krazydog

Why are the Rats adding SMGs to HC FRUs?

85 posts in this topic

15 hours ago, augetout said:

HC can't lead from the front and stay behind simultaneously.  I would love to believe HC aren't going to move their LMS around, but I have a funny feeling that they will.

I sure as hell would, and DID.

FRU was the most powerful weapon system in the game, ever, and I would have been a fool to not maintain and use it's full battle potential.

You could shape entire battles, maintain persistence, and when it was time to thrust the final stake into the heart of the town, move it up silently without interception for the killing blow.

Not to mention swimming rivers and having a full inf force pop up behind the lines, making bridges largely meaningless.

 

Back then I wasn't the only master of it of course.  Entire squads would shift around and maintain close infantry battle, winning or holding ground meant nothing as long as at least one ML had the wits to lay their FRU down in a survivable place.

 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back from a post I made 13.5 years ago:

Quote

1. Limit such MSPs (really Placed or Persistant SPs (PSPs), not mobile) to squads or platoons.

2. (a biggie) Subtract the units in said PSPs from the AB spawn list. Those units MUST spawn in the field. It's not enough to have optional field spawning, we need to FORCE field spawning. Get the inf (and AAA/ATG) the heck out of town. Set up a REAL perimeter.

3. Deployment rules that encourage realistic disposition of forces. No behind the lines PSPs (or MSPS). Exclusion zones around enemy PSPs/facilities.

4. Make the spawn point visible and cappable or destructible in some way.

This was when MSPs were just a thing in training, not live in the game, BTW.

It still holds true for all flavors of MSP (I still prefer my abbreviation since they don't actually move ;) ).

A representation of a group of troops closer to the front lines is great. Having them come from all directions, or indeed from inside the city itself is nothing short of absurd.

Draw a line between the attacking FB, and the nearest enemy facility in the AO. Subtract a few hundred meters, and that is how far away from the FB you can deploy a MSP/FRU/whatever the heck it's called.

I hate the idea of anything that makes more troops come from the wrong direction, it's just awful gameplay.

 

Share this post


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

The notion that CRS is not considering player feedback is false. Want proof?

it takes years to get through... everything listed was suggested the month the FMS was released

what should have been done a month after release, has taken 2 years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, XOOM said:

Then, we'll hear that the defenders are unable to blow it up causing great distress for them. Every action has an equal reaction.

The attacking side is already saying it's to hard to attack ,that defenders have it to easy. After all they spawn in town and have multiple CPs to do so. Do we want to encourage attacks or not? 

Ohh wait I know what we will do , let's just expand the HC FLMS even further, that should do the trick to get attacks going . 

Are you seriously telling me upping the charge by 1 or 2 will make defenders go WHAT the F CRS now we can't blow a FMS anymore ? It's no different then getting killed once and having to try again except now it takes 2 right away instead of just 1 Engineer . Why don't you guys take the all mighty poll question once again ,it worked so great for the HC FMS .

Well if that is your standpoint , I would like to get the ability back that my STUG can take down a FMS again .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, GrAnit said:

XOOM said, "Making the Fortified Mobile Spawn even stronger may be an option..." 

This, but nothing too elaborate, though.  Just make it twice as large and include man-able ATG guns, one facing in each direction, along with 4 man-able LMGs, a thick barbed wire and mine field surrounding the FMS 30m out, and several war dogs.   It should be made with reinforced concrete and  have several hidden escape tunnels.   Just whip this up for the next patch.  Thanks! :D

I really like the wardogs part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remove all HC MS.

If you can't get a truck to set a MS - then you're to close to the enemy or don't have the area secure.

 

And, to help remove the mole/boredom defense, maybe make captures require 2 players in CP or full EWS on the town before CPs can be captured.

 

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Just remove all HC MS.

If you can't get a truck to set a MS - then you're to close to the enemy or don't have the area secure.

 

And, to help remove the mole/boredom defense, maybe make captures require 2 players in CP or full EWS on the town before CPs can be captured.

This X1000.

And figure out some way to have an "on sides" rule for mobile spawns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/06/2019 at 0:51 PM, ZEBBEEE said:

I personally don’t believe that the hundreds of new players daily joining the game are disturbed by these.

They must however be disappointed by something the current spawning system doesn’t manage to answer. We need to find out. If an in-game poll suggests that a feature -that was completely removed- would be very much welcomed back, we should at least try out something in between.

Furthermore no one used the HCLMS so far... 

I personally would prefer our hard FMS spawning heavy guns and trucks but deployed at minimum 1km, as moveable LMS by feet but limited to jumps of maximum 100m, so that we maximize team cohesion. But on another part we have much more complaints about the lack of mobile spawns and camping situations, as being a « walking simulator ». The HC-placed FMS brings back a little bit of variety/complementarity to balance the current design which is still not perfect.

