• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Attention Soldiers Operation Fury Needs you!   02/20/2020

      Attention All Soldiers, Operation Fury needs you.  You need to choose a side and sign up.  
      For more intel on Operation Fury Please click HERE Please go to Special Event Forum (here), And sign up for allied or axis.
      This will be a CRS Lead event on both sides.  Xoom will be heading up the axis side and Heavy265 will be heading up the Allied side. This will be for bragging rights.
      Why are we asking players to sign up you ask. We are trying for a role play experience.   We want this to be a true realistic event.  
      So get up and sign up and let's make this the best event ever!!!!!!!!!!
      Give me your war cry, grrrrrrrrrrrrr
      Heavy265 **out**
XOOM

Feedback: Fortified Mobile Spawn

86 posts in this topic

13 hours ago, delems said:

Only real problem with FMS right now is no ML control of their mission.

I can't disable/enable MS spawning.

I can't disable/enable mission spawning.

I can't kick a player that is being a jerk.

 

So, I spend 15 min, sneak my truck in to 800m; make FMS, then some newb or spy spawns in and sets off EWS - blowing the entire attack setup........

Even better if ML could select which units could be spawned from MS - i.e no ATGs, AA guns, etc.  Allow the ML complete control to disable/enable every unit able to be spawned at a FMS.

 

I agree!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if game mechanics support it, but making the fms a foxhole built into ground would disguise it much better. Not sure where that leaves aa and atgs though? Perhaps uou could have the option to build multiple types of fms's. One, inf only foxhole, super concealed. The other, the existing type ... where u can spawn aa atg etc.

Also, u could consider making them harder to destroy, maybe 6 charges, but that would result in more campy type kills.

How about making them repairable? Have a damage % on them like fb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ya'll say the FRU was killing the game and the FMS is a improvement... i provided simple proof to the contrary in the rax thread.

 

do you seriously think 1-2 FMS's (both sides combined) never getting replaced/up to 1km out/camped constantly is better than the chaotic stream of inf-FRU's?

sure there was no teamwork and co-ordination but was it worse than dead AO's?

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still dead against inf placed FMS, they wrecked the atg and tanking games and gave overpop attackers a huge advantage, wrecking defensive lines which took far more effort to setup. Nothing stops people setting multiple FMS other than expecting someone else to supply their gameplay. 

Lower the audio on trucks to 1k max as a trial? Far too easy to hear them still, this is more of a factor than EWS imho. 

I've found the FMS ability to spawn light guns great for larger fights, I personally would like to see the ability to spawn larger guns at them as tiers progress. Not the big stuff still but certainly M1s, Pak38s, 6pdrs at say tier 2 or 3? This would give the FMS even more punch and ability to ZoC, just a thought ;)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, XOOM said:

I am looking for feedback on the FMS (Fortified Mobile Spawn), please check the following bullet points below as a guideline:

  1. Comparison to the Field Re-Supply Unit (as the main stay mobile spawn)
    1. Better, worse? Why for either?
    2. Have you seen a return of combined arms game play?
  2. Fixes required
    1. Are there issues hurting game play?
      1. If so, name each of them, and a rationale as to the why.
      2. Recommended solutions?
  3. Has the reduced truck EWS increased their survivability?
  4. Has the reduced FMS deployment timer:
    1. Increase survivability?
    2. Maximize the number of placements within the campaign?
    3. Gave the underpopulated side better defensive capability?
  5. Other feedback not outlined above, solutions required!

PLEASE MAKE THIS DISCUSSION UNBIASED AND PRODUCTIVE.

I. Comparison:

 1. I believe that in general, the FMS is better than the FRU. It's tougher. It makes more sense than having dozens of them being set up in bushes everywhere, preventing any  effective zones of control or perimeters. It can't simply be dropped by mission leaders once located and rebuilt a few minutes later.w

    That said, and despite my personal distaste for FRUs... a lot more people were willing to set up the FRU... mostly because it was much easier to set one up successfully, and once set, was much harder to locate.

2. I have seen the FMS create more combined arms play in order to destroy it, at least until the ability of armor to help destroy it was removed. Air is more likely to take it out as well, so we do have more CAS going after the FMS. Unfortunately the FMS hasn't inspired more combined arms on the part of the owning side. This is at least in part because it's hard to set an FMS with a truck. Make a truck travel at the speed of a protective tank? Not necessarily a very survivable idea, And ATG at an FMS tends to die quickly, There isn't any real cover for them. Engineers can build ATG pits, but few are willing to use them. The FMS tends to be primarily an infantry only setup in many cases.



