delems

Infantry spawn building (SP).

162 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, david06 said:

of course you don't see killing the enemy as effective, you're probably one of the people in chat barking at all the new players to "rush the depot", as if they are going to kill the veteran with a SMG, 2000+ hours in the game and a throttled connection with their bolt rifle

LOL. I've spent a lot of my in game time in the last couple weeks as a rifle doing just that (rushing CPs, or defending them). It's usually a losing battle, and while I haven't played in years, I'm probably closer to vet than noob (even with a chest full of SMG rounds in less time than I manage to shoulder a rifle). SMG is far easier for that use, and I use a Thompson if Brit (the French SMG is useless).

Do all sides have the same number of each weapon type in the spawn lists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

I would wonder how it would turn out if we removed depot spawning for everyone, but allowed ML to deploy a small LMS INSIDE any building =>Spawn where you want as long as you can keep it up. 

Still have to have a place the ML spawned from and moves to for placement of LMS and whatever that is can be camped. 

Also takes away the trucks and light guns from depots, which are important flanking weapons for both attacker and defender, particularly in the current AB down but still can spawn garrison environment we are in now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

58 minutes ago, tater said:

What if such a spawn point had a piece of furniture to show it was there, and if an EI was in that building, they would not be allowed to use weapons (like in a capped depot) in that building, except the HE charges to used to blow it? 

Or reversely, as soon as an enemy infantry stands close, the LMS should become inactive and spawned forces must handle it alone. Unfortunately that would require coding and the roadmap is already full

15 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

Still have to have a place the ML spawned from and moves to for placement of LMS and whatever that is can be camped. 

Also takes away the trucks and light guns from depots, which are important flanking weapons for both attacker and defender, particularly in the current AB down but still can spawn garrison environment we are in now.

Sure, the FMS camping is an issue when there are no much alternatives. Trying to evaluate pros and cons of fixes. We started with faster PPOs to support its defense. 

Trucks and guns should continue to spawn at depots, sure. I was thinking on an infantry perspective

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

which are important flanking weapons for both attacker and defender,

The use of trucks for "flanking" is odd given the lack of any reasonable, persistent defenses. Every single town battle not constrained by geography (a river or the sea) is the Alamo. A small number of attackers (assume low pop), a small number of defenders. The few defenders have to guard 6 buildings with at least 1 guy (unless they want to lose the town, which my side apparently does much of the time ;) ), then need to literally defend from every compass direction. Not counting the people playing whack-a-mole with EI actually inside town.

I'm not denying that the tactic works, and I prefer fights out of town in general, but it seems like the game mechanics are designed to intentionally create the goofiest gameplay that actually reduces fun.

People that want a more realistic WW2 feel would presumably want to feel like it's a real fight. If there are 12 people on each side, wouldn't a squad action in a limited part of town be more fun for them than homogeneously spreading those 12 people in and around the town for "enemy is everywhere" deathmatch style play?

People that want instant action, wouldn't they want to play where they know that all the action is pretty much nearby where they are, and that their own guys are on either side of them, and the enemy is "that way!"?

I should add that the meta game only matters to me to the extent it creates novel encounters for player units. 1v1 combat is never novel or interesting in this game, pretty much by definition. Only group on group even has the potential to be interesting.

Share this post


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

Or reversely, as soon as an enemy infantry stands close, the LMS should become inactive and spawned forces must handle it alone. Unfortunately that would require coding and the roadmap is already full

I'd require that they blow it, frankly, though the threshold could be lower (1 charge). Also, they could not be blown until captures were live, perhaps. Then defenders spawn into a town empty of players (but supposedly filled with defensive troops), and they will know that the town is already magically full of EI when the EI are forced to blow those spawns, or stand in the open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@taterI pretty much agree with your point of view regarding battle density . Wished you could support the project going premium :)

some in-game polls are currently auditing a wide variety of ideas brought up in the forums and that might specifically influence battle frequency, duration and density. There is a list of 50+ Poll Questions waiting the initial results 

see here

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ZEBBEEE said:

@taterI pretty much agree with your point of view regarding battle density . Wished you could support the project going premium :)

some in-game polls are currently auditing a wide variety of ideas brought up in the forums and that might specifically influence battle frequency, duration and density. There is a list of 50+ Poll Questions waiting the initial results 

I was waiting on that inf subscription in the roadmap. I suppose I might sub for a couple months at premium and see how enraged I get.

