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

2 minutes ago, Capco said:

It was on page 2, towards the bottom.

If an HC officers sets an AO, EWS gets set off, and the defense is out in the fields before the AO even activates, that AO is over the vast majority of the time.  It takes about 5 minutes for that AO to even go up after I issue the order, and another 10 minutes before I can issue the pull order, then another 5 minutes before that AO actually gets pulled.  And AOs are almost never pulled that quickly, so in reality, each failed AO removes AT MINIMUM 25 minutes of potential action in the game.   And do you think everyone immediately despawns once an AO is pulled?  Maybe if you're lucky, the vets do, but once the vets leave and the mission lead passes to the green tags, they generally have no idea what is going on and will often stay spawned in an area with zero going on, and never play the game again.  

S!

I do my best to avoid this by attacking and defending in differnt scales at diff levels of overpop/underpop  

If I am EXTREME underpop, I am on FULL defense mode (that means my AOs are being used defensivly as well) ... my objective here to create OVERPOP by making my enemy FAIL. I will be proviging SUPER fun action in the defense to keep the players engaged with hope of turning things around... maybe not this town.. then next one .. if it is that underpop. 

I send one person out of the 4 or 5 left on DO to just go auto drive the truck to the enemy town.. draw 1-2-3 players away from their main AO..  that is success AO to me... it has helped with the DO 

For when it is BALANCED or a little underpop and DO under GOOD control now, FAKE EWS (Sometimes fake hvy EWS) is what i was talking about to reduce my chances of AOs turning to fail

My argument is that I dont attack TRUE attacks with purpose of taking town while underpop

Maybe I am wrong but in above ... what you consider a fail AO.. i don't... 

Again . You have your perception and I fully appreciate it.. I just didnt like how you generalize the opinion on behalf of "anyone that has to place AOs" .. that triggered me (i still feel a bit triggered hehe.. need another pipe).. have a look my post from days ago under ozsheila i made from work... I actually said for underpop...  no issues  ( I still dont think it is NEEDED.. but a why not scenario for me)  

Share this post


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

 

I want more bodies in this game.  I want to see it thrive.  I think things like this will help.

 

S!

 

I agree with "I want more bodies in this game.  I want to see it thrive."

I disagree with this idea helping achieve that.. in other posts I have tried to articulate in my half [censored] stoned way .. on WHY .

S!

Share this post


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

My argument is that I dont attack TRUE attacks with purpose of taking town while underpop

I completely agree here.  I'm not at all suggesting one should easily be able to take towns while underpop. The whole point of attacking while underpop is to draw more defenders than you have attackers, not to be taking towns.  That's textbook (as is fake EWS).  But an inf FRU makes that easier for the underpop.  

 

But I genuinely do not understand how you think an AO completely thwarted in the first few moments, where the only people who had any action were the few defenders who spawned and prevented any FMS from being placed, is anything but a failure and something that needs to be replaced as fast as possible.  

 

That's part of our job in HC, to provide fun for the playerbase (not just our side, but the whole playerbase).  Periods where one side isn't attacking are bad for the game.  I'm shocked you're okay with that, and that you admit you would actually avoid attacking.  

Share this post


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

I completely agree here.  I'm not at all suggesting one should easily be able to take towns while underpop. The whole point of attacking while underpop is to draw more defenders than you have attackers, not to be taking towns.  That's textbook (as is fake EWS).  But an inf FRU makes that easier for the underpop.  

 

But I genuinely do not understand how you think an AO completely thwarted in the first few moments, where the only people who had any action were the few defenders who spawned and prevented any FMS from being placed, is anything but a failure and something that needs to be replaced as fast as possible.  

 

That's part of our job in HC, to provide fun for the playerbase (not just our side, but the whole playerbase).  Periods where one side isn't attacking are bad for the game.  I'm shocked you're okay with that, and that you admit you would actually avoid attacking.  

Sorry to shock you man! I will try to explain more.. 

Above all else, I create fun for playerbase (including me)... I have done my best to articulate HOW I achieve that. Anyone that plays the game with me on either side I HOPE has the same view that when we play together that they are having FUN. 

