with that squad they can call in supply packages and equipment drops Anyone’s free to expand upon this
4 Likes
Well if the devs stand them ground on giving different tiers to different ranks of soldiers, I’d welcome your idea. Because otherwise there is no valuable reason to use Radio Operator II soldiers in the first place. Radio Operator I will do the job just as fine.
3 Likes
not that this would be a good idea for this game as it stands, but a general idea to add to this thinking line
would be to drop not just ammo boxes similar to the paras that everyone can access for ammo and resources such as more building materials for engineers
but also place vehicles, like some light vehicles like personnel trucks, scout vehicles, motorcycles, supply trucks, anti air mobile vehicles and some anti tank guns
but given how they are ruining the game with the new system and the way the game culture is now, all of this is wasted on this game
we have to find a new game that knows how to do this genre right
I could get behind that.
My concern is that if they do something like the paratroopers box, it will become far too overpowered, just like how Paratroopers are now.
At least if the box is being dropped by radio operators instead of alongside Paratroopers, I could reasonably see an engineer hammer with that, as they would still need to get to that location to retrieve it and use it, rather than being able to just drop in and set it up.
Perhaps you should be required to decide on the contents BEFORE it is dropped. Then when it hits the ground it shows a different icon depending on what is in it, so players can acquire that item.
My only concern is that if they make it to where you can choose on the ground, its far too versatile for in the moment actions, and will lead to massive balance issues.
They should be able to call in strafing runs. The radio operator would orient what direction the strafing would run would go, and the planes would do damage in strips. The planes would arrive faster and have a shorter cooldown than the bomber raid, but is slower to arrive than the artillery and has a longer cooldown.
I feel like this would be far too powerful. Its already bad enough that the basic artillery is as strong as it is, but making something that comes in faster, is potentially more precise, and still doesn’t require skill or exposure of your units to call in? That sounds like terrible balance that would just make things worse.
Not really. (It it was implemented the way I think it should be)
It would be deployed they way that smoke artillery is deployed (in a line), and would only use the MGs on the planes (no bombs, rockets, or cannons) so it would not do damage to most vehicles, only infantry that would be caught in the planes path. The planes that would perform the strafing run would be easy to spot and shoot down, because they would be loud and slow, and would be accompanied by the red area that shows people on the mini-map where not to step.
I get what you are saying, but I still think that it would be too powerful. Players are already able to do this by flying aircraft and being a good pilot. It can be absolutely devastating. I think the better solution in regards to “strafing runs” is NOT to make it something that players can just call in.
*Offensive attacks that can just be called in by a player are inherently extremely powerful. I don’t have any issue with support that doesn’t directly attack enemies, such as smoke barrage, or the discussions about a supply crate. However, its bad enough when there are already RO sitting in the back of the greyzone launching artillery every two minutes and getting kills while NEVER exposing themselves to attacks. Adding to that doesn’t help.
That said, my suggestion in regards to strafing runs is a combination of 2 things:
- Make a friend that is a good pilot.
- "Spotter Pings" separate from normal pings, only with binoculars, give assist points
You’re right.
We need WP artillery shells.
(Maybe give radio operators an effective range, so they can only call in artillery a certain distance from them?)
the cool thing about the strafing run idea if further explored
and will first add that I enjoyed that mechanic in games like company of heroes, was a nice touch in that game, one the greatest single player games for ww2 I ever played
anyway, if the devs were any good at programming ai beyond basic limited tasks, they could make it so the ai pilots would then dog fight the player planes, to further keep them busy and occupied a little more in the air with an actual threat in the sky that hunts them
currently the ai in the air doesn’t do much beyond flying by for its purpose, would be cool to see improvements there so they could become a more active threat and challenge a team that has air superiority
1 Like
I really hope you are joking. That’s even worse.
Am I?
(sort of)
Again this concerns me as it removes the actual element of player input.
There are pilots that are good, and pilots that are bad. A good pilot stays in the air, makes effective passes, and helps his team. To counter that, you can use AA, or a fighter. Both of which take some degree of skill and/ or player input to operate.
What you guys are asking for is a button to press that makes it no longer an issue for you. I hate using the words “skill issue”, but at this point that is what this suggestion sounds like. Removing the player input element and forcing them to contend with AI elements that don’t take any skill for you to call in, which in turn is gamebreaking OP.
WP for mortars? Yes. It would make them more effective, and could be added for mortarman 2 squads.
WP for artillery? No. It would be broken.
That’s not to say that different types of artillery shells that could be called in, would not be good however.
the most matches are already populated by largely bots, most kills in this game are killing bots
takes little skill to kill the bots yet that is the core of the game and always has been, you don’t say that is gamebreaking op
same with the radio bombers, another mechanic that you call in and do nothing else
just we are talking about taking it a step further in the sky
you already have to contend with ai on the ground, why would you be opposed to contending with it in the sky?
It has nothing to do with skill, just talking about ideas here, which is all about exploring something that could enrich the game, and strafing runs is similar to bombing runs
the players already do bombing runs and rocket runs, yet the devs were ok with adding extra bombers with the radio man, so what exactly would be the issue with strafing runs? It’s just a different thing to bombers
and we talking about improving things
again, what part of that is a skill issue?
