Troops that shoots , attacks and defends

[bustr]

I always thought the first logical test of FPS would be a few of the base capture troops are player manned positions.

Consider all of the unintended consequences of that. Newbie player doesn't get how to man the FPS troop and never gets to the map room. Result, 4 hours of hard work down the drain. Or, player manned FPS troop gets PO'd at the armchair generals screeching from their hovering fighters where and how to go and he slows to a crawl. Or player manned FPS troop decides he wants to run over to the airfield and spawn camp the runway, screw the capture.

Once a player and his freedom of choice and mobility is injected into the capture mechanism at such a level. The numbers of things that can go wrong, along with impacting the fun of, and sense of accomplishment expected by, the group who just expended the majority effort is exposed to an unnecessary risk. By the time you need troops to run into a map room, you basically need mindless suicidal robots. Not humans who will hesitate, worry about getting caught, or will just want to act contrary.

At the time Hitech introduces player FPS troops, I hope he introduces a different capture mechanism that will not rely on humans to replace robotic single minded purpose as the flag capture process. Like not introducing strategic objects which can be bombed to 0% effectively killing the war effort of a whole country by a single player's button press from his safe bombers at 30,000ft. Player FPS troops as part of the flag capture holds the efforts of many to the calamity or caprice of a tiny number of players. Suicidal robots are for now a fair solution. 

[Saxman]

Maybe instead of having capture-the-flag/maproom, it instead becomes "capture and hold territory." Move the capture mechanics away from the fields themselves, so attacking a field instead has more to do with suppressing bases supporting the capture target, rather than capturing the base itself. This would also require much more effort on the attacker's part, because they may now have to pin down multiple fields to capture the area rather than being able to mob a single base at a time to roll it.

[bustr]

Most base captures these days look like adults parodying grade schoolers trying to play soccer. The best you get in most cases is everyone, including some times the goalie, running the same direction the ball is rolling. And you are projecting a future game that only the US Military could pull off playing in a complex structured manner. Because they have the power to bring up anyone not complying with orders on articles.

So how are you going to force(punish) the AH grade school soccer team to comply long enough to pull off your well organized vision? Making the game mechanisms more complex will not suddenly make the players anything more than they currently are.

After 12 or so years, if more complexity was going to be the ultimate secret to increasing membership in this game. We probably wouldn't have players much younger than their mid 20's nor older than their late 40's. Structured complexity is very demanding, frustrating and taxing on most people. Games that are fun, leave the complexity level up to the imaginations of it's players, while keeping it's structures accessible to even the least able of it's players. One of Hitech's strengths.

Complex structures tend to fall apart under their own weight unless they are slavishly tended too all the time. And so they have functionally imposed fitness requirements for the operators to keep grade schoolers from breaking them.

[BowHTR]

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.

It doesn't relate directly to your wish, but something to keep in mind.

HTC has said that if they ever increased the number of troops a single player could bring to a capture they would also increase the number of troops NEEDED to capture to match.

and

If you increase the amount of troops that are required to take a base. HiTech would simply increase the capacity of the troop carrier vehicles/plane to that limit. So it would still only require 1 m3 1 sdk or 1 C47 to take a base. Not 2 like you are wanting. HiTech stated this a while ago.

Tinkles

<<S>>

[SmokinLoon]

It doesn't relate directly to your wish, but something to keep in mind.

and

I'm well aware of HTC's current position on adjusting the number of troops the carriers carry and the number of troops needed to capture a map room.  However, the only things absolute are death and taxes.  In terms of AH, one just can't hang their hat on a "for sure" thing.   

[Tilt]

I think the map room concept would have to go first. I would like capture to be based upon the occupation of a building by an infantry man.

In its simplest form infantry either shoots enemy infantry  or occupies buildings. I guess as it is now those buildings would be a combination of town buildings and barracks.

Occupy more than #% buildings = capture and access to gguns.

So to defend a town fill the buildings with defending troops..... Shoot incoming troops and troop carriers.

To attack a town , kill gguns, release attacking troops, destroy buildings with defending troops, shoot incoming defensive troop carriers.

COAD would be such that each trooper heads to the nearest town building not occupied by freindly.
If occupied by enemy a quick shoot out kills both leaving the building unoccupied.

The state of the town buildings ( destroyed or not) makes no difference. Except maybe that to kill enemy troops hiding in full buildings requires those buildings to be destroyed whereas splash damage is quite sufficient when firing upon troops hiding in rubble.

If troops see no enemy action after z minutes then they "go home for lunch"

The COAD is more complex, and I think troop icons would have to go to protect frame rates.... But the game play mechanic is really quite simple. One side had to get x% more troops into a town or onto a base than the other side.

[danny76]

^ Quite like this, attackers need at least 3 - 1 in favour to take the town, nice concept