That really is my issue, there's a lot I still love about this game/community, but the gameplay is... just. so. awful.

CQB is worst WW2OL, yet it is literally required as the crux of all play. All gameplay changes as implemented (some have good bones) since beta seem to have been purpose designed to make gameplay worse.

Maybe I'll sub just to complain for a while again and have some standing again to do so.

I've been posting since playing in WBS precisely because I like the idea of the game, and still wish it was better and hence more sustainable. I honestly think that that's the only reason it's still here, people like the idea of what they think it should or could be more than what it is. I know I kept my sub past when I stopped playing much (I got my brother in law to play way back when, and he ended up in a squad and more into the game in an organized way than I ever was).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, tater said:

CQB is worst WW2OL, yet it is literally required as the crux of all play. All gameplay changes as implemented (some have good bones) since beta seem to have been purpose designed to make gameplay worse.

Can you help me understand by giving a list of exact points you think have had a negative effect? Not sure what has been changed since beta of 1.36.

Share this post


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

Can you help me understand by giving a list of exact points you think have had a negative effect? Not sure what has been changed since beta of 1.36.

I mean BETA. As in pre-release, 20 years ago. :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, then I think the forum cannot list all the items that I would personally point out  as well :D 

 ship at full steam hard to turn around though. And stopping such an old engine to replace it by a nuclear propulsion brings the risk to never see it restart again if the maintenance operation fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as addressing battle density, and ei everywhere, attacking from every direction, and the coding resources all booked, here is one possibility to consider - proximity capping. Proximity AOs are being worked on correct? You apply the same 'so many troops within a given area code' with adjusted numbers, and distances, for capture. You make it requisite to have a certain percentage of your troops in close proximity to the target flag to cap or initiate capture. Then things are not near so squirrelly, you don't have to watch your back so much, and capture is effectively a squad op.

Add to that the simple idea of the open flag/trench flag/Zeebee's defensive position flag, and now with a proper defensive position looking out on the battlefield being the point of capture/attack, or an open area that must be broadly controlled, and the necessity to mass troops to initiate capture, you have something that much more approximates a war.

Edited by blggles
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you top off the above with persistent defensive missions (believe they were once in game before brigades) for each garrison, from each depot, and lemkeh's idea of the trench FMS, then you could actually have prepared frontlines outside of town that have to be dealt with first. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im liking where this is going..I am also in the same boat as tater. I want the game to succeed badly but a combination of high sub costs, God awful CQB gameplay, and the fact that the game becomes WORK is stopping me. My squad has mostly left or rarely log in at all now.

Proximity aos and by extension proximity capping could alleviate 2 out 3 issues for me, and the inf only/land based subs would fix the last excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tater said:

 

The use of trucks for "flanking" is odd given the lack of any reasonable, persistent defenses. Every single town battle not constrained by geography (a river or the sea) is the Alamo. A small number of attackers (assume low pop), a small number of defenders. The few defenders have to guard 6 buildings with at least 1 guy (unless they want to lose the town, which my side apparently does much of the time ;) ), then need to literally defend from every compass direction. Not counting the people playing whack-a-mole with EI actually inside town.

I'm not denying that the tactic works, and I prefer fights out of town in general, but it seems like the game mechanics are designed to intentionally create the goofiest gameplay that actually reduces fun.

People that want a more realistic WW2 feel would presumably want to feel like it's a real fight. If there are 12 people on each side, wouldn't a squad action in a limited part of town be more fun for them than homogeneously spreading those 12 people in and around the town for "enemy is everywhere" deathmatch style play?

People that want instant action, wouldn't they want to play where they know that all the action is pretty much nearby where they are, and that their own guys are on either side of them, and the enemy is "that way!"?