I guess you could say players would be scared that the dog fighting ai would be too powerful and that could be a skill issue, but I’m sure a talented programmer could make them challenging but not too deadly, just a nuisance to keep pilots on their toes
As I have stated MANY times, the basic artillery itself is OP. Why? Because it can be called in time and time again, is very destructive, is a very powerful area denial, and most importantly, it cannot be countered. There is nothing you can do to stop it from coming in.
You can run away from it and avoid getting killed, but what happens to that area? Every piece of cover, every fortification, all of it is gone. Now going back into that area you have lost your defensive advantage.
If there was an artillery location that players could target with aircraft, that would be a different story.
Except the poster is asking that
So essentially it can clear out a strip of the playing field, and is even harder to counter than the bombing runs, which despite being called in by a single player in just a couple of seconds, require multiple players to give their full attention to for 60-120 seconds just to ATTEMPT to stop them, and if they fail, can change the face of the entire battlefield.
Players actually have taken the time to learn how to fly, get into the plane so they cannot help on the ground in the meantime, and actually have to actively control their aircraft in order to have the effect, not to mention need a spotter or at least teammate support on the ground to make their strikes accurate.
MEANWHILE, you are suggesting a point and click command that requires none of that skill and teamwork, to have an similar if not stronger effect. While at the same time not requiring the player to even expose their characters to the enemies at all, nor even have line of sight to the target. They can literally sit in a bunker or the back of the greyzone and call in these strikes.
Even if they do decide to push up, they can call in precise strikes, exactly when they need them (without having to wait for the teammate to re-arm or turn around for a pass), while still being on the ground ready to push and capitalize on that strike with little to no delay at all.
That is OP as hell and absolutely lacks skill of any kind.
Having larger objectives and more area to battle over would change that, the reason why is because the objectives are tiny and too many players and bots cramming into such a tiny space, that is also the reason why they nerfed mortars into oblivion and are now going after bombs and rockets, somehow tanks HE have not yet hit the cross hairs, but my guess is that if the devs don’t wake up and realize the real problem is small objectives and small battlefields with tight boundaries, then they will just ruin their own game like other devs ruined theirs because they never understood the issues properly
that is an interesting idea, however to implement it properly the battlefield would need to open up more and become huge, so players had to scout and identify the location to then pass that information on to the pilots, otherwise would just be dumb if everyone knew where the other team put their artillery location
for example with mortars the issues weren’t that they were too accurate or did too much damage, the issue was always that they could be set up in the grey zone like tanks and so players couldn’t really get to them. Because when they setup on the actual playable field, players do find them and eliminate them…again highlighting the issue with the game that the devs fail to see, which is the grey boundaries being abused by the player and the devs being ok with that
if mortars had been changed so they could only be placed in the playable area, that would have been the only change they should have done to them, instead they destroyed the mechanic completely
just shows me these people have no idea what they are doing
honestly doesn’t take much skill to blast with rockets, bombs in a plane or with HE in a tank, if we are being completely honest
hell, doesn’t take much skill to obliterate bots with a good assault rifle, machine gun or smg or to just launch a tonne of area denial grenades
so guess we should just use knives and pistols to really demonstrate skill, or rifle only with bayonet
1 Like
As I’ve had this discussion with you before, I’ll summarize:
The issue is NOT small objectives, in fact the opposite, that objectives often encompass the area outside of the location as well.
The issue is that decent defenses cannot be put up to prevent the spam from getting to those on the objective. Fortifications are far too easy to break right now, so they don’t do their job of keeping those inside safe. After all, why do you think so many photos from WW2 have sandbags stacked up on all sides of buildings? They were decently effective at stopping explosions. While on here, they shatter like glass.
These things still require exposure to the enemy, as well as player input to operate. Artillery calls don’t require ANY exposure to the enemy, press one button to call up the artillery map, and a second button to tell it to fire on a location. No skill involved whatsoever.
No, just make it similar to how pilots identify tanks from the air. - Look for the cannon blast -
Have areas marked on their map (which is different from when you are on foot.) In which artillery COULD be set up. 3-4 different areas. When artillery is actually called in, have the artillery fire being visible when flying nearby. Pilots could identify and deal with it that way, without even necessarily making the map larger.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for much larger maps being opened up, but they would need to extend the length of games, increase lives, and definitely increase defenses’ capabilities with fortifications.
While I am not necessarily disagreeing that mortars need to be placed within playable area, that also goes for tanks, and other things as well, but that also has the issue where the other team can push you back to the greyzone and keep you from being able to get out as you could no longer fight from within it.
As far as mortars go, I’ve made my suggestion many times regarding a mortar pit construction with a spotter tower that let’s you target with both mortars as once, which I honestly believe would make a HUGE difference for the better.
