• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Attention Soldiers Operation Fury Needs you!   02/20/2020

      Attention All Soldiers, Operation Fury needs you.  You need to choose a side and sign up.  
      For more intel on Operation Fury Please click HERE Please go to Special Event Forum (here), And sign up for allied or axis.
      This will be a CRS Lead event on both sides.  Xoom will be heading up the axis side and Heavy265 will be heading up the Allied side. This will be for bragging rights.
      Why are we asking players to sign up you ask. We are trying for a role play experience.   We want this to be a true realistic event.  
      So get up and sign up and let's make this the best event ever!!!!!!!!!!
      Give me your war cry, grrrrrrrrrrrrr
      Heavy265 **out**
XOOM

Mission Leader Tools

71 posts in this topic

Sorry mata, but it is completely lame to have armies spawning behind your town when they own nothing but one link.

Want to spawn all around a town?  Then take other towns around it.

This game badly needs a front line sense to it.  You can't even really setup a defensive line, because enemy can ALWAYS spawn behind you.  Always.

 

Forcing the attacker to capture a spawn first wouldn't work, as they can still attack from any direction to get to that spawn, including behind you.

 

Edited by delems
4 people like this

Share this post


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

Defenders still have it too easy right now Zebbee outside no pop where the map moves more within these hours VS any other tz... to name a few turtle incentives  : ews, INTEL msgs, white skulls... add to that people with 2nd and 3rd account sitting in CP to cover them. Map is large enough to see towns falling more during high pop.

There are no "defenders" in WW2OL.

The usual drill is that a couple people spawn in within a few minutes of EWS going off (which is the best we can possibly expect, people will not sit around and do nothing). They have no time to move into any defensive positions AROUND town, so they get someplace high where they can maybe spot the truck/FMS, and stop attackers before they get into town, but the calculus here is if the defenders can get guards in all the CPs before the enemy is already inside them. Defenses in ww2ol are entirely reactive. If enough "defenders" zerg into town, then they win, too few, and the town falls without a real defense ever forming.

EWS is not a "turtle" incentive, it's a (bad, it should honestly be much better) abstraction of the army units in town setting up what should be there, pickets, patrols, etc. You seem to miss the entire point of what the goal was---even if it was from the start executed terribly. The problem is NOT the desire to have defenses be better (which I want, no question), the problem is that all the mechanics are broken/awful. They should be fixed together. I'm fine with dumping skulls, indeed, I'm fine with dumping global map marking, and I have said I want the GPS maps gone completely, we all have too much information.

I want attacks to be attacks. If a lone guy can shoot the first EWS responders exiting their barracks in a walled AB, literally everything about the game is broken. I have never like "sneaky" anything in ww2ol, for about 20 years now.

I'd have FMS be on sides, and I'd have them persistent for some long time frame (or until the owning facility is capped). I'd show the FMS in the UI before spawn. I'd put an FMW in a good defensive position out of town. I'd pick those to spawn at. I could see much shorter range EWS, in that case---but make the shorter radius around the persistent DFMS. We'd then have a sort of real defense, since a person would set up DFMS when there was no AO, no EWS. The EWS would go off near those, and the UI might show that. If no one bothered to set DFMS ahead of time... that super short EWS means the town is pretty vulnerable. Make cap timers shorter, since we've moved the fight out a little. Attackers actually have to fight, instead of sneakorzing into town, and simulcapping everything before the defender can get people in another AO to despawn, and flood in.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Imho defenders indeed have it more easy (when sides are balanced). One-sided MSPs would make it even harder, or even almost impossible to sustain a town contest, except if we want to go for total attrition warfare instead of territory control.

This is because real attacks generally required local superiority in forces. If most everyone is in one AO/DO, and sides are even, then supply (attrition) is the measure of attacker vs defender strength. 3 linked towns each with equal supply to the defending town have 3X the units to burn, and it's an analog to attacking at 3:1 odds (all at once). It;s not really "attrition," it's the closest thing we have to the operational forces on the map actually mattering. generally speaking a Platoon attacking a Company is gonna have a bad day.

This is why local balance is really all that matters, and why local imbalance matters so much. 40 guys attacking a 2 AB full supply town with 5 defenders from a depleted Garrison are still gonna wipe the floor with the defense, even though they should have no chance. Local numbers defeats game mechanics.

The point of on-sides rules is that you also change some other mechanics, since attackers for the first time have to, you know, actually attack. My suggestion would be to make capping easier/faster (for at least 2 ei). Keep them out, vs awful CP CQB.

I would like to add that it's important to note that once in town (most play), there is in fact zero difference between attack and defense. You cap a CP, and you either constantly defend it (guard), or you lose it. For some reason we have people whinging about "turtles" staying in the CP if it's on D, yet they are lions if doing the same on Attack. Using the disparaging "turtle" comments for people tactically is absurd, but it can be OK operationally to prefer attack (moving the map operationally), since attack/defense are the same. Both sides have to cap CPs in town, attack or defense.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would most probably happen with one-sided MSP is that AOs will only be tolerated on towns where we have 2-3 links, making the new game experience almost statu quo with today's one, but also further restricting the HC role.

It would become harder to keep trucks alive to move the FMS close(r), thus the average FMS deployment distance will also be increased and spawning at a camped FMSs would remain the most frequent experience.

Thus the map will move more slowly, and the AOs will stall more often, probably reducing the average login duration of players.

What about showing the AI status on map (repaired/destroyed) and add more of these but further away out of towns, Hidden in bunkers and facing multiple directions? This would force attackers to clear it (but no air bombs or mortars), hence giving information away about their location (or sending specials ops to create a fog of war by destroying all AIs around town). If defense regain the area, it becomes legitimate to rebuild these and screw up attackers' positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ZEBBEEE said:

What would most probably happen with one-sided MSP is that AOs will only be tolerated on towns where we have 2-3 links, making the new game experience almost statu quo with today's one, but also further restricting the HC role.

Given current game mechanics, this is effectively how it should be. Map movement is usually a function of player population, and the OP side should be forced to attack with commensurately OP supply, else a smaller supply can easily defeat a larger supply, simply because more players spawn. Same is true on defense, however (if the UP side tries an attack, all the OP side has to do is zerg in at any point and crush the attack).

 

Quote

It would become harder to keep trucks alive to move the FMS close(r), thus the average FMS deployment distance will also be increased and spawning at a camped FMSs would remain the most frequent experience.

Wheeled vehicles are already insane. We should start by reducing offload speed for non-tracked vehicles literally to infantry walking speed. You don't have to spawn at a camped FMS, you can not spawn. That's sort of the point of ZOC, if you don't control the area, you should not be able to zerg an army from it. Requiring wheeled vehicles to drive at realistic speeds (we don't let fighters fly at maybe 10X the speed they could actually fly, do we?) alone might fix the behind the lines FMS nonsense, actually. I'd be fine with just that change, if a truck can survive at walking speed to the rear, maybe it deserves to have a TARDIS in the back.

 

Quote

Thus the map will move more slowly, and the AOs will stall more often, probably reducing the average login duration of players.

The map moving slowly changes the login behavior of people? I look for battles, myself. I want a fight, it's literally all I care about. The fact that "winning" requires captures and defense of facilities means I find it hard not to capture and defend those CPs/bunkers (where sadly I spend like 90% of the time in game).

You might be arguing from the perspective of someone already having fun in the game outside of awful CPs? Will the tanks be sad with people out in the vast terrain more? If we move the average location of inf out from town just 1 km, we more than quadruple the area of typical play I bet. All this terrain, rarely used.

 

Quote

What about showing the AI status on map (repaired/destroyed) and add more of these but further away out of towns, Hidden in bunkers and facing multiple directions? This would force attackers to clear it (but no air bombs or mortars), hence giving information away about their location (or sending specials ops to create a fog of war by destroying all AIs around town). If defense regain the area, it becomes legitimate to rebuild these and screw up attackers' positions.

I have suggested player-placed PPO AI that replaces the AI we have, before. This could work, certainly. Better might be persistent PPOs (linked to a spawn facility, and stay around until destroyed, or the facility is capped) that are also AI. Players then drive the locations (it could be like the current AI, 1 ATG and 1 MG per CP, so the total amount of AI is identical).

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Thus the map will move more slowly, and the AOs will stall more often, probably reducing the average login duration of players.

Possibly.  But, it will encourage more combat from directed directions with actual lines of attack and defense.

 

And, there are some things we can do to mitigate this now harder to attack because of MS being on sides.

1) Lower capture timer  2) Allow MS to be placed in 30 sec, not 60  3) Allow MS to be placed 200m from enemy facility

 

Also, I've suggested two other ideas that would greatly enhance battles, and make it easier for attackers:

1) change the 3 story lookout tower spawn points to ground level only.

2) extend facilities out of town further, never closer than 100m to another facility, if not 200m.  Towns like Sprimont and Eupen are terribly designed and nothing but 20m run and gun messes, no tactics at all.  Whereas towns like Geldern and Heinsberg are super fun to fight over.

 

Regarding truck speeds, should be slower off road, maybe 1/2 or 3/4 of current speed?  Same for armored cars generally speaking.

As trucks are key to MS, I think making them 'walking' speed would be too slow.

 

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want trucks to be as accurately modeled as anything else for their primary function. With armor, we care about how many mm of armor, and if a gun could penetrate at this vs that range, and in this vs that spot, and a certain angle. Trucks? They might as well fly for how accurate they are.

I just said this in another thread, but how about a compromise:

Wheeled vehicles can travel at their current very fast off road speed within X km of their spawn point. After that, they move at a speed that is a realistic speed (which would be very, very slow).

So you spawn a truck, and race to set your FMS. You get a couple km from the FB, and your speed (if off road) decreases to a walking-ish pace. You'd likely be close to a decent FMS range (albeit a long one) right where the speed changes. If you want to flank a little... you can. Set the FMS, then crawl sideways and see if you can set a better one?

Seriously, this alone would make on sides more likely, but rear would not be impossible (though we still need to kill the HC FRU with fire, IMO, or have literally a single bullet take it out).

ML could see this range as a circle around the spawn (to keep this slightly on topic)

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those in favor of a limited FMS deployment radius, let's put this in image.

1 FB owned:

09fc0c524d5f599fd234e5190d98a744.png

 

2 FBs owned:

01dacda1eed3bd494c40ec1d20d6db37.png

As I mentioned, as soon as you have 2 FBs the situation becomes almost statu quo with today's situation. 1 FB makes it definitely hard to sustain an attack except if you want to favor longer attrition battles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** as soon as you have 2 FBs the situation becomes almost statu quo with today's situation

Almost, but not quite.

Also, your example has two enemy towns nearly opposite each other. (N and S)

But, even that little area, gives you some comfort you can drag an ATG out there, and be relatively safe while covering town.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

People want to win, and they naturally gravitate towards fighting styles that produce success. I think under the above rules that would mean more combined arms, and a more realistic feel to the flow of battle. I don't know how that would go over in very low pop where an attrition battle might last for hours without results, but in general I believe its more of what players are looking for when they try this game.

Coding the above check would probably not be very difficult. It would be a very interesting idea to try during an intermission, which is such an opportune feature for testing novel ideas without breaking the normal game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of giving mission commanders more control of their fire team in the UI before they spawn into battle. Directing mission members after they spawn with no specific mission details, no goals, no familiarity with other members roles, and mismatched ordinance is like herding cats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2019 at 3:18 PM, tater said:

The entire rank system should be scrapped. Old timers want to have their officer ranks, etc for the forums? Sure, whatever.

Make the ranks matter more, and make the way to rank up earning points. Not points you build up forever (what we have now), but points that either drop to zero when you die, or take a large hit when you die (lesser hit when you MIA, even lesser hit with a RES, no hit RTB).

Say everyone starts a Pvt (most militaries had ~5-6 enlisted ranks). HC people can be commissioned officers, but any given spawn which might change (2dLt, Lt, Cap, Maj, LtCol, Col).

In both sets of ranks, you start at the bottom, and you gain points for capping, kills, guarding, etc. Reward what we want with more points. Related to ML tools, officers/noncoms who use the ML tools get some points (reward using the tools you just made). People also get added points for doing what the ML tools suggest. If you set a target as a CP, then they get points for capping/guarding that (as they would any CP), but they get extra because their mission says to.

Rank vs Grade. Grade and rank are often used inter-changeably and are also often confused. Grade is a major step in the promotion structure or program while rank is grade adjusted for time. “Captain” or “major” are examples of grade; several individuals can have the same grade. ... Rank is seniority between two people of the same grade.  CRS has this a bit backwards and there is no way anyone would want their "rank" reduced. So Give Grade points for leadership and make that the basis for mission leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on ranks, that would VERY entertaining for everyone to have @Loonie and myself being side cinc for few campaigns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, grupania said:

How about an option yo change your mision target?

U haven’t changed your name to jsilecownsme yet por que?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** How about an option yo change your mision target?

This is really needed, big time, for navy and air missions.

Might be hard with army missions as they have MS, but seems no reason it wouldn't be 'easy' for air and navy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

Brainstorming: instead of limitation to FMS deployment areas, what about directional EWS? 

boussole-de-fleches-de-directions-cardin

I'm fine with that, I can already hear the screaming from people who think that "attacks" should be fait accompli sneaky things rather than what I would prefer much of the time---assaults.

I like the idea of MLs (with a rejiggered rank system, maybe rank based) being able to place a persistent PPO spawn point (PSP), that perhaps has AI. Ie: an infantry PSP would have a rifle or LMG pointing forward in a foxhole. Has a limited fire arc and ~200m range? Less? Next to it is an empty foxhole where the inf spawn behind. Say the range is 150m on the AI. The AI would twitch at 250 or 300m, maybe, and THAT is the EWS (completely replacing the other EWS we have if any of these are placed, with no PSPs, it's current EWS). So players decide how to defend, and leave these PSPs out around town.

Maybe generic EWS goes of for twitchy PSP AI, and the actual position of the enemy is marked with a red skull when the PSP fires or is destroyed. I'd make this form of MSP easier to kill than an FMS is. Maybe 2 charges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/12/2019 at 5:14 PM, grupania said:

How about an option yo change your mision target?

This is a long standing objective!

As soon as we get this, we could limit capture only to the flag a mission is targeting. This would further help cohesion for the leader towards his objective 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** instead of limitation to FMS deployment areas

The point is, limiting direction of attack is real life.

Attacks just don't come from any direction, especially when your enemy only has 1 link to a town.

Need the game to be a game, but mimic real world tactics / strategy / physics, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.