What FH2 is/should be about?

[General_Henry]

Historical Accuracy for sure. Seconded by poor balance of maps. (that is the spirit of FH! BIAS!)

I miss the times of desperate defence in a map that is severely axis bias, for example, operation Nordwind. Which often see axis total victories.

Another map of fun is Arnhem, PIAT vs cannons, flesh vs steel.

Oh, and against all odds in Berlin Streets (camped by Russian tank MG/cannon, blew up by russian 105mm Howitzer, mowed down by Russian PPsH...). The bf42 Berlin is a poor map with mirror balance and very often the Soviets lose or get camped. Berlin Streets was my favourite map in FH1, and almost no map in FH2 that matched that kind of immersion.

I mean, we might lose Berlin more often when playing the Germans but that is the kind of fun we wanted! It must be a challenge to change history right? The spirit of FH is Forgotten Hope!

But really, I don't liked to have bias in terms of vehicle performance (e.g. top shot issues), make it map bias, that would save a lot of disputes.


note: Alam Halfa is one kind of biased map which I liked a lot. Another is probably Seige of Tobruk. I'm yet to play a Normandy map which is biased, though. (perfectly balanced, good work... but lacking FH spirit!)

It seemed that there would be no maps with desperate Germans even in 2.26... Ramelle is about desperate Americans.

[Sgt.Radman]

IMO you have Anctoville which is pretty though if the British progress all the way 2 the Eastern side of the map, especially with tanks. And the Push mode is a challenge cause you can only attack those 3 points and the British are camping both bridges across the river.

Mount Olypmus is pretty grim for Zeek Cruisers. Unless they man an AT gun it's pretty Ger biased.

The only desperate Germans map would be Berlin I guess.

[djinn]

I think the game has come a way. You all recall before 2.2 and when you couldn't jump through windows and over short walls? Or crawl under or drive over fences?

Makes alot of difference and added new paths and approaches.

Personally, although I voted for immersion, thats only what I think the devs want it to be about.

What I'd want however is more encompassing.
I want more mechanics that aid suppression and flanking - meaning, more need to play as a team (contrary to what it says on 'the box', lonewolfing doesnt ensure a quick and painful death as it should), although there is proof that groups do achieve more and in cooler ways.

I also wanted more hand signals, like 'attack here' getting a BIA-like hand signal, raised fist for SL saying 'wait', that sort of thing.

Why? Because I've come to realize that pubbies actually do want teamplay, combined effort, military-like assaults and tactic over run-gunning. We dont give them the credit of thinkers, and so they don't dissapoint.

But the truth is, They simply dont know how to initiate tactical group actions; game doesnt have much more than an undeveloped infrastructure for that, and most would rather follow if you lead than lead themselves... If only you would.

Change this and you'd be amazed how much a more robuste and clear-cut design in communication aparatus, voice versus radio, animated signals and other team-play mechanics like suppression, push etc bring out the unvoiced need of people to play in team.

Currently, newbies start of trying to be tactical, because lets face facts, everyone knows this isn't CODMW. But then the lack of a means to communicate etc frustrates them and they give tp trying to work in team. Only resulting in that when they see a clear gesture in that direction.

And I'm not speaking out of my arse. Anyone who knows how I play online would realize the success and fun we have playing as team, even with as rudimentary comm as text-commanding.

Add little 'stupid' things like 'enemy @ 9 o'clock' etc a la my commo rose and you'd be amazed how free-thinking pubbies would play the game ww2-style

Frankly, I think we settled and haven't dared reach up for bigger, better things since

[Mud Buddha]

Historical Accuracy for sure. Seconded by poor balance of maps. (that is the spirit of FH! BIAS!)

I miss the times of desperate defence in a map that is severely axis bias, for example, operation Nordwind. Which often see axis total victories.

How do you rate a map like Operation Supercharge then? Sure, it's the other way around (Axis on the defensive), but if played well by the British this is pretty much a "last stand" map for the Germans. Same goes for Mareth Line.

