Warlords

[Jezuro 452]

Saving is disabled in all vanilla Warlords scenarios by default.

[Sophecles 9]

On 7/12/2019 at 2:59 PM, CaptainDawson said:

 

But why? I don't think you need to put mines on AAC to suppress Blufor air power lol. Whatever actually reaches the ground on spawn will not typically last long enough in the air to deal significant damage to Opfor. Exceptions being early in the game if Opfor doesn't spawn any planes, or if Opfor doesn't happen to have any pilots logged on, or if Blufor can suppress Opfor by camping all 3 of their airfields simultaneously. The balance is hopelessly messed up... AAC is typically the only place Blufor can spawn jets, and the runway is not even covered by the sector, meaning Opfor can literally stand on the runway and shoot everything that spawns, and even put mines on it. Molos IS covered by a sector, meaning Blufor cannot place mines at all. I've only recently figured out how to suppress Molos Airfield, Feres Airfield, and Almyra simultaneously, and it's not so simple as it is for Opfor to camp the single AAC airsptrip and completely deny Blufor any air assets. And still most players prefer to continuously spawn air assets for Opfor to destroy. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is no reasonable counter to Opfor's Shikras when AAC is being suppressed, and that happens every game.

  

I've been pushing a new strategy for Blufor lately, which seems to partially solve the issue of incessant camping by Opfor. Just don't capture AAC, until the right time comes. Unless you have ready and willing Blackwasp pilots logged on, there is no reason to create additional targets for the Shikras and Neophrons. They don't come over to Blufor side and camp when there's nothing being spawned! AAC is just a killing ground for Opfor, they even have an island from which they can camp with tanks with almost no fear of immediate retribution. Noobs have no idea where they are being shot from. All those players (with the exception of a few experienced players) that spawn Blackfoots, Pawnees, Wipeouts etc. are literally wasting their CP if they will immediately be shot down within a minute of taking off. It must have worked, cause the lack of Blufor aircraft made most of the Opfor pilots to switch to only Neophrons, until we had enough CP and Blackwasp pilots to actually fight back.

  

Look at this. Top 4 players obliterate everything in the match. You can tell by the kill distribution who is using what vehicle. Me camping airfield spawns and using Rhino on Anthrakia, Sopheles and Juju spamming Shikras and Neophron.

 

I just want the camping to end. Currently the only way to suppress camping is to camp the enemy yourself. I'd like there to be no more spawning vehicles halfway across the map in enemy territory, no more mining and seal-clubbing aircraft spawns, no more unlimited Rhino and Kajman ripple-fire exploiting.  Just let us play the match team vs team instead of 2 campers vs 2 campers dominating the entire match.

No more unlimited Rhinos? For once Kestrel, you're making sense. Its ridiculous that one side has artillery with the ATGMs and not the other, thats the biggest imbalance in Warlords ATM. Especially since you can hide them in bushes and factories which removes its radar signature.

 

And you're tactic is flawed. In fact it's worse if Shikra pilots transition into Nephs, since we can then lock and easily wipe out Bluefor armor and infantry with 4x AGs and the 40x rockets, forcing Bluefor to captured towns on foot... and even then we can identify bluefor's contested zone spawn and park a kajman to swat blue infantry with skalpels, essentially putting bluefor to a complete sandstill. Its actually even more of an incentive to attack bluefor once you're free of having to patrol in a Shikra, we literally only buy that plane to fend off wasps and intercept the hummingbirds and SDVs sneaking into opfor territory since they have better radar (shirkas identidy SDVs and Nephs/Kajmans/Xians bomb them). The only thing that changes by removing shirkas/wasps, is we don't have to patrol in one anymore to protect our CAS and don't have to worry about the only thing that threatens our airspace, being wasps. So now instead of finding 3 shikras over AAC, you'll find 5 Nephs, which is actually far worse if you're trying to defend ground assets. The a-10 flies like a brick with terrible climbing, so you don't really need to worry about those in a Neph. In fact its the same Shirka vs Wasp thing happening all over, except this time its just about the Neph flying faster than the A-10, but having a whole arsenal of AGs instead of a measely 3 GBUs. So hey, if you want to crippled Bluefor with that, I won't complain 😄

 

If you really want to protect bluefor aircraft spawn, I'd recommend both team's bases be in an aircraft carriers just off the shore protected by a destroyer, armed with full AAs. Their location can be randomized, which is an awesome concept and a perfect way of adding some fun new strategy to Warlords. That gives you what, 2 CIWS and spartan launchers with a denial zone of around 8 km? So you can take off your jets without being camped, you can repair the turrets for lets say 10 k, and it adds a really fun ship assault for the last objective 🙂

 

One last thing, occasionally we let Bluefor camp molos AF and call in a kajman every now and then to make them feel important while using Selekano airfield, it literally removes 2 - 3 of the more competent bluefor players + Ais from the battle 🙂

 

[Markkos26 2]

On 3/16/2019 at 2:51 PM, darrenin said:

Hey think I ran into a bug running it on Single player.  after I save and exit the scenario when I come back in the Warlords dialog box ( to fast travel/ recruit/ sector scan etc.) doesn't show up when I press "I". Next the map will let me select the next sector but it doesn't show up on the map or have any hud elements ( showing sector control progress etc.). After capturing the next sector I then can no longer select the following sector so I can't advance. 

