Respawn time
 

I am very pissed off when after numerous aircraft bombs or def gun rounds, or several torpedo's i manage to sink a ship, to have it pop right up again, somethimes on top of the sinking one !!

Ships were a product of weeks or months of construction. Not to mention the huge amount of recources they required of war production industry.

Ofcourse FH is not only realism but also gameplay, but a vehicle with so many hitpoints or packing that much firepower should not respawn right away again.

Sunken carriers and battleships should never respawn again. Sunken Destroyers should take a quitte a while to respawn, as destroying them with aircraft, defguns and tanks isn't easy. And in many maps that is all you got.

The invasion of the phillipines situation is ofcourse rediculous too.....a full invasion from a destroyer, right.....

With the right type and number of ships, destroyers there also do not have to spawn right away again.

In short : sinking ships is often very difficult and takes a lot of hits. In return your score often will be 0, while in RL losing a warship was a small disaster. You do not get points for destroying major enemy assets, and often be punished in the from of an instant respawn of the same ship again......with some luck the original occupant can climb on board and happily continue....

That way, torpedobombers are useless, the more so since they carry their RL single torpedo that is difficult to launch right, and it takes a number of return trips to the airfield to sink even a destroyer. Often enemy fighters get you after lauching only one......Same goes for def guns, they explode in one destroyer salvo, while it takes like 30 hits for the defgun to take a destroyer down !

It is unfair, and rediculous after all you efforts to see a destroyer pop right up again.

In most maps with ships there are also land flags, so losing the ships permantly isn't unbalancing the game. If a side wants to have ships, they better not leave them floating as unattended spawnpoints for if they lose the land spawns.

Re: Respawn time
 

Here's an idea for the spawn problem, though it may not be very codable:

Have ships break up into small chunks that float around the island, where men can spawn, or alternately allow spawning in landing craft.

Of course, once these chunks and landing craft once sunk are gone forever, but it would give the team time to regroup for a few more attacks.

Re: Respawn time
 

I agree allthough I never invest much time into destroying an enemy ship.
But having any vehicle NEVER respawn is a bad idea imho. But respawn times for ships should be quite a bit.
So maybe 10 min respawn for an aircraft carrier, 7 min for a Battleship, and 5 min for a destroyer, allthough it also depends on the map your playing.

Re: Respawn time
 

yea the big ships shouldnt respan but then we come to the question: what happens if a smacktard takes the ship and drive it to the beach ?

Re: Respawn time
 

I think you miss a point here (although I do see your point). For an example at Iwo Jima there were over 1200 ships, over 700 were fighting ships which included countless carriers that were from the US and the Royal Navy, During D-Day the Royal Navy had 75 combat ships (not including support and transport vessels) including 5 battleships (and those landing beaches were very small indeed) and an aircraft carrier and troop supply ship called the United Kingdom of Great Briton;). At Kursk there were over 1 million men present and thousands of tanks. IMHO the respawn time, given the lenghts of the rounds should be instantaneous on most maps. Not only to replicate what actually happened but facilitate game play.

Balancing can be done with the amount of vehicals on both sides that spawns.

Re: Respawn time
 

True, on Kursk there should be more tanks for both sides......
Or the situation in the large battles could be fixed by making several "days" of the same map. And by changing the amount of vehicles on different "days" could make maps more interesting.

Anyway, I disagree with your point, since if the ships would repawn slowly, most of the fun, and action on the maps would be reduced to the beginning of the assault, therefor making the rest of the game extremely boring.

Re: Respawn time
 

That is not true....either they are on land already and continue to fight on land - most players are the Quake III type and prefer that anyway - without ships wich doesn't hurt gameplay at all. And if they lost all their ships, they probably didn't use them very well ( if at all ) anyway.

On maps where there is no land flag the battle will be over fast when the last player drowns or is killed in a life boat or shot down in a sea plane....

No more scenes like in Atlantic when a side has won, the map continues for ages.

As for the numerical side.....there were no thousands of carriers and battleships....even not that many destroyers in one fleet in one battle. I think 10 to 30 ships for a regular fleet is already much.

