[Gamemode]Improved AAS

[Tartantyco]

WARNING: Text wall.

-With the current AAS setup usually less than 50% of the map is used, strategic and tactical options are limited, and things like zerg rushing and the ever-present slaughter as squad after squad throw themselves onto objectives are common events. Flanking is often pointless as the time it takes to perform it means you'll be losing a lot of tickets if your team is bleeding and teams are forced into throwing everything at a flag in the hope that maybe they'll overrun the enemy. So instead of the linear and singular flag capping sequence I propose a more open alternative that makes use of the entire map and makes them a different experience every time you play them.

-Right now there's about 3-5 flags on a map(ignoring mains), spread out over a large area, jumping to and from north, south, east, and west. Due to this you have a basic and pervasive strategy where 1-2 squads stay back and defend(Yeah, like that happens a lot...) while the rest go throw themselves at the next objective. Once an objective is capped everything behind it is abandoned and the process repeats itself. Because of this Point A-----Point B setup there is often little point in "going off the beaten path" as the advantages of a superior position and/or surprise do not negate the penalties imposed by a lack of time, tickets, and manpower. Flanking movements are often on foot, they take time as you advance in a very indirect manner, if your team is bleeding then you lose tickets without being able to balance the loss, you're not in the radius capping, your team is low on manpower where the action is, etc. You're forced by circumstance to limit your options to a very small pool of viable strategies and tactics.

-As for map usage, Qinling is a good example. When have you ever been in the NW corner of that map? The SE corner sees a little more use only due to the proximity of coal mine, but large areas of the map are never used because of the aforementioned limitations on strategy and tactics on players due to the current linear setup.

-In addition, due to this linearity the gameplay on popular maps becomes increasingly predictable as the same areas are used for firebases and rally points, static assets become useless as the next objective is taken, and so on.

-What I propose is the following; see the map as the objective and use flags spaced evenly(or unevenly if that's better ) across the map as territory control markers. Instead of a single linear flag sequence you make it so that if a team holds a flag it can then cap any neighboring flag, as so:



-As an example lets use a 4x4 flag minimap where each side starts at their main to the north and south:



-The purple and yellow are main bases and the other colors are linear paths of advance. As each side hold their main they can advance and cap any of the flags in the line closest to them. Lets focus on purple at the top; as the purple team caps the black path flag in the NW corner the next black path flag becomes cappable, and when it's capped the next one becomes cappable and so on. Provided that there is no opposition the purple team can cap all the way to the last black flag. In addition, they can also cap any neighboring flag to the east of any black path flag they hold(The red flags in this example). As long as an unbroken chain of flags leads back to the teams main base they can can any neighboring flag north, south, east, or west of their current flags. For instance, you can cap the first and second black flags, then go straight east and cap all the way to the second blue flag. If you hold BLACK1, BLACK2, RED2, GREEN2, and BLUE2, you can also cap BLACK3, RED1, RED3, GREEN1, GREEN3, BLUE1, and BLUE3. You can cap east and west, north and south from any flag you hold with an unbroken chain to your main.

-Lets say yellow and purple teams meet at the center(Purple has all 1 and 2 flags, Yellow all 3 and 4). Purple pushes through on the black path all the way down to BLACK4. However, purple has now over-extended themselves and without the manpower to defend their dramatially extended frontline(Almost 50%) yellow simply moves into BLACK3 and recaps that(Which they can do as the have an unbroken line from their main to RED3, which neighbors BLACK3). As BLACK4 has now been cut off from the rest of purple's territory that flag drops down to neutral regardless of any purple players present in the territory. Yellow will still have to recap BLACK 4 though to ensure that no enemy is present there.

-The flags would represent the territory of their cap radius and all cap radii would be hugging each other, so to speak. Capping time would be drastically reduced(The time it takes to cross the diameter of the cap radius on foot would be a good guide) with a possible increase in manpower requirements(To be explained later).

-Some questions arise with this suggestion, questions that might be stupid, but since we're talking about the BF2 engine here stupid becomes necessary. Is there any limit to how many flags can be on a single map(Either due to arbitrary limits in the code or it for some weird reason devouring your CPU)? Is there any issue with removing/changing flag icons(A gabillion flag icons on the map would be a little meh...)? Are there any limitations to coding flags to behave like this? And would it be a real bitch to make this change to the maps themselves?

-Provided that none of those things are quarrelsome I believe that this would enhance the PR gamplay drastically. With the entire map now in play smaller and older maps would be rejuvenated and not have to be phased out for bigger maps, static assets would become useful for area control which is necessary with an extended front line. Throwing bodies at small areas would no longer be necessary as you have several avenues where you can advance. Defense would become necessary to maintain your front line(This is where static assets shine), and a multitude of strategic and tactical options would open up to the players.

-Now, the reason why the amount of people required to cap a flag might have to go up is because if you're a small squad trying to operate under the radar(Recon, Snipers, etc.), say 3-4 players, it would be a little hard to remain undetected if you start capping areas as you move behind enemy lines. An increase from the current 3 up to 5 should be sufficient as these squads should never be any bigger than 4.

-Flags should ideally go in a straight line between point A to point B, A and B being the opposing teams' main base, though for some maps it might be necessary to place them according to the demands of the map.

