Position Fighting

There seem to be two main mindsets to playing our game. One sees the infantryman in-front of them as a “life” of a player, the total number of which is a product of dividing the amount of infantry in the armybase supply list by the number of humans playing the team.

The other sees a town as a force of N units, the the “strength” of which will be determined by the total number of players who spawn them out simultaneously.

The first mindset tends to see spawning systems as “teleporters” – one minute bob was over here and now he over there.

The second mindset suspends disbelief and considers that the infantry that suddenly appears in-front of them was already “here”, just hadn’t been spotted yet.

I think the biggest obstacle to the second mindset for some people is that those infantry can appear behindyou or where the enemy hasn’t duly earned a foothold; however that’s a secondary issue that needs to be addressed separately – it shouldn’t preclude finding a good middle-ground solution.

You can’t capture a berm, there’s no table in the ruins buildings… But historically, soldiers often fought for hills, ridges, treelines, farmhouses…

Short of adding a bazillion players the only way to make those things worth fighting for is to make them either capturable or to – to some limited degree – spawnable.

I’ll say, up front, I’m not talking about “pick a berm, any berm, have an army”. But if you find a berm and shoot the ei in it before running off – wtf was that? What was he doing alone, never mind you?

I realize that if every nook and cranny suddenly became potentially spawnable the game would turn into an outright slog-fest.

Where I’m looking towards is(*) where (a) you’re not alone, (b) he’s not alone, (c) you get either 2-3 lives each or until the enemy overruns your position, whichever happens soonest.

Now that makes fighting positions mean something, and that makes suppressing fire mean something, and the very that eats away at the unrealistic lemming syndrome that ordinarily ensues from guy-shoots-guy-in-berm fighting.

I envisage some sort of system whereby we return some of the “initial time to battle” by giving you a “flag” that starts at your origin, and which you must advance position by position. Charging into town gets you no benefits. Moving up position by position gets you the spawn or respawn or resupply mechanism and adds value to the position you manage to hold and value to your displacing an enemy from a position he held.

Think about it – you’re attacking a town and it’s taken you and 5 guys 15 minutes to advance up to a position about 2-3 minutes outside of town near some ruins. As you try to advance to the ruins you find the enemy is already in them. Because you were working smart, you lost a life, but you didn’t have to pass Go, and you’re still in this fight for the moment.

You can expect anywhere between 3-18 guys to emerge from those ruins. In order to proceed with your advance you have to eliminate them or make them retreat.

Are you going to bumrush the ruins and lose your position or are you going to fight smart and try and win the fight?

The respawning component, MSPs, depots etc all continue to satiate the whim of the “rapid action” guys, but those of us who remember fondly the truck rides from FBs etc get some of our old “I fought here” experience once more.

(* As a rule of thumb, not to the exclusion of)

50 Comments

What I am understanding is this is your basic ML spawning idea that you’ve put forward, yes? Sounds, interesting. Questions I have: What happens to the old spawn position(s) when a new spawn position is planted? Would this positional spawning start at a UMS/MSP? What would happen if the MSP/UMS either undeployed (MSP) or was destroyed? What would happen to other former spawn positions other than a the UMS/MSP if then enemy moves and occupies that position? Would it remove that position so you could not ‘fallback’ to it? Would the the ML have the option to remove the forwardmost spawn position similar to being able to remove an MSP/UMS like he has now? You have a limited number of ‘lives’ at a spawn position. What happens if you run through those lives but others have not? Do you drop back to the previous spawn position? Do you go all the way back to the MSP/UMS? Would the lives throttle be limited to the forward most spawn position or be for the entire line of advance from the origin? What would stop a ML from creating a new spawn position in order to create a new spawn ‘instance’ and give everyone back their 2-3 lives for the position?

I see where you are coming from here and it sounds…potentially pretty cool.

btw…Is there any thought to limiting the number of Missions that can be generated from any one Brigade? Or is that something that can wait until MLs(and possibly OICs) can change Objectives on-the-fly?

Mission limiting etc would have to fall into the “detail” system I’ve described. This isn’t the MLS system, no. I envisage them together, but I’ve found that putting big ideas like these together tends to result in political firewalling over singular, trivial elements. Sell them seperately and people come to their own conclusions as to how you might bring them together ;)

Sounds promising, but I’m not sure how it would scale up to 2 dimensions – probably you’ve already thought about that but it’s not clear from your description.

It also sounds like either a Terrain II feature or something that’s going to require a lot of clever work by the host programmer (who I’m sure has got lots of free time :) ) to figure out exactly what “advancing” means when your unit is actually making a flanking maneuver. BUT note that I’m not screaming for a requirement that such a system would place no restrictions on platoon-level movement – some like this that helps enforce (even gently) the idea of a front line at the infantry level could only be a Good Thing. I’m sure others will not share this POV.