 

I have noticed this with and without mods. basically it limits me to play through all at once or if I exit the scenario to come back later I am limited to only advancing for one more sector then get stuck. Is anyone else experiencing this?

@darrenin could you solve this?

I have the same problem for a long time and I can't solve it. 

[Beagle 684]

2 hours ago, Sophecles said:

No more unlimited Rhinos? For once Kestrel, you're making sense. Its ridiculous that one side has artillery with the ATGMs and not the other, thats the biggest imbalance in Warlords ATM. Especially since you can hide them in bushes and factories which removes its radar signature.

 

And you're tactic is flawed. In fact it's worse if Shikra pilots transition into Nephs, since we can then lock and easily wipe out Bluefor armor and infantry with 4x AGs and the 40x rockets, forcing Bluefor to captured towns on foot... and even then we can identify bluefor's contested zone spawn and park a kajman to swat blue infantry with skalpels, essentially putting bluefor to a complete sandstill. Its actually even more of an incentive to attack bluefor once you're free of having to patrol in a Shikra, we literally only buy that plane to fend off wasps and intercept the hummingbirds and SDVs sneaking into opfor territory since they have better radar (shirkas identidy SDVs and Nephs/Kajmans/Xians bomb them). The only thing that changes by removing shirkas/wasps, is we don't have to patrol in one anymore to protect our CAS and don't have to worry about the only thing that threatens our airspace, being wasps. So now instead of finding 3 shikras over AAC, you'll find 5 Nephs, which is actually far worse if you're trying to defend ground assets. The a-10 flies like a brick with terrible climbing, so you don't really need to worry about those in a Neph. In fact its the same Shirka vs Wasp thing happening all over, except this time its just about the Neph flying faster than the A-10, but having a whole arsenal of AGs instead of a measely 3 GBUs. So hey, if you want to crippled Bluefor with that, I won't complain 😄

 

If you really want to protect bluefor aircraft spawn, I'd recommend both team's bases be in an aircraft carriers just off the shore protected by a destroyer, armed with full AAs. Their location can be randomized, which is an awesome concept and a perfect way of adding some fun new strategy to Warlords. That gives you what, 2 CIWS and spartan launchers with a denial zone of around 8 km? So you can take off your jets without being camped, you can repair the turrets for lets say 10 k, and it adds a really fun ship assault for the last objective 🙂

 

One last thing, occasionally we let Bluefor camp molos AF and call in a kajman every now and then to make them feel important while using Selekano airfield, it literally removes 2 - 3 of the more competent bluefor players + Ais from the battle 🙂

 

I still don't get how a Radar can pick up a SDV at 20m Depth, in fact any depth, since radar waves are reflected by any surface, including water, thats not a feature but a bug. Detection of submerged targets is ony possibe by magnetic anomaly as Sonar. That's the reason why even outdated and refitted WW2 subs pose a big thread till today. Next question is, what weapon in game can hit a submerged SDV at -20m?

[Nic1 12]

@Jezuro another suggestion I have is randomization of spawn points when attacking a contested sector on every respawn such that a point is getting attacked from all around. It gets boring for both teams when the defending team is just camping the attackers spawn. It would be so much better if every time a player fast travelled to a contested sector, it put them at a different random point each time (allowing them the enemy to attack from multiple angles).

[Sophecles 9]

2 hours ago, Beagle said:

I still don't get how a Radar can pick up a SDV at 20m Depth, in fact any depth, since radar waves are reflected by any surface, including water, thats not a feature but a bug. Detection of submerged targets is ony possibe by magnetic anomaly as Sonar. That's the reason why even outdated and refitted WW2 subs pose a big thread till today. Next question is, what weapon in game can hit a submerged SDV at -20m?

Most SDVs I've seen are pretty close to the surface like 5 m below surface, Neph's AGs can usually lock it, if not a good old GBU.

[Jezuro 452]

@Nic1 Well as long as everyone is fast travelling from the exact same spot they will arrive at the same spot. Fast travel destination of contested sector is always relative to the starting position of fast travel.

[Victor_Cross 0]

Has anyone used this with wastelands or any other mission system?
It seems to override current mission events or prevents them from executing.

 

[CaptainDawson 93]

22 hours ago, Sophecles said:

No more unlimited Rhinos? For once Kestrel, you're making sense. Its ridiculous that one side has artillery with the ATGMs and not the other, thats the biggest imbalance in Warlords ATM. Especially since you can hide them in bushes and factories which removes its radar signature.