 

For example,

In above secnario of being underpop and full focus on Defense I would still set MS 1.5 K out of town, then the greentags that spawn from it.. (here is where many go wrong.. they say something like: now this new person is going to be lost for so long and then never come back) 

I send so many pms.. social chatter.. how are u .. where u from.. make jokes whatever.. beg them to come on discord. again ROLE PLAY and walk with them for 1.5 KM together with them .. to sneak cap a city CP for example.. then explain to them see how that 4 guys coming now to kill us, and MAYBE get them to score a kill on the 1-2-3 guys who responded from their FUN AO to this boring DO... we wont be able to come back FAST to get them as our MS is far as HELL .. BUT .. .we are guaranteed they will be hunting for us and no longer attacking town XX which is getting creamed..

 

I dont think attacking is the ONLY fun .. I think a big part of job of HC is to ROLEPLAY and MAKE defending FUN as well.

In an immersion example .. let me give u this...

When it is usually end of map mode and Axis at factories... I play the role of a volkstrum commander doing desperate defense of Germany agasint hords of Allies forces coming.. I almost KNOW I am DOOMED .. but the ROLE play of that young German soldier in 1945 in Berlin makes me fight harder....  I try to then infuse that and infect other players with that .... whatever it takes.. it is a SOCIAL part of the game.... we get in trucks.. panzer columns whatever..the 5 or 10 of us that are left.. 

you would be amazed we sometimes even get spawn delays.. you can read many of my desperate AARs of defense and what I do with AOs and how I used them in many threads.. from many years... once I didnt sleep for over 30 hours straight defending Frankfurt and then pushing back to a breakout.... actually not once.. probably a few times.. can recall at least 3-4 times...

 

Engaging players is the number 1 job of HC... making them FEEL IMMERSED in the ROLE PLAY is what I do best to try to make the Defense or Attack .. or whatever it is we are doing FUN.... and Genuinely FUN! .. I am friends with anyone in my mission.. my main goal is to make more friends ... on both sides of the game. 

I can tell you many stories of immersion on Allied side as well.. when we pushed back from taking Amiens back with Greatone and crew and I think I was MO for again 24+ hours to push back to Germany....  

Back in the day .. it was not just me that did this... MANY HC did this.. I learned this by watching them... I am actually nowhere near the top of the list of the best HCs in my own book.. I am somewhere on first page but that's about it... AHC and GHC currently and past have and have had many more competent than me... 

Sorry but now server is back online... I have done my best to explain...

 

S!

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, while I appreciate the fact that immersion and organization and role play are important to you (they are to me too), I don't think that's what most people want when they play our game.  

 

Hopefully you're right and numbers skyrocket as a result of seriously neutering attacks and limiting action for the benefit of role play and immersion.  

 

S!

Share this post


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

Again, while I appreciate the fact that immersion and organization and role play are important to you (they are to me too), I don't think that's what most people want when they play our game.  

 

Hopefully you're right and numbers skyrocket as a result of seriously neutering attacks and limiting action for the benefit of role play and immersion.  

 

S!

I hope so too! .. as I remember what this game was and still when I play, I FEEL the energy of players playing with me! from both sides.

And while I appreciate what YOU think that is what most people think... I think that is not the case and most people like the immersion and find more fun in teamwork an being part of something bigger.

Just next time, please dont speak on behalf of "anyone that has to place AOs " as you are not our representative.  

As for the defense and attack .... it is war .. one side has to be attacking at times.. other side defending (that i suppose is part of immersion for me, our side is under attack in an important area, my brothers in arms are holding the line, unless i am part of an elite spec op team doing some sort of harrasment AO, I want to be with them and fight with them to HOLD the line agasint our common foe) .. For a few hours I am on defense so that I can build moral and create the population to have fun attacks for many other hours. 

I think by suggesting to having INF FRUs again you are trying to neuter attacks by drawing players away from their attacks to your attack, just because you think MOST players think defending can be fun (not all day all night but sometimes of day when severly underpop) by defending GOOD you CREATE the momentum that leads to Overpop and opportunity to make Proper FUN combined arms attacks that require defender also to  use combined arms to DEFEND and have FUN for both sides.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following this thread now and I still can't wrap my head around why in the gods world we want to start expanding something that was reintroduced by CRS ( in my eyes unfortunately ) that has already been proofen to cost this game dearly in its earlier days.

And please don't tell me there is wiggle room from only Rifle to the AT troops . 

As I have I said before it was just a matter of time till someone asks for an expansion and here we are in a debate over it which in itself is stupid in my eyes. And if anyone thinks this would end after the LMG would be added well I have ocean front property for you to buy on a little beach front called the Sahara desert.

