ZEBBEEE

Deploying FMS/FRU from other units than trucks

31 posts in this topic

Xoom launched a poll about fixes required for the FMS.

The start point of this topic is that major0noob pretends that his statistics proved there was a critical lack of FMSs to keep players logged, as the gameplay is unfortunately FMS-centered.

I mentioned the idea of letting the ML deploy his FMS/FRU from other vehicles than trucks. I thought about CS tanks mostly because:

  • their strength is balanced by a slower speed
  • it’s precisely designed to support infantries
  • they require armored support to survive against ETs

Eventually allowing Lower tiers tanks to play that role as well.

 

But what do you guys think about it?

1. Giving the set up option from other vehicles: would it make a difference in terms of the amount of available FMS? 

2. Would it favour combined armored groups move to set up ZOCs? Or is it always about ninja-stealth deployment?

3. Would the armored protection increase the survivability? 

Would you think about other alternatives?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idea : shouldn't the deployment of a FMS be part of the fun objectives to achieve together with combined-arms actions instead of expecting someone else to ninja-place a FMS to hurry cap flags?

Hear what I mean:

what would happen if we changed our approach by removing truck-placed FMS' and only deploy it from slower armored vehicles (ML only)

We would force to have more often armored groups leaving from FB to set up real ZOCs. Even in low pop zones it would provide constant group action, as the importance is not capping flags but fighting groups vs groups IMHO.

Question is what about unit supplies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be in the minority...

I think that the truck should remain one of the units that can place FMSs. It's supposed to be a troop transport, and it tows ATGs.

I do NOT think that tanks are the way to go. Tanks are a combat vehicle, and a LOT slower than a truck. Their greatly reduced speed would slow down setups, and give defenders a ridiculous amount of time to get out and set up to repel attacks.

With that in mind...

Other options:

1. The Axis Sdkfz34 Armored car can set an FMS and guard it with an MG. So if we gave the Allies an armored car like the M3 or M8, it would be even and make sense. It would also allow the ML to protect the FMS with their MG. This would be faster and more appropriate to the Spawn concept, as armored cars were troop transports.

2. Create Naval FMSs from TTs or from FMBs on beaches. This is long overdue.

3. Some sort of Paratroop FMS. A Glider has been suggested... or a dropped supply cache.

4. Adding Jeeps and Kubelwagons and giving them FMS spawn capability makes sense as well.

5. Create construction vehicles based on tank chassis (Like they did) and letting them be spawn vehicles... again this would remain incredibly slow.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Quincannon said:

I may be in the minority...

I think that the truck should remain one of the units that can place FMSs. It's supposed to be a troop transport, and it tows ATGs.

I do NOT think that tanks are the way to go. Tanks are a combat vehicle, and a LOT slower than a truck. Their greatly reduced speed would slow down setups, and give defenders a ridiculous amount of time to get out and set up to repel attacks.

With that in mind...

Other options:

1. The Axis Sdkfz34 Armored car can set an FMS and guard it with an MG. So if we gave the Allies an armored car like the M3 or M8, it would be even and make sense. It would also allow the ML to protect the FMS with their MG. This would be faster and more appropriate to the Spawn concept

5. Create construction vehicles based on tank chassis (Like they did) and letting them be spawn vehicles... again this would remain incredibly slow.

That would make sense as well indeed

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO:

Trucks

APC's

Halftracks/Tracks that are prime movers

TT's

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I may be in the minority...

I think that the truck should remain one of the units that can place FMSs. It's supposed to be a troop transport, and it tows ATGs.

I do NOT think that tanks are the way to go. Tanks are a combat vehicle, and a LOT slower than a truck. Their greatly reduced speed would slow down setups, and give defenders a ridiculous amount of time to get out and set up to repel attacks.

With that in mind...

Other options:

1. The Axis Sdkfz34 Armored car can set an FMS and guard it with an MG. So if we gave the Allies an armored car like the M3 or M8, it would be even and make sense. It would also allow the ML to protect the FMS with their MG. This would be faster and more appropriate to the Spawn concept, as armored cars were troop transports.

