• 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
pfmosquito

Daisy Chained Front Line -- Whole Armies

18 posts in this topic

I have been arguing for many years that the game needs to satisfy the twitchers more reliably in order to retain them so they can enjoy some of the more endearing aspects of the game (60 minute laffy rides, like I enjoyed in 2002?), and frankly, I also sometimes have just a bit of time to play the game, and I would prefer to login and enjoy some quick action rather than 30 minutes staring at a wall.  I have proposed a 'daisy chained' front line of sorts several times, eg the most recent: 

http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/422809-daisy-chained-front-line/

A conversation in the 'rural cps' thread (http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/423078-rural-cp-concepts/) had me thinking about this again, and JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE... because I'm not saying MY idea is the only way to accomplish the goal, but something LIKE IT... and so here is perhaps ANOTHER way of doing it--without placing lots of new objects.

I don't know what this would require from a coding standpoint, but I am sensitive to what can actually be done and I know that placing objects requires time and energy no matter how you slice it.  SO, without further ado:

Keep everything the way it is right now with garrison supply and the few remaining divisions each side has now.  Create a 'new' object, which, admittedly is very large, corresponding to a brigade.  Right now, when a brigade moves from town to town, it just 'leaps' across.  Well, how about we have the sucker 'physically' move?  Basically, you have the whole brigade 'moving' along the road from one town to the other, allowing spawning of all available units as you go.  Inevitably (though not as persistently and reliably as my daisy-chain front line concept), a brigade will meet an enemy brigade and be 'adjoining,' say, 1k apart.  There, they battle it out until one side or the other or both decides to fall back to lick their wounds, while the other chases it back into the town, where, perhaps, it can re-supply a bit faster.

Basically, you'd have the entire army facing the entire army for an extended amount of time, with all the adrenaline that entails.  If we figure out how to do it right, it never really goes away, because the retreating army still has the attacking army right outside its doorstep, a mere 1k away.

This adds a strategic layer to the game that is simulated by brigade movement but now becomes quite real in its consequences.  If the enemy manages to sneak an army in around behind your lines he can really do some damage.  I would suggest to maximize this, make it so you can't simply see where the brigades are on the map by little circles, but would have to ascertain it by scouting and intelligence gathering. 

Now the tricky part:  just what does this 'object' look like?  I guess I'm picturing a GIANT PPO, which has the apparatus for spawning the whole list, but includes walls and maybe even a 'bunker' which can be captured or destroyed which sends the enemy's army back one step on the 'chain' whether they wanted to move or not.  A side could advance their PPO of UNUSUAL SIZE (P.O.U.S.es), to within 1k (example) of the enemy's P.O.U.S.  Can make it automatic somehow, like a move on the map by HC, or in game by a fleet of engineers. 

But my thinking is that its really just ONE new object using existing infrastructure related to the PPOs.  Some of them can already spawn things and we can already adjust what things they can spawn, and the distances from the enemy they can be placed.  Just design a really large one that we don't care too much if it doesn't set just right on the landscape (kind of like how FMSs right now sometimes are placed at obscene angles), and make it play by the existing rules.  If it don't work, just take it out of the list of possible PPOs.  No harm, no foul.

Can it be that easy?  Well, I don't know what I don't know, so I don't know exactly what I'm asking.  But I nonetheless maintain:  if not THIS, then something LIKE IT.

Scratch the Twitch.

 

 

Edited by pfmosquito
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was going to write up something similar. The existence of brigades and garrisons at one and the same time means the brigades needn't be connected directly to the towns any longer. If the towns are defended by the garrisons, why not cut the brigades loose, though they may still need a less direct connection to towns for supply purposes.

With roving armies the old idea of a secondary road network would really offer some interesting game play potential, of spearheads and cutoffs and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** rather than 30 minutes staring at a wall

Been  thinking about this.  Now, for the most part I'm completely against this idea.  Just tossing it out there to see what others think.  But, if it would bring lots more action to the game, hence players, maybe it it is worth it.

 

How about have the system post a message anytime a FB is being hit (every HE charge) and anytime a CP is being captured?
This means no more guarding or boring jobs.

Probably have to cut the number of HE on FBs and shorten the capture time.

