Set up is yet to be determined as far as I understand.

I actually do see some potential in it but ONLY as long as it does not negatively affect the air war

For example you could have (as a possibility)

M4 tank login in order to play with GVs in the online battlespace
- This game interface can retain in-game map overlay stuff.
- This game interface allows players to switch between their AIs, (on death also).
- Forward deployment set to a suitable range (minimum drive time to target)

Warbirds login in order to play with Planes in the online battlespace
- Normal Warbirds game interface and in-game map
- No GVs selectable

All fields can be set to automatically spawn defensive AI routines to repel an incoming GV attacks.
(Number type and aggressiveness of AI can be fully modified.)

In this scenario, Warbirds players can basically go about their normal business.
If and when GV's attack a field, AI’ defenders in GVs will spawn.

Warbirds players either choose to can leave them to it or assist if they want to with aerial support
(either offensively or defensively)

Forward deployment is NOT going to be active at ALL fields.
There are set up parameters you can adjust such as – paired bases MUST be a minimum “X” miles apart.

It’s all about having the right set up and balance.

_________________
VISIT OUR FACEBOOK PAGE HERE
https://en-gb.facebook.com/RAF-Duxford- ... 822661588/

<S> all
well that was an 'interesting' WB experience. One sortie - 70min (I default 75% fuel) saw a single high bomber (<S> pilot, very high, accurate), chased a couple contacts one of which, a f4u, just ditched rather than fight(no he didn't run out of anything-was inbound saw enemy and turned around), that was it for airborne contacts. then used up ammo shooting at M5s, pinging tanks, before finally getting bounced over my own field by a fighter, the first warbird I saw up close the entire time.
My point, during US prime time, I saw more GVs than planes. Tanks and M5s were instantly respawning at very short distances from the field, while my allies and I were using up ammo.
A possible tweak if I may suggest, no points for GVs or at least no trooping GV with remote spawns.
I've tried remote spawns and GVs at offpeak hours. I could take up to medium sized fields on my own, and I am not at all tanker. Two guys working together could run the map. I understand the goal of enticing new players with easy-mode type lures, but it might just drive away some of players who come for air combat.
IEN, if anyone is reading, please note unintentional consequences.

_________________


Reisen pilots have big hinomarus

Hi all. ten cents worth. Agree with most of the points re the forward deploy. understand that ient wants to attract players, but seems people are drifting away because of it. Am teetering myself.

if we must have this inflicted on us, at least it could be done to address some other issues in the game. A big one is unbalanced numbers. Seems to be rare that it's not skewed 2:1 or so in either direction these days. makes it worse when people seem to log when the numbers don't go their way rather than swap (i tend not to, because of the squad, which i know is pity).

So why not use forward deploy to rebalance things? Such as adjusting the distance needed to drive according to number ratios. or take forward deployment away entirely from a side when there numbers exceed 150% of the other side. Something like that would make sense to me.

these suggestions (from Spiro) sound good as well:

Perhaps some limits on respawning? number of remote spawns, ever lengthening distance from target, or time window?

Glad, no ecstatic, to see that the hated Forward Deploy seems to have been quietly dropped. Bravo iEnt for listening to the core players who keep this game up and running.