Trucks should have no timer on placing FRU's

[monsjoex]

I mentioned this in the ratchat and the response was that i should put it here.

What is the problem?

Pre-FRU we had trucks placing UMS's or they could be the MSP themselves. Then we got FRU's wich allowed infantry to place/move the spawnpoint. But a 7 minute timer got added for both placement of the fru by truck and infantry after the fru gets destroyed

This leads to everyone changing their mission after the fru goes down, because often you can place a fru by truck faster than 7 minutes. It created a situation where people constantly switch missions just to spawn in at a particular town.

What should be changed?

Trucks should be able to move the current FRU or replace a destroyed FRU instantly.

Infantry should take 7 minutes to move the current FRU or replace a destroyed FRU.

What this creates is this:

I make a mission and drive a truck to a town. I set up a FRU and despawn my truck. After 7 minute I can move the FRU up as infantry as we fight closer to town.

When the FRU gets killed, I can drive a truck to town and replace it, or I can hold out as infantry and replace it after 7 minutes, or when there is a truck on the mission already near the town he can replace the MSP.

Just how the FRU's were intented: so infantry can move the spawnpoint with them. The current situation is extremely bad although it might not be so noticable. A topic in the barracks has gotten no negative reactions at all, noone, everyone supports this change.

[kalegek]

There are already to much FRU`s because infantry can place them. Better stay to the old times when only trucks could be msp`s

[fiambre]

I agree monsj here.

You take the risk and efforts to drive a truck to place a fru. You cant defend, you are big, you are noisy and destroyable by everything. WHY not give to trucks a more than reasonable FRU posibility?

If you can have somebody in your mission ready to make fru with truck... isnt that teamwork? Sacrifice?

More than that... you make fru, you play... then your fru is down and you killed... you take another truck, drive from origin to target... and still need to wait the cooling down timer??? :-)

No no no... Giving a plus to truck is Positive.

well--- i know this is not a discussion forum but...

[GOPHUR]

Thanks for posting here. I understand the issue better. I think the reason it was done this way was that everyone got all up in aarms when they could kill an FRU and have it come right back anywhere.

Since this was basically the same as it had always been, if you think about it, we didn't make a truck exception.

I don't much care for the timer. I want a mission with infantry to ALWAYS have an FRU up.

So our current plan is:

- spawn in

- within X meters you can place an FRU

- within X meters from you FRU you can place another one, removing the first

- continue the Daisy Chain

- If your current FRU gets destroyed your previous one opens up

- this works all the way back to the first one

I'm trying to get that done but in the mean time I'll think about timers for trucks.

[ezrelay]

If FRU's HAD to be truck placed FIRST, wouldnt that help the issue with natural barriers?

[fiambre]

Thanks for posting here. I understand the issue better. I think the reason it was done this way was that everyone got all up in aarms when they could kill an FRU and have it come right back anywhere.

Since this was basically the same as it had always been, if you think about it, we didn't make a truck exception.

I don't much care for the timer. I want a mission with infantry to ALWAYS have an FRU up.

So our current plan is:

- spawn in

- within X meters you can place an FRU

- within X meters from you FRU you can place another one, removing the first

- continue the Daisy Chain

- If your current FRU gets destroyed your previous one opens up

- this works all the way back to the first one

I'm trying to get that done but in the mean time I'll think about timers for trucks.

If you are tied with your fru to a small range from last FRU, it wont work, since once you have lost control of an area, seeing the fru poping up near will make enemy laugh and camp it

So think can be a good addition but please, dont lock the next FRU distance or it will close some good options.

[delems]

Great idea that the first FRU must be placed by truck. Yes, careful on the pop back to the next closest FRU. I think that is a good idea in general, just watch how it is implemented (i.e. min distance maybe).

[GOPHUR]

Great idea that the first FRU must be placed by truck.

Why is this a good idea?

[GOPHUR]

If you are tied with your fru to a small range from last FRU, it wont work, since once you have lost control of an area, seeing the fru poping up near will make enemy laugh and camp it

So think can be a good addition but please, dont lock the next FRU distance or it will close some good options.

You assume the distance to be very close. I do not assume that.

[jdubya]

While you are looking at fru's, I think something is getting overlooked here. The battle over river towns has just become ridiculous. When mobile spawns had to be set with trucks, you had to cross the bridge, if the bridge was destroyed, you had to repair the bridge, hence, bridge ao's and do's. Now you can just have a couple of ml's swim across and presto, magic army across the river, who needs a bridge? While were at it why not just make it possible to set armor fru's across rivers? Might as well, the battles for river towns make no sense at all now, you cant expect to establish any kind of a zoc, because some one will just swim over and set up behind you, I've seen it happen over and over again, both on attack and defense. This is just silly, you need to limit the ability to set fru's across rivers which have the bridges destroyed. Otherwise, this is not a war sim. at all, why even limit it to fru's lets just have non fixed random spawn points, and why even have to take off at an air field while were at it? lets just allow mid air spawning. Yes, I'm being facetious , but seriously, how far down this road do you really want to go?

