PR game modes - are they realistic?

[arjan]

We demandz details !!

[[R-DEV]Rhino]

its surprising how many ppl dont even think about using the search function...

[badmojo420]

I don't like how on AAS maps everyone is rushing for unoccupied flags at the start of the game. It always seems to have a snowball effect of everyone always attacking, never defending. If the enemy takes flag "A" we go get it back. Leaving behind flag "B" completely undefended. I know this is also a team strategy problem. (We should be communicating/organizing better) But, the game mechanic doesn't seem to reward anyone for defending. I have a couple ideas that might reinforce the idea that the flag isn't just a quick points grab but somthing that should be guarded and valued.

First, Maybe in a simple 6 flag setup (2 mains, 4 capture points) two of the four already belong to each team. And that flag starts with a firebase built. Offering another spawn at the start of the game. Of course have no vehicles at the flag or firebase at the start of the round. To incourage people to spawn and defend the flag. Maybe make this the most distant flag from the main. (distant but not past the center of map) With this the enemy could still come in, destroy the firebase, take the flag. But if gives the defending side a little time to setup AA guns, 50cals, barbwire, etc.

Another idea is to let officers place objects (50's, barbwire, aa, etc) around captured flags. I mean they WOULD be a spawn in vBF2, so they should be more then just a few buildings that give us points. With this defending squads could throw up a rally around the flag and build up some nice defenses without wasting time or the use of a bunker/firebase.

Just my .02cents on AAS

[[R-MOD]Jigsaw]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

its surprising how many ppl dont even think about using the search function...

I used the search function but cudnt find scenario mode despite trawling through the Dev journal section. Cud I have a link?

Also I like badmojos idea of allowing defense structures (sandbags, .50s etc) placed around flags. Although its slightly off topic and I dont want to turn this thread into a rant about the current modes (which i think are fine as they are) it wud make defending a more attractive proposition.

In line with this increased focus on defence, squads could be given points on the basis of how long they spend within the radius of a CP, defending it.

[badmojo420]

Insted of points for simply standing in the CP zone, just increase the points they get for killing an enemy while in that zone.

[WildBill1337]

Originally Posted by badmojo420

I don't like how on AAS maps everyone is rushing for unoccupied flags at the start of the game. It always seems to have a snowball effect of everyone always attacking, never defending. If the enemy takes flag "A" we go get it back. Leaving behind flag "B" completely undefended. I know this is also a team strategy problem. (We should be communicating/organizing better) But, the game mechanic doesn't seem to reward anyone for defending. I have a couple ideas that might reinforce the idea that the flag isn't just a quick points grab but somthing that should be guarded and valued.

First, Maybe in a simple 6 flag setup (2 mains, 4 capture points) two of the four already belong to each team. And that flag starts with a firebase built. Offering another spawn at the start of the game. Of course have no vehicles at the flag or firebase at the start of the round. To incourage people to spawn and defend the flag. Maybe make this the most distant flag from the main. (distant but not past the center of map) With this the enemy could still come in, destroy the firebase, take the flag. But if gives the defending side a little time to setup AA guns, 50cals, barbwire, etc.

Another idea is to let officers place objects (50's, barbwire, aa, etc) around captured flags. I mean they WOULD be a spawn in vBF2, so they should be more then just a few buildings that give us points. With this defending squads could throw up a rally around the flag and build up some nice defenses without wasting time or the use of a bunker/firebase.

Just my .02cents on AAS

that problem could be solved by making the commander position more useful.

[Ymir]

I think what can get tedious about AAS game modes as they are now is how static it is. Both sides start out with more-or-less equal strengths and duke it out for control of the map until one side loses all its tickets and the game ends suddenly. It doesn't help that we can only capture the objectives in a predetermined order either, killing some of the strategy of sunrise tactics and flanking. That's not how real warfare functions. It'd be nice if it felt a little more like an RTS, where you would actually need to capture terrain objectives to gain resources, in PR terms, spawn-points and vehicles.

What if you could only build assets on flag-zones for instance? And major vehicles like armor and choppers could only be spawned by those assets? That way if a team loses their flag, they also lose their spawn-point and vehicles. I also never really saw the point in the pre-determined capture order rule.

I'd also like to see things like artillery and air-strikes make more of a impact. Artillery is supposed to be the "king of the battlefield" after all. Having build-able howitzers and having captured control-points give you extra j-dams might be a good way to do this. I don't see how it's fun to force the j-dam to appear an hour into the game. Commanders should be free to use their j-dams at the best strategic moment. It's be also great if commanders had the power to distribute vehicle spawns how they wanted, whether to have armor or air units for instance, like in an RTS, as the game progressed. So ideally, vehicles would never spawn automatically, they'd all be deployed like assets.

Rules like this would doom any underdog in an AAS match the way we run them now, but if we got rid of predetermined capture order, an underdog force would be able to outmaneuver and flank an enemy much more effectively. Fun Starcraft matches are the ones in which two players are able to capture each-others' main bases and spin around each-other furiously, and we just can't do that in the static AAS mode.

[daranz]

The whole point of AAS is to have a pre-determined cap order. Without it, you end up with musical bases, where both teams run around the battlefield like headless chickens trying to hold all of the flags at the same time. It would also make defending that much less fun, as you wouldn't be able to dig in at a flag, waiting for the enemy to try and capture it.

My main complaint about AAS as it is right now is that some maps implement a zig-zagging capture order. I like AAS on maps like Muttrah, where the USMC assault docks first, and then make their way through the city and towards MEC main. It actually makes sense, and you get a moving frontline, with people advancing further into the city as they capture parts of it.

On the other hand, you have maps like Kashan, where the capture order does not make for clear front lines. The capture order goes MEC Main - MEC Outpost - South Village. Outpost is on the northern side of the map, and SV is on the southern side. As a result, you get no front line. You can't just look at the map and see that, basically, everything on the side of our main from flag X is what we captured. I like when AAS represents advancing frontlines, and I dislike when it is just an arbitrary set of points in the landscape.

[MaxBoZ]

Originally Posted by Neo_Mapper

Well maybe the the other way round, US + GB invading an insurgency controlled area...
But I don't think, that it is possible

The US and GB are invading the middle east already..
US in Middle east ..
Middle eastern people in the middle east..

Who is invading?

[LeChuckle]

if it was realistic then you would have to defend the whole coastline of op barracuda, and that would mean requiring more than 64 players. thats why aas is so useful