• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Crs Wants You!   01/18/2019

      CRS is looking for some volunteer live support chat staff.  Are you up for the assignment?  If so,  please send an email with your interest to,  Jobs@corneredrats.com
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

1 hour ago, Capco said:

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.

 

it's insane how boredom is soo easily dismissed as bad player skill... lost my XO and a cunk of my squad to the changes in spawns. i know you lost some too (everyone has), there's no need to be apologetic. it's downright insulting to suggest the players that quit were playing the game badly.

Share this post


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

Just my pecection again .. I did not like it.. 

Even take away the gameyness of ATG/ Tank  being sapped etc 

My issue was it fragmented action... 

I dont see 10 missions with 10 MSPs being a GOOD thing necceasirly..

I prefer to see 1 Mission .... with 3 trucks in there that are under the command of the mission leader who coordinated the team (squad or not) to be at the locations of the terrain where it makes tactical or strategic sense.

the most fun operations that I tend to run, are when I have 2-3 trucks of my own or on voice comms with, along with some tanks and ATGs.. and I direct the flow of ALL inf on the AO with moving MSP in the SAME misison

to have players(inf) where it makes most use and is MOST fun for them.

I prefer to see cohesion of action consolidated in LESS missions... (like BlitzKader mission on Axis side, or 7th Ast on Allied side)  

 

You won’t get any argument from me on the mission issue. I have long argued the UI is too complicated and each town should only have one mission with all spawns available on that mission to be clicked on from a map screen. The problem with the current system is that it breaks up squads across multiple missions since more than one spawn is generally necessary for an attack. Multiple spawns on one singular mission is the way to go. 

The point that I was making is that the inf FRU doesn’t have to be game breaking if tweaked and would provide for more action. The old inf FRU DID provide more in game action. 

Some people crack me up in this debate. They talk like one guy getting behind the lines and setting a FRU killed the ATG game. The tank game sure with the ability to spawn sappers. But the ATG game?  Come on man. That same one guy sneaking behind the lines can knock out every ATG in place. No reinforcements needed. The reason ATGs are more survivable now is the lack of in game population. 

Share this post


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

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.

Absolutely spot on.  

21 minutes ago, minky said:

The point that I was making is that the inf FRU doesn’t have to be game breaking if tweaked and would provide for more action. The old inf FRU DID provide more in game action. 

Some people crack me up in this debate. They talk like one guy getting behind the lines and setting a FRU killed the ATG game. The tank game sure with the ability to spawn sappers. But the ATG game?  Come on man. That same one guy sneaking behind the lines can knock out every ATG in place. No reinforcements needed. The reason ATGs are more survivable now is the lack of in game population. 

Correct again.  

Share this post


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

Absolutely spot on.  

Correct again.  

The funny thing is that the one example of someone saying how the the ATG game is better highlights my point. The ATG was still knocked out by a single EI no FRU needed. What would it have mattered if the guy set a FRU?  The result was exactly the same. Simply limiting AT capabilities from the FRU would have gone a long way towards bolstering the armor game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 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".

you cut out the part where i restricted that

 

11 hours ago, madrebel said:

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. 

deploy within X distance simulates a fire team flanking or setting up in a different spot from the main thrust.

one shot FRU = not teleporting supply, just a limited amount of guys with an assumed 'weapons and ammo only' load.

 

again, all i'm seeing from the "no" group is essentially "no, the first iteration wasn't good so no" with zero thought towards how it might be a good feature. or, the realism nerds are just saying "no, its not real" ... as they whip out their GPS map with live updates or friendlies shown and the ability to 'mark' targets that everyone then knows about ...

 

1 hour ago, jwilly said:

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.

I don't disagree here per se however, IRL, the defense is all 'spawned in' in set positions. a luxury we don't have in game. design needs to be a bit more 1:1 because of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, minky said:

The funny thing is that the one example of someone saying how the the ATG game is better highlights my point. The ATG was still knocked out by a single EI no FRU needed. What would it have mattered if the guy set a FRU?  The result was exactly the same. Simply limiting AT capabilities from the FRU would have gone a long way towards bolstering the armor game. 

exactly. the switch to ball ammo and the increased lethality of HE helps ATGs more than the loss of FRUs. still super easy to kill though.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

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.

I have outlined your bottom concern in another thread about Paras and a FMS idea.