II. Fixes:

1. Issues:

   A. One of the biggest problems is truck audio. It has always been easier to track than other armor. It extends too far, and allows for relatively easy detection.

   B. The FMS stands out. The tank traps are part of the giveaway, and it definitely has a recognizable silhouette. I'm not saying that it was a bad design, but with our current terrain, an FMS can stand out like a sore thumb.

  C. The FMS is really easy to camp once detected, and requires that players spawn engineers to build much in the way of defenses, Spawning infantry and  atgs can be easy targets

  D, While the FMS is tougher than a FRU, it can be taken down by ONE engineer.

  E. It's so easy to find an FMS and either camp or destroy it before it can even get going, many players don't want to try to set them up.

2. Solutions

  A. Reduce the truck audio. It would greatly increase the chance that a truck can set an FMS without immediately being detected.

 B. Either alter the external design of the FMS, or create  some kind of camouflage PPOs that infantry can build to help hide it. Do not restrict these PPOs solely to engineers. Maybe utilize a more sloped design with more low bushes.

 C. We need new, better defensive PPOs. ATGs are completely exposed  when spawning in. If an enemy has detected the FMS, they are sitting ducks. New PPOS need to be buildable by NON engineer units as well.

D, The FMS toughness needs to be revisited. One single engineer should not be able to kill it. If nothing else, make the FMS require 6 satchels to destroy. This would require two engineers, and engineer with a truck, or engineer plus riflemen. Not a huge difference, but follows the same principle used with CPs in towns.

E. Finding a way to let folks set the FMS up and then for it to stay up long enough to be useful, would help players feel that it's not a waste of time.

 

III. Survivability: Yes. Not sure how much, but any  EWS  reduction is a bonus to the truck's survival.

IV. I think that a faster set time has helped somewhat, but the other drawbacks  are what I really influence the number of FMSs attempted by players. People want to set up missions that they believe can succeed and are worth their time. I'm really not sure how much this has affected underpop.

 

IV. Feedback: Possible solutions
     

1. Make Truck audio and EWS range the same. Set it to say 500 meters. If a truck stays at 500 meters plus, they do not set off EWS, giving FMS builders a chance to get set up closer to a town, and players a chance to start spawning.

2. Delayed INFANTRY/truck (Only) EWS. Have a 5 (Maybe even 10) minute delay timer on EWS before infantry/trucks show to the enemy. This would allow an FMS to be built and some players to start spawning defenses before the enemy knows its there.

*Remember the bug with American trucks? They didn't show on EWS, and it was easier to set up attacks. But it didn't truly harm the game. I don't think we should go so far as to make all trucks completely invisible to EWS, but if we made it harder to see and hear them, then they might be able to get set up... and that should eb a goal: To allow more FMSs to be successfully set. We used to kill FRUs all the time and people kept bringing more because they were able to set them up and keep coming. But is someone tries to set up a spawn more than a couple of times and they get killed on before they can even get set up, or get detected and blown immediately, they are not usually going to try a third time.

3. Better defensive PPOs. I love the PPOs. They are great, but they are NOT that great for defense of an FMS. The ATG pit is just as visible as the FMS, and building several, while making it a bit harder to see exactly which is the actual fMS... actually makes it easier to locate the FMS. The sandbag wall as it is, provides minimal protection for the time and effort.

 A. Consider adding an earthwork wall. A manmade berm, if you will; that could be built around the FMS to help hide it and provide some defense. These could be built by any infantry you choose... Here's one example:

4613011373_6d1460d31b.jpg

Now the photo shows a very low version, but look at how it blends in... make it the height of a small berm... you provide camouflage AND defense for infantry and ATGs.

