• Announcements

    • CHIMM

      Operation Burning Skies   09/17/2019

      All pilots scramble!  Strap yourself in for this months Community event - Operation Burning Skies! This Sunday, September 22, 11 am – 5 pm server time. In honor of XOOM and friends showcasing WWII Online at the Oregon International  Air Show – our forces too will battle for superiority in Operation Burning Skies. High Commands are on high alert to rally their forces to victory! Lift off, and see a whole new world of WWII Online… Fearless bomber pilots make the skies rain down fire – our daring fighter pilots are in pursuit of their prey- as western Europe erupts in war on the ground below! Rally your squads, rally your buddies - Combined arms are back!  …Under Burning Skies! SALUTE!
delems

AB capture mechanic.

121 posts in this topic

On 22/08/2019 at 10:06 PM, DOC said:

There was a time when area capture was being put up as a feature to be added. Strongly. There was opposition and it never happened. Dodged a bullet I'd say, but you could hear it whiz by it was so close.

You mean the area capture mechanism that EVERY OTHER WARGAME USES? The gold standard for infantry based shooters? Guess they were all wrong..

 

Share this post


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

You mean the area capture mechanism that EVERY OTHER WARGAME USES? The gold standard for infantry based shooters? Guess they were all wrong..

 

Gold standard is a bit generous. Most games require you to be in a small area near a flag which is the same mechanic with no building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true but there is visual feedback with flags going down and up according to ownership etc. I don't think we need to copy them BUT  it is what potential new players expect to see..perhaps a furling of the flag..some visual changes on the walls showing allied/axis propaganda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove the skulls for everyone above greentags first then we can start talking about adding more sheeps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dropbear said:

You mean the area capture mechanism that EVERY OTHER WARGAME USES? The gold standard for infantry based shooters? Guess they were all wrong..

 

You are being deliberately disingenuous ? Population biased area capture (where a heavily underpopulated side cannot compete at ANY level with the overpopulated side in the capture race) was the bullet we dodged. If however all you seek is belittlement rather than an actual discussion and the revelation of greater understanding that it seeks to foster, then well done.

Edited by DOC
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Area capture as a game mechanic is hardly different than what we have, frankly, just makes the "facility" capped a larger area, then you have some rules about capping only adjacent areas, perhaps.

If every single unit in the spawn lists (make Garrisons like a platoon per town, nothing more for this exercise) was spawned in at once in game, and always there with a player, we'd have a "area capture system" with no CPs, ABs, etc at all. You'd drive a truck to where there were enemies, or walk there, or drive a tank there---and they'd kill you. They would control that area---by controlling that area.

The abstraction we have is due to the fact that we don;t have every single unit in the spawn lists on the map, in play, 24/7, so we need some sort of gamey system to represent what units own what real estate.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the goal is to foster good battles ...

Have cap timers based on a sliding scale of % of town control and delay ews going off by maybe 4 or 5 minutes. Gives attackers time to get the initial drop. Seems more realistic than some magical instant detection. First CP gets capped under normal timers. Each CP cap for attackers goes up by 30 seconds or so progressively.  Similarly, defenders have reverse sliding scale. Recapping town with 1 contested cp goes slowest possible .... as you loose more cp's, timer recap decreases.

Could also weight it slightly based on side imbalance, underpop gets a slight overall boost. But not as much boost as we see now.

No spawn delay. Under any circumstance.

During low pop times. Overpop side gets longer timers on moving flags. Longer timers for placing AO's. The AB capturable timer is longer. That would slow the roll and allow players to find other things to do like get setup for next battle and encourage a fair fight there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ch0ad said:

If the goal is to foster good battles ...

Have cap timers based on a sliding scale of % of town control and delay ews going off by maybe 4 or 5 minutes. Gives attackers time to get the initial drop. Seems more realistic than some magical instant detection. First CP gets capped under normal timers. Each CP cap for attackers goes up by 30 seconds or so progressively.  Similarly, defenders have reverse sliding scale. Recapping town with 1 contested cp goes slowest possible .... as you loose more cp's, timer recap decreases.

