Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About rise27

  • Rank
    Free Play Account
  • Birthday
  1. Let bofors spawn at depots and you're talking. If we had a bofors set up that infantry could go recrew, as long as the gun itself was not destroyed by heavy fire or bombs, then we also wouldn't need to saturate the spawnlist with them.
  2. I would also suggest letting players access it through an in-game browser. Then everyone would see it and be more likely to browse it. There appears to be a large portion of players of MMOs who never venture onto the official websites or forums, so if it's not in-game or integrated into the game launcher then it doesn't exist to them. It's not something I can relate to, as someone who likes to search out and gather information on the games I play, but I've learned those kinds of players who never venture outside the confines of the game application not only exist but they may even be the majority. League of Legends is a good example of an online game that has integrated all their news, updates, and content directly into the game browser. It's not just done for the convenience of the player, but I'm sure because they want to maximize their ability to reach their players.
  3. You're going about this problem completely the wrong way. There's a reason we don't have an entire army running around with LMGs and SMGs, because this is a military combat simulator and that isn't how armies are equipped. The problem is not that we don't have enough of them. The problem is we don't have enough people who are willing to take one for the team and spawn an inferior rifle to support the LMGs and SMGs doing their specialized job. Worst yet, the system is broken because there's no incentive for you to spawn a vanilla rifleman when there's no cost for you to just spawn a rifle grenadier or sapper - You get all the benefits of a rifle with a load of extra perks. So why not waste those first? Afterall, you're a selfish player who doesn't care about anything but your own kill count (I'm not talking of you personally, but of the average player in general). So why not take one of those valuable sappers/RGs and play them like a rifleman, because maybe you'll come across a tank and you want to have a chance to kill them too. You probably won't, but who cares, right? No skin off your back, just a lost battle for your team. Forget spawning a sapper with the sole intention of ambushing tanks, even to the extent that you actively avoid infantry combat. No, you're trying to deal with a real problem but doing it in the wrong way. There are two ways to solve this in a way that enhances both gameplay and historical tactical realism: 1. Throttled spawning of equipment on all facilities, unless an OIC disables it, or partially disables it. This would force players to utilize proper rifle to specialized weapon ratios, and would be a great boon to the game. The downside is that it would prevent quality team oriented players from getting something they actually need when the situation really calls for it. The average player is just going to scoop up whatever specialized weapon is available as soon as they see it on the list, then procede to waste it about as quickly as they did before throttles were put in place. No, we need more personal accountability here. I favor: 2. Personal spawn points. Riflemen are free to spawn. Everything else costs points, based on how valuable and rare it is. You can keep spawning that SMG and charging headfirst into the enemy like a lemming if you want to, but you can't keep doing it forever. And if you burn all your points with rapid fruitless deaths it's going to be a long while before you can waste supply like that again. You gain points by doing a range of activities that are useful: Getting hits on enemies, kills, captures, giving ammo, etc. You can even use this system to encourage good behaviors like rewarding players for being in proximity to others who are getting hits/kills/captures, being within 600m of a CP that is captured, spending time near a CP when a town is under attack (it presumes you are aiding the defense of that CP), giving rides to players in vehicles, etc. There's many possibilities. The advantages of this system is: -It gives you a way to positively encourage teamplay and good behaviors. -It will cause players to play smarter, fearing death more. This will result in more realistic tactics and player behavior, with more desire for teamwork. -You will see a higher ratio of riflemen to other equipment. You won't see the enemy army frontloaded with all the specialized equipment followed by nothing but rifles. -You will still have specialized equipment available well into a battle. Sappers and LMGs might actually be in the spawn list when you need them, even during the later stages of a battle, because nobody wants to waste points spawning them if they don't actually intend to use them to their full potential. If they just want to do general purpose infantry vs infantry combat they will learn to make do with the rifleman, leaving the sapper for someone who specifically wants to hunt tanks, and the LMG for someone who specifically wants to play it safe in the role of firesupport for other riflemen. -It gives you a way to leverage free to play vs paid accounts while still giving free to play accounts access to more equipment. If free to play players had a smaller pool of points, and gained them drastically slower, they would be able to experience more of the game but then desire to upgrade so they can use equipment more freely. -SMGs and LMGs would actually be more valuable in combat because most people would be riflemen.
  4. My first thought was, what wiki? There's half your problem. How are players going to update and improve on something they don't know exists, or don't visit? I had to go on to the frontpage and dig around to find it, and had trouble seeing any evidence of a wiki. I finally found a link is hidden at the bottom of the page.