I should add that the meta game only matters to me to the extent it creates novel encounters for player units. 1v1 combat is never novel or interesting in this game, pretty much by definition. Only group on group even has the potential to be interesting.

That's the shooter viewpoint, and I think the whole nodal mesh setup is certainly designed to create differing player-genned 'scenarios'. 

 

However, my experience of what people do does not actually jibe with your shooter perspective.  Player orgs from the Golden Era to today do their damnedest to avoid the enemy until the last, to win that all important critical firepower position that gets them the town, the objective most players orient themselves to.

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 1:38 AM, delems said:

Have we ever thought have changing our current 3 story spawn building?

For example, just make it 1 story tall with maybe some sort of roof access from inside?

Use just the bottom floor (to keep trucks, ATGs, etc.); prolly have to make it a no fire zone though.

 

No more sniping from 3rd story, making it very hard for attacker to move in, no more jumping to CP, no more 3 story jumps - etc.

I think making the SP a single story building might improve gameplay by allowing attacker to setup on a CP better.

 

Please excuse my poor understanding of English construction terminology. I have to ask, the infantry spawn building has 2 floors, ground floor and a 2nd floor. Still it's considered to be a 3 story building? How come?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Kilemall said:

What happens with the underpop that can't maintain a continuous presence all over town to defeat an attack?

That is not part of this discussion, the current design, in my opinion has made one side more attractive and more playable than the other, and there is a core group that will not change sides during low pop to balance the odds.  As I said above, that takes a discussion to drive away those individual who are causing the imbalance, cause them to create a balance so they have someone to play against, or make the other side more attractive to draw more players during that period.  This discussion does not solve that problem.  You want a balance mechanism, something that makes both sides equally competitive, equally attractive to play, something that will draw players from one side that is "over pop" to the "under pop" side that will make the gameplay worthwhile.  A reward or sense of accomplishment, start a discussion on that.

In real life areas that were not defended were occupied by the opposing force, the defending force had to decide where they were going to defend, what was important to them, again in my opinion it makes the mechanism I discussed more realistic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, david06 said:

and I'm not sure when the last was that you tried sapping a spawn building or a depot, but it's like 8 charges now not 1

of course you don't see killing the enemy as effective, you're probably one of the people in chat barking at all the new players to "rush the depot", as if they are going to kill the veteran with a SMG, 2000+ hours in the game and a throttled connection with their bolt rifle

SPAWN BUILDING: 3 Story Building where the infantry/AT/AAA/Trucks spawn.

Capture Point/Flag Building/CP: Two story building with the flag that controls ownership of the spawn building.

Spawn building 1 Charge, Flag Building 8 Charges,  I do see killing the Enemy as Effective and I don't tell people to "Rush the Building."   I try to get a bunch of people to throw grenades in, but CRS has seen fit to make allied grenades only good at killing the allied player who threw them.  But several players throwing several grenades and then several players moving in can clear and recapture.  I also try to get people to "Camp" spawns and FMS because I believe, especially since 1.36, attrition is plays a key role in winning a battle.  But no one listens or works with me.  We should have three or four grenadiers firing into the CP, while others are throwing grenades in then others move in with smoke and satchel charges, and more grenades.   I have never seen a coordinated effort to retake and rarely see coordinated efforts to hold CP (capture points/flag buildings.)

What I see are 10,000 RAMBOs who rush in headlessly and are mown down by the SMG with 2000+ hours and a throttled connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kilemall said:

However, my experience of what people do does not actually jibe with your shooter perspective.  Player orgs from the Golden Era to today do their damnedest to avoid the enemy until the last, to win that all important critical firepower position that gets them the town, the objective most players orient themselves to.

I'm unsure what exactly you mean by my "shooter experience."

Avoiding the enemy to the last, regardless of geography is precisely my problem. I am not arguing that such a tactic is ineffective, I'm arguing it feels like some other universe, not ground combat in WW2.

