pfmosquito

Registered Users
  • Content count

    605
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Green Tag

About pfmosquito

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. Thanks, gentlemen! @Boudreau I saw you post somewhere about how you came allied and no one welcomed you. By all that is holy, if I had seen you allied, I would have fell over backwards in welcoming. Kinda glad that you're going Axis again, so we can have ourselves some more face offs.
  2. "Hmmm..."secrets" sounds a bit fishy... If you want to know the truth about what I've assumed: I figured at least some of the best are playing with certain settings adjusted so that, at the expense of basically all graphics stuff disabled, they have maximum performance and maximum visibility of other players..." No. And then, "The point of this was really just to see if I could get some tips/advice maybe even follow someone in game" Followed by, "The invite is very much appreciated, but I can't join Pathfinder." It is a mark of excellence to search out those who are closest to it, but I guess you didn't REALLY want what you asked for. Instead, you suggested it was a 'bit fishy.' And that is why we do not toss out our pearls willy-nilly. Or wily-nily5000, as it were.
  3. Scandalous! Everyone knows the right colors are: Mission members: Light blue. Objective friendlies: BLUE Squad: White (as in, pure as the wind-driven snow) Mission Lead: Pink Axis units: Red (for evil) n00blets: green; as in, 'green tags', reminiscent of 'green horns.' Curse the People's Front of Judea of think otherwise!
  4. I didn't like appearing as a green tag in this image.
  5. Any reason the Pathfinder squad is till pending approval in the Squads section? It's been pending for weeks.
  6. Strange.
  7. Formed in honor of the CO and XO's grandfather, who served in the Pathfinders (8th division) in World War 2, this squad tends to attract players who focus on the fundamentals: defending towns by defending the CPs. They are often first on scene and last to leave. While other players can be found engaged in apparently random activity, the Pathfinders can be found making sure the enemy doesn't capture a spawn in town. They employ advanced tactics most other players are unaware exist. Though primarily defensive, you will often see their players on the offensive, and there is no squad rule against that. Pathfinders play ground, air, and sea. There are very few squad requirements. Exception: crude language is not permitted, and neither is any other conduct (eg, flaming other players on side channel) that does not give due respect to the memory of real soldiers who fought and fight still. The Pathfinders don't boss each other around because if you're in the Pathfinders, you already know what needs to be done, and you are doing it. Website: www.warpath.us Find PFMosquito (CO) or Xohorvath (XO) in game to join. Email PFM at mosquito@warpath.us
  8. This comment from Saronin is precisely what I'm trying to address via this idea: Seems like the game worked as intended. TOEs were introduced with maneuver warfare in mind with no town supply for back up to stop soft caps. It was designed around avoiding the fight where possible to take ground for the win. Players begged for some form of town supply once TOEs we introduced to supplement brigades so there were at least some fights and were told that wouldn't happen. Both sides have cried about this dynamic at some point when their side was losing. Not too long ago it was suggested there should be some sort of gentleman's agreement about slow rolling campaigns and avoiding cut offs. I don't know whose bright idea it was to put a system in place where avoiding the fight in a war game game was the main objective. Who thought gee I bet the players would love to log into a war game for hours and never fire a shot while capturing empty CPs? Bad design overall that rears its head over and over. ------------ I was thinking about this a little more and contemplating the amount of time needed to design and place a series of spawn facilities between a town. The idea of daisy-chaining PPOs might be a faster way to test it. I don't know how this would fit with the current FB scheme, so I'm leaving FBs out of this analysis, but: Create 3-5 new PPOs with supply that is at least like the current FMS, but which only work while within the 'chain.' At least 1, preferably 2, of the PPOs, have a supply list that is identical to the AB/FB list. IMO, the origin of the chain should be the town itself, and not the FB (one reason I'm leaving FBs out of my analysis). I wouldn't put many rules on the placing of the PPOs except perhaps that the one(s) with the AB/FB list cannot be closer than 1k from an enemy facility. The main rule would be that each of this class of PPO must be within 500-600m of another PPO of the class. I would make the PPOs something neat looking, like a good system of ruins or something. I would assume that the bigger the PPO, the more time and investment to build it. Downsides of this idea are that it weakens my goal of trying to always ensure there is action in adjacent areas, because the two sides are no longer working the SAME chain. I am compensating for that weakness on the assumption that when an enemy chain was identified, your side would begin working on a chain to meet it, and eventually would, "chasing" it back as far as possible. Another downside is that you're not likely going to see these types of advances without an AO on the town, which pretty much ends the surprise--but then, theoretically, AOs were designed with ensuring there was always action. So, meh. But an upside, which is not possible on the OP idea, is that the front would not be confined to the area around the roads. A squad could run a daisy-chain out into the wide flanks, and there eventually be met. We could have great, grand battles in areas that presently might never have seen a player. Personally, I don't think this idea really brings about the constant contact that I'm trying to facilitate, although it does it better. The main upside is simply that it might actually be doable, quicker.
