Quincannon

Remove FB Status Monitoring

48 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, delems said:

I thought about FBs last night.

The FB mechanic is a terrible design point.  This game is about fighting.  FBs stop all fighting and ruin 100s of players action.

FBs are anti game action, they aren't just neutral - they destroy game action!

Let me say that again, FBs destroy game action, they should be treated like the plague.
 

Attacks should only stop for 4 reasons:

-Attacker runs out of supply

-Attacker can't break through - gets bored and moves on

-Defender runs out of supply

-Defender tactically beat and loses town (or they pull out)

 

I would p1 or p2 the removal of FBs from game immediately.

Instead, make a single FB, about halfway between the two towns, and make it capturable.

Simplest would be just to use the existing FB bldgs, add a CP or two and wala - capturable FB.

I would also make FBs hot and capturable at all times; they would never go away, one always exists between the 2 towns, just it may change owners.

The owner can spawn there, just like today.

 

This would provide many fights across the map (every FB would always be up and hot) and always provide a way to bring gear up from rear towns - FBs would never go away.

This should really be pondered and discussed.

 

To a point I agree with you Delems. That point diverges when you want only ONE FB halfway between towns. I hate to say it, but that distance is just too far to be effective. When I have espoused the idea of making the FBs capturable, I have always said that we need to have both of the FBs in play, which allows for the side trying to advance to move forward in stages. It's just too far to try to deploy JUST to take one FB, and then IF the FB is taken, to try to do the same thing again. With this, IF a side were willing to commit to a full scale battle just to gain an FB, then they would have to do it again just to be able to start the AO on the town. I seriously doubt that people want to see battles where entire brigades are drained on the front over capturable FBs, and then the town is never taken because all supply was used trying to cap the FB. The idea of capturable FBs sounds good until you look at the logistics of taking one and then still trying to set up on an AO.

And I have to say this. Your reasoning about FBs is well over a year old. You are giving one reason to get rid of FBs: That they could potentially be blown DURING an attack. When was the last time that happened, since they made them essentially harder to kill than Fort Knox? I cannot remember the last time someone mentioned a HOT FB going down during an attack. If this was still an issue, I would agree with you, but it hasn't been a regular issue since the damage threshold upgrade. if it were to happen, it would be so rare and such a feat as to be a pretty big deal, and I would be willing to recognize someone who pulled it off.

Personally, I cannot imagine, as a map officer, any time where i would be willing to risk the entire supply of a town for an FB fight that would still leave us half a town away with already depleted supply before even being able to deploy the first FMS to an AO where they know we are coming. It would be tantamount to  giving the enemy the forward town I would be attacking from.

Right now the issue with FBs is not that killing them shuts down attacks; It's that it can be almost impossible to bust one to get the opportunity to attack, and then doing so alerts the enemy that you are planning to attack, so that they can shut you down before you can get set up TO attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

***  I cannot remember the last time someone mentioned a HOT FB going down during an attack.

Has happened today, multiple times even.

 

 

***  I hate to say it, but that distance is just too far to be effective

It's at most 1 km more... 90% of the time.

Not only that - think of all the terrain we would finally get to use; and the cross country battles.

Sure, might not be exactly the right way to go; I was just tossing up a solution off the top of my head.

And, the more I think about it, a capturable FB is really no different than our current one much; for, soon as enemy captures your FB, your attack is done... thus still removing all action and killing the fun of 100s of players.  I'll have to think on this some more.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 2:38 PM, Quincannon said:

To a point I agree with you Delems. That point diverges when you want only ONE FB halfway between towns. I hate to say it, but that distance is just too far to be effective. When I have espoused the idea of making the FBs capturable, I have always said that we need to have both of the FBs in play, which allows for the side trying to advance to move forward in stages. It's just too far to try to deploy JUST to take one FB, and then IF the FB is taken, to try to do the same thing again. With this, IF a side were willing to commit to a full scale battle just to gain an FB, then they would have to do it again just to be able to start the AO on the town. I seriously doubt that people want to see battles where entire brigades are drained on the front over capturable FBs, and then the town is never taken because all supply was used trying to cap the FB. The idea of capturable FBs sounds good until you look at the logistics of taking one and then still trying to set up on an AO.