Yes, towns were surrounded, but this was not the case in all cases (or most). In the hedgerows after D-Day, why didn't the Allies simply drive around and attack the Germans from their rear, for example? Because they would have first had to drive around all the Germans, and the Germans were not arrayed in isolated points with many km between them.

Nearly every battle in this game has attacks coming from all sides (including inside areas that would certainly be safe from attack with small arms short of paratroopers being dropped on them).

If the Germans are generally speaking East of a given town, and this town is not in a pocket/bulge in the line, the expectation of any forces attacking from West should be nearly (or actually) zero.

 

This is an example where this realism (abstracting the fact that real troop concentrations would be put into the field along a front, precisely to mitigate being flanked) results in better gameplay for players. Why? Because we play to fight, I assume, not to take points on a map with no combat (else make a meta game at the large unit level, and just tell us all how it turned out). By forcing the very limited player base to always direct themselves in 360 degree defenses, AND a large % of them guarding facilities in town (because infantry are in the towns often before the defense is even formed), we end up wasting players on boring and frustrating play.

Edited by tater

Share this post


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

That is not part of this discussion, the current design, in my opinion has made one side more attractive and more playable than the other, and there is a core group that will not change sides during low pop to balance the odds.  As I said above, that takes a discussion to drive away those individual who are causing the imbalance, cause them to create a balance so they have someone to play against, or make the other side more attractive to draw more players during that period.  This discussion does not solve that problem.  You want a balance mechanism, something that makes both sides equally competitive, equally attractive to play, something that will draw players from one side that is "over pop" to the "under pop" side that will make the gameplay worthwhile.  A reward or sense of accomplishment, start a discussion on that.

In real life areas that were not defended were occupied by the opposing force, the defending force had to decide where they were going to defend, what was important to them, again in my opinion it makes the mechanism I discussed more realistic. 

You wanna go into that, the terrain coloration and game design favors one side for tanking just as much as any of the CQB buildings, and with the spawnlists set to burn through MGs very quickly guess where the tank advantage goes?

 

It continues to amaze me that both sides refuse to acknowledge their opponents' weakness, their own strengths, and work to a workable game for both.  It really disheartens me and makes me wonder if I want to play with a bunch of people that just want THEIR advantage.

Share this post


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

This is an example where this realism (abstracting the fact that real troop concentrations would be put into the field along a front, precisely to mitigate being flanked) results in better gameplay for players. Why? Because we play to fight, I assume, not to take points on a map with no combat (else make a meta game at the large unit level, and just tell us all how it turned out). By forcing the very limited player base to always direct themselves in 360 degree defenses, AND a large % of them guarding facilities in town (because infantry are in the towns often before the defense is even formed), we end up wasting players on boring and frustrating play.

Your technical points are all valid, in fact at one point I had a great big argument with Zeroace over a 'front line generator' series of what we would now call FMS rules (FRUs were much more porous and 360 surrounding towns).

In point of fact the Americans DID surround a lot of Germans in towns then reduce them, but that was as much the Big H ordering no inch given rather then what the generals would have preferred, local withdrawals to form a solid line and preserve manpower.  Happened against the French, who were immobilized as much by their poor logistics as doctrine, in both cases the surrounding party had operational speed advantage, which is not modeled with ToEs (although they could be) and certainly won't with garrisons beyond literal driving down the road.

But my critique of both game tendencies and your assumption is that no people are NOT wired to have a jolly shootout, they work very hard to maneuver to firepower dominance, which involves avoidance of combat and damage up to the point of camping spawns.

And I don't blame them- the game design requires either ninja capping or burning through the enemy's supply while not losing your own.  BOTH require combat avoidance up to the point of decision.

We enforce by endless diatribes and demands about a 'fair' spawnlist and opportunity, while the town castle as objective funnels action and generates lethal density, even if only for a few blocks.