The ML of the drop can set a FMS if he chooses to do so and all that spawned on his mission get exactly 1 respawn at said FMS , when all dead new group has to be flown in and the ML has to set a new FMS , if the ML dies before an FMS is set then one has to try again.

To compare the Para to the HC FRU or ML is in my eyes totally wrong.

The HC can walk to town and set behind lines an instant Army.

The Para trooper still needs to find a willing pilot and as I have outlined above ,no troops on your mission = no Army behind the lines. It would spurn on Para play ,Teamwork and the players that like to play the Para Avatar don't have to sit for another 30 min at an AF waiting for assembly.

Once a good force dropped they  get one free respawn and as the Units die one can already make another mission and maybe instead of having to wait he can take off again with a group a bit smaller then before 

but with the free respawn the once still alive it would be a considerable force , with faster cap timer and Regular troops now having established a FMS or 2 around town would actually give the defenders a work out and the Attackers would stand a chance.

I'm not a strict NO guy but someone that tries to improve the game bring more fractions into this Attack /Devensive chess game we play.

@aismov @dre21 @B2Ksob paste did me in again

 

 

 

Edited by dre21
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I have outlined your bottom concern in another thread about Paras and a FMS idea.

The ML of the drop can set a FMS if he chooses to do so and all that spawned on his mission get exactly 1 respawn at said FMS , when all dead new group has to be flown in and the ML has to set a new FMS , if the ML dies before an FMS is set then one has to try again.

To compare the Para to the HC FRU or ML is in my eyes totally wrong.

The HC can walk to town and set behind lines an instant Army.

The Para trooper still needs to find a willing pilot and as I have outlined above ,no troops on your mission = no Army behind the lines. It would spurn on Para play ,Teamwork and the players that like to play the Para Avatar don't have to sit for another 30 min at an AF waiting for assembly.

Once a good force dropped they  get one free respawn and as the Units die one can already make another mission and maybe instead of having to wait he can take off again with a group a bit smaller then before 

but with the free respawn the once still alive it would be a considerable force , with faster cap timer and Regular troops now having established a FMS or 2 around town would actually give the defenders a work out and the Attackers would stand a chance.

I'm not a strict NO guy but someone that tries to improve the game bring more fractions into this Attack /Devensive chess game we play.

I'm largely fine with it. Realism nerds that barely play or don't actually the game like jwilly (last stats are from campaign 14) won't like it but who cares if it makes the game better.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I have outlined your bottom concern in another thread about Paras and a FMS idea.

The ML of the drop can set a FMS if he chooses to do so and all that spawned on his mission get exactly 1 respawn at said FMS , when all dead new group has to be flown in and the ML has to set a new FMS , if the ML dies before an FMS is set then one has to try again.

To compare the Para to the HC FRU or ML is in my eyes totally wrong.

The HC can walk to town and set behind lines an instant Army.

The Para trooper still needs to find a willing pilot and as I have outlined above ,no troops on your mission = no Army behind the lines. It would spurn on Para play ,Teamwork and the players that like to play the Para Avatar don't have to sit for another 30 min at an AF waiting for assembly.

Once a good force dropped they  get one free respawn and as the Units die one can already make another mission and maybe instead of having to wait he can take off again with a group a bit smaller then before 

but with the free respawn the once still alive it would be a considerable force , with faster cap timer and Regular troops now having established a FMS or 2 around town would actually give the defenders a work out and the Attackers would stand a chance.

I'm not a strict NO guy but someone that tries to improve the game bring more fractions into this Attack /Devensive chess game we play.

@aismov @dre21 @B2Ksob paste did me in again

 

 

 

I think a better use for paras would be for them to have their own special “para AO” that allows for them to capture towns behind the lines.  It would add some spice to the game in the form of new types of cut offs and give paras an actual function different from everything else in game. 

Share this post


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

I'm largely fine with it. Realism nerds that barely play or don't actually the game like jwilly (last stats are from campaign 14) won't like it but who cares if it makes the game better.

There are a lot of people that pontificate here that have never tested their assumptions in the actual game battle. Some of those people now even help make key decisions. 

Share this post


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

The HC can walk to town and set behind lines an instant Army.

I've set several of these so far.  Believe me, bolt action riflemen do NOT count as an instant army.  If it did, those attacks would be a hell of a lot more successful.  