We disagree on objective size, and I will point out exactly why
In war, objectives changed depending on enemy positioning and movements
this game fails to replicate that, so that is first and foremost, as they are static and limited
but even with that in mind, you are looking at this like every single objective should be indoors and should be a bunker or a small hangar or just a single building, whereas I am saying objectives should be an entire section of a town, actual territory… you don’t control an area by just controlling one building, you have to control the entire area
Defenses are not supposed to be a permanent “I win button” just refer to the maginot line, it comes down to having the man power in combination with effective leadership and application of different units/arms and being at least matched closely technologically, otherwise that is the entire reason why air superiority or artillery superiority can decide battles, along with determination and persistence, helps to keep your forces alive too…but blitzkrieg works in this game, and whilst I agree that defenses need some love in this game, we still disagree on how objectives should be. Unless the game was 4 vs 4, then I think your idea is good.
Well an expert sniper in this game can go the entire match without dying and little exposure, all he has to do is point and click, but they are in the game, and that’s ok, what isn’t ok
is that you can have a team full of sniper squads, one of the reasons some people quit matches
But I understand what you are saying, however how do you change the radio man from your squad into a guy manning an artillery piece off screen way outside the playable area? How is that any more interactive, at least the radio man as used these days since the cooldowns were changed are actually exposed on the battlefield usually following the squad near the front lines
Tanks can move, would these artillery pieces be mobile? Sounds like you want hardset locations, which to me sound like a terrible idea, players would need complete freedom of where to place them, and they wouldn’t be so easy to spot, what artillery crew wants to be easily spotted by enemies?
If they want to be that hard set, then they would also need solid AA to protect them, like the aircraft carriers in pacific
But if the devs nerfed mortars to death, doubt they going to help implement an artillery unit into the game
I’m not even saying that, I am just saying, right now, as it stands, the objectives should be larger, wider, more area considering the numbers of players per side and the stacking in tiny areas that makes it easier to wipe out 20+ guys with one nade, flame, shell, bomb, artillery…
That’s called the game being finished, and one team clearly won
The issue is that games don’t know when that happens, so players have only one tap out option, leave the match
Whilst that sounds interesting and all, I am still more of a fan of the mobile mortar squad that moves with the infantry and supports the infantry near the front lines and the mobility and freedom of where to setup is, or was part of the fun of playing mortar, as these days the nerfs to mortars have destroyed the class completely
you might as well go bet at the local casino you will experience the same feeling as playing mortars in this game
That is how the actual game map is split up though. You capture it one chunk at a time in the case of invasion, or multiple chunks at a time in the case of destruction and assault. Oh and lets not forget the back and forth that is confrontation.
The small objectives for each part is capturing that part of the town and moving up from there.
I’m not saying it is! However, how often do you actually see effective defenses (where players are building actual defenses not just spamming wire in a doorway)? Because unless I’m doing it myself, the answer for me is NEVER.
I’m not asking for it to be an automatic win. I’m asking for it to give the defenders a “homefield advantage” of sorts. Something that can be used to DIRECTLY counter the most spammed troop types in the game.
Here is another question for you: how often do you see players making use of a sniper soldier when trying to push up (NOT including the ones sitting back with a sniper rifle)? Again, the answer from me is NEVER. MG nests with effective defensive fortifications should be getting targeted and countered with sniper rifles, or tanks, etc.
Instead, they rarely actually get that chance because they are so easily broken or dealt with by assaulters and flamethrowers. instead.
Like I said, I’m not looking for and “impenetrable fortress”, I’m just looking for it to actually be a CHALLENGE for attacking forces, of which I only see when I take the time to set up on the 3rd objective from when the game starts and my buddies are buying me time, because they know that when it gets to that part, the attackers will actually have to work to get through it. So even though I don’t get kills for the first half of the game, my engineer score (for supporting my team) when it gets to that point makes up for it. I sacrifice my potential points for the first half of the game for a better chance for our team to hold out against the attackers so that EVERYONE on our team gets the win bonus.
I’m not saying changing to that artillery guy. I’m saying that with the way that it is now, with cooldowns included, to add in the artillery locations as an AI element of sorts. These sites are what show up and can be taken out by aircraft. Taking them out could either create a much longer delay between artillery, or reduce the number of shells that come down in each barrage. Potentially making artillery less effective as the game goes on if the enemy planes are taking out the artillery sites.
By doing it this way, it can also keep the enemy aircraft busy while you try to push.
They would be “hardset” in a way. Like I said, have POSSIBLE locations marked on the aircraft map, and look for the blast to identify if the area is active.
As far as “wouldn’t this make it too easy to permanently cripple artillery”? Calling in bomber strikes and artillery permanently destroys massive amounts of cover on the ground, so a way to do that back against RO squads by destroying their artillery sites seems pretty fair to me. Plus it keeps the aircraft busy.
That can be done at the start of games too easily, especially with paratroopers being the way that they are.
“just leave” is not a good solution to the issue.
I’m not saying to remove that. I’m saying to give the option of the mortar pit construction in order to set up and focus fire when it is needed.
PERSONALLY, I have really good games with the mortar, but I’m smart about my firing patterns, make sure I know where enemies are moving from, and have reliable teammates that place very accurate marks for me. It’s not uncommon for me to have 50+ kills a game with them.