Why does no one play standard warfare missions- Superpower & When Diplomacy Fails?

[BF2_Trooper 0]

I find these two to be quite fun when compared to Warfare BE, which I'll admit i havent played too much of but I don't like the way it's set up compared to Superpowers and Diplomacy. Yes I know there's no jets in the standard warfare missions, but they do seem to be a very well balanced missions that's easy to learn and get into. Also, fast travel, as unrealistic as it is, is very conveniant and makes capturing towns worth it.

[galzohar 31]

BIS warfare missions have plenty of problems, including the ones you described. You pretty much answered yourself here, probably along with other reasons you hadn't noticed because you didn't play enough yet.

[BF2_Trooper 0]

I don't see how "fast travel" is a bug. Gameplay wise it's very convenient.

[icewindo 29]

I don't see how "fast travel" is a bug. Gameplay wise it's very convenient.

Judging from your nickname I understand why you may think so.

As for my opinion...

Oh yep public servers are a no-go for me, domination and evolution (ArmA1) killed the game. They turn the game into a BF2/CoD screwup.

No respawn, no teleporting, no mobile spawns, no ranking system ftw .

[Beagle 684]

I don't see how "fast travel" is a bug. Gameplay wise it's very convenient.

its not very wise to use fast travel at all, because most of the time enemy posts are found by accident by stumbling over them by travelling from town to town in real time.

In fact that moving across the countryside with unpredictable encounters is the most fun in Warfare BE.

[BF2_Trooper 0]

Judging from your nickname I understand why you may think so.

As for my opinion...

I don't mind not having respawns.....IF this was AMERICA'S ARMY!

[nkenny 1051]

I find these two to be quite fun when compared to Warfare BE, which I'll admit i havent played too much of but I don't like the way it's set up compared to Superpowers and Diplomacy. Yes I know there's no jets in the standard warfare missions, but they do seem to be a very well balanced missions that's easy to learn and get into. Also, fast travel, as unrealistic as it is, is very conveniant and makes capturing towns worth it.

I think this is an excellent point of view and I fully agree. I'd be much more drawn to Warfare style PvP if the tactical environment was smaller, compact and driven by CONSEQUENCE rather than staying afloat on a broken economic system.

- Why must warfare cross the entire island?

- Why must warfare contain every gun, car, animal and vehicle in the game?

Vision

I think a warfare game with an infantry and infantry mobility focus would be grand.

> 8-12 Strategic capture locations, not necessarily cities.

> 2-3 Unique locations granting builders access to MBTs, Helicopter gunships, and other unique resources.

> For the commander -- less focus on maintaining a base and more on travelling to and reinforcing/improving captured locations.

> Asymmetric balance. Make the US and East side functionally DIFFERENT.

-k

edit: It is also rather immature to judge someone out on their gaming habits. I can't say I particularly enjoy neither BF2 nor playing chess. That doesn't mean my opinion carries more weight than theirs in arma2.

[[GLT] Legislator 59]

- Why must warfare cross the entire island?

- Why must warfare contain every gun, car, animal and vehicle in the game?

Something's in the work right now :) To spoil you, it's called Frontline Warfare and is more relying on massive AI combat and moving frontlines. It's no warfare modification, it's something new and far from complete. Just scout the forums here, some day in the near future you'll find the topic for it :)

[Sith 0]

I think this is an excellent point of view and I fully agree. I'd be much more drawn to Warfare style PvP if the tactical environment was smaller, compact and driven by CONSEQUENCE rather than staying afloat on a broken economic system.

- Why must warfare cross the entire island?

- Why must warfare contain every gun, car, animal and vehicle in the game?

I think one big reason for the lack of play on stock Warfare maps is the fact that the vast majority of people haven't really kept up with the vast amount of improvements and additions in the latest patches. They haven't exactly been highlighted properly, so it's not entirely unexpected. It's something we have to look into, because we've noticed the "full map, no FT" approach in BE Warfare puts off a lot of newcomers, with all due respect to Benny's work.

One of the most important additions has been the big list of customisable parameters in the server setup. Amongst them is: Capturable Towns Present. This self-explanatory setting addresses exactly the issue you just brought up. Gameplay can extend to all corners of the map, or be limited to just 2 or 3 towns; always clustered in a randomly selected region of the map, so variation between games is ensured. The low number of towns will ensure a low Supply income in a high intensity combat environment, thus greatly reducing the role of air and armor in favour of infantry tactics.

