• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
Capco

The FMS, the Light Infantry FRU, and You

Mission Leader FRUs   62 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we expand/reintroduce the Infantry-based FRU?

    • Yes (LMG allowed)
      19
    • Yes (LMG restricted)
      10
    • No
      33

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

203 posts in this topic

After playing around with the HC Officer FRUs (i.e. infantry-placed FRUs with increased durability that can only spawn bolt-action riflemen), I am thoroughly convinced that the infantry-placed FRU needs to make a comeback in a much bigger and more impactful form than it currently has.  

 

My proposal for a Light Infantry FRU is as follows:

 

1) Remove the HC Officer class (I don't like stratification, especially along HC/non-HC lines).

2) Replace with the Mission Leader class (exact same load out and function) that is available to all premium subscribers (and maybe in DLC form).

3) Increase supply from 10 to 15 units per flag, depending on DLC amounts.

4) This FRU has the same durability as the old Inf-Placed FRU (takes 1 grenade to destroy).

5) Restrict unit spawning to Light Infantry:  Riflemen (including Semi-Autos), SMGs, and LMGs*.

6) Do NOT include specialist/heavy* infantry units (snipers, grenadiers, mortars, engineers, sappers, RPATs, Mission Leaders); these should remain FMS spawnable-only.

 

Merits:

1) It offers a secondary option to the noisy, large, truck-placed FMS.

2) It removes the AT element that was so unpopular among tankers with the old FRUs.

3) Once a defense is "out in the fields", their presence makes the deployment of a truck-based FMS difficult.  The Light Infantry FRU allows for an AO to be sustained beyond this phase.

4) It provides more firepower than the HC-placed FRU we have now.

5) Tanks will still be vulnerable to the more obvious FMS-spawned heavy infantry.

6) It allows the Underpop Side a better chance at setting up attacks than otherwise possible with the truck-placed FMS.

7) It means the Mission Leader unit itself must be kept alive in order to reset the FRU (instead of any surviving infantry regardless of class, thus allowing defenders to "kill the mole"). New Mission Leader units may not spawn at the Light Infantry FRU.  

 

*In regards to the LMG, some might argue that the LMG is a "heavy weapon", while others might argue that it is an essential element of light infantry units.  The choice is yours to make in the poll.

 

S!

Edited by Capco
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes w/LMG (squads had rifle, SMG and LMG); but still some concerns like rivers/bridges no longer mattering anymore.

Also, it allows armies to sneak behind you completely silent.

However, it does provide more chance for infantry combat and battles, which is good as more action should mean more players and fun.

Then cut the base capture time in half -so those that make it in, can actually capture something.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the single reason why considering Cap's proposal would be worthwhile.

Quote

 

Merits:

3) Once a defense is "out in the fields", their presence makes the deployment of a truck-based FMS difficult.  The Light Infantry FRU allows for an AO to be sustained beyond this phase.

 

I wouldn't even call it difficult. Its almost impossible to achieve a decent FMS that would be in a relatively close range to the objective. It would help every timezone that has issues with population, regardless of side. Fact is that when the defense is out of the town, trucks won't make it close enough. So what will happen is, you'll end up placing the FMS far out of town in hopes that someone is willing to walk to the town, actually make it alive and hopefully cap a spawn so the attack gets going again.

With the old infantry placed FRUs, the chances would rise exponentially.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes, with LMG.

 

i’d add that tanks should also have a light squad sized FRU too. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This idea was the reason I left the game and unsubbed and then the promised 1.36 reawakened my interest somewhat but if the infantry fms reappears that will be it for me and my sub.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we hade a "frontline" mechanic, like Steel Division 1944, this likely wouldn't be an issue. FRU, FMS could not be placed behind the line of contact then without first pushing the enemy back. I voted yes with LMG, but there is the issue of rivers/bridges. 

Share this post


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

This idea was the reason I left the game and unsubbed and then the promised 1.36 reawakened my interest somewhat but if the infantry fms reappears that will be it for me and my sub.

Did you know that the infantry FRU exists in the game right now and allows the spawning of riflemen?

 

This proposal adds SMGs to the available unit list (and probably LMGs too).  Why would that cause you to unsubscribe, especially if it leads to more battles overall?

 

I'm not sure how Rifles, SMGs, and LMGs constitutes a whole army @delems.  When the entire infantry spawnlist could spawn out of any FRU, that was basically a whole army (or at least a whole brigade).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhh , and so it starts .

