So you can spawn across the sea, but from ships. No spawnable CPs, no FRUs, no FMS. Actually, I could see this with just the on-sides rules, and no special AK FMS. Tweak the on-sides rules, testing across the channel, and some of the zeelands. Still kill the linked towns across water, obviously. The goal would be for the on-sides rules to forbid MSP placement including the enemy facility exclusion zone, but not when some facilities near the coast are taken. So in order to invade, you'd need to land a truck, but you could not set until your troops had captured a CP such that the land sliver was available for MSP placement.
  8. What's more gamey are mobile spawns without on sides rules. Since I guess that never changes, maybe they can change the FRU and FMS models to this:
  9. I get killed before I know what's going on at an FMS all the time. If I get killed at an FMS, I post a note to the mission chat that the FMS is camped, and spawn elsewhere. Why would anyone spawn to that multiple times, then assume it was a problem and reboot? You just spawn someplace else, and if that works, it's clearly camped.
  10. I'd like to see that system that someone suggested whereby a ML can place a mobile spawn, but only a very short distance from the last MS. All stay in game (ideally not the huge FMS object), but only the newest one is active. So you would advance, place MSP, advance, MSP, and so forth. If one gets blown, then the previous one in a line is now active. I like this, because you'd also not be able to cross rivers, or go to an island and have one, either (course on the islands I'd have no spawnable depots across water, either).
  11. JWBS? (I was gone a while, don't know the abbreviation)
  12. What makes it gamey is the same thing that makes the current FMS gamey, lack of on-sides rules. Mobile spawns are a game mechanism that represents the local massing of forces, which makes sense as long as they are on you side of the lines (since we don't have people spawned in 24/4 everywhere a real commander would put troops). If they had on-sides rules (and maybe a few other rules), they'd be fine for all MLs to place them.
  13. This is precisely why my comments about local imbalances as weighted to operational units matters. I don;t see any solution, ever, that will address imbalance. A percentage of people will never switch sides, and the entire nature of the game pushes the group goal of moving your side (during a given campaign). I don't see anything to encourage side switching as a workable solution. Also, as you say total pop doesn't matter if it's imbalanced, and in fact it is worse than that. Defense in this game, and indeed offensive defense is the same. We call it "guarding." If you want to keep a CP, you guard it. If you capture a CP on attack---and you want to keep it---you also guard it. This results in some minimal number of people to be effective at holding what you have, with more required to increase the number of facilities you have. The number varies by town, and relative attack (2 guards is a huge force multiplier, just as 2 attackers are, and better on D since they can usually return to the CP faster than attackers can), but none the less for a given game state of population within an AO, there is a minimum number of people required to move the dial. That's why the local imbalance dominates. Local imbalance correction is still 100% player controlled, and it's in line with the meta goals of the operational, "Map" level game. If you want to utilize your current OP status to attack 3:1, then you place an AO where you have 3:1 operational odds, or you move brigades such that you have 3:1 operational odds. In either of those cases, local play is 100% unchanged from the current game. If you also have a harassing attack from 1 unit (garrison or BDE) to a town with 2 units, then the local respawn limits would apply, and that would allow the UP defender to adequately defend in an operationally realistic matter.
  14. ^^^if those are the girls, I'd say no.
  15. LOL. At least they'd have a small chance (though enfilade fire would make chances lower). The current FMS are pretty silly, though. They're too camoed (green, they're recently excavated dirt, after all, no time for grass to grow).