• Announcements

    • PITTPETE

      NEW Career Subscriptions now available   06/08/2019

      The all new highly anticipated / requested "Career Based Subscriptions" are available through www.WWIIONLINE.com/account only, starting at $9.99! There are three new subscriptions being added; 1) All Infantry at $9.99/mo, 2) All Air Forces at $9.99/mo, 3) All Ground Forces (Army Persona) at $12.99/mo. Continue reading to learn more and get back into the fight now! View the full article on battlegroundeurope.com
hondo

FB's

21 posts in this topic

If no missions are posted from an fb change it so it only requires half the current amount of charges.

Help new ao's to get set and avoid massive boredom.

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally don't see this as an issue, the rate limiting step for FBs is getting the FMS set up. Placing a few more sachels doesn't affect how long it takes to blow by very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id rather quadruple the amount of satchel charges it takes (or maybe more, not sure on exact number)
and let bombs and large caliber HE also contribute (with out having the ping pong game back due to the max damage being much too low)
Get back to where there was an actual fight over the FB

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Merlin51 said:

Id rather quadruple the amount of satchel charges it takes (or maybe more, not sure on exact number)
and let bombs and large caliber HE also contribute (with out having the ping pong game back due to the max damage being much too low)
Get back to where there was an actual fight over the FB

I agree. FB's were targets for air with AAA gunners on the lookout for aircraft if guarded. Now it is just unrealistic that bombs in real life were capable of blowing up factories, ships, airfields etc,. but ours cannot blow up an FB made of tent material. Place AI AAA gunners. Make it a challenge for air, but not impossible.

Edited by shiloh17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be fine with ea destroying PPOFB - maybe 19 direct hits from bombs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could propose to let Air bombs destroy FBs, but only when these are not linked to contested towns (or AOed towns with upcoming proximity constraints) So pilots could again actively contribute to accelerating the ground war by preparing/hindering map opportunities.

In counter part We could make FBs indestructible as long as an AO is up. Eventually giving these another role such as communications access and sabotage through the radio installations at veh spawn (or any other secondary objective keeping FB runs useful)

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Boo, remove all FBs.

Then only have PPOFB.

While I agree with you, it is not a thing as simple as just saying it, it requires code support, both host and client, and new code, not just adjusting present.
And FB wont work well if it is nothing  but a rebadged FMS, you wont like it, and that would be a bad way to introduce it into the game.

In the interim, the existing FB's could be made much more interesting.

5 hours ago, delems said:

I'd be fine with ea destroying PPOFB - maybe 19 direct hits from bombs.

Myself, I would probably go for more, give the FB a chance to become a fight itself, out in the country.

 

28 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

I would however make FBs indestructible as long as an AO is up.

I don't think I would do that, nothing should be invulnerable if the other guy takes the time to show up, not to mention one could use AO's themselves as a means
of denial.
Hmm you might attack here and I don't want you to yet, let me cast the spare AO here so you can not take down the FB and advance on me.

I do not think I would hamstring air to non AO'd targets only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All towns and FBs with garrisons should have automatic defensive missions - multiples - and each mission the potential for a near (not three clicks) FMS that stays up cause the mission stays up. Then more PPOs and FMS types. Then builders can go to town. Then you got a line, then you got an interesting battle, different every time, and more targets for air and arty.

Edited by blggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

I don't think I would do that, nothing should be invulnerable if the other guy takes the time to show up, not to mention one could use AO's themselves as a means
of denial.
Hmm you might attack here and I don't want you to yet, let me cast the spare AO here so you can not take down the FB and advance on me.

I do not think I would hamstring air to non AO'd targets only

Yep agree. This is exactly how the HC would use it. 

I personally think we are making the FBs into an issue when they are not. FBs and holding/losing them are no different than holding an FMS. Or holding acspawnable CP. Or not losing the AB for that matter. They fundamentally represent some aspect of player control over territory.

Now I understand that at times it's frustrating that losing the FB can stop an attack, but it is part of the game. We saw this to a degree prior to TBS that with effectively infinite supply the only game you could play is the rush-the-bunker game. The same would happen with any ideas of making the FBs unimportant to the prosecution of attack/defense.

You are effectively elimination alternative play styles, something which any game should never do (always cater to more playstyle a, not les). And also TBH losing an FB doesn't happen all that often. Yes it's frustrating, but consequences to your actions (or inaction) is what adds to the tension and gravity of the game. Eliminating this part if FBs may make the game less frustrating in those rare cases where the other side takes down the FB, but the entire gane would be poorer for it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have mixed feeling.  I do feel think there are too many objectives for an attack.  Let's say you want to attack a 2 ab town and you have 3 links.  That means you need at least 3-6 players on fb defense.  3 or 4 players running MS's.  If there are 7 flags (depos and ab's) You need at least 1 guard in each as the attack progresses.  Now that right there is 17 players that are committed to objectives that aren't the most fun things to do in-game.  If you have another 17 players that can run and gun, cap, play armor, play air, etc.... then you have an attack force that can cover every base.  With 2/3 AO's and 2/3 DO's, it is very rare to achieve this threshold even at primetime.  Which is whatever, you just cover the more important objectives and hope for the best.  But the major issue I see other than not having enough players in-game is that too many of the necessary objectives are of the more boring sort....... half in my example here.  This is an issue.....I would like to see the uncapturable timer for spawnable be set to like 10 mins after cap (you start an attack.... get into town and cap the spawn.... instead of a 1 min uncapturable timer.... make it 10)  This would let attackers focus on zone of control, at least for a little while, instead of just guarding the cp.  Other than that I'm not sure what can be done about boring objectives taking up to much of the PB......