  9. I don't think it would take years to string out some spawn facilities between some specific towns. Tienen and Leuven are two good candidates, I think. I am not sure I understand what you mean about building forward bases in stages, but it sounds like it could be a similar concept, provided that each side could be building out from their own towns. Right now, the FBs flip. If instead the FBs progressively move out from their respective towns, and then players are forced to fall back as their more advanced positions are overrun--but they can still spawn in from their earlier constructions--that's basically the same idea that I am proposing. For that matter, perhaps the same kind of thing can be achieved by allowing a new class of FMS, which is much like a FB, to be built by the players, but only when built 400m from the origin town or another FMS of this new class. Thus, daisy-chaining. Provided each side can do this simultaneously, it would again allow forces to advance from out of their towns until finally they meet, and then when the more forward constructions are destroyed, it still allows spawning from the construction that was done immediately before that. Or maybe the front 2 FMS/FBs are spawnable. This would provide less coding, to be sure, and would be better than nothing. I like the spawn facility idea, though, because it would allow for different kinds of capture points, such as small villas, ruins, hilltops, destroyed castles, etc, which would be permanent and interesting in their own right. Some more variation in the terrain would be welcome, wouldn't it?
  10. Nice, Nily. Thanks for taking the time to write a reply, wocka. Some brief responses. First of all, I am old school, myself. I remember the 2001 days when we drove in new supply and hot dropped 20 guys after a 20 minute ride. One of my fondest memories was the beddy trip 40 mins out with a bunch of guys, only to get ready to drop and have the server take a crap. However, I do appreciate that not everyone likes committing that kind of time (only to die in 20 seconds of combat, usually), and personally if there was NEVER any intense battle, I don't think I'd be sticking around either. The cycle between build up and battle needs to be shortened, imo. So... I don't think this idea would diminish the build up. I think it would make the build up more entertaining, and more sustained, and harder to put out. I think it would need a high level of combined arms to be successful, just as is the case now. I wouldn't bother with ews on the connecting spawn facilities. Just keep ews right as it is. You're right, probably, that the battle between depots would be grinding--but that's what I was getting at about one category of objections basically complaining about the game simulating what would have been the reality during the actual war. It wasn't exactly trench warfare by WW2, but you couldn't drive a truck behind enemy lines and magically produce an army, either. I don't know that I agree that it would take a great deal more players to manage this. I think it would just heighten the effect of the current FB ping-pong game that is played, where you'll have small units taking down FBs while other attacks are going on. Some enterprising squad would be methodically inching their way from Town A to B while Town C was the scene of the real action. Supply for that attack would dwindle, and AO would go up on Town B, with ownership of the adjacent spawn facilities or maybe 2-3 away. Or, another small unit (just like now) would be paying attention to that enterprising squad, and meet them half way, and at least slow the advance. But, this is important: it would mean that almost always, there would be at least SOME confrontation with the enemy going on. This would satisfy the itch players and would not prevent players with more patience from setting up grander attacks, etc. To put it more directly, I believe this change would dramatically increase the size of the player base and lead to greater retention of those players. A larger player base solves many problems, all on its own. There is a way to test this without implementing it map-wide. In an earlier proposal, I believe I listed a handful of cities where the terrain between the towns could be augmented with these new spawn facilities. Say, between Leuven and Tienen. That area could be a sandbox for testing it out and checking for unintended consequences, etc. As the kinks get worked out, add more sandboxes.
