Defenders having time to prepare.

  • 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/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

WiFiDi

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 12, 2010
642
168
0
what timur said they need to fix this. or alteast make it so we spawn closer and attackers spawn further back. :)
 

OneBloodyHero

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 22, 2009
272
76
0
Canada
I agree with the notion that defenders should be in defensive positions prior to an oncoming attack. If they are, however, attackers would have little chance.

Think of some RO maps where if defenders were in position (covering areas of advance from attackers) the attackers would be utterly decimated. Two maps come to mind, Zhitomir and Danzig. If the defenders deployed closer to areas of attackers' advance routes, for example the two bridges and boat crossing in Danzig, the defenders would ravage the attack. Mind you, this may not happen every time, but it really weighs against the attackers. That is why most RO maps are designed that opposing forces have a meeting engagement, even if one side is clearly the defending side, like the German forces in Koningsplatz.

An attacking force is usually at a disadvantage any how. Giving the defenders, even if its historically or realistically viable, more time and space (closer spawn points to defensive positions for example) to defend corridors of attack could bog down mp play.
 

Dwin

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 10, 2007
520
247
0
I agree with the notion that defenders should be in defensive positions prior to an oncoming attack. If they are, however, attackers would have little chance.

Um, no. This depends entirely on map design.

Think of some RO maps where if defenders were in position (covering areas of advance from attackers) the attackers would be utterly decimated.... That is why most RO maps are designed that opposing forces have a meeting engagement, even if one side is clearly the defending side, like the German forces in Koningsplatz.
RO maps aren't designed to have a meeting engagement because attackers would have no chance if defenders were prepared. The success of the attacking team given how well prepared the defenders are depends a lot on map design. If you had a map where the defenders had to defend a completely flat, barren field with rifles while the enemy team had tanks, it wouldn't matter how well the defending team was prepared, they would lose. Rather, RO maps are designed to accomodate both teams meeting at an engagement point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DiedTrying

Alvin Fuchs

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 4, 2010
279
488
0
Faustin' IS2s
[Incoming Pro-DH content, prepare your downvotes]

One will notice even after a short time playing Darkest Hour that many maps have initial objectives that are rarely defensible and seem almost like "free caps" for the attackers (indeed they're usually open fields). This system works well because it allows the first defender spawn to be somewhere near the second objective(s) which is really the first line of defense. Once the free caps are taken by the attackers, the defender's spawn moves a good distance back. Hey, that sounds an awful lot like giving the defenders time to prepare... silly DH and your crazy game mechanics.


One may counter this with the argument that the attackers will be slaughtered in the face of a truly prepared defense, such as DH-Cheneux. Tough. The attackers will learn to deal with it. It's really interesting to see how the DH playerbase has learned to adapt, and now you have Axis winning originally-unwinnable ("Allied biased") maps such as Cheneux, La Gleize, Targnon and Vossenack.


1:1 scale for maps should be of the highest importance in level design, followed by scenario-accurate loadouts and assets, with "balance" falling upon the shoulders of a team playing the map. Of course realistic balance is brought about automatically via aforementioned historical components.
 

OneBloodyHero

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 22, 2009
272
76
0
Canada
Um, no. This depends entirely on map design.

RO maps aren't designed to have a meeting engagement because attackers would have no chance if defenders were prepared. The success of the attacking team given how well prepared the defenders are depends a lot on map design. If you had a map where the defenders had to defend a completely flat, barren field with rifles while the enemy team had tanks, it wouldn't matter how well the defending team was prepared, they would lose. Rather, RO maps are designed to accomodate both teams meeting at an engagement point.

That is what I said, RO maps are essentially meeting engagements between two opposing enemy forces, where both teams advance from spawn points away from the first line or set of objectives. And yes, of course map design plays upon if the defenders ought to be stationed defensively and absorb an enemy attack like in some DH maps, or like in most RO maps where teams meet.

It really depends on the teams and the players. Even when maps are open and when it allows for optimal maneuverability, attackers can still get chewed up. In retrospect, thinking of how some DH maps essentially allow the defenders time to "prepare," in most cases the match is not bogged down in endless spawn-die cycles for attackers.

The way RO maps are designed and even some of DH's work perfectly fine for multiplayer play.
 

Frostedfire

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2010
1,055
153
0
oz
I'll put a note here - the best map in ro had the very first spawn be inside the at building, so it's not impossible :cool:
 

reyalpOR

Member
Apr 29, 2010
135
22
18
TulaOutskirts has something like that. The Allies' (Defense) initial spawn is right on the objective, while subsequent spawns are behind.

The "setup time" is around ten seconds before the bots become visual.
 

Game-Enthousiast

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 23, 2010
141
13
0
1st. in line in a Ju52
Men of War(or better the whole series) has the so called Frontline gametype, where one team attacks and one defends a frontline. You got 3 minutes to set up your defences, lay mines, tankbarriers, barbed wired..etc etc. But when it comes down to RO-DH... i have to agree here with Mr Fuchs.
Apart from the fact that well, you could get into defensive positions but its not like you have tons of assets to deploy. As we know HeavyMgs will be deployed at random on predestined spots.
Also depending on mapsize i would go so far to say if there is only a relatively narrow frontline and defenders would be able to get into positions a bit earlier arty could turn out to be too devastating.
 

LugNut

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 12, 2011
2,288
117
0
It's an interesting idea, I like it. Here's a twist that I haven't seen in my gaming experience that might help to balance an in place defensive force.

In a RL engagement, I'd imagine that the attacking side would attempt to attack with a greater force to overpower the dug in defense. What about different spawn times to simulate that? Say, 6 secs for offense and 10 for defense?
 

hockeywarrior

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
3,229
1,982
0
The RO Elitist's piano bar
www.youtube.com
I totally agree with the principle of this idea. It really bugs me when the defending team on maps half the time lose the point right away because both sides have to sprint to the objective. In reality, the defenders would be more or less "waiting" for the attack, so this makes no sense.

At the VERY LEAST make it so that the defenders have less of a distance of a walk to the point, at least for the first spawn or so.
 

Nicholas

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 16, 2010
1,275
665
0
When people say "the attackers would be decimated" well then learn to adapt, I'm not saying maps should be like enemy at the gates, defending can already be pretty tough, just let them actually setup first.
 

Actin

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 19, 2009
1,453
250
0
Netherlands
I totally agree with the principle of this idea. It really bugs me when the defending team on maps half the time lose the point right away because both sides have to sprint to the objective. In reality, the defenders would be more or less "waiting" for the attack, so this makes no sense.

At the VERY LEAST make it so that the defenders have less of a distance of a walk to the point, at least for the first spawn or so.

Just played Tula outskirts yesterday and it is very well done there.
Russkies start in the bunkers right away and the germans have to take them.
Thus I agree that I miss that in certain assault maps (it doesn't gfeel like defending if you have to get there first)