Combine this with the Neutral Town Opposition difficulty level and it's easy to set up a game where you'll be mourning the loss of a single TOW HMMWV or LAV even at the ending stages of the game.

Warfare is still constantly being worked on, so by all means, I'd very much welcome a discussion of the stock vs (e.g.) BE version features. Share what you feel are the strengths and weaknesses of certain elements from a gameplay, tactical or strategic point of view. But please leave out any rethorics that have no basis in functional gameplay ("bcuz teh IRLz!!") or are blatantly judgmental towards others. Yes that'd be you Icewindo. No need to be religious fanatics holding on to our age old sacred scrolls here. It's great to think outside of the box and discuss how for instance we can translate this sense of self-preservation to a respawn environment through penalising death or rewarding survival. In my opinion, it's all completely relative to the amount of your time/score investment you're likely to lose.

[Edit] A quick list of interesting topics off the top of my head:

* Respawn/loss penalisation vs gameplay momentum

* Fast travel conditions and consequences

* Fixed wing aircraft use as endgame mechanic

* Balancing light (inf, recon) and heavy units towards the endgame

* Introducing "noobs" and JIP players to a running game

* One base vs many bases vs game length

Edited April 19, 2010 by Sith

[[GLT] Legislator 59]

The low number of towns will ensure a low Supply income in a high intensity combat environment, thus greatly reducing the role of air and armor in favour of infantry tactics.

Which leads to the next problem. No mission creator can satisfy everyone. In that case I know a lot of people who would like to fly in choppers/planes only because they couldn't during the Operation Harvest Red campaign. It's very, very difficult to implement features and tactics in a mission (no matter if warfare, coop, pvp, ...) and please everyone :(

[galzohar 31]

Shorter games would definitely be welcome, as right now unless you're willing to sit through a few hours, you're not going to get to see a game from start to finish, and to be honest it's pretty much impossible to truly balance a game that has many people joining/leaving during the match. I want to be in good/bad position because I did good/bad, not because 2 hours earlier someone did good/bad and I JIPed into his slot.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

I've been hooked on When Diplomacy Fails for a few moths now.

We play anywhere from 5-40 towns (depending on time we have to play).

Changing the Parameters can truly make things great, such as "starting distance" , "neutral town opposition" & "town defense range".

15 towns is perfect for those less than 3 hr battles, but it really depends on finding the enemy bases. We only use helo's if we want to end the game quicker.

[BF2_Trooper 0]

I

Warfare is still constantly being worked on, so by all means, I'd very much welcome a discussion of the stock vs (e.g.) BE version features. Share what you feel are the strengths and weaknesses of certain elements from a gameplay, tactical or strategic point of view. But please leave out any rethorics that have no basis in functional gameplay ("bcuz teh IRLz!!") or are blatantly judgmental towards others. Yes that'd be you Icewindo. No need to be religious fanatics holding on to our age old sacred scrolls here. It's great to think outside of the box and discuss how for instance we can translate this sense of self-preservation to a respawn environment through penalising death or rewarding survival. In my opinion, it's all completely relative to the amount of your time/score investment you're likely to lose.

Thank you for paying attention to this and allowing us to make suggestions for these awesome game modes you have created. :D

I do have a few suggestions that could make these modes more fun and a just a little more fast paced (Gasp! Yes, I said the two F words!). How 'bout a better respawn system that lets us respawn near our squads or lets our AI squadmates respawn near the squad. Or at least give us a limited number of such respawns. It is just frustrating sometimes to be travelling for 15+ minutes to a town only to have your squad blow up in your humvee and then to be thrown back to HQ with no units left.

I noticed that new weapons you buy once don't have to be bought again if you die and respawn. So maybe you could do the same with squad mates you buy.

---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ----------

I've been hooked on When Diplomacy Fails for a few moths now.

We play anywhere from 5-40 towns (depending on time we have to play).

Changing the Parameters can truly make things great, such as "starting distance" , "neutral town opposition" & "town defense range".

15 towns is perfect for those less than 3 hr battles, but it really depends on finding the enemy bases. We only use helo's if we want to end the game quicker.

Hey BigBear how's it going? I've actually played in your server where you know me as TJX. Keep up your support for Diplomacy. Hopefully this discussion will get people to give these modes a second chance and get more players into servers like yours.