Could also weight it slightly based on side imbalance, underpop gets a slight overall boost. But not as much boost as we see now.

No spawn delay. Under any circumstance.

During low pop times. Overpop side gets longer timers on moving flags. Longer timers for placing AO's. The AB capturable timer is longer. That would slow the roll and allow players to find other things to do like get setup for next battle and encourage a fair fight there.

 

I disagree with this on multiple levels.

Attackers getting "the initial drop"? In what universe is a Division, Regiment, Battalion, whatever, deployed to the front, and told "take a nap until the enemy is in your barracks, then think about waking up and fighting."?

If the game was "big deathmatch online," then sure. To the extent it's supposed to abstract a theater wide campaign at virtually any level of abstraction, "getting the drop" is absurd. Magical instant detection? That would be your forces driving past the pickets that should in fact have been deployed along likely areas of advance by any competent commander. This is fully impossible in ww2ol (lack of players, and the sheer boredom of doing so). Since attacks are (ridiculously) 360 degree affairs, all the time, the "EWS" is 360 (and very short ranged). What should happen is that the forces (the "spawn list") should be distributed where the COs see fit. Units of certain types, and/or within certain ranges should be considered in communication. If you massed all your units in the middle of a town, then yeah, the enemy might "get the drop" on you. If your units were spread along some likely avenue of advance---you'd know where they came from (of course those units so placed should fight back). If you consider some areas unlikely routes of advance, so you leave them empty---then maybe that's where enemy surprise might come into play. That would be a battlefield, and the type of surprise we should expect.

Instead, every single attack in this game is "getting the drop" on the enemy. We drive trucks, set up FMS, move into town (or advance on an undefended "Forward Base" (every asleep 24/7, of course!), then attack. AOs get set after the attack is in place. The defenders only spawn in after the fact. All battles look the same. All the tactical gameplay ends up exactly the same. Defend CP. Defenders? Guard CP. Attackers? Take CP (ideally in a sneaky way!), then... Guard CP. It's boring, and I find it amazing anyone thinks it's fun. I'm subbed, and I do all of the above to help my side, but I dislike it intensely.

Edited by tater
3 people like this

Share this post


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

Attackers getting "the initial drop"? 

It's a game.  The mechanics of it should be focused on encouraging good battles. That's all.

You seem to favor a front of AI detection which is cool if you wanna go truck hunting. Not my idea of fun but to each his own.

Edited by ch0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ch0ad said:

It's a game.  The mechanics of it should be focused on encouraging good battles. That's all.

You seem to favor a front of AI detection which is cool if you wanna go truck hunting. Not my idea of fun but to each his own.

No, I favor battles that start outside town. The entire truck paradigm is just as stupid.
 

The endless running from the spawn to the CP to fight in a flat, boring room is awful. CQB is objectively the worst gameplay in ww2ol on every level, and that's basically 100% of play for the people that actually move the board. I spent one session wandering around outside a fight and got yelled at for not capping something---which I do most sessions, even though I utterly hate it (meanwhile people are racking up dozens of kills driving tanks while we lose CPs).

I want infantry play that requires a certain amount of thinking. I want tactical problems to solve, not twitchy play where the guy that skates up the stairs while shooting an SMG wins. Or where I spawn into a "barracks" in an "army base" filled with hundreds of troops, dozens of tanks, and even emplaced MGs still up, and some guy shoots me standing next to the door. Yuck.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

No, I favor battles that start outside town. The entire truck paradigm is just as stupid.
 

The endless running from the spawn to the CP to fight in a flat, boring room is awful. CQB is objectively the worst gameplay in ww2ol on every level, and that's basically 100% of play for the people that actually move the board. I spent one session wandering around outside a fight and got yelled at for not capping something---which I do most sessions, even though I utterly hate it (meanwhile people are racking up dozens of kills driving tanks while we lose CPs).

