• 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/

Defenders having time to prepare.

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.
 
Upvote 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
Upvote 0
[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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 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?
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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)
 
Upvote 0