so, what would you fellas like to play more.
in your " ideal enlisted ".
making matches to be:
on a smaller scale ( like somewhat currently ) but fight over the “same” areas for an extended period of time
or
on a bigger scale ( somewhat like ardenne and/or munda conquest ) and fight over different areas with/shorter period of time?
( differences being, well, in the first, it’s more of a tight fight. in the second however, it’s more dispersed and somewhat diverse compared to the first )
or even, something else that may crosses your mind.
let your thoughts be known.
well, in case you are wondering why i’m asking such question, it’s because i’d like to gather few ideas for my own mods based on players feedbacks.
and, well, maybe with a strike of luck and some helper / dev happens to read and pass it for the base game too. or… something like that. idk
But I would like some sort of conquest mode were you fight in multiple locations, at the same time, Taking as example Normandy the players play on all Normandy beach map at the same time recreating the landing (i know it would need a lot of resources and player but it would be fun)
this one BUT I dont think the cap time should be fast. I think the Objective should be LARGE and easily contested requiring you to search and destroy/clear
Bigger maps just gives you more viable approaches and flanking routes…but once you have got your rallys up, Its still a small battle area, Difference is if its going badly, you can shift where that battle occurs
Theres probably a sweet spot. If the objective is large and takes a long time to cap, frequently slowed/tug of war down by being contested, The real battle will be about locating the supply (rallys) and cutting it to win the tug of war.
In the base game you get very little time (in a tight match) to clear out rallys, one squad can easily cap by iteslef in the time it takes you to cut off rallys
One thing I really appreicaited in other games (and big action mod) is If you are at a stalemate or losing slowly, you have time to do a attack into their supply lines to cut the flow of reinforcements, without instantly giving up the point.
I rather like the Steel Division II way of determining where the front lines are, pockets, etc. Be more about majority control of key areas by having forces present and keeping it secure
Why not bigger scale with longer caps?
Large scale with fast caps sounds like ass to me. Even more death stranding running simulator, instant caps by stacks dropping paratroopers or mass rushing APCs and other nonsense
It seems that the devs do not want to remove the gray zone—thus, the introduction of guerrillas into the game; however, it seems that they’re willing to reduce the size of the gray zone: I’ve noticed on some maps that it’s now easier to flank on the left and right side of the maps since it has been expanded (and made flanking much easier and enjoyable). Therefore, I suggest furthering the expansion of the flanks on all maps, and also to reduce the size of the gray zone on the enemy side of the map (behind them) so regular troops have a chance to attack from behind. These changes may require making the playable area of maps much larger in order to keep a functioning gray zone (which will be pushed further away from their current locations).
With the above changes, fighting will likely spread out into larger and more distant areas—which may make it more difficult to attack (or defend) the cap zone. The simple solution to keep more action concentrated under these new conditions is to add more players to the map: instead of 10 v. 10, I suggest doubling the number of players to 20 v. 20.
Even under the current map sizes and conditions, sometimes there are just too many people sniping and not enough people pushing the objective. It usually ends in a dead and boring game—for both teams. Doubling the number of players for each side ensures a greater chance that more players will push the objective—especially if the game becomes more interesting and challenging by encouraging flanking maneuvers. Under current conditions, pushing forward into a flurry of enemy bullets is just boring, annoying, and ineffective.
Another consideration to ensure active participation on the objective would be to limit the number of active snipers on the map—similar to what is currently being done with tanks (2 per team).
With the above changes, I’m guessing that there would also be a lesser load on the servers—same number of people, but half the number of maps running at any given time. Less load equals less lag and a more enjoyable experience for players. This is just a guess on my part since I have no working knowledge on exactly how servers function. This change may also lower the cost for the developers if server size can be reduced.
Summation: Larger maps with larger playable areas, and more players on each team—which promotes the use of more realistic strategy and tactics than is currently allowed.
