Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by rinzello

  1. The one thing that popped into my head that I'm not sure I like about splitting up towns where they can have multiple owners is that we seem to have a big problem with newer players not realizing when a battle is over and hanging around in town and still trying to kill each other.  I'm sure this is good fun, but what happens when you just have to cross a bridge to get to enemy players.  I'm wondering if supply of these towns would dwindle quickly and end up being a battle between 10 soldiers on each side and just be a big stalemate half the time.

    Past that, I like the idea!  :D

  2. I'd find it more interesting to just let engies build bushes in general.  Could you imagine putting camo on a tank so it could hide in the bushes as it fired on the enemy?  Just so long as it wasn't super easy to create a whole forest of bushes to cover the advance of troops.  Maybe you'd HAVE to place it on tanks/FMS/ATGs, not just on the ground.

  3. Using a regular truck could also be interesting because what if the mission leader came to the rescue and set up a FMS in front of the tank?  Not only would that provide cover for the tank but plenty of back up would come pouring out to protect the tank.  Obviously this couldn't be done over and over, but it's an idea...

  4. My fear would be that automatic weapons would just be even more dangerous.  You might just aim at an enemy soldier running across a field plenty far away and you start unloading upon him until his Morale causes him to drop to the ground or slow to a crawl, then just wait until enough bullets hit.  Almost seems like some sort of tractor beam.

    I'd almost like a system a bit better where something might make you actually CHOOSE to drop down and seek cover.  I know in one of the Brothers in Arms games they had your screen get blurred and red the more you were in danger from fire and then it cleared up when you took cover.  I know other games have used similar tactics.  I just wouldn't want player choice to be completely out of the equation.  

    YET, I think too many players now don't have much of a fear of death since they can just respawn in a handful of seconds anyhow.  If it could be something that might encourage players to WANT to stay behind that wall and scream for mommy, then I'd be for it.  Maybe typing "MOMMY!!" in general chat will regain your Morale faster... :P

    I do love the idea of firing on enemy soldiers to keep their heads down while someone flanks them and takes them out.  I know that CAN happen in game now but it'd be nice if it could be counted on more.  So long as it doesn't create more Rambo types.

  5. On 11/8/2016 at 6:19 PM, vasduten1 said:

    But we need some more.

    "Mein Leben!"


    hahahaha  I'm glad I'm not the only one to remember that!

    I do agree though.  I've been in support of infantry (and vehicles) not dying off right away and perhaps lying on the ground screaming in pain until they finally lose enough blood to pass out and die.  It sounds horrible, but honestly, it SHOULD be.  This is war and we're shooting to kill people.  I'm no professional voice actor but I could try making a few of the sounds if they wanted.

    But extra added variety is always good and I'd welcome it!

  6. But wouldn't it be more realistic that not every soldier have binoculars as you already said?  Not every human can make out enemy soldiers from long distances.  Hiding and watching for attackers is one of the perks of being a defender.  

    Honestly, getting binoculars was one of the bigger perks that made me want to subscribe.  And it's worth it!

    1 person likes this

  7. You know what?  I'll take it one further and say we get rid of the current fire base as well as the FRU.  Instead, we make the FB itself a PPO but not limit it to one of two spots between towns.  

    Have two new type of vehicles (although they can just be different versions of current vehicles) and have their main purpose be to set up either an infantry tent or vehicle tent.

    I imagined the FB as basically saying that this is the frontline and this is where all the troops and tanks are.  If it was actually something chosen by the players it might feel like it was actually fought for.

    I imagine that there would only be a small handful of these command vehicles spawnable from a friendly army base and someone would drive it out to a location of their choosing.  Once there, it sets up a FB building where anything that was spawnable at the original will now spawn here.  With no FRU you'd want it to be close, but if it's destroyed there will be a time penalty before anyone can build another one.  Maybe 20-30 minutes or so.  So you'd also want to keep it somewhat hidden and far away.

    These buildings should be somewhat hard to destroy, but maybe not have them only destroyable with demo charges (although they would surely help).  It represents your forces from your army base so it should be as strong as your combined force.  However if it's getting carpet bombed and shot up by tanks then it'll fall easily.

    Having a FRU destroyed and having to run from a FB is a pain, so being pushed back to your town might be a better motivator to guard your FB FRU.  Seeing as so much would ride on these new buildings, I'd imagine you'd have to have a high enough rank to even drive the correct vehicle.

    And if people still wanted to have the FRU around to resupply troops and vehicles, I'm fine with that, but no spawning from them.

    I'd just imagine that having these set up freely in the world might drive some people from the towns and into the wild.  Plus, maybe we'd get some FB vs FB fights in the forest.

  8. If you guys are set on despawning people in 15 minutes or less instead of having them just not count towards population the how do you plan on dealing with if they're in MIA territory?  Not only would that upset some players by having to drive/run back to where they were but the supply is also less?  That'd upset everyone!

  9. 9 hours ago, wockawocka said:

    Sprintable or not:

    Sound should also be added! Infantry sprinting near/inside bushes should make a lot of noise of crackling branches :)

    I would agree with more noise for bushes but I'd like more noise in general.  I know they have some ambient noise but it seems really easy to pick up on just about anything you're close enough to hear.

    I'd say that the faster you go the more nouse you make, but crawling should make next to no noise.  You should be able to be sneaky still, I just don't want people rushing through undetected.

  10. 58 minutes ago, B2K said:

    If ranks meant something in game I'd agree with you, however as is, if you stay around long enough eventually you will be max rank. 

    True, but hopefully the type of people who will just carelessly bombard their own troops wouldn't be the type to stick around for months just to be able to do it.  They're probably only there for a month and only have a F2P account.

  11. 13 hours ago, delta1262 said:

    Without friendly fire, I don't see the incentive to not spam artillery shells on a town. But with friendly fire, it's prone to abuse unless there is some kind of vote system which stops someone from spawning for a while that makes the temporary ban fairer.

    It's things like that where I'd say only the higher ranks could control them.  And honestly, if there WAS friendly fire, it'd really limit how often they could be used.  Which I like.

  12. 12 hours ago, madrebel said:

    Why wouldn't infantry be able to approach town jwilly?


    Just because they cant run through bushes doesn't prevent them from running adjacent to them. 

    I was thinking this as well.  I could see in towns where there are barely any bushes, but then we'd be forced to... *gasp* ...use tactics! :P

  13. 2 hours ago, jwilly said:

    The infantry game's offensive/defensive balance depends at present on "bush tunnels" as routes across what otherwise would be killing fields. 

    It's perfectly fine to argue that something is unrealistic...I've certainly done my share...but it's not actually helpful to suggest a change that would break a key design-balance.

    The right way to approach such an issue is to suggest two changes...the realism fix you think is needed, and some other change that will fully restore the design-balance that otherwise would be broken.

    I don't know what design options other than bush tunnels would be practical to allow attacking infantry to approach a town with limited spottability. CRS looked at fields of tall grass/crops before...the poly-count to do it with visual realism was way too high. One approach would be to add lots more buildings around the edges of towns, with the spacing gradually opening up with distance. That however would have the effect of making towns bigger, which with low population might make defense impossible.

    I understand that and agree, but it could also come down to a tactic change.  Surely this would all be a lot better with a higher population in the server, but it could be a bit more interesting if you actually had to fight your way into town.  I know that's a funny idea in a war game, but it could work! :P

    I do like the idea of having some more buildings on the outskirts of town, such as farm buildings or other things that could be hidden behind.  Perhaps a few more of those hills could be added as well.  I don't want anything that'd just make everyone lag, but we could add something.  Some towns already have a ton of bushes that makes spotting EI basically impossible.

    Let's not forget that I'm not saying that bushes should be completely impassable barriers.  I just don't think you should be able to sprint 1 km through bushes while guards are watching your way and see nothing.  Maybe with the introduction of more buildable items, such as sandbags, it'll be easier to get close, set up a defensive line, then assault from there.  Or maybe if tanks weren't seen much in smaller towns then a half-track full of soldiers could pull up somewhat close and drop a bunch of troops on the doorstep.

    Perhaps the mortar players will have their day and occasionally we'll be forced to just smoke a field and run for it.  I don't know how often in the war a town was attacked without the defenders being aware until one of their vital buildings was captured.  Maybe if it was easier to see EI coming then we wouldn't need as many AI MG nests.

  14. Tanks would just roll over them anyhow, but trucks and ATGs should have a harder time.  If a truck is going through at full speed then it should take a good dip to it's speed, but maybe if it's going slow it might get stopped at first.  

    I don't mind units hiding while stationary, but it shouldn't be just as easy to move through the bushes as it is flat ground.

  15. I know this might change a big part of how people play now, but I'd like to see bushes that aren't so easy to pass through.  At least for infantry.  In real life when I run into a wall of bushes, it slows me down quite a bit.  What if it worked the same in this game?  What if you were better off staying OUT of the bushes and had to run where people could see you?

    Now, I'm sure it'd be easy enough to enter a bush if you need to hide or crawl into position to fire from.  But I'm not sure I like the idea of troops sprinting at full speed through hedgerows and approaching unseen right next to an AB.  We might as well be allowed to somehow tunnel underground and pop up right inside a CP! :P

    I just think that you should have to pay for staying unseen when moving through the bushes.  Maybe you're moving at a slow walking speed.  Or maybe have anything more than a crawl at least make a rustling noise or some sort of movement of the bush itself.  I know the moving bush probably won't happen for a long while if at all.



    1 person likes this