 

 

Regarding a big PPO based line (one structure, lots of spawn points, lots of cover), where each side could face off on each other... interesting.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good idea, but Iget the impression that every single CP has to be coded and placed individually, meaning it might be so time intensive it cannot be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2019 at 1:55 PM, delems said:

*** rather than 30 minutes staring at a wall

Been  thinking about this.  Now, for the most part I'm completely against this idea.  Just tossing it out there to see what others think.  But, if it would bring lots more action to the game, hence players, maybe it it is worth it.

 

How about have the system post a message anytime a FB is being hit (every HE charge) and anytime a CP is being captured?
This means no more guarding or boring jobs.

Probably have to cut the number of HE on FBs and shorten the capture time.

 

 

Regarding a big PPO based line (one structure, lots of spawn points, lots of cover), where each side could face off on each other... interesting.

No one loves busting an FB more than me. This idea would make flipping FBs nearly mpossible. Considering what it takes to kill an FB and the shortage of Engineers. Once they're gone from a brigade, that's pretty much the whole pizza for hours. I wouldn't ever be dumb enough to try again, as any attempt would just be throwing away supply. I'm not saying this to sound defeatist, but with this it would mean that to bust an FB, it would take enough people to come in, defeat the defensive forces and quash the FB beyond any chance ot spawns from the owning side, and THEN bring in the engineers.... and unless you want it flipped back in 10 minutes, you need enough people at your own FB site to protect that from immediately being blown back by a similar force. To flip an FB you'd probably need at least 10-20 people acting in concert.

Your talking about similar tactics and numbers to capture every CP. You would need enough people to pack it and defeat any defenders, AND enough outside to keep the enemy from taking it as well. That's talking about what 8-10 players needed for every cap?

I believe in the Squads... but even in the Squads, you don't always have everyone in the Squad assaulting or defending a single CP or FB. And if you eliminates the possibility that one or two man teams can do anything, we'll risk losing those players who join with one or two friends and who can't or won't join a Squad.

In regards to the original post suggestion... wouldn't making the movement of an entire brigade dependent on one vehicle also mean that one single unit that might intercept that vehicle could take out an entire brigade's worth of supply in one attack? One lucky bazooka or low flying aircraft and an entire brigade is gone to training?

I'm trying to understand what you mean by " allowing spawning of all available units as you go. " Do you mean that people can spawn units from a moving vehicle, including tanks and other vehicles? Can that sort of thing even be done in a game like this?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is one huge PPo , how would you decide where you spawn in ?  Camping from the other side would just be a kill fest , If it is multiple spawn points , who decides where ? The terain would have a major effect on the size and shape of it .

I would imagine an awful lot of programming if not a total re-write of the game .

The cp's are manually installed in game as each town is created . New spawn buildings could be created  but as the front moves , how many buildings would need to be set?

There are a limited number of objects that can be created on each map tile .

 I personally don't see this as a very practical idea in this form .

Having a set "front line" with no ability to create behind the enemy line would be similiar and more practical .

Tr6al

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tr6al said:

If it is one huge PPo , how would you decide where you spawn in ?  Camping from the other side would just be a kill fest , If it is multiple spawn points , who decides where ? The terain would have a major effect on the size and shape of it .

I would imagine an awful lot of programming if not a total re-write of the game .

The cp's are manually installed in game as each town is created . New spawn buildings could be created  but as the front moves , how many buildings would need to be set?

There are a limited number of objects that can be created on each map tile .

 I personally don't see this as a very practical idea in this form .

Having a set "front line" with no ability to create behind the enemy line would be similiar and more practical .

Tr6al

 

Hmm, I'd like to see more a TF style of UI point, where you join a Task Force that has different spawn points/missions possibly in different towns/battles,  so a squad or adhoc organization can hang with keeping people in battle and comms/orged up organically and switch to another battle without so much fog of war/confusion.  The TF leader has a map of ALL the spawn/missions under his TF, so a point to who is in that position and reward to perform that function.  Should be able to largely overlay the current mission paradigm while greatly increasing retention/satisfaction/action.

As to the front line thing, FMS on the front and HCLMS FRU stuff only behind, possibly to include a depot-like throttle for the latter.  That would mirror infiltration tactics which certainly was a WWII thing without insta-army/encirclement/siege like now.

