sydspain

WWII Online: Current state and future

248 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, nc0gnet0 said:

IYO, why did the steam release fail to retain new players? 

do you think cost was the biggest factor? 

While I will concede that it was indeed a factor, I don't think it was the biggest one. 

Value.

Value and cost are similar, but different nonetheless.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Tied to != determined entirely by. It merely means they are connected.

10,000 troops attack 100 troops in a WW2 setting. The 10,000 win. True or false?

If true, success is tied to supply.

5001 troops attack 4000 troops. Who wins? In RL, probably the 4000, actually, but since "defense" is not a thing in WW2OL, it might be better to say, there's a meeting engagement where 5000 run into 4000, who wins? I'd say tactics decide, but that the increased numbers on one side have an impact (supply is tied to outcome, still).

 

Onsides rules should always have been the case with FMSes. Otherwise they are teleporters, and the game should get some Sci Fi elements, and be set in some alternate retrofuture setting. Change the model to a TARDIS.

MSPs are the massing of forces, abstracted.

Spawning armies in rear areas is fine, as long as what is required to do that is interdictable, and related to the number of troops (small, fixed spawn lists per truck drive around).

My point was that if the meta units (BDEs) don't matter, then the whole "map" concept is not actually a thing.

Onsides rules should never be the case. I could not disagree more. I asked a few others what they thought of this idea, nobody liked it. 

Yes, MSP's represent the massing of forces. Why should that be limited to a specific zone? Are you saying during battle forces never flanked and amassed behind a town? 

That's ridiculous. 

Granted there ability to do so without being detected is almost zero, but same can be said about ANY troop movement near the front line. 

and lets face it, the majority of the battles in WW2 were not fought in the towns themselves. To do what your saying would need a complete reset of the cap mechanics. 

Edited by nc0gnet0

Share this post


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

Value.

Value and cost are similar, but different nonetheless.

 

Value is relative. But I don't think cost is quite as big a factor as many make it out to be. 

A gamer has "x" amount of hours to play games.

Your not only competing for his $$ but his time. 

game enjoyment > game cost

If he has more fun playing one game over the other, cost really won't make that much difference. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Onsides rules should never be the case. I could not disagree more. I asked a few others what they thought of this idea, nobody liked it. 

Well, I disagree.

Go look at the map.

Look at an attack from Ninove to Aalst.....

Now tell me, should axis be able to set an MS 400 m NORTH of town and spawn an entire army out of it ?????

I'd say not only no, but hell no.

Maybe allow placing an MS anywhere S of the E-W road.

 

Drawing a frontline ZOC boundary (Zott, Aalst, BruxSW) would restrict this a bit more, instead of 180 degree angle S, about 140 degrees.

This creates a much better battlefield environment, enemy are coming from a direction, both sides can flank - enemy can't magically appear in your rear lines.

 

Edited by delems
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nc0gnet0 said:

Onsides rules should never be the case. I could not disagree more. I asked a few others what they thought of this idea, nobody liked it. 

Yes, MSP's represent the massing of forces. Why should that be limited to a specific zone? Are you saying during battle forces never flanked and amassed behind a town? 

That's ridiculous. 

Granted there ability to do so without being detected is almost zero, but same can be said about ANY troop movement near the front line. 

I said I'm fine with them deploying anywhere as long as they are required to actually be massed relative to what they spawn. 1 truck holds what, 10 men (and some supplies, and towing 1 ATG). That's what the fixed, never refills spawn list should be for an off-sides MSP.

Want 100 men in the rear? Drive 10 trucks. One lone HC should not be able to sneakorz to the rear then have an army crawl out of his posterior. One truck should not spawn 3 companies of men. OFFSIDES.

Onsides, I say that no limits is fine, a FB is just an "on sides" MSP really, so I presume you are against those as well?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If game alows  an ms can be set  180deg to the attacking  fb (if multi fb's may open op  most or all of town but  so waht  that happnned)   if a  cp is taken then that open up more area to setup msp  (if cp lost then u  figire it out   lose ms or  ms  limeted supply  so that of a cp.)   

 hq ms have ot be within X dist of a regular ms  (helps prevetn  gamey  attacking and deffence behind each other lines)    

fms   atack ms  when set also setup barrior from  inta camping  opponent

Veh goes down way too easy to  anemy ari atack  if it is to be  attackbel  and dmged fro ari setup  seom  bloddy ai aaa at least ;D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tater said:

I said I'm fine with them deploying anywhere as long as they are required to actually be massed relative to what they spawn. 1 truck holds what, 10 men (and some supplies, and towing 1 ATG). That's what the fixed, never refills spawn list should be for an off-sides MSP.

