Troops that shoots , attacks and defends

[johnyjones]

the title says it all, how about troops that shoots, attacks and defends.

this way troops could also be used to defend a field against other sets of troops.

[kvuo75]

the title says it all, how about troops that shoots, attacks and defends.

this way troops could also be used to defend a field against other sets of troops.

we've got actual people (players) that can do that.

[johnyjones]

yes and i found this quite annoying that player while in a chute can shoot troops while the troops wont shoot back

[SmokinLoon]

I think in the short term it would be better to expand the role of the troops rather than HTC take on some huge programming/"coading" undertaking.

I think it would be easier for HTC to code troops to have specific goals.  As I've suggested before, have different kinds of troops available in the hanger.  Currently, we just have "troops" to capture a map room.  Why not include engineers to destroy X number of buildings, or commandos to destroy X number of auto ack? Etc.  I'm thinking specific roles that could be used in a town setting, not so much in attacking an airfield or gv base.

The FPS aspect does not really interest me at this point in AH.

[lunatic1]

I think in the short term it would be better to expand the role of the troops rather than HTC take on some huge programming/"coading" undertaking.

I think it would be easier for HTC to code troops to have specific goals.  As I've suggested before, have different kinds of troops available in the hanger.  Currently, we just have "troops" to capture a map room.  Why not include engineers to destroy X number of buildings, or commandos to destroy X number of auto ack? Etc.  I'm thinking specific roles that could be used in a town setting, not so much in attacking an airfield or gv base.

The FPS aspect does not really interest me at this point in AH.

we've got actual people (players) that can do that.

 
 
 
 

[lunatic1]

i'll tell you what,why don't just like the game play itself--let it fly all the plane's-tanks-ships--everything--while we just set back and watch....jj you keep wishing for stuff that takes play out of player..i'm a player,i want to play this game,not sit back and just watch it...was it your troops the parachutist shot down..in WWII pilots carried handguns.and would shoot at bad guys if they were in their landing area..in our game it's fun and necessary to kill troops or you lose the base.you need to wish for something more useful.

[XxDaSTaRxx]

Map Room Pilots!

This is directed at you!

And so is all of my hate!

 

[lunatic1]

Map Room Pilots!

This is directed at you!

And so is all of my hate!

 

[Saxman]

I do kind of see his point about how silly it is that a pilot can bail, camp the maproom, and pick off the troops at leisure because they don't shoot back.

[kvuo75]

i'll tell you what,why don't just like the game play itself--let it fly all the plane's-tanks-ships--everything--while we just set back and watch

it seems to be an odd trend lately on this forum for people to wish for duller things (driving trains) or more AI to do more of the playing for them (AI troops, AI gunners on buffs, etc) 

[lunatic1]

 

it seems to be an odd trend lately on this forum for people to wish for duller things (driving trains) or more AI to do more of the playing for them (AI troops, AI gunners on buffs, etc) 

+1

[XxDaSTaRxx]

it seems to be an odd trend lately on this forum for people to wish for duller things (driving trains) or more AI to do more of the playing for them (AI troops, AI gunners on buffs, etc) 

AI Troops:

Yes.

AI Gunners:

No.

Map room pilotz!!!! You shall die!

[lerxst]

As far as the troops go, will there at some point in game upgrades be an increase in the number of troops needed to take a field?? Just seems a little silly to me still that 10 troops walk into a town and take over the place!!At least increase it to like 20 or 30 troops !!yes/no? whats your thoughts

[SmokinLoon]

As far as the troops go, will there at some point in game upgrades be an increase in the number of troops needed to take a field?? Just seems a little silly to me still that 10 troops walk into a town and take over the place!!At least increase it to like 20 or 30 troops !!yes/no? whats your thoughts

I've also vouched for getting away from every troop carrier being able to carry 10 troops and/or mixing things up in terms of how many troops it takes to capture the map room.  No, it isn't representative of the real deal.  British Royal Marine Commandos, or US Army Rangers, or other such special forces are not going to send 10 troops via M3 half track barreling through the forest at top speed to an enemy town in hopes of getting to the "map room" to blow it up and declare the base now theirs.  It is just a representation, obviously.

Also, currently with 10 troops in every troop carrier and the base needing 10 troops for the "winz", it is too easy for a defender to strafe the troops, get only one, and save the day.  I say any one of a number of things could mix it up easy enough to make it more involved.

HTC could give each troop carrier a number of troops more closely matched to what it could actually carry in WWII.  The M3 and SdKfz 251 both could legitimately carry 10 combat troops, so I say leave it the same.  The LVT-2 could carry 18 troops.  The C47 goon could carry 28 paras (or thereabouts).  So with that in mind why not keep the M3 and 251 at 10, increase the LVT-2 to 12, and the goon to 14 or 16?  Oh, and why not up the number of troops needed to 12 to capture a map room to 12?  By increasing to 12 the two larger troops carriers would always be available to get the capture providing the hangers are up, and the M3's speed would be more of a luxury with 2 M3's needed or a combo of an M3 and a jeep.  Simple, yet it mixes it up.

HTC could also play with the % of buildings that need to be down as well.  Remember, AH is full of arbitrary settings.  I wish HTC would consider mixing up times and requirements for capture, OBJ destruction, etc, etc, from time to time to put a spin on things.

[Tinkles]

I've also vouched for getting away from every troop carrier being able to carry 10 troops and/or mixing things up in terms of how many troops it takes to capture the map room.  No, it isn't representative of the real deal.  British Royal Marine Commandos, or US Army Rangers, or other such special forces are not going to send 10 troops via M3 half track barreling through the forest at top speed to an enemy town in hopes of getting to the "map room" to blow it up and declare the base now theirs.  It is just a representation, obviously.

Also, currently with 10 troops in every troop carrier and the base needing 10 troops for the "winz", it is too easy for a defender to strafe the troops, get only one, and save the day.  I say any one of a number of things could mix it up easy enough to make it more involved.

HTC could give each troop carrier a number of troops more closely matched to what it could actually carry in WWII.  The M3 and SdKfz 251 both could legitimately carry 10 combat troops, so I say leave it the same.  The LVT-2 could carry 18 troops.  The C47 goon could carry 28 paras (or thereabouts).  So with that in mind why not keep the M3 and 251 at 10, increase the LVT-2 to 12, and the goon to 14 or 16?  Oh, and why not up the number of troops needed to 12 to capture a map room to 12?  By increasing to 12 the two larger troops carriers would always be available to get the capture providing the hangers are up, and the M3's speed would be more of a luxury with 2 M3's needed or a combo of an M3 and a jeep.  Simple, yet it mixes it up.

HTC could also play with the % of buildings that need to be down as well.  Remember, AH is full of arbitrary settings.  I wish HTC would consider mixing up times and requirements for capture, OBJ destruction, etc, etc, from time to time to put a spin on things.

Very nice setup, I like it.

+1