tater

ATG survivability improvement (as a limited MSP)

36 posts in this topic

I posted this elsewhere, but it seems like it might be worthwhile.

Many are not keen on satchels having such a prime role in killing tanks, and the current paradigm of ATG use results in them being very vulnerable as they have never had defense against inf. Like many issues, if there were vast numbers of players, they might have some support, be we don't have vast numbers of players, and cannot count on that. In short ATG/AAA should be given the ability to spawn some support, and possibly some inf resupply capability to encourage inf support.

 

My proposed solution is to allow an ATG and maybe AAA to be an MSP when deployed (with the usual MSP rules). This is not EVERY time they deploy, they have to chose to open the MSP. The inf would spawn behind the ATG. The spawn list for these special MSPs would be ideally be limited to 3 new infantry types, but if that is not possible, then regular inf. Note that with this improvement, sapper charges might be changed to just demo charges, not AT weapons.

The new types would be "support rifle," and "support SMG" and "support LMG." Small ATG would have 1 support rifle, 1 support SMG, medium ATG would have 3 support rifles, 1 support SMG, and large ATG (88) could get 3 support rifles, 1 support SMG, 1 support LMG.

The support infantry types are merely a reduced loadout change of existing inf:

Support Rifle has a total of 20 rounds for his weapon. He has 2 grenades, no smoke, no satchel, 1 ammo box. They would also have some engineer capability in terms of PPO placement (gun emplacement, tank trap, and any later engie additions that relate to ATG use). Cannot sprint at all.

Support SMG is similar to rifle, but only the one magazine loaded, usual grenades. Cannot sprint at all.

Support LMG is just the LMG, maybe 1 reload, no other loadout. Cannot sprint at all.

This makes the support units very limited, so the MSP deployed ATG would also be a resupply point (ideally that range can be made large enough to be useful for ATG defense), support inf can move around, but they have to stay close to the ATG to remain effective. When deployed as an MSP, perhaps chat can auto-generate a message to ".j user_name for ATG support". 

 

Related to survivability, but not the ATG MSP idea, perhaps a few new PPOs could be added with AAA/ATG in mind:

1. A small bush. This would either be a really small bush already in game, or could be new that looks like a bush, but is different upon inspection. Max height lower than camera position for ATG CO (pos 1).

2. 88-specific defensive berm (no idea, but it seems like the 88 in game needs some custom PPO for an emplacement that it can shoot over.

3. Smaller ATG defensive berm. Looks like the foxhole, but bigger.

4. Ruins emplacements (inf and ATG sized). Some sort of defensive berm with a ruins look/texture. Basically built of urban stuff.

 

Edited by tater
typos, forgot critical lmitation on inf
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice idea.

Although I would limit it to those ATs not able to spawn at MS.

I mean, if you are axis.

This shouldn't work on pak36 but on pack38 and pack40.

And of course this should come with a reduction in sapper numbers.

Edited by piska250

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, piska250 said:

Nice idea.

Although I would limit it to those ATs not able to spawn at MS.

I disagree, simply because defenders might spawn them from depots, etc. Remember that ATG crews should be able to run away from gun if needed, seek cover, and as infantry, they'd all have small arms issued, all things they cannot do  in ww2ol.

16 minutes ago, piska250 said:

I mean, if you are axis.

This shouldn't work on pak36 but on pack38 and pack40.

I've not played them, but Pak 36 in RL had a crew of 5, and I'd wager at least one of them had a rifle or pistol ;)

 

16 minutes ago, piska250 said:

And of course this should come with a reduction in sapper numbers.

Absolutely, that's kind of the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what is going to happen.

 

People will spawn off the ATG.

 

They will look around, then run off from the ATG, cause most inf are like salmon that MUST swim upstream to their appointed depot and death.

 

The ATG dies like a dog, unsupported.

 

The problem isn't the spawning mechanism.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Here is what is going to happen.

People will spawn off the ATG.

They will look around, then run off from the ATG, cause most inf are like salmon that MUST swim upstream to their appointed depot and death.

The ATG dies like a dog, unsupported.

The problem isn't the spawning mechanism.

This is very likely true, hence my attempt at suggesting highly limited inf. I'm trying to work within the confines of what is possible, clearly a ground-up rebuild of the game would organize, well, everything, differently.