[delems]

Exactly, the first FRU by truck makes bridges and rivers somewhat important. Maybe No FRUs allowed within 2 Km of any downed bridge.

[jdubya]

Why is this a good idea?

uh, bridges maybe?

[jar644]

When mobile spawns had to be set with trucks' date=' you had to cross the bridge, if the bridge was destroyed, you had to repair the bridge, hence, bridge ao's and do's. Now you can just have a couple of ml's swim across and presto, magic army across the river, who needs a bridge? [/quote']

I really like the idea that the first FRU must be set by a truck. As long as the next FRU that replaces it must be set by a truck as well, this will work. Otherwise, a truck FRU could be set, an ML spawns in, swims across the river and moves FRU to that location. (I assume it can work that way...I'm not up on all the current FRU rules.)

[delems]

Maybe there can be a 'swam' flag, meaning, if the guy swam, he is no longer allowed to place a FRU, message comes up, "you swam, may not place FRU".

This would keep anyone from swimming to make a FRU, and then establish some sense of rivers and bridges again. Hmm, even makes it so first FRU doesn't have to be placed by truck, though, that may still be a good idea.

[joelq]

Why is this a good idea?

Another reason is the defenders should have an opportunity to hear a forward base containing a potential 600+ infantry on approach to setup.

[jdubya]

I suspect the reason gopher and some of the rats have difficulty seeing the rational behind this opinion is there is no bias in their view of things, They couldn't give a rats rear end, (no pun intended) which side wins, which is a good thing. However, the vast majority of players are side loyal, and they care about winning and losing, which is why they want some sort of structure and sense of realism so as to be able to have strategy that makes sense. Being able to teleport a potential of 600 inf. across a river without making a sound has nowhere in it even the slightest semblance of realism. Which is why so many players got "up in arms" as it was said, when the fru first showed up. This move away from realism toward this rapid action free for all, has some of us a little worried about losing what is the very soul of the game, a war sim.

[fxmmauser]

I would say I partially agree with this.

Fru's made by trucks are more dangerous first because the enemy can hear you, a truck is more easy to spot than a infantry and the quality of fru placement is inferior so... having no fru timer would be balanced with the how easy the ability to kill it is

Advantages

When fru's were implement there was no timer which would add a great deal of fun and immersion for the attackers and defenders since the enemy could almost instantaneous switch from attack direction this would contribute to some legendary attacks and defenses but I do agree it was kinda of unbalanced.

What I think would be better:

-The return of mobile spawns - trucks would now be able to turn again in MS and would have a squad limit equipment 1 Sappers, 1 Mortar , 1 lmg, 2 Smg and 5 riflemen .

What would this do for players and the battlefield.

-This would add that component of mobile warfare/infantry from suprise squad based attacks from a wide of directions.

-Immersion for example: on singleplayer games you see trucks with squad of enemy troops drop them near you this looks great and it would be similar on BGE "a soldier sees a truck park behind a hill he gets there and see 10 soldiers spawning out of the truck".

-The main bulk of enemy spawn would still be fru's but MS would force the defenders to really defend.

-This would be the updated version of hot drops safer in terms of fun since a lonely ei could not destroy completely or annoy the entire squad.

Edited July 3, 2011 by fxmmauser

[GOPHUR]

Very good point on the rivers. I'm not sure it trumps the time-to-battle issues that help keep us from gaining new players but it is valid none the less.

How do daisy-chain msp work with that in mind. As you have to advance and hold the territory with a rather large box that can be killed with a single bullet shouldn't that be better?

Bridges stop tanks, not infantry. I can see the argument against that. Especially with FRU placement as it is now where you have to place it close to your taqrget and not your origin (and then from your current FRU placement and so on).

Does everyone get this concept clearly?

I want to talk about that not trucks. Not going back to "must place by truck" as it sits now.

Daisy chain FRUs:

• ML spawn at FB
  
• ML can place FRU within X meters of FB (say 500).
  
• ML spawns at FRU1
  
• ML can place FRU2 within X meters of FRU1
  
• ML spawns at FRU2
  
• ML can place FRU3 within X meters of FRU2
  
• ML spawns at FRU3
  
• FRU3 is destroyed
  
• FRU2 becomes active
  
• ML dies and respawns at FRU 2
  
• FRU2 is destroyed
  
• FRU1 becomes active
  
• ML dies and respawns at FRU1
  
• FB is destroyed
  
• FRU1 is destroyed
  
• Mission is no longer active as origin is invalid
  

[hick]

I think part of the disconnect is the perception of what FRU's are intended to be. Once their true purpose is recognised, Gophur's proposal make a heck of a lot of sense. In fact, one would then be able to argue that vehicles shouldn't not be able to place FRU's at all!