 

04_fe9f33df-c227-47ee-ba88-0556f8a90eb5_

Also consider a different sandbag wall. Right now we have a small line. If they locked together, it might be OK, but it's not really how most were built in a field. Most would have been circular or semicircular emplacements. Consider adding the following type of sandbag wall in addition to flat and straight:

USA-P-Rabaul-p354.jpg

This provides side protection and if wide enough, could be used for atg or even tank cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. Comparison to the Field Re-Supply Unit (as the main stay mobile spawn)
    1. Better, worse? Why for either?
    2. Have you seen a return of combined arms game play?
  2. Fixes required
    1. Are there issues hurting game play?
      1. If so, name each of them, and a rationale as to the why.
      2. Recommended solutions?
  3. Has the reduced truck EWS increased their survivability?
  4. Has the reduced FMS deployment timer:
    1. Increase survivability?
    2. Maximize the number of placements within the campaign?
    3. Gave the underpopulated side better defensive capability?
  5. Other feedback not outlined above, solutions required!

1.1 Better in general, but the FMS is very easy to see and locate. It would be nice another option like the Urban FRU but in the field and only to spawn inf.

1.2 Definitely much more than Inf placed MS times.

2.1 FMS are difficult to set cause the audio: Decrease the volume of trucks

      ML cant manage the Mobile Spawn: Allow ML to open and close the MS during the mission

      ATG hard to leave the FMS: Improve or move the place to spawn...Dont know..

      Inf spawns in the same place, making to easy the camp: If it is posible randomize the spawn location for the inf. Always spawn in the same location, too easy to get in front, and camp it.

     FMS are very easy to locate: Allow to place the Urban Fru in the field for Ninja/spec ops operations.

3. It has improved the way to set up an AO. 

4.1 Yes

4.2 Not sure...

4.3 Yes, I suppose

5. IMHO the motors audio volume must be decreade ASAP.

    The ML has to have tools for manage the Mobile Spawn

    More and better defensive PPO's. ESPECIALLY those for cover the FMS spawn.

    We need more types of mobile spawns like the urban FRU in the field for example. But NEVER inf placed MS.

S!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by kase250

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infantry only in-ground bunker. Keep the old design for a 2nd mobile spawn type so you get the option when placing. Would need stairs or ramp or something. Would like to see metting be more of a green camo as well.

Having multiple mobile spawn types that you can place would be cool because players wouldnt be pre preogrammed to look for just one style of ppo.

 

thumbnail.png7E952E39-C9EE-4AC9-8229-91A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree fixes to the spawn points need work.........no matter what "spawn" is placed in the field it will be eventually camped.  We need to get the fights into town quicker which may take pressure off the spawn points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fixes requiredAre there issues hurting game play?

If so, name each of them, and a rationale as to the why.

Recommended solutions?

@XOOM

1. The first problem is the difficulty to set it up. Trucks remain fragile units. Why not allow the ML to set up his FMS using another vehicle (CS tank? T0 tanks?)

2. The second problem of the FMS is the camping situation. Extra PPOs and a redesign to a 360 degree fortification allowing mortars, ATG and AA to spawn safely could fix this easily.

3.  Allow the ML (only) to spawn trucks from his FMS and move it around from there. He will become able to do hot drops, but also fallback or advance the FMS.  Still the ZOC must be under control to do this. This is very different than inf-placed FMS’ as it prevents to move it beyond a destroyed bridge for instance.

4. The third problem of FMS is that any attack dynamics is very dependent to it, and still there is no real teamplay resulting from it. It misses its objective to contribute to combined-arms groups moving together from a ZOC.

 The current gameplay design indeed  transform FMS’ into randomly-poped origins of uncoordinated ant lines.

I may have a very simple suggestion for this, by modifying the respawn rules when KIA: allowing players to respawn at least a few times at the closest friendly CP in range, without needing to travel from the origin or FMS. It would decrease the dependence of fights' momentum to FMS' and empower a real teamplay experience around town objectives, especially for paras. It would also support combined arms movements from the FMS towards these objectives. I made another post about this:

5.  Leave a destroyed/abandoned state PPO when the FMS is destroyed/removed, so that remaining units can continue the fight and other units can eventually make their own use of it.

6. As mentioned by others, rework the sound fade-out gradient of truck engines, setting it to zero at 500m?

 

Other points?

I would suggest to Bring the inf-placed FRU and the manned MSP back, but wit a DEFENSIVE role only, within X meters of its origin  (and 300m away from enemies’ facilities)

- An inf-placed FRU would be placed within 500m of its origin and only spawn RIFFLES and SMGs. A kind of portable radio  (destroyable by rifle calibre) should be placed by feet by the ML, ideally deployable inside other PPOs or inside any building ( if do-able) to bring more variety on town battles. The FRU would die as soon as the ML dies, despawn, or eventually moves more than 100m away from it. The ML cannot therefore make use of his own FRU, it just helps him to create a temporary squad.