BTW I like this idea precisely because it doesn’t require a mission leader – I honestly think the best thing you guys could do is code the mission system in a way that largely dispenses with the mission leader role altogether. :) (I can enlarge (ie rant at length) on this opinion if desired.)

Sounds like the system the Battlefield games use. I like it.

It remains highly desirable that the game evolve toward having a Defender, fighting from fixed positions and able to re-arm and re-spawn there, and an Attacker that moves to contact. Eventually, when the Defender’s positions might offer 2:1 to 3:1 combat capability enhancement, the Attacker might have significantly higher simultaneous spawn limits.

Attacker vs. Attacker is not a good idea.

KSF1-

This thread gives me a much better understanding to why you prefer this system. I can tell that you have put a lot of time, effort, and thought into formulating this concept; but please listen with an open mind while I tell you why I disagree with your assessment of how this issue should be played out.

What you are trying to do is to increase the level of battlefield tension and excitement by increasing the possibility of more opponents (than actually exist in game) by making it possible for opponents to surface in a wide range of locations within the engagement. The reasoning behind this is because the subscriber base is not large enough to provide as many players as would be preferred and that if a given location had such a density of actual players, the performance of the lower end machines would suffer.

You visualize the battlefield in terms of a vast targeting arena where the elimination of the oppositions troops is the reward that allows you to hold a particular position.

I on the other hand feel that the hill (or building, bush, etc..) is the reward and that my team of players needs to use all the cunning and stealth possible to take and hold that hill. Why? Because by holding that hill for my side will give us a better visual advantage to stop the enemy as they try to advance towards our territory. This makes the wonderful terrain that CRS has created mean something because each hilltop on the way too town could be a potential snippers nest that needs to be neutralized. Visual advantage means very little to your concept because “BOB” can spawn anywhere. ( I’m not even going to get into the lag issues involved with spawning in infront of your opponent).

So what does this mean to the density of the game? It creates “Hot Spots”. They could be Treelines, Farmhouses, small towns, bridges, Rail tracks, or Crossroads. But all have identifiable traits of being actual Real World bottlenecks that give a tactical. It is up to HQ to identify and occupy these locations as the brigade works it’s way towards the enemy.

http://files.filefront.com/MISSION+EDITOR+PRESENTATINppt/;7171182;;/fileinfo.html

http://discussions.playnet.com/showthread.php?t=158340&highlight=urikbg26

The Mission Briefing concept would produce extremely formidable forces of smaller teams able to create intense battles with less manpower due to the communications and preparedness of deployment. this means hotter battles with less players and more fun.

Now, In my system all Mission Leader Spawns start from the FB and must advance physically towards their target, an enemy Artillery Team on a local hill. Doing so requires a large degree of organization and communications. (This type of organization can be formed in pre-spawn briefings at the point of origin where the team leader can organize the teams roles and insure that the proper ordinance packages are assembled). Trucks, Tanks, Light, and heavy art. are all available with a limit of 25 team mates.

This team has but 1 life, so it is very important for everyone to stay alert. That makes suppressing fire REALLY mean something. Your team consists of infantry and assigns a recon sniper to scout ahead, has an SMG walk point, trailed by several Sappers and a mortorman, with 2 LMG trailing each flank. The team stays in a constant state of readiness because it knows that the lost of any crucial member could compromise the mission. Their objective is a hilltop overlooking a crucial river valley where air recon has spotted artillery.

Now lets say that an enemy soldier evades your patrol and flanks your position killing 2 of your team mates. How did that happen? Did he “teleport” into a good position by shear luck? Is he using a Hack? Is this a clone from the soldier that was killed a half mile up the road?

You see when “Bob” can teleport and “clone” himself at close quarters it creates confusion and uncertainty because it is an unnatural event in an atmosphere where we are already stretching our imaginations to portray our surroundings as realistically as possible. Situations such as these will inflame the forums with accusations and ill feeling that are simply not appropriate or wise for the game. The difference between the two MS concepts is the proximity of the engagement and the randomness of the spawn location.

Many players take the role of securing objectives very seriously. These are the players that will eventually go on to achieve leadership roles within the game. It can be extremely frustrating and for many players to spend time taking the game seriously only to have “BOB” reappear in an unnaturally way regardless of the fact that it would be physically impossible. It is just as important to respect these players sense of game play as it is to encourage other who do not have the same patience or maturity.