 

I've suggested this before, it's not one specific tactic that is the problem here. It's the meta that allows spammy tactics. You say it is ridiculous that one side has hidden artillery. Would you say the Rhino was overpowered if it could only fire 4 shots and kill one tank or 2 tanks total? What's overpowered is not the Rhino. It's the reload mechanic. It's not supposed to be artillery, it's supposed to be a Tank with a few BLOS AT missiles. Change the unlimited reload, and you fix the problem. It's not overpowered with the only 4 missiles it comes with. Reduce the ammo, reduce the cost. For all vehicles, not just the Rhino. T-140's sit up on the hill outside Titan range and rain down 120mm fire on the noobs at main airfield. With ammo and repair trucks sitting right behind him. Unlimited reload unlimited repair in a couple seconds.

 

Also Specktrum device could be a great counter to the Rhino's targeting system, as well as all laser guided weapons that are designated by a drone. In the campaign it can be used to detect and jam the AR-2 Darters. But it is currently only scripted functions I'm told, disappointing.

 

22 hours ago, Sophecles said:

And you're tactic is flawed. In fact it's worse if Shikra pilots transition into Nephs, since we can then lock and easily wipe out Bluefor armor and infantry with 4x AGs and the 40x rockets, forcing Bluefor to captured towns on foot... and even then we can identify bluefor's contested zone spawn and park a kajman to swat blue infantry with skalpels, essentially putting bluefor to a complete sandstill. Its actually even more of an incentive to attack bluefor once you're free of having to patrol in a Shikra, we literally only buy that plane to fend off wasps and intercept the hummingbirds and SDVs sneaking into opfor territory since they have better radar (shirkas identidy SDVs and Nephs/Kajmans/Xians bomb them). The only thing that changes by removing shirkas/wasps, is we don't have to patrol in one anymore to protect our CAS and don't have to worry about the only thing that threatens our airspace, being wasps. So now instead of finding 3 shikras over AAC, you'll find 5 Nephs, which is actually far worse if you're trying to defend ground assets. The a-10 flies like a brick with terrible climbing, so you don't really need to worry about those in a Neph. In fact its the same Shirka vs Wasp thing happening all over, except this time its just about the Neph flying faster than the A-10, but having a whole arsenal of AGs instead of a measely 3 GBUs. So hey, if you want to crippled Bluefor with that, I won't complain 😄

 

Here's the thing. What you said is true, but don't you think if Blufor had a significant advantage in airbases, the roles would be partially reversed? AAC gets camped not just because Opfor air power is "better", but because Blufor has only ONE base from which to spawn aircraft, while Opfor has 2. Molos is fully encompassed my a sector, AAC is not, etc we've already been through this many times. Well I'm going to be playing the Livonia Warlords from now on so I don't think this will be the same sort of problem there lol. One team does not have an immediate advantage in airbases over the other, there is one airbase, and both teams can interdict traffic since the sectors and bases are so close.

 

22 hours ago, Sophecles said:

If you really want to protect bluefor aircraft spawn, I'd recommend both team's bases be in an aircraft carriers just off the shore protected by a destroyer, armed with full AAs. Their location can be randomized, which is an awesome concept and a perfect way of adding some fun new strategy to Warlords. That gives you what, 2 CIWS and spartan launchers with a denial zone of around 8 km? So you can take off your jets without being camped, you can repair the turrets for lets say 10 k, and it adds a really fun ship assault for the last objective 🙂

 

This has been suggested several times, but yeah I completely agree with you. Doesn't necessarily have to be exactly like this since I know Bohemia was probably not planning an Opfor carrier. USS Freedom for both Opfor and Blufor is still better than it is now.

 

22 hours ago, Sophecles said:

One last thing, occasionally we let Bluefor camp molos AF and call in a kajman every now and then to make them feel important while using Selekano airfield, it literally removes 2 - 3 of the more competent bluefor players + Ais from the battle 🙂

 

 

Almost without exception there are only 2-3 competent Blufor players at one time who actually use their microphones and coordinate. There you go, there's the endgame solution to Blufor camping. You can win every time if they fall for it lol. BTW when I'm online if we're going to suppress air I make sure we have people on Selekano and Almyra too. It only works if all can be suppressed at the same time of course. I have been able to temporarily suppress all 3 by myself using AI manpads, Cheetahs, and mines, but of course with 2 aircraft spawns vs 1, Blufor cannot hold out forever against the likes of Sopheles, Jujupossum, and Raikkonen! Imagine if Opfor only had Molos and Blufor seal clubbed everything that spawned there. That's what playing Blufor feels like. It wouldn't be a fair match for Opfor, and it isn't for Blufor now.