And I have to say this. Your reasoning about FBs is well over a year old. You are giving one reason to get rid of FBs: That they could potentially be blown DURING an attack. When was the last time that happened, since they made them essentially harder to kill than Fort Knox? I cannot remember the last time someone mentioned a HOT FB going down during an attack. If this was still an issue, I would agree with you, but it hasn't been a regular issue since the damage threshold upgrade. if it were to happen, it would be so rare and such a feat as to be a pretty big deal, and I would be willing to recognize someone who pulled it off.

Personally, I cannot imagine, as a map officer, any time where i would be willing to risk the entire supply of a town for an FB fight that would still leave us half a town away with already depleted supply before even being able to deploy the first FMS to an AO where they know we are coming. It would be tantamount to  giving the enemy the forward town I would be attacking from.

Right now the issue with FBs is not that killing them shuts down attacks; It's that it can be almost impossible to bust one to get the opportunity to attack, and then doing so alerts the enemy that you are planning to attack, so that they can shut you down before you can get set up TO attack.

I guess you all don't remember the game before we had Forward Bases where you either walked from one town to the other or you all piled into a truck and drove to the town you were attacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After thinking about this, the solution needs to incorporate not allowing the FB to fall at AO towns. (or ppoFB that can be rebuilt)

So, remove all the static FBs; and either replace with ppoFB (1 per flag) or a single static FB hallway between the towns.

 

This static FB halfway between the towns is always hot and capturable - unless, it is linked to an AO/DO town  - the it is uncapturable.

If we go with ppoFB (better i think), then it can be destroyed - but the battle isn't over - as the attacker can just rebuild further back; basically it means the enemy has overrun your forward position.

 

Attacks should not stop because a truck and engr take something down- way to destructive to game play.

Attacks should only falter from losing town, stiff resistance or one side running out of supply.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

After thinking about this, the solution needs to incorporate not allowing the FB to fall at AO towns. (or ppoFB that can be rebuilt)

So, remove all the static FBs; and either replace with ppoFB (1 per flag) or a single static FB hallway between the towns.

 

This static FB halfway between the towns is always hot and capturable - unless, it is linked to an AO/DO town  - the it is undestroyable.

If we go with ppoFB (better i think), then it can be destroyed - but the battle isn't over - as the attacker can just rebuild further back; basically it means the enemy has overrun your forward position.

 

Attacks should not stop because a truck and engr take something down- way to destructive to game play.

Attacks should only falter from losing town, stiff resistance or one side running out of supply.

 

1. I used to espouse the concept of a PPO FB. Until it occurred to me that NO AO should be dependent on one player remaining online and in game. An FMS is one thing, but the FB for an entire attack? And it is impossible to guarantee that if the ML disconnects that he will name a new ML. Short: A PLayer placed PPO FB is a bad idea.

2. One static capture able FB between towns doe NOT resolve the issue  created by one side holding FB and preventing the other side from being able to mount an attack unless they start that attack AT the FB, With the only FB halfway between the town, trying to mount any attack would be unlikely because the enemy would be spawned in and hunting FMSs before they spawn from the FB. BTW destroying an FB still shuts down any and all missions from it, which is what effectively stops an attack.

3. Not trying to be offensive, Delems but you have always said that you believe that nothing a defender could ever devise or attempt should allow them to stop an AO. It doesn't matter what CRS would do about placement or design. You want the attacker to win unless they run out of supply. Stiff resistance will only truly matter  if the attacker is unable to set missions, or runs out of supply.  But the truth is that the attacker should not always win just because they have more numbers. If I believed that I would nave have played in the first place.

4. Blowing an FB, especially during an AO is never a job for one man and a truck. Nowadays it requires a full team and is usually stopped with minimal required effort.

I have listened to your reasoning though and it's part of a new idea that I have had. :)

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False on your analysis.

A) If a ppoFB is built, obviously there is an attack coming; it will be full of 100s of players making missions and aFMSs off of it.  So what if that ML dies that started the ppoFB?  There are 100s of others on the attack that would default to the mission leader.

BB) How could the enemy be spawned at my static FB?  That is no different than sitting at an enemies FB today; and it rarely rarely happens.  And there is no way they could be at the FB if we decided to attack, because the static FB would be some 3 to 5km away from town; there is no EWS that far.  Trucks don't even set off EWS till 700m now!

C) No, I never said I want the attacker to win, I said nobody should be able to end an attack of 100s of players with a truck and engr.  And I'll stand by it.  There are only 3 reasons an attack should end, the town falls, the defender stops them, or either side runs out of supply to keep the fight going.