But I guess it has to do with BF2 new game mechanics as well, compared to BF1942. The addition of squads make it way more teamplay-oriented with the added result that FH2 maps usually play out a bit more balanced, if both teams are up for it. I think a map like Nordwind plays a lot different when played with fireteams with open communications instead of individuals trying to defend a dense forest.

[Sgt.Radman]

I think the game has come a way. You all recall before 2.2 and when you couldn't jump through windows and over short walls? Or crawl under or drive over fences?

Makes alot of difference and added new paths and approaches.

Personally, although I voted for immersion, thats only what I think the devs want it to be about.

What I'd want however is more encompassing.
I want more mechanics that aid suppression and flanking - meaning, more need to play as a team (contrary to what it says on 'the box', lonewolfing doesnt ensure a quick and painful death as it should), although there is proof that groups do achieve more and in cooler ways.

I also wanted more hand signals, like 'attack here' getting a BIA-like hand signal, raised fist for SL saying 'wait', that sort of thing.

Why? Because I've come to realize that pubbies actually do want teamplay, combined effort, military-like assaults and tactic over run-gunning. We dont give them the credit of thinkers, and so they don't dissapoint.

But the truth is, They simply dont know how to initiate tactical group actions; game doesnt have much more than an undeveloped infrastructure for that, and most would rather follow if you lead than lead themselves... If only you would.

Change this and you'd be amazed how much a more robuste and clear-cut design in communication aparatus, voice versus radio, animated signals and other team-play mechanics like suppression, push etc bring out the unvoiced need of people to play in team.

Currently, newbies start of trying to be tactical, because lets face facts, everyone knows this isn't CODMW. But then the lack of a means to communicate etc frustrates them and they give tp trying to work in team. Only resulting in that when they see a clear gesture in that direction.

And I'm not speaking out of my arse. Anyone who knows how I play online would realize the success and fun we have playing as team, even with as rudimentary comm as text-commanding.

Add little 'stupid' things like 'enemy @ 9 o'clock' etc a la my commo rose and you'd be amazed how free-thinking pubbies would play the game ww2-style

Frankly, I think we settled and haven't dared reach up for bigger, better things since

+1
Definitely would love the introduction of hand gestures, probably a more context and complex commands (they don't need 2 be audio backed up). We currently have the "Mine these coordinates" order but it is never used. I never saw someone using it. I always try 2 use it, wisely. Destroy coordinates also.

Which reminds me. Why not make several destroyable bridges? Why not only vanilla style blow up? So we would have grater need of engies, 4 exmp. Other routes for passing through.

To me, you can only begin acting as a group only if u have voice commands or communication.

So until we have a more immersing command structure it won't be complete.


P.S. Sorry if I offend someone of the modders,moderators or other by saying "we" even though I'm not a part of the makers of this mod.

[el Garstico]

What FH2 is and what it should be, are two really different things.

[General_Henry]

How do you rate a map like Operation Supercharge then? Sure, it's the other way around (Axis on the defensive), but if played well by the British this is pretty much a "last stand" map for the Germans. Same goes for Mareth Line.

Supercharge is very winnable by the Germans, and the Germans often win that map.

Simple, a mine field up the hills denied any kind of armour support up there, and if a few squads are defending up there good luck seizing it. And stukas, panzers, often ruin the day of the Brit tanks as well. However, one thing that would solve this immediately is that the Commander could order pure smoke barrages without spending their precious field arty strike. (or the sole 25 pounder performing task of firing smoke?) This would help the Brits greatly.