Share this post


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

Hmm, I'd like to see more a TF style of UI point, where you join a Task Force that has different spawn points/missions possibly in different towns/battles,  so a squad or adhoc organization can hang with keeping people in battle and comms/orged up organically and switch to another battle without so much fog of war/confusion.  The TF leader has a map of ALL the spawn/missions under his TF, so a point to who is in that position and reward to perform that function.  Should be able to largely overlay the current mission paradigm while greatly increasing retention/satisfaction/action.

As to the front line thing, FMS on the front and HCLMS FRU stuff only behind, possibly to include a depot-like throttle for the latter.  That would mirror infiltration tactics which certainly was a WWII thing without insta-army/encirclement/siege like now.

This sounds more like a major UI re-write along with HC having a lot more control than it does now .

With the times there is no HC on what happens ? (just being devil's advocate here) .

 I agree with the overall idea but with the limited number of players and the trouble with getting HC and having them on at all times willing to take over map , I am not sure how practical it is.

Squads need more to do but do they do it individually or should HC have control over Squads? Should Squads have control over HC?

I do agree with the FMS in front and HCFMS behind as a good starting restriction .

Tr6al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tr6al said:

This sounds more like a major UI re-write along with HC having a lot more control than it does now .

With the times there is no HC on what happens ? (just being devil's advocate here) .

 I agree with the overall idea but with the limited number of players and the trouble with getting HC and having them on at all times willing to take over map , I am not sure how practical it is.

Squads need more to do but do they do it individually or should HC have control over Squads? Should Squads have control over HC?

I do agree with the FMS in front and HCFMS behind as a good starting restriction .

Tr6al

Umm HC would have very little control per se over TFs, this would be more for squads or adhoc squad-like orgs like 94th used to be.  HCs could create and operate TFs to stimulate organization, but I don't envision anything special about their ability to do so.

What I had in mind for HCs is AO/DO Commander, where they would have an overall better map and TFs dedicated to that AO/DO would be instantly 'in the chain of command/comms' so the Commander has someone to talk to and is autohooked in a similar manner to designated MOIC.  Creating an ingame adhoc org from strat to operational to tactical.

 

MOIC is another matter, I feel that the effort that went into 1.36 could have gone into these tools to include a KOTH MOIC 'autorecruiting/reserve officer' type function.  The redo of the garrison did get that unexpected 'supply doesn't all bounce and battle doesn't end with AB cap' benefit so I'm a little more reconciled with 1.36, but still such org tools have always been the hind end of development when it should be the centerpiece of shaping the game experience.

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, this is more like it!  Discussion!

Re: @Quincannon

Re: the never killing a FB thing, I take it you mean because there wouldn't be enough engineers to go around?  I just threw out engineers; riflemen also carry satchels, and on the PPO-OUS scheme, it would often be the case where riflemen are relatively close to the enemy PPO-OUS.  Perhaps more riflemen would need to be added to the brigade list, and perhaps the PPO-OUS would be vulnerable to some extent to HE  and bombs from the air like the FBs are now. 

Re:  killing the truck.  I didn't spell out any thoughts on how the PPO-OUS would actually advance, but I don't think whatever it is should eliminate the supply altogether, just as now if you kill a truck trying to set a fms, you don't eliminate the supply. 

Re: spawning from a truck; No, I mean spawning from the PPO-OUS itself, just as one spawns from a FMS or FRU now.  This is a mechanism we already have.  I'm just proposing a MUCH BIGGER object.  You can already do what I'm proposing with with a FMS, and people are.  They set an FMS, people spawn out of it, the truck then moves to a different location and sets a new FMS, where people can spawn again from the new FMS.

We can also control what things spawn from a FMS, so I don't think that would require additional coding either, to just add the whole brigade supply.  (I assume, with all the risks that entails.)

Really, functionally speaking, the only thing novel about my PPO-OUS proposal is that since I'm trying to create a real front line, I keep going back to a 'daisy chain' concept.  There seems to be different ways to do it, but my point is that to advance a real front line, your PPO-OUS would be tied to the previous one in some way.   The first one could be built only within (say) 5k from the Origin and the second one would have to be built within 5-8k from the first one.  When your PPO-OUS is blown up, the previous one pops back up like a FB.   I have some ideas on how I think this could be done within the existing coding scheme, which again is an assumption on my part.  But we already have it so that PPOs cannot be set within a certain distance from certain items, and those PPOs are of various sizes, so I think its safe to say that they could figure this out for a very large PPO.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tr6alRe: spawning in at different points.

