Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

ditto this might also make bombers more effective esspicially on maps like BoB and BtR.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

So once again, all you said is you want to reward rambos driving their vehicles alone without teammates, yet getting fully automated defences. In other words, you want to make your life as a tanker easier, without resorting to ... *GASP* support from your team

The fact that it doesn't defend itself doesn't mean that it can't defend itself. The dive bomber is more then capable of defending itself... if it has a gunner. And if it doesn't have gunner, that means the pilot took off without a gunner. So that pilot deserves to die alone. Also don't tell me that when there are 5 people plane camping and a 2-seater plane spawns, "there aren't enough infantry to fill position" :rolleyes:

BTW, please spell my name correctly next time

Ohh, but i am sure you will feel very "skilled", sitting outside a spawn with a German tank, rapping helpless infantry that can't defend themselves cause they got classlimits on AT, without having to worry about your back from enemy tanks cause of artificial push map, and now not having to worry about enemy AT infantry too while being completely alone without support of your team, cause the lucky enemy that managed to spawn with an AT and not be blasted by your tank, will be killed by an automated bot in your rear turret, cause no matter whether bot's accuracy is 40% or 80%, he will shoot the stationery AT before the crosshairs close.

Don't try to say that you want to make the game more challenging for infantry. We all know that you are a tanker that wants to make his own life easier, without having to rely on his team. That's all that you are, mr Rambo-1-man-army-tank-with-full-efficiency-without-team-support :rolleyes:

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

BF/FH rewards teamwork: if the vehicle is fully manned it becomes much more efficient in both defense and offense. However, BF/FH does not encourage such teamwork, cause the supporting player will get much less kills (that's not quite true though, the BB's AA supporting player will get far more kills then then BB itself, that's why i play on BB's AA a lot).

The problem here is that teamwork is not encouraged. The solution to that would be to encourage teamwork. Your suggestion, on the countrary discourages teamwork, cause you are saying "screw teamwork, lets make the same benefits available to even those that are not working in a team". Same as the pushmaps, instead of encouraging teamwork in defending flags make it (teamwork) not necessary, since those flags don't need to be defended anymore.

Now, since you said: lets discuss how one could encourage teamwork (disregarding the impossibilities of the engine)

1. Make those support positions more attractive. How?

a) One way is to buff them up, like the suggestion to link-up bomber MGs. This is actually quite realistic (unlike the AI guns that don't prevent players from operating them), considering there are already linked up batteries in game.

b) The driver/pilot should provide a stable platform for his support gunners. As i already described, i provided a stable platform for a gunner, by letting him do his job, and "giving" him easy kills that i could have taken myself, and he stayed with me defending me for the whole freaking round. Same way, i know some ace pilots (also pubbers, btw) and when they get into a bomber, i actually want to be a gunner, cause i know they will fly great, and will give me perfect shots on the planes chasing us.

2. Make them more rewarding
A support gunner should get a point for the kills the driver/pilot makes, this way they will want to support the drive/pilot, cause as long as he is alive, the gunner will keep getting points. This is going to be a feature in BF2 BTW

3. Enforce teamwork
Not the ideal solution, but a possibility. Make the vehicle unoperational, unless fully manned. Though without #2, it won't work in public and most vehicles will just sit empty

Now that's how one encourages teamwork. You, however, suggest to eliminate teamwork by making it not required :rolleyes:

Yeah why not, lets make it a server-side option, so that BoW can get cheap kills on class-limited defenseless/inefficient infantry without needing his team's support to defend him.

And i get plenty "taste of real war" on the servers i play on. Just last night, two times i attacked a Betty in my Wildcat, i was repelled very heavily by Betty's gunners (both of them). And i learned from unfortunate experiences never to approach a Battleship unless diving from "above the clouds", cause those AA rip you to bits and they are manned

Don't remember if Midway is on your rotation (or if i played it on your rotation), but come to Dead Meat when most of us are on, and then you will see what the term "SynShip" means :naughty: :nodding:

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Actually i am one of the clan's pilots, and when i can't fly, i usually find myself assigned as infantry defending the flags ;)

1) i do rely on a team (clan )
2) i rarely drive tanks
3) i think it is much too easy for infantry to kill tanks, without active tank MG gunners
4) In 24,32 and 40 player servers, there are not enough players to occupy all vehicles MG positions
5) Fighting vehicles without their MG positions manned are inefficient fighting vehicles.
6) In clan wars 8x8, 10x10, 12x12 vehicle MG positions will never be occupied, unless paradrop.
7) In pub servers : ( rough estimates )

50 % chance no one is willing to take a MG position
30 % of them will bail out at a flag, they used you as a taxi - ride
20 % will bail when the vehicle starts to take damage
10 % will be actual MG gunners and fight untill whatever end.

