• Announcements

    • CHIMM

      RAT Chat Sunday 12/8 3pm server time!!!!   12/07/2019

      CRS is working overtime preparing and setting up the NEW SERVERS at the Portland colocation. This Sunday, December 8th, at 3:00 pm CST/9:00 pm GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). XOOM and the RATs are hosting a live chat discussing the move, and what services will be temporarily impacted in the process. Live chat link will be provided in discord channels when available. We look forward to chatting with you!
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
tater

Amphibeous nonsense

9 posts in this topic

I was at Deal earlier suppressing an EFMS (with a rifle) waiting for an engie to blow it (it was covered by a tiger, BTW).

Mobile spawns represent the massing of forces. OK.

Linked Depots (spawnables) are the same, but predate FMS.

For over water operations (real water, not rivers), I think all the spawnables need to go away. As always, I think MSPs should have on-sides rules, and those rules would be such that current MSPs across any large stretch of water should be completely impossible. The on-sides rule would be no MSP placement any farther than the distance between the spawn point of the unit placing the MSP, and the center of town, with an exclusion zone for enemy facilities of a few hundred meters. This alone would make most invasions not a thing from an FMS standpoint, though I suppose there might be a few towns where that distance might leave a sliver of land for current MSPs. Added to that would be unlinking any towns that cross water, so no spawnables.

Want to invade? Fine, load troops up on an AK, steam to a coastal town, and invade. I realize this has some issues given the current game, so I'll allow a new MSP. Make the AK itself the MSP. So you can spawn across the sea, but from ships. No spawnable CPs, no FRUs, no FMS.

Actually, I could see this with just the on-sides rules, and no special AK FMS. Tweak the on-sides rules, testing across the channel, and some of the zeelands. Still kill the linked towns across water, obviously. The goal would be for the on-sides rules to forbid MSP placement including the enemy facility exclusion zone, but not when some facilities near the coast are taken. So in order to invade, you'd need to land a truck, but you could not set until your troops had captured a CP such that the land sliver was available for MSP placement.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been discussion about allowing TTs to have their own FMS capability. I am all for that. That said, I think that normally the Axis tend to use paras to cap spawnable CPs in England. This is yet another reason to get rid of link spawns. I would MUCH rather see a seaborne invader either have to sail TT over and set some sort of Naval dock FMS, or see them have to bring a truck over and disembark it. The fact that they can drop  paras, grab ONE CP and suddenly have a foothold in England is ridiculous.
I don't see the destroyable must be brought across the sea FMSs as the real issue...They can be destroyed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2019 at 6:43 PM, Quincannon said:

There has been discussion about allowing TTs to have their own FMS capability. I am all for that. That said, I think that normally the Axis tend to use paras to cap spawnable CPs in England. This is yet another reason to get rid of link spawns. I would MUCH rather see a seaborne invader either have to sail TT over and set some sort of Naval dock FMS, or see them have to bring a truck over and disembark it. The fact that they can drop  paras, grab ONE CP and suddenly have a foothold in England is ridiculous.
I don't see the destroyable must be brought across the sea FMSs as the real issue...They can be destroyed.

Fair enough on the FMS, but yeah, spawnable depots across large distances are absurd.

I posed in another thread an "AI" idea regarding AKs (sorry, I refuse to use "TT," it's stupid---if I find myself at Starbucks (rare) I use "small, medium, and large," too).

The idea was that naval units really need the ability to set waypoints that they will follow (even in combat, frankly), then players need to be able to leave them in a way that allows another player to come and take them over. If steaming to X takes 4 hours, set them moving, then play. in a few hours a naval player can look at the missions and see the AI ships they can take over. Those ships are there, in game, and can be killed---which is why they need AAA to work automatically, too.

This was in response to a German complaint that my concept of invasion was too hard, as the AK trip took hours. The AK as FMS (with the ability to spawn trucks) means that the troops don't have to waste hours. Another option is that the AK can SET a new FMS. Some sort of beachhead object. I might combine the 2. The AK becomes an MSP with a small (fixed, ideally, so it carries what it could reasonably carry) truck/tank list. They spawn, and have to be offloaded. The AK-set FMS is for infantry. A beachhead FMS is better, because the idea that a truck lands in a sneaky way, and sets an FMS on the other side of town from the beach is absurd.