  5. Interesting data when it comes to figuring out how these guns should preform in-game. I like that these guys are extremely knowledgeable of history and skilled competition shooters, so I learn a lot watching their videos. You can skip through the videos to see them talk about their conclusions at the beginning, middle, or end of the videos, if you don't want to watch them go through the firing. FG-42 vs BAR, and P38 vs 1911 FG42 vs M1 Garand, and P38 vs 1911. K98 vs Enfield rifle, and C96 vs enfield pistol K98 designated marksman rifle vs Enfield sniper rifle G43 sniperhttps://www.full30.com/video/eb6179349a4e5212f0faede7af6ba7be More on K98 designated marksman rifle Interesting analysis of the MP44's combat performance, against those who say it's historically overrated. MP40 performance simulation: Full auto G3 vs FAL (Not WW2, but interesting analysis of what it's like firing full caliber rifles full auto, for comparison to things like the BAR/FG42). M1 Carbine: Indepth analysis on the quality of the Mosin Nagant vs German weapons: -When some in-game weapons have atrociously obstructive sights that you feel are more of a hinderance than a help, this is probably accurately modeled. -The BAR can be fired from the shoulder, but it modeling it correctly would involve more aimsway, more difficult recoil recovery, more draining on stamina, and it would be more heavily effected by lower stamina states. -Firing full auto from the shoulder using a full rifle caliber is possible, but functionally not that useful because you have to focus all your attention and strength on just holding the gun in position. Although the extent to how functionally useful it is does appear to depend on the quality of the gun's design in terms of recoil and balance. Considering that, I believe red orchestra modeled this very well the last time I played it, because it was possible with some weapons but excessively difficult to the point where any aim adjustment was out of the question unless you broke your full auto fire. In practice, you ended up using controlled bursts unless the target was right next to you. -I was surprised at their low opinion of both the BAR and the 1911. There is such a history behind the 1911 that I've always wanted one, but practically I wonder if I should consider something else if I want to do more with it than just keep it on display as a collector's piece. -I was surprised that they consider the FG42 to be such a good weapon that he would be consider it to be good enough for today's battlefield. I wasn't surprised that he considered the MP44 to be a good weapon, but did not expect him to say that he felt using it would put you at no disadvantage against modern assault rifles that aren't tricked out with a bunch of modern accessories. -Firing some full caliber rifles means you really only get one shot on your target, even if they are semi-auto, because after each shot you need to establish a new sight picture. The main advantage of the AR caliber rifle is that you can rapidly readjust your fire to walk several rounds into your target, which is better against moving targets that provide limited firing time against them. Interesting that some semi-auto full caliber rifles, like the FG42, are so well engineered that you can actually adjust your fire about as well as an AR as long as you are firing semi-auto. -The faster bolt working on the enfield isn't as big an advantage as you might think under most conditions. It seems to only factor in when you're firing repeatedly from the same position at relatively close range targets. Which does match with historical accounts I've read. I didn't realize that the K98 would be more reliable in it's cycling though. -Interesting comment about the history of sniper use on the eastern front, where it often involved using them as long range suppression weapons against large masses of enemies like with a machine-gun. It seems counter-intuitive that this would even be a successful strategy, but I can off-hand think of an instance both in the vietnam war and WW1 where this happened. In Vietnam two snipers were able to pin down and what was at least a company level force of infantry, maybe even more but I don't recall, long enough for an air strike to take them out. In WW1, a squad of Americans had pushed into open territory and set up in a treeline overlooking a field, and about 800 yards away german infantry started coming over the ridge line trying to advance over the field. They had only a handful of riflemen and a maybe one chauchat LMG, but they were able to prevent the advance of an entire German infantry battalion because they were kentucky/tennessee riflemen and during WW1 the Americans put a premium on long range rifle marksmanship training. The Germans would go prone 500-600m away, trying to do a bounding advance, but they just kept getting picked off everytime they dropped, and they apparently had no way to return effective fire. They weren't use to dealing with soldiers who had that level of long range accuracy, so they thought they were facing a much bigger force; because by 1918 the British, French, and Germans had all neglected rifle marksmanship due to trench warfare conditions. The Americans stubbornly insisted that everyone else was doing it wrong, so they were going to train their soldiers in long range marksmanship in anticipation of the breakthrough to open warfare.
  6. As it pointed out already why, it does make a major difference for gameplay quality - because you'd be able to sustain battle between mobile spawn points regardless of whether or not it is on the immediate edge of a town. This is a good thing for many reasons I already stated in my last post or two.
  7. Not really. What I propose would actually result in less concentration of battles while at the same time resulting in more dense combat and more regular meaningful conflict (meaningful in the sense that something smaller can be achieved that aids the larger objective of capturing towns). You'd have battles that sprawl over kilometers in a dynamic way of advancing and falling back and counter-attacking - Instead of being concentrated around the edge of town 99% of the time. You'd have denser battle with all forms of equipment because the dynamic spawnables would allow the battle lines to stay within short travel distance of each other. Neither does this preclude the more methodical and measured approach towards warfare. Just because you can place them close to each other doesn't mean they always will be. It depends on the situation, and the commanding style of those involved. It might require a more deliberate and slow paced advance to overcome a well positioned enemy because you can't get your spawnpoints within easy assault distance - But the key difference with what I propose is that you'd have a real shot at actually succeeding at pushing the enemy off their dynamically held territory. You'd be able to leverage the weaknesses of their position, undermine their logistics even, and coordinate a strike to push your spawnpoints near theirs. From there you can push the assault further until they are pushed off their territory. The key of all this is that you wouldn't need to achieve overwhelming supply superiority in order to achieve this small scale tactical victory - You can actually push on and take down a dynamic spawnable without having to destroy all the equipment attached to it's brigade first. The fact that the defender has the same kind of mobile spawning options as you means that it's a battle far more likely to be decided by superior tactics and teamwork rather than hard coded tactical advantages. This is completely different from the situation we find ourselves in when assaulting a town - Where they are in a vastly superior fortified position, with no logistics to undermine, and we have no way of fortifying a forward assault position of our own aside from overwhelming armor superiority (which, if we achieved that, we've already won anyway). So most attack objectives are a waste of time, and unfun to be involved in, because everyone knows that unless that overwhelming armor superiority is achieved you aren't going to see anything meaningful happen. No, with what I propose you'd see more regular combined arms warfare, from small to large scale, that actually reaches meaningful conclusions. Small victories that can be had that buildup towards a larger victory of capturing a town. It would also have it's share of slow paced and fast paced warfare, depending on the situation - but slow paced warfare is not a bad thing if you actually have a shot at achieving something for your efforts. That factor is something sorely missing from battles in the current game's condition. And it's the one thing you need to address to have satisfied players.