I want infantry play that requires a certain amount of thinking. I want tactical problems to solve, not twitchy play where the guy that skates up the stairs while shooting an SMG wins. Or where I spawn into a "barracks" in an "army base" filled with hundreds of troops, dozens of tanks, and even emplaced MGs still up, and some guy shoots me standing next to the door. Yuck.

Well the sort of things you describe are much more possible when all you have is a smaller map. I have played a lot of other WWII games, and to be honest, they kind of have a similar concept. There are spawns and points to capture and hold. To win, one side has to capture an advancing line of points, and once they do, they advance instead of spending much time guarding the ones to their rear. Usually the difference is that the sides don't have to protect from 360 degrees, making it less important to cover your rear all the time.

In our game, the scale of the campaigns changes all of that. You still have those capture points, but they are towns and cities; which in turn have their own capture points.  This means that cities and towns become the focus, instead of just the single capture points.

I admit that the system gets  more than a bit repetitive... with so many towns, many are very similar. I myself have felt that at least the CPs need to be changed up, with multiple types of CP buildings in towns, so that it would be harder and more varied to capture and defend them.  I also dislike the fact that ABs have walls like swiss cheese, Sure the holes in the walls can allow defenders to get out of the AB, preventing them from being surrounded completely, but the holes also make ABs almost impossible to defend, as enemy can consistently penetrate the walls, making  defense hell for the defenders. But these are some of the very tactical problems that need to be solved.

As far as twitch play... this is an FPS... you'll always have it in some form or another.

S!S!S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2019 at 8:52 AM, ch0ad said:

Not sure about bannable offense. Very annoying though. Some guys running 4 accounts or so during severely low pop times ... kind of impressive in one sense, but poor taste IMO. However, if you are capable of pulling it off .... congrats because i have tried running 2 inf accounts and it ain't the easiest thing in the world.

I think though, if the game allows for this .... well not much you can say. Soon ... the game will not allow for it, so it is likely a problem no more. That is, unless they wanna sub four accounts, in which case have at it i guess.

This is only slightly less nauseating than using a second account to log on to the opposing side. I can see allowing second accounts to perhaps spawn in trucks, but anything else still gives too much of an unfair advantage. It gives the two account player real time information as to where the enemy is (or isn't) without sacrificing man power to do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 8:08 AM, dre21 said:

Well how is it any different then what Quinncannon just wrote with the 2nd accounts in the AB bunker. 

We always find away around issues that's what Humans do we solve problems,  some more successful then others. 

No matter what Quinncannon would have done he already lost the battle once he killed the 1st guy in that bunker.

He was playing vs 8 players and didn't even know it .  4 were capping or about to be ready to cap the Bunker once it went hot , while the other manned 4 players were running around town capping CPs. The only reason why the real players had to storm the AB is cause their 2nd accounts all got killed.

I don't disagree, and I don't think what Quincannon faced should be allowed either. 

As far as the area capture debate, I think an interesting dynamic might be to place a capture flag between the town and the enemy fb that must be captured first. Losing this flag should result in some sort of penalty to the defending side (reduction of supply perhaps, or loss of all AI, not sure what, but something). This would do away of the annoying "whack a mole" game play and give us more focused attacks and overall better game play. 

Similarly, losing non spawn flags should also result in a penalty to the defending side, at least the City flag which should have more in game value. 

Granted it would result in longer campaigns, but overall better game play IMHO. 

so you would first have a battle much akin to a FB vs FB which would be akin to area capture taking place outside of town, then move on to the normal city cap situation. 

Edited by nc0gnet0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Missing the point.

Completely unfair the defender can draw JWBS supply from linking towns when attacker has no way to do the same.

It is completely non interdictable and non destroyable - terrible game mechanic.

Not to mention, has no alignment to real life, how real supply/troops work.

For a game based on reality, this aspect falls short.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

Missing the point.

Completely unfair the defender can draw JWBS supply from linking towns when attacker has no way to do the same.

It is completely non interdictable and non destroyable - terrible game mechanic.

Not to mention, has no alignment to real life, how real supply/troops work.

For a game based on reality, this aspect falls short.