No- In my concept the only one to blame is yourself – because he outsmarted you and you respect him for that. You played to the best of your ability, you learned something, and you are going to reform a relief team from the FB to help the rest of your buddies (and kick his ass because you know that he will be waiting for you) because his side needs that hill as much as yours and he probably isn’t going to be alone. The battle for that hill just escalated because they are also calling for reinforcements.

MS’s and UMS’s are still available for use with this concept but are limited to one per FB. The OIC must choose where it will be most effective. Old fashioned Opel runs are also available to create and reinforce missions.

So lets talk time to battle. I’m talking manual supply for Mission Leader type missions. Will it take a long time to get back? Maybe. But if that position is valuable, your briggade will make it happen. If your Airforce can maintain control in the region it could be placed near an open area where Transports can perform glider missions out of. If you have control of the rivers, freindly fairmiles can help provide transport and AAA. This provide many more strategic options.

Under my plan the FB are not marked on the maps. In fact they are not stationary facilities. The OIC of the brigade has the ability to position the FB in friendly territory according to what risks he feels are necessary for targets in that region. Since each side has total control over where the FB can be placed it could be a very short distance to your teams objective. Two opposing FB could be placed on opposite sides of a hill unknowingly to either side which will create some huge skirmishes. With TOEs in the mix a brigades supply will have a huge impact on how willingly an OIC will risk placing the FB near the enemy lines. Mission objectives for each side will certainly include sending search and destroy teams for enemy FB’s and when you are compromised the priority of your missions will change in a hurry.

Points. Another key concept of my plan is to reward teams point totals for the objectives they accomplish. In this way a team is not dependent on kills to accomplishing an objective. What could start out as an easy kill during a mission could doom the team that might otherwise have endured through stealth. Let the brigade OIC post mission objectives with point reward guild lines associated. If you die on the mission- no points- so stay alive.

In my concept you are increasing the level of excitement in the game by providing actual content. By making tools available so that teams can plan, communicate, and perform missions as a team you increase the social context of the objective while fostering the sense of reality that the game has always striven for. This is also a squad building tool. It is to no surprise that squads will embrace this tool to organize needed activities; but, what you must also realize that by doing so they will be organized under the HQ OIC for that brigade. But these tools are not limited to squads.

By letting the HQ OIC’s provide the mission objectives, this strengthens the HQ concept and gives them more control and leverage on the battlefield. Mission commanders can be tracked for successful mission ratings that will provide HQ’s with an increasingly more qualified candidates.

The Mission Briefing system would be a godsend to new recruits who need mentoring on the battlefield and can be assigned duties equivalent with their experience.

For the client’s benefit, candidate objects could have a marker polygon added to them (invisible; like a mount point). I could make the production client spit out a list of those and then apply them to the terrain.

If its objects that are already placed, and its not about changing their footprint or shape in anyway, its not nearly as painful as any kind of change or alteration to pre-existing or absent objects.

I’ve described elsewhere how I’d like to finish building the “chain of command” so that there are the HC/OICs, the “company” leaders and then there are players “group”ing together to do “details” – or just running around doing their own thing.

At the end of it the “mission” goes away and finer, dynamic granularity comes in to fill in the huge gap that has always existed under missions – that they don’t really define what it is you need to be doing in sufficient detail to allow scoring/rewarding for people doing what they’re tasked with.

There’s no reason a system like this couldn’t offer advantages to the attacker. Actually, something adaptable would be good so that if you advance on the attacker the advantage starts to turn towards him.

You get to spawn from your AB/FB for free. You get to bridge the gap half way with an MSP, but from there you must advance the piton inch by inch, using it as a support for each push. But lets say every 5 or 8 advances you make, it allows the MSP to advance 4 or 5 stages further upto a particular limit.

The effect of advancing away from your origin is diminished slightly by moving up the MSP. If you encounter the enemy and are forced to retreat towards the MSP, his advantages diminish while yours increase as you back away towards it. The catch is that the MSP isn’t as big a boost for you as still being so close to his origin.

I like Urik’s idea. He sees a game where u have to use tactics instead of just strategy. I also like KFS’s idea of the chain od command being built bigger with bigger roles. I like aspects of both but Urik’s is probably the more player liked idea. If u could combine elements of both ideas that would be great. I look forward to the platoon elments and NCO’s being able to use hand gesturers etc for sending his guys on a attack so his group knows where to go. I think this game has potential to become something liek a FPS where you can log in and fight and the missions are posted by higher ranks. Once you get into these ranks then of course you get to post missions and lead details of men into battle. The Tactical/Strategic part of this game is when u get to a higher rank, so u don’t just spawn in kill some guys and spawn out. When u get higher you lead squads/platoons etc. The average player just plays to kill some EI for fun. These new players eventually understand the other aspects and they get NCO postions etc. I look forward to this game also becomin more realistic. For example having customized soldiers would be great. ANother thing would be the ability to make a fight name from a preset list of names for soldiers. For example ” Col.Muller in the german armee commands this battalion.” You can still have your names such as Ballew but your fight name should be more reliastic. I hope your consider my ideas aswell. S!