In FH gameplay i mean the effort it takes to sink a ship justifies a longer spawn time. Else there is no punishment at all losing it !! Especially when we are talking RL numbers, not >1000 men lose their life when a battleship ot carrier is lost, but in FH often only 1 or 0 !!

I would like a 1000 points/kills for sinking a carrier or battleship even more ! But since we are not talking RL numbers, increased spawn time would be better.

Re: Respawn time
 

Ok....you have a point, but the they would have to make the ships even stronger, since they were a lot stronger then they are now.....and only occasional lucky hit sank a ship with 1 shot, and they were with special 1000kg bombs, with special detonators.

Re: Respawn time
 

i totally agree with beast of war, hopefully we will see this changed :)

Re: Respawn time
 

More realism :thumbsup:

Re: Respawn time
 

I agree. There's nothing more irritating then being pounded by a ship when you're fighting it out on land. Constantly being blown to peices by one guy sitting in a ship just off shore and pounding your last spawn point constantly. Then by some means the ship is sunk, either by a couple skilled pilots or a defgun, and then you enjoy 1 minute of destroyerless spawning then the bastard comes back and continues doing it. Then he racks up a 49-2 record and thinks he's good.... Annoying as all hell if you ask me. I agree, increase the spawn time of ships by a lot. They are a strategic advantage, so when they are destroyed there should be SOME kind of reprocussions. Not a spawn time that's as equal as when a guy gets shot.

Re: Respawn time
 

Realism is great, but unfortunately must be balanced with playability. In reality, a battleship would be firing it's salvos from miles out, and carriers would have dozens of crewmembers doing nothing but manning AA guns.

To that end, the best solution is probably going to become an increase in time-to-spawn for sunken ships; eliminating them altogether could make for some -very- short rounds on some maps.

Re: Respawn time
 

I thought that was what Beast suggested? :uhoh:

Re: Respawn time
 

Umm....

I am a superb infantry man, pilot, and tanker. I am mostly on the ground though and I completely despise Quake 3 or anything with that sort of Bunny hopping, flying around, rockets everywhere type of gameplay....

Don't count on any changes for .6 though. It's a tad too late heh. I do agree though...the destroyer on wake spawns to fast.

Re: Respawn time
 

Anyone on the ship whent said ship dies should die also. I get frustrated at taking torpedo runs, engaging enemy ships or bombing hell out of them only to sink it an not get any recognition.

Re: Respawn time
 

Yep.....maybe in FH 0.7 then....we will be distracted for a while playing with all the new stuff in FH 0.6 anyway.

But if and when there is time, please do something about it.

Re: Respawn time
 

quake III rules ...but that´s FH and not quake !

Re: Respawn time
 

I think so as well.
Yet, had I not said that, I'm sure some nit would've complained about how all I did was whine about it, without suggesting an alternative. Consider it a supplement... it makes more sense that way.

Re: Respawn time
 

Yeah ships spawn way to fast. They should also spawn how ever many ships were fighting for that side. So if 10 get sunk and 10 actually participated then no more spawn.

Re: Respawn time
 

I don't think anyone on a ship should die just because it's going down. Stop worrying about your score and look at it from a teamplay perspective. You killed a destroyer that either was or could be a pain in the ass for your team. I think that is way better than getting credit for a kill. It's kind of like shooting down airplanes. I never get all worked up about guys bailing out of the plane I shoot down. As far as I'm concerned, the plane was more of a threat to my team than the guy who is now in a parachute. If it makes you happier, keep score of how many destroyers or planes you shoot down yourself.

Re: Respawn time
 

I do. Every time I sink one I put a stamp on the side of my case. :D

I guess you're right in it is JUST a score thing; but it's hella frustrating having some players out there who spawn-camp the enemies to get kills at 'uncappable bases', while I'm out in the feild making sure enemy hardware makes its way to the bottom of the ocean as quickly as possible, and at the end of the game I'm STILL 0/0/4, and the spawn camper is 43/76/12.