 

What I'm saying is I want action on the map, and game play that facilitates it; not game play that destroys action on the map.  Any mechanic that allows 1 or even 5 to destroy all the game play by everyone else is terrible imo.  FBs facilitate game play destruction, not action. They require a boring job of guarding the FB, and they encourage ninja attacks to destroy them - both anti fight.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

 FBs facilitate game play destruction, not action. They require a boring job of guarding the FB, and they encourage ninja attacks to destroy them - both anti fight.

Not claiming them to be perfect but i would not go that far as to say they are anti game.

We could hop in the way back and go back back to time with no fire bases.
You put people in a truck, you get your tanks all lined up out at the road, and you go off on a drive that can be between 3 and 12 km
depending on location, which does not sound so terrible at first.
But then when you die, you are back where you started, hoping someone else will come along with a vehicle so you can go on another
maybe 15 or 18 minute ride (Unless you are a matilda or B1 in which case you commit suicide before its over)

It seems great, time should only be half, the defending army should be coming out to interdict you etc, but just doesn't play out that way.

Insert solution:
Firebases. They will bring you to within 2 to 3 km of your target, so you only have to travel 2 to 3 km
and have a place to respawn and regroup from.
There are no FMS/FRU/MSP's at this time, the ability doesnt even exist, so some short transport is needed still for infantry
but the drive time is minimal.

They are made attackable and destroyable so as to still facilitate engagements that are outside of the towns.
Initially they can be attacked by HE shells and Bombs, which is fine but their threshold is too low, they go down too easy.
Shells and Bombs get cut out of the picture instead of just increasing the threshold for destruction a lot, kind of a bummer, as it reduced the battles out at the FB's.

FB's still going down too easy with satchels only, too easy for one guy to run around blowing all the fb's
Destruction Threshold increased much (but still no bombs or HE allowed)
Now FB requires a largish group of engineers if you want to take it down quickly, and game lets you check FB status
so you can thwart the 1 man and a truck FB takedown squad.

So the FB has constantly been reworked so that it is not a simple case of 1 man solo defeates 100, unless the 100 allow it.
Takes too many satchels on target to do suicide runs like the old days, and FB self repairs if left sit.

Really only 2 downsides i see to the FB is
It is not hard enough to take down.
Id rather see it 4 times as hard, BUT accept damage from multiple weapon types
so you can get shelling and bombing and have more going on than just engineer attacks.

It's position is fixed
Be a bit more fun if they were placable within a decent ruleset and you had to go recon and find them
and then attack them and maybe have a battle between 2 opposing FB's far away from town.

But i definitely do not think they KILL fun and KILL battles
they make then more feasible without driving constantly for 15 minutes at morris speed.
They ar enot immortal, but that would make for terrible game play, even the town is not immortal, supply can be cut, spawns can be taken away.

 

Grr bumped button...
What would make FB's more fun to you?

Edited by merlin51

Share this post


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

False on your analysis.

A) If a ppoFB is built, obviously there is an attack coming; it will be full of 100s of players making missions and aFMSs off of it.  So what if that ML dies that started the ppoFB?  There are 100s of others on the attack that would default to the mission leader.

BB) How could the enemy be spawned at my static FB?  That is no different than sitting at an enemies FB today; and it rarely rarely happens.  And there is no way they could be at the FB if we decided to attack, because the static FB would be some 3 to 5km away from town; there is no EWS that far.  Trucks don't even set off EWS till 700m now!

C) No, I never said I want the attacker to win, I said nobody should be able to end an attack of 100s of players with a truck and engr.  And I'll stand by it.  There are only 3 reasons an attack should end, the town falls, the defender stops them, or either side runs out of supply to keep the fight going.

 

What I'm saying is I want action on the map, and game play that facilitates it; not game play that destroys action on the map.  Any mechanic that allows 1 or even 2 to destroy all the game play by everyone else is terrible imo.  FBs facilitate game play destruction, not action. They require a boring job of guarding the FB, and they encourage ninja attacks to destroy them - both anti fight.