 

It is that experience which was the genesis of this entire thread.  The HC FRU gave some options, but not enough to make a difference in its severely restricted form.  

 

Also what's with you tagging the same 3 guys over and over?  lol

Share this post


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

The funny thing is that the one example of someone saying how the the ATG game is better highlights my point. The ATG was still knocked out by a single EI no FRU needed. What would it have mattered if the guy set a FRU?  The result was exactly the same. Simply limiting AT capabilities from the FRU would have gone a long way towards bolstering the armor game. 

I basically said the same thing earlier in this thread but it fell on deaf ears.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

problem the ATG game has is a lack of targets. if there's EI and a weak ZoC it's screwed no matter the conditions.

in 159 (as pvt0pwned) i only had to use it once, and only seen it used 3x

Share this post


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

... as they whip out their GPS map with live updates or friendlies shown and the ability to 'mark' targets that everyone then knows about ...

No disagreement from me on new-CRS's viewpoint on mapping and marking, carried over from old-CRS. Old-CRS said privately that they thought they needed to do that to have any chance of competing for modern players that have no awareness that WWII soldiers didn't all have perfect communications.

Quote

all i'm seeing from the "no" group is essentially "no, the first iteration wasn't good so no" with zero thought towards how it might be a good feature. or, the realism nerds are just saying "no, its not real"

What's plainly argued and there for you to see, if you wanted, is that some folks don't want FRUs because defenders shouldn't always have to set up all-directions defenses. Almost always in WWII, there were no "infiltrators", and the attack came from the front. Certainly attacking from the back wasn't the standard way of defeating a defense.

The game should work so that defenses almost always are attacked from the front, and when the attacker has a lethality advantage or superior tactics, the attack prevails that way.

Share this post


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

The game should work so that defenses almost always are attacked from the front, and when the attacker has a lethality advantage or superior tactics, the attack prevails that way.

If this could work without boring the snot out of the attacker every time an attack fails because the defense can easily track down the direction of attack, I'd be all for it.

 

Right now, giving the defender this level of knowledge severely hampers any AO that has an active defense.  Expecting people to outnumber the defender 2:1 or more in a FPS game is lunacy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again, with 'harder' bushlines and cannot deploy further than X from AB/Depot/FMS/FB you can predict where the enemy can come from.

you might have some sort of frame of reference for this if you had played the game at any point in the past 15 years.

Share this post


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

I've set several of these so far.  Believe me, bolt action riflemen do NOT count as an instant army.  If it did, those attacks would be a hell of a lot more successful.  

 

It is that experience which was the genesis of this entire thread.  The HC FRU gave some options, but not enough to make a difference in its severely restricted form.  

 

Also what's with you tagging the same 3 guys over and over?  lol

I give my responses to this thread on my phone and once in a great while the paste function pops up and it pastes whatever it has stored , I can delete all but the tagged names , why would I need to tag myself ? And so those 3 names remain , trust me I tried to get rid of it but no luck. So I leave it at the bottom and make a remark next to i

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, minky said:

I think a better use for paras would be for them to have their own special “para AO” that allows for them to capture towns behind the lines.  It would add some spice to the game in the form of new types of cut offs and give paras an actual function different from everything else in game. 

Have brought that up already too, all in the idea section of Para play,  I have had a few ideas for Paras cause in my eyes not used enough,  and for the function we have them in game it's almost not worth it , who wants to assemble on an AF forever just to get killed right away being dropped on an Active AO . 

One of my ideas was soft caps and defend  only possible via Paratroopers nothing else .

One could cap town behind lines and the other side would have to retake it , it would make for great AIR battles as each one is trying to get more troopers in to hold or recap the town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, minky said:

There are a lot of people that pontificate here that have never tested their assumptions in the actual game battle. Some of those people now even help make key decisions. 

Indeed. This is funny and sad at once. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, jwilly said:

No disagreement from me on new-CRS's viewpoint on mapping and marking, carried over from old-CRS. Old-CRS said privately that they thought they needed to do that to have any chance of competing for modern players that have no awareness that WWII soldiers didn't all have perfect communications.

What's plainly argued and there for you to see, if you wanted, is that some folks don't want FRUs because defenders shouldn't always have to set up all-directions defenses. Almost always in WWII, there were no "infiltrators", and the attack came from the front. Certainly attacking from the back wasn't the standard way of defeating a defense.