That said, I forgot to add something to the Support Inf that I put when I typed this idea (stream of consciousness) in another thread.

Support inf cannot sprint. At all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Tater's idea.  As for Kilemall's objection, it can also bet met by allowing squad specific missions.  Or password protected missions.  I can only speak for the Pathfinders, but I bet it is true for a lot of other squads, but when there are opportunities to provide cover/support or any kind of organized op, we like to take them.  Then some greentag or even a blue tag with a different agenda jumps on our mission and it all goes to pot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My squad was never very active. I tend to pop on and play when I have some time, but I also try and do useful things, even when it's what I hate doing, the very worst gameplay (capping and guarding CPs, which since WBS and coming back, is probably 90% of my in game time (boo!). I would join such a mission (to support an ATG).

I should add that this mission would not open up every time the ATG deploys, the ATG would have to do this explicitly. The idea is for ATGs to open the spawn when either very well situation in advance of need, or when they see (or hear of) ei nearby.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A natural follow-on here would be gearing mission points and success of the support inf to the survival and effectiveness of the atg. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2019 at 2:07 AM, biggles4 said:

A natural follow-on here would be gearing mission points and success of the support inf to the survival and effectiveness of the atg. 

 

I've never cared about rank/stats, myself, so I guess I don;t see how that could motivate anyone.

I suppose if the spawn list was controlled better in terms of who could spawn, then people could do things to earn rare units.

In RL, the armies had different unit organization.

For years I have thought the game should recognize this, maybe with MSPs spawning squads--Gruppe for German, Squad for US, Sections for the Brits, unknown (by me) for the French. By this I mean that the spawn list is fixed at 10-12 guys generally. They would likely change by tiers, since early German squads typically had 1 SMG, for example, having 3 in a squad wasn't until late '42-early '43. Ideally a spawn like the AB would spawn out the units in the right balance. So for Germans you'd have 1 SMG, 8 rifles, and an MG34 (1943+ it's 3 SMG, 6 rifles, and LMG). A brit rifle section would be pretty identical, 1 sten, 1 bren, 8 rifles. You'd have the spawn list run those down to zero, then refill with a new gruppe/section/squad/whatever.

What about the special units (snipers, ATR, mortars, etc)? Those could be bought by earning points. You earn points via capping, guarding (I see that in AARs, I think), handing over ammo, and perhaps proximity to AAA/ATG. Such a system would also save some of all the units until the end, no more waiting til you see all rifles, rifles alwasy come out in the right balance. Maybe leaders could then have some spawn lists to chose from for setting up MSPs for special missions? Ie: FB busting gets an Engineer squad. Unruee how people do this. Maybe all the squad MSPs have the special units in them, but they don't count for the reset to a new squad, and must use points to buy---points people earn via actions deemed desirable to gameplay (a carrot, vs a stick).

Underpop side can have reduced point costs.

 

Edited by tater
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I've never cared about rank/stats, myself, so I guess I don;t see how that could motivate anyone.

 

I do remember caring about points early on, in order to gain rank to spawn the better kit. Not so much after the rank was gained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More AAA/ATG survivability suggestions:

1. Others have suggested this as well, but let ATG create PPOs specific to their shape/size. One urban version (sandbags), one rural (a berm like the inf foxhole). Possibly a third, same as the berm, but with some camo netting over the top (looks bush-like from air).

2a. Within some distance of a friendly town with no EWS (no AO, perhaps, since AOs are now gamed to happen after attacks have started, when they are meant to allow defenders to spawn before EWS) AAA/ATG can move at a substantially higher speed. This is to allow defenders to place defenses in reasonable positions, vs having them barely out of the AB before they get shot by inf, etc.

2b. If FBs have EWS, then this could apply to FBs as well, so that while there are no enemy about, they can deploy defenses (or move offensive AAA/ATG) to their flanks at a more reasonable pace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ATG survival used to be high. 

The 88 was even a good answer vs the Matilda and Chars that used to roam in huge amounts around the battlefield.

Then something changed , the MS then came the FMS or FRU and now we entertain still the stealth HC FLMS or whatever the name is nowadays. 