“if you advance on the attacker”…

With the exception of relatively rare meeting engagements, realistic *tactical* combat should consist of one side fixed in place, dug into well- or hastily-prepared defensive positions that provide a significant combat multiplier and for game purposes ideally also provide re-spawning and re-arming, and the other side advancing from a jumping-off point and either prevailing or falling back. Typically the attacking side has at least a 2X force multiple, either in numbers or firepower, to offset the defender’s numerically similar physical-protection advantage.

WWII *tactical* combat was only rarely against defenses in depth. Mostly it was against a single tactical defensive line. It was rare for a tactical defender to retreat in good order to another defensive point. Usually either the attacker was decimated and thrown back at the first defenses, or the defender was overrun and any escaping survivors were thoroughly disrupted. Sometimes, of course, the “defender”‘s mobile reserves would mount a counterattack against the now-emplaced “attackers” some time after the initial attack prevailed, with the circumstances reversed.

Historically, WWII *operational* combat often involved two maneuver forces, and/or defenses in depth. It seems as if you’re fundamentally envisioning game *tactical* combat as continuing to be between two maneuver forces.

I’ve been an advocate of this for years.
Tactically important locations need to be considered as terrain that is held or not. To acheive this it needs the ability of a side to defnd with resources once taken. aka: spawn in supply.
The resources should be ,ideally, assigned by an officer or commander to that position based on its importance. Perhaps in ‘platoon’ sized chunks of infantry or section sized heavy weapons units, or troop sized tank units etc.
Think about a bridge or even a hill overlooking a bridge near a town. It controls access to a town from one side. IN RL a unit would be assigned to defend it, it would be prepared and in position at or around the bridge or the hill. The units size would be assigned based on a) the threat b: the importance of the terrain c: the terrain itself and what it can accomodate tactically.

The other element to this, and closely linked in my mind, is to increase the ‘resolution’ of our ORBATS, especially with the advent of TOEs coming, moving from not just BDEs but to Bns, Coys and PLNs allows for greater flexibility in manning the line. Concentrating forces in one town and leaving skeleton defences in another for the purposes of maneouvre.

More defined ORBATS down to say the Bn or Coy level also adds immense operational elements to the ‘command’ game and the ‘map’ game where these units are moved by the commanders. It also allows for greater numbers of slots, whereby potentially almost any person playing the game can role play a command at some level of the CoC simultaneously. while fulfilling the role of the rifleman in his mates command the very next minute.

I don’t see why a system where a ML has a mobile spawn marker wouldn’t work. If a ML can drop a mobile spawn marker that only his mission elements can spawn on you pretty much have what Kfsone is driving at.

Lets say to spawn at a MLS (Mission Leader Spawn) the following occurs.

A ML has to drop a marker, something like a flag or whatever. It must be with in the current MS setup rules.

Once dropped, any player can use it to despawn. If they despawn then they are moved to that ML’s mission (or give em a pop up box if they get close enough to give them a choice to join the mission). In any case, to actually USE a MLS you must first get within x number of feet of it and be on the same mission. Thus you get rid of insta armies, you have to have been to the position once already.

So the ML can drop MLS’s. If he moves up and drops another one the previous MLS goes inert and disappears. Only the people on his mission that came with him can use it.

To balance this for your tug of war thing you want add:

The MLS is visible to enemies, nothing big, but something they can look for, like a small sand bag wall or a couple of ammo cases.

As long as a mission is active the server host keeps a record of where the current MLS is and where the previous MLS’s were.

If a current MLS is overrun, that is, the number of enemies at the location out number the friendlies by a certain ratio (3-1?) the current MLS deactivates. Then the next previous MLS that was used reactivates. Over run MLS’s are purged from memory and can’t be saved, a new one must be set by the ML.

So now you have the scenario where you have a ML moving up slowly, going to well protected positions and setting up MLS’s in good spots. If the enemy pushes him back his unit basically falls back to the next position.

For server load you need to make a rule that MLS’s can’t be within X distance of each other so some numbnut doesn’t place them a foot apart until the server crashes. You would also want to track only 5 or 4 previous locations, first to again reduce server load, but more realistically, if you get 4 positions over run then dude, it’s over, time to retreat.

The ability to capture elements outside town to force players to extend their position is an interesting one.

Road Junctions, Hills, Farms, River crossings. Out buildings around towns, woods, forests.