  8. Aside from the fact that I just explained why eliminating an MSP does not properly simulate anything about war (it's exceptionally ridiculous to suggest that a lone sniper taking out a stack of crates, regardless of the fact that he is surrounded by enemy troops firmly entrenched in their position, simulates that an entire area has just had it's reserve of soldiers wiped out) - You're also mistaken if you think the elimination of mustered soldiers is something that is even realistically possible in WW2. Dug in troops are notoriously difficult to dislodge with any kind of ranged or air based firepower alone. Ultimately you always need to advance on foot to capture the territory. There is almost never any outright elimination of mustered forced in this era of warfare. You advance and either kill the enemy, capture him, or cause him to flee. Inevitably successful battles end up being a combination of all three of those at once. This is where proper simulation via game mechanics comes in - If you can't actually sit on the a patch of ground near the enemy MSP, and hold it for a minute, then you certainly have not killed every enemy in the area nor have you caused them to flee. That right here tells you that you have no business disabling that spawnpoint until you have either killed or pushed back enough of the enemy to the point where you can move and camp on a certain location near their MSP. You cannot both fight through the enemy defenders and hold a position near their spawnpoint if your own spawnpoint is too far away to allow you to re-enforce the ground you have just seized. A 600m spawn point used by a platoon of infantry basically means that they only get one try to capture the depot. Meanwhile, the same platoon of defenders is going to get a get at the very least 3 tries at stopping you because they can respawn and be shooting at you so quickly. This puts an undo burden on the attackers who must perform superhumanly achieving at least a 3:1 kill:death ratio to be able to capture that depot. This, my friend, is exactly why you never see depots captured from 600m away MSPs if they are actually being defended (unless you are able to use tanks to camp the depot and slaughter the defending infantry, which requires that you have destroyed most of the enemy's tanks already so they cannot contest your camping of the depot). Reducing the capture timer doesn't really address this fundamental problem. It might reduce the burden by reducing the amount of time they have to stay alive (and thus lowering the amount of kills per death they have to achieve to win), but you will still be left with an obscene disparity between attack and defense under such a scenerio. Somewhat less obscene is still obscene. So it won't really change the dynamic we see play out where capture is implausible to expect without uncontested tank camping. Requiring this state of uncontested tank camping to capture a town is why most attacks go nowhere and aren't interesting to fight in. You just described most attacks. Which is why it's so difficult to find quality gameplay. I also need to qualify that when you say "support" you really mean "achieving a tank camp of the depot". Because there's really no way of supporting a depot capture with tanks or guns unless you are able to achieve such armor superiority that the defenders cannot contest you. And that's where the problem is for gameplay - every attack is going nowhere because the defenders still have armor, and the attackers don't have the tools necessarily to adequately deal with that in an incremental way of advancing and holding. They can't surprise and camp the AB like they use to. They can't surprise and set up overlooking one side of town because they have not the numbers nor the ability to surprise. It's also much harder to attrit the defenders armor with brigade rotation, and they've got less numbers to spawn everything with. You also don't have the tools necessary to push an attack with infantry when both sides have have little armor left, because the attackers are overly reliant on having armor to make up for the defenders overwhelming "time to battle disparity" advantage. The system I propose would have us see combined arms action, but would enable it to have more purpose and meaningful resolution without the need to achieve an overwhelming tank dominance as the only way of achieving an offensive resolution. Requiring that kind of overwhelming tank numbers doesn't work in a game world where you expect both sides to have even numbers and even supply - by that very assumption you've ruled out the ability to locally overwhelm the enemy with tank supply. It's called attrition. It was actually put into the game for a reason; and it's a good thing. There use to be no attrition. You've never seen the game world when the infantry supply actually can be attritioned with truck spawns alone. It use to happen all the time and it was a fun and satisfying way to win a battle. We had at one point lost the ability to attrit infantry supplies. Brigade supplies became bigger and they could then be rotated. Now you had to attrit an entire area of operation, not just a single town AB. So attrition was off the table as a way of taking a town for a long time, and it bogged the gameplay down considerably. The FRU may have returned the ability to attrit infantry, because battle could be sustained in proximity for a long time, but they achieved this in the wrong way; because there were no predictable battle lines and no way of pushing back to counter-attack. That just makes it frustrating and unfun to deal with, even if it gets the job done. So you're making a mistake if you equate infantry attrition with bad FRU mechanics. It's a good thing when it has the right mechanics behind it. Also, your assertion about attrition resulting in no conservation of life is completely the opposite - When attrition becomes a real possibility, you give players incentive to stay alive and get positive kill/death ratios. When the supply is bloated to the point where you never see it burned through, ever, (which is what will happen with truck spawns) then attrition becomes meaningless and you don't need to care about dying. FRUs combined with bloated brigade supplies only foster more careless battle because it's the only way you can attrit that much infantry supply with so few player numbers. I'm not suggesting that they would have no support when they capture a depot from 300m. You're confusing the way FRUs work (which don't care about support as much), with what I have suggested. The kind of offensive spawnable I have suggested would be over-run by a defensive counter-attack using armor supporting infantry if the attackers are using only infantry. This would be the case because what I propose would have logistical constraints that reward the defenders for pushing back, and make it very difficult for the attackers to play ping pong with their spawnpoints. What makes my proposal different from the current truck spawn is that it actually does require a legitimate counter-attack by the defenders to disable the spawnable. A lone ninja can't cut the legs out from under the attackers and ruin an otherwise fine battle from being had. These are actually valid suggestions that would reduce the burden of time to battle disparity on the attackers. I'm not saying that would alone solve the problem, but it would be a step in the right direction - however, once again we come back to the issue of, "this requires coding to achieve". Nothing significant is likely to be achieved in solving these problems without resources devoted to coding new mechanics. And if you're going to devote resources to the issue, you're better off really tackling the issue at it's core instead of toying around with exceptions that only address some of the symptoms. Addressing symptoms is a reactionary process that fails to recognize the core cause of the symptoms. If you don't address the core causes then you're going to keep putting out one symptom fire after another when you could have saved a lot of headaches and time by just dealing with the core issue from the start.