Want 100 men in the rear? Drive 10 trucks. One lone HC should not be able to sneakorz to the rear then have an army crawl out of his posterior. One truck should not spawn 3 companies of men. OFFSIDES.

Onsides, I say that no limits is fine, a FB is just an "on sides" MSP really, so I presume you are against those as well?

Ok, well that is a better clarification over the all or nothing that I thought you were talking about. I would be fine with limits. 

I am also on record as limiting the HC FMS to  1-2 instances, and not the unlimited applications that we now have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd add that the spawn lists driven in such a fashion should be at risk. Flanking that way is fine, and should be possible, but there should be some risk. In the old days, 10 guys to the rear meant 10 guys riding on the truck. Kill the truck, and likely 10 guys at the same time. Now, you lose a truck, spam til you sneak one in.

I'd say add on-sides rules such that if you set on-sides, you get an FMS that acts as they do now. If you drive past that, the spawn list is fixed to ~1 squad and 1 ATG, and if your truck gets killed, those guys are MIA.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nc0gnet0 said:

I am also on record as limiting the HC FMS to  1-2 instances, and not the unlimited applications that we now have. 

I'd fix the number of men they can spawn off sides to a squad (and let all the units in a squad be there, actually). On sides, whatever, frankly. I'm particularly concerned with MSPs over large distances or over water, which never should have been a thing.

Share this post


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

*** Onsides rules should never be the case. I could not disagree more. I asked a few others what they thought of this idea, nobody liked it. 

Well, I disagree.

Go look at the map.

Look at an attack from Ninove to Aalst.....

Now tell me, should axis be able to set an MS 400 m NORTH of town and spawn an entire army out of it ?????

I'd say not only no, but hell no.

Maybe allow placing an MS anywhere S of the E-W road.

 

Drawing a frontline ZOC boundary (Zott, Aalst, BruxSW) would restrict this a bit more, instead of 180 degree angle S, about 140 degrees.

This creates a much more battle field environment, enemy are coming from a direction, both sides can flank - enemy can't magically appear in your rear lines.

 

Place the FB's closer to the town. 

The only "enemy" that appears in your rear lines is inf. not completely unrealistic. Maybe prevent the spawning of ATG's and AA guns in your offsides scenarios. 

Would have little effect anyways on towns that are attack-able from more than one FB anyways, so a lot of coding for what?

Share this post


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

I'd add that the spawn lists driven in such a fashion should be at risk. Flanking that way is fine, and should be possible, but there should be some risk. In the old days, 10 guys to the rear meant 10 guys riding on the truck. Kill the truck, and likely 10 guys at the same time. Now, you lose a truck, spam til you sneak one in.

I'd say add on-sides rules such that if you set on-sides, you get an FMS that acts as they do now. If you drive past that, the spawn list is fixed to ~1 squad and 1 ATG, and if your truck gets killed, those guys are MIA.

NO, what is happening is that now you set a fms to the rear, and an HC officer spawns in and keeps setting multiple HC fms's. Set one, then hide. Wait, set another one, so on and so on. This is BS. HC officer should die with the death (or even pulling) of his HC fms, and that option should no longer be available. 

Edited by nc0gnet0
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine such a set of rules.

On sides, FMS are just like now.

Off sides, the truck drives past whatever distance and gets a chat note or something that he is now at risk. If he gets killed, he's sent 10 guys in supply back such that they won't reappear in the spawn list for some period of time (dunno timers for RES vs MIA, etc). So there is risk. It might make sense if you want to flank the enemy to then send a few trucks, and maybe, I dunno, armor to escort them (armored cars?). So now if you want to flank (flanking now being a thing, because without an abstraction of lines, there is no flank to outflank, and a point (town) has no flank) you drive several vehicles around to the rear.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jesus christ........ the PB wants more action, that is easier to sustain.  Basically every suggestion u and delems make would have the exact opposite effect

Edited by kgarner
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Place the FB's closer to the town. 

How come?  Takes 2 min to drive a truck to any town from a FB, 3 minutes top.

If anything, remove FBs -make placable FBs that can be no closer than 3k to an enemy town/facility.


Any infantry appearing behind your ZOC line is very unrealistic, unless they did para drop or drove a truck there. (ok, or walked behind)

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

*** Onsides rules should never be the case. I could not disagree more. I asked a few others what they thought of this idea, nobody liked it. 

Well, I disagree.

Go look at the map.

Look at an attack from Ninove to Aalst.....

Now tell me, should axis be able to set an MS 400 m NORTH of town and spawn an entire army out of it ?????

I'd say not only no, but hell no.