- If the ML drives a truck, he can set up a manned MSP (but no FRU) within 1km of its origin and spawn only RIFLES and SMGs.

Note that the ML with a truck would have two options (FMS or manned MSP).

If a FMS has already been deployed, my idea would be that a FRU or a manned MSP would replace the FMS only for players spawning a rifle or smg. Other units would still spawn at the FMS. This gives some kind of control for the ML, « forcing » a few units to stick to his location as if it had been a real squad moving together, independently of the FMS role focused on a ZOC.

So defenders that manage to break a siege can simulate a small garrison support, but without presenting any direct danger for the enemy armor and eFMS in their ZOC. Their objective is to clear/hold an area until it becomes relevant to deploy a defensive FMS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

2. Delayed INFANTRY/truck (Only) EWS. Have a 5 (Maybe even 10) minute delay timer on EWS before infantry/trucks show to the enemy. This would allow an FMS to be built and some players to start spawning defenses before the enemy knows its there.

In real life greater number of troops would be detected more easily so it could be done something similar to capping times.

One truck inside EWS zone -> X minutes delay 

Two trucks inside EWS zone -> X/2 minutes delay

Three trucks inside EWS zone -> X/3 minutes delay

More than 3 trucks triggers EWS

Less than X Infantry 50mts around FMS do not trigger EWS (they are fortifying)

More than X infantry spawning in FMS inside EWS area triggers EWS. There should be a warning before spawning about it with colours or message.

"Maximum number of sneaky infantry reached. Your spawn will cause EWS triggering"

Infantry more than 50mts away from FMS trigger EWS, they are attacking.

Edited by piska250

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FMS’s are more difficult to camp if the spawn point is placed in a bush.  PPO bushes would really help.  Think of it as engineers cutting brush for camo purposes.  Not a total solution but would be helpful.

Edited by GrAnit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let a Truck spawn / build up to 3 FMS at a time  , in the spawn screen there would need to be an option then where you would like to spawn FMS Alpha ,Beta ,Charlie. 

It also make it harder to get spawn camped cause now depending on how and where u set up you can cover each FMS or if one does get camped you can back door the ET or INF , shut it down and you still have 2 FMS to ur disposal and an Attack or a DFMS would still be active to be spawned from.

Also more PPOs  , barbwire, tipped over trees , camo netting , mines * if possible *  colliding sandbags so that you can actually make a wall .

Give Para units a option to set a FMS ( they drop in NO AUDIO ) they ( ML ) sets up a FMS ( green tent)  ATG ,AAA and Paratroopers can spawn from there and initiate attack or a defence. * This would make a perfect 1st in, kinda scenario before an AO is set on a town , Troopers could  set an initial zone making it harder for others to get out of town so the Attacking unit has a chance to set a few FMS .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think another discussion on alternate FMS/FB/spawn mechanics is needed

lotta interesting but irrelevant ideas here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the current FMS is more or less ok the way it is now.  

No game design changes will ever 100 percent stop spawn camping.

Its up to the playerbase to organize better defense around their MS and setup ZOC around them.

90 percent of the FMS setup are totally left unguarded.  Don’t blame the FMS if you don’t even bother to protect it.

Edited by krazydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, I get many kills by sitting close to an FMS and waiting for the engie to arrive!

Perhaps alternative exit points would help (a little) against the camp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you get into any further tweaking of the Audio ranges re. FMS capable veehikles - fixing the glaring disparity in Engine-Off coasting ranges between the prime FMS vehicles Opel / Morris / Laffy is required.

Any Audiio reduction before THAT is done is, to put it mildly, idiotic.

It is comical enough as it is right now - EWS on an Axis town - spawn in to check it out, get on top of CP, do one, two 360s, all silent yet suddenly you see a morris top or two zipping through the bushlines NW / SW / SE 500m away, stopping, setting up - never any engine audio hence they were coasting, offroad, either from 1.5k+ to almost within mindis, no Audio or they do a complete semicircle around town coming in W and setting up SE/E coasting.

 

And thats only towns w EWS - out in the "field" and at FBs its even more retarded - you have a ZOC on a town / defend an FB and you still get shafted by silent EFMS being setup behind you due to that insane coasting ability, is no different from INF placed FRUs really, unless you try to do the same w an Opel.