  9. No, it actually doesn't mean much even when all your suggestions are taken as a whole. Taken as a whole they don't significantly address the two core issues I identified. The two core issues we must deal with (constraints on attacker logistics whilst simultaneously giving attackers ways to reduce the time to battle disparity) cannot significantly be addressed without devoting resources towards coding. We can conjure up 1001 different permutations of what will get us closer to addressing those issues with the least amount of coding required, but ultimately you're still going to need to do some coding - There's no way around that. You're not going to be able to get to where the game needs to go just by tweaking the values on what is already there. The truth of my statement is only demonstrated by your ideas; because they clearly do not do much to significantly address either of those issues I raised. Going through your suggestions point by point was done to help show you why that is the case. Your analysis is faulty. You don't need a funnel for area capture to function, nor do you need a funnel for it to be an improvement over what we currently have. There's no logical reason to link the two concepts together. Area capture as a concept is used in plenty of games with large open ended maps, and not only used as part of a progressive push style map. Further proving your idea doesn't hold up is the area capture in flag buildings in WW2OL. Area capture in flag buildings works better than the system that came before it where you humped a single table. The later made you too vulnerable and was too easily interrupted. The fact that it did not take as long also made it easier for a single ninja to slip by and take the building unnoticed. Area capture brings longer timers and persistence to the capture, whilst giving you freedom of movement, so there is a more natural process that better simulates that you've seized control of the area. It's an improvement and it has nothing to do with whether or not the action is funneled to a single depot. Because that is not always the case, especially on larger towns. We already have pure area capture. It's just confined to the area of a single building. I never specified how big the area had to be. That detail is not really relevant to the discussion of why area capture is superior to destruction models. Area capture is superior because you actually have to be there, and hold it. You can't just snipe it from a distance, sneak in to dive bomb it, or sneak up and sap it, completely disregarding the actual state of the battle and who controls that ground. That would be a complete disaster. Considering that you weren't here in the days when you could only spawn from armybases, I don't think you realize what would happen if every single depot could be disabled before the battle even starts. There's a reason these depots exist - To stop exactly those kinds of situations from happening. AB camping was a horrible scenerio that dominated far too much of the game before depots came in. What you propose would be even worse if taken to it's logical extreme; because one could just bomb the AB to disable spawning and forgo any sense of battle altogether. You have it completely backwards. What I propose would bring more guns into the battlefield in more logical and realistic deployments. It would also give tanks far more opportunity to engage in open field battles over territory instead of relegating themselves to camping at the edge of every town hoping to attrit the enemy tanks before you lose your tanks. I don't know why you would be under the false impression that what I propose would negate the need for combined arms to succeed. Infantry are still going to have a very hard time defending or capturing dynamic spawn points without armor support - unless the enemy also has no armor. What I propose just makes the whole process more realistic and fun; because right now you have a single tank roll through your infantry to hit the mobile spawn with a single shell and ruin everyone's day. I've suggested we introduce two elements into this scenerio that still makes tanks an essential and deadly part of mobile spawn warfare, but makes it a better simulation of warfare and funner for everyone involved. The two elements introduced: The requirement of proximity to the spawn, and the requirement of time. Time gives you room to respond to the threat. To use countermeasures. To reposition forces. Time requires that the enemy be able to hold their advantage for an extended duration. This means that any lone unit rushing your MSP is at risk of not being able to hold newly aquired position against a counter-attack by your defending forces. This ensures that you will be less likely to lose your mobile spawn unless the enemy has actually advanced in force and pushed you off the ground your mobile spawn occupied. Proximity ensures that you need to actually occupy the area in some fashion that the MSP is on before disabling it. This is the only way to simulate that you have legitimately pushed the enemy off their ground with a counter-attack. Killing the units that guard that MSP is all well and good, but if you can't take advantage of killing those units to advance and hold the ground then just as in real war you don't truly control that territory and there's nothing to stop the enemy from just re-enforcing it. Proximity increases vulnerability of the one assaulting the spawn point. Which in turn reduces the chance that they will be able to succeed if they are alone, requiring support from their team to capture the objective. If you have this support it means you have probably legitimately pushed the enemy off the ground their MSP occupies. They still can with what I propose - It's called counter-attacking. What you are advocating is a system completely divorced from any real concept of battlefield simulation - The idea that you have a button you can press to shut off the valve of the attacking force, using only a single unit that has snuck behind the enemy's lines to suicide frag/bomb/shell a pile of crates. This is completely divorced from who actually owns the territory. Sure, there are ways of temporarily stalling an attack in real life battle, but it involves applying a lot more firepower and tactics than what is required to shut off an MSP. A more accurate simulation of temporarily disabling an attack would be hitting them with a squadron of bombers, which will give you time to regroup or counter-attack before the attackers get their supporting tanks and guns back into position. Or hitting them from the flank with a company of tanks, overwhelming their ability to cope via tank shock. Artillery would also play a role in doing this, if we had it. Instead airpower is the best alternative we have at stalling an attack. What must be realized is that in real WW2 battle there is no way to completely shut off and eliminate the the presence of the attackers without counter-attacking to capture the ground they are on. And lone ninjas disabling spawnpoints by themselves doesn't properly simulate this any shape.
