Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Sudden

  1. 11 hours ago, crashzzz said:

    Xcas Allied have lost 5 maps in a row and are losing this one as well. Not sure why you’re complaining. Sorry winning this campaign isn’t coming easy enough for you. (not) 

    What I've noticed over the years is this. The losing team loses because they give up. TZ3 is a real problem (it's effects are demoralizing). The key to winning is to demoralize the other side, not defeat them. Serious errors by HC can put a campaign into a death spiral (demoralized again). Perceived unfair weakness in your weapons kit is demoralizing. CRS is trying but it takes time and confounding all their efforts is a demoralized PB.

    A  demoralized playerbase is not a good model for success. As each of us logs due to this, the negative impact on game play becomes exponential. A very difficult situation that all game companies face.

  2. On 4/11/2018 at 6:06 PM, merlin51 said:

    I am wondering?

    When you look up and see one of these about to land on you, do we at least get to scream before we die?

    I remember fighting at Dinant once and we were out by the base of the rock formation, and i looked up
    and there was an opel and pak36.
    I died, i dont even remember getting to scream :( 

    The best one ever was when XOOM dropped a destroyer into the town. Not during a campaign.

  3. 24 minutes ago, choad said:

    Not a fan of this idea, seems overly gamey and outside of how this game tries approach things in terms of realism

    No idea is ever perfect but do consider these scenario's first:

    You are in command of the AB, The gates don't work and there are holes in the walls. Do you A, ignore the problem, or B, put some engineers to work fixing the gate and the holes?

    You are in command of a FB. You have no perimeter defense whatsoever. The enemy can just walk on in. Do you A, setup some barbed wire or at least a fence (or wall), or B, do nothing about it?

    I think my idea is less gamey and far closer to reality than choice A. It is more in line with what a commander would demand of his engineers and soldiers. You are in enemy territory, you don't just leave the doors open and the walls full of holes.

  4. 6 minutes ago, dre21 said:

    But flyboys don't take down FBs,  ground pounders do.

    Ain't that your whole reason for having this discussion? 

    They can find/ see the FB like they should , I just don't see a need to give them a walled FB where it's now even harder to get away from Bombs they drop. 

    i never mentioned flyboys.

    with 8 exits you have plenty of ways to get out, the wall doesn't wall "you" in.

    a wall is also a good he blocker, ever die to a bomb dropped outside of the ab wall when you sat next to the wall on the inside?

  5. 4 minutes ago, Quincannon said:

    You would need to have 10 units on every mission. Having played TZ3 for years, we are often lucky to have 10 players on a SIDE. It would make creating an MS virtually impossible for anyone short of larger, well organized squads.

    this would be in addition to using a truck so no real loss, also 10% per man was only a suggestion, 25% per man more acceptable to you?

  6. 22 minutes ago, dre21 said:

    1st of , putting a wall or a cone or whatever u want to call it around an FB you might not even start an AO cause you just gave the EA bombers a big fat bullseye, you really don't need to aim anymore just make sure to land the bombs in that octagon.


    Now  why not just eliminate all the FB marks on the maps ( I doubt someone has them all memorized )  

    It make them harder to find  ( sure CRS would have to recode how to set an FMS out of town but it would be doable I think)

    Then set Vehicle and INF spawn farther apart from each other also redesign the FBs that the big Vehicle Spawn gets one of those neat pillboxes close by that serves as a secondary INF spawn , also add a 2 space Vehicle tent close to the INF spawn as a secondary spawn point for vehicles and such , ( it will make camping an FB all of a sudden  so much harder) .


    In my experience  I run into resistence 50% of the time and that's on FBs that are not even close to an AO , so I don't see why we need to make super drastic changes.

    Alone taking the FB icons of the maps would make a big difference  ( I think) myself  , I maybe know a handful of FBs and their locations , for others I have to pull up the map and make mission and click them as my target.

    Biggest hurdle would be CRS figuring out how to be able to set an FMS out in the countryside without having a target on a mission, the pillbox bunkers are in game might have to add another exit to it, and getting a 1 or 2 Vehicle Spawn point tent closer to the INF spawn can't be to complicated either.

    EA will always know where the FB is regardless of maps or visual id. They simply don't move. These aren't super drastic changes with the exception of the coding work which is not even available right now. This is just a concept.

  7. 5 minutes ago, black5 said:

    I never said to make engineers the primary or only units that could build spawns... but as an actual tank crewman if this game had tanks working as a cooks or building spawns  I would Never have paid for this game. I just think we should give the guys who actually do the job some credit. And like I did say we could make it SLOW, so it’s not your first choice or even second for spawn building. This game was at one time trying to be as real as possible. I see it’s lost that goal.

    What if we went back to player placed MS units but with a catch. We could make MS building a group effort. For example, each player will only be able to build 10% of a ms, we get the stealth we desire and additional teamwork as part of the game. Just a thought.

  8. Just want to elaborate on the gate and murder hole argument. The wall around the FB, The gates, The murder hole "must be blown" idea is an effort towards more fun in game and more realistic attacks/defenses. All of these ideas coming from a point of view where I see pre-drilled holes in an AB wall as unrealistic, Gates left open being unrealistic, and perimeter breach non-existent at a FB being unrealistic.

  9. I know I know, two solutions in one day but that's how I roll.

    We know that:

    1. FB guard duty is one of the worst jobs in game.

    2. Losing an FB is exactly like losing a town (perhaps you would have taken the town but lose the FB and you're done)


    How do we make it better you ask.

    Firstly , it's not something as simple as changing two timers so you may have to wait.

    Here it is in a nutshell.

    1. Octagonal wall around the FB (or around the VEH tent only if it's a spread out FB).

    2. Why an octagonal wall? Because you want to keep as much freedom of movement as you can to keep it more like an unwalled FB.

    3. Big deal you say. Yes indeed, because this wall has AI gates (8 of them). Anyone on your team only has to approach a gate and it will open but it will not open for the opposing team, they have to blow it up.

    4. The gates can be repaired just like other AI but it's going to take a lot more engineer visits to do it.

    5. Why does this work? It works because all you need now is one guard at the FB. That guard exists to raise the alarm. Those gates limit the approach of enemy sappers giving your defenders time to arrive.

    6. The more gates the opposition take out, the easier it is for them to attack the FB. The battle for gate control brings a whole new component to FB battles. Everyone goes to bed happy. Nobody can biotch at the guards anymore, you are all responsible but can continue to attack until called.


    BONUS: You could extend this idea to the AB walls, same two exits or add a couple more but all with AI gatekeepers. In addition, AI murder holes. Decide on the level of damage to breach each type and the effort required by engineers to repair the breach.


    I would add more but you will have to ponder this yourselves, I have to solve world hunger by 10am tomorrow. Good night.