Share this post


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

As I have I said before it was just a matter of time till someone asks for an expansion and here we are in a debate over it which in itself is stupid in my eyes. And if anyone thinks this would end after the LMG would be added well I have ocean front property for you to buy on a little beach front called the Sahara desert.

Honestly, if it did come to that (beyond SMG/LMG), it wouldn't be worth it at all.  I completely agree with that part.  

 

I disagree that any expansion of what we currently have will inevitably lead to a full reintroduction of silent AT rambo spawns.  It's very possible that the FRU has something to offer between where it is now and where it was.  Just taking a step further towards the middle doesn't mean we are invariably bound towards the eventual extreme.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not seeing any nos that account for different deployment limitations and different world variables making the bad things from the ast irrelevant or non issues.

it used to suck, we know why, if those negatives are accounted for in the design, it wouldn’t be the negative it used to be. It might be good ... but we can’t consider that because “omg it was bad” - uh huh and if we do xyz it wont be that anymore “omg it was bad” ... yeah we covered that already and did xyz “omg it was bad” ... ok?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** it used to suck, we know why, if those negatives are accounted for in the design

While I totally agree with capc in regards to getting more action and combat, I just can't get over silent armies (even just rifle, SMG, LMG) appearing out of nowhere and across rivers with no bridges.

Believe me, the infantry side of me (and KM - with very difficult TT type AOs) totally thinks INF MS would be ok - but it also does much damage to ZOC. (think ATGs, AA etc.)

Only way seems to be somehow allow the INF MS to appear, but only in an area that is controlled by the attacker - or at least not controlled by the defender.

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IRL infantry elements did in fact sneak behind infantry.

again, must deploy within X distance of friendly AB/FB/FMS prevents crossing rivers as long as X is reasonably short range. Having no restrictions is/was obviously dumb. All rivers have what roughly 50m of clear on each side. You gunna park a FMS in the open next to a river so you can swim across it and deploy a FRU? Good luck.

could have the above restriction with one shot supply, call it 12 non AT infantry max.

to just flat out say ‘it used to suck’ without putting any thought towards how it might be done better is just mentally lazy.

three reasons silent frus sucked is what I’m reading. infantry can hide through bush lines too easily and there weren’t any restrictions tying it to existing force projection points along with pop up AT ninjas. If all of those things are altered the ‘no’ argument isn’t valid anymore. 

Share this post


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

IRL infantry elements did in fact sneak behind infantry.

But they didn't sneak their supply lines along with them, and typically that kind of infiltration was very small units.

Spawnpoints should not be allowed to be placed behind defenders, because spawnpoints represent the forward-most terminus of the game's virtualized supply/replacements/reinforcements system. 

Troops that (in some realistic manner) sneak around or through defenders are there legitimately and can fight, but they shouldn't have supply access except from a vehicle, or be able to respawn from/despawn at a spawnpoint (supply line) they "brought with them".

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

To begin with, the poll itself is too small of a sampling.  Those commenting with strong opinions on the thread are an even smaller sampling.  In no way shape or form is the poll a fair indication of the overall playerbase.  With all due respect to all comments, they are not fairly labeled as being indicative of the overall playerbase, either.  Thus, it is not clear that the split exists at all, let alone it being between 'sim guys/gameplay guys'.

 

S!

50 people is more than i've seen in game in months. certainly more than my TZ (GMT 8-16)

the guys disagreeing are all using similar themes for realism in their posts, while the guys in favor use themes for gameplay.

you overestimate the game population man. 50 is a solid sample size.

 

this is a real split, and there has been constant arguments between the factions over gameplay and realism over the years.

 

3 hours ago, potthead said:

What I think I disagree on .. is I dont really like moving towards more INSTANT action.. I prefer to organise players, spend time talking to them, having a social ROLE PLAY... 

the current spawn system has too much instances of "no action" though. or boring, pointless action, with 1.2km FMS's we spend more time walking than doing anything useful like ZoC or capping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, major0noob said:

50 people is more than i've seen in game in months. certainly more than my TZ (GMT 8-16)

the guys disagreeing are all using similar themes for realism in their posts, while the guys in favor use themes for gameplay.

you overestimate the game population man. 50 is a solid sample size.

 

this is a real split, and there has been constant arguments between the factions over gameplay and realism over the years.