  10. I believe you misunderstand what I am suggesting then; because fundamentally the system of organization I advocate is a voluntary one that serves the players. It doesn't force you to plug yourself in. If that were true then we wouldn't have equipment attrition limits to become with, or brigade based supply rather than army base supply. Players complained when we got brigades because they didn't have their toys at the town they want to attack from. Most players didn't complain as much about attrition, because it added a lot of good to the game. But you have to realize there was once a day when you could spawn whatever you wanted where-ever you wanted, as much as you wanted. It wasn't good gameplay, or a good abstraction of battle. Some did complain, though, about not having the toys they wanted when they wanted them. Either way, the goal of the game has never been to spawn whatever you want wherever you want, but to spawn as part of a larger operation combined arms operation involving teamwork and tactics. That was not the way CRS designed the game over many years. And you also underestimate the kinds of players we had in those years. We had a lot of players who played to advance the overall battle rather than just their own personal kill counts using the biggest, baddest piece of machinery available. The system I advocate would give us the kinds of combined arms organized operations the players and developers have always wanted, but which the current brigade and HC system was never set up to do effectively because of it's flawed designs. The system I advocated is the opposite of the rigid system we have now. It is dynamic and responsive to who the playerbase wants to follow at any given time. It actually encourages effective cat herding by giving commanders the tools they need to herd multiple streams of cats in different directions towards a common objective. Right now we have almost no tools for in-game cat herding, and that's why it's failed so bad in my opinion. We don't even have coherent comm systems. That's about as basic as it gets. Yet everyone is split across half a dozen different channels in a single operation. I haven't seen anything you've proposed here that would be good for any population level because it doesn't tackle the core problems. The system we have now doesn't work very well in high pop. It just works less bad because the system scales even worse in low pop. The reason it scales worse is because of when you can spawn 100 infantry and walk 1km in from town you have a higher chance of accomplishing something before they all die than if you have to spawn only 10 infantry and walk them 1km in from town. However, if you can sustain a spawnpoint 300m from town then you can do some good with even 10 infantry. But it doesn't mean the 100 infantry are overpowered. They will be facing equally defense defensive conditions. What I propose is a scaleable system that works well in all pop levels. It's not designed for low pop. It by it's nature scales with the population. Unless you want to shut the server down when it's not prime time, or hang up a big sign telling people not to expect any real gameplay at these hours, it's a real issue that you can't just pretend doesn't exist. It's a self perpetuating cycle that leads to lost subscriptions - Low numbers means you can't effectively play the game, leading to unsubs which leads to lower numbers. It's a vicious cycle. At least if the game mechanics scaled better you'd have a game that was fun for the small population, so you had a chance of growing your playerbase over time. And the reality of shifting player numbers is something we've always dealt with. Prime time US always had more players than prime time EU, and prime time Austrailia/New zealand was pretty sparse. Even worse, it's not just a timezone issue - it's also a seasonal issue. People play more at certain times of the year, or they come and go with patches and features. If your system isn't robust enough to scale with shifting players, either up or down, then you're going to end up with disaster. If you design your game to be barely functional with 1000 players online, but then find yourself with 100, then you're never going to be able to get those 1000 players back because all the new players enter to find a game that isn't fun and doesn't work. Numbers disparity is not the problem I'm addressing. Game design that requires you to have a numbers disparity to win is the problem. It shows your mechanics are flawed that players can't expect to win without a side delay. Numbers disparity is another self-re-enforcing problem because if you have bad game mechanics that make it impossible to achieve success without numbers advantages then you end up with people who only join the side that has side delay or who quit when they don't have it and are losing. You don't need that. That's, again, trying to deal with symptoms instead of dealing with core issues. Deal with the core spawning issues that hurt even high pop battles and the low pop problems disappear with it.