Mareth Line is never desperate for the Germans, with all those AT guns, stukas, Marder I, Panzer III... you just can't kill fast enough the defence with the beaufighters. And very often the Brits have no choice but to backcap with bailers/landing their recon plane. As long as the AT gunners are not missing their shots, you just have very low chance taking them out. The only kind of advantage is perhaps you could spam Sherman/Grant HE at the Germans beyond fog range and they can't fire back effectively. But that kind of shooting skill is not really common among the allied tankers. (and you just can't really camp when there are stukas in the sky)

Of course, if the Brits played well the Germans could be reduced to 2 flags and getting camped hopelessly. But that only happened when the Brit team is far better than the German team. Which is definitely a bit wrong in logic...

a perhaps good fix to this is to make the back German flags locked before either one of the frontal flags are capped and the Brits have their tanks/trucks/APCs spawn in a "forward base" after taking the two frontal flags, currently I just don't liked tanking due to tiresome and boring driving time a logical place to put the new tanks maybe is right before the bridge. Alam Halfa is similar on the design and we have no doubt that it is a map that gives you the right feeling of forgotten hope. This design would definitely reduce the need of having a beaufighter that spawned immediately after you shot it down.


note: one thing that I'd like to see is kind of "25 pounder battery" that a single gunner that could fire more than one gun. This would mean that you could save one precious infantry/tanker from manning the artillery. Very often the artilleries don't really hit their target and having many artillery pieces on one side is sometimes a disadvantage rather than an advantage. FH2 is about abstraction anyway. Since we you are not supposed to be killed by MG fire/rifle fire when manning a 25 pounder in the main base it isn't really an issue that you can't silence the artilleries using knife for the other team. Or just make you not a gunner but instead a guy commanding two guns. (manned by invisible crews)

[Tedacious]

I can't believe "fun" isn't top ranked.

Sure historical accuracy, realism, immerison and whatnot is nice. But it's all parts of making the game fun.
If you have all historical accuracy and it's not fun, you wouldn't play it (even if you voted for historical accuracy).

If it was fun with no historical accuracy, you'd play it.

Fun is what it all comes down too, the other parts are ways of reaching "fun".

[djinn]

Well, I think its a no-brainer that's why

Fun is what ANY game should be about, doesn't tell you what would make it so

[Kubador]

Guys, there's an edit on what I meant by fun. Don't drill on it anymore 

[Capten_C]

I got to say that playin FH2 in the evenings over the past 2 or so years has given me some of the greatest **FUN** moments of my 15 yr gaming life/experiance. 

When we all got fed up waiting for new stuff and playing the same damn desert maps for the 1000th odd time,with a dwindling and depressingly low playerbase I was thinking of ending my playing time with this game. But some player, I forget his game name, introduced me to the delicate art of Kubel geballte ladunging. Which then progressed too the Sticky Willys experiance, only do-able on less than a handfull of maps of course. And while most of the time the tankers had us licked, there were those priceless/timeless/CRAZY FUN moments which I shall sorely miss come 2.3 with it's locked vehicles (I'm still unsure about this being a positive thing "FUNwise"). 

But there's something right, something about this game that clicks all the boxes and I'm glad FH2 was/is this way and not a dry boring simulation that would lack potential "Hollywood" moments. A game is nothing if you don't get entertainment and lol's from it, if so count me out.

With new and exiting content and maps coming we'll adapt of course, but I'll (in a gaming way) cherish those late nights of ROFL FUNtimes that we had in our Jeeps 'n' Kubels in the virtual deserts of Africa.

Salute! 

[General_Henry]

Sure fun is important.

FH1 is fun for sure... even if it is not really realistic, severely axis biased...

Or actually the fun of forgotten hope comes from bias? That a M10 can't stand shots from a Tiger? That one side has 10 tanks and the other side 2?

[Vernah]

I can't believe "fun" isn't top ranked.

Sure historical accuracy, realism, immerison and whatnot is nice. But it's all parts of making the game fun.
If you have all historical accuracy and it's not fun, you wouldn't play it (even if you voted for historical accuracy).

If it was fun with no historical accuracy, you'd play it.

Fun is what it all comes down too, the other parts are ways of reaching "fun".

It's fun for me to be in an immersed, historically accurate world war II game