 

the current spawn system has too much instances of "no action" though. or boring, pointless action, with 1.2km FMS's we spend more time walking than doing anything useful like ZoC or capping.

 

18 minutes ago, major0noob said:

50 people is more than i've seen in game in months. certainly more than my TZ (GMT 8-16)

the guys disagreeing are all using similar themes for realism in their posts, while the guys in favor use themes for gameplay.

you overestimate the game population man. 50 is a solid sample size.

 

this is a real split, and there has been constant arguments between the factions over gameplay and realism over the years.

 

the current spawn system has too much instances of "no action" though. or boring, pointless action, with 1.2km FMS's we spend more time walking than doing anything useful like ZoC or capping.

I am actually not talking about realism at all.. MS itself is far from realistic, FB , spawnble etc.. this is a GAME! to me a ROLE PLAYING / Fantasy WWII themed immersive war game (with some simulation vibe)

I'm talking about game play... I prefer a DIFFERENT style of game play than one that inf FRU allows to create (more fragmented fast action) - many missions... many streams of silent infantry coming to capture.. (it drive from the NEED to do combined arms, gives a short cut to make it EASIER to do it ALONE) 

"the current spawn system has too much instances of "no action" though. or boring, pointless action, with 1.2km FMS's we spend more time walking than doing anything useful like ZoC or capping."

I can not agree wit this. I think that is the system not being used properly then. It is due to laziness.  It is very possible with current spawning system to create action overpop, underpop in any situation wherever the map is.

When I play.. I am constantly in SOME SORT of Action.... different paces at different times of day/ DO/AO etc.. but there is ALWAYS some action... heck it is so much action i can not leave my desk for hours at a time sometimes to get food break! I consider sitting in a FB that MAY get attacked or not also a sort of ACTION if it as an important FB .. i spend the time chatting and making new friends then.. teaching new players the mechanics perhaps whatever... a portion of my gaming time is spent on that... ( i remember back in the day .. there were MANY players who also LOVED that and found that a SORT OF ACTION FUN .. a few remain) ... the always-instant-action crowd drove them(us) away.) with promises of things like removal of ToE and removal of INF FRU, some of us have come back.  

Having to walk 1.2 KM ... if there is 3 means 1 can bring a truck .. other 2 can cover and move MS closer.. I do it as much as I can . yes then need to bring a atg as well to deal with the ET that will hear u and come.. and the INF need to NOT run to town and sit back and cover and snipe ei as they come in. .  .. doesn't mean we take every AO .. but I try to fight for every inch of ground..

in Defense same thing... why do people think that defense can not be like an attack .. a counter attack before town is even lost is SO MUCH fun .... convoy of relief from back town! heck we can MAKE MSPs from linking town . that is AMAZING! yes takes 5-10 min to drive but is well worth it!

Just because enemy has defense up.. doesnt stop me... just means the parameter needs to be further out... then sneak behind and cap while they in outskirts... and bring action to spawnble.. change of PACE again, IMMERSION ... (not realism.... FANTASY immersion)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, potthead said:

 

I am actually not talking about realism at all.. MS itself is far from realistic, FB , spawnble etc.. this is a GAME! to me a ROLE PLAYING / Fantasy WWII themed immersive war game (with some simulation vibe)

I'm talking about game play... I prefer a DIFFERENT style of game play than one that inf FRU allows to create (more fragmented fast action) - many missions... many streams of silent infantry coming to capture.. (it drive from the NEED to do combined arms, gives a short cut to make it EASIER to do it ALONE) 

"the current spawn system has too much instances of "no action" though. or boring, pointless action, with 1.2km FMS's we spend more time walking than doing anything useful like ZoC or capping."

I can not agree wit this. I think that is the system not being used properly then. It is due to laziness.  It is very possible with current spawning system to create action overpop, underpop in any situation wherever the map is.

When I play.. I am constantly in SOME SORT of Action.... different paces at different times of day/ DO/AO etc.. but there is ALWAYS some action... heck it is so much action i can not leave my desk for hours at a time sometimes to get food break! I consider sitting in a FB that MAY get attacked or not also a sort of ACTION if it as an important FB .. i spend the time chatting and making new friends then.. teaching new players the mechanics perhaps whatever... a portion of my gaming time is spent on that... ( i remember back in the day .. there were MANY players who also LOVED that and found that a SORT OF ACTION FUN .. a few remain) ... the always-instant-action crowd drove them(us) away.) with promises of things like removal of ToE and removal of INF FRU, some of us have come back.  