  11. Easier is the wrong word. Plausible is the right word. Because right now the game mechanics make it implausible to capture a town under "normal" or "ideal" game conditions (ie. no surprise, prepared defenders, organized attackers, even player numbers, even supply). You misunderstand the intention of my proposal if you think it stretches the defender's lines and does not reward them for counter-attacking to sieze ground. As I explained a couple posts ago, there are two core issues the system I advocate would deal with - and one of those cores is that it must reasonably abstract offensive logistics limitations.. If you can give the defenders a way to logically ascertain where the enemy is, and where they might be, based on game mechanics that simulate real logistics to some degree, then you can give the defenders an advantage by allowing them to push out from their town to set up a forward defense that the attackers will have to deal with before approaching the town itself. However, the whole jewel of a system like what I propose is that even though the battle is being pushed away from town it does not result in there being less combat - because both sides have the same dynamic spawnpoints that find each other and clash. When one falls back the other moves forward, and vise versa. The battle stays intense and consistent yet dynamically mobile and situationally fair. With what I propose the defender would still have the advantage. You are mistaken if you think the current system is a good or accurate abstraction of the challenges that an attacker faces. The current system would not be as much of a problem if we had the player numbers to spawn out multiple entire brigades worth of infantry all at once and then march towards the objective - but we don't. So the system we have actually is a very poor model for what challenges the attacker faces, because of the need to respawn repeatedly and in close proximity as the only way of simulating real infantry density. One of the reasons we don't always see a need for realistic infantry tactics is because we lack realistic infantry density that requires them. With what I propose it would still be much more difficult to overcome a defensive nest of hardened spawnpoints than it would be to overcome a single attacker's spawnpoint. It's like the difference between trying to take antwerp vs trying to take a neighboring single AB town. It's a much more complex and difficult task from a tactical standpoint. Furthermore, the system I propose, if used right, potentially makes it easier to defend - Because now you can fight the enemy out in the fields and prevent them from even getting near your town, if you plan and fight well. However, it makes it easier to defend in a way that is based on tactics and teamwork - Not based on having hard game mechanics that act as an insurmountable barrier to the attacker's achieving success. Both sides have the same time to battle from their dynamic spawnpoints, and whoever choses to attack is going to have to put out the effort to close that distance and overcome the defensive positions, and the defenders have the advantage of possibly being on ideal defensive ground. So more effort is required, but this effort is not as insurmountable as the situation attackers are put in when you are dealing with 1km away fragile trucks vs fortified towns; because the dynamic spawnpoints have the same level of capture based durability, the same potential level of fortifications being built up around them, and the same freedom to position themselves on advantageous terrain, and the same freedom to move closer or further away from the enemy's spawnpoint. That is not what I advocate. Towns and cities still exist as fortified strongholds by their design of having multiple points nearby that are have lots of places to hide and protect themselves from incoming fire. They hafve no travel time, and the fact that you can also spawn armor right at the objective gives them an inherent advantage over the attackers under my proposed system (because armor would not have a spawnpoint within engagement distance of the town). So effectively, towns and cities are more difficult to capture in game for similar reasons they are more difficult to capture in real life. That's a good abstraction model. Their first design was actually depot spawning, which was flag capture based and completely bypassed all distance and logistics entirely. It wasn't a good model in it's first form because it bypassed logistics too much. That's why depot supply trickles in now, and we have area capture systems. It's capture system is fine as long as you have another offensive spawnpoint nearby that you can use as a base to attack the depot from. Otherwise you'll never be able to overcome defenders who can instantly respawn and be back inside the flag building in only 5 seconds. Meanwhile you die and take 5 minutes running in from a long distance truck spawn. The math doesn't work out. As for why they created truck spawns the way they did - I would say from my experience it was certainly not because they expected that to be the end-all of offensive spawning mechanics, but it was one step in the right direction; and it was a step that didn't require a lot of development resources to rework the game engine. I also believe that the existence of truck spawning was primarily the result of the playerbase discussing it and asking for it, whereas depot spawning was something CRS appeared to come up with on their own because they surprised the playerbase with it one Christmas. Long ago, in a patch far far away, I once created a thread detailing an idea for truck spawns and it become a hot topic of discussion with Killer commenting on it (I don't know if he's still around, but he was the lead guy back then). The system we got was basically what I advocated with one key exception. I envisioned simulating logistics by requiring players to load up a "supply" of infantry onto the truck and then leave those trucks somewhere on the battlefield. Then players would spawn from those trucks, but could only spawn about 10 infantry from an opel. This would have required players to place fleets of trucks around zones of control to simulate the mass movement of infantry into an assault position. It would have also preserved the power of air to ruin the logistics of an offensive unless they had proper flak and air cover (which, as much as we hate when that happens, it is realistic). I think the only downside of doing things that way is that being an effective fighter pilot is such a specialized task, requiring time and training because this is simulator grade, that it can be very difficult to fight back unless the fighter pilot talent is evenly distributed.
  12. Brigade and AO timer tweaks wouldn't do anything at all to address the two core issues I outlined in my second to last post. The only reason increased supply (from brigade rotation) is such a problem is because it removes attrition as a factor from most battles - and the game is not set up to make taking towns plausible by other means. You use to be able to decide battles by attrition alone within a few hours of fighting. This made it easier to take towns without first requiring either an overwhelming numbers advantage or armor advantage. The lack of ability to attrit would not be a problem if there existed tools that enabled the attacker to reasonably capture a town by the tactical capture and holding of ground. It would somewhat help, but only up to a certain point; because it's dealing with symptoms rather than the core issue - which is that any spawnpoint that is not based on area capture is inherently not going to represent pushing a force off that location. Any offensive spawnpoint based on damage done is vulnerable to being destroyed out from under the nose of the attackers even if they legitimately still control the ground and haven't been pushed back yet. Remember when designing game mechanics that our purpose is to abstract simulations of real world concepts. Area control spawnpoints best simulates the aspects of warfare that involve capturing and holding territory as a base from which to capture and hold more territory. Let's consider the rammifications of this change point by point. - Satchels based destruction. It would actually ruin infantry gameplay by requiring sappers to bring down a FRU, making them dependant on tanks or aircraft to destroy it for them. Sappers are not in enough supply for that to be feasible. It would have to be based on grenades. - Grenade based destruction. This would be an improvement in infantry vs infantry engagements because it forces the enemy infantry to get within a certain radius, meaning there is an increased chance that they have gained temporary control over the ground the spawnpoint is on. However, if we're talking about rifle grenades and AT launchers, then that partly goes out the window because you'll see these spawnpoints being sniped by infiltrators with good aim from 100-200m away. More difficult than sniping with an LMG or rifle, and in less supply, but it's still an issue. Another major downside is that it will still be possible for infiltrating enemy infantry to damage your spawnpoint in suicide runs. A few of those disables your spawnpoint regardless of whether or not you've lost control of the ground it was on. It is the same issue