Limit the possibility for these Mobil Spawns and what I mean by that is 

× = the town  and  this ) = the possible set  perimeter 

So it will look like this.    X  )  the MS set perimeter can't be past  the half way point of a town . 

|

X  )

|  so the MS will always be in front of Towns or off to the side  but never behind a town . That would make ATG survivability a much better reality. 

If one wants a MS or troops behind a towns line of defence then Paratroopers are the answer ( of course there is no Paratrooper MS but why can't there be one in game . I have outlined in multiple posts how that could be achieved without taking the aspect that makes Paratroopers fun out of the game .

Only Paratrooper ML can set a MS and only the Troops that jumped with that ML will get 1 respawn at his MS . 

It would simulate a larger jump of troops but not be overbearing by just having 1 respawn . Then one has to fly in a new set of Troops with a ML . 

The ML ( if the same ML as in the 1st jump)  could reactivate his MS or set a new one and his old one would dissappear. 

 

In my eyes the biggest ATG killer in game are the troops that get to come from behind a town where there really should not be any enemy.

The Defenders in our game are usually always reacting once an AO is set. Ehile in real life a Defence was set and ATG and other guns and INF were already dug in and ready . 

In game we run out of depots and roll ATG out while the enemy is in most occasion all around town already.

That's my stand point on this subject .

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dre21good points, I agree completely.

Pretty much every gameplay point I make should include that all the MSP types should be ON SIDES, 100% of the time.

I think that either something like I suggested above for rapid ATG movement should be a thing, or there should be a new MSP for large ATG... perhaps they can only deployed within X km of a friendly town with no AO? For the Allies, the MSP would leave a truck model as the spawn point (guns appear behind as if towed), for the Germans a HT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kilem's concern could be addressed by the addition of a concept that the game needs in other respects as well: required infantry unit proximity.

Infantrymen shouldn't be free to run around the battlefield far from their tactical commander and unit. It's wildly unrealistic for infantrymen to be Rambos, dashing around on their own with no attention to squad mates, supply, tactical command, unit mission and so forth.

Specifically for ATG gun crew, allow them to get 15 meters away. At that point, no movement command causes them to move farther away from the gun. Instead they just go prone.

Share this post


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

Kilem's concern could be addressed by the addition of a concept that the game needs in other respects as well: required infantry unit proximity.

Infantrymen shouldn't be free to run around the battlefield far from their tactical commander and unit. It's wildly unrealistic for infantrymen to be Rambos, dashing around on their own with no attention to squad mates, supply, tactical command, unit mission and so forth.

Specifically for ATG gun crew, allow them to get 15 meters away. At that point, no movement command causes them to move farther away from the gun. Instead they just go prone.

The problem of course is that we don't have enough people as it is, though I agree on cohesion as desirable, I'd rather get to it via other mechanisms vs literally tying them to the ATG. That's a non-starter as an idea, frankly.

Hence my idea of ATG as an MSP, but the ATG defense crew are new units, with less ammo (refill at ATG). What if units near an ATG could use ATG binos?

In general, I always wanted a carrot approach to infantry unit cohesion. he trouble is that the spawning paradigm means that "missions" are meaningless, and they are really just open spawns, and any inf working together is ad hoc, since 3 inf might spawn together and move to town, and the next guy to the mission ends up many hundreds of meters behind them, perhaps pinned down by a tank and unable to advance to town. The idea of progressively nearer FRUs in another thread is a great one (ML drops a FRU every few hundred m, and when destroyed, the next farther one out reopens). It keeps clots of inf closer to each other.

Share this post


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

The problem of course is that we don't have enough people as it is, though I agree on cohesion as desirable, I'd rather get to it via other mechanisms vs literally tying them to the ATG. That's a non-starter as an idea, frankly.

Hence my idea of ATG as an MSP, but the ATG defense crew are new units, with less ammo (refill at ATG). What if units near an ATG could use ATG binos?

In general, I always wanted a carrot approach to infantry unit cohesion. he trouble is that the spawning paradigm means that "missions" are meaningless, and they are really just open spawns, and any inf working together is ad hoc, since 3 inf might spawn together and move to town, and the next guy to the mission ends up many hundreds of meters behind them, perhaps pinned down by a tank and unable to advance to town. The idea of progressively nearer FRUs in another thread is a great one (ML drops a FRU every few hundred m, and when destroyed, the next farther one out reopens). It keeps clots of inf closer to each other.