Having to walk 1.2 KM ... if there is 3 means 1 can bring a truck .. other 2 can cover and move MS closer.. I do it as much as I can . yes then need to bring a atg as well to deal with the ET that will hear u and come.. and the INF need to NOT run to town and sit back and cover and snipe ei as they come in. .  .. doesn't mean we take every AO .. but I try to fight for every inch of ground..

in Defense same thing... why do people think that defense can not be like an attack .. a counter attack before town is even lost is SO MUCH fun .... convoy of relief from back town! heck we can MAKE MSPs from linking town . that is AMAZING! yes takes 5-10 min to drive but is well worth it!

Just because enemy has defense up.. doesnt stop me... just means the parameter needs to be further out... then sneak behind and cap while they in outskirts... and bring action to spawnble.. change of PACE again, IMMERSION ... (not realism.... FANTASY immersion)

This highlights another major issue. I was talking with a former player about the game as it is today, including this topic about action.  He made a very poignant remark about the difficulty of getting attacks going.

 

”There always used to be a group of attackers and a group of defenders. More attackers stopped playing over time than defenders because of how much this game is geared towards defense. The 2019 culmination of this phenomenon is that you have very few players left willing to take the time to set up attacks because of how often they fail.  The only people left playing are people who will sit in an empty CP hour after hour guarding it from attackers that may never even show up.

 

”Last time I remember logging on there was 1 AO for each side, light EWS on one and no FB to the other. I gave it another 30 minutes of excruciating boredom before logging off for probably the last time.

 

”When the game finally dies, there’s going to be 3 Axis and 2 Allied players online, all sitting on defense, with the Allies moaning about the Axis being over pop.”

 

Forcing people to sit in a building to watch paint dry or sit at an FB to watch the grass grow is not action. That isn’t fun for most people. Insisting that the game cater to a long, drawn out style of bordom at the expense of most other players is going to kill the game if it hasn’t already done so.  If that style of game was more popular, we wouldn’t have as big of a population issue. The proof is in the pudding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jwilly said:

But they didn't sneak their supply lines along with them, and typically that kind of infiltration was very small units.

Spawnpoints should not be allowed to be placed behind defenders, because spawnpoints represent the forward-most terminus of the game's virtualized supply/replacements/reinforcements system. 

Troops that (in some realistic manner) sneak around or through defenders are there legitimately and can fight, but they shouldn't have supply access except from a vehicle, or be able to respawn from/despawn at a spawnpoint (supply line) they "brought with them".

 

Exactly right. It's not the infiltration part... I support that and hats off to the guy crawling through the dirt trying to avoid contact. It's tougher than some think. What I am against is the resultant insta army that warps across a defensive line in complete security and attacks said line from the rear that is gamey.

WWIOL gameplay, and really game design in general, rests on principles. And one of the principles of this gane is that you can interdict the enemy. If you do you win, if you don't that's your fault for getting out-played and you lose. But the magical FRU (as it was then and how the HC FRU is now) adds in a 3rd mode: uninterdictable enemy that can attack from any direction. So when you ATG position gets taken out it wasn't because you were covering your flanks or coordinating with you teammates, it's because a lone infantry snuck behind you and teleported the rest of his unit in. It's something that is impossible to defend and causes frustration because you lost not because you got out-played, but because someone used the game mechanics to their absolute advantage.

I will give you a real life example. Back in the FRU days (before I left for the very reason of the FRU) I had an 88 set up in nice position, we had some supporting tanks and infantry at our flanks. Low and behind a ninja planted a FRU behind us and everyone got taken out by a surprise ambush by multiple EI. That is just game and frustrating.

Then two maps ago I had an 88 set up in a nice overwater position about 2.5 km from town which is just outside of my effective engagement range. After about 30 mins of action I get taken out by an EI that made the trip up there. Hats off to the guy for doing that. I got tunnel vision and didn't notice him and I separated from the AA gun that I towed along that could have supported me. I lost that day but it was still fun because it was that special moment when both players know they invested thought and planning into their respective attack plans.

The infantry FRU completely eliminates the tenability of making any sort of defensive line manned by soft targets (ATG, AA, infantry).