2. Create Naval FMSs from TTs or from FMBs on beaches. This is long overdue.

3. Some sort of Paratroop FMS. A Glider has been suggested... or a dropped supply cache.

4. Adding Jeeps and Kubelwagons and giving them FMS spawn capability makes sense as well.

5. Create construction vehicles based on tank chassis (Like they did) and letting them be spawn vehicles... again this would remain incredibly slow.

You have spoken from my heart.

I have been on a Para FMS for years now , suggested multiple times simulating Glider planes.

Our Troophalftrack should be able to set a FMS but not till Allies would get the counterpart to it. Heck if it takes till the tier where the USA shows up on the map so be it , model the M3 or M5  USA comes into game it shows up in the spawn pool and with that these vehicles can set an FMS too.

TTs and FMB should be able to set an FMS too ( Maybe let the FMB even set at River banks). TTs with a bigger spawn list then a FMB just because , only so many troops would fit on a Fairmile .

The only thing I'm not favor of is the Jeep / Kubelwagen  they were rather limited in their troop carrying ability. 

Also as suggested in the other thread let Trucks set more then 1 FMS and up to 3.

It would be beneficial for both attack and defence, and depending how and where u put them, they can cover each other or be far apart but it would make camping them so much harder. 

 

Edited by dre21
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well im not in favor of adding much more, but engineers should be able to build one, its what they do.  I definitely think the navy should have the ability to drop mobile spawns on beaches, ports, etc...  

Mitch

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the only changes i like are letting engineers build them... it is what they do after all. Hell we have them fix bridges, you could have it take forever... 

the thing I think really should be done and it was said above is the navy... the navy should be able to land a boat and build a mobile spawn. i would keep the troops that came from that spawn naval personnel. if you guys ever get in the position to do a pacific theater, its not a bad starting point for Marines or other types of amphibious warfare.. this game attracts me for its historical and non gamer feel. i believe this should be added and would give a new avenue towards the original goal. 

I know this thing says im a newbie... and i am on these boards but i started playing in 2000

Mitch

Edited by black5
messed up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, black5 said:

Well im not in favor of adding much more, but engineers should be able to build one, its what they do.  I definitely think the navy should have the ability to drop mobile spawns on beaches, ports, etc...  

Mitch

I agree with you that giving Engineers the ability to build FMSs makes sense from a historical standpoint; This sort of thing would have normally fallen under their job description.

BUT...

From a game point of view, it would NOT be a good idea. Making Engineers the only unit that can build spawns? There are at best, about 25 Engineers per brigade. They are currently the only unit that can repair anything; the primary unit for demolitions, and the only unit that can build tank traps and ATG pits. The current supply is normally always running extremely low as it is. It seems like everyone wants the unit for different purposes, and once they are out, that's 4 hours or more that a unit can't use any of those functons.

Now add the concept that they would be the unit that builds the spawns as well? The minute they are all gone (And they would become the number one target in the game with this change), a Brigade would be unable to mount any AOs at all. It would ONLY be able to defend, and would be unable to build any defensive spawns either.

I hate to say this about anyone's idea, especially when it makes logical sense, but I believe that making Engineers the primary unit for building FMSs would be a disaster of epic proportions, even if they DID raise the number of Engineers in every Brigade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Engineers could pre-build a PPO similarly-looking to the FMS, and that a ML could « activate » as his spawn. 

The advantage would be that the ML could activate another FMS and leave a PPO that can be re-used later or by another ML.

ideally, multiple MLs could activate the same FMS PPO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Zebbeee said:

Engineers could pre-build a PPO similarly-looking to the FMS, and that a ML could « activate » as his spawn. 

The advantage would be that the ML could activate another FMS and leave a PPO that can be re-used later or by another ML.

ideally, multiple MLs could activate the same FMS PPO.

What the heck? This would require an ridiculous amount of coding to say the least.

PPOs are one thing... they are free standing with a timer and don't do anything. FMSs are linked to a particular player; the Mission leader. They require the ML to set up a mission and build them, then they go down if that ML goes away and doesn't state a replacement.