[nkenny 1051]

THOUGHTS

*shrug* begin by asking yourself what kind of conflict you want your scenario to emulate. Unconventional like Iraqistan, or conventional like the recent conflict between Georgia and Russia. Currently all warfare games are conventional and model distinctly symmetrical struggles.

1. Look for features to activate the crowds of people who only want to ninja around with DMR/SMAW combinations.

2. Look for features that bring players together in mutual teamwork.

3. Clear cut gameplay. More transparent numbers/loss gain. Obvious objectives.

ZONE ECONOMY

Current problem. Zones represent a cash resource that is hard to value. Their chief value is to give you some extra dough as you hunt down AI. Now if if each zone was the equivalent of a MBT – it be easier to relate or understand its worth.

Another issue is that there is no reason to travel to an already owned zone. Aside from protecting it from enemy interests that is. It be much better if prospective builders/engineers had to travel to zones building improvements to increase their factions economy. This would also give the enemy team something to blow up!

Suggested building options:

- Repair and rearmament

- Fast Travel Node

- Supply improvements

- Various Point Defences

It be preferable if certain zones had unique traits. Permitted building of MBTs or Gunships for instance.

ECONOMY OF DEATH

Death in the warfare gamemode comes in two basic varieties. Either whilst moving between zones or right next to a conquered camp. Typically there is a 10-20 second revive timer going. In one case the penalty is the time (and frustration) it takes to move back into an interesting AO. Not to mention gathering your confused troops. In the other the game is an inevitable grind vs AI; a pointless experience utterly devoid of interesting team play.

An interesting option would be the ability to teleport (for a cash cost) to any location where three (or more) of your squad members are present(AI or not). Obviously not possible if the enemy is on top of them.

ECONOMY OF PURCHASE

The two different types of currency in the game Dollars and Supply aren’t exactly perfectly fitting in my mind… But hey. This is a game where a small barracks building can magically transform empty air into soldiers.

>> Supply as a limiting factor is a wonderful feature. And it’s a feature I feel should be adopted for purchase of units replacing the ‘dollar’ economy. Lets say each zone is worth 8 (12 upgraded) supply. 1 supply == 1 Man. 10 supply == 1 MBT etc

>> Imagine dollar rewards being spent to ‘cheat the system’. Use dollars to purchase personal weapons, finance fast travel, call for off-map artillery strikes, teleport to friendly squads(from hq), and so on.

>> How buildings are limited. I can’t say. Perhaps a simple slot-in platform? 2-3 buildings per captured zone?

ASYMMETRIC BALANCE

Exactly how varies wildly with the intended setting. Its not hard to imagine how to accomplish this though.

MAINTAINING INFANTRY AND LIGHT UNITS

The problem is not so much that infantry units are ineffective. Its more that their use is frustrating. Unwillingness to move when under fire, inept attacking routines, and so on make AI soldiers a poor replacement for human team members.

Having said that a squad of AI troopers can be a formidable force multiplier for a single player. (particularly with ACE2). As the game progresses I believe the keys are increasing the skill rating of purchased (and maintained) troops and increasing the options for resupply. Infantry in Arma2 are VERY fragile – if I could get new ones at every reinforced city…

DIFFERENT TEAM LAYOUT?

-- Piecing it all together.

:: High Commander – Voted

>> Builders/Engineers

:: (3 Slots)

:: Engineers build improvements in captured zones. They can only purchase a limited set of Transport helicopters and mobile spawn points/APCs.

>> Special Forces Strike Team

:: (6 Slots) Organized as one team?

:: Special Forces are unable to purchase AI soldiers (or perhaps only other SF?) Instead they earn their team additional cash $ for making enemy kills.

>> Commanders

:: (6 Slots)

:: The basic soldier from before.

The role of the high commander is unchanged, save the commander is an administrative task rather than a chore. Well fitting for budding armchair tacticians.

Mobile respawn centers and ultra mobility offered by transport helicopters combined with the ability to make zone improvements make engineers the logistical backbone of the team. Perfect for players who like to support their teams.

Special forces are for the girls who just want to have fun – perfect for JIPs and noobs alike. Players who want to come in and kick ass in a semi-organized team will enjoy this.

Commanders/soldiers remain mostly unchanged. For players who liked the old variations or just enjoy commanding larger forces.