You can expect someone to attack the enemy ahead of them and che k their rear all the time for the army that is going to teleport in any second. If you infiltrate through with 5 guys and take everyone out, great job! Hats off to you for a daring op. You deserve to win and that challenge is what makes the gane fun. But the FRU does nothing like that.

It could have some potential if it was daisy chained to the FB or FMS at a short distance (100 m) to minimize the teleporting/warping over ZoC/terrain features/danger zones. But it would need to have some very severe geographic placement restrictions, require multiple infantry to place it, and be limited to basic infantry only. It should function more like the forward-most position of a light reconnaissance platoon. And not the rear-staging area of a heavy shock infantry assault company.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Forcing people to sit in a building to watch paint dry or sit at an FB to watch the grass grow is not action. That isn’t fun for most people. Insisting that the game cater to a long, drawn out style of bordom at the expense of most other players is going to kill the game if it hasn’t already done so.  If that style of game was more popular, we wouldn’t have as big of a population issue. The proof is in the pudding.

Back in the day we did exactly that and the population was much higher. I'm not saying it was good. Defending the AB bunkering the days of the instacap table without any contesting rules or timers was a thankless job. But that wasn't what decreased player numbers.

It was the gradual erosion of the need to work together as a team by catering to "get into the action easier/faster" mentality. With every iteration you needed combined arm less and less since why bother bringing tanks, ATGs, and AA to protect you if you can simply sneak in a FRU and safely warp across 3 km of open battlefield?

Add in the disaster of RPAT/sappers from the FRU which decimated the tank game, the infantry from the FRU that decimated the ATG/AA game, and weather/fishbowl along with the lack of any ground targets because it's easier to simple warp the infantry in and you have a decimated air game as well.

We slowly sawed off the legs of the table and are now surprised that it won't stand. Tanks need targets, ATGs need targets, AA guns needs targets, and planes need targets. You eliminate one and it creates a cascade effect to the other branches. No tanks? Why bother with ATGs? No ground targets to strafe? Why bother with planes. No planes in the air? What is this AA gun for?

The FRU (and the FMS as well TBH) by its very design emiminates the need to bring any of these assets into the field since it's easier to sneak in and take out any hard targets with sappers and rifles can swarm and deal with the rest of the soft targets.

Ironically there was a RAND study about 10 years ago where they predicted that the future of modern warfare will be swarming tactics with drones/AI. We in WWIIOL have already demonstrated that you can successfully capture a town with a pure infantry swarm. The Axis due to our lack of good close support armor seem particularly skilled at this type of combat.

 

RAND: Swarming and the Future of Conflict

https://www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/DB311.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@aismov The reason we had more players playing in the early 2000s was because of the novelty of the game, not because the gameplay was better then.  The game was awful then, unless you were an Axis player who enjoyed clubbing baby seals.  

 

Likewise, the reason the game took steps toward the direction of the FMS and the FRU was because they saw their population was dwindling, read exit reviews, and used that information in the further design and production of their game.  

 

To suggest that player numbers were at their peak or even going up before steps were made to make the game more action-friendly but numbers actually went down as a result of it is ridiculous and defies logic.  

 

I mean why do you think we even have FBs?  Do you think most people in the gaming world want to drive for 45 minutes just to die after 30 seconds of action and do it all over again?  If you recognize that as being an unrealistic demand on the modern, subscription paying gamer, then by extension you recognize that there is in fact merit to things that make the time between action less.  

 

Depending on where you draw that line, you will have a lot of players playing, or very few players with very little going on because it all takes so long to do.  The less time it takes to do things, the more things can get done.  That is a mathematically undeniable statement.  

 

I'm calling it right now.  If 1.36 gets released with no changes to help attacks beforehand, people will resubscribe for 1 month, log in, get bored, and log right back off.  Forget the FRU, read @delems posts here for good alternatives if the FRU is this emotionally charging for you.  

Share this post


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

@aismov The reason we had more players playing in the early 2000s was because of the novelty of the game, not because the gameplay was better then.  The game was awful then, unless you were an Axis player who enjoyed clubbing baby seals.  

....

I'm calling it right now.  If 1.36 gets released with no changes to help attacks beforehand, people will resubscribe for 1 month, log in, get bored, and log right back off.  Forget the FRU, read @delems posts here for good alternatives if the FRU is this emotionally charging for you.  

Just to say one small thing off point; players would listen more if you refrained from ad hominem remarks like things being emotionally charging to a given group of players with an opinion. Anyway back on topic S! 