Allowing the elements to be placed mobile by ML would be an easier task than manually setting them, it would also make it more dynamic.

Having a flag on the UI indicates whether you can place a spawn point would be beneficial. I’m not into pop-ups appearing when I’m in the middle of a fight.

Having a finite number of mission members + a finite number of infantry per individual spawn list may go some way to improve fear of death in game, however death can come very quickly when you have an air battle going on just feet above your head and little or no cover from blasts.

I want two things for truck drivers:

. ‘For hire’ switch (default on) that says, “yup, I’m trying to set up a mobile spawn”. Seem to be having problems conveying this to folk here – its so that the guy who spawns a truck to go pick up some infantry or do something *other* than deploy a mobile spawn can let the mission leader know they needn’t wait on this guy for an MSP, and let other players know that the mission could use an MSP driver.

. Visual indication in the HUD whether you can deploy an MSP at all, at this location, etc – so a guy can spawn in see straight away (or better still, tell before he spawns) no can do – leaving people to drive 25km to find out this is a resupply mission that doesn’t support MSPs is kinda cruel ;)

One thought I had about the game is the achievement that we enjoy after capturing a town. Do you think this will convey to the capture of a mound of earth? In the rudimentary form this is what we captured. A farm house may be a little more interesting.

I guess it’s all down to the fight that happens whether enjoyment happens.

It would be wiser (and easier) to have squad spawn:

You die inside a certain radius of your Mission Leader, then you are able to respawn near him. Mission Leader is not able to respawn in squad.

That would give more benefits than just more capturable terrain and would be better than the ant trail the Truck MSPs has bring in game, and would make mortars, machine guns and snipers more usefull.

KFS,

I think you have thought through very well, the “spawn” side of the equation. You have a number of great ideas that would serve to encourage groups of people to stay near the ML.

What you want to do is stop people from heading off on their own, usually in a b-line to the nearest spawn table. The group’s progression should be slower, planned (if possible) and with a line of battle perpendicular to the axis of advance.

Ideally, you would also want have people fighting their way BACK to the spawn point to get more ammo, refreshed mission data, mission points, and any other goodies we can think of.

However, I dont think you can achive this with the current capture system. The spawn tables act like magnets that draw people to an arbitrary location for CQB and spawn camping.

We need some way for the defender to select the important defensible positions based on whatever tactical value they are percieved to have. This then dictates what the attacker must do to either kill the enemy, drive him from those positions, or occupy them himself.

Big, bold ideas for spawning must go hand-in-hand with a new capture system. (but your point about selling people is well taken – you cant give them more than they can chew at first)

Trout

KFS said:

“Short of adding a bazillion players the only way to make those things worth fighting for is to make them either capturable or to – to some limited degree – spawnable.”

————

YOu forgot “destroyable”. If you wanted to, you could make objects like th fuel tanks or supply boxes in town, things that people fight over – not to capture, but to throttle or otherwise hurt the spawn list.

and you could make these objects even more valuable when they are in towns occupied by the division HQ

Trout

If “supply-object destroyability” is a mission goal, why not just do what real military forces would do about such an objective, i.e. just take it out with either artillery/mortar shells if it’s close or aerial bombs if it’s distant?

In real life, it rarely makes sense to mount resource-burning ground operations to reach a location just to blow something up there.

Fantastic, your explanation is clear, and when you said what happens when you fights for a position, you also included the perfect description of one of the LOCK-respawn cases.

Your sentence: “until the enemy overruns your position”.
Describes the Case 1 of Respawn LOCK.

I replied to your post, in the playschool forums with another description, because you said that was unclear:

http://discussions.playnet.com/showpost.php?p=2668225&postcount=156

Aye! If they wanted to blow something up, they’d blast it with Artillery or Aircraft. No real need to replace either one of those capabilities with a ‘special ops’ kinda mission.

My two main concerns about this ‘Positional Fighting’ concept is a) How vulnerable will it be to the actions of a single defender? (ie, one EI sneaking out and kills the MSP and effectively shuts down the entire attack). And b) a fully fleshed out and functional Command and Control is far more important. Talking about ‘Positional Fighting’ rather than Command and Control is like putting the cart before the horse.

When you say “Command and Control” on the small units tactical level, you think in an easy “point and click” tool of fast and easy communication for the NCOs, like the one implemented in the game interface of Brother in Arms, isn’t it?.

I hope so… because the map waypoints are way useless and slow, for the real and fast changing tactics of small units.

Anyway, this isn’t a KFSone area, because it’s mainly a game client issue, rather than a server side issue.

SOT Kicks OOT’s ARSE!

RIOOOOT!!!!!