The agile development approach of CRS2 indeed has had some complicated temporarily outcomes, but if we don’t force the system to its limits, how could we understand its actual behaviour? We are still at the very beginning of major I upgrades capabilities, let’s not be pessimistic about temporarily quick fixes.

Keep giving feedbacks from your actual ingame experience, however. That is very much appreciated!

Well some of your "hundreds of new guys" and many not so new keep asking and complaining that they can't spawn at the FMS. I guess the guys who have bought an upgrade are most effected since ftp will be okay 

As regards these HCFMa being vulnerable, allied tanks with only AP ammo cannot kill them nor the urban MS

 

S! Ian

Edited by ian77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/06/2019 at 7:44 AM, major0noob said:

it was more like 70:30 back in the truck-fru phase

a few months after the FMS was introduced, it dropped to 50:50. i suspect we lost 40% of players.

 

 

if ya'll want a accurate poll, reintroduce the inf-FRU for a few weeks then do a poll.

if one spawn is all-round better and has popular support you'll know which is right for the game

So more players up and quit - that's not a test or poll that's just another nail hammered home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever a spawn with crates is called (FRU/HC/?), it needs to die if you so much as look at it, honestly. I'd dump the FMS object (because it looks really strong), and make all the MSPs die to a single magazine of MG fire (or as many rifle shots, or a couple nades, whatever energy 30 0.30 cals is).

You should have to control an area to have a MSP of any kind. On-sides rules, and easy to kill, not hard to kill. If you want to make it strong, build some emplacements around it (which makes it protected from gunfire, but far easier to spot).

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just make it clear it's a temporary trial

Just now, tater said:

Whatever a spawn with crates is called (FRU/HC/?), it needs to die if you so much as look at it

it already does that, a single satchel, 2 nades, or any 25mm+ cannon can take them out in 1-2 hits

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much would you welcome the idea of mine to push back the FMS to 1km, but allow it to spawn heavy guns?

in counterpart, « closer MSPs » would become weaker options, down to 200m:

- manned trucks (with its engine ON?)

- some kind of mission-leader deployment (similar to manned trucks but at the ML himself), not transferred through the makelead/takelead commands.

Also, if do-able, make the FMS become a 1-step daisy chain for the weaker spawns: its model stays up and destroyable but is inactive for INF as long as a weak msp is available. Once the weak spawn is turned off, the FMS offers a safer backup spawn again.

the purpose would be to trade continuous floods of uncoordinated infantries for waves of better-communicating troops. This would also make deployment on the FB side more easy and meaningful, improving overall survivability.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expected consequences:

    •    Weaker "manned" mobile spawns = increased fear of death near targets, forcing more combined arms coordination

    •    Replaces continuous floods of uncoordinated infantries by higher density battle team waves

    •    It gives UP defenders a better capability to face OP attackers

    •    Attackers would more likely require real squads to capture and hold flags

    •    FMS at 1 km = better chances for a truck to survive, faster MSP delivery and faster armoured support from FB, survivability of FMS improved and risk of FMS camping drastically decreased

    •    Heavier AT/AA at FMS offers higher ranked players more opportunities for open field battles, balancing the current lack of drivers

    •    1 person can drop a FMS and continue its ride to the target. If he dies he can jump back into the action faster. This will motivate more players to spawn trucks and organize hotdrops from the FMS to the target.

    •    The initial stage of an AO could be a rural battle between fire squads (DFMS vs EFMS)

    •    As soon as attackers captured a facility, defenders would meet the same restrictions, requiring better defensive preparation

    •    ML-focused spawn allows to better make use of the environment (windmills, farms, ruins, forests)

    •    ML can regroup his men more easily for a real fire-team experience

    •    It adds more objectives for engineers (build PPOs to provide safe reinforcement areas)

    •    It adds critical targets for snipers and mortarmen (MLs and truck drivers)

    •    It drastically increases the mean engagement distances, hence improving the game play for tanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, major0noob said:

just make it clear it's a temporary trial

it already does that, a single satchel, 2 nades, or any 25mm+ cannon can take them out in 1-2 hits

But 2 Matties (me and Gretnine) firing 50+ AP rounds (all they have is AP) and 300+ rounds of MG cannot kill one. They are not "easy to kill" to British  tanks with only AP,  which is just nuts.