Anyway, under my system, an invasion would look like this, most likely:

1. Players spawn a few AKs, and set waypoints for them to reach target area. The players exit the AKs (new button that leaves them without despawning the ship).

2. The AKs steam on, following waypoints.

3. At some later time, naval players likely spawn DDs to catch up to AKs as escorts.

4. Air players spawn aircraft to fly towards invasion area, possibly with paras, also to escort the AKs.

5. Naval players take over the AKs near the target area for final navigation, FMS placement, defensive combat, etc.

6. Troops spawn at beachhead FMS.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Tater you can say the same about FBs and FMS, even the 'onsides' version you are promoting.

But if FMS is acceptable, then consider a similar seagoing version.

 

I would call it an FB for Forward Buoy- a spawn point marked by a buoy out there, that freighters spawn at with whatever trucks and tanks loaded, drawn from the naval brigade.  Maybe FMBs too.

The destroyers would still spawn back at the ports, they have the speed to get on station, that would be something like the requirement of tanks to drive from ABs/FBs rather then FMS.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Well Tater you can say the same about FBs and FMS, even the 'onsides' version you are promoting.

But if FMS is acceptable, then consider a similar seagoing version.

 

I would call it an FB for Forward Buoy- a spawn point marked by a buoy out there, that freighters spawn at with whatever trucks and tanks loaded, drawn from the naval brigade.  Maybe FMBs too.

The destroyers would still spawn back at the ports, they have the speed to get on station, that would be something like the requirement of tanks to drive from ABs/FBs rather then FMS.

I could see this, I suppose, but "AI" is generally more needed in the game. All aircraft with gunners should have it (unless you guaranteed no takeoff until full multi-crew).

Heck, all tanks, let the player control multiple crew, and fake the work of some (reloading, etc). Oddly, infantry have to manually reload for some inexplicable reason, yet vehicles don't--also odd in that people can "top off" guns in a way that is very unrealistic (reloading with a stripper, etc should be far faster than topping off a gun with a few rounds gone).

I could see the buoy thing, I suppose it creates some reason to fight it out for the aquatic "FB". The ships spawning in from nothing are sort of bizarre (and then why not planes?), but as you say so are all MSPs.

The point of course is that I want something that can be interdicted. So if the germans have ports that could facilitate invasion (no linked depots, but once they take a town, the town is linked, and supply can flow), it might be prudent to fly CAP over the channel. Opening the FB... I can see it, but it should still be pretty far away from the opposing shore---what were you thinking range wise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a precise range in mind, but long enough for patrolling ships or planes to detect and attack and linkup space for incoming protecting DDs.  Something like 30m away from the coast at TT speeds.

 

Side benefit is that you would generate a deep water point to fight over, would-be invaders would need to clear the forward buoy space prior to TTs spawning in.

Share this post


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

I don't have a precise range in mind, but long enough for patrolling ships or planes to detect and attack and linkup space for incoming protecting DDs.  Something like 30m away from the coast at TT speeds.

 

Side benefit is that you would generate a deep water point to fight over, would-be invaders would need to clear the forward buoy space prior to TTs spawning in.

How fast are the AKs in game?

(and why does anyone call an AK a Target Towing aircraft? People us DD for destroyers, not some ww2ol abbreviation, why DD and not DS if opeople are making stuff up? (not aimed at you, aimed at the universe/community))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought TT was troop transport.

Looks like AK is more correct for cargo ship.

Think 18-20 knots, use to be 15, but was upped a bit for game play.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, so they are really fast. And the world is mini. And they complain.

A troop transport is an AP, BTW.

Regardless of how you get them there, they need to be able to be interdicted, and ideally that interdiction should have some penalty more than spamming ships, then one beaches and becomes a teleporter.

Making invasions meaningful (kill the HC fru with fire) makes the naval game at least have SOME point other than just to [censored] the rest of us off by making everything shake.

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.