So 90 % of the time there is either no gunner present, or a player that is incapable or unwilling of doing what he is supposed to do in that seat.

Automated gun positions will end the cheap kiling of inefficient/defenseless vehicles. You try to blame the player for not taking gunners with him, while you know that can only be done in a server where all the MG seats of vehicles can be taken + there can be a sizable force of infantry too. We are talking about 64+ player server ( more like 100+ ) then......those are not the average servers that run FH, these only have 12, 16, or 20 players on each side. With half of them infantry, there is barely or not enough players to man all fighting vehicles with only a driver. So it is not the fault of the player....

I know automated gun positions will never be in FH. That is why i put my trust in BF2, where all occupants will be rewarded for a kill caused by that vehicle. Maybe then vehicles will be well manned, and the days of cheap kills and players who prey ( or have to prey, because there isn't a choice as 90 % of the MG positions doesn't shoot back now ) on defenceless/inefficient vehicles are finally over....

The end.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Well, then reduce the amount of vehicles on maps, so that those that are there will be fully manned. It's ridiculously-retarded and unrealistic when there is 1 tank for every 7 or so infantry. We can't increase the number of players, but we can decrease the number of those tanks to a more realistic level.

And yes, that will mean "screw tank maps", which is perfectly fine, cause this is an "FPS with vehicles". Not a tank simulator with extra humans acting as cannonfodder. Here. Problem solved.

You asked why i get so ticked off. Because your suggestions, instead of addressing the problem are offering workaround solutions that address something completely different.

A solution to a problem must address the problem, not make the problem irrelevant.

Now the end:deal:

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

If you want infantry combat so bad go play red orchestra or day of defeat.

FH is a combined arms game. Deal with it.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

I am not the one that's having problem with AT infantry, cause as you said, it's a "combined arms game".

So, maybe BoW should "deal with it", deal with infantry, and deal with maps that have more vehicle positions then players (according to him).

I've got no problem with way the game is right now, so with all due respect, don't tell me to deal with it.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

I believe these are your words are they not?

Doesnt sound like a person interested in combined arms action. Sounds like a infantry person tired of having to deal with tanks. So you want to make the tanks go away so we can concentrate on the infantry battles where it should be.

Now you dont sound any different from Beast Of War, whom you constantly ridicule for his ideas. So now I have to ask what makes your opinion any better?

If we drop the numbers to the levels you want FH might as well call itself a infantry sim. At that point what makes FH any better than Red Orchestra?

You want to remove the element that makes BF1942 still alive even as old as it is.

Some people play FH to be tankers, some want to be infantry, some want to be pilots, some want to be naval commanders.

With FH as it is now people can be what they want. With your way people will be forced to play what you think they should play.

So...deal with it.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Anlushac11, if Hydra "Sounds like a infantry person tired of having to deal with tanks" then you "sound like a tanker tired of dealing with infantry" 16 tanks for 32 plays is not combined arms. 1-2 tank per 10 players is reasonable.

Combined arms is when you can honestly say no one element is the "star of the show."

BF has always tried to simulate war of thousands with 64 players or less, that is its handicap. Adding virtual filler players could concievably used to make a better game. Hotdogging in a bot filled tank while netly encourages not discouragss teamplay. Teammates have to work together to take down such a threat, plays on the tank's team will stick near it for cover fire if possible.

It may all be moot, this seeming to be impossible/unlikely anyway.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Im not the one complaining about how the game plays. I have no problem with it as is. The only maps that seem to be tank heavy are...the tank battle maps. How many tanks are on The New Foy map? I have seen one Panther and one M3A1 halftrack.

Goodwood, Sector 318, Prokhorovka, Storm, Breakthrough, Falaise, Bulge are all tank heavy maps that were tank heavy battles to begin with.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Wow! Thanks once again for taking my words out of context :rolleyes: Really appreciate it :rolleyes: . Shows a lot too :uhoh:

I was arguing directly against BoW's complaints. BoW got problem with the way it is now, i don't. BoW is the one that wants to nerf infantry and increase tank's superiority. I don't, cause i like the way it is right now, the "combined arms" as you said.

