• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Betio and Multiplayer Campaign Changelog

Yes I agree.

The situation was first that we as axis had repressed the allies to one territory. Three times in a row we couldn't conquer it and three times the allies dug in to defend. So I thought this was a standard situation because they had not enough combat power. After our third inability to capture they could attack territories. I asked in the chat two times but I got no answer.
 
Upvote 0
[...] I am not a fan of locking points period- Especially on Station (and every other map)- But on Station, If you cannot fight over A- back and forth over a period of time the Russians will lose the map- Which they usually LOSE most of the time anyway.

Making points lock, is like putting training wheels back on your kids bicycle after they learned how to ride it.

It makes the maps boring to lock the points. Because you know that once they get C, its over... Like Mamyyev - which is a map I have long despised for a variety of reasons. Lowering the German reinforcement rate is not going to address the glaring issues with the map.
I'm not a big fan of locking points, but it's sometime necessary and understandable to balance a map. It also serves a specific purpose (allows attackers vs defenders maps with much harder/numerous capzones, than with a standard Axis vs Allies map).

-

On Station, the Axis can lose an awful lot of reinforcement to get A, and if they don't capture it fast enough, they'll run out of reinf too fast to finish the map.

That's mostly caused by the Allies ability to shoot and kill Axis players a handful of meters from their spawns, and the inability for the Axis to sneak on the flanks ("Combat Area" zone, train wagons blocking the path).

The idea is that Axis will "spend" a lot of reinforcements to get each capzones (especially A), knowing that they won't have to spend that huge amount again.

The fact that after getting A (and B) the rest is usually a quick steamroll (because indoor fights are easier for attackers) needs to be balanced there - not in the capzone A. Otherwise the map will be fought at A alone.

-

Regarding locked captures, they can sometime be adequate if capzones aren't that close to each others, and if there was a timer between each captures (to prevent ninja captures, at least by letting defenders run back to the now endangered capzone).

Without locked captures, any long flanking maneuvers, or an attack getting stopped for a minute, or a well-placed arty, can let a small group of defenders (and the SL1 if possible) can retake any capzone (who are too small to be populated by attackers when they move up from their spawn). And such thing can break the entire balance of the map in just 2 minutes.

A recapture of a capzone moves the spawn locations backward, requiring the attackers to spend all these reinforcements AND time to retake that point. A single recapture, even brief (like when it's ninja'ed), will prevent the attackers from winning the rest of the map.

In my opinion, defenders getting steamrolled could be fixed with:
  1. Existing defenders in the capzone get teleported back to the next capzone 20 sec after capture (if they're still inside it), rather than killed. "You escaped from the enemy lines" and voila.
  2. After a capzone is taken, for 30 seconds/the next 2 spawn waves, are located INSIDE the next capzone and a HUD message says "Defend this %capzone_name% ! The enemies are coming !" (50/50 spread if there's 2 active capzones now) to make sure the next capzone(s) is(are) populated with defenders, to give them a chance. After that, defenders spawn at their usual spawn locations (away from the capzone).
Most defenders will stay there, or barely move forward (= no over-punishing counter-attack), while it will prevents a small group of 10 or so attackers to steamroll through the level (while most defenders are trying to find where they're supposed to defend and trying to get there "on time").

-

This game needs more Tanks on maps that can handle Tanks... not less.
If tanks were balanced and fixed, yes.

Tanks are currently way too OP (and I say that as a tankist, getting 60 kills per round on average without any effort, so 100-120 kills per map, is just silly OP) and AT soldiers are broken: they can't get close in 90% of times (so forget about AT grenades), while the PTRS/PZB doesn't work unless you hit the very few 1-hit-kill pixels (then it's "OP" in these right hands).

Combined Arms maps can't handle more than 1 tank per active capzone/fighting area (thus why the huge map with the island and the bridge can handle it a bit better), more than that and you've got at least one tank happily mowing down infantry without being interrupted by an enemy tank or good AT soldier ever.

It seriously needs a nerf against infantry (and don't give me of these "realism" cries, RO2/RS is far from being a milsim and plenty of other elements are much worse regarding "realism"), maybe:
- Lowering the amount of HE rounds (and adding ammo cache at home (spawn) on all maps, to force regular visits if you spam your HE shells)
and/or
- making the MG overheat (easy to add I guess, but I don't really like the idea)
and/or
- slightly lose accuracy after the initial burst of 5 or 6 bullets.
and/or
- slow down the cannon (and the co-axial mg) = move mouse, it waits a short delay, then moves. Would make chasing (with your MG fire) infantry running left and right a little bit challenging (unlike now where it's shooting fishes in a barrel).​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0