• Announcements

    • XOOM

      Volunteer PHP Developer wanted to revive the Gazette!   07/24/2019

      We're looking to properly revive the World@War Gazette and need a solid PHP developer to help take some work forward. If you have some skills with PHP and are looking for some experience and to bring important home page news / recognition for individual players back to WWII Online, I'd like to hear from you! Submit an inquiry to jobs@corneredrats.com with some details about your experience. You will need at least 10+ hours per week to contribute to the team. The Gazette's current status can be found here: https://www.wwiionline.com/resources#gazette
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
dre21

Should the Threshold of HE charges be upped for a FMS?

8 posts in this topic

Plain and simple risk vs reward.

Should it take more then 1 Engineer to take down a FMS , my idea is 6 charges in other words a Engineer and a Sapper or obviously 2 Engineers,  I doubt one would get 6 Rifle all in 1 swoop to go to a FMS to take one down.

The idea is to keep an attack going , toany complaints , that Defenders have it to easy and getting or sustaining an attack is to hard. 

One reason for the sustainability is the before mentioned easy of only needing 1 Engineer.

Please respond with your thoughts.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Engineers are at a premium usually..they are my primary targets especially at the beginning of an AO. That and the addition of engies to starter accounts (and possibly wasted earlier??) would sway me to keeping them where they are for this campaign. 

The fact that there are more guys having them ava8ble for use also means more chances of getting them killed.

Edited by dropbear
Ps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have subbed to the starter account this campaign until the land based subs become available, so I have a vester interest in the available numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be fine with that as long as the FMS is not allowed to be placed "off sides" in enemy territory. As long as they can be placed in what should be rear areas, I'd be OK if they could be killed by me looking at them with binos.

Ie: cannot be placed father from a friendly FB than the distance to town, and cannot be placed within X hundred meters (unsure of the right value, it needs to work for both towns, and the large cities) of an enemy facility.

 

 

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 4 charges are enough.  

If you up it to 6 charges the FMS will just get camped more, and people will complain about the camping.

Edited by krazydog
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I think 4 charges are enough.  

If you up it to 6 charges the FMS will just get camped more, and people will complain about the camping.

They only get camped when the ML is at sleep at the wheel,  camp call goes out, FMS should be pulled. But that's not the case and so it gets camped and eventually sapped. While the same players come in here then and [censored] and moan that no Attack ever stands a chance .

I give up. I'll just go play the game . 

 

3 hours ago, krazydog said:

 

 

Edited by dre21
Darn double post

Share this post


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

They only get camped when the ML is at sleep at the wheel,  camp call goes out, FMS should be pulled. But that's not the case and so it gets camped and eventually sapped. While the same players come in here then and [censored] and moan that no Attack ever stands a chance .

I give up. I'll just go play the game . 

If it should be pulled as soon as it is camped, what difference does it make how many charges it takes to kill it?

MSPs represents the abstraction that larger groups of men are moved up towards the front. As such, they never should have been allowed "off sides" in the first place. This could be fixed with altered deployment rules, ending 360 degree MSPs. If this was the case, I'd be for upping the damage required quite a bit. If all the MSPs were on the sides of the battlefield in the direction of linked towns/Fbs, then they would also be closer for mutual support---if one is camped, go to another. Ideally spawning would be disabled if enemy were nearby, but short of that, maybe the UI could let people know before they spawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dre21 said:

Plain and simple risk vs reward.

Should it take more then 1 Engineer to take down a FMS , my idea is 6 charges in other words a Engineer and a Sapper or obviously 2 Engineers,  I doubt one would get 6 Rifle all in 1 swoop to go to a FMS to take one down.

The idea is to keep an attack going , toany complaints , that Defenders have it to easy and getting or sustaining an attack is to hard. 

One reason for the sustainability is the before mentioned easy of only needing 1 Engineer.

Please respond with your thoughts.

S!

The sustainability of attacks has little to do with FMS and everything to do with the approach to spawn castles across fields or easily identified slaughter channels, the lack of spawning discipline to spawn mostly rifles to get into town and secure lanes, the lack of combined arms tactics to not try the town entry without tanks, the lack of artillery which was more of the methodology then tanks for said closure in RL, the lack of use of even light mortars and HE assault tanks in indirect fire and smoke roles, and the MG count meaning the zerg ninja tactics are revealed as the sham of supposed superiority they aren't. 

 

Fix that, and the defenders are going to have a MUCH harder time camping or blowing the FMS.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.