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

19 hours ago, aismov said:

I think its important to distinguish between most prevalent unit used and most popular unit used. I play infantry the vast majority of the time, I enjoy it, but there are things I enjoy more. But I spawn it because that is the tool you need to win battles and move the map. Boots matter, the rest is gravy. It is only natural in a competitive game where infantry hold the keys to the kingdom everyone will be using it.

I think the point @montyuno was trying to raise is that players don't seek out WWIIOL because of infantry combat. But rather they seek out WWIIOL for the combined arms aspect, and by catering to the infantry via the FRU you can do serious damage to the vehicle game, thereby decreasing the use of combined arms, and eliminating the one hook that WWIIOL. All of a sudden a prospective player logs in and finds out it is an infantry slugfest in town and quickly moves away to PS or BF due to their superior graphics and infantry play in a map that is effectively the same size as our cities.

I am of the opinion that when all branches do well, the entire playerbase grows and does well. The Infantry FRU is great for attacking infantry, but it pretty much ruins the game for everyone else.

I don't think combined arms means what you think it means.

Combined Arms:  Combined Arms is an approach to warfare which seeks to integrate different combat arms of a military to achieve mutually complementary effects.

What you are seeking is the severe reduction to infantry on the battlefield.  That is what the FMS has accomplished.  You keep citing "Combined Arms" as your reasoning against the infantry FRU.  If your ATG is sitting all alone with no infantry support to counter other infantry you are not practicing combined arms.  If your tank is all alone with no infantry cover, you are not practicing combined arms.  You also seem to think that fronts should somehow be liner with little to no way for the enemy to end up behind you and somehow claim that is more "realistic". Strange... I seem to recall always establishing 360 degree security in the real world during infantry movements.  For large defenses I recall 360 degree security with "defense in depth", or multiple layers of defense on the assumption that the enemy will infiltrate defenses at some point or another.  This seems like a rather idiotic doctrine based on what is being outlined as the "realistic" approach to combat.  It seems that real world training must be awfully flawed somewhere in insisting on 360 degree security all the time.  

You're right.  Combined Arms is the answer.  If people had been practicing it as a doctrine in game in the first place than the infantry FRU in its previous manifestation wouldn't have been a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FRU placed off the FMS, which becomes a separate mission, and no AT works.

Either FB or FMS goes down, all FRUs tied to them go down and close missions.

It's like Gophur's fallback FRU. 

People still have to drive the base FMS forward and so earn the placement and maintain it, but it can reasonably be placed in a survivable location beyond 1km and still have all sorts of little FRUs 400m or intown.

Absolute no to dropping overpop cap time cost in that case- overpop will be far better equipped to maintain their FRUs in this rules regimen.

 

Minky, combined arms 360 security in the real world with enough eyes and weapons to see and at least fire/communicate enemy presence is a different matter then our sparse per km frontages.  This along with 'it's a game' is the outstanding issue re: 'modeling' combined arms warfare.  We're just always going to only approximate or use game shorthand.

So both towns and attacking FRU/FMS and armor are going to be unusually vulnerable to stealth, and stealth will be stopped cold with enough set eyes and/or not enough firepower once attackers or defenders gain position. 

Right now that requires tanks.  We should have artillery too, the fact that we can't further unveils the true gameplay cost of the nodal spawn fortress design.

All the camping in either direction is a desperate clawing to get that firepower position superiority and various timer/EWS mechanics to allow a battle to organically develop before it's over. 

Most suggestions of the OP's nature are attempts to escape the cage of 'game' and get to a mutual maneuver/fire battle.  I wouldn't pee on the goal even if the mechanic proposed has problems.

Edited by Kilemall
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.