Quincannon

Point of Origin Supply Lines

8 posts in this topic

While having a discussion in another thread, I remembered a thought that had occurred to me in the past.

The Problem:

1. In the current system, FBs are a bottleneck on AOs.

2. FBs have been made extremely hard to kill because blowing them up can end an AO.

3. All supply to an AO from a town that links through an FB must be reliant on ownership of that FB.

4. Under the current system, it usually requires a large coordinated group of at least 5-7 people to blow a NON AO FB, putting  a lowpopped side at a disadvantage, as it can stop them from blowing any FBs in order to be able to declare AOs.

The Solution:

1. Change supply lines so that they are dependant on the point of origin of the FMS.

2. Allow an attacker to run FMSs directly from an attacking town (like they currently do from towns with no linking FB). The supply link would not be dependent on the FB.

3. Leave FMSs that originate from the FBs as they are, reliant on the FB as their point of origin.

4. Reduce the amount of damage that it takes to blow an FB. Make FBs non-repairable.

Game play benefits:

1. FBs would  now truly act as Forward Bases. They would not be required for an attack, but greatly reduces time to target.

2. Attackers could set missions  to set up an attack on an enemy before they tried to blow an FB. They could launch an AO from FMSs originating from the town without relying on FB for supply, and THEN blow the enemy FB. giving defenders a chance to defend at their FB to retard the ongoing AO.

3. Defenders who still own the FB could spawn interdiction missions from that FB, attacking enemy trucks and armor as it departed the attacking town.

4.  Removing FB supply requirements would allow a town under attack to counter AO the town attacking it, and to be able to send FMS missions to for that attack, instead of requiring missions from another town to counter AO.

5. FBs would still be important targets.  Attackers would want to have that advance staging base. Everything could spawn nearer. But conversely, they could be destroyed more easily, allowing both sides to mount attacks on the FBs that would have a chance of success. Multiple attacks on an FB would eventually wear it down and in time enough attacks would kill it. And when an FB did go down, all FMSs from that point of origin would go down as well.

6. Smaller teams would be able to blow FBs, especially cold non AO FBs, making those missions fun and dynamic again. The FB campaign could make a comeback without having the old detrimental effect on AOs. Defending FBs would likely become for dynamic, as they moved back and forth during an AO.

The Big Con:

1. Can CRS program the game to allow FMSs from the town to ignore the FB supply link, while at the same time requiring missions from the FB to require the FB supply link as it is now?

I believe that we can set AOs on any town, so that does not require FB ownership. If we removed the problem that prevents an attacked town from spawning FMSs to the attacking town if they don't own the FB, counter AOs would be viable, and we could have battles all the way between both towns, and at the FBs.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea, except FB the FB damage and rebuilding. I feel the amount of effort it takes to blow an FB is about right, and i like that they rebuild over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to offend, but waste of resources!

The Rats are closing on being able to do terrain work. What you want is to get rid of FBs altogether, as is the case currently between many towns, then have player placed positions in between towns - effectively, player placed FBs. Make FMS' permanent as it were, via permanent defense missions or some such, with some rules about where friendly positions may be set vis a vis nme positions. Then you have to fight your way from your front line position through the nme's to the AO. A different fight everytime. Don't waste resources on jiggering a very limited and limiting system, there are no resources to waste, go for the gold! No FBs, create armor FMS', many more PPOs, make defensive positions permanent until overrun or destroyed by the nme, bring the battle into the countryside, make it novel each and every time, no more FB flip-flop, no more every battle the Alamo (still you should remember the Alamo), make the game a war!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, biggles4 said:

I don't mean to offend, but waste of resources!

The Rats are closing on being able to do terrain work. What you want is to get rid of FBs altogether, as is the case currently between many towns, then have player placed positions in between towns - effectively, player placed FBs. Make FMS' permanent as it were, via permanent defense missions or some such, with some rules about where friendly positions may be set vis a vis nme positions. Then you have to fight your way from your front line position through the nme's to the AO. A different fight everytime. Don't waste resources on jiggering a very limited and limiting system, there are no resources to waste, go for the gold! No FBs, create armor FMS', many more PPOs, make defensive positions permanent until overrun or destroyed by the nme, bring the battle into the countryside, make it novel each and every time, no more FB flip-flop, no more every battle the Alamo (still you should remember the Alamo), make the game a war!