Overall I feel many of the existing features are very effective at what they do. I don't think fixed wing aircraft have too much impact on the game -- finding the enemy HQ has more.

Session based play. 25-35 minute gaming rounds. More for the truely intense ones. Make warfare a game mode easier to "pick up and play".

-k

Edited April 20, 2010 by NkEnNy

[Sith 0]

Thanks for your elaborate response NkEnNy. It's interesting to see a lot of familiar concepts amongst your suggestions, hopefully some of which will make it past the concept stage :)

[BF2_Trooper 0]

I take it we are going to get a newly revised version of Warfare in OA?

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

It is just frustrating sometimes to be travelling for 15+ minutes to a town only to have your squad blow up in your humvee and then to be thrown back to HQ with no units left.

See in my opinion that should be the driving motivator for you to not get yourself killed by doing something, which is quite frankly, silly and illogical. An enemy holds a town and you drive your vehicle towards it with all your men inside it, perhaps get out sooner and send in infantry to scout things out or some other similar tactic.

Try to view it from the other teams perspective, if they spent the time and effort to set up and wait for you why should they be punished by you just showing up again 2 minutes later?

Anywho, whatever the devs decide to do is up to them naturally, but to me the ultimate attraction to Benny's warfare mission is his parameters. It easily has the most parameters of any mission I've ever seen and this is partly why it's so popular I think.

One one hand you can have a very very casual game where players start off with liberal amounts of money and can fast travel/respawn quickly and the like. Very fast paced with lots of action.

On the other hand that very same mission can be altered using the parameters into a very long and drawn out strategic game where it's more about the big picture and tactics than anything else. Suits players, like myself, who prefer that death actually has a heavy penalty should we meet the reaper as it provides great motivation to not become worm food.

Whenever I set parameters for a long game I will almost always disable the following:

3rd Person

Camp Respawn - this in particular has made for some very epic town battles as opposing teams try to find their enemy's ambulance as opposed to just heading for the indicated and easily visible spawn locations in each town

Fast Travel

Food for thought.

[BF2_Trooper 0]

See in my opinion that should be the driving motivator for you to not get yourself killed by doing something, which is quite frankly, silly and illogical. An enemy holds a town and you drive your vehicle towards it with all your men inside it, perhaps get out sooner and send in infantry to scout things out or some other similar tactic.

Try to view it from the other teams perspective, if they spent the time and effort to set up and wait for you why should they be punished by you just showing up again 2 minutes later?

Anywho, whatever the devs decide to do is up to them naturally, but to me the ultimate attraction to Benny's warfare mission is his parameters. It easily has the most parameters of any mission I've ever seen and this is partly why it's so popular I think.

One one hand you can have a very very casual game where players start off with liberal amounts of money and can fast travel/respawn quickly and the like. Very fast paced with lots of action.

On the other hand that very same mission can be altered using the parameters into a very long and drawn out strategic game where it's more about the big picture and tactics than anything else. Suits players, like myself, who prefer that death actually has a heavy penalty should we meet the reaper as it provides great motivation to not become worm food.

Whenever I set parameters for a long game I will almost always disable the following:

3rd Person

Camp Respawn - this in particular has made for some very epic town battles as opposing teams try to find their enemy's ambulance as opposed to just heading for the indicated and easily visible spawn locations in each town

Fast Travel

Food for thought.

Believe me, I've learned to dismount my guys half a klick or so away from the town and walk the rest of the way. And I always send light armor ahead to scout out the objective. But there are times when you randomly encounter OPFOR along the way while still mounted in a vehicle or when driving through a town that you thought was friendly.

Also, using helos as transports becomes completely useless thanks to the A.I.s incredible aim.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

YES...yes,

parameters needed:

AA=no,

Gunships=no

:butbut:

[Beagle 684]

Also, using helos as transports becomes completely useless thanks to the A.I.s incredible aim.

Ground fire is rarely the matter for Helo crashes in ArmA2...just fly as low as low 30 meters and at 3/4 throttle at 205km/h 110Knots in your Mi-8 or UH-60 ... that will give you good manouveability and let you survive up to four hot insertions in a game with Hinds or AH-1s already ruling the Sky.

It's basic...never, NEVER fly over towns that are not confirmed safe.