You're on the right track, the one mission/one spawn paradigm screws HORRIBLY with player cohesion.  Redo that and loop comms into a new org/spawn paradigm, including integral voice comms, and a lot of this gets fixed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda silly IMHO you want an atg to be able to make a spawn just to gaurd the ATG? That is just dev time wasted on something else.

work within your squad to set missions up or even another squad and work a ZOC 1-2 exp players can watch ATG/AA and armor positions with a support MS. i set them up often but most of the time the armor runs off and nobody brings a bofor. (unless we set as squad)

Interesting idea but when player pop is down its a waste ppl needed else where will be 2k out of town waiting for an et (which they do now for the statsgruppen).

Just like PPO now you will have ppl doing that all the time instead of being in the fight......OOOOOO look at my atg design lol.

S! Keep thinking new ideas

 

 

Share this post


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

though I agree on cohesion as desirable, I'd rather get to it via other mechanisms vs literally tying them to the ATG. That's a non-starter as an idea, frankly. In general, I always wanted a carrot approach to infantry unit cohesion. 

OK, fine. What are the "carrots" in real soldiering?

Well, orders and training. But those are secondary, in place for other reasons.

The "other reasons" are tactical lethality, survivability, and mutual supply. All of these are greatly superior in the real worldfor a cohesive tactical unit than for an equal number of disassociated individuals.

This is a game with challenging limits on programming resources, and a need to make gameplay progress fast. If the end goal is cohesive unit gameplay, what's the advantage to CRS of complex modeling of the individual performance factors that cause real armies without exception to train and order their soldiers to operate cohesively, compared to just coding the game so that cohesion is built into the movement system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, flong139 said:

Kinda silly IMHO you want an atg to be able to make a spawn just to gaurd the ATG? That is just dev time wasted on something else.

MSPs don't require dev time, they already exist. Adding one to the ATG (with no art, and no setup time, the inf spawn at the ATG) is fairly cost-free.

28 minutes ago, flong139 said:

Interesting idea but when player pop is down its a waste ppl needed else where will be 2k out of town waiting for an et (which they do now for the statsgruppen).

That's exactly why an MSP that the ATG can turn on and off. When the ATG is alone in the middle of nowhere, it's off. When he shoots an ET, and then a bunch of infantry show up, then MSP. The RL ATG would have regular infantry around. This abstracts that, and lets them spawn only when needed.

It could be a sort of "ATG 911!" button. You are in a great spot, and then inf show up, you hit position 3 on a 2 crew ATG, and that makes an MSP, along with a side chat that says "ATG needs infantry support immediately .j tater" The ATG functions as an RTB, so the inf can despawn and move on when needed.

Share this post


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

MSPs don't require dev time, they already exist. Adding one to the ATG (with no art, and no setup time, the inf spawn at the ATG) is fairly cost-free.

That's exactly why an MSP that the ATG can turn on and off. When the ATG is alone in the middle of nowhere, it's off. When he shoots an ET, and then a bunch of infantry show up, then MSP. The RL ATG would have regular infantry around. This abstracts that, and lets them spawn only when needed.

It could be a sort of "ATG 911!" button. You are in a great spot, and then inf show up, you hit position 3 on a 2 crew ATG, and that makes an MSP, along with a side chat that says "ATG needs infantry support immediately .j tater" The ATG functions as an RTB, so the inf can despawn and move on when needed.

+1

Share this post


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

OK, fine. What are the "carrots" in real soldiering?

Humans generally want to operate together in danger. I see this even in game, I would much prefer to be with a group of inf that alone. I hate capping alone (particularly offensively), it feels wrong, and literally any interruption likely means it's not if you die, but when (and soon).

1 minute ago, jwilly said:

Well, orders and training. But those are secondary, in place for other reasons.

The "other reasons" are tactical lethality, survivability, and mutual supply. All of these are greatly superior in the real worldfor a cohesive tactical unit than for an equal number of disassociated individuals.

Yeah, and this is a gameplay carrot possibility. I make an effort to drop ammo on people whenever possible, for example, but many don't. Group options could be things like multiple inf required to cap anything (that alone forces groups). One other thing that harms groups is the lack of a front anywhere, and things like the porosity of buildings in game. It's hard to operate where someone MUST be on guard duty watching the rear all the time. You turn around, and everyone is gone, lol.