 

IMO it requires WWIIOL 2.0 and a significant reorientation to destroying the enemy in a variety of settings while generating that density and retaining logistical capture/reward elements to get your shooter the way you want it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I don't disagree. My problem is I have never liked the capture the flag nature of WW2OL gameplay at all. What I signed up for was a ww2 simulation (obviously not at high fidelity) at the squad or platoon level (given number of players possible in any location). Operationally, towns certainly were bypassed, but the way the game usually feels in this respect, it might as well be a driving simulator. You drive to a place, and ta da, you win. 

The goal of the game needs to be set first, the rest follows from that given.

IMHO, the goal should be platoon level combat (realistically played serially at squad level).

As long as there are no meaningful computer controlled units, having each player perhaps represent a platoon or even company, gameplay will be goofy. 

I play entirely for those rare, immersive feeling small unit combats. What keeps me on the fence about resubbing (though I plan to do the all inf one for a few months, anyway, as soon as they set that up) is that I feel compelled to help my team, so I spend most game time defending or assaulting CPs. Something I literally hate doing. about 1 millionth of 1 percent of the time I spend even close to a CP is better than awful, but I have played enough to know that it's 100% required to not just end up having to spawn in a camped AB, or no action at all. It really is terrible game design, and I have said so since before the game was officially released, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Something I literally hate doing. about 1 millionth of 1 percent of the time I spend even close to a CP is better than awful, but I have played enough to know that it's 100% required to not just end up having to spawn in a camped AB, or no action at all.

It's too bad CRS can't develop a way of having territory capture gameplay without spawn camping, i.e. enemy-position-aware dynamic spawning on top of mandated small unit proximity.

No action at all when capturing territory is pretty realistic. You're scared and nervous, you're expecting the enemy to be around the next corner as you work your way toward the objective, but inexplicably they're not there.

Spawning into a camped situation, OTOH, would only be realistic in Bizarro World.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

It's too bad CRS can't develop a way of having territory capture gameplay without spawn camping, i.e. enemy-position-aware dynamic spawning on top of mandated small unit proximity.

The “frontlines” mechanic of Steel Division 1944 (an RTT game) is in my opinion almost exactly what WW2OL needs. A dynamic frontline that simulates areas of control that can only be moved by advancing line units and thereby controls where your spawns can be placed. It would also effect whether or not you could spawn into a depot for example, because if done correctly it also acts as the proximity capture mechanism for the town. No more ninja captures, no behind the lines FMS (in fact, in SD1944 even recon units don’t move the line of control, only line and leadership units do). 

More than anything, WW2OL 2.0 would benefit from taking many of its design points from other wargames that have to deal with realistically trying to model a WW2 battle. 

On a side note, as a player who normally spent almost all his time flying, I often didn’t fully understand the importance of the “base game”, that is spawning and taking or holding territory at the infantry level. Having played the grunt work roll for a few months now the issues that are being discussed are really becoming much more clear.

IMO, WW2OL 2.0 does not have a massive map (1000kms +) or naval battles (or even air) to be good, it needs to have the right mechanics built in from the start to help simulate a realistic battle for area control. That’s the heart of the battle, and from it all other things flow. 

Share this post


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

It's too bad CRS can't develop a way of having territory capture gameplay without spawn camping, i.e. enemy-position-aware dynamic spawning on top of mandated small unit proximity.

No action at all when capturing territory is pretty realistic. You're scared and nervous, you're expecting the enemy to be around the next corner as you work your way toward the objective, but inexplicably they're not there.

Spawning into a camped situation, OTOH, would only be realistic in Bizarro World.

The game does have the ML spawning capacity, and it does keep track of friendly and nme locations, and they're working on proximity AOs, coding wise it might not take too very much work to create something interesting along those lines. 

Edited by blggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, blggles said:

The game does have the ML spawning capacity, and it does keep track of friendly and nme locations, and they're working on proximity AOs, coding wise it might not take too very much work to create something interesting along those lines. 

That's a far cry from say having 'tile capture' or defining unique capture areas the same way current facilities are defined, but entire blocks/ridges.  That's object coding, and X capture areas x Y town/junction/river crossing translates into something like I think 5000 objects.  Not counting FB-like objects.

 

T'ain't casual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.