 

Actually, once the attacker captures a spawn THEY get the JWBS supply INSIDE a town that they don't even own. All of your points here apply to ALL link spawns on both sides. I would agree with your argument if it wasn't one sided in view of ONLY the attacker. And ALL warp and link spawning makes the game fall short.

What you are suggesting favors the attacker only... Attackers who should never be able to use a depot in a town they are attacking as a spawn. FMSs and UMSs sure... but Depots? That already creates an unfair advantage to the attacker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2019 at 9:03 AM, nc0gnet0 said:

I don't disagree, and I don't think what Quincannon faced should be allowed either. 

As far as the area capture debate, I think an interesting dynamic might be to place a capture flag between the town and the enemy fb that must be captured first. Losing this flag should result in some sort of penalty to the defending side (reduction of supply perhaps, or loss of all AI, not sure what, but something). This would do away of the annoying "whack a mole" game play and give us more focused attacks and overall better game play. 

Similarly, losing non spawn flags should also result in a penalty to the defending side, at least the City flag which should have more in game value. 

Granted it would result in longer campaigns, but overall better game play IMHO. 

so you would first have a battle much akin to a FB vs FB which would be akin to area capture taking place outside of town, then move on to the normal city cap situation. 

I'm sorry, but the idea that capturing depots should reduce the supply of a defender each time one is captured is a ridiculous penalty that would greatly favor attackers. So would your idea of a Flag between the town and the FB reducing supply.  It's one thing to slowly lose a town...it's another to have the ability to even try to defend reduced as well. It pretty much guarantees that the majority of attacks will succeed, and fairly rapidly. Unless they greatly outnumber the attackers, no town can hold out if they lose chunks of their supply each time they lose a CP. It's hard enough to defend a town as it is.  . And also... what would happen if the defender recaptured those non spawn CPs? Would the lost supply become immediately available again? I can see that dynamic changing back and forth too rapidly for defenders to be able to regain supply. To be honest... if the defender's supply was penalized in the way you suggest... then it would quickly become a case of... 'why try to defend?', as defense would be almost impossible.

And how do you envision this making the campaigns take longer? In this case, towns would fall even faster.

The closest to what you suggest about the flag out of town that I could envision would be making the FBs persistent and either capturable or repairable, instead of flipping them.

S!S!S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really need to seriously think about this.

Nearly impossible to attrit/finish a town when defender can bring supply in with no player involvement via link CPs once AB gone.

 

*** Actually, once the attacker captures a spawn THEY get the JWBS supply INSIDE a town that they don't even own. All of your points here apply to ALL link spawns on both sides.

Quinn, you don't understand the issue it seems.  The defender gets all the advantages here, not the attacker.  You seem to be completely missing the point.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2019 at 10:28 PM, delems said:

Missing the point.

Completely unfair the defender can draw JWBS supply from linking towns when attacker has no way to do the same.

It is completely non interdictable and non destroyable - terrible game mechanic.

Not to mention, has no alignment to real life, how real supply/troops work.

For a game based on reality, this aspect falls short.

 

I would presume destroying linking FBs would shut down the depot supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mobile spawns with no "on sides" rules mean that linked facilities are far less important, any depot can be warped to by attackers.

The first order of business should be on sides rules for all MSPs.  Abstraction of force dispositions behind one's own lines are fine, however it is decided to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are 2 different issues, let's try not to confuse them.

I fully agree, nice to see lines drawn between frontline towns to make a 'frontline' and enemy MS should not be allowed to be placed behind that line.

This would focus battles much more.

 

 

*** I would presume destroying linking FBs would shut down the depot supply.

You are funny sometimes.

So, now the attacker has to watch FB, drive MS into town and hold them, capture some CPs and hold them, capture the AB and hold  it.

THEN, drive trucks and engrs 3km PAST the town to every linking FB and destroy them?

 

I'm now in favor of all spawn CPs being removed from other towns - even attackers if that is the way it has to be.

Simply ridiculous to have to fight all the supply from defenders town, and every linked town too; while attacker only gets supply from their 1 attack town.

 

Remove all CP spawning from adjacent towns next intermission and map as test?