 

Funny thing is, almost every team I've played with fails to recognize the fact that one thing is far more powerful than all the others. Infantry. You have access to essentially unlimited supplies of thermal masking suits, thermal goggles, and anti tank weaponry. If you use the stealth suits, there is often no way to find you in an aircraft besides a sector scan. If you use the portable AT to it's full potential using teamwork, you can render ground vehicles nearly useless. If people just coordinate, use the Arsenal, and get on the ground capping sectors as infantry, they are an unstoppable force against a few players in tanks and aircraft. Infantry can respawn and teleport for 50CP in SECONDS. You can't spawn a plane or tank and drive to the AO in 15 seconds. Every game it happens. Whichever team has overwhelming force on the ground capping sectors can win even with a massive disadvantage in tanks and air-superiority. But players often choose to play on their own instead of as a team... and when players start leaving it ends up becoming the inevitable game of Whack-a-mole.

[CaptainDawson 93]

9 hours ago, Jezuro said:

@Nic1 Well as long as everyone is fast travelling from the exact same spot they will arrive at the same spot. Fast travel destination of contested sector is always relative to the starting position of fast travel.

 

I never knew there was a connection between the starting position and ending position, is there a way to make this so players don't spawn on the same place regardless of where they start? Because currently we have players using thermals marking the spot where they see players appear at the contested sector on the map and then camping players who teleport to the sector. (Yes I have been guilty of this in the past too XD)

[Beagle 684]

5 hours ago, CaptainDawson said:

 

I never knew there was a connection between the starting position and ending position, is there a way to make this so players don't spawn on the same place regardless of where they start? Because currently we have players using thermals marking the spot where they see players appear at the contested sector on the map and then camping players who teleport to the sector. (Yes I have been guilty of this in the past too XD)

you can avoid that by simply spawning in from another vector, by moving yor ass before you spawn in... thats why having more towns can help, unsing vehicles canalso help. Be more creative, don't only stick to "tactics" like mining locatiosn that are not used.

 

 

another topic... it is very sad that Livonia draws so few players.

[Sophecles 9]

8 hours ago, CaptainDawson said:

 

I've suggested this before, it's not one specific tactic that is the problem here. It's the meta that allows spammy tactics. You say it is ridiculous that one side has hidden artillery. Would you say the Rhino was overpowered if it could only fire 4 shots and kill one tank or 2 tanks total? What's overpowered is not the Rhino. It's the reload mechanic. It's not supposed to be artillery, it's supposed to be a Tank with a few BLOS AT missiles. Change the unlimited reload, and you fix the problem. It's not overpowered with the only 4 missiles it comes with. Reduce the ammo, reduce the cost. For all vehicles, not just the Rhino. T-140's sit up on the hill outside Titan range and rain down 120mm fire on the noobs at main airfield. With ammo and repair trucks sitting right behind him. Unlimited reload unlimited repair in a couple seconds.

 

Also Specktrum device could be a great counter to the Rhino's targeting system, as well as all laser guided weapons that are designated by a drone. In the campaign it can be used to detect and jam the AR-2 Darters. But it is currently only scripted functions I'm told, disappointing.

 

 

Here's the thing. What you said is true, but don't you think if Blufor had a significant advantage in airbases, the roles would be partially reversed? AAC gets camped not just because Opfor air power is "better", but because Blufor has only ONE base from which to spawn aircraft, while Opfor has 2. Molos is fully encompassed my a sector, AAC is not, etc we've already been through this many times. Well I'm going to be playing the Livonia Warlords from now on so I don't think this will be the same sort of problem there lol. One team does not have an immediate advantage in airbases over the other, there is one airbase, and both teams can interdict traffic since the sectors and bases are so close.

 

 

This has been suggested several times, but yeah I completely agree with you. Doesn't necessarily have to be exactly like this since I know Bohemia was probably not planning an Opfor carrier. USS Freedom for both Opfor and Blufor is still better than it is now.

 

 

Almost without exception there are only 2-3 competent Blufor players at one time who actually use their microphones and coordinate. There you go, there's the endgame solution to Blufor camping. You can win every time if they fall for it lol. BTW when I'm online if we're going to suppress air I make sure we have people on Selekano and Almyra too. It only works if all can be suppressed at the same time of course. I have been able to temporarily suppress all 3 by myself using AI manpads, Cheetahs, and mines, but of course with 2 aircraft spawns vs 1, Blufor cannot hold out forever against the likes of Sopheles, Jujupossum, and Raikkonen! Imagine if Opfor only had Molos and Blufor seal clubbed everything that spawned there. That's what playing Blufor feels like. It wouldn't be a fair match for Opfor, and it isn't for Blufor now.

 

Funny thing is, almost every team I've played with fails to recognize the fact that one thing is far more powerful than all the others. Infantry. You have access to essentially unlimited supplies of thermal masking suits, thermal goggles, and anti tank weaponry. If you use the stealth suits, there is often no way to find you in an aircraft besides a sector scan. If you use the portable AT to it's full potential using teamwork, you can render ground vehicles nearly useless. If people just coordinate, use the Arsenal, and get on the ground capping sectors as infantry, they are an unstoppable force against a few players in tanks and aircraft. Infantry can respawn and teleport for 50CP in SECONDS. You can't spawn a plane or tank and drive to the AO in 15 seconds. Every game it happens. Whichever team has overwhelming force on the ground capping sectors can win even with a massive disadvantage in tanks and air-superiority. But players often choose to play on their own instead of as a team... and when players start leaving it ends up becoming the inevitable game of Whack-a-mole.