 

S! Ian  

Share this post


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

Expected consequences:

    •    Weaker "manned" mobile spawns = increased fear of death near targets, forcing more combined arms coordination

    •    Replaces continuous floods of uncoordinated infantries by higher density battle team waves

    •    It gives UP defenders a better capability to face OP attackers

    •    Attackers would more likely require real squads to capture and hold flags

    •    FMS at 1 km = better chances for truck to survive, faster MSP delivery and faster armored support from FB, survivability of FMS improved and risk of FMS camping drastically decreased

    •    Heaviers AT/AA at FMS offers higher ranked players more opportunities for open field battles, balancing the current lack of drivers

    •    1 person can drop a FMS and continue its ride to the target. If he dies he can jump back into the action faster. This will motivate more players to spawn trucks and organize hotdrops from the FMS to the target.

    •    Initial stage of an AO could be a rural battle between fire squads (DFMS vs EFMS)

    •    As soon as attackers captured a facility, defenders would meet the same restrictions, requiring better defensive preparation

    •    ML-focused spawn allows to better make use of the environment (windmills, farms, ruins, forests)

    •    ML can regroup his men more easily for a real fire-team experience

    •    It adds more objectives for engineers (build PPOs to provide safe reinforcment areas)

    •    It adds critical targets for snipers and mortarmen (MLs and truck drivers)

    •    It drastically increases the mean engagement distances, hence improving the game play for tanks

Any FMS more than 500m from target already gets berated in chat by players spawning in, for being "too far" from target, and they then despawn having jogged far enough away from the FMS to waste the unit as MIA.

I can see Xoom's point, though I am not sure that it should just be a perk of HC and RATs, especially when the UP side probably sees 6 or 8 hours per day without either in game (more in the final days of a map). There are only a few available, so make them Rank 10 spawnable, and leave them at a handful per flag/garrison. Are the numbers rifles/smgs available to be spawned limited? I seem to recall reading that the HC walking MS was limited to just 17 rifles?

The biggest issue is that 20 players can work together to set a ZOC, either on Attack or Defense, and one "HC" can wander off on a solo run, and sneak in silently behind the ZOC, plop down his magic beans and then up pops some smgs and rifles to undo the hard work that the team has put in to set their ZOC and protect their FMS - 4 rifle satchels, and bye bye FMS. (FYI I think 4 is probably about right, possibly make it 5 to require more then one engineer, but in an attritted flag, having no engineers left in supply, it gets to be a ballsache getting a EFMS down, even without the EIs spawning in.

 

S! Ian 

 

 

Edited by ian77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ian77 said:

But 2 Matties (me and Gretnine) firing 50+ AP rounds (all they have is AP) and 300+ rounds of MG cannot kill one. They are not "easy to kill" to British  tanks with only AP,  which is just nuts.

 

S! Ian  

looks like they're using the "reinforced FRU" instead of the weaker first version.

the first version was easy to suppress, a single tank round and it's down for 5-10min

 

1 hour ago, ian77 said:

Any FMS more than 500m from target already gets berated in chat by players spawning in, for being "too far" from target, and they then despawn having jogged far enough away from the FMS to waste the unit as MIA.

dunno what's with the absolute love for 700m+ spawns in the forums, the guys in-game hate em

 

1 hour ago, ian77 said:

The biggest issue is that 20 players can work together to set a ZOC, either on Attack or Defense, and one "HC" can wander off on a solo run, and sneak in silently behind the ZOC, plop down his magic beans and then up pops some smgs and rifles to undo the hard work that the team has put in to set their ZOC and protect their FMS - 4 rifle satchels, and bye bye FMS. (FYI I think 4 is probably about right, possibly make it 5 to require more then one engineer, but in an attritted flag, having no engineers left in supply, it gets to be a ballsache getting a EFMS down, even without the EIs spawning in.

is it bigger than the inactivity issue:

the trucks are easy to suppress inviting long and frequent pauses in gameplay. similar to the glass FB's that would constantly get ninja'd and kill all activity.

 

 

lesser of evils... inactivity or chaos

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about it differently, a non-movable spawn results in endless attempts to place it as close as possible, which ends very badly most of the time. 

If we limit the hard spawn further of town, the setup will be much faster, safer and it will get more support, making its camping and ninja sapping much harder. 

And if this works as a backup spawn for moveable (weaker) MSPs, the cohesion and sustainability of attackers will be improved. In counterpart trucks and MLs can set up close to town as long as they have a real area control 

Share this post


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

dunno what's with the absolute love for 700m+ spawns in the forums, the guys in-game hate em

I hate the fact that the spawns are from every direction, even if it benefits me on attack.

The game where the town is overrun, and ei (not counting paras) are literally everywhere (or even possibly everywhere), should be the very end of a battle.

I like the @ZEBBEEE idea, only thing I would add is a better on-sides sensibility. Under the current play, seems like the setup would be the same, you'd move the FMS out to surround the town (and I do mean surround), then start placing closer spawns, all this before setting the AO. The supposed defenders would apparently all be asleep or at the bar til they are call to defense, then the first responders are supposed to set up a defense, with ei likely already hiding in the attics of buildings next to the CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** How much would you welcome the idea of mine to push back the FMS to 1km, but allow it to spawn heavy guns. in counterpart , « closer MSPs » would become weaker options, down to 200m:

Something like this might work.

