New game mode lacks immersion

Mess Room
1

The new Destruction mode is fun and a welcomed addition to the game. That being said, I don’t really get the immersion and feeling that it is a real battle and military operation when I play it… which is one of the goals of a game, especially one set in a time-period like ww2.

I mean, it is just a bunch of radios placed over random houses, I don’t see any strategic or operational value in them. Their positions in the maps aren’t even logically connected nor are the radios located in specially-designed facilities for them. No, they are in the middle of guest houses. It should be more like the Invasion mode, where the objectives are actual places and the next points often have some tactical relation to the previous ones, but instead of capturing the point like in Invasion, you have to plant/defuse a bomb to destroy something in it.

The game mode would be a lot better, and feel way more immersive, for instance, if we had a variety of targets other than radios to take down/defend, and if, like in Invasion, the different places to be destroyed were somewhat logically connected to each other, making the match feel like a real military operation rather than a lazy ‘taking out random radios arcade’.

Some suggestions for possible alternative targets include:

  • ammo or supply depots, communications centers (instead of radios in the middle of houses), airfields and tank garages, etc.
  • fortifications, gun emplacements, AA towers, actual bunkers, etc.
  • whole structures, bridges, railways, dams, etc.
  • command and observation sites, containing intelligence papers to be destroyed/captured, etc.

For instance a match could be a team having to destroy, like, two AA emplacements, then two huge planes inside a hangar and, lastly, the local air command/communications center. This would feel more like a ‘commando raid’ and be more immersive than the current random radio missions. In fact, what I described could easily be implemented in a map like Airfield (Normandy). The game has good destruction mechanics so I feel like adding things like these wouldn’t be hard.

What I’m not suggesting, though, is for attackers to need to pick up a bomb to destroy target. That sort of addition, if realistic, would probably kill the fun out of the game mode. It also doesn’t make sense for there to be only one bomb anyway.

I know it’s an open-beta game and the game mode is probably being further developed and I have that in mind but it should be pointed that the radios also all look the same (not very pretty or ‘tactical’, they also have the same model for both factions) and, if the goal is just to get rid of the radios, several of the targets and locations could easily be destroyed with artillery or leveled with bomber planes rather than sacrificing soldiers to do it. It would make more sense if they were placed in basements or strong places. Also, I can’t see any reason why players throwing explosive packs wouldn’t be able to do damage to them. Further development of the Destruction mode should hopefully have this in mind. Some immersion, and the objectives making at least some sense, is important to the game experience!

15 Likes
2

Fully agree. This gamemode is fun but completely lacks depth.

6 Likes
3

actually makes me think about capture the flag, now that would be a pretty fun game-mode

2 Likes
4

It’s in testing mode (using our help) I wouldn’t be surprised it drastically change in the near future.

That said, this kind of thread will help pushing the mode in the right direction.

1 Like
5

Radio stations set up wherever they fit is pretty realistic. Radio relays never really needed specialized facilities. Only thing odd about the scenario is the tug of war of arming and disarming.

I would like to see the targets expanded however, like howitzers being the targets.

6

Or 88 batteries in Normandy!

8

Mission: you have to blow them up first

2 Likes
9

Mode is overall unbalanced for the atacking team… feels easier to rush the point and arm the bomb than actually defend it over a nade rain…

the axis side could have some action on the atacking side…

even on winning games i wasnt convinced on this mode. donno lacks something and gets a easy loose if you are the only one actually playing the match on the defending side. there is no way to defend a full team playing alone on the objective… but this is like prety much all modes in this game afaik…

1 Like
10

you got me. :joy:

1 Like
11

I think it is very easy for an attacking team that has it’s shirt on the right way around - been in a few games where ppl have persisted about and defenders have pushed back multiple times… but if the attacker just swarms 1 site at a time the defender is pretty much stuffed.

3 Likes
12

I agree this would make it more fun

13

dont forget that theyre basically just a ton of radios stacked for no reason. irl just a smol part of the stack would be one radio, since the radios werent that big at the time, if ever. an example of the size eould be VMF-214’s radio in the show Black Sheep Squadron

14

Team behavior just seems strange to me.

Some points always have the defenders mostly on one side.

15

I haven’t taken a good look at them (probably nothing too telling), but a retrans setup would have multiple radios with multiple amps on them.

Conspicuous lack of antennas, but no big deal.

I’m commo but I don’t know what it would’ve looked like in the 40s

16

Its easier for defenders imo, they can defuse super fast and if some attacking players decide not to push the rest are fucked. Defenders can also clear the attackers with arty, grenades, mortars and bombs without even being near the point.

17

Yeah wouldn’t mind a objective of finding Anne Frank.

Would been better to show basic possibilities of the game itself not many people are aware of, such as destroying Walls on Normandy many dont know. Could implement such thing as a Objective. Lean objectives overall more into the way of like… Return to Castle Wolfenstein from almost 20 years ago. Man what a game and Multiplayer, good old days.

18

I already create that objective for the enemy team.

1 Like
19

The entire game lacks immersion to a point where it’s like they are going out of their way to destroy it. Mechanics are just borrowed from other games, especially from battle royales (which is probably the most antithetical thing to WW2 or organized group combat in general). No attempts to innovate, no attempts to do a unique take on the genre, no connection between in-game logic and goals / methods of real combat. Just a bunch of stuff copied and thrown together. Then again, looking at their “innovative” bot squads, maybe I should be thankful they don’t attempt more of that.

Why are we blowing up flimsy looking radios with special magical explosives? Why does it take so much time for the explosives to go off? Why do defenders retreat when that happens, especially when they otherwise have infinite reinforcements?

It’s the same thing with other game modes. None of it makes sense. Hilariously, it doesn’t even produce good gameplay. Whenever “good gameplay” happens, it’s in spite of the game rules and not because of them. Even more hilariously, the most arbitrary and “gamey” mode with three capture points (taken straight out of WT) makes the most sense in terms of real world combat. Too bad it’s a boring meat grinder where enemies usually spawn one block away from each other and are encouraged by game mechanics to not form the front line.

20

MY IMMERSION!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE like its a game. want immersion go enlist in your countries military. get it enlist.

1 Like
21

Is that all you’re capable of?