Consider this:

IRL, control of an area is determined by two things, number of friendly forces able to engage in combat and the number of enemy forces present to oppose them. Control is gained when the number of Friendly forces is of sufficient level to negate the number of enemy forces. Obviously, while the game is perpetual, the players involved in it cannot be (unlike RL), and therefore some sort of anagram is needed for those perpetual forces. Enter the FRU; a graphical (and mechanical) representation of a side's control over an area.

I would like to see Gophur's proposal extended to be dependent on an underlying grid (not sure the resolution of the strat grid that currently exists, but it may be a good candidate) and combine it with the area capture mechanics already in place. I.e. in order to place a new FRU you must control the grid space (determined via area capture) and the current grid space must be linked with the grid space your previous FRU was in (there must be a chain of friendly-owned grid spaces connecting them). Additionally, Vehicle FRU's must be x number of grid spaces from the "front" (if the grid is rather fine, if it's course obviously this restriction isn't feasible).

This accomplishes a few things:

First, Towns, while potentially critical, are no longer the focal point of all combat

Second, it makes the flow of battle considerably more dynamic (for example there is a tangible way to assign momentary importance to a hill, as it is possible to "own" in the mechanical sense)

Third, It allows for the simulation of mobile near-line support systems such as vehicle repair facilities.

Fourth, it replaces the permanent static spawn-points (depots, ABs, and FB's).

Fifth, it provides a mechanic that allows for the future inclusion of operational-sized units (battalions, companies, platoons, etc via spawn-per-FRU limits and ratio'd spawning).

Sixth, the grid system would allow for encirclement of combat forces, effecting localised cut-offs and allowing for more intense maneuver warfare at the tactical level.

And more but I have to go to work

Oh, and the part about no truck MSP's -- would "force" trucks and tanks to carry infantry to set them over larger distances (two reasons: 1) infantry are required to set the FRU and 2) infantry are required to control the area the FRU is in)

[bigrow]

Daisy chain FRUs:

• ML spawn at FB

• ML can place FRU within X meters of FB (say 500).

• ML spawns at FRU1

• ML can place FRU2 within X meters of FRU1

• ML spawns at FRU2

• ML can place FRU3 within X meters of FRU2

• ML spawns at FRU3

• FRU3 is destroyed

• FRU2 becomes active

• ML dies and respawns at FRU 2

• FRU2 is destroyed

• FRU1 becomes active

• ML dies and respawns at FRU1

• FB is destroyed

• FRU1 is destroyed

• Mission is no longer active as origin is invalid

I understand this and actually suggested something similar recently for mobile FBs.

Just a thought though.....

FB is North of town

FRU6 is West

FRU7 placed South

FRU8 placed East

In this situation the FRU will need to be killed all the way back around the town until it starts moving back towards the origin FB. Not a deal breaking problem, but worthy of discussion if you intend to implement daisy chains imo.

[bigrow]

I think part of the disconnect is the perception of what FRU's are intended to be. Once their true purpose is recognised' date=' Gophur's proposal make a heck of a lot of sense. In fact, one would then be able to argue that vehicles shouldn't [i']not be able to place FRU's at all!

Consider this:

IRL, control of an area is determined by two things, number of friendly forces able to engage in combat and the number of enemy forces present to oppose them. Control is gained when the number of Friendly forces is of sufficient level to negate the number of enemy forces. Obviously, while the game is perpetual, the players involved in it cannot be (unlike RL), and therefore some sort of anagram is needed for those perpetual forces. Enter the FRU; a graphical (and mechanical) representation of a side's control over an area.

I would like to see Gophur's proposal extended to be dependent on an underlying grid (not sure the resolution of the strat grid that currently exists, but it may be a good candidate) and combine it with the area capture mechanics already in place. I.e. in order to place a new FRU you must control the grid space (determined via area capture) and the current grid space must be linked with the grid space your previous FRU was in (there must be a chain of friendly-owned grid spaces connecting them). Additionally, Vehicle FRU's must be x number of grid spaces from the "front" (if the grid is rather fine, if it's course obviously this restriction isn't feasible).

This accomplishes a few things:

First, Towns, while potentially critical, are no longer the focal point of all combat

Second, it makes the flow of battle considerably more dynamic (for example there is a tangible way to assign momentary importance to a hill, as it is possible to "own" in the mechanical sense)

Third, It allows for the simulation of mobile near-line support systems such as vehicle repair facilities.