 

A. Every time I have despawned while a mission leader, the system warns me that if I do not select a new ML that the mission will go down. If I get disconnected, that mission always goes down. I don't log back in to find a new mission leader was auto-selected. UNless that changes, it doesn't matter how many people are there, the Spawnable goes down. (BTW none of this addresses the idea of other spawnables spawning from a player PPO spawnable, if that is even possible)

B. I did not say that an enemy could spawn AT the FB. I meant that once an attacker captures an FB, then the defender KNOWS they are on the way to attack, and spawns from the defending town to defend and hunt FMSs. The increased distance from the FB to the town would give them even more time to set up a defense and to be ready to hunt down and destroy any incoming FMSs. The more time a defender has, the less likely an AO will succeed.

C. Your points state essentially that the only way an attack should fail is is the attacker stops attacking because they run out of supply. Look at your conditions. Town Falls (Attacker wins); One side runs out of Supply (Only stops an attack if this is the Attacker); Stiff resistance (This is the gameplay hoped for, but resistance alone will rarely cause an attacker to call off an attack UNLESS they run out of supply). Based on this, (as far as I can tell) the only way an attacker can really lose is if they run out of supply.

Also, another point about a Player placed FB: Who decides who can spawn it? Who gets to decide where it gets spawned? How many are there? Does it set off EWS? If all of the FB supply is destroyed, is the unit unable to attack until the supply comes back regardless of the rest of the unti's supply? What if two different people decide to attack multiple towns from the same town? Same supply issue regarding number of FBs available. You can't just link it to every ML with a truck: You would have people trying to set FBs everywhere.

And as far as your statement about 1 or 2 destroying gameplay: Well the current FB system allows that: A very few people can prevent the opposing side from gaining FBs, preventing AOs in the first place. And guarding your FB while attacking? Under the current system the FB status can be monitored with one command well before anyone can blow it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

Grr bumped button...

What would make FB's more fun to you?

I disagree with a few things you said. especially when you advocate making FBs harder to destroy. They are ridiculous now. The only way that it would make any sense to up that threshold would be if you were trying to make them air targets. If that happened they would get air quaked to oblivion so fast and so often that it would make the old engineer FB busts pale in comparison.

 Personally, I never used to have a problem with FBs before the damage threshold was raised. This was not because I liked the idea that they could be knocked out during an AO (Even though the thing that caused me to subscribe and to gain a lifelong love of this game was a FB bust during an AO.  It was probably one of the longest and most intense missions I have played since I started... and the most fun.)

I think that the FB makes perfect sense as a forward staging base. The two problems that i have with them is that:

1. With the current damage threshold and .ow command in effect, one side can potentially hold every FB along the entire line across the map, and if the other side is underpopped, they can AO at will, while the other side cannot blow an FB at all without needing a team of at least 5-7 people. All it takes is one person to watch all of the FBs and call in teams to shut down the busts, and that person doesn't even have to leave the map screen. This situation allow one side to potentially completely shut down the offensive abilities of the other. If one FB is finally captured, the resulting AO has been broadcast. A side needs to own multiple FBs and have multiple AO possibilities to have much of a chance of mounting a successful AO.

2. All supply for an AO gets shut down if the FB goes down. This does not happen when towns don't have FBs, but even if I start an FMS from town, unless we control the FB I cannot set that FMS past the FB. This creates a bottleneck that can't be bypassed.

Look folks. I understand the idea that no one wants the situation where a couple of engineers can STOP the action of an AO by blowing an FB. What i have trouble understanding is the fact that so many people are just fine and dandy with the fact that once a side controls an FB, it only takes one guy at the map screen and a couple of his buddies to stop an AO from being STARTED at all. If it stinks to have an AO in progress shut down by the loss of an FB; why does it not stink that the denial on FBs prevents an AO from ever going up in the first place?

That's the problem. FBs SHOULD be an integral part of AOs. FBs should augment AOs. That makes great sense. They should not be the the end all and be all of AOs.  We have programmed it so that AOs not only cannot succeed without FBs, they cannot even be staged without them. We need a way for AOs to always be possible, despite FB ownership, and for AOs to continue even if the FB goes down. If we can do that, we could  make FB busts viable again. We could consider letting planes bomb them, and more.

One side should not be able to completely shut down the offensive capability of the other, just because they can control the FBs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FB mecahnics are perfect as they are now- each side  fights the FB war some times your winning sometimes losing.

If it ain`t broke imho.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, actonman said:

FB mecahnics are perfect as they are now- each side  fights the FB war some times your winning sometimes losing.

If it ain`t broke imho.