The game should work so that defenses almost always are attacked from the front, and when the attacker has a lethality advantage or superior tactics, the attack prevails that way.

I know right. That’s why the Germans went straight at the Maginot Line because attacking from the back wasn’t the standard for defeating a defense. Even if they would have went around it they certainly wouldn’t have hit the Allied Army at their weakest point in the Ardennes and encircled them thus creating a situation where they would have to be evacuated at Dunkirk. Moving around and hitting an enemy from a different direction wasn’t  invented until the Chosin Reservoir a few years later. Man... if only it had been thought of throughout history in places like the Battle of Lake Traismene or the Battle of Cannae. It’s too bad it wasn’t invented until after WWII. 

Edited by minky

Share this post


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

Have brought that up already too, all in the idea section of Para play,  I have had a few ideas for Paras cause in my eyes not used enough,  and for the function we have them in game it's almost not worth it , who wants to assemble on an AF forever just to get killed right away being dropped on an Active AO . 

One of my ideas was soft caps and defend  only possible via Paratroopers nothing else .

One could cap town behind lines and the other side would have to retake it , it would make for great AIR battles as each one is trying to get more troopers in to hold or recap the town.

I'd add that, if we had some sort of FRU and it had a 'radius' of some sort that we could then shuttle cargo planes to/fro and para drop supplies that if they fall within the radius, trickle in. if they fall outside the radius, troops could venture out, gather them up, and drag them back allowing for a behind the lines bridge head to form. was more relevant back in the day when we had a better critical mass but i'd like to see it discussed as we build more critical mass going forward.

somewhat grounded in realistism, somewhat gamey, but i think it would create fun gameplay.

 

Share this post


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

I know right. That’s why the Germans went straight at the Maginot Line because attacking from the back wasn’t the standard for defeating a defense. Even if they would have went around it they certainly wouldn’t have hit the Allied Army at their weakest point in the Ardennes and encircled them thus creating a situation where they would have to be evacuated at Dunkirk. Moving around and hitting an enemy from a different direction wasn’t  invented until the Chosin Reservoir a few years later. Man... if only it had been thought of throughout history in places like the Battle of Lake Traismene or the Battle of Cannae. It’s too bad it wasn’t invented until after WWII. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but how many of those forces teleported in without first having to flank around the defense? There is a difference here. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone would be better off if they just forgot the past and focused on the future. The largest reason this game has had dwindling numbers is, well, it's a very dated game, period. When is the last time you played PONG? 

I do agree that Inf placed FRU's are a step to far. They will decimate the Tank game, and not help the air game either. 

This game will never see the numbers it did in 2003-2006, not without a total re-write and a MAJOR graphics overhaul. 

Solutions are needed, but not at the expense of one phase of battle (tank/inf/planes/ships). 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a long time ago when there were far more players and no mobile spawns whatsoever.

This feels like an absurd and interminable argument that is akin to the cap timer arguments. Much ado about nothing, the spirit of it reminds me of "Waiting for Godot".

This is what you get when the essence of the gameplay, the spawn and capture rules, are and always have been FUBAR. The unending rerigging of a juryrigged system.

Good luck, but this doesn't even seem worth a bucket of popcorn.

Sorry, I hope you all do manage to make the game a bit better, I just felt the need to get that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, nc0gnet0 said:

They will decimate the Tank game, and not help the air game either. 

 

how? how will it decimate the tank game with no sappers and no RPATs. please explain.

 

as a pilot first player, who also happens to have a lot of ground missions over the years, not everything needs to holistically improve all aspects of the game. some things can be focused on a specific subset and still be fine, so long as it isn't at the expense of another aspect.

how again would a FRU with no AT units destroy the AFV game?

29 minutes ago, nc0gnet0 said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but how many of those forces teleported in without first having to flank around the defense? There is a difference here. 

from the stand point of the defender, they magically appeared in a place they shouldn't have been. surprise is a real factor in real battle. you're picking nits over 12 actual players flanking versus one flanking that can force multiply to say 12 via a one shot FRU. wish we had the population where 12 guys could just go on a hike and not affect their side negatively, we don't have that ATM though.

 

further, again, having a distance restriction as to where the FRU can be placed alleviates most of this concern.

 

so, please, how would a restricted FRU kill anything?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.