Fourth, it replaces the permanent static spawn-points (depots, ABs, and FB's).

Fifth, it provides a mechanic that allows for the future inclusion of operational-sized units (battalions, companies, platoons, etc via spawn-per-FRU limits and ratio'd spawning).

Sixth, the grid system would allow for encirclement of combat forces, effecting localised cut-offs and allowing for more intense maneuver warfare at the tactical level.

And more but I have to go to work

Oh, and the part about no truck MSP's -- would "force" trucks and tanks to carry infantry to set them over larger distances (two reasons: 1) infantry are required to set the FRU and 2) infantry are required to control the area the FRU is in)

YES! Love this idea. I have talked about it before and think the possibilities would be huge! Any chance in the future gophur?

[makrel]

Very good point on the rivers. I'm not sure it trumps the time-to-battle issues that help keep us from gaining new players but it is valid none the less.

How do daisy-chain msp work with that in mind. As you have to advance and hold the territory with a rather large box that can be killed with a single bullet shouldn't that be better?

Bridges stop tanks, not infantry. I can see the argument against that. Especially with FRU placement as it is now where you have to place it close to your taqrget and not your origin (and then from your current FRU placement and so on).

Does everyone get this concept clearly?

I want to talk about that not trucks. Not going back to "must place by truck" as it sits now.

Daisy chain FRUs:

• ML spawn at FB

• ML can place FRU within X meters of FB (say 500).

• ML spawns at FRU1

• ML can place FRU2 within X meters of FRU1

• ML spawns at FRU2

• ML can place FRU3 within X meters of FRU2

• ML spawns at FRU3

• FRU3 is destroyed

• FRU2 becomes active

• ML dies and respawns at FRU 2

• FRU2 is destroyed

• FRU1 becomes active

• ML dies and respawns at FRU1

• FB is destroyed

• FRU1 is destroyed

• Mission is no longer active as origin is invalid

Daisy chains of FRU´s is a great idea - but I see two things that you would need also when implementing that:

- Multiple FB´s that can be placed by players

- A possibility for ML´s to move their origin to another FB (within a set range of the first) if the one they have in their mission goes down

As it is today many players get "stuck" on missions when the FB goes down (they remain spawned in but the mission is a dead end since no-one else i spawning with them). This would only become worse with daisy chains since counter attacks would quickly concentrate on the one FB to be able to close all daisy chains.

So lets get mobile FB´s in there together with this concept and let the missions remain a focus point even if the FB goes down by letting ML´s move their origian to another open FB.

Edited July 8, 2011 by makrel

[jdubya]

Very good point on the rivers. I'm not sure it trumps the time-to-battle issues that help keep us from gaining new players but it is valid none the less.

How do daisy-chain msp work with that in mind. As you have to advance and hold the territory with a rather large box that can be killed with a single bullet shouldn't that be better?

Bridges stop tanks, not infantry. I can see the argument against that. Especially with FRU placement as it is now where you have to place it close to your taqrget and not your origin (and then from your current FRU placement and so on).

Does everyone get this concept clearly?

I want to talk about that not trucks. Not going back to "must place by truck" as it sits now.

Daisy chain FRUs:

• ML spawn at FB

• ML can place FRU within X meters of FB (say 500).

• ML spawns at FRU1

• ML can place FRU2 within X meters of FRU1

• ML spawns at FRU2

• ML can place FRU3 within X meters of FRU2

• ML spawns at FRU3

• FRU3 is destroyed

• FRU2 becomes active

• ML dies and respawns at FRU 2

• FRU2 is destroyed

• FRU1 becomes active

• ML dies and respawns at FRU1

• FB is destroyed

• FRU1 is destroyed

• Mission is no longer active as origin is invalid

well, yes and no, bridges destroyed stop tanks, and greatly limit inf. crossing, one well positioned scout car or even lmg, can easily kill any swimmers, but with fru, one swimmer is all that has to make it across and place fru, call it in and within seconds dozens can be across. Hardly realistic.

[GOPHUR]

I understand this and actually suggested something similar recently for mobile FBs.

Just a thought though.....

FB is North of town

FRU6 is West

FRU7 placed South

FRU8 placed East

In this situation the FRU will need to be killed all the way back around the town until it starts moving back towards the origin FB. Not a deal breaking problem, but worthy of discussion if you intend to implement daisy chains imo.

I was thinking something like 200m for fru placement advances. You have to advance. Not run all the way up there and place one.

[GOPHUR]

YES! Love this idea. I have talked about it before and think the possibilities would be huge! Any chance in the future gophur?

Honestly probably not. The "grid system" isn't really feasible with the current strat system. Besides, when you place an FRU you own that area by the fact that the enemy presence in the area isn't strong enough to put 1 lone bullet into the thing and make it go poof.