NO; getting rid of FBs entirely is not what I want. I hope you were using a figurative statement there.

IN response I would say that your suggestion would require a much larger set of resources, and in fact a complete reprogramming of the way the game works.
Your idea would also require a game population much greater than we have. Maybe you belong to a really big squad, and always see more than a hundred online when you play. When I play, I see maybe...maybe 30-40 on a good day.

Consider that every suggestion that we make requires CRS to rewrite the game. I have always liked to concept of player placed FBs, but realize that ANY player placed spawn relies on that player: Unless someone else takes it from them, which causes a lot of upset, a player placed FB would rely upon them remaining in game, or them naming a new mission leader before logging or moving to a new mission. Imagine the reaction if you had a hot AO with a half a dozen FMSs on a town: You're winning... and suddenly the ML loses connection and he hasn't named a  new ML... the FB goes down, all of the FMSs go down, and the enemy wins because all of a sudden you have no supply at the AO.

You essentially suggest a chaotic running battle all the way from one town to the next, with people building a large number of PPOs. I honestly don't see people doing it that way. People tend to go after targets, unless they are just kill whatever i can find lone wolves.  You want individual players to create the effective equivalent of an FB, and to have them work together. Maybe a large squad might be able to work together to essentially construct a FB, but if you leave it in parts, you have no guarantee that you will have a unified group of PPOs to form a FB. What if no one wants to drive that vehicle spawn? What if you get an inf spawn, and a couple of planes kill every attempt at making a vehicle spawn? What if the players don't agree on placement. and you have vehicle spawns far away from any infantry spawn? There would be no way to spawn infantry to find them. And all of this would create a necessity to have the map show every friendly spawning PPO.

IF we ever go to a player placed FB, they at least need to be full FBs. A way to make sure that they make a new ML if the original despawns would also be necessary. Trying it piecemeal would just cause havoc and would hand the battlefield to large, VERY organized squads on a silver platter. Anything less would just get crushed with little effective resistance. I respect squads, but there is not, and never will be, a way to guarantee that there will be opposing large squads online to oppose each other. There will never be a way to make players join the large squads. Planning for this game has to include the small squads and solo players, or you ignore a large part of the player base that can and will throw off your projections for how the game should be run.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit confused; I thought you could already run an FMS from a town to a target, regardless of FB status.

 

I'd have to check to confirm, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** thought you could already run an FMS from a town to a target, regardless of FB status

You can drive the truck there, but it won't place the FMS :)

You must own the FB to place FMS.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, a Forward Base is an abstraction of front control between two towns on a front. I'm not sure we want to implement anything that ignores that unless it involves commandos, paras, partisans, etc., of which we only currently have paras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, chaoswzkd said:

In any case, a Forward Base is an abstraction of front control between two towns on a front. I'm not sure we want to implement anything that ignores that unless it involves commandos, paras, partisans, etc., of which we only currently have paras.

But the problem we have now is that one guy on the side that controls an FB can monitor it and essentially defend it without ever spawning in. He just clicks .ow and when he sees damage to the FB he calls for defense, and then his buddies spawn in.

The effect that FB control has on the ability to even set up an attack is immensely high. And due to that, unless a side can have a decently large squad who is devoted to FB attacks (and a supply of engineers that are up to the task), then an FB bust attempt winds up being more effective than EWS in broadcasting an impending AO, which allows the defender to interdict pretty much all incoming FMSs.

I always looked at the FBs as a field HQ... a staging ground for an attack where supplies and troops would be gathered to start an attack. That would be fine except for the fact that when a defender knows the AO is inbound and the attacker can't set up FMSs, then the attack is lost before it begins.

The idea here is  merely that FMSs from an attacking town would not rely on an FB. They could be set up without controlling the FB. The FB is still important if you don't want to have to drive all the way from the attacking town. If the defender does not want you to have it, they need to defend their own FB, from which they can spawn ans send missions to interdict town missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.