 

SO first thing: Fix Coasting disparities Opel/Morris/Laffy

 

..then you can fiddle w the other crap

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2018 at 2:54 AM, XOOM said:

I am looking for feedback on the FMS (Fortified Mobile Spawn), please check the following bullet points below as a guideline:

  1. Comparison to the Field Re-Supply Unit (as the main stay mobile spawn)
    1. Better, worse? Why for either?
    2. Have you seen a return of combined arms game play?
  2. Fixes required
    1. Are there issues hurting game play?
      1. If so, name each of them, and a rationale as to the why.
      2. Recommended solutions?
  3. Has the reduced truck EWS increased their survivability?
  4. Has the reduced FMS deployment timer:
    1. Increase survivability?
    2. Maximize the number of placements within the campaign?
    3. Gave the underpopulated side better defensive capability?
  5. Other feedback not outlined above, solutions required!

PLEASE MAKE THIS DISCUSSION UNBIASED AND PRODUCTIVE.

1.1 Better. The Fortified Spawn is more of a field choke/control point, whereas the crates were not

1.2 Probably not. Air numbers seem low

 

2.1 The Fortified spawn is vulnerable to camping, even if defended. Amend the design so the Fortifoed spawn can be a safe spawn point, so spawners have cover and firing points against snipers and LMG campers.

2.1 The Fortified spawn is not vulnerable to all infantry, only those with satchels. Amend the design and infantry weapons so that every infantry player in the game world can blow a FMS with a grenade thrown into the 'nest'. Blowing with a satchel is still too ninja

 

3. Yes

 

4.1 Yes

4.2 Increased, yes. Maximised, probably not

4.3 No, I do not think the underpop benefits from this.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main improvement I'd make would be the addition of a rear wall to the FMS so that players can spawn in and not be immediately killed by enemy cutters. I would also advocate narrow view slits so spawners could counter infantry cutting

086-DSC_0486-001.JPG

 

The damage model should be amended so that a grenade thrown into the unit destroys the unit, and all infantry units should be given at least one grenade. The satchel placement process still seems to prevent destruction. 

The position of the FMS in the overall design should be a field choke point, a point to fight over, a point to defend. For players to fight over the FMS, it must be both defendable and killable, I don't think this balance is nailed down at the moment.

 

There are real potential benefits in looking at broader aspects of the FMS, such as whether it is possible to have placement of a FMS dependent on the area being free of enemy FMS. If this is achievable, you're looking at a potential game changer, as forces fight for territorial control in order to place strong FMS

Edited by Silky
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried to stay out of this thread... but cant. Primarily because I am very bias toward the FMS.  I think its idea is FANTASTIC even with its problems, its beats the pants off of the player placed MS.  I think that the FMS should be able to be built out "customized" or upgraded with other PPO options so they can be better defended. They ARE fortified, they should have the option to be fortified in a way the better suits the terrain and situation the PB are in.  IE PPO reventments, Hi-walls, corner pieces, even portions that have gun slits in them. Something that can would need to be stormed if built out.  I can see a series of FMSs interlocked with these custom PPOs that in essence can be the beginning of a something akin to a OP. Some of the PPO options should have a higher tolerance for destruction.. as being upgraded.. IE.. the build out first is the low wall, then you can upgrade it to a highwall sand bags, and again to a earthen berm. Something that can take bomb damage. Unlike the PPOs now that go down with a single bomb.  The reasons for these types of dynamic constructions IMHO will be paramount in light of the new HE and to improve the FMS function so that they can be fortified logically.

 

OH and I think ppl forget that we also have the option of the MS still. IIRC they can only be deployed in towns but mb we should rethink that and allow them for all terrain.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

OH and I think ppl forget that we also have the option of the MS still. IIRC they can only be deployed in towns but mb we should rethink that and allow them for all terrain.

Is the build time the same as the FMS?

If not perhaps infantry only MS could be halved and tahts not a bad idea Stank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Pittpete said:

Is the build time the same as the FMS?

If not perhaps infantry only MS could be halved and tahts not a bad idea Stank.