with suicide sappers and FBs. Increasing the threshold makes it take longer, but it's still there as an issue. At least FBs know there is a limited supply of sappers to deal with, which deters being wasteful with them. Riflemen and rifle grenadiers have no such qualms. -Bomb only destruction, requiring multiple bombs. This would greatly aleviate the symptoms of having your spawn trucks endlessly undermined by sniping aircraft. However, it wouldn't stop a plane or two from shutting down your attack and stalling it out until a new spawnpoint can be brought up. That is why fundamentally any spawn system based on destruction is flawed. It would happen less with the changes you proposed, but it would still happen. If FBs required a massive number of bombs to be destroyed it might mean that it rarely is destroyed, but those few times that a big bomber raid wipes out the FB without the attackers being able to stop it would be bad gameplay and a bad abstraction of war (it's very easy to bomb something before dying if you know what you are doing. It doesn't matter how much flak they have, the bombs are going to get through). -Increased tank destruction of spawnpoint. This wouldn't really change anything. A tank in position to fire on your spawnpoint would just take a bit longer to bring it down. Tank rushing the infantry spawnpoints to knock them out is the primary issue that ruins their viability unless RPGs are unlocked and in plentiful supply. So these changes haven't addressed one of the main problems the current truck spawns have. Imagine how bad a state defenses would be in it long ranged bombardment of buildings were all it took to disable them as spawnpoints. Look any tactical shooter in existence that has area capture; What do you see? Spawnpoints that advance as territory is captured. 15 years ago you had games and mods that weren't sophisticated enough in their design, and actually expected attackers to run the gauntlet of an entire map to achieve multiple victory conditions when the defenders were always spawning next to the objective - It never worked out well. Let's look at some simple game design math. Side A spawns 10ft from the objective they must defend. Side B spawns 600m from the objective they must capture. On top of this, it is inherently easier to defend than attack. What do you think is going to happen? What always does happen in any game designed like that: you rarely ever see the offensive victory condition achieved. The barrier to success is so high that the attackers can rarely achieve the numerical, tactical, or teamwork superiority necessary to overcome the inherent advantage of the defenders. 600meters is too far. I'd consider 500m the bare minimum. 400m is acceptable. 300-350m is ideal because it puts you within quick engagement distance of the enemy. It is possible to reasonably capture a depot if you can sustain your spawnpoint 300m from the objective. Not guaranteed, but possible. Once the depot opens up for spawning then you are put on a more even footing to actually capture the town. The problem is getting to the point where you can reasonably contest and hold that depot. A 350m infantry spawn point that you can keep up is the main thing that would allow you to capture that depot in the first place, and re-enforce it when the depot supply runs out - because depots by themselves cannot hold themselves. The supply is too limited. Doesn't change anything about the problems infantry offensive spawn points face. This wouldn't really have any impact on even the symptoms, let alone the core issues. The main issue is not that the lack of surprise, but the inability to sustain our positions on the offense once the battle is already underway. That would be disasterous if we are talking about giving attackers the kind of offensive spawnable I am advocating. It would still hurt with the tweaked FRU you advocate, but not as much; because the offensive version you suggest would not be as effective as what I propose. If you give attackers a sustainable and defendable spawnpoint near town I can guarantee you that the defenders will need their own version of it in order to hold ground outside of their town as a way of protecting themselves and relieving the pressure on their town. Otherwise you put the defender at a disadvantage by couping them up in this little hole of static spawnpoints and making it very easy for the attacker to engage them on their terms, choosing where they want to attack from and being able to sustain thier presence very strongly for as long as they need to. However, when both sides have access to this tool, you will end up seeing more battles fought over open country surrounding the town - which is something players have said they have wanted for a very long time. Even better, is you'll have a dynamic and changing battlefield. You won't be approaching the same towns in the same way because you'll be forced to deal with where the enemy has dynamically placed their spawnpoints on the defense. The reason defenders can't use the FRU this way is because there's no predictability to the offensive FRU. There's no logical way to place your defensive FRUs to block the offensive FRUs from advancing. The reason it didn't happen with truck spawns was because they were too fragile. Too easy to take out. Something that hinders both of them from being used this way is that you can't place them prior to a battle taking place and just leave them there. Defenders need to be able to deploy forward positions around their town and be alerted when they come under attack so they can start spawning in. This would do away with a lot of fears about rushing and camping the AB. If you don't stop to deal with the forward outposts then you'll be hit from behind by sappers.
  13. My second to last post had an error in it that I did not have time to proof read before posting, but it's too late now to edit. What I meant is a zone of control 1-2km from town is all well and good for certain purposes of removing the time to battle. It would be ok for tanks, guns, and their protective infantry, if they are able to spawn that far away from the battle - But it's not ok for assaulting infantry forces meant to secure objectives. A zone of control is a good base from which to launch further assaults into the town, but trying to launch assaults starting from that distance is futile. You can't fight those kinds of battles starting from 1km away from town unless you plan to fight it primarily with armor. And even then, it only works if you've won armor superiority to the point where you are able to camp close to the enemy's town to suppress the spawnable depots. Unfortunately you do need either overwhelming tank or player numbers superiority to capture a town under those conditions, because the time to battle disparity between both side's infantry and guns is so great that you cannot hope to capture anything if you are dealing with even numbers. Some kind of forward durable offensive spawning system that let the infantry hold ground near the town and persist as long as they held it would solve this problem and give attackers a chance to win through teamwork and tactics without first establishing total armor dominance before advancing up to the town, or without having twice as many players to offset the time to battle difference. Which brings me back to why my next paragraph said this:
  14. Although it might be possible to achieve part of what we need with minimal changes; that can only happen if you are able to identify the core problems that need to be addressed, instead of endlessly putting out the fires of symptoms while ignoring the source of it's ignition. If you don't understand what the problem is you can't fix it. Based on what I just wrote up, I've identified two core issues that need to be the purpose behind any new offensive spawning system: 1. In a game of limited player numbers, time to battle disparity for infantry has to be addressed. Giving attackers a way of nullifying that time to battle disparity. Forcing defenders to counter attack and push the attackers away from their town if they want more breathing room. The advantage of the system I suggest is that it would retain dense battle even if it's away from town, because you'd have two clashing spawnpoint systems that are always near each other but not necessarily near the town itself. This is fun and interesting for the players, and an effective means of bringing battles to a conclusion because the constant application of force results in more attrition and the ability to exploit and re-enforce your success. 2. Reasonable logistical ties need to be abstracted in some way. The purpose of this is again to actually facilitate battle being fought and reaching a conclusion. Except in this case the focus is on enabling the defender to find their enemy and move against them in a decisive way, without feeling like it's a fruitless exercise of whack-a-mole. If you lack either of these two core issues the offensive spawn system will fail to function properly, resulting in subpar gameply for vets and new players alike. The FRU makes #2 worse. The Truck spawn makes #1 worse. They are both equally bad in that sense. It's like someone trying to ask you which leg would be best to lose. The answer is neither, because you're not going to be able to walk regardless of which one they remove.