What you are suggesting is that Engineers go out on foot  and build random PPOs... Then Mission leaders would head out into the field and find these PPOs (Which would stand for how long without being activated?). THEN you want a ML to somehow link that PPO to his mission so that it becomes a spawn.... and then when that Mission Leader decides to move his mission, he leaves that spawn and it becomes somehow inactive again until another Mission Leader comes along and does the same thing? But then to top it off, you want that same PPO to act as the same spawn for multiple missions at the same time?

I have only seen one thing in a game that worked similarly, and it was not a PPO, it was a vehicle that anyone could drive, and it could act as a mobile spawn for anyone in that person's squad. And that was because in that game if you were in a squad you could spawn wherever your squad leader was.

This is not that game. I don't know if we will ever have the ability to simply spawn on the Mission Leader. Heck, I can see some people hating that more than having open FMS spawning.


Look, as long as we have spawns linked to specific missions, I seriously doubt it will ever be possible to have more than one spawn to a mission. What you are asking for is some way to have player created open world spawn points. I have never seen anything like that. I have seen capture-able permanent spawn points. I have spawns linked to a particular player or vehicle. But I have never seen the ability to create open world spawn points.

And what you are suggesting is not a few minor changes... I'm guessing that it would essentially entail a complete redesign of the current spawning system, if it were possible at all. Maybe you should flesh out the entire new system that it would need and create its own thread?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not engineers but by trucks and other vehicles like you suggested.

ideally these PPOs would be usable by both sides to keep area battles momentum.

just the global scheme without thinking about detailed coding requirements ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2018 at 0:56 AM, Quincannon said:

I agree with you that giving Engineers the ability to build FMSs makes sense from a historical standpoint; This sort of thing would have normally fallen under their job description.

BUT...

From a game point of view, it would NOT be a good idea. Making Engineers the only unit that can build spawns? ...


...I hate to say this about anyone's idea, especially when it makes logical sense, but I believe that making Engineers the primary unit for building...

I never said to make engineers the primary or only units that could build spawns... but as an actual tank crewman if this game had tanks working as a cooks or building spawns  I would Never have paid for this game. I just think we should give the guys who actually do the job some credit. And like I did say we could make it SLOW, so it’s not your first choice or even second for spawn building. This game was at one time trying to be as real as possible. I see it’s lost that goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, black5 said:

I never said to make engineers the primary or only units that could build spawns... but as an actual tank crewman if this game had tanks working as a cooks or building spawns  I would Never have paid for this game. I just think we should give the guys who actually do the job some credit. And like I did say we could make it SLOW, so it’s not your first choice or even second for spawn building. This game was at one time trying to be as real as possible. I see it’s lost that goal.

What if we went back to player placed MS units but with a catch. We could make MS building a group effort. For example, each player will only be able to build 10% of a ms, we get the stealth we desire and additional teamwork as part of the game. Just a thought.

Share this post


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

What if we went back to player placed MS units but with a catch. We could make MS building a group effort. For example, each player will only be able to build 10% of a ms, we get the stealth we desire and additional teamwork as part of the game. Just a thought.

You would need to have 10 units on every mission. Having played TZ3 for years, we are often lucky to have 10 players on a SIDE. It would make creating an MS virtually impossible for anyone short of larger, well organized squads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could do a concept similar to what they do in Squad. Mission leader places the FMS and can do it as infantry, truck or armoured car, but he has to have a certain number of adjacent units within his mission first, and he can authorise the construction of defensive structures or spawn buildings within the ZOC that infantry can then dig up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Quincannon said:

You would need to have 10 units on every mission. Having played TZ3 for years, we are often lucky to have 10 players on a SIDE. It would make creating an MS virtually impossible for anyone short of larger, well organized squads.

this would be in addition to using a truck so no real loss, also 10% per man was only a suggestion, 25% per man more acceptable to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rule303 said:

You could do a concept similar to what they do in Squad. Mission leader places the FMS and can do it as infantry, truck or armoured car, but he has to have a certain number of adjacent units within his mission first, and he can authorise the construction of defensive structures or spawn buildings within the ZOC that infantry can then dig up.