Mangy: I think killing the MSP would have hindering effects without actually closing down the attack. However – anyone who loses their forward positions out from the MSP finds themselves fallen back to the origin.

What about destroyable objects in towns that provide supply to the contested town?

I would imagine, then, that if PF was introduced, Depots and Depot Spawning would no longer be needed since spawning would be more fluid and not so ‘fixed’. I also imagine that PF could modify the way things are Captured.

As an Idea or possibly just a stimulus for a better way of doing things. Instead of humping a table in order to ‘capture’ a Flag Building, the Attacker would instead need to establish a Spawn Position in the Flag Building in order to Capture it. We’ll call this a Foothold Spawn Position (FSP). This would obviously be the Attacks ‘foothold’ into a town. Once an FSP is established, a second mission could then advance on the AB and establish a SP there in order to capture the AB and thus the town (or section of town if its a multiple AB town)….but only as long as some other mission is maintaining an FSP.

Now if we could only get away from the idea of ‘Fixed’ FBs and use STO tech in order to establish an FB where-ever an OIC would want them to be. And in return, you can use the concept of Positional Fighting somehow as a replacement for sneaking sappers into an FB to blow it up.

Very interesting extension of the idea, Mangy. A minor downer – the FB part is a non-starter because placing large objects dynamically is decidedly post TEII. But I hadn’t considered the FSP idea. I’m liking that.

Sonar – Modifying and/or adding our terrain is currently something that is well outside our capacity.

Its not that our codebase is so terrible it can’t do it, rather a case that our codebase and toolset was designed not to do it – fixing it is not so hard, but its such a core/significant undertaking that it will either take a long time or new investment.

When I’m done with TOEs, I’ll feel less guilty about experimenting with things off-task in my own time, and I’m planning to talk with Rickb about using his TEII work-to-date to create a headless (non-rendering) scenegraph that can know where everything is and translate it into a database I can work with to try and automate terrain population as well as allowing me to do some new, more powerful stuff on the host. The host’s image of the game right now is very, very crude – sufficient for validating weird stuff but not for predicting anything.

We want to do naval convoys, for instance, but the host doesn’t know pre-emptively where the water is or where the coast is…

Same issue with the host not knowing where the rivers and bridges are, thus preventing interaction between river crossing status and dynamic supply pathing?

I like Mangydog’s idea, but not if it drives people prematurely to converge on the building

Why not define a large circle of 100m d around the table as the “FSP contestation zone”.

Deploying the FSP within the contestation zone shuts off enemy spawning at that depot. ONce you have done that, you can move it into the flag building to capture it.

Capturing a table then becomes a 2 stage process where your fist objective is to select a good defensible position within the 100m zone. This lets people rally up prior to charging the table, but it also shuts off enemy spawning at the depot, which gets rid of the spawn camp.

The defender also has a choice to make. Should he try to re-enforce the flag building and prepare for the rush, or should he lift the contestation by attacking and killing the FSP? There you have your fight over a berm, ruin, treeline, whatever.

Trout

I didn’t get enough time to finish a preview of another concept for the MLS (and don’t have the time anymore to do it), but what you suggest kfs1 uses a fundamental concept I didn’t keep after the brainstorming : getting the ability to reinforce a group wherever it is.

The sheme I drawned was more like this :
– ML spawns at a brigade MSP (he’s the only one that may do it),
– he must then “deploy” next of it in order to allow other players to spawn in his mission (= your “detail”) as any unit : inf, light atg&aa, trucks, light tanks.
– Once a max amount of players “build” the group, ML undeploys (mission is not available from brigade screen anymore) ;
– the whole team then start moving altogether to the target, doing flanking manoeuvres if needed, according to the position of the brigade msp they all spawned from.
– Dead people may not respawn in the group (they died, so the team lost those units forever), and must join a new ML currently recruting at the brigade msp.
– Friendly depots may only be used by ML to deploy in there (as they would near the msp) and thus rebuild his team (this allows a permanent defensive mission for the depot, or a build up for an upcoming offensive mission)

I’ll not start to argue all the points here, it would need at least a 5000 words argumentation, I just wanted to show you the big lines.

As you see, your suggestion adds a completely different concept of what I imagined here. For my part I didn’t chose to let players to spawn whenever they want at the ML, I prefered a concept that asks both ML and players to play carrefuly since they’ve to make a walk altogether, and I’ve chosen a “brother in arms”-like concept where your team members remain the same from the beginning to the end.

Your system has its own advantages (and I understand what you’re trying to get), however I must say that since players currently don’t defend their MSP, I’m not sure your system would improve the teamwork or the fear of death.

Good luck with all your work !

zebbee,

A critical component of this feature is the ability to respawn at the ML placed spawnpoint once you have died.

