Respawn time

[Beast of War]

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.

[Meadow]

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.

[Dee-Jaý]

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.

[BAM]

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 ?

[mondogenerator]

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.

[[11PzG]matyast]

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.

[Beast of War]

Originally Posted by [11PzG]matyast

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.

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.

[[11PzG]matyast]

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.

[Oberst Topgun]

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

[VioLAtoR[xL]]

More realism