If one side can shut down another completely, then I believe that it IS broken.

People say they want AOs, but then are just fine and dandy when some folks make sure that those AOs can't happen. And this is without even bothering to spawn into the game. When people can win this game from the map screen... that's not good.

Personally, I'm about to make a holy vow to never use .ow or ,own again, as a matter of principal; and to refuse to make or join any mission requested solely on the basis of that kind of info. I know that I'm done with spending my time trying to bust FBs that are defended remotely, or asking anyone else to do it either. As things stand, I may simply avoid anything doing with FBs, regardless of the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Every time I have despawned while a mission leader, the system warns me that if I do not select a new ML that the mission will go down.

Never seen this ever.

 

*** If I get disconnected, that mission always goes down.

Never seen this ever either.  I get disconnected, come back, and my mission still there, with me as ML often still!

 

*** We could hop in the way back and go back back to time with no fire bases.

Why would you even stay this, that is a stupid statement.

We need to improve on what we have, sheesh.  Don't get all dramatic and bring up the past.

 

 

AOs killed because of FBs.... just today.

Sedan, Dinant, St Mene, Sechault, Hoog.  (these are just off the top of my head)

Don't tell me FBs don't destroy action - some great AOs ruined and game play stopped because of FBs lost.

 

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, actonman said:

FB mecahnics are perfect as they are now- each side  fights the FB war some times your winning sometimes losing.

If it ain`t broke imho.

I agree. 

You have everything in your hands to take the FB if you want it.  

If a dedicated group of players wants to hold FBs, you have to take it from them.  You have to fight for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I disagree; at least 5 AOs shut down just today because of the FB "Destroy game play" mechanism - ya, that inspires action.......

PS - looks like Breda AO just shut down because of FBs too - and allies have 2/3 bunkers.... last one at 86%.......    

 

Woot, we busted FB!  Everyone has nothing to do now; good job 3 players, ruining the other 90 players fun.

meanwhile, moe....   (sad, sniffle, guess I should have guarded that FB, but it is so boring ya know.... sigh)

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, moe5000 said:

I agree. 

You have everything in your hands to take the FB if you want it.  

If a dedicated group of players wants to hold FBs, you have to take it from them.  You have to fight for it. 

1. You have to be able to muster up enough extra people (MINIMUM 6-7)

2. You have to have enough engineers to throw away on this  catastrophe in the making.

3. You have to look at the map. If the enemy owns every FB and you DO take this one...You have to understand that by the time you can swap everyone to attack and roll FMSs, they will already have a ton of people spawned in, and that your chances of success are almost nil because they KNOW where and when you will attack.

4. You have to do this quickly because it's likely that they will ALSO have a team coming to bust this base back

5. If you are underpop, there is no reason for you to even try this, because no way you can spare 5 plus players from defending the town that you are trying to save.

The problem is that fighting for the FBs the way things are, means that unless you have a ton of  extra people to spare for this effort, it's a fight that should never have been attempted. Even if you win, you are losing the AO that you need the FB to set up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Breda AO shut down with all FBs lost.

So close too, they had 2 ABs and 3rd at 86%.

So, that 6 AOs shut down today alone (just from memory), because of FBs.

 

Don't tell me FBs don't destroy action.......

 

Share this post


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

The only way that it would make any sense to up that threshold would be if you were trying to make them air targets. If that happened they would get air quaked to oblivion so fast and so often that it would make the old engineer FB busts pale in comparison.

Air, large Caliber HE etc.
Yes it would make them targets, bombers may flock to them, i would hope that they would or it would be boring for the flak traps.
Really the only thing i saw wrong with how they were originally does as far as damage goes is that like 2 or 4 bombs or a few stug or b1 75mm HE
and it was over very quick.
The concept was good, just the hardness of them not thought out too well.

There actually was initially a lot of action at the FB's, flak traps, armor engagements etc, they just were not hardened enough, very difficult to defend against 4 hits, someone is going to get lucky at least 4 times, and that caused the ping pong wars which simply just stunk.

Bombers should really be able to shut down a lot more things in game than they do.
Cherry picking single unit ground targets is really a thing only for a very small subset of bombers, like the stuka and similar.
Flying around hunting single ground targets in things like HE-111, Blenheim, and even DB7 is really in the realm of insanity, when things like new HE and stress modeling comes in, it will be insanity.