People dont mind driving from the FB, or walking from the MSP into battle ONCE. But they hate having to do it each time they get killed. KFS has hit the nail on the head here.

A second component is that if you expect to respawn at this location, you better not die beyond a certain range of either the ML, or the spawn location. Depending on what this range is set at, people will end up defending the spawn point, the leader and each other without even realizing it.

As long as people can track the location of the ML and maybe his 2 and 3ic, they wont have to worry much about where they are supposed to go after they spawn and what they should be doing.

(KFS, a handy feature would be to have the ML appear as a different color on the hud, and have his icon flash when he moves)

Trout

trout, I’ve hit many issues when thinking about how spawning rules at ML could work, and I don’t see how this system would handle it. I even see new issues.

Just 1 or 2 examples :

– ML can’t ask a player to recon further away then the “respawn range”;
– the initial build up of the team is still spread out between msp and ML’s position, and those players still must do the first travel ALONE, destroying a big part of a battlefield simulation;
– It doesn’t solve the issue for other units type ;
– It doesn’t improve the coordination between infantries and other units at all – it would make the split worse then msp’s currently does ;
– and so on

That’s why I didn’t keep the concept of spawning-at-the-ML wherever he is.

For my part I imagine missions being groups of 8 – 12 players sticking together from the beginning to the end, moving to their target with the fear of losing their team members.

Zebbee,

You should go back and read KFS’ specificiations, you dont seem to be describing anything remotely like what he suggests.

1) group spawning is not part of the concept

2) respawning does not actually happen at the leader’s current location, but at some place he designates that is within a min/max range of any enemy facility

3) its not supposed to “solve” the range of problems you describe, but nor, in my opinion, does it make them any worse

Remember that CRS can experiement with the optimal range to ML that team members must stay within if they want to respawn. It could even be a dynamic range that shrinks or grows depending on the number of mission participants, rank of the ML, mission or detail type, whatever.

Trout

Actually, my overall “goal” concept is 3 things; from an offensive perspective, like this:

1. Move the MSP further away from the goal (perhaps allowing ATGs to spawn there too);
2. Provide the ML with an advanceable emplacement that can be moved forward allowing people to spawn from “positions” which must be held for a time to allow another advancement; if this becomes “overrun” or destroyed, you lose it;
3. Group members who reach the vacinity of the ML get an “in range” flag, if they keep it (by staying within range), and it is without a certain range of enemy flags/buildings/spawns/whatnot, they get to respawn 1-2 times near the ML bolstering the apparent strength of the ML’s accompaniment.

You get to fall back to #2 if you don’t comply with #3.

This creates a fighting force that gets rewarded for group play, but recon/advancement doesn’t get massively penalized with another long walk back from the MSP.

Advancement of #2 is not automatic and Gophur has some concepts for building it up. Perhaps it starts as a backpack and radio that represents a drop-off point, perhaps you get to build it up into a mini-revetment that provides resupply, perhaps you can build it up one more notch to even provide medic facilities (go there to recover blood/stamina).

Advancement of #2 is not automatic and Gophur has some concepts for building it up. Perhaps it starts as a backpack and radio that represents a drop-off point, perhaps you get to build it up into a mini-revetment that provides resupply, perhaps you can build it up one more notch to even provide medic facilities (go there to recover blood/stamina).
Well perhaps it could be even more simple – just set a timer between setting up a new drop-off point, and then require it be within a radius from the last point (the MS-proper qualifying if there isn’t another one). Combined with the requirement that it must be the last point there aren’t any problems with over-complicated chaining (ok, one was taken out, but it can switch to this one here, so this point is still in supply), and allowing the ML to remove points and see that chain makes it reasonable to manage as well. :-)

Of course, the biggest problem will be with getting MLs to do it – as it is now, there are occasionally problems getting contacts approved, nevermind actual leadership.
Maybe this could go hand-in-hand with “Battalions” or “Regiments” as a kind of HC/OIC-approved mission, maybe with other players “attaching” their missions to those with autoleader being a last-case scenario if there are no other Battalions for the target. I think it would work well with the ideas here, especially with the combination of actual effort on the part of the ML and some things that should be more abundant than others (for example, I think the slow advance works well with just a few MLs, while I’m sure every squad will want the chance to respawn near their buddies).

…curse the lack of a preview function. I will quote correctly someday, I swear it!

Or we could go with the dynamic missions we’ve been talking about and into the detail system I’ve been talking about – both of which I’ve seen no negative feedback on.
Creating a complex military hierachy does nothing for anyone.
“Need infantry 33/2/8/3/5/alpha haybes”
Good luck with that.

Lots of good thinking for improving the ground tactical maneuver/attack paradigm…

I hope the ground defensive paradigm improves, too.

