Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

stump

FBs should not be able to be destroyed if a town is contested

Recommended Posts

stankyus
On 7/18/2020 at 8:36 PM, OHM said:

You can make a Mission from a town to town and by pass the FB , Then that mission will not end if the FB is taken down.  That is old school play ,,  have some mission from a town and some from the FB.   But no body wants to drive anymore. 

 

Have to have the fb or all FMS to town regardless of origin will not set or have supply. Town to town FMS will stay up, but you cannot spawn until fb is retaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus

There are some towns where you don’t need the fb, you can set a dfms to the enemy fb and be on the edge of the town you want taken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drkmouse
On 7/19/2020 at 4:28 PM, dre21 said:

I could get behind the none destroyable FB if the Defender gets a notice so he can set up a good Defense all before the enemy is already at the door steps aka EWS is set off before the AO goes live and one can't leave a AB anymore.  

The way we have it now is enemy decides to attack town  , if AO is set before EWS is active , a few might show to see if EWS will become active or to see if this is just a mole attack or it was just set because system did or HC had too set another AO.

If EWS goes active without AO and one knows it's a 1 AO limit then , it could be a random new player setting it off , it could be enemy will pull the 1 AO they have to set new AO . It could be a full blown hard switch .

Most scenarios here will pull players from a active AO to either hunt down a lone player that doesn't know what he is doing , shut down a pre attack by killing anything that moved and is the enemy . Or in other occasion the hard switch will work but then it wasn't much of a fight . And people either complain or relish in glee cause they took a town .

Maybe instead of having none destorable FB , the holder of said FB that attacks a town gets a notice when the FB has a certain % of dmg .

A number of %of dmg where I'm thinking that either side has a chance of success. The Attacker has to decide to pull resources to defend FB and maybe have to reset attack , while the defender needs to make the call go for FB or take advantage of the break to recap town and get defence organized better.

 

 

this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

Actually, since PPO's, defending FB's has never been easier, provided two things hold true, 1, the defender takes some measures, and 2, the FB is well away from enemy airfields.

The measures I take are to wire-off the infantry-spawn, using a mixture of sand-bags and wire, being careful not to leave sand-bag edges which can be run-up-over inside the perimeter. This takes 1 engineer about 35 minutes. Leave a single exit, preferably facing the vehicle spawn. As the FB cannot now be dropped without the wire first being blown by an engineer or his advance on a known route, a single defender stands a reasonable chance of being all that is required to act as the "tripwire" for further defenders to spawn in and eventually kill the EFMS. Of course if the FB is bombed from the air, in all likelihood all of the wire etc will be destroyed. It will not usually be a regular airmen who does so, but a recently killed comb-engineer who re-ups in a fighter-bomber who does so. This touches on the destruction radius of bombs dropped on or near PPO's, which I feel to be far, far to large. YMMV.

Having completed such a wire perimeter, I will then move out 200m or so, and wire across hedges which ecmbengs would use for cover, in an effort to force them into the open to be more easily spotted.

Personally I find that these measures usually work, in the sense that a defender has time to prevent the FB being fully blown, and time to get help spawning in, at least for the first etruck sent. As you're making things difficult for the enemy until it becomes difficult for them to get trucks out, it feels worthwhile, and of course on the occasions you're able to frustrate an FN being taken down, rather satisfying!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakeh

Not being able to destroy FBs with AOs just means the over pop side will be able to role the map all that much faster.   No need to waste defenders on the FB.  All in on the AO.   Usually the under pop side does not have enough people to really threaten a FB anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakeh
On 8/9/2020 at 10:33 AM, fidd said:

Actually, since PPO's, defending FB's has never been easier, provided two things hold true, 1, the defender takes some measures, and 2, the FB is well away from enemy airfields.

The measures I take are to wire-off the infantry-spawn, using a mixture of sand-bags and wire, being careful not to leave sand-bag edges which can be run-up-over inside the perimeter. This takes 1 engineer about 35 minutes. Leave a single exit, preferably facing the vehicle spawn. As the FB cannot now be dropped without the wire first being blown by an engineer or his advance on a known route, a single defender stands a reasonable chance of being all that is required to act as the "tripwire" for further defenders to spawn in and eventually kill the EFMS. Of course if the FB is bombed from the air, in all likelihood all of the wire etc will be destroyed. It will not usually be a regular airmen who does so, but a recently killed comb-engineer who re-ups in a fighter-bomber who does so. This touches on the destruction radius of bombs dropped on or near PPO's, which I feel to be far, far to large. YMMV.

Having completed such a wire perimeter, I will then move out 200m or so, and wire across hedges which ecmbengs would use for cover, in an effort to force them into the open to be more easily spotted.

Personally I find that these measures usually work, in the sense that a defender has time to prevent the FB being fully blown, and time to get help spawning in, at least for the first etruck sent. As you're making things difficult for the enemy until it becomes difficult for them to get trucks out, it feels worthwhile, and of course on the occasions you're able to frustrate an FN being taken down, rather satisfying!

Certainly that is all good and effective.

But in the end it is about pop size.   Under pop side just does not have enough players to attack or defend against the over pop side if the over pop side is determined to attack or defend an FB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

I do realise that, I was merely pointing out that some things have changed with PPO's. The issue I have with the subject under discussion, is that in the case of overpop using a small proportion of their forces to mole, or periodically take a spawnable, is that especially in the former case, dropping the FB is a good way of ceasing the mole threat. So be careful you don't 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' here, in trying to address what is basically a population management issue, rather than an FB issue, strictly speaking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bloodybill
On ‎7‎/‎17‎/‎2020 at 1:21 AM, stump said:

The objective of this idea is to keep populations higher and not dismantle battles.

If the point of putting AOs in the game is to concentrate the population and not let a few people take an undefended town, then that concentration needs to be reinforced during said attack.  If a town is enthralled in a heated battle, with multiple depots captured , a few players should not be able to dismantle the entire attack by going and blowing up the FB. 

The argument that it is part of the game really is not valid, and the saying "you should have defended your FBs" does not stand.  If locking the population into a limited amount of attacks exists to ensure bigger battles, which to me, and many people will agree with this, is more fun, then allowing the destruction of forward-bases in the AO of a contested town is counter-productive. 

Say what you want, but that is the truth.  As soon as major attacks are dismantled by this, a lot of the population drops.  Most people that are trying to get into this game and have fun really just want to be in a big battle and not drive around in the wilderness blowing up FBs.  That's why not-so-many people drive out FMS', even less blow up FBs, and even less defend said FBs.

Our number one objective for this game should be increasing the population.  When I started this game was at 3-4 AOs during most of the day.  We need more people.

 

On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2020 at 11:46 PM, stump said:

I might not understand.

An AO is placed on a town from another town that has an FB -> The town that was just AO'd counter-AOs the town that is ordered to attack it.  -> There can only be one FB in between them. 

That is what you are referring to, right?  In that case, FB busting is fine, again, as long as the town with an opposing FB is not contested. The goal would be to make more of a tug-of-war, instead of completely nullifying the one side's AO with a FB take. Am I missing the situation?

 

 

Side note on another thought: I would rescind this argument if bombers could destroy entire FBs (they can't, right?).  That would also bring more life/players into the game, as the air war would become more meaningful and bring in more players in that arena.

 

nah I say fbs need busting its all about the thrill

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...