Today it's LMG then the next call will come and the next call and the next till we have idiotic run out as Rifle set FRU spawn sapper,  blow tank despawn rinse and repeat.

I knew it won't stay with Rifle only just matter of time till someone came in here and yell for an expansion of the FRU.

And Capco is our winner.

I say get rid of it for once and for all and never bring it up again. In any way shape or form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dre21 said:

Ahhhh , and so it starts .

Today it's LMG then the next call will come and the next call and the next till we have idiotic run out as Rifle set FRU spawn sapper,  blow tank despawn rinse and repeat.

I knew it won't stay with Rifle only just matter of time till someone came in here and yell for an expansion of the FRU.

And Capco is our winner.

I say get rid of it for once and for all and never bring it up again. In any way shape or form.

No to anti tank infantry.

what about tanks getting one too Dre?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the covert ops side of fms.

The stealth chance to surprise all your frenemies.

The HC only setting option is awesome..maybe let mapoic be allowed as well.

Keeps the mission to objective from command perspective.

Rifles - great

Lmgs 2

Smgs 2

DLC Smgs 2

That might be enough to ninja a cp. Not enough to hold much for to long.

If you add the tank killing aspect to this style fms the inbalance with be great.

S! 

LIES

Share this post


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

Today it's LMG then the next call will come and the next call and the next till we have idiotic run out as Rifle set FRU spawn sapper,  blow tank despawn rinse and repeat.

As someone who also cherished the demise of the infantry-placed FRU for that very reason, I can assure you I would never support such an expansion.  (fwiw, I voted for the LMG to be restricted from the FRU in this poll, not that it will change your mind about whatever "agenda" you think I am trying to push)

 

The fact is that a limited infantry-placed FRU (which itself is capped by the amount of units available than can place these FRUs) allows for more things to go on.  I've come to learn that after playing with the FMS for this long.  

 

With soooo little going on right now, we need to facilitate action, not restrict it imo.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally loved the Inf set FMS with sapper and shrek/zook.

Oh the fun.

...and the column dies again

Soon as DO set..walk out fru..wait for the AEF donkey train..giggles.

So from a fun for me perspective bring it back

For a best for game perspective use it within the limits of BALANCE

S!

LIES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about copying depot supply -RPATS & sappers

FMS will still be the backbone, but with INF-FRU they can extend ZoC's. eventually when the ZoC is solid enough be replaced by a FMS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Capco said:

As someone who also cherished the demise of the infantry-placed FRU for that very reason, I can assure you I would never support such an expansion.  (fwiw, I voted for the LMG to be restricted from the FRU in this poll, not that it will change your mind about whatever "agenda" you think I am trying to push)

 

The fact is that a limited infantry-placed FRU (which itself is capped by the amount of units available than can place these FRUs) allows for more things to go on.  I've come to learn that after playing with the FMS for this long.  

 

With soooo little going on right now, we need to facilitate action, not restrict it imo.  

 I'm not saying you are pushing anything , all I said you called for the 1st expansion of said FRU with other to follow no doubt.

My original comment when CRS started to talk FRU again I said and maybe not word for word that there will be the call for the expansion of the FRU . It's like taxes a politican ain't calling for the full 50% right away but little by little till its to late , sure CRS can always take it away again not like politicians would take taxes away once implementation is complete. 

But there will be the players that will unsub once again if it gets expanded if they even came back . Cause the FRU killed the Armor game in large part.

And you just started that topic and talk of expansion.

So I will be the opposition to it , Rifle fine after that nope cause I know where it will lead to more calls for more options. 

Get rid of it , I'm happy with the Truck set FMS as it is. 

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on guys!    Silent movable FRUs almost destroyed this game in the past.  We do not need to bring them back.

I do not even like the current HC rifleman-only  FRUs - they can still do a lot to destroy ZoC (especially for the ATG game).

And why do the current HC FRUs have no timers for redeploment?  They can be moved immediately after being placed.   Its totally stupid.

We better not be going back to silently warping armies - or I will unsubscribe from this game.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expanding isn’t a problem when you have a data point telling what is too far. That data point being AT infantry are a no-no. Only rifles though, seems limiting after testing in game.

only rifles = not good enough.

AT infantry = a bridge to far.

a lot of space between the two.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that the infantry FRU exists in the game right now and allows the spawning of riflemen?

Yes I did and I felt that  when it was announced that it would be the thin end of the wedge. 