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

Mobile spawns with no "on sides" rules mean that linked facilities are far less important, any depot can be warped to by attackers.

The first order of business should be on sides rules for all MSPs.  Abstraction of force dispositions behind one's own lines are fine, however it is decided to do it.

Well, more to the point, the ENTIRE set of spawning and capture has to be looked at as a whole to create 'healthy' battles with a chance for both attacker and defender, the biomes of our war.

 

So for instance, Delems wants those autolinked depots to be delinked and  force a drive-in from the defending FBs.  The difference between before when the linking autodepot supply made sense and now is you aren't bouncing brigades out as a default and towns fall fast after so linking brigades made sense (and were limited to where linking brigades were located).  Now, the town's supply is still active in depots AND ALL linking D towns get depot supply.

 

If we were to follow your rule or something like it (I think it needs to be a bit more articulated towards facility lines rather then town lines), then that empowers the defense and the linking autosupply to depots definitely needs to go, as the defense is then really only having to worry about 'facing' depots initially and can concentrate better.  Offense needs chances too, so limiting to just town supply makes sense in that scenario.

 

Want to maintain the FMS all around/warp option AND depots?  All right, but one of the key differences now is that remaining attacker potential spawnables still has town supply in addition to the now EVERY defending spawnable link supply.  In that case, best to knock the town supply entirely out with AB capture as before and only have the linking depots supplied by outside garrisons/brigades.  Then the attacker gets the reward of both no instant armor in town AND easy take of remaining direct link spawnables while the defender still gets a boost of all linking defense depots.  Not quite what Delems has in mind, but not a big multiplier of supply either and more a sense of 'lines' as more attacking supply is brought to bear.

Share this post


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

These are 2 different issues, let's try not to confuse them.

I fully agree, nice to see lines drawn between frontline towns to make a 'frontline' and enemy MS should not be allowed to be placed behind that line.

This would focus battles much more.

 

None of these are ever separate issues.  They may be separately definable elements, but the rules of the entire combat biome impinge on the chances tactics and required player count to achieve putative success in a battle.

 

On the FB thing, YES whenever I had a chance to get people to do that I would, called them Victory FB teams as they sealed off potential supply rescue.  Heck, worth doing even if no supply depot link issues, just to stop rescue DFMS.

 

Whether we have the spare people to send off on such missions is another matter, unfortunately scaling down to low levels of pop has to be a consideration on anything we propose.

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** while the defender still gets a boost of all linking defense depots

My issue with this is it abstracts nothing in real life.

It is complete JWBS, no one resupplied, no one brought in MS - just instant transfer of supply from backline to frontline.

 

Far better to disable all link CPs and allow defender to keep using supply in town - that makes sense.

Sure, your HQ/command is overrun, so can't use AB - but the troops stationed there can still fight (i.e. CPs)

And, defender can bring supply in from backline FBs... just like real life would have to do; move troops up.

 

Just  now allies fought for hours to take Cons........

But, they captured the AB :(

Sadly for them (and great for axis), it opened up a link CP - axis flooded town with SMGs etc and recaptured entire town - even kicking AO by capping AB last.

That is not good play..... allies should have taken that town imo.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

 

Just  now allies completely and rightfully fought for hours to take Cons........

But, they captured the AB :(

Sadly for them (and great for axis), it opened up a link CP - axis flooded town with SMGs etc and recaptured entire town - even kicking AO by capping AB last.

That is not good play..... allies should have taken that town imo.

 

Or allies shouldn’t have captured AB before the rear-linked depot... rules are the rules, as bad as they might be, and the winner will be the one who best understand these.

the discussions and ideas to improve cohesion and make real squads more useful/powerful are good imho. However be careful when you wish to not be able to deploy behind the lines, that can result in hours-long entrenchment. Attackers might not have enough population during some time zones to push through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** rules are the rules, as bad as they might be

But it isn't good gameplay.

What you are basically saying, is that to take a town you first capture every CP in town - and hold them; then AB.

Is that what we want?  You must take whole town first, then AB?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.