Spectrum device could be a good counter, but its not available in the arsenal 

 

8 hours ago, CaptainDawson said:

 

I've suggested this before, it's not one specific tactic that is the problem here. It's the meta that allows spammy tactics. You say it is ridiculous that one side has hidden artillery. Would you say the Rhino was overpowered if it could only fire 4 shots and kill one tank or 2 tanks total? What's overpowered is not the Rhino. It's the reload mechanic. It's not supposed to be artillery, it's supposed to be a Tank with a few BLOS AT missiles. Change the unlimited reload, and you fix the problem. It's not overpowered with the only 4 missiles it comes with. Reduce the ammo, reduce the cost. For all vehicles, not just the Rhino. T-140's sit up on the hill outside Titan range and rain down 120mm fire on the noobs at main airfield. With ammo and repair trucks sitting right behind him. Unlimited reload unlimited repair in a couple seconds.

 

Also Specktrum device could be a great counter to the Rhino's targeting system, as well as all laser guided weapons that are designated by a drone. In the campaign it can be used to detect and jam the AR-2 Darters. But it is currently only scripted functions I'm told, disappointing.

 

 

Here's the thing. What you said is true, but don't you think if Blufor had a significant advantage in airbases, the roles would be partially reversed? AAC gets camped not just because Opfor air power is "better", but because Blufor has only ONE base from which to spawn aircraft, while Opfor has 2. Molos is fully encompassed my a sector, AAC is not, etc we've already been through this many times. Well I'm going to be playing the Livonia Warlords from now on so I don't think this will be the same sort of problem there lol. One team does not have an immediate advantage in airbases over the other, there is one airbase, and both teams can interdict traffic since the sectors and bases are so close.

 

 

This has been suggested several times, but yeah I completely agree with you. Doesn't necessarily have to be exactly like this since I know Bohemia was probably not planning an Opfor carrier. USS Freedom for both Opfor and Blufor is still better than it is now.

 

 

Almost without exception there are only 2-3 competent Blufor players at one time who actually use their microphones and coordinate. There you go, there's the endgame solution to Blufor camping. You can win every time if they fall for it lol. BTW when I'm online if we're going to suppress air I make sure we have people on Selekano and Almyra too. It only works if all can be suppressed at the same time of course. I have been able to temporarily suppress all 3 by myself using AI manpads, Cheetahs, and mines, but of course with 2 aircraft spawns vs 1, Blufor cannot hold out forever against the likes of Sopheles, Jujupossum, and Raikkonen! Imagine if Opfor only had Molos and Blufor seal clubbed everything that spawned there. That's what playing Blufor feels like. It wouldn't be a fair match for Opfor, and it isn't for Blufor now.

 

Funny thing is, almost every team I've played with fails to recognize the fact that one thing is far more powerful than all the others. Infantry. You have access to essentially unlimited supplies of thermal masking suits, thermal goggles, and anti tank weaponry. If you use the stealth suits, there is often no way to find you in an aircraft besides a sector scan. If you use the portable AT to it's full potential using teamwork, you can render ground vehicles nearly useless. If people just coordinate, use the Arsenal, and get on the ground capping sectors as infantry, they are an unstoppable force against a few players in tanks and aircraft. Infantry can respawn and teleport for 50CP in SECONDS. You can't spawn a plane or tank and drive to the AO in 15 seconds. Every game it happens. Whichever team has overwhelming force on the ground capping sectors can win even with a massive disadvantage in tanks and air-superiority. But players often choose to play on their own instead of as a team... and when players start leaving it ends up becoming the inevitable game of Whack-a-mole.

You can pretty easily maintain air superiority on Bluefor with only the AAC, just by having two wasps doing rotations. Juju and I did it countless times, hammering Opfor down to their quadbikes. In many cases the Wasp is actually a better fighter since you can control both skies and ground, while intercepting with radar campers trying to sneak in. Fatigue of having to explain to the likes of you every game why capturing AAC over north Ammolofi, and breaking down into kindergarden sized chunks how air superiority affets the survivability of allied ground units just drained us of our energy. We'd be doing circles over Opfor without a single radar ping to bomb, and Bluefor would be sitting, half AFK and half retarded trying to push Opfor before backaping.