  15. I would like to point out that the ideas I gave of how to hack the existing truck/FRU to make it more functional does not represent what I think is the ideal way to solve this problem. It is not very elegant and still has some issues. It is just something I threw out there as a rough example of the types of things that could be done if we aboslutely have no choice but to do the minimal amount of work using what we already have. That is why I am generally opposed to trying to roll out tweaks and half measures instead of redesigning the offensive spawning system from the ground up; because any incomplete system is going to have flaws. I am not defending the FRU. It's a bad way of implementing offensive infantry spawnpionts. I always thought it was. You'll also get no argument from me that having one man open up a brigade without any risk associated with it is inherently faulty. However, you have to recognize that we get similar problems with a mobile truck spawn. Prior to the mobile truck spawn you use to be able to interdict a lot of trucks, infantry, and guns coming from the FB. Now there are fewer guns, no infantry, and if you intercept a truck meant for a mobile spawn it has little meaning because they'll just send out another one. However, given the number of players we have, it ended up being a better tradeoff for the game that we had players concentrated more around the battle with less time to battle for the individual. If we really want to deal with that issue in a tangible way, we can advocate for AI trucks that can stream from one location to another to set up a large army camp with fortifications. Lacking that, we have to find more manageable ways of simulating logistics. A hub and spoke system of spawnables, with restrictions on placing them behind or within a certain distance of enemy spawnables (both dynamic or static) is a reasonable way of doing that. The visible truck AI convoy would be all well and good for how FBs and zones of control of established and maintained, but you also must recognize that it would be insufficient for solving the problem of time to battle disparity that makes most offensives pointless and unfun. To understand why that is you have to realize that infantry only hold and take ground when tactics and teamwork is combined with sustained pressure. Without the ability to spawn repeatedly near the objective, they cannot exploit or sustain any gains they make. Defenders don't have this problem, but attackers do. There's no point in forming up 20-30 infantry to use teamwork to advance and take ground; because even if you are successfully after 10-20 minutes of careful advancing and teamwork, the defenders are meanwhile spawning like ants and running around like headless chickens and eventually the pressure of their constant spawning is going to whittle away your forces. Even worse, you'll lose whatever hard fought territory you gained because by the time you have your force of 20-30 infantry hike in from a mobile truck that is a kilometer away you've already lost all the ground gained and have an enemy that is probably pushing out even further towards your spawnpoint. Looking at the game design analytically, we can establish that this would not be a problem for the attacker if we had the player numbers to spawn out an entire brigades worth of infantry at once, and then mass them accordingly. Then the defender would have no time to battle advantage because there would be no respawning. The battle would go to whoever used better teamwork and tactics, or who had better supply lines. But that's not the game world we have. So we are forced to simulate this massing of infantry through repeated spawning of the infantry supply. Tanks never really had this issue because we had enough players to quickly spawn out most of them and engage in battle with the enemy to reach a conclusion. This brings up our problem of time to battle, and the disparity between offense and defense that is insumountable without the offense having some kind of spawnpoint that can advance to hold ground they have taken. The necessary objective here is to minimize the defenders time to battle disparity to the point where tactics and teamwork alone can allow the attacker to win even when player numbers are even. A zone of control style position 1-2km from town may be all well and good for dealing with the time to battle Without the need for overwhelming player numbers, or overwhelming tank superiority to make up for not having overwhelming player numbers. This is all why it is essential that infantry have some kind of dynamic offensive spawnable that can hold ground as they take it. If you cannot hold territory that is within 300-400m away from the enemy spawnable then you cannot expect to return to battle fast enough to give you a real chance of capturing it. Infantry travel speed is such that every 100m away your spawnpoint is it becomes exponentially more difficult to capture your objective. A spawnpoint 1km away is basically useless as far as capturing objectives goes. It's only good for guarding tanks and guns, hoping that eventually they will be able to achieve armor superiority so they can suppress the depot while your infantry march up to it. But a 1km away spawnpoint is exactly what you end up with in most battles if you have to rely on truck spawns, because anything closer cannot be kept up long enough to accomplish anything. It also can't be kept up long enough to let the infantry battle play out in terms of manuever, tactics, teamwork, attrition, etc. Sniping the truck spawnpoints is more about preventing the battle from having a chance to play out to it's conclusion. Much in the way FB sniping prevents battles from playing out.