?
I don’t quite understand what you mean?
1 Like
Maybe a battle point penalty for a kamikaze that doesn’t kill anything in the crash would reduce it?
I’m new and I haven’t unlocked all of the game yet, so please forgive me if I’m referring to something that might already be around that I just don’t know about.
I agree that giving pilots meaningful missions aside from ground support and shooting down balloons would be a good addition to the game. I always like the idea of a random assigned mission that the defenders don’t know is in effect. They just know what the potential missions can be and the attackers are tasked with accomplishing.
Even if the prize for accomplishing the mission(destroy a certain bunker/destroy X# tanks/blow open a hole in a wall/destroy a bridge) is simply battle points, I think that would be a meaningful addition to the game.
2 Likes
The whole post is talking about buffing the engineer fortifications so they don’t get destroyed in one shot or from random explosions so it gives the tanks a job to take out engineer fortifications or pilot to vomit or multiple TNT charges to take out a fortified position.
1 Like
Just had a related idea: make accomplishing the air mission add a battle point victory multiplier to the entire team. 50%(obviously the # could be tinkered with) more battle points across the board if your side wins. Pilot gets a fixed amount of battle points for accomplishing the mission and then the multiplier on victory.
I think that would add a pretty tangible benefit to having flyboys focus on the mission, but it might require a slight uptick in the max number of planes in a battle to allow for some coordination, distraction, and maintain ground support.
What would really suck would be a pilot heading straight for the objective, giving away the target, and having defenders set up AAA guns. Infantry would have to take them out to open up the skies for the planes. Even that dynamic itself would make for interesting battles. You’d have the standard capture points and then an ad hoc one that can be fortified by defenders, overtaken by infantry, and blasted from sky for the bonus.
Mark the objective on attackers’ interactive maps.
1 Like
You were talking about “stronger fortifications to get pilots off their asses to do their jobs.” First and foremost, what I mentioned is something that would give pilots a tangible objective that is more in line with what WW2 flight missions would have been about. It might still be suspending disbelief to have something like a P38 targeting a dedicated ground objective. But they’re already in the game providing ground support (ha ha) and Normandy soldiers start with Springfields instead of Garands. It’s a bit “fudgy” already.
1 Like
That is true but with the amount of bombs in Normandy not many of the base fortifications in the game survive it’s mostly on the objective when the engineer Fortifies it but then a random explosion just breaks it because they’re so weak right now.
And yes we did try secondary objectives in the game on the airfield map if you blow up the balloons you get extra lives if you’re on the attacking side on invasion.
1 Like
Yeah. That’s useful but kind of meh. The problem is it takes a while to knock out all of the balloons and you don’t get any battle points for it. When you’re on a tight deadline to hit 20k in 48 hours for an event, it just isn’t worth the time.
I kind of have that exact thing in mind for the suggestion. The team should WANT to take the secondary objective because there should be something meaningful about it. When you never drop below half reinforcements all the way to the final CP, there’s no value in extra reinforcements.
Honestly, sandbag fortifications should be obliterated by anything stronger than GI rifle fire. Even an mg should rip them apart. They’re sandbags.
By “never drop below half” I mean that there have been several battles where I’m knocking out the balloons and the reinforcements are never needed. Not that “extra reinforcements are never useful because I’m so awesome and never drop below half.”
it doesn’t work like that, genius. and talking about “murdering”, meat doesn’t have means of killing vehicles, does it? at all, yea?
In regards to that you should check out the post I just put up.
1 Like
thanks to people who gave strategic bombing arsenal for sandbox fights. also thanks to mapdesign. engineers have nothing to do with it except building guns
Dude, I’ve worked in the industry a bit, and it helps (both the developers and others) to break things down and organize them a bit. I do the best I can at that because at the end of the day, its easier to read and understand than something that is just a giant block of text.
1 Like
I’m not questioning your formatting, just the sheer length.
thanks for your summary!
On that note its a matter of getting what I have to say in one post rather than a bunch of small ones. It might take a while, but at least its all together.
1 Like
If you’re going balloon hunting I recommend using a machine gun nest or HMG nest or AA gun.
And if I remember correctly I had a conversation with Reaper talking about sandbags and he told me some sandbags had cement inside them instead of sand.
Correct. Some of the more heavily fortified positions they essentially just used the sandbag bags as an easy mold for the cement, providing much stronger defense. In fact, there are some of these structures that still exist to this day, that they left for historical purposes.
1 Like
In terms of battle speed, there are some points that can go fast, and that’s understandable. However, some objective locations SHOULD be defendable, but because of the current imbalance of tactics for offense vs defense, they often fall to fast as well.
We aren’t necessarily asking for the game pace to be cut in half, but rather the tools with which to make a more interesting battlefield, where run-and-gun tactics DON’T always win out.
This suggestions for example:
Would open up a whole new host of tactics for both defense AND offense. Making the game more interesting for both sides, so DESPITE the game progressing SLOWER, it will be more ENTERTAINING for BOTH SIDES during that time.
1 Like
yes i agree with that.
and same capture zones on same maps can also never be capped with the proper team defending. More beefy eng tools might escalate that even further. thats my only concern. right now its kinda balanced on “time to build” to how far it sustains damage / usefull" the tool is.