Ah, the pain :/ >.<

Re: Respawn time
 

This is normally true, and i agree with you, but when the next destroyer spawns instantly after the other one sinks and no enemy died, there was no point in attacking it at all. You win from draining the enemy ticket pool....destroying equipment doesn't drain tickets. After it sunk it inmidiatly is there again to be a pain in your team ass.

The most you can get out of it if they moved it somewhere on the map, it will be reset to the spawning zone again.....

Lucky for us the devs agree and maybe we can see changes in future releases fixing that strange situation.

Re: Respawn time
 

I complety agree with Beast. The destroyer will also most likely to kill your defgun before you do any damage to the boat :(

Re: Respawn time
 

Haha, silhouettes or tally marks? :D

Re: Respawn time
 

if you have ever been on the receiving end of the def gun or bombs, in FH, it does a hell of alot more damage to the boats than regular BF, not to mention you cannot repair them (i think). so this balances it to some degree that you destroyed a large asset usually for a min (i personally have never seen it spawn that quickly, but i dont doubt you), can somewhat be comapared with capturing a flag and then having it recapped, after you've died or moved on.

though i agree sinking ships is somewhat difficult and should atleast be awarded a point (if that would be possible to do) and usually you get a kill or two out of doing so. or like suggested give a certain time to spawn but i think no more than 2 min to any ship.

Re: Respawn time
 

Yeah. at the very least the timer on the destroyer in Phillipenes is way too short. I've sunk it with the PT boat only to have it appear seconds later.

Re: Respawn time
 

The destroyer respawn time should be *atleast* equal to the amount of time it takes to sink it.

I agree - for the amount it does for your team, destroying an enemy ship doesn't give near enough personal reward. Most people play for points, not satisfaction at doing well for the team, so increasing the "bounty" on a major resource like a destroyer or carrier would make it more of a target. And it would increase the incentive to protect your own ships aswell.

Re: Respawn time
 

the problem at the phillipines-map: at the very beginning of the map, the destroyer is DEAD. there are planes (torpedos/bombs) and torpedo-boats (torpedos, tons of mines) on the way to sink this ship. nearly all the time, they make it. besides, the north-eastern-flag is very well defended, so you can't get this flag fast, too. destroyer down. no spawnpoint for axis. funny eh?

Re: Respawn time
 

wait till 0.6 phillipines. they have been changed some things ;)

Re: Respawn time
 

Like removing the map? :)

Re: Respawn time
 

mmmmmm, no

Re: Respawn time
 

It took many sorties by the Royal Airforce and the USSR to take out the Turpitz which damaged it but never sunk it, in the end It took 1 direct hit from a 12,000Lbs 'cookies' dropped by a Lancaster whereas the HMS PoW was sunk by a sustained attack by several Japanese squadrons when it was moving and the PoW, while not as well armoured as the Turpitz was no weakling when it came to battleships. Whereas it would take 1 single torpedo to take out a Cruiser (I know, my Grandfathers ship, HMS Manchester took 1 from a Italian Torpedo boat and it sank).

Re: Respawn time
 

The difference there in sinking the ships was in where the ship took damage. Aerial bombing hits the top of the ship; which has pretty good armor and such. More importantly, lossing top decks and turrets and the like does not sink a ship. On the other hand a shape charge hitting below the water line and blowing a hole in the hull means BAD THINGS for a ship. Especially if that blast is near the engines, fuel, or ammo holds. Not to mention the physics of explosions under water (much worse for the ship than explosions in air). Carriers though were more vulnerable to aerial attacks that regular surface warfare ships. Firstly they are designed to all aircraft to take off and land from the top deck not shrug off bombs and shells. Second they hold a LOT more fuel and munitions than a regular surface ship for those planes. Meaning better chance at a fire starting below decks. And ask any sailor; fire = bad.

But that is real life; onto FH. Simple fact is no matter how much effort anyone puts into any game; at the end of the day it is still a game and not real life. Which means that there has to be compromises to make it playable. And in places, you wiggle certain things like spawn times and the like, to better simulate reality.

A good example of this is something we have done for some of the maps in WAW. On some maps, we have high spawn times for the big tanks like Tigers and shorter spawn times for, say, the Shermans. This help simulates that, in RL, the Allies had numbers over the superior overall performance of their heavy tanks. Why not just add in more Shermans you say? Well, simple. In RL, niether army had to worry about player limits on the server. In BF though, the server only holds so many players. In WAW, that is 50; 25 vs 25. So if you give the Allies, say 3 Shermans for every Tiger that eats up their man power quickly. So while the Allies have to have 3 troopers to man their armor, the axis are committing one. And the other two are free to support infantry attacks, man AA, fly planes, whatever. (note: I'm using 1 trooper per tank as the minimum to use the vehicle in combat) And on our big tanks maps, where we can have upwards of 24 or more tanks on a map, that man power limit is huge. So, the spawn times come in. And frankly, it's worked fairly well and we expect to use it more in next campaign.

As for ships. Spawn times for the ships depends heavilly on the map. For instance, if there is a B25 on the map, any axis destroyers are toast in one, maybe 2 passes. And there are other factors as well. How much air cover does both sides have, torpeado boats, is that destroyer their only starting spawn, AA capabilities of the ships and so on. Take Wake for example. On that map during our last campaign (where we increased the destroyer spawn time (can't remember to exactly what, but it was over a minute at least), their destroyers were pounded to the death by combined defgun fire and bombings. But I agree, they should not be instantaneous. The secret is to look at the map and find the right spawn time that works for that map.

Which is kind of my total theory of balancing maps. You can have a system that rates/compares various equipment to give you a good idea of balance. But you also have to take into account all of the various factors of the map as well. Terrain, number and location of choke points, sight distance (fog), and so on. And for most of that, you just have to go by experience and your gut as there is no real way to quantify those elements realistically.

Finally, just to include a shameless plug (sorry, can't help myself LOL), if you want to play in battles where you get recognized for playing for the team (ie. sinking ships for no "points", manning AA, following and repairing the tanks, gaurding rear CPs) you can always come over and play at WAW. We don't give a rat's butt about individual scores; the team either wins or loses at the end of the round. My main skills were defending choke points as an engineer, driving the APC around rearming our tanks and repairing them when they called out, and manning the AA guns; and I became a General LOL.

Re: Respawn time
 

Sorry to say, but you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Battleships main armoured deck was the "thinnest" armour in it's armour protection system. Has to do with weight distribution, with the already tremendous weight of the turrets and barbettes above the waterline, and the weight of the superstrucure like an armoured bridge and seconday weapons like (lots) of AA guns bringing the gravity centre at a critical point already, made it impossible to install heavier armour there.....or the ship would roll upside down.

Some battleships and cruisers had remarkable poor rough sea handling for such heavy ships, because of their far from optimal weight distribution.

The armoured belt, wich was the thickest part of the armour system protected the engines wich were often high pressure boilers and turbines, support machinery, and rooms where the ship and turrets were actualy controlled. ( the rudder control was not on the bridge ! ) The armoured belt was often positoned under and above the waterline. This was done, because at typical battleship fighting the grenades will largely come in under an angle hitting the ship in the side.

The armoured belt in most battleships and cruisers included excellent anti torpedo systems, like anti torpedo bulkheads often filled with seawater. That would absorb the shock of the detonation and spare the actual armoured belt from critical damage.

Essentially the armoured belt was designed to keep the ship floating and in operation, even if the entire superstructure ( bridge and other structures above the main deck ) were totally blown off. Ofcourse the complete superstructure shot off would serverly affect the battleships ability to fight, ( no more long range targetting data for the calculation room that guided the turrets fire ) but then it could still try to escape and be repaired to fight another day. Many Brittish battleships and cruisers actually were shot up and escaped to be reapired and used another day, because of their armoured belt. The Bismarck superstructure was near completely shot off too, shutting down her ability to fight back, but the armoured belt was still intact and the ship was otherwise still in operation and far from sinking. The stuck rudder prevented her escape.

Carriers had no battleship grenade armoured belts, they didn't need that since they were not to go up against battleships physically. Later war Carriers had however an armoured flight deck, that could resist up to a certain weight and type of aircraft bombs. Specially designed heavy armour piercing bombs, dropped by divebombers that dove from high altitudes giving the bombs maximum kinetic energy could not be stopped. These bombs with a delayed detonator were designed to slam through the armourd flight deck, fall through several decks deep into the ship were ( that part is correct ) fuel, ammo and high pressure poilers were. Carriers, like battleships did also have anti torpedo bulkheads.



If DICE had done a better job, you would get victory points too for destroying enemy vehicles dependend of their size and importance. Afterall, they represent vital recources used by an enemy country to produce and maintain them. If they are lost, you economically hurt that country, since it is very costly in recources and time to replace that vehicle. On top of that, an the fighting forces missed the firepower that this unit represented for the time it took to replace it. Dependend on what unit is was, a few weeks or a few months. Heavy battleships like the Yamato and Bismarck were never replaced, they cost so much recources and time to produce, it was impossible to replace them.

Getting victory points for enemy vehicles would improve the game in a way players would be more carefull with their vehicles, and not kamikaze them if ammo or bombload is depleted, or abuse them as taxi rides, and killing them would be more properly rewarding dependend on size and impoertance of destroyed vehicle. Losing a battleship or carrier was a disaster for a country at war. In bf1942/FH it only means a minute or so no respawn, it isn't even felt in maps where most playes are fighting on an island anyway.

Respawning weaker units faster then heavier units is a good balancing measure, as long as these too do not keep popping up in seconds. Unlimited enemies coming at you is something for cheap Quake III clone games....

Agree, respawning should be messured in how much effort it takes for an enemy to be able to destroy that vehicle. But never instantanious.

You guys are more focussed on equal balance. Fighting on one side only ( axis or allies ) a whole campaign requires balance to be fair. FH up to now is unbalanced ( i guess for for realism purposes ) For clan matches unbalance is not important, both teams have to play both sides of a map once. It may even be more interesting, as the clan that can handle being the weakest side best, and is able to preserve more tickets then the other clan playing the weakest side at the end of the round, wins the match. You can litterally win while losing a round, if you lost with more tickets remaining then the other clan, when they are playing that side.

Repairing, being someones bomber gunner, manning AA and such you can do otherwise too, and you usually will get a thanx or respect for it, providing you do it effective. It is true though in clans - and probably in WAW too - your actions will be noticed by your fellow team more, since everyone works together and depend on you doing your job well.

The one thing i do not like of WAW that there are people telling other people what to do......especially if they are of lower fighting skill then yourself. But i guess that is something personal.

Re: Respawn time
 

For those that like stats like that we run them at WOLF. So you can see who is the best engineer, the best medic etc.

Re: Respawn time
 

You also gotta think about the people getting Bombs dropped on there head on the deck. The Bombs leave holes! They go right through and they dont care what they hit.

Re: Respawn time
 

I don't think there will be many people on the deck during a battle.....exept those that are manning secondary weapons such as smaller caliber surface guns ( 150 - 40 mm ) and flak batteries. And these are often protected by gunshields.

You see, the top structure ( everything above the deck ) of cruisers and even most battleships was only light armoured. Almost all larger grenades would come right through the light armour and explode. Most battleships and cruisers could not be heavy armoured, or else the ship would be so heavy above the waterline it would roll upside down in the water. Do not forget the main turrets and the barbettes they were mounted on weighed 1/3 of the total ship, and most of that weight was above the waterline too !

Some battleships did have armour on the superstructure that protected against battleship grenades. The Yamato was the best protected, it could resist 15 ich battleship grenades on the superstructure ( the PoW only fires 14 inch ! ) and 18 inch on it's armoured belt ( ships hull ) The Yamato could have so heavy superstructure adding to the tremendous weight of it's supersize heavily armoured turrets and barbettes, because it was extremely wide and large.

Because it didn't have to fit through canals like Panama and Suez like the Brittish battleships, there was no limit to it's with. And a wider and larger ship can carry much more weight thus can have bigger guns and heavier armour. On top of that, a wider ship is more stable in the water and less likely to roll upside down when it is heavy above the waterline. A wider ship will also travel less deep into the water, wich means it is not restricted to only very deep water.