I agree with you 100% that the gameplay was worse in many regards back then and things like contesting, table timers, deports, area capture, etc we're put in place to address very real gameplay flaws (pre camping, instacapping, large city moling, population imbalance etc.)

But for all the good intentions some of the mechanisms that were introduced had massive unintended consequences. This isn't the thread to address HC/AO/ToE so I will stick to mobile spawning in general and the FRU in particular, but the more CRS tried to cater to the fast action/infantry game the more they lost the rest of the branches. And with combined arms gone, it eliminated the main reason people play this game. If I wanted an infantry shooter I would go play something else since I don't need 2+ km engagement ranges for that.

The more mobile spawning you create the less you need to rely on other branches since warping infantry have no enemy that can kill them. So the game comes down to the least common denominator that will give you battlefield success which is sneaky FRU placement to surprise cap a building. That is what drove many players away combined with the whole HC/ToE/AO thing along with the bloodletting of major squads that occured at the same time and eliminated the skill needed to pull off a combined arms op from the playerbase. Forming an armor column today would not only be very difficult, it would be pointless since it's easier to simply mobile spawn in infantry and swarm the target.

The damage that FRU and poorly designed mobile spawning did to the vehicle (I include ATG abd AA as vehicles here) is unspeakable. The tank game in particular was hard hit and needs help. And this is coming from someone who on the ground plays primarily infantry/rifle mixed in with some 88 use.

I agree with you that with 1.36 things need to change to make attacking easier. But the solution isn't to reintroduce the FRU which was a disaster to all the branches except for the infantry (up until everyone else unsubbed and then it became a disaster for them too).

IMHO we need shorter capture timers to even out the disparity between how long it takes a defender to get to a CP and an attacker. We need to adjust contesting timers and hot table timers. All of those things help the infantry game without hurting the vehicle game. Which is what we all want to see.

I know we are both passionate about this game and want to see it succeed and the playerbase grow. But I see the FRU, personally, as a dead end that should be buried in an unmarked grave abd forgotten. The unintended consequences it had on the vehicle game are to great and it does nothing to address the issue of why attacking is difficult: capture timers are set to favor the defender which makes a situation where a defender can run into a hot CP, get killed, respawn, and run right back in to kill the attacker. Let's solve the capture timing issue and not try to work around it by allowing stealthy infantry FRUs to be placed as close as possible to the CP. Combined arms is the lifeblood of this game and we need to have spawning/capture/battlefield mechanics the support the need of all vehicle assets to be actively on the field.

I think I've already said too much in this thread, so respectfully, S!

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@aismov I'm just trying to wrap my mind around where the No's are coming from, and emotions clouding logic and judgment was a possible explanation.  But I don't have a monopoly on logic and judgment, so you are quite correct.  My apologies.  S!

 

Regardless of the FRU, I'm glad we agree that something needs to be done to help out the attacker (especially if we want 1.36 to be a new beginning).  I think you make some good points about wanting to focus on ways that can increase action without hurting other parts of the combined arms tree.  

 

When I made this proposal, I was thinking in terms of CRS resources.  This is a change that could be made for next campaign pretty easily, but so can something simple as lowering a timer.  I'm going to make a new thread more geared towards that and see if we can't ratchet out a consensus of sorts.  

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really wondering , according to some here attacks are doomed from the get go , then why has campaign 159 already wrapped up and we just started 160? 

That should not be or should it?

The reason why it has wrapped up is pure and simple Axis really had nothing to fight Allies with in the Armor department and so most tankers, ATG players went INF and with that the Allies just got overran.

It always amazes me how many Matildas came out of an AB after the Axis capped the spawnable.

But one can only kill so many INF till either they lost their Tank or the AB itself and with that the spawn capabilities. 

If we want troops behind enemy lines then let's do it the right way and use the Paratroopers , give them a FRU so to speak with a limited spawnpool ( at least that simulates a larger force dropped) 

Give them a faster cap timer so that the defenders need to prioritize how and what to do and that would give the FMS setters also time to set multi FMS around town for an attack along with everything I outlined before , multi FMS per one Truck , 2 FMS for each units ATG ,AAA and INF and so on and on. 