OK let's look at the norm for deploying an FMS. One person starts a mission. Often they are ina hurry because the AO is on its way. Now MAYBE they will get lucky and get a few people to jump on... but in many cases, it's the ML and no one else, because no one else is willing to come. Requiring a group to even set each and every MS? You're going to start alienating the majority of players who do not or can not be part of a larger squad. They will not have the ability to even TRY to spawn missions.

I don't think we can look at making every ms require a group to even build it.

Share this post


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

this would be in addition to using a truck so no real loss, also 10% per man was only a suggestion, 25% per man more acceptable to you?

Unfortunately, I would have to say no.

Here is a perfect example of why not:

I have been MOIC many times. It is not uncommon for me to have to try  to set up an AO. All too often I put out a call for Mission Leaders to run  an FMS and wind up getting no response. I then HAVE to be the one to run an FMS if we are going to have one. So I set a mission, I spawn a truck and drive it in and set the FMS. All of this time I am still getting NO response. It is usually only after the AO goes off and the FMS is set that anyone responds at all. Now if the syatem REQUIRED me to have a group of even 3, I would not be able to even TRY to set up a single FMS. If the MOIC can't set up an FMS for an attack because of a minimum team requirement, we will have a serious problem.

I am all for the squads. I am all for teamwork. But the fact of the matter is that we often do NOT have teams to set FMSs. In some cases it's because a ML does not belong to a squad. They might be side swapping without their squad. They might just be a player who gets no response. THOSE are often the guys running spawns. making it impossible for a single mission leader to set a spawn will shut those players down. We can NOT create  a system where the most basic missions require a minimum team. We will alienate everyone who  will not or can not be part of a larger squad with plenty of organized members, and give those squads an even larger advantage. Maybe a completely insurmountable one.

As far as having an infantry placed FRU style MS in addition to the truck one? I'm not sure. We worked hard to get that changed to stop the problems they caused in the first place. Personally, if we ever go that route I would want them to be just as big as the current FMS, with a seriously big  distance from town radius.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think the navy should be dropping MS on shore... dont think they could do it this year... too much going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, black5 said:

I still think the navy should be dropping MS on shore... dont think they could do it this year... too much going on.

Probably more versatile to have a TT deploy and become kind of a hybrid floating FB with throttled spawning.
Let it off load ground units onto some kind of landing craft (or the shore line if feasible) Let the ground units deal with the actual FMS's

Naval units will need to be flexible, and be able to do there business a ways off from where things will be happening, and they need to be able to displace
in a hurry.
They wont survive a direct type assault, D-Day only works when the entire enemy army isn't camped on the beach waiting for you.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

more than 1 way for fms would be nice. The current meta of a trucks boom and zooming in idle just to get a decent spawn is tiresome.

Engineers to build a fms with a mission leader/one other person within 15 meters would be a good addition

Also naval beachhead fms would be heckin cool and give a reason for naval

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Also naval beachhead ums would be heck cool...

And would last exactly how long? (presuming you could even get a TT there to create it.....)

I'd say the flight time for the first bomber to get there - so your 2 hour planning for assault and TT time was trashed in, oh 2 min by the first bomber?

Sure, sounds heck cool........ Not.

 

Share this post


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

*** Also naval beachhead ums would be heck cool...

And would last exactly how long? (presuming you could even get a TT there to create it.....)

I'd say the flight time for the first bomber to get there - so your 2 hour planning for assault and TT time was trashed in, oh 2 min by the first bomber?

Sure, sounds heck cool........ Not.

 

I think a simple Farmile B could sit on shore and set up a mobile spawn as part of an assault might be easy and fine. that what i would do and it could have a supply of naval troops. a force multiplier like we really use. 

Share this post


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

*** Also naval beachhead ums would be heck cool...

And would last exactly how long? (presuming you could even get a TT there to create it.....)

I'd say the flight time for the first bomber to get there - so your 2 hour planning for assault and TT time was trashed in, oh 2 min by the first bomber?

Sure, sounds heck cool........ Not.

 

mobile.

It's called AA.

You must be able to see into the future to make such a definite statement without any facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.