 

And yes actually, if it shoots a single shell from 8 km out I think its unbalanced. If Bluefor ever gets more decent pilots like Kullwarrior and Opfor somehow loose air superiority and finds itself on the defensive, to the point of building a 30k Rhea, a Bluefor Rhino can just snipe it outside of enemy range, without even having a radar signal, essentially invisible in the bushes. As you said it yourself, its not suppose to be artillery. So you shouldn't have any objection to reducing the ATGM shell maneuverability to 10 - 15 degrees from its firing direction, so it cant shoot over hills or from factories, and limit laser detection range to 3 - 4 km which is the currently visibility range in Warlords. Somehow I get the feeling you'll still disagree, and for that same reason perhaps Livonia is a better place for you, where you can exploit your broken Rhino mechanic from your bush without fear of air repercussions.

[crs24 33]

A relatively simple fix (if it’s possible) that I see to the rhino in warlords without larger changes would be the aforementioned suggestion I gave to remove the send data link from the ar2s in warlords so the rhino can still get other vehicles data link like normal but it has to actually see the ar2s laser or aim carefully for LOAL. 

 

The rhino only works so well as artillery due to the data link letting it always see and shoot a ar2s lase in top attack mode from anywhere in 8km regardless of terrain, and of everything in warlords with data link that shoots (rhino,t140k,cheetah/tigris and Sam systems), nothing except for the rhino uses the data link to see a laser for actual laser-guided munitions, nothing in warlords with data link except the rhino and t140k can even see lasers and other than seeing lasers you can only see the ar2s IR sensor data and the drones position through data link, which the IR only detects anything hot within 500-1000m of the direction of the drones camera. With data link only being in a few vehicles in warlords and most people flying the ar2 above 1000m to avoid aa radar, that makes the IR sensor aspect in regards to data link mostly irrelevant in warlords except to the occasional Sam system that somehow radar locks from IR data, and the laser being seen purely by data link only matters to the rhino or t140k.

@Jezuro

Would datalink changes to the ar2 or others only when in warlords mode be possible, and with the ar2 backpack you get from the arsenal, could that drone instead be something you buy and place like the current static defenses? You would still be able to disassemble it to a backpack I assume after placing it since you used to be able to do that with the placed autonomous turrets. It would also stop people from getting dozens of ar2s at a time from the arsenal in one purchase and make them have to pay for each one individually.

[Jezuro 452]

I want to roll out an experimental version of Warlords in a standalone scenario on the Workshop in the next few weeks to test some fundamental changes like redesigned zone restrictions. We'll see how this all works there.

[CaptainDawson 93]

On 7/26/2019 at 6:08 PM, Beagle said:

you can avoid that by simply spawning in from another vector, by moving yor ass before you spawn in... thats why having more towns can help, unsing vehicles canalso help. Be more creative, don't only stick to "tactics" like mining locatiosn that are not used.

 

 

another topic... it is very sad that Livonia draws so few players.

 

I agree, those of us who know use this tactic just fine, the problem is more the new players. Most players don't know this information (as far as I can see). So they all spawn in one location for the most part. Would be nice to have at least a little randomization generated regardless of starting location so that people can't camp the contested sector spawns.

 

On 7/26/2019 at 9:43 PM, Sophecles said:

You can pretty easily maintain air superiority on Bluefor with only the AAC, just by having two wasps doing rotations. Juju and I did it countless times, hammering Opfor down to their quadbikes. In many cases the Wasp is actually a better fighter since you can control both skies and ground, while intercepting with radar campers trying to sneak in.  Fatigue of having to explain to the likes of you every game why capturing AAC over north Ammolofi, and breaking down into kindergarden sized chunks how air superiority affets the survivability of allied ground units just drained us of our energy.

 

Yes, because it's you and Juju. You are not going against equal skill pilots on Opfor in this scenario I'm quite sure. If all your Blackwaps were consistently shot down before they could take off you wouldn't be able to get air superiority. Either team can gain the advantage if they have experienced players, the problem is that there is not an equal starting balance in the way of airfield spawns and camping potential. Sure, there are times when players coordinate and overcome the imbalance, but the fact that nearly the same airpower camping situation happens almost every game is telling. The possibility to win as Blufor when you have good players does not negate my argument. Again, as someone who plays Blufor more than Opfor I've seen that unless you have at least one willing and competent pilot on Blufor, there is no reason to create additional targets for Opfor by capturing AAC. If no one on your team knows how to fly a plane or heli competently there is no reason to capture an airfield. Capping sectors is what ultimately wins the game, and when half you team is at AAC spawning Pawnees they don't know how to fly or fighting a single Opfor T-100 spawn camper on the island, that is not a benefit. When you get to the point you can field decent pilots, then you cap the airfield. This strategy keeps more players on the frontline instead of fruitlessly attempting to defend AAC from incessant camping. Doesn't always work, but it's been successful when I've tried it myself. We know that air superiority affects ground units. When air superiority is not possible due to incessant camping of our only usable airfield, I would rather those inexperienced players be fighting the contested sector than spawning Blackwasps for Opfor to spawnkill before they land. Fatigue of attempting to explain why the game balance and camping meta should be fixed (apparently to no avail) has led me to just give up and stop playing warlords like many other experienced players have.