Maybe allow placing an MS anywhere S of the E-W road.

 

Drawing a frontline ZOC boundary (Zott, Aalst, BruxSW) would restrict this a bit more, instead of 180 degree angle S, about 140 degrees.

This creates a much more battle field environment, enemy are coming from a direction, both sides can flank - enemy can't magically appear in your rear lines.

 

But the capture mechanics of the game require near 360 degrees of attack. 

the way the cap points (depots) are placed in game are making for an element of combat not all that consistent with how the war was fought. 

AB's in the middle of the City? come on man!

tighten the grouping up of these spawn points, leaving only the City cap inside the city. 

Much easier to do, much less coding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Basically every suggestion u and delems suggest would have the exact opposite effect

Not at all, game would have more action in face to face combat... true, would be a lot less walk around back side of town with HCMS and place entire army 200m from a town.........

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO ONE CARES ABOUT "REALISM" IF IT MEANS MORE BORING NONSENSE THAT ISN'T FUN AND ADDS MORE LUL TIME TO THE GAME EXPERIENCE

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

right now barely 1 out of 15 guys is willing to drive a truck........... but now you want to make that less rewarding and more difficult......... super smart guys *thumbs up*

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Imagine such a set of rules.

On sides, FMS are just like now.

Off sides, the truck drives past whatever distance and gets a chat note or something that he is now at risk. If he gets killed, he's sent 10 guys in supply back such that they won't reappear in the spawn list for some period of time (dunno timers for RES vs MIA, etc). So there is risk. It might make sense if you want to flank the enemy to then send a few trucks, and maybe, I dunno, armor to escort them (armored cars?). So now if you want to flank (flanking now being a thing, because without an abstraction of lines, there is no flank to outflank, and a point (town) has no flank) you drive several vehicles around to the rear.

No way, that can be gamed and impossible to control, it would be chaos. Never work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the calculus here isn't hard.......... A causes B

But you guys obviously cant see that........ cuz all you wanna talk about is C

even though C is irrelevant 

But yall are so singularly set and talk about C so much

that the real topic of the thread "A" and "B"....... get lost in your "C" crusade for nonsense

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

*** Place the FB's closer to the town. 

How come?  Takes 2 min to drive a truck to any town from a FB, 3 minutes top.

If anything, remove FBs -make placable FBs that can be no closer than 3k to an enemy town/facility.


Any infantry appearing behind your ZOC line is very unrealistic, unless they did para drop or drove a truck there.

 

That's not always the case. Not saying every Fb needs to be moved, just some of them. 

closer Fb's mean more people are willing to drive in trucks, tanks, etc. Also mean more players on the defense are likely to venture out and attack said FB outside of town, giving you the battle field zone you want, without a lot of coding. Maybe once an AO is set, the Fb moves in closer? A tighter grouping of cap points also focus's the attack 

Edited by nc0gnet0

Share this post


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

jesus christ........ the PB wants more action, that is easier to sustain.  Basically every suggestion u and delems make would have the exact opposite effect

How is knowing roughly where the enemy is coming from less action, exactly? It means the defense (particularly low pop) can concentrate where the enemy is. If they want to shut down the attack they don't need a half a dozen people wandering away from town in every direction to find the EFMS, those same 6 people can go in the directions that the EFMS must be (look at map, see linked towns, look in those directions only).

Since the defense won't have to disperse literally everywhere, the attackers might ahve to, you know, attack. The current attack paradigm:

Roll trucks.

Set FMS all over the place.

Move towards/into town. AO gets set (takes a while, this might be after the above or before, varies (I'm not HC, don't know the specifics)).

Inf all over town, either capping, or securing.

Defenders appear. If enough zerg in, the attack likely fails, or gets put on hold til they leave, then restarts. If few appear, the town rolls. If most kills happen as camping, that's not a battle.

Such battles, much wow.

I'd rather have to fight my way in to a CP, frankly. My favorite gameplay is honestly recapping a CP the enemy holds in our town that is displaced from the rest of town. It becomes an actual battle. Once in the CP... same crappy in CP play, getting there is the fun play.

Edited by tater
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding on sides MS placement.

Prolly the easiest and most consistent would be to draw a line from A to B - where B is target town.

Then draw the perpendicular bisector through B.

Then, any area on A side of line would be eligible, other side of line not.

This would give every attack a 180 degree angle to place MS.

If you want to place MS further around town, get another link to town to attack from.

 

Share this post


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

Then, any area on A side of line would be eligible, other side of line not.

With some exclusion range around enemy facilities, yes. Though easier would possibly be no further from the truck spawn point than the range A-B, so it's an arc.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.