1 minute ago, jwilly said:

This is a game with challenging limits on programming resources, and a need to make gameplay progress fast. If the end goal is cohesive unit gameplay, what's the advantage to CRS of complex modeling of the individual performance factors that cause real armies without exception to train and order their soldiers to operate cohesively, compared to just coding the game so that cohesion is built into the movement system?

I can see cohesion built into spawning, but I'm unsure about how movement could work very well, short of people being dragged along by the ML like ragdolls.

Share this post


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

I'm unsure about how movement could work very well, short of people being dragged along by the ML like ragdolls.

Another idea from the old-CRS days:

Create a quantified-morale/fear-of-death system. Higher morale improves your aim steadiness and your ATP, your susceptibility to brief automatic suppression by close enemy fire, and how long that suppression affects you. 

Higher morale (the opposite of fear of death) is a "carrot". You have it when you're close to your tactical leader. You can get even more by being close to other friendlies that have higher morale than you. You have it when you're close to a medic, or a source of supplies for your primary weapon. If you're infantry, you get more by being close to a tank or AT gun. Your baseline level increases the longer time you spend at a high level, and because recent missions have been successful.

Your morale decreases (fear of death increases) when you're too far from your tactical leader. Ditto the rest of your unit, and supplies, and a medic. It decreases when the morale of soldiers around you decreases, and when you're under enemy fire. It significantly decreases when a friendly near you is injured or killed.

OTOH, that latter morale loss is offset to the positive if a wounded friendly is stabilized by a medic near you.

In a quantified-morale system, unit cohesion isn't forced. It's just motivated by morale. You want to stay near your tactical leader and your squad/platoon because that makes you much more gameplay-effective. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Another idea from the old-CRS days:

Create a quantified-morale/fear-of-death system. Higher morale improves your aim steadiness and your ATP, your susceptibility to brief automatic suppression by close enemy fire, and how long that suppression affects you. 

Higher morale (the opposite of fear of death) is a "carrot". You have it when you're close to your tactical leader. You can get even more by being close to other friendlies that have higher morale than you. You have it when you're close to a medic, or a source of supplies for your primary weapon. If you're infantry, you get more by being close to a tank or AT gun. Your baseline level increases the longer time you spend at a high level, and because recent missions have been successful.

Your morale decreases (fear of death increases) when you're too far from your tactical leader. Ditto the rest of your unit, and supplies, and a medic. It decreases when the morale of soldiers around you decreases, and when you're under enemy fire. It significantly decreases when a friendly near you is injured or killed.

OTOH, that latter morale loss is offset to the positive if a wounded friendly is stabilized by a medic near you.

In a quantified-morale system, unit cohesion isn't forced. It's just motivated by morale. You want to stay near your tactical leader and your squad/platoon because that makes you much more gameplay-effective. 

+1

If I was around when this idea was posted, I would have been an enthusiastic supporter of it.

Share this post


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

Another idea from the old-CRS days:

Create a quantified-morale/fear-of-death system. Higher morale improves your aim steadiness and your ATP, your susceptibility to brief automatic suppression by close enemy fire, and how long that suppression affects you. 

Higher morale (the opposite of fear of death) is a "carrot". You have it when you're close to your tactical leader. You can get even more by being close to other friendlies that have higher morale than you. You have it when you're close to a medic, or a source of supplies for your primary weapon. If you're infantry, you get more by being close to a tank or AT gun. Your baseline level increases the longer time you spend at a high level, and because recent missions have been successful.

Your morale decreases (fear of death increases) when you're too far from your tactical leader. Ditto the rest of your unit, and supplies, and a medic. It decreases when the morale of soldiers around you decreases, and when you're under enemy fire. It significantly decreases when a friendly near you is injured or killed.

OTOH, that latter morale loss is offset to the positive if a wounded friendly is stabilized by a medic near you.

In a quantified-morale system, unit cohesion isn't forced. It's just motivated by morale. You want to stay near your tactical leader and your squad/platoon because that makes you much more gameplay-effective. 

Judging by that little morale bar on the original persona, I guess they intended to really do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.