Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

[Slightchance]

Area attack could work, and it also encourages the use of a commander and that's never a bad thing. The one cache idea isn't such a bad idea either. It would definitely focus the fighting more as there would be no other way for the blue-force team to win.

Some other ideas to change the lack of teamwork on insurgency.

Penalize insurgents for dying: If their deaths cost tickets it could change many things and might encourage less suicidal actions and more squad play. Of course, it would have to be nearly impossible for an insurgent team to lose only by death ticket loss, but it's an idea. Right now insurgent death means very little, especially when the cache has been discovered and no more intel is being gained.

Squad rally points: These could be put back in for insurgents to encourage them to work together to at least set a spawn point. If this is done, I would think the rally point should last longer than the ones do now, perhaps make them like in previous versions that must be overrun. It could further simulate insurgents already living and operating within the city as they could be coming from many more places than simply a fob. It could also encourage teamwork on the insurgency team to be more squad "cell" based rather than whole team based. That of course, might not be the goal, but it's something that would make the insurgent team different to play.

These are just some other ideas I think that could help the situation a bit.

[Mikemonster]

Why do these threads keep disappearing?

[Stoickk]

I'm not sure Mikemonster. I think that Insurgency definitely needs some work. Unfortunately, I had to resort to finding another post that linked to this one to find this one again. :P

[Mikemonster]

'See All of this Users Posts' is a valuable tool.

Would it be possible to have a Dev feedback section where they give feedback on our suggestions?

[drs79]

My apologies for my previous comment. Will not happen again.

[[R-MOD]Spec]

The threads disappear because there are no posts for a while, that's all there is to it. They're not gone, they just don't show up here. Now BTT.

[Bringerof_D]

this sounds like a well thought out idea and sounds like it should work great. i support this suggestion!

[Stoickk]

Originally Posted by Stoickk

Personally, I always envisioned Insurgency vs. Counterinsurgency more as control of a city or geographical area. As a potential alternative to the current setup, I propose the following:

Insurgency maps have an odd number of control zones added, similar to AAS flag cap zones, in varying logical points around a city. These can start under either team's control, or be neutral depending upon the scenario or tactical situation. Examples of logical points would be vehicle checkpoints, major intersections, large landmark buildings, major terrain features, etc. In order to maintain control of a control zone, rather than a set number of players, as in AAS, each team would be required to build a FOB (or hideout) and eliminate enemy FOB's or hideouts in the zone. When one team achieves control superiority by controlling more of the control zones than the opposing team, the opposing team should start a slow ticket bleed. As more zones are taken, the rate of ticket bleed should increase.

The theory behind this system is that in an insurgency campaign, not only are you fighting the occupying force, you want and need the support of the population. Similarly, in a counterinsurgency, the support of the population is vital as well. If a counterinsurgent force just stays buttoned up in a fortified base and only comes to town to rain down high explosive destruction, I doubt that the local population will be thrilled with their presence. In contrast, if that same counterinsurgent force spends time to clear an area of insurgent forces, including local "safe houses," and maintains a presence, the population will be more supportive of their actions, and less so of the insurgent force's.

There are some minor tweaks that would help this idea along, but are merely suggestions, and I welcome constructive criticism.

1. Change the loadout on the ammo techie from three ammo boxes to one weapons cache. With the focus of Insurgency game play shifting (per the overall suggestion in my post) away from caches and to control of the area, caches can become supply crates for insurgent factions.

2. Give techies one ammo box each. All blufor jeep type vehicles carry ammo boxes. Pretty please with pink sugar on top can the poor backwards insurgents learn how to put a box of bullets in the back of a pickup truck?

3. Change the Insurgent faction to a kit request faction, to bring them in line with Hamas, Taliban, and Militia. Keep their unique kits and feel, but please change them to a kit request faction. This will offer far more incentive for squad based play on maps featuring this faction.

As it seems that this thread, and my post within it, have been lost in the shuffle, and the debate over how to fix Insurgency mode rages on, I am reviving the topic and reposting this idea. I personally love Insurgency, but it needs work. Think of this idea as a combination of mini-CnC and AAS fights. Killing weapons caches will still be important, as they are sources of weapons for the Insurgent factions. However, more important will be eliminating the Insurgent "safe houses" or hideouts within the control zones. In other words, eliminating the Insurgent presence in the area. Instead of just rolling in and blowing stuff up, BluFor will actually need to establish a presence.

At any rate, I don't want to see this topic slip through the cracks. Even if my ideas aren't the right answers, I strongly believe that the right answers are out there.

[Mikemonster]

What about making the Unknown worth less points than a Known?

For instance, make the Unknown worth 3 points instead of ten. That way, in a round, Blufor will need to destroy at least four to make it even matter.

Obviously you could play with this number.. If you make an Unknown worth 4 points then Blufor would need to destroy three per round to make a difference. Or if it's worth 5 they'd need to destroy two.

For those who would say it's unrealistic, just make up a story like we do for other things. For instance the known cache has a guy there that needs to be arrested (or shot in the face).

[spiked_rye]

Originally Posted by Mikemonster

What about making the Unknown worth less points than a Known?

For instance, make the Unknown worth 3 points instead of ten. That way, in a round, Blufor will need to destroy at least four to make it even matter.

This gets my vote, though you would need to tweak the messages a bit.

EDIT: you could also make the unknown cache smaller than the known, maybe scaling it for the amount of intel. As soon as it appears it only has some small ammo boxes, then more stuff gets added the closer it gets to being known, with it being worth more points for more items?