More meaningful things for bombers to accomplish means more people interested in flying them.
More people flying egg crates (where they dont need to fly an HE111 / Blen / Etc on the deck) means more juicy targets for CAP, which means more action for escorts, which maybe means getting pilots back, which always make for good flak targets.

 

1 hour ago, Quincannon said:

You have to be able to muster up enough extra people (MINIMUM 6-7)

MINIMUM 1 (Bloodybill, shuts down half the FB's on a map solo by himself, he's like a force of nature or something)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, delems said:

Don't tell me FBs don't destroy action.......

They dont, they just change it.
You can't just have this thing that no one can touch and cant do a thing about and say Ha Ha! im going to attack you with it!
It has to be vulnerable and you have to keep it alive.

The guy you are attacking, sure he wants a battle but he also would like to hold on to his assets as well.
So he goes out and he cuts your supply line.
So dont let him, or go take it back, or if you are that close to victory, try to finish it with the resources you have, or drop paras
or you can even shuttle ground forces with a para plane, just tell them not to jump the hell out (dont ask)
If you have willing bodies, the attack doesn't just have to die

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, moe5000 said:

I agree. 

You have everything in your hands to take the FB if you want it.  

If a dedicated group of players wants to hold FBs, you have to take it from them.  You have to fight for it. 

I think FB battles and FMS vs FMS battles are sometimes more fun then the in city battles that rage on over and over on a daily basis.  

Especially FMS battles , you need to call for help cause alone you won't stand a chance , and with that either the side wins that can muster more people on the FMS, has the better tactical advantage aka location , or just shear luck . They are just intense from time to time.

Same with FB battles , of course if you run an attack and not guard the FB and it gets taken down who's fault is it really ?

Take FBs away ( no FBs at all in the map )  and no one will run an AO anymore cause who wants to drive from one town to another just to get one shotted and then rinse and repeat?

By the time you make it back take a different route that Tank ,ATG changed pos too and bamm another one shotted death and you log cause the hell will you drive another 15min or more cross country . 

The FB is a good medium , it gets taken down , either 

A - defend it

B - counter assault the other FB

C- lick your wounds and find a new AO.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defending an FB nowadays is beyond ridiculously easy.
All it takes to defend every FB on the map is one person and a few mouse clicks. No spawning. No guarding. No real effort.

Once people have gone to the trouble of setting up an FB bust. they spend the half hour or more to set it up and travel there and start blowing it. Now unless they have 2-3 SMGs as well, that one person monitoring, calls in his buddies to come gun the engineers down (net loss likely 2-4 engineers for nothing) and then he goes and gets a cup of coffee and pats himself on the back for being a great team player.
 

I'm waiting for one of those wonderful nights when the OP side owns the entire line of FBs (it happens) and people from the UP soide start complaining that there are no AOs. I will remember and maybe quote things from this thread. But I won't waste my time trying to bust the unbustable FBs, or frustrate myself and other players, and waste good engineers  on a FB bust that, even if it works, tells the enemy exactly when and where we are going to set up the resulting AO. What complete idiot would, with ownership of zero FBs, set up one bust, throw a ton of people at it, and if they win, then go on  to waste their time setting an AO from that FB knowing that:

1. The enemy KNOWS the AO is on the way before he can rally mission leaders for the first truck

2. Any resulting FMSs are going to get creamed before they can set up

3. The enemy will already be mustering an entire team to blow the FB right back, and if he uses the people to try to defend that FB, he won't have anyone to send on the attack.

 

We need some way to utilize FBs but get rid of the setup whereby one side easily prevents the other from having any AO possibilities at all, and can do it with only 3-5 people, while the rest of their pop can AO at will.

If we can't, or worse, don't want to change this system, then everyone needs to stop complaining when people who want to attack log off because there are no viable AOs. We also need to stop complaining that no one is busting FBs. If anyone is going to have to try, it should eb the MOICs and if they can't succeed, then they can't blame the players for not doing it either. Heck, considering how hard it has become, why should they try?

 

And don't tell me that we don't wind up in a situation where one side owns all the FBs. It is not uncommon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps just go back to the old 4 charges on vehicle and 8 on infantry as the default, but double  it up if that FB is attached to a town with an AO on it - then the attack cannot be shut down too easily and the underpop side still has a change to flip an fb elsewhere to launch a relief attack somewhere.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.