Edited by kgarner
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very valid point.

The way I see it, is that by removing outside core objectives you effectively decrease the size of the game map. We've seen this with calls for closer FMS, and other mechanics. By eliminating the FB out of the equation, you effectively compress down the map where players need to be to find action. And at that point if you are fighting effectively only over a 1x1 km area of the game world, why not just go and play Post Scriptum instead?

In a persistent MMOFPS there is no way around boring objectives since those same objectives are targets for the other side. The key is designing the game in such a way that you don't force players to play only that one role but give them options. And let's not forget that with a big enough population the FBis full of action which caters to AA gunners, air players, and truckers. Back in the day if you wanted a good time trying to shoot down EA with an AA gun the FB was usually your first stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the air bombing FBs that are non-AO on either end.  This is in keeping with air's classic interdiction function, and would generate targets and a reason for fighters to sweep for bombers  away from AOs.

If AO'd, taking the FBs out of air kill status puts it on the ground pounders to handle and air is after tactical CAS kills or bridges. 

 

Course it was a can of worms to begin with.  There was a reason after all that air was taken out of FB ping pong, mostly Axis had Stukas and Allies didn't.  Now that there is plenty of HE ordnance in the air, shouldn't be an issue, but knowing players elaborate explanations of how 111s/DB7s/Havocs/Ju88s/Wellingtons/Jabos are unfair FB flip advantage is likely to crop up.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ZEBBEEE said:

We could propose to let Air bombs destroy FBs, but only when these are not linked to contested towns (or AOed towns with upcoming proximity constraints) So pilots could again actively contribute to accelerating the ground war by preparing/hindering map opportunities.

 

58 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

I like the air bombing FBs that are non-AO on either end.  This is in keeping with air's classic interdiction function, and would generate targets and a reason for fighters to sweep for bombers  away from AOs.

If AO'd, taking the FBs out of air kill status puts it on the ground pounders to handle and air is after tactical CAS kills or bridges. 

 

+10

2 people like this

Share this post


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

 

 

+10

+11

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Allied wunderbombers can take out fbs , there will never be an axis ao again.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hondo said:

If the Allied wunderbombers can take out fbs , there will never be an axis ao again.

 

 

Or the German bombers - just like the 'old days'  let's keep the side bias out of it please.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we can ever get area-capture done, we could set FBs to be both capturable and blowable. That would reduce the requirement of having satchel-bearers and resupply. Capture would work similarly to cp captures, though it'd start out longer and the capture rate would pause if contested. That would allow coordinated teams to set up and take down an FB rather than relying on ninja sappers or hot-drops, while also allowing for ninja sappers on well-defended FBs if necessary.

It'd also cut down on new players getting spawn camped forever because they don't know to spawn anywhere else.

Also, same thing for capturable FMSes for the same reason, so when you stumble on one as an LMG it gives you a way to shut it down other than spawncamping.

 

Not sure how I feel about bombers being able to blow FBs... while interdiction was a major component of their operations, FBs signify ground troops setting up a literal forward base of operations facing enemy-held territory. Therefore, I don't think planes alone should be able to move abstract ground army positions the map, but maybe a damage cap of 25% or 50% or something should be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2019 at 11:06 PM, hondo said:

If the Allied wunderbombers can take out fbs , there will never be an axis ao again.

 

 

If one plane can direct hit the FB like say 100 times quickly with a 500lb bomb, then perhaps, assuming of course that suddenly no axis plane with bombs is capable of taking off.
Don't know of any plane on either side that is very good at doing that though?

Share this post


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

If we can ever get area-capture done, we could set FBs to be both capturable and blowable. That would reduce the requirement of having satchel-bearers and resupply. Capture would work similarly to cp captures, though it'd start out longer and the capture rate would pause if contested. That would allow coordinated teams to set up and take down an FB rather than relying on ninja sappers or hot-drops, while also allowing for ninja sappers on well-defended FBs if necessary.

It'd also cut down on new players getting spawn camped forever because they don't know to spawn anywhere else.

Also, same thing for capturable FMSes for the same reason, so when you stumble on one as an LMG it gives you a way to shut it down other than spawncamping.

 

Not sure how I feel about bombers being able to blow FBs... while interdiction was a major component of their operations, FBs signify ground troops setting up a literal forward base of operations facing enemy-held territory. Therefore, I don't think planes alone should be able to move abstract ground army positions the map, but maybe a damage cap of 25% or 50% or something should be allowed.

I feel much the same way. Although I would love that have more Stuka targets the old system was pretty unsustainable with crazy ping pong. Making the FB unbomble when the AO is on is an interesting idea but feels a bit, meh, gamey.

I would be a fan of allowing bombers to do damage up to a certain threshold, and then leaving engineers to do the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2019 at 2:12 PM, aismov said:

I feel much the same way. Although I would love that have more Stuka targets the old system was pretty unsustainable with crazy ping pong. Making the FB unbomble when the AO is on is an interesting idea but feels a bit, meh, gamey.

I would be a fan of allowing bombers to do damage up to a certain threshold, and then leaving engineers to do the rest.

Coolness factor of bombing vs sapping aside, the main issue the OP wants addressed is the difficulty of flipping non-active FBs.  There are multiple ways to do that and I'm open to any one of them if people are against bombing.  

 

What's nice about the bombing idea though is that it's a two-birds-one-stone deal.  Not only do you mitigate the FB issue but you also add additional targets for the fly boys.  And they are kinda in need of targets.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.