 

On 7/26/2019 at 9:43 PM, Sophecles said:

And yes actually, if it shoots a single shell from 8 km out I think its unbalanced. If Bluefor ever gets more decent pilots like Kullwarrior and Opfor somehow loose air superiority and finds itself on the defensive, to the point of building a 30k Rhea, a Bluefor Rhino can just snipe it outside of enemy range, without even having a radar signal, essentially invisible in the bushes. As you said it yourself, its not suppose to be artillery. So you shouldn't have any objection to reducing the ATGM shell maneuverability to 10 - 15 degrees from its firing direction, so it cant shoot over hills or from factories, and limit laser detection range to 3 - 4 km which is the currently visibility range in Warlords. Somehow I get the feeling you'll still disagree, and for that same reason perhaps Livonia is a better place for you, where you can exploit your broken Rhino mechanic from your bush without fear of air repercussions.

 

But Shikra and Neo are both arguably better in air to air and it's somehow not unbalanced, despite the fact that air superiority is supposedly the deciding factor of the game? Sure I don't have any objection to reducing ATGM maneuverability or laser capabilities, it's not realistic the way it is. You realize you can lase through buildings, terrain, and even track players with a turret lock following all their teleports, even outside of the view distance? Yeah I agree it's bad. But I never use the Rhino "without fear of repercussion", it can be countered by any decent skilled player. All you need is knowledge of the literally only 3 sheds in Lakka and Neochori that they use 95% of the time. Bomb or rocket the 8 particular warehouses in the golden zone for the 8km range, and you suppress almost all Rhinos from operating under cover for the rest of the game. I've had players kill my Rhino from under cover 3 times in a row in a single game. You can literally join Blufor, find the Rhino player, switch teams and just kill him. It's not like they're planning on moving from their shed once they've set up! It is NOT that hard. 90% of players I have played with do not even know how lock onto laser designations with the Rhino! Rhino is overpowered in some respects and should be nerfed, but it IS counterable. Unlike going against experienced players in Shikras when our only airfield camped to death, for this there is basically no counter besides spawn camping Molos and Selekano simultaneously. Remove the Rhino for all I care it's not what wins the game. Air superiority is more often what affects the balance of the game, something which is decidedly in Opfors favor on the Altis map given equal team skill. The Rhino is not the only problem here. Randomized sectors? You wouldn't have people knowing precisely which shed to put their Rhino or camping airfields in the exact same way every game. Rhino AND Opfor air power should be nerfed IMO, and maybe sector/base locations should be randomized to encourage strategy instead of camping the same spot every game. I'm interested to see what Jezuro comes up with in the way of Fog of War, that's what will make me interested to play the game again.

[Beagle 684]

9 hours ago, CaptainDawson said:

I'm interested to see what Jezuro comes up with in the way of Fog of War, that's what will make me interested to play the game again.

I would not be surprised if we end up with something that is closer to ArmA II's Warfare. That mode was very popular just right because it was another game with each new match, simply because of the randomized starting point. "Warfare CTI" without an human commander and without base building. That's it, and that could work well.

[Jezuro 452]

I will probably need to disable switching sides completely if fog of war is enabled though.

[Beagle 684]

10 hours ago, Jezuro said:

I will probably need to disable switching sides completely if fog of war is enabled though.

Yes of course. Imho that should already be the case for Warlords. The current side switching is never used for any good 😉

 

Another topic in that regard: If the unit drop would not be possible right anywhere anymore, there would finally be a use for the vehicle in vehicle and slingload feature of the game. Would also mean,: you can not simply "drop" anything heavier than a Marshall anymore just out of thin air.

[Jezuro 452]

I plan to have only infantry droppable outside of owned sectors.

[CaptainDawson 93]

9 hours ago, Jezuro said:

I will probably need to disable switching sides completely if fog of war is enabled though.

 

Here's a thought I've been pondering for awhile: When players join, the default faction is Blufor. As in, it's the first slot list to show up, and you need to manually select Opfor in order to play as CSAT. A lot of players (including me on KOTH) just join whichever team they are seeing first on server join. This is one of the reasons that the newer players disproportionately join Blue in Warlords, because Blufor's slots are always what you see first, and very new players may not even know how to switch teams! I sometimes hear new players on Blufor asking why they get the balance parameter "black screen" and how to change teams. What if you had a 50% chance of connecting with Blufor showing first, and 50% Opfor showing first. Sure, players could still change to whatever team they wanted to play, but it at least would encourage new players to join Opfor as well instead of always joining Blufor. Take a look at the KOTH balance system if you're not familiar, it is VERY effective and fair for balancing teams for the most part. Players who are not squaded up and the players in game for the least amount of time are asked to switch to the team with less players, and are immediately compensated by a bonus if they choose to switch teams. Perhaps getting a CP bonus in Warlords for joining on or switching to the disadvantaged team could be an option?

