tater

Registered Users
  • Content count

    12,219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by tater

  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).
  16. Better would be an MSP for infantry that is a line of X foxhole objects spread across some reasonable frontage (a few 10s of m). Inf would spawn in prone, protected somewhat, and more importantly, they would spawn in randomly in one of the foxholes. Camping the MSP would still be a thing, clearly, but the spawns would be more distributed, and maybe it would be slightly harder to do. Maybe a choice of FMS types...
  17. See below. True, but if the same tank/AC/whatever was just a few yards away and shooting, the place is just as camped, and needs to be pulled. It might be nice (aside from on-sides rules for MSPs, which needs to be a thing!) to have a sort of polling system. If you get killed at a MSP, add a "spawn camped" button, (one for regular KIA, one says spawn camped). Note that you have to be within RTB range for this to be a thing. If the system sees a few of these within some time period, it suspends spawning and sends an alert to the ML that the MSP is camped.
  18. It seems odd to me that the game would allow a behavior by design, then make it somehow illegal. There are tank traps to keep vehicles from using the FMS as a ramp, for example, it could have been designed to spawn inside, for example (with a tiny step ATGs would drop out of, allowing exit, but not entry). I don;t drive vehicles enough for this to matter to me, but it seems like camping is desired behavior due to game design I'd wager the large majority of many people's kills are camping).
  19. I'm honestly not sure if I care how I get killed while spawning, if that was something they were actually concerned with, they could make people spawn inside in a way they could not be shot (then if camped they could RTB). Seems like it means you don't control the ground.
  20. What happens exactly? Strickes me that the game encourages camping in general, and camping FMS in particular. Who cares how it happens?
  21. Link depot spawning is no more Star Trek or Doctor Who than MSPs---heck, at least they tend to be on the same side of town as the town they link to. MSPs and linked facilities should represent the effective movement of the front. I agree, however that the City CP should be meaningful (and I like the idea @Quincannon suggested of using that tall building, or indeed any alternate building for it!). Honestly, maybe the City CP is a place to innovate with novel CP concepts, just to see how they work. A parklike space (there's that building in one of the triangle blocks that has a little fenced park/yard and a stoop that could work), dunno, I like the idea of some alternate CPs, and City might be a great place to innovate there. How about something like this (poorly thought out, spitballing): 1. All MSPs have on-sides rules. The rule has to do with distance from the spawn point of the unit deploying the MSP to the center of the target town. MSP can only be deployed at that distance minus some distance X around enemy facilities (a few hundred m, but it is facility dependent, so it might be 400m for a Depot, but 200m for a factory or farm or something). 2. City radio is only hot after a linked facility is capped. 3. The City CP has an exclusion zone of 1km (some larger number) for MSPs. Typically this might mean that FMS can't be placed as close as you could place them otherwise. So the result is that if you cap the city (which requires the Depot usually closest to the FB you are attacking from), your MSP range can get substantially closer to town. Holding the city keeps MSPs at a little greater distance. Note that all the numbers I used are not thought out, need to look at a map, and really tweak it so that the City is useful, but not necessarily required (offering choice in how people attack or defend). The original idea---which could be seen as ceasing to record damage on an FB if the linked CP and the City are held---makes sense to me, holding the linked CP means the front has moved up right into the outskirts of town, and holding the City is an abstraction of a slightly more secure position (particularly if you can't start capping it until the linked CP falls).
  22. Pillbox. We have those pillboxes in game, that are there, but pretty much never get used, because they are open on too many sides, the firing slits are huge, and the door is ajar. It's mostly a deathtrap. What if there was a new MSP type. If nominally MSPs are the same from trucks, and HC get the HC FRU, we make a new engineer. The engineer is barely armed, lacks the repair stuff, but can build a pillbox. Door/hatch? That's locked. Firing slits? Firing SLIT, or even just barrel. One, opposite the door (so the engie knows how to orient it when placing it---the pillbox placement ghost might even have the arc of fire shown). The slit is small enough that the place is not a death trap. It might have 2 kinds, AT gun and MG. MG pillbox is optimized for a new MG unit for each side. ATG is optimized for that. The crew are never seen by anyone, only the gun barrel. Both have shields, and a sight like a tank sight (maybe like the hull gun for the MG version). They can be taken out with anything that can penetrate them. How it works: Pillbox engie (2 kinds, MG and ATG) has a MSP placement ghost image that looks like a small pillbox. he places it... and nothing happens, or maybe a marker is flat on the ground. Whoever spawns in at that MSP (it only has 1 unit) spawns in as a pillbox. MG Pillbox is a pillbox shaped object with a gun, and is basically a cylindrical, immovable tank. It can look like whatever they think is right. It is modeled like a tank, X thickness, so that it can be taken out by whatever takes out that thickness (not a rifle satchel, maybe HEAT required, or most/all AT weapons). The ATG version a little tougher. Here's a German portable pillbox: Towed with a truck, then buried (maybe trucks place them?). Our version is just the top bit, no need for crew, it's like a tank) Here's one: Here's a french one: (could use a small tank turret, maybe?) Place single-use MSP, spawn pillbox. Note that the German type might be better from a flanking (balance) POV, while a turret type is more useful. Need not look that complicated, could be more like a cylinder with a barrel: ^^^Maginot pop-up, for this use, it's always up. Maybe France gets them, Germany gets them, and UK gets them in the UK only, US/IT doesn't get them at all. To be clear, I was thinking about this in certain contexts (Maginot line, and the 1944 coast of France as the primary example), though I'm unsure how that is possible in game as spawn lists seem global. I suppose special units (like BDEs, but far smaller) could be added that the HC can place in the appropriate places.
  23. In this particular example the unit spawned IS the pillbox. If it's the firing slit type, the gun pokes out, and yeah, the guy inside should be vulnerable to a flamethrower (though I think the game isn't ready for that, I'd want fire to persist and progress, and I think that any such weapon should also be 100% friendly fire. If you can clear a CP or bunker with a flamethrower with your own guys right there... no. I originally thought the MSP itself would be a pillbox object, then you would spawn inf or ATG inside it. The trouble is that because of the way the extant units work, the slits would be large, and far too vulnerable, it would be a repeat of the current pillboxes in game---useless. You'd fire a few rounds, then someone would shoot you in the eye. They need to be like hull guns at the very least, so that they are survivable, but need to be taken out up close by inf, or at range by armor.
  24. Kill the unit, or the MSP? The unit would be done like armor right now. If it shows a hatch/door, then maybe a regular satchel there kills it, otherwise a HEAT anywhere, or any ATG/tank/ATR that can penetrate it---it's a tank turret, or tank hull gun, minus the tank. The MSP itself? Maybe ANY damage at all takes it out. So anyone shoots HE even near the pillbox, and the turret itself survives, but the MSP gets blown. The MSP regardless needs to be possible to take out with inf, while the actual pillbox is just like immobile armor. No amount of bomb damage takes out an FMS, I'm looking for the opposite, any damage takes out the MSP, even if it doesn't hurt anyone standing on it.