ITs only 1 minute to build, I don't think it needs to cut. Though at times the MS is more suitable to the FMS but you cant because you are not inside a town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Silky said:

The main improvement I'd make would be the addition of a rear wall to the FMS so that players can spawn in and not be immediately killed by enemy cutters. I would also advocate narrow view slits so spawners could counter infantry cutting

The damage model should be amended so that a grenade thrown into the unit destroys the unit, and all infantry units should be given at least one grenade. The satchel placement process still seems to prevent destruction. 

The position of the FMS in the overall design should be a field choke point, a point to fight over, a point to defend. For players to fight over the FMS, it must be both defendable and killable, I don't think this balance is nailed down at the moment.

There are real potential benefits in looking at broader aspects of the FMS, such as whether it is possible to have placement of a FMS dependent on the area being free of enemy FMS. If this is achievable, you're looking at a potential game changer, as forces fight for territorial control in order to place strong FMS

I have always felt this design needed some wort of rear wall.

Let me get this straight... This FMS is being intercepted left and right, due in large part to the truck issue, yet when one does get set, you want it to be destroyed by a single grenade? Are you kidding me? If they did that, who in their right mind would go to the trouble to set up an FMS? It winds up coming down to risk versus reward.... Right now the carrot is almost nonexistent, and you're talking about getting rid of it altogether?

If we make FMSs destroyable by one mere grenade, we will play hob trying to get anyone to set them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Silky said:

The damage model should be amended so that a grenade thrown into the unit destroys the unit, and all infantry units should be given at least one grenade. The satchel placement process still seems to prevent destruction. 

Im not sure, did you mean that how it sounds silky?
Throw one grenade, which all general light infantry have, and poof FMS is gone?

That would probably not make for fun gameplay, one suicidal guy could run up and lob a grenade before he gets cut down, and
you cant pick the grenade up and throw it back out.
That is how the old FRU's worked, and those went down very easy.

Satchels work on them very well, and even plain riflemen can take them down

An item to give some rear side cover i agree is good, just not as part of the FMS because it will hinder placement.
As a PPO instead so you can maintain freedom of placement, some control of visibility etc.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, poker said:

Yup, I get many kills by sitting close to an FMS and waiting for the engie to arrive!

 

THIS ^^^ In My opinion is one huge problem with the FMS and PPOs. Beyond sandbags, the engineer is the only one who can build anything. All it takes is one wise guy (Nothing personal, Poker) with a rifle or lmg to wait and camp. Even if there are a couple of attempts to try to build by a couple of different people, this can take down the engineer complement of a Brigade down by up to a third.

We NEED to allow more PPOs by other units! I understand requiring engineers for larger emplacements, but honestly, for much of the labor, regular infantry were used. We has what? About 20 engineers per brigade? Some days when I log in I can't find a single one anywhere. Personally, I'm beginning to think CRS goofed when they made the snipers require rank 7 and the Engineers only rank 3. Engineers should have a higher requirement at the least.

Now this is not my normal "We need more engineers!" cry. It's a "we need to spread the PPOs out among the different units" statement. If we make the engineers the only unit that can build anything besides sandbags,  it's just going to get harder and harder to be able to play those units, and the majority are going to be killed while building in the field, leaving us with no real engineers for demolitions.

Things Engineers should be needed for: * Concept

1. Demoiltions

2. Emplacement Repair

3. Tank Hedgehogs

4. Mines *

5. Pillboxes *

Other PPOs from other units

1. Sandbags

2. Barbed Wire *

3. Camouflage netting/ Camouflage bushes/walls *

2. MG Nests / Mortar emplacements (Round or horseshoe sandbags emplacement) *

4. Dirt walls/Berms *

5. City barricades *

If it requires real construction training, Engineers make sense. For the more basic building, create PPOs that fit the individual unit, with some universal (foxhole)
 

I mention this here because we are starting to hemorrhage Engineers at FMSs. Other units should be able to help protect them too.

 

Share this post


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

An item to give some rear side cover i agree is good, just not as part of the FMS because it will hinder placement.
As a PPO instead so you can maintain freedom of placement, some control of visibility etc.

I think that the rear should be attached. Otherwise someone has to build it, and from experience that gets in the way of the atg spawning. If the rear wall is attached, the ATG would not get hindered, and it would definitely be there, and not require additional construction.

This was the model I had originally suggested when the FMS was being discussed. Note the rear coverage:

jxg4.jpg

With this style back, infantry could spawn right in the FMS. and the ATG could spawn in the side  area, but with cover.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.