 

Share this post


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

Come on guys!    Silent movable FRUs almost destroyed this game in the past.  We do not need to bring them back.

I do not even like the current HC rifleman-only  FRUs - they can still do a lot to destroy ZoC (especially for the ATG game).

And why do the current HC FRUs have no timers for redeploment?  They can be moved immediately after being placed.   Its totally stupid.

We better not be going back to silently warping armies - or I will unsubscribe from this game.

What if bushes prevented infantry from phasing through them unhindered? What if you couldn’t deploy in a bushline?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, madrebel said:

What if bushes prevented infantry from phasing through them unhindered? What if you couldn’t deploy in a bushline?

 

Absolutely. How hard would this be to code I wonder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, krazydog said:

Come on guys!    Silent movable FRUs almost destroyed this game in the past.  We do not need to bring them back.

I do not even like the current HC rifleman-only  FRUs - they can still do a lot to destroy ZoC (especially for the ATG game).

And why do the current HC FRUs have no timers for redeploment?  They can be moved immediately after being placed.   Its totally stupid.

We better not be going back to silently warping armies - or I will unsubscribe from this game.

squad FMS's are always invaded by the rest of the PB

there's a lot less inf fighting with the FMS than there was with the FRU. a lot more camping as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, raptor34 said:

Absolutely. How hard would this be to code I wonder?

Doubt you need code, just need to add colliders to the bushes. Its the collider that prevents movement/deployment. Which isn’t to suggest there isn’t a lot of effort required but speedtree has colliders for all its objects i think, maybe not grasses but ‘thick’ vegetation i believe all have the potential.

i’m fine with tanks not going through bushlines either. This would allow for field placed ATGs + sandbags + covering infantry to set and hold a ZOC/ambush position in the countryside that neither infantry nor tanks can bypass or surprise by phasing through vegetation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, madrebel said:

Doubt you need code, just need to add colliders to the bushes. Its the collider that prevents movement/deployment. Which isn’t to suggest there isn’t a lot of effort required but speedtree has colliders for all its objects i think, maybe not grasses but ‘thick’ vegetation i believe all have the potential.

i’m fine with tanks not going through bushlines either. This would allow for field placed ATGs + sandbags + covering infantry to set and hold a ZOC/ambush position in the countryside that neither infantry nor tanks can bypass or surprise by phasing through vegetation.

By code I should have said activate and or create colliders for bush lines. Bush line phasinghas long been a pretty unrealistic element of WW2OL that I really and truly see no downside to fixing as soon as possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, major0noob said:

there's a lot less inf fighting with the FMS than there was with the FRU. a lot more camping as well

 

2 hours ago, madrebel said:

Expanding isn’t a problem when you have a data point telling what is too far. That data point being AT infantry are a no-no. Only rifles though, seems limiting after testing in game.

only rifles = not good enough.

AT infantry = a bridge to far.

a lot of space between the two.

 

Exactly!

Share this post


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

Doubt you need code, just need to add colliders to the bushes. Its the collider that prevents movement/deployment. Which isn’t to suggest there isn’t a lot of effort required but speedtree has colliders for all its objects i think, maybe not grasses but ‘thick’ vegetation i believe all have the potential.

i’m fine with tanks not going through bushlines either. This would allow for field placed ATGs + sandbags + covering infantry to set and hold a ZOC/ambush position in the countryside that neither infantry nor tanks can bypass or surprise by phasing through vegetation.

It's unrealistic for infantrymen to run through bushes as if they're not there.

It's unrealistic for tanks to be stopped by bushlines. 

There's some dividing line in truck power and weight between the two behaviors, i.e. a GMC 353 will blast through any currently modeled bush, but a prudent driver of an Austin Tilly (the early war British utility vehicle) probably wouldn't try.

I don't know exactly how the current non-unit-type-specific collider code works, but it appears to me that it should be made unit type specific, and that probably means code work.

A realistic solution would allow infantry to stop at a bushline and cut/break their way through crosswise...not longitudinally. 

A realistic solution also would have a destroyed state for bush sections, with a drive-through or cut-through, or a bomb or HE shell, resulting in that state change for the affected section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiny road side posts shouldn’t stop/spin a tank either yet they do. This is the same issue preventing bullets from passing through wooden doors/walls etc as though they were stone walls. In this game a collider is just a collider with no logic to it beyond “you shall not pass”

having an imperfect solution isn’t a reason to not implement said good solution for the time being. If we wait for perfect .... well its been 17 years already.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.