And since i like the way it is now, how can you possible say, in the right state of mind, that i am trying to make it more infantry oriented? I am the one that want's to keep it the way it is. Think again please :rolleyes:

My way will force people? OMG ROFL! I am the one that's against pushmaps cause they "force people" to go into a dead-zone. I am the one that's against classlimits, cause they will "force people" to play a certain class. And how can you say that my ways people will be forced anything? Jeez... after this.... i really think you are spending too much time going through all forums posts... not actually reading them.

So, why don't you take a break and start from beginning.

I am not the one having problems with AT and that wants to limit AT class
I am not the one that's lazy to defend/suicide-respawn at back flags and that wants to force people into a 2-meter kill zone
I am not the one that's having problems with unmanned tanks. If my tank is unmanned, i will take more caution, if it is manned, then i get more bonus.

I am not the one that want's to change the way things are, so don't tell me i am trying to make it an "infantry sim" (and just for the record, FPS is the closest to "infantry sim")

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

FH has not implimented class limits as of this time.

I am for pushmaps since it does tend to concentrate people more into a comabt area instead of having Rambos running jeeps to the back flag. Your remarks of people to lazy to guard the back flag is all fine and dandy in clan play where people know better. But you shouldnt expect pubbies to play with the same skill level of clanners.

And you did suggest that FH should remove tanks from the maps to make it more infantry oriented. Everyone can see what you posted so dont try to deny it.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

As i said, read the post (and read it, not just skip over it). That "suggestion" (which is not a suggestion) is a direct counter argument to BoW's "suggestions".

The best way to show how bad or stupid (IMO) a suggestion is, is to come up with a "reverse" "suggestion", so that the author of the original suggestion will see how others see his.

The fact that you see my statements about "having 'realisticly' less tanks to enforce more positions manned" as something degrative(sp?) means that i was successful in pointing out how stupid his suggestion about "having 'realistic' AT infantry numbers and/or fully-powered tanks without teamsupport" is. Thank you very much for proving my point :nodding:

Once again, i did not make any suggestions in this thread. All my statements are counter arguments against BoW's suggestion(s). Some of them in the form of direct objections, some of them in the form or "reversed suggestions". But as far as any of this issues are concerned, i am happy with the way it is now

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Disregarding my own opinion of the matter- I do see a problem with implementing this into the BF engine. Namely, AFAIK conquest mode does not support bots (hence the creation of coop mode). The problem there is: to use this system would mean sacrificing the standard coop mode for a complimented conquest mode. This may not be a big deal for many FHers, but there are those that play solely singleplayer. On the other hand, the good side of this is that servers could choose whether or not to use the bot-filling system.
The only work-around for this I can think of is if HDN programs coop mode to just fill positions (which he probably won't like, considering how much work he must have put into the FH ai already) and then anyone who wants to play true singleplayer downloads Legion's Ballistic mini-mod (which can have a coop mode seperate of FH's). -then to appease HDN, he could work with Legion to make the mini-mod so his work is not wasted (but that will still require both of them agreeing to it).

Hmmm, actually, I like that idea :) , everyone could be happy. (And Ballistic would probably be all the more popular)

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Riiiiight. Whatever you have to tell yourself I guess.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

I don't see how not having any issues with how the game plays insulates you from logic.

List all FH's maps and pick out which are "tank heavy" you'll find a few of infantry maps and a the vast majority are tanker's paradices. The minority are the maps which combine tanks, infantry, naval, and air forces in equal quality.

The proposed feature to FH would allow for such combined maps to be played without gobbling up players into the roles of hull gunners and tailgunners, allowing combined maps to work while still having a multitude of armor. As it stands botless, we have to narrow it down to 3-4 tanks a game to have combined force maps.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Thats why I suggested linked bomber guns.

There is also historical precedent for Soviet and Allied tanks to operate without hull gunners due to a shortage of personnel. The game imitates history as far as hull gunners go.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Linked bombers would indeed be nice.

I was not privy to that historical tidbit, I thought the majority of tanks were fielded with 100% crew.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Well they were at first. But in bocage and on Russian front Germans were killing them so fast they ran out of trained crews :(

Belton Coopers book "Deathtraps talks about it and there is a interview on "The Russian Battlefield.com" with a Soviet tank commander and he tells of the same thing.