Also, as tater says, the original FMS can't be placed behind the town - but rather no further from FB as the FB is from town.

Then, limit the baby MS to say no more than 1k from the MS.

This helps solve the problem of ei coming in from every direction, when really their should be a sort of front with flank action.

 

One nice thing about this, is attacking with 1 link only gives you maybe 180 degree into town; but if you have a 2nd link, you can place FMS maybe 270.

 

Edited by delems
2 people like this

Share this post


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

Also, as tater says, the original FMS can't be placed behind the town - but rather no further from FB as the FB is from town.

I'd shorten that substantially (at least a km for the large ATG spawning FMS), then allow the baby MS (as you call it) to go as far as town, minus some exclusion around an enemy facility.

I wish there was a way to visibly mass forces, too.

Ie: You would spawn trucks (maybe with canvass tops added to the beds) and park them at the FMS, and this "deploys" them, and the player RTBs. The trucks stay at that FMS, and add to the available spawn list at the FMS (which would perhaps be a squad or 2, plus 1 of each ATG/AAA), and at the baby MS. The trucks each have a squad of men, say---10-12 guys, 1 SMG, 1 LMG, 8 rifles, and a maybe  a couple of the other classes (mortar/ATR?) as well as another 1 of each ATG/AAA. Or maybe HC can spawn a truck that moves special classes forward (engie, sapper, sniper) (so normal FMS spawn regular infantry, and to get specials the HC has to deploy them). These trucks have to deploy within some short range of the FMS to add to it (100m?)

This means attacks would move out from the FB, and either spread all the troops out for a wide front of attack, or they could mass in one area if that is more desirable. The FMS would have to be blown, but the trucks might be destroyed as trucks are, and then their addition to the spawn list is then removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're subbed now Tater, right?

 

ZeroAce, I and I want to say Biggles went round on this in Barracks, you can see it if I unearth those right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

You're subbed now Tater, right?

Yep.

 

Share this post


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

ZeroAce, I and I want to say Biggles went round on this in Barracks, you can see it if I unearth those right?

Yeah, I can now. Many posts end up in stream of consciousness threads where the title might not match the content, and I have 11k old posts, lol. A bunch of us advocated for a different kind of system many years ago, the fact that everything, literally everything, that I thought was a bad idea went into production for the game was part of the reason I left, honestly.

Aside: I was against the GPS map we have, for example. I was (and remain) against global communications, except for radio units (tanks, ships, planes, and people in a CP with a radio, plus I wanted a radioman inf). I always thought that every inf calling in air was absurd, and harmed the already overfragile (to everything) ground units, particularly armor (which I don't even play). I like the idea of a map, but I thought that it should not have the player position on it at all, and it should not show his facing, so the player can mark for himself, but has to guess exactly where he is. He cannot share that information, short of being next to another player, then they can sync maps. If he does this with a ML, then the ML can use a radio to let HC see what is up. I might have radios only talk to units they should talk to. If tanks did not have radios to talk to air, air is on their own. I also wanted no icons for friendly players, unless you were close---close enough to see it was your side (corrected for day/night), you get a blue dot, close enough to actually make out a face in RL, you get a name. In short, I wanted more fog of war (and I wanted some form of FF, too).  I wanted ww2 combat, not Sci Fi combat, with ww2 weapons (which is what we have given comms in game).

I'm entirely against in game comms, frankly, except for units that could actually talk to each other in RL. Within a vehicle? Absolutely. Within shouting distance (enemy can hear, too), then sure. Within talking/whipser distance? OK (enemy can't hear). Dogface to air? Not without a radio that could actually have done that in RL (what ww2 army routinely fielded CAS forward observers with radios?).

Ditto hating the MSP without on-sides restrictions. I defended them against people claiming they were "army teleporters," saying they represented the massing of forces, and were an abstraction like the rest of the spawn list/facilities---but only as long as they never deployed "off sides." Then we got them 360 degrees, and they were/are army teleporters. There is no such thing as "flanking" in ww2ol, there are either no flanks, or every individual has infinite flanks, pick one...

I could go on. I stuck around for the game I hoped for, and I've come back in the hope that maybe it heads in the right direction for once. Ifigured I'd stick around for a while with my finger in the air to gauge the wind, and by subbing at least I'm not berating without paying my way at some level.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, Rats didn't have much choice.  Players created their own Blue Force Tracker, anyone who signed on with that system got very much like the current marks overlaid, only no limits.  Rats IMO HAD to buy it and incorporate it with the current limits else some people would have it, many would not, and there would be no localization to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.