I had some warfare games with very good Squad & Helo-Insertion teamwork in the last three weeks on TV2 servers...its works if doen right...just dont forget to abort the extraction call if you find yourself under fire...and take some smoke grenades with you for faster extractions.

[BF2_Trooper 0]

Ground fire is rarely the matter for Helo crashes in ArmA2...just fly as low as low 30 meters and at 3/4 throttle at 205km/h 110Knots in your Mi-8 or UH-60 ... that will give you good manouveability and let you survive up to four hot insertions in a game with Hinds or AH-1s already ruling the Sky.

It's basic...never, NEVER fly over towns that are not confirmed safe.

I had some warfare games with very good Squad & Helo-Insertion teamwork in the last three weeks on TV2 servers...its works if doen right...just dont forget to abort the extraction call if you find yourself under fire...and take some smoke grenades with you for faster extractions.

That's assuming you're not alone in the server and running a fireteam and helo crew yourself.

[Beagle 684]

That's assuming you're not alone in the server and running a fireteam and helo crew yourself.

Warfare is not about playing it alone, my friend. The most thrilling moment are those whenit comes to a 1hour fight about a stupif town player teams vs. player teams.

A good and fast but safe Helo insertion is the best way to get a foot back in when you got kicked out. Its really nice to pop smoke and have a MV-22 land next to you 15 seconds after...and taking off another 15 seconds later as soon as you call out "all in, go...go" on vehicle channel.

[BF2_Trooper 0]

Warfare is not about playing it alone, my friend. The most thrilling moment are those whenit comes to a 1hour fight about a stupif town player teams vs. player teams.

A good and fast but safe Helo insertion is the best way to get a foot back in when you got kicked out. Its really nice to pop smoke and have a MV-22 land next to you 15 seconds after...and taking off another 15 seconds later as soon as you call out "all in, go...go" on vehicle channel.

And there in lies one of the main points of this thread - NO ONE plays these standard warfare modes, at least not more than two or three at a time and good luck even finding a server playing it. I usually go in an empty server that lets me choose a game mode just to get a Diplomacy game started.

[spangg 0]

my ideas:

- options to prevent the use of certain equipment for the sake of those who prefer infantry tactics(no tanks, fixed wings, rotary wings)

- much slower economy system:, let's play stalker style; I mean constantly struggle to gather some cash for a better equipment

- option to limit the available tanks and air by team example: 2 tanks and 1 chopper per team or only 1 tank per team. all matter of config, I guess it wouldn't be hard to implement

- maybe a new gamemode where you need to push the frontlines by capturing different points on the map at the same time. In this case when you advance forward, you may get better equipment(not necessarily), but spawning is only at base so it will take longer to get there.

[[GLT] Legislator 59]

- maybe a new gamemode where you need to push the frontlines by capturing different points on the map at the same time.

That's indeed in the work as I've posted before :) I don't know if it is offtopic, but I'll give some infos. Please don't take it as advertising. I'll create a dedicated thread for it including videos and many more pictures when the time has come.

- two teams are fighting against each other

- AI and player teams must capture towns or hotspots which belong to the opposite side (for example USMC must capture red zones, Russia must capture blue zones, green zones are FOBs)

- AI soldiers and vehicles can be ordered at HQ and FOBs

- spawnpoints are HQ and FOBs

- no fast travel, but "teleport" to the frontline (without AI)

- no earning of money, no base building

- AI will spawn and move towards the frontline

- easy setup in editor with module, synchronizing etc.

- silent mode for using the frontline warfare as a kind of warfare engine for coop or pvp missions

- 3 playable groups: infantry, tank driver, pilot (can be limited by mission designer however)

- AI parachute attacks

So anything will be possible. Tank vs. tank only battles, infantry battles and I guess many more things I don't think about right now.

Still to do:

- testing, testing, testing

- bugfixing

- proper translation

- design changes

- making it easy to mod (everything is hardcoded right now)

- creating parameters for mission setup (making it possible to enable/disable certain features)

- vehicle-enter limitations for player groups

It's a one man job so this will take a while to succeed. So basicly this is a warfare type mission without having to worry about building bases, earning money ... it's about fighting and using huge scale tactics. I remember some test rounds where I'll placed my player squads in uncritical areas and as soon as the frontline had moved we were able to capture 3 towns at once in a surprise attack. It reminded me to a simple chess game.