3 people like this

Share this post


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

If we want troops behind enemy lines then let's do it the right way and use the Paratroopers , give them a FRU so to speak with a limited spawnpool ( at least that simulates a larger force dropped) 

Give them a faster cap timer so that the defenders need to prioritize how and what to do and that would give the FMS setters also time to set multi FMS around town for an attack along with everything I outlined before , multi FMS per one Truck , 2 FMS for each units ATG ,AAA and INF and so on and on. 

Some good ideas here as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Step 1 IMO:

decrease FMS deploy timer and scale this timer based on pop. Underpop = super fast deploy over pop = slower equal pop = 30s?

double or triple the base damage to take it out and scale the damage required to take out the FMS based on population

1 shot fixed supply FRU for para is interesting, but, para’s are a luxury under pop can ill afford and i’m Concerned paratroops will go from being a somewhat large group activity to 1-2 mission leaders jumping to drop FRU then X amount of paras pop in. IMO, no spawning from this para FRU unless you jumped.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making paratroops stronger and part of every battle would accomplish the same broken realism as behind the defender FRUs. Defenders should not have to always plan their defenses for all directions of attacker approach. 

If the need is to make attacking more effective, find ways to increase the battle pop ratio.

In the real world, the classic even-odds battle pop ratio is 2:1, because the defense's ability to utilize pre-placed cover, movement restrictions and fire zones roughly doubles their effectiveness. The classic ratio for the attacker having a likelihood of prevailing is 3:1. CRS OTOH has always designed the game around a 1:1 battle pop goal, even as more defensively oriented PPOs are added.

Battle pop ratio IMO is where the opportunity for gameplay improvement is, because that's where the gameplay-first and realism-is-important viewpoints can converge.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, potthead said:

 

I am actually not talking about realism at all.. MS itself is far from realistic, FB , spawnble etc.. this is a GAME! to me a ROLE PLAYING / Fantasy WWII themed immersive war game (with some simulation vibe)

I'm talking about game play... I prefer a DIFFERENT style of game play than one that inf FRU allows to create (more fragmented fast action) - many missions... many streams of silent infantry coming to capture.. (it drive from the NEED to do combined arms, gives a short cut to make it EASIER to do it ALONE) 

"the current spawn system has too much instances of "no action" though. or boring, pointless action, with 1.2km FMS's we spend more time walking than doing anything useful like ZoC or capping."

I can not agree wit this. I think that is the system not being used properly then. It is due to laziness.  It is very possible with current spawning system to create action overpop, underpop in any situation wherever the map is.

When I play.. I am constantly in SOME SORT of Action.... different paces at different times of day/ DO/AO etc.. but there is ALWAYS some action... heck it is so much action i can not leave my desk for hours at a time sometimes to get food break! I consider sitting in a FB that MAY get attacked or not also a sort of ACTION if it as an important FB .. i spend the time chatting and making new friends then.. teaching new players the mechanics perhaps whatever... a portion of my gaming time is spent on that... ( i remember back in the day .. there were MANY players who also LOVED that and found that a SORT OF ACTION FUN .. a few remain) ... the always-instant-action crowd drove them(us) away.) with promises of things like removal of ToE and removal of INF FRU, some of us have come back.  

Having to walk 1.2 KM ... if there is 3 means 1 can bring a truck .. other 2 can cover and move MS closer.. I do it as much as I can . yes then need to bring a atg as well to deal with the ET that will hear u and come.. and the INF need to NOT run to town and sit back and cover and snipe ei as they come in. .  .. doesn't mean we take every AO .. but I try to fight for every inch of ground..

in Defense same thing... why do people think that defense can not be like an attack .. a counter attack before town is even lost is SO MUCH fun .... convoy of relief from back town! heck we can MAKE MSPs from linking town . that is AMAZING! yes takes 5-10 min to drive but is well worth it!

Just because enemy has defense up.. doesnt stop me... just means the parameter needs to be further out... then sneak behind and cap while they in outskirts... and bring action to spawnble.. change of PACE again, IMMERSION ... (not realism.... FANTASY immersion)

the problem is, not everyone is a 10+yr player that logs for over an hour. nearly everyone left is one of these guys. we lost a lot of 3-5yr 30min-1h players with the FMS

ya gotta look at this from more angles man, people brought up their complaints and they were dismissed. now they stopped logging in.

 

players got sick of low intensity, small battles, with constant camping. there's more to do in game, but the normal state were in is not fun for someone who only logs a hour and played for less than 2 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.