I didn't catch where that was mentioned.  I don't think I mentioned it.

Maybe you are just making a general remark.

I think the PPO can be designed in such a way to handle that.  Like I said, it could be a giant bunker complex of some kind.  Maybe as simple as a visualization of the walled AB that we see in many cities, right now.

To protect spawners, it can be designed to shield them, like the infantry spawn of a FB does right now (until it is blown).  I don't know how hard it would be to make it so that the enemy can't shoot from within the PPO, just like you can't shoot from inside the enemy's depot or barracks.

I think there are many ways that problem can be handled using existing concepts, if not merely by expanding existing code for PPOs.

But I think I do agree the 'capping' might not be the best way to think of this.  On the PPO scheme, we should just be thinking it would be destroyed.  Not like a FB, which is hard coded to the tile somehow, it seems.  But like PPOs already are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need two buttons for entering the game environment.

 

"TWITCHER ACTION" (calculated through some obscure process directly into whatever fighting action exists)

"PLANNERS ACTION" (basically as it is now)

There ya go.

;)

S!

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, just imagine in your mind that what I'm proposing is the EXACT same thing as a FMS, only 20 times larger, and able to access more items from the supply list.

I know it leaves some questions unanswered, like how is it built in the first place, but that's really all it is.

The only innovation is the idea of 'daisy chaining.'  But I have some ideas on how even THAT could rely on existing game dynamics related to the PPOs.

Not a bad idea, Elfin.  I think the Active Mission tab is supposed to allow for that, but yea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I hope the new UI they are working on shows/sorts MSPs better.

I can't even say how many times I have seen a "911 bunker!" in a DO I'm in, and I look at the list quickly (time matters here), see the AB as the mission, click to spawn... and end up at the out of town DFMS someone has set. yes it has a check mark, no, I didn't notice it quickly trying to get to AB.

Any such system, particularly where the Brigades are camped out someplace away from a town, needs to show where they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@pfmosquito I was not quite sure of what your concept was . 

 Fb's are hard coded the same as a CP , individually placed on the tile . Player placed FB's (large PPO's) are basically what it sounds like you are thinking of but with a different visual / building ?

 The main issue with that is the placement of them , they need flat ground .

Tr6al

Edited by tr6al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.  Just a large PPO.  'A Player Placed Object of Unusual Size.' 

I agree that placement could be an issue.  On the other hand, for the size object that I am envisioning--your conventional walled AB--I think we could find plenty of places to put it without it being too difficult.  I think we would come to know the best places for the PPOUS just like we come to know the best places for FMSs etc.

I do think that just creating a PPO that can basically spawn the entire brigade list would screw up gameplay.  It needs to be tied to actual brigades (not garrisons), and bounded by distance limits.  But as I was thinking about it, I was thinking that we could do the whole thing without much more coding (unless making very large PPOs requires coding and allowing tanks, etc, to spawn, requires coding) by having 2 distinct PPOUSes, and herein would require just a little coding.  There would be a forward PPOUS and a rear PPOUS.  The rear PPOUS is the one closest to your town.  It can only be set within X and Y distances from the town.  The forward PPOUS can ONLY be set if the rear PPOUS exists, and only within X and Y distances from the rear PPOUS.  After the forward PPOUS is set, the rear one CANNOT be blown (and maybe it can't be spawned from, either).

This would have the effect of most PPOUSes being set not too far from the road simply because of player choice.  You wouldn't have to code it.  The enemy would be doing the same.  Presto, front line!

I don't think you need to mess with FBs, or CPs, or ABs, or anything.  Just leave them alone.  Just add the PPOUS (one or in series as I just proposed) and see if it works.

The only problem I'm seeing with this revised idea is that a PPO is tied to a player setting a mission, and if there are no players on the mission, the FMS disappears.  I don't think we'd want that for this.  But maybe we'd find a way to work around that easily enough.  I also assume that we wouldn't want one of these suckers to go up as easily as driving a truck.  But I have no ideas on how they would be set.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.