Smaller battleships and cruisers allready had so much weight from carrying their main turrets and often quitte numerous flak battery guns and secondary weapons above the waterline, they could only have light armour on the superstructure.....

What good is light armour if it doesn't stop bombs and grenades i hear you ask....well, when the ship is hit by a bomb or grenade, metal shards and debris fly all over the place, damaging machinery, vital pipes and lines, and kill crew. Light armour was applied for splinter-protection, protecting both vital systems and crew for more damage around the direct impact site. That way the amount of damage a grenade or bomb did was reduced as much as possible. Also, when a heavy battleship grenade exploded in the water - a near miss - the pressure could be so severe it still caused casualties among the crew and wreck vital systems aboard the ship that it missed. Light armour also helped to absorb such pressure damage.

When reading all that with the splinters, metal shards, flying debris and lethal pressure of near miss impacts, you understand walking on the deck is not recommendable.... :D

In game you will often be killed aboard a battleship, cruiser or destroyer by running on deck when it is hit......100% realism there....

Re: Respawn time
 

Good knowledge Beast.....

Re: Respawn time
 

Well, I understood the concept (that being: you can tear the superstructure apart all you want, but it does not sink a ship) just not all of the technical details. Thanks for clearing some of them up for me.

As for DICE doing a better job and coding the game to give points (or whatever) to reflect destroying vehicles and such. I agree. I have a huge hatred for the constant use of any and all aircraft in the game as prop driven, guided, antitank missiles. Or the naval tactic of ramming the other ship like we are the ancient Greek navy! Unfortunately, DICE didn't include this feature; so we're forced to deal with what we got. Over all though, it seems we pretty much agree that there should be higher respawn times on vehicles to reflect their importance and to get away from the QuackIII mentality.

As for WAW, yes, we are more interested in balanced maps than most people. But that's due to the nature of how we play. The fact is, we can't have everything historically accurate. Otherwise, the guys playing the Axis would have little fun knowing that they were going to lose from day one. Kinda takes the competitive fight out of your players LOL. We play for the competition; not to reenact WWII.

And yea, WAW is not for everyone. Mainly due to the fact that we do have a chain of command for each side. And many players just are not interested in following orders in their gaming. They want to go find the vehicles they want to drive/fly and fight on the parts of the map they want to fight on. And that's fine. WAW is for the guys (and girls ;)) that are looking for and desiring to be in highly organized campaigns WITH that chain of command. That have captains and colonels ordering their troops to form up at rally points assault a CP or see an air strike called in before the infantry rush in and the like. And yea, not all of our officers are always the best of the best. But most of them are.

I think the difference for many players is their criteria for evaluating the worth of their officers. Many say the qualities of a good officer are how well he shoots or flys or tanks. Basically, if he is leet in game. And they resent being under the command of a guy that they could beat in a knife fight on the carrier deck or in a sniper duel. Where as in WAW, we try to evaluate officers based on their command abilities, maturity (hopefully... we've gotten better here in the last 2 campaigns), and dedication to putting forth the effort needed for the team. And while some of our officers do have mad skillz, many of them are regular guys that have a knack for organizing their troops and commanding them on the battlefield.

Which, in WAW atleast, means a lot more than being the best tanker or pilot (or whatever) on the team. Not saying that is how you judged our officers or such Beast. Just that is how I know many have in the past that have not liked WAW; based on some of the nasty PMs I have recieved. It is like the difference between the Huns and the Roman Army. Some like to fight like the Huns and others like the Roman Army. And since it is all for fun in the end; you got to go where you will have the most fun.

Re: Respawn time
 

wow its filled full of mass noobs, al you have to do is edit the spawn time on the object spawner, and presto longer spawn time....im suprised noone said anything about that

Re: Respawn time
 

I did. LOL I talked about how we adjust the spawn times on the various equipment to better balance some of our maps.

Re: Respawn time
 

What they need to do is put the guns as seperate vehicles from the ship so they can be destroyed and disabled like in real life.