QUOTE 1) group spawning is not part of the concept //

>>>>> No you don’t get it, what I described is ANOTHER approach I would prefer for this game. I see missions more like single stories : you live it from the beginning to the end. Just joining a flag doesn’t create any friendship with the other players over there. It’s just to make an opposition with KFS1’s approach.

But I would like to try what KFS1 is describing too, I can imagine great field-combats, I just wonder how they will handle some issues. It’ll just make the game more like what KFS1 is personally expecting of it, but no offense in there.

QUOTE : 2) respawning does not actually happen at the leader’s current location, but at some place he designates that is within a min/max range of any enemy facility //

>>>>>> I’m speaking of the concept. A radio 50 m of the ML or the ML himself is exactly the same concept.

QUOTE : 3) its not supposed to “solve” the range of problems you describe, but nor, in my opinion, does it make them any worse //

>>>> If CRS is going to spend much time on it, it’d be great to see it solving other issues then just the “I don’t want to make twice the ride from the MSP because I died due to my rambo play”.

btw, I imagined the concept with dynamic mission management which is needed.
Even with KFS1’s system, if after a long travel I finally reache a group I don’t belong to, I would like to dynamically join it.

“Or we could go with the dynamic missions we’ve been talking about and into the detail system I’ve been talking about – both of which I’ve seen no negative feedback on.”

Well that’s essentially what I was talking about – I didn’t mean that there should be another brigade-style tab for the other missions, just that there needs to be some way to differentiate the two if there are going to be any ML duties, and I was trying to think of a way to allow everyone to share the effort of the “working” MLs despite not being in their mission, especially since your average ML doesn’t even care for the approving contacts duties – but with the spawn-near-ML idea I imagine squads will want to work in a mission to facilitate teamwork. Essentially, there are two kinds of missions to run, but neither one can exist without the other being “linked” somehow to either help it or justify it.
It just seemed like one mission “attaching” itself to another was a decent way to do this, even if that “attachment” is as simple as saying “I want to spawn here” by picking their advance on the map. It’s just I don’t think it’s possible (or desirable) to have everyone in an attack spawned in one mission because only the one person is willing to be that kind of ML, especially with the spawn-near-the-ML idea letting squads respawn near each other. So I’m trying to come up with ideas to have the best of both worlds. :-)

So you are considering a system that would alllow attacking infantry to:

1) Spawn at the adjacent town (not that anyone ever does that!)
2) Spawn at the FB
3) Spawn at the MSP
4) Spawn at the forward team position
5) Spawn at the ML

The last 3 of course would have range rules, maybe some timers, and the 5th a complex set of rules.

I’m not sure I see the need for both 3 &4, but perhaps somthing combining what you want to achieve in a single thing?

Trout

KFS1, if you add your system ingame, would it be possible to also put a despawn radius linked to the waypoints ?

I mean if I put a waypoint somewhere, all my mission members dying close of it may also respawn at the mission’s flag.

It would solve the concern of not being able to split the troops if needed during the mission.

Now I think about it, in fact for concept 1 we just need to add a truck making rides from MSP to the ML, and it could work… The truck could moreover ressupply those that need it.

But then add shared rankpoints between mission members plus extra points for the truck driver.

mmmm… ok then it gets my vote…

I’m not sure who you’re asking, trout ;) I don’t want 5, I want “limited respawns @ ml after death within range of ML’; and the need for offensive depot spawning would probably be eliminated with the addition of this.

Remember: depot spawning was primarily a recourse for the defender to get out of a camped AB.

We added the ability to spawn from a friendly-linked depot so as to give the defender some reasonable inclination as to where to prioritize their defense in town. Of course, that’s undone by the MSP, so really the need for offensive depot spawning is done away with.

(PS – There was never a time you couldn’t cap a depot that didn’t have a link; certain, ahem, people suggested the idea but it thankfully never happened)

If there was a way to resupply an emplaced MSP, maybe. Frankly, limiting the capacity of MSPs is going to be hard to sell past Killer, and if we’re talking about moving MSP trucks further back, I’m also less and less inclined to want to hurt them.

all good news, since MSP’s were added I asked to push them further away and to suppress offensive depot spawning. Happy to see CRS *finally* comes to the same conclusion.

That being said, with the current tools and the upcoming ones, all depots spawnable could actually work. I prefer removing it and add ML spawning, but it’d have been better then what we have now.

Conclusions and implentation are two different things.

Not if the team has a coder that rocks and that coded it such that quick fixes were still possible. And this is what you did, I’m convinced of it.

Leave a Reply

Name and email address are required. Your email address will not be published.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

%d bloggers like this: