Update 0.4.0.71

Suggestions
1

Very small update, complete wrong direction.

  1. Increased the size of the warehouse strategic point on alligator creek mission of the Pacific war campaign.
    Devs I’m going to say this but once and clearly
    MAKE THE CAPS FUCKING SMALLER
    Warehouse is already a huge objective and now it expands beyond the building, but this is just the kind of shit I’m expecting now with these caps,
  2. alligator creek with the burned out house why the fuck does the objective extend so far forward the other burned out houses are included because there’s nothing i love more than just being railed through 3 pieces of wood by an enemy in the pitch black that’s so comically out of place you would be forgiven for thinking they weren’t in the cap but they all just bunch up there and force take the cap off you while you can’t approach or you get beamed through the walls.
2

Don’t listen to him devs, make objectives bigger on a campaigns

7 Likes
3

That’s how you kill a campaign, like Pacific isn’t already dead because of the bots, tickets, cap times, guns

2 Likes
4

I do really like the bigger objectives in the Pacific.
Feels a lot better than throwing all you got in to a little area of 10 square meters.
You have to defend and attack it more cleverly.

2 Likes
5

I love the larger objectives, Normandy absolutely needs this the most

1 Like
6

And having 8 squads sat on the far end of the objective ans capturing it without a shot being fired is fucking bollocks

1 Like
7

Hear me out.

Bigger objectives make sense, but smaller ones would be fine if the capture couldn’t progress if any enemy is in the point, at all. You do not have control of the objective if it is in any material way, contested.

Objectives should also be placed in map locations that are actually strategicly important. Most of them in the other campaigns make sense, but in the Pacific not so much. Why the fuck would either side need to control a burned-out section of villiage when there’s more defensible structures further upslope? Why would either side fight tooth and nail for a microisland covered in grass huts between more strategicly important objectives when it could just as easily be pounded with bombs and artillery and be bypassed?

1 Like
8

I would still prefer caps that can’t be just stolen from you by enemies sat 30m away down a hill behind a ridge because the caps are so ridiculously huge

9

That’s a fair preference, but might I suggest that you use your elevation advantage to close with and destroy the enemy by fire and close combat, thereby securing your objective?

10

I’m in favor of bigger zone size would to give players more tactical options

Also all of this can coexist in combination, with both some big zone and some small zone, they dont conflict to each other.

All zone with big size is OK, But all zone will small size maybe bad.

1 Like
11

In Normandy a random house is strategic? Absolutely not.

12

Depends on where it is. Which house are we talking about?

13

Many, majority of objectives in Normandy revolve around a single house.

14

Other campaigns especially Berlin would be great to have large cap zones instead of constantly get screwed over by arty and mortar spam in small caps.

15

This I’d like to know as well, admittedly.

1 Like
16

What advantage, the burned house on alligator creek is opposite the American burned out house and you don’t get any cover or height to fight from

17

That can’t be the only direction for the fight to travel in. Flanks exist.