imded

Bridge AO/DO do we need it?

77 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, delems said:

I support all bridges being able to be destroyed or repaired at all times.

But, if we do that, we need to lower the rank you get for destroying it and repairing it.

From the current 10 to just 1.

 

And we can eliminate bridge auto-repair.  Make it like AI is now.  No more auto-repair.  Stays down until someone repairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the stealth idea and the realistic aspect.

I'd say it should always be possible to destroy/repair but without points. But with an AO there would be points. This would keep the strategic weight of HC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, worldtrip said:

I like the stealth idea and the realistic aspect.

I'd say it should always be possible to destroy/repair but without points. But with an AO there would be points. This would keep the strategic weight of HC.

I'd bomb strategic bridges all day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** I'd say it should always be possible to destroy/repair but without points. But with an AO there would be points.

Interesting idea, but I still think people should get some credit for repairing and destroying.

Could try the 1 point first?  And if too abused then remove it I suppose.

And yes, no more auto repair of course.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great idea.

 

It's not realistic at all that bridges can't be damaged unless someone above you asked for them to be attacked.

 

I like the icon idea as well, and would extend that to a mouse-over status for FBs, ABs and depots, too. Hover your mouse and see the status. Ta-da! You're playing with programmed functions NOW!!!

Some of the most basic things we do all day every day can and should be updated so that we don't need to press a piece of bamboo into some clay and make a cuneiform tablet and hand it off to a runner before a simple thing like checking if a depot is under capture or the health of a FB or bridge. Archaic, not in the quaint form.

Typing ".own"? Not covered in the tutorial, and it's just another added step in the UI that could be trimmed out. 

Example: 

"Hmm, I wonder if they are actually capturing anything in town. I see infantry EWS is light. I'll just go have a quick look. Now, let me see... Right click to join a brigade, wait... the drop down list is too close to the town capture points menu... hold on, I'll zoom way in and isolate the town name ONLY so I can access the flags. OK, Right click, join 3.2... Oh. No missions. OK, I'll make a mission. Back out to brigade.. wait, now I'm back at the active battles tab. Click on a mission I guess? Theater map? Oh, there is the brigade HQ tab, bottom right. OK... now click theater map... choose depot, choose target... create mission. Voila! SIMPLE!!! Now I can spawn in! OK... choose smg... enter world. How EASY was that!??! It only took my ten minutes this time!"

 

Another example:

"I wonder if they are attacking this FB right now... I'll just navigate the entire set of nonsensical UI clicks in the above example and make a mission, then spawn in and have a listen and look. What's that? I can just click the name of the FB on the map and type a dot own command? Awesome! That's SO much easier. Let's see... Click town, wait... that's OUR town. No, their town. OK, there's the FB... click FB name. type dot own... and oh no! the FB is showing damage! That only took me 3 minutes to get this information! That's revolutionary!"

*goes through the above method of making a mission, 2 min later spawns in*

"HA! I have you now!!! I just killed an enemy engineer at the FB. Hey everyone! They're attacking the FB! They've gotten a few more satchels on the vehicle spawn. I'll check the damage status now. Let's see... click on FB, (ha, it's already highlighted! This is gonna be easy!) Wait... that doesn't work... Now I have to click on the host town again, THEN click on the FB again and type dot own again. This is SO EASY! Wait... why isn't anyone HELPING ME DEFEND? Maybe they're too busy clicking UI options like madmen or having their forearms massaged to alleviate the cramping."

 

Another example:

"They're attacking Sedan?!? I'd better check to see if the bridges are still up! Let's see... Click the town, zoom in... yes... wait, the bridge icon isn't next to the actual bridge... Oh, ther eit is... over there 3km from the bridge. Now I'll just type that handy little command ".wn" *"Unrecognized command." Uh oh... Oh. I missed the "o" in my haste. Silly me. ".own" OK, bridge is showing 89% damage, standing. I'd better go take it down! Let's see... Right click on the town name, drop down menu... join brigade... now make a mission... and... enter world. Jog over to bridge from nearest depot... OK... dammit... no AO on the bridge. Crap. I'll simply ask HC to set an AO on it, that's EASY. Oh, they're telling me they have to wait for another bridge AO to be withdrawn and then they'll set one. Oh NOES!!! I hear Stuarts rolling to town!!! They're getting close to the bridge!!! I'll go get a 50MM ATG and hold them off until we can get the AO!" *Pushes ATG for 5 min from depot to the bridge, dead to MG fire from Stuart* "Rats! Dead. I'd better get an ATG out again!!! They're getting closer! *click, click... click. Pushes ATG again for 5 min and gets set up just on the other side of bridge as Stuarts start to come across... SNAP! Dead to EI rifle.* "Oh man!!!! Where is that AO?!?!?!?"

 

Seriously. 

I realize resources were not available to consolidate most, if not ALL of these commands into a much more streamlined and user-friendly set of commands, and that while other games came and went, still many more other games went ahead and programmed all of this nonsense into easy to use functions over the last 15 years, but damn... We just showed a bunch of Steam gamers this stuff... 

"When I was young, we had to CLICK a thousand times to do ANYTHING in the UI and we liked it and we loved it. We all had gigantic forearms from exercising our index and middle fingers on mouse clicks to get even the most basic of things to happen while playing this game!"

 

It's out-dated, out-moded and just plain OUT.

 

Edited by vasduten1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vasduten1 said:

It's not realistic at all that bridges can't be damaged unless someone above you asked for them to be attacked.

Huh. I don't think you want to argue realism.

There are three scenarios for something as substantial as a bridge being damaged:  accident of war, intentional at the tactical level but without orders or contravenes orders, and in accord with orders. We can discount the first, because this game doesn't provide for accidents. Clearly we're talking about the second and the third.

In the real WWII--that's the model for "realism"--an individual soldier, or the commander of a low level tactical unit on the battlefield, making their own decision to take down a strategic bridge without either orders from or inquiry to and then agreement by their senior command would be a court martial action.

Imagine if some flyboy or an artillery unit had decided on their own to take out the Ludendorff bridge in February 1945, prior to First Army capturing it in March. The post-war dividing line between West and East Germany would have been several hundred miles farther west. There'd have been hell to pay for the person that took down the bridge. That didn't happen because American soldiers generally followed orders.

CRS's original concept was that this game would have functional high commands, who would decide where attacks would be made and enabled. Lots of players have argued since then for the ability to be Rambos, individually deciding what's fun for them and empowered to go off and do it. Certainly it can be argued that the past and current High Command system isn't as effective as it needs to be. There however is no foundation for an argument that having a High Command structure that determines where attacks will be made doesn't make the game more realistic, and that instead making the game a Rambo-fest would be more realistic.

You could argue if you wanted that CRS should throw out the original concept and intentionally make the game a Rambo-fest. I doubt if CRS wants to go there, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Griefing will occur period.  I like the no AO DO concept too, but there will be somebody who uses this to grief an attack or defense.  Consider Hasselt for instance.  One side always wants the bridge down when attacking or defending.  If you think for one second that somebody won’t spawn on the side that controls the bridge to repair or destroy it; well then I have a bridge to sell you.

How about this, all bridges have a toggle for their side.  HC can choose repair or destroy.  Every bridge for the entire map.  The default would be for destroy for any bridge behind enemy lines and repair for any bridge behind friendly lines.

I very much like the idea of bridges being capture points too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2017 at 11:29 AM, jwilly said:

Huh. I don't think you want to argue realism.

There are three scenarios for something as substantial as a bridge being damaged:  accident of war, intentional at the tactical level but without orders or contravenes orders, and in accord with orders. We can discount the first, because this game doesn't provide for accidents. Clearly we're talking about the second and the third.

In the real WWII--that's the model for "realism"--an individual soldier, or the commander of a low level tactical unit on the battlefield, making their own decision to take down a strategic bridge without either orders from or inquiry to and then agreement by their senior command would be a court martial action.

Imagine if some flyboy or an artillery unit had decided on their own to take out the Ludendorff bridge in February 1945, prior to First Army capturing it in March. The post-war dividing line between West and East Germany would have been several hundred miles farther west. There'd have been heck to pay for the person that took down the bridge. That didn't happen because American soldiers generally followed orders.

CRS's original concept was that this game would have functional high commands, who would decide where attacks would be made and enabled. Lots of players have argued since then for the ability to be Rambos, individually deciding what's fun for them and empowered to go off and do it. Certainly it can be argued that the past and current High Command system isn't as effective as it needs to be. There however is no foundation for an argument that having a High Command structure that determines where attacks will be made doesn't make the game more realistic, and that instead making the game a Rambo-fest would be more realistic.

You could argue if you wanted that CRS should throw out the original concept and intentionally make the game a Rambo-fest. I doubt if CRS wants to go there, though.

Well, no kidding... but we don't have to actually drive and ferry all of the supply with these brigades. HC just clicks a mouse button.

 

I'm just saying that they SHOULD be able to withstand damage or repair without an AO or DO, like RL.

 

Of course having an HC system makes the game more realistic, but really... unless someone intentionally shows up and blows a bridge to grief, having them be available as targets on the fly would be better.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a really radical notion.......no points in the game. This would eliminate griefing all around. Instead, make progress from 'time in game' related. The more you play, well......... I am thinking, and liking the idea, that the use of pontoons would eliminate, somewhat, the random bridge blower, as there would be no real point wasting game time doing that. I've never been an advocate of the HC, AO, DO aspect of the game. Before these things the game was much more strategic. The argument of capping towns far behind the lines could have been relegated to just the immediate towns behind the front lines. Supporting the notion of a breakthrough or an impending one. It was really something trying to scramble a force together to stop a breakthrough..........but I've digressed to nostalgia. IMHO the early years of the game were far more 'realistic'.    

Great thread Imbed.

 

zimm out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zimmer said:

Instead, make progress from 'time in game' related.

Does not bode well for those with jobs and families and yet can hand you your arse in game in 10 seconds or less.
That is simply handing out rank to those with tons of free time and no responsibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, zimmer said:

Here is a really radical notion.......no points in the game. This would eliminate griefing all around. Instead, make progress from 'time in game' related. The more you play, well......... I am thinking, and liking the idea, that the use of pontoons would eliminate, somewhat, the random bridge blower, as there would be no real point wasting game time doing that. I've never been an advocate of the HC, AO, DO aspect of the game. Before these things the game was much more strategic. The argument of capping towns far behind the lines could have been relegated to just the immediate towns behind the front lines. Supporting the notion of a breakthrough or an impending one. It was really something trying to scramble a force together to stop a breakthrough..........but I've digressed to nostalgia. IMHO the early years of the game were far more 'realistic'.    

Great thread Imbed.

 

zimm out

The griefing I am talking about is not about points.  It is about using the other side’s supply to achieve your side’s tactical objective the destruction or repair of a bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, merlin51 said:

Does not bode well for those with jobs and families and yet can hand you your arse in game in 10 seconds or less.
That is simply handing out rank to those with tons of free time and no responsibilities.

I see your point, but if you aren't playing, you're not getting points anyway. Griefing for points is what gets people banned as they aren't patient enough to go through the process. Do you remember the anticipation to get your binoculars??? That was the only time I cared about points.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, arno said:

The griefing I am talking about is not about points.  It is about using the other side’s supply to achieve your side’s tactical objective the destruction or repair of a bridge.

I understand that, and you make good points. 'Bridge griefing' could easily be remedied by not being able to switch sides during the current campaign. Or you could switch only once. Pick a side and stick with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unconvinced that points awarded for hitting bridges are a problem at all. Anything that encourages the airmen of ww2ol to hit bridges requiring destruction is a good thing. The same should apply to engineers that fix'em!

What I'm more concerned about, and which I don't think many of you have fully thought through is this (were AO's/DO's removed from bridges:

Suppose that one side (A) wants a bridge down. The other (B) wants it up, prior to an attack. B side get's 3 blokes and a truck, rebuilds the bridges as A land players, triggering no ews. Unless a passing pilot happens to notice it, all is tranquil until the B landers steam across with a sudden attack....

The existing scheme prevents players from either side from working for their sides interests by playing briefly for the other side and repairing/demolishing the bridge, unless both sides want the same result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That scenario could be addressed by requiring an AO/DO for bridge destruction, and some other form of order for bridge repair.

No repair order, no stealth bridge repairs by "visitors" from the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who-wants-to-be-a-millionaire.jpg

3 hours ago, zimmer said:

I understand that, and you make good points. 'Bridge griefing' could easily be remedied by not being able to switch sides during the current campaign. Or you could switch only once. Pick a side and stick with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jwilly said:

That scenario could be addressed by requiring an AO/DO for bridge destruction, and some other form of order for bridge repair.

No repair order, no stealth bridge repairs by "visitors" from the other side.

Er, isn't that, effectively, what we already have??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get 10 points per trip. You have to place repair kit. Get back to FMS for RTB. Respawn.

Go back to bridge. Rinse Repeat.

It takes 80 repair kits to bring a bridge back up that is completely destroyed.

Despawing takes 10 seconds. The trip to the bridge at min-distance is about 10 seconds. The placing of charge takes about 3 seconds. Now run back to FMS. Despawn, and respawn time too, etc.

So, one round trip = about aprox. 35 seconds minimum. This is for a very close FMS.

Now it is 80 repair kits X 35 seconds = 2800 seconds = 46 minutes and 45 seconds.  <<<< absolute minimum time to accomplish task. Then take into account taking it down again and repeating process. etc.......

Not many will put in that much time with ZERO combat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I would agree that there may be a better way. Perhaps some form of EWS/Different AO system. Allow the mission creator/aviator to target the bridge. This sets off some form of EWS/DO warning. System broadcast along chat as well but generic like a bridge has been targeted for attack. Set a limit on targets like 5 or 6 so spamming is curtailed. Same goes for missions created for repair. Give HC the ability to countermand orders if they feel it's a strategic mistake but have an auto PM go to the player who created the mission so the two can hash it out. In other words, players with enough rank can set the new bridge AO/DO. Game managers curtail griefing from side switching violations and secondary account violations. To curtail direct side switching violations do not allow a player that switched sides to create these types of missions for some length of time that makes sense.

It gets more convoluted in the code but that is why we have what we have because it is the easiest path to take. CRS would have to decide if it is worth the effort or come up with a way to do something similar or effective within the confines of resources and time management. These are just a few ideas to create a different system. Just removing AO's and DO's on bridges does not seem like the proper solution if it is simply done that way.

As for repair, I'm hoping we eventually get an armored SPAA / engineering truck that would accelerate bridge repair or any other engineering function. The mission is set on the bridge and the proximity of the truck does the repair itself while the player mans the AA gun or the commander position while repairs are underway. Otherwise, get a team together to do it more quickly the current way with some over-watch of course.

This leads me to having types of missions a player can create, such as setting an FMS displays a mission tab with a specific equipment and unit layout to be filled. It's not mandatory but an ML could wait for the loadouts/vehicles to be filled before staring the mission (if the ML has not started the mission players have to wait for the ML to spawn) or the ML could start the mission at any point that they wish with then suggested load-outs for joiners to fill but certainly not mandatory that a joiner selects that unit. Have them select the suggested loadout and then have a change unit option. You'd have to track available equipment and positions that become available during the mission so it stays updated. Kind of leading them into it. More convoluted coding so maybe that's for 2.0.

War is messy, so remember that if you cannot find something completely ungreifable  just try and make it something that Game Managers can track relatively easily and take action. There is a reason why most sports have referees, otherwise everything devolves into a lot of griefing or a smack-down. Always a balance that is hard to strike.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, imded said:

To get 10 points per trip. You have to place repair kit. Get back to FMS for RTB. Respawn.

Go back to bridge. Rinse Repeat.

It takes 80 repair kits to bring a bridge back up that is completely destroyed.

Despawing takes 10 seconds. The trip to the bridge at min-distance is about 10 seconds. The placing of charge takes about 3 seconds. Now run back to FMS. Despawn, and respawn time too, etc.

So, one round trip = about aprox. 35 seconds minimum. This is for a very close FMS.

Now it is 80 repair kits X 35 seconds = 2800 seconds = 46 minutes and 45 seconds.  <<<< absolute minimum time to accomplish task. Then take into account taking it down again and repeating process. etc.......

Not many will put in that much time with ZERO combat.

 

I prefer to put ammo box on bridge
and just stay there reloading and repairing
Goes faster than despawning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** It takes 80 repair kits to bring a bridge back up that is completely destroyed.

Unless something changed, it only takes 40.

And way to easy to get repair points if we allow all bridges to be destroyed or rebuilt at will (which we should).

Thus, go to 1 point per HE or wrench; possibly 2.

 

That being said, repairing a bridge is too easy, needs to be 120 or 160 kits.

I think destroying is probably ok, always easier to destroy than create.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Provide something like 8 bridge AO's for a side.

If an AO goes up, automatically the other side gets a "repair bridge" AO on same bridge.

Give HC 6 Bridge AO's.

Give the player base 2 bridge AO's.... using some command, only players at a certain rank  (not too high) (or perhaps with a mission in the area) can use it.

There are a lot of times I wished I could just bomb a bridge knowing that it would have a positive impact on my sides efforts. However, there is the griefing problems and just being a plain old [censored] (POA) problem with any bridge being available for destruction. However, fortunately, there are few POA's in game, people seeking to ruin the fun of others, so that may be less of a concern.

Just a thought.

S!

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Elfin said:

Provide something like 8 bridge AO's for a side.

If an AO goes up, automatically the other side gets a "repair bridge" AO on same bridge.

Give HC 6 Bridge AO's.

Give the player base 2 bridge AO's.... using some command, only players at a certain rank  (not too high) (or perhaps with a mission in the area) can use it.

There are a lot of times I wished I could just bomb a bridge knowing that it would have a positive impact on my sides efforts. However, there is the griefing problems and just being a plain old [censored] (POA) problem with any bridge being available for destruction. However, fortunately, there are few POA's in game, people seeking to ruin the fun of others, so that may be less of a concern.

Just a thought.

S!

 

This would be great.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would give the Paratroopers a purpose.  Set up defence , cough  cough I say it again small FMS for Paratroopers with a 1/4 spawn list of said Brigade with the option of spawning light ATG and AAA to secure said Bridge or guard it from being repaired or destoyed by the other side. 

There could actually be behind the line battles raging between Paratroopers without Tanks just Troopers and light AAA and ATG. 

Maybe once the Paratroopers have taken a Bridge after 5 or 10 min there could be a Parachute icon by the Bridge to indicate there is something going on so the other side can respond. Also maybe have an active capture point like a guard house . 

The Paratrooper could enhance the game by so many aspects besides being sheep led to slaughter over an AO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dre21 said:

It would give the Paratroopers a purpose.  Set up defence , cough  cough I say it again small FMS for Paratroopers with a 1/4 spawn list of said Brigade with the option of spawning light ATG and AAA to secure said Bridge or guard it from being repaired or destoyed by the other side. 

There could actually be behind the line battles raging between Paratroopers without Tanks just Troopers and light AAA and ATG. 

Maybe once the Paratroopers have taken a Bridge after 5 or 10 min there could be a Parachute icon by the Bridge to indicate there is something going on so the other side can respond. Also maybe have an active capture point like a guard house . 

The Paratrooper could enhance the game by so many aspects besides being sheep led to slaughter over an AO.

Hi dre21,

I would prefer to let the transport plane, if it is able  to land, to place an FMS like the truck placed ones. Reason being that if it is infantry placed, folks will start dropping a paratroop ML near a front-line AOs just to be sneakier than a truck. I think it would be overused or abused. A plane landing in the field is another matter all together. I'd also prefer it if the supply was limited to only infantry paratroopers as I'm unsure how a load of ATGs fits into a plane with the troopers (maybe one or two light AA but the plane has to land) or in an ML paratroopers pocket. We do have to bend realism in certain areas like spawns but there has to be a limit from my point of view.

With the new Hybrid system coming and each town having supply available in the background for line movements and with player triggered AOs, allow a smaller number of para be able to trigger an AO by doubling or tripling their unit count rate for such a thing. Then once the AO is triggered allow the garrisoned supply start trickling in for defense. I would give the paratrooper FMS a good bit of infantry supply. I would then allow a separate transport plane be able to deploy a supply box that parachuted down with a few (3 tops maybe) very light AA to help with air and antipersonnel defense at FMS. Or the transport plane could drop a crate first then land nearby to set an FMS. For bridges you need paratrooper engineers to make sense but they could resupply at the dropped supply crate if we had one and they would have to trigger a bridge AO if one where available. Bombers would be easier.

Paratroop assaults need to be inherently dangerous, require coordination and have limited supply unless some form of air drop logistical support arrives, and hopefully nearby. The mission should be able to be shut down with a moderate defense unless the paratroopers work quickly and efficiently. That is jut my point of view. But I do agree that they should be used mainly for behind the lines operations instead of dropping them into a hot zone. Why I rarely join unless I'm familiar with the operators of said mission. Some vets can speak to this more than I can but I always thought paratroopers where rarely dropped directly into a known hot zone historically. I'm also unsure of the kits available in game. Are there paratrooper engineers and sappers? It's been a while since I've played a paratrooper.

Some good food for thought though.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.