 

Just a thought, with the FoW changes it may be a better option to disable team switching altogether in that case, although I'm not sure how you would prevent someone from disconnecting and rejoining on the other team without outright banning them from the opposite team on reconnect somehow...

[Sophecles 9]

1 hour ago, CaptainDawson said:

 

Here's a thought I've been pondering for awhile: When players join, the default faction is Blufor. As in, it's the first slot list to show up, and you need to manually select Opfor in order to play as CSAT. A lot of players (including me on KOTH) just join whichever team they are seeing first on server join. This is one of the reasons that the newer players disproportionately join Blue in Warlords, because Blufor's slots are always what you see first, and very new players may not even know how to switch teams! I sometimes hear new players on Blufor asking why they get the balance parameter "black screen" and how to change teams. What if you had a 50% chance of connecting with Blufor showing first, and 50% Opfor showing first. Sure, players could still change to whatever team they wanted to play, but it at least would encourage new players to join Opfor as well instead of always joining Blufor. Take a look at the KOTH balance system if you're not familiar, it is VERY effective and fair for balancing teams for the most part. Players who are not squaded up and the players in game for the least amount of time are asked to switch to the team with less players, and are immediately compensated by a bonus if they choose to switch teams. Perhaps getting a CP bonus in Warlords for joining on or switching to the disadvantaged team could be an option?

 

Just a thought, with the FoW changes it may be a better option to disable team switching altogether in that case, although I'm not sure how you would prevent someone from disconnecting and rejoining on the other team without outright banning them from the opposite team on reconnect somehow...

Agreed, Bluefor being swarmed by all the noobs and trolls is the main reason experienced players actively switch to Opfor. Just randomizing the team assignment for new players would solve that. One thing that KOTH team balancing does badly though, is you can be switched teams like 3 times in a game if there populations fluctuate alot, which kills any hope of teamplay. So players should always have the choice to switch to a disadvantaged team rather than being auto-switched, and if they do switch, I'd recommend all their vehicles and CP be refunded to 100%, even get a little 10% bonus or something. For teamswitching you could probably just lock players after they're on a team for more than 5 minutes, I've seen certain Wasteland servers where the team locking persists even if they leave and reconnect.

 

I'm familiar with Fog of War, but how does that work in Arma 3? Its not the same as view distance right?

[CaptainDawson 93]

19 minutes ago, Sophecles said:

Agreed, Bluefor being swarmed by all the noobs and trolls is the main reason experienced players actively switch to Opfor. Just randomizing the team assignment for new players would solve that. One thing that KOTH team balancing does badly though, is you can be switched teams like 3 times in a game if there populations fluctuate alot, which kills any hope of teamplay. So players should always have the choice to switch to a disadvantaged team rather than being auto-switched, and if they do switch, I'd recommend all their vehicles and CP be refunded to 100%, even get a little 10% bonus or something.

 

I agree. And while I have noticed I've been switched a lot early on in KOTH, after leveling up to level 20, joining groups and playing for longer, I've noticed I hardly ever get team reassigned now. I think it may take player in-game time into account for deciding who should be moved. I bet it has something to do with your score and kill count as well.

 

19 minutes ago, Sophecles said:

I'm familiar with Fog of War, but how does that work in Arma 3? Its not the same as view distance right?

 

No no lol, this is referring to Fog of War as in unpredictability. In real life, we don't always know where the enemy is or what tactics he will use. Currently, despite using so many human players, Warlords is extremely predictable. Randomizing some aspects of Warlords would bring back the unpredictability and add the real immersion that would come with combat in real life. Jezuro mentioned he is looking into a solution and brought up this subject a few posts back.

 

ALiVE is my favorite mod for Arma. It essentially takes a large group of infantry and vehicles and randomizes their starting positions, then uses a artificial intelligence commander to move them around on the battlefield to react to the dynamic environment. Basically it just puts human strategy into the AI, instead of the AI just standing there waiting for the player to come to them or waiting for a scripted trigger to react. In a large sense this is just the fog of war. When you play in this way not knowing where enemies are or what they will do, it is a totally different feeling than playing a standard scripted mission. Obviously that would be way too much complexity for Warlords, but even if we could have just a little bit of this sort of randomization in Warlords, both for the AI and for the players, it would really increase the immersion and make it more fun IMO. And by randomizing for the players I mean randomize the base and sector situation so that we have to make new strategies instead of doing the same thing over and over.

[Beagle 684]

30 minutes ago, Sophecles said:

I'm familiar with Fog of War, but how does that work in Arma 3? Its not the same as view distance right?

For example: you won't know what locations the opposing team is active in, until you actually get there. So you can't guess what they do just by looking up the map. This would also give light recon units a real value.

[Jezuro 452]

Re recon: Keep in mind that your movement around the map will be significantly more limited than it currently is.

[Jezuro 452]

Team balance during a match is a no go with fog of war, I can do a check upon player connection and make them switch sides before they see the base locations. If you let or indeed encourage people to change sides during the match the effect of FoW is basically down the drain.