  11. This is an idea I proposed years ago. I still think it would solve an awful lot of problems and I have never heard anyone with CRS even comment on it, one way or the other. My assumption is it hasn't been seen, so here it is again. Part of the problem with the game can be put thusly: the whole goal of either side is to rapidly bring an end to hostilities. Defenders want to guard the spawn or take it back, or better yet, blow the FB and end the attack. Attackers want to take the AB, thereby in most cases ending the attack. Ending the action is the strategic and tactical goal, but ending the action is also usually going to end the fun. This leaves us in a cyclical pattern of 'hurry up and wait' where things are quiet for a long time (sometimes hours) and then BAM you're trying to exploit a captured spawn, etc, with a good chance you'll lose it soon enough--or the FB. Rinse and repeat. Well, the fun times are fun, and the down times can be satisfying in their own way, but the down times can also get pretty old. What we need is a way to ensure that there is non-stop action and that people can find it. The way to do this is to ensure that the two sides are always somewhat close to each other, say, within 300-400m. Always? Yes, always. But how? This doesn't get us to 'always' but it brings us closer: intersperse between each town a series of capturable facilities where every time you capture one, it gives you a spawn facility that much closer to the enemy town. My suggestion would be to place those facilities within 200m or so from either side of the road and no further than 600m apart (so, a 300m-ish maximum run for either side before making contact.) Closer is better, imo. Now, as each side pushes out from their respective town, eventually they will meet each other and have spawns relatively close to each other. As it is in both sides' best interests to own the spawnable as close to the enemy town as they can, and as far from their own town as possible, this will pretty much make sure that there is always some level of action at any time. Other benefits: 1., it creates an actual front line, and as such adds to the realism of the game. 2., it makes better use of this big world. Right now, forward bases allow most players to just jump over most of the terrain in the game. A few heroes traverse it on their way to capture the FB, but in the main, most of us just stage out of the FB or the town. By having to push the front line forward or hold it from falling back, we'd have to engage with more of the map. 3., With town supply it means skirmishes could erupt all over the map. 4. It would change up the cycle significantly by making it much harder to simply end an attack once its finally come about. I would imagine that it would usually take at least as long, if not longer, to push out from your town so that you have a spawn close to the enemy city, so the amount of time between big battles would probably be the same. If one side does lose their most adjacent spawnable, that is no longer an insta-magical end of the entire attack. It just means the 'front' got pushed back a bit. in this way, the big battles are less likely to dry up in an instant. 5. The time between big battles would probably the same, but the 'down time' is now filled with running skirmishes, ie, action, IE., FUN! I think most objections to this idea can be answered with two general ideas. In category one, you have the objections where the 'problems' with this idea are problems are already have. Eg, a squad might be running the table on some of the daisy-chained spawns while nobody is looking, and all of a sudden a town is in imminent danger. Well, you can already have that, with a squad quietly taking down FBs and setting up FMSs. In category two, you have the objections where the 'problems' are actually just descriptions of the way the war really was. Eg, we may find many times where the two sides come to a stale mate and can't go any further. Well, yea. But that's just like real life. And even here, people are still having fun. I don't know if this idea would replace FBs or be overlaid upon them. You could still keep AOs. I'm not addressing any of that stuff. I'm sure there would have to be tweaks to get it to mesh with the current system. And heck, I have no idea what kind of coding this require. I will say, however, that without some kind of mechanism to ensure constant interaction with the enemy, its going to be hard to keep the game population up. And a high game population solves a great many of the problems, all on its own. Objections:
  12. " Currently there are 17 squads ot ouf 49 on the map movers list with 9 active members or less. " At present, the Pathfinders have 3 guys who are in the top 5 on the SMG list (and xohorvath is on leave). On Map Movers, we are #5 with only 10 players active this campaign. Talk about force projection! Speaking to the idea of merging smaller squads, to be perfectly frank, I think the results of the unique ethos that attracts people to the Pathfinders in the first place speaks for itself. One of the only reasons we log on sometimes is to stand shoulder to shoulder with a squaddie. Now, adding squad tools to the mix and allowing squads to work together better seems like a decent way forward. I am now just repeating something I've said before: it isn't just about comms. If leadership amounts to nothing more than having a big mouth, there is only so much leadership you'll ever see. Being able to bring something to the table besides boots needs to be enabled. For example, if squads had their own batch of supply which they could commit to a fight, or the idea of squad AOs, or similar features that give squads something of substance to contribute. Then, squads might have a reason to coordinate together. All the squad tools that I've seen are based on organization and communication (eg, squad missions, or squad channels, etc.) That's only part of the formula, and incidentally a part that could already be done right now, without any changes to the code or anything. We need something more.
  13. That's an awful lot of old threads that are not indexed, then. I wonder if there is a script that can be run to force indexing. I think there is a lot of useful information on the forum that would save people from having to repost their questions, if only they could search for it and hope to find it. On the plus side, now I know that if someone since the new forum wants to invoke my name, I'll be able to find it.
  14. Interestingly, when I tried it now, I did get ONE result. This thread.