------EDIT------

As for ticket bleed, a % based bleed should be implemented. As a quick example:

51%+ = 1 ticket lost per minute
61%+ = 2 tickets lost per minute
71%+ = 3 tickets lost per minute
etc, etc.

-The specific amount of tickets lost and % is simply used as an example.

[Axel]

I've been kinda longing for somekind of system that exploits the whole map, would be alot more tactical talk between the squads/commander potentially.

I didn't get every single detail but as a whole it looks like a good idea.

[master of the templars]

well with the current random flags sometimes you use different parts of a map but that is only some rounds, i like your suggestion because it has a sort of frontline feel

[[R-DEV]Rudd]

yep. +1 from me...I think I made a similar suggestion ages ago "multiple paths" or something, but urs is much better thought out

[bloodthirsty_viking]

i read it over, and i only see one problem.. ok, a few of them=P
1, i see lonewolfing, i see in the future lots of lonewolfs running to each flag and then just cammping there untill one squad comes and the lonewolf gets points for cappen...
2. i think that this will lower battle zones becuase although it may change the areas more, i think the perfect defnecne set up by a squad, and them waiting there its unfair for them if like the the "book" the black 3 was captured back and they were in black 4....
but for all i know this may work out, but it could not be big maps... this is almost something that would be perfect for a scirmish mode now that i think of it...

[Remoted-Bomb]

It feels a little like vanilla, where the flags go up/down/up/down and everyone is running back and forward. But.. i don't know.

[cyberzomby]

Its a well thought out suggestion and from a quick read and thought from my point it seems good. Kinda like the system in front lines fuel of war.

I think its nice that you fight over the map and actually go to defendable positions but this is also its downside. Sides will go to hilltop estate in fools road, the bunkers in kashan etc. Theres no point in holding out open ground. Theres nothing there in the nw of qinling that has cover and is cool to defend for example.

And do you see any bleed in your set-up? because if not than theres no point in advancing once you have cover.

Also, I think that you tried to get away from the given paths and linear assaulting but you will have that in this system as well. Maybe even worse because you know how the territory is devided so what area's you need. You will end up advancing over the map in the same way with your team because you want every area to be yours. Maybe one game on the left and the other game on the right but you will want every bit.

Just look at maps without a bleed. People still slaughter themselves over a flag that has no bleed.

[Tartantyco]

-For ticket bleed I think that if you hold over 50% of the flags/territory you get a 1 tpm bleed, then at 60% another 1 tpm is added, and one for 70% up a total of 6 tpm. Or maybe 2 tpms for every 10% over 50%, or in 5% increments, this would be decided by testing it.

-One issue that might arise is that teams will be so spread out over the map that the action is diluted, though I believe that it will be more rewarding as more types of engagement occur. Teams will be forced to work more closely together as well as it's not just one or two objectives anymore and the need for a commander might increase as well.

-About capping time, I said something like the time it takes to cross the diameter of a cap zone, but I think that's a bit too much. The ability to cap should only mean that you have forces in the area and so just 5-10 seconds to cap should be enough because, as you have more options, it will not become like in AAS at the moment where you can go from capping a flag in A4 to one in F2 and then an entire team will have to uproot because after the flag in A4 was capped a flag behind their front is now for some unknown reason actually in peril.

-As for "going to hilltop estate", they're welcome to do so but they have no control over most of the surrounding terrain from there and if they hole up in there they're going to lose territory. And I don't understand your objection about open ground, that has to do with strategy and tactics, not game modes. Open ground is still territory and you have to cap it. However, open ground is also, as the name implies, open and a pretty good area to cover with HMGs placed in an area with cover.

2. i think that this will lower battle zones becuase although it may change the areas more, i think the perfect defnecne set up by a squad, and them waiting there its unfair for them if like the the "book" the black 3 was captured back and they were in black 4....

-I don't get what you're saying here; the inability of one team to defend an extended front is "unfair"? You don't set up a fortress in a protruding piece of territory with a shaky logistical connection to the rest of the team, you set it up at your front line where it will actually do some good.

[TheLean]

I dont know,modern warfare are more about mobility than frontline warfare. I think objectives are fine really. You dont have to pass every inch of a city to occupy it, just head for objectives such as HQ and army depots etc. Could be fun to try a few maps with your suggestion.

[Tartantyco]

Originally Posted by TheLean

I dont know,modern warfare are more about mobility than frontline warfare. I think objectives are fine really. You dont have to pass every inch of a city to occupy it, just head for objectives such as HQ and army depots etc. Could be fun to try a few maps with your suggestion.

-AAS as is in no way reflects modern warfare or mobility. Think of if like this; (Kashan)South Village is an objective and holding the village itself is how you take it. In reality, using South Village as an example, this is in no way holding this area. Surrounding it are hills/mountains from which an enemy can directly or indirectly engage South Village with a decided advantage. In fact, holding South Village would depend on controlling these hills/mountains. From South Village you suddenly jump to either the bunker complex or MEC Outpost, half-way or all the way across the map, circumventing the entire opposing team in the process as if they were nothing when in fact this contradicts the entire basis of warfare.

-If the gamemode as explained in the OP were to be implemented then these issues would solve themselves as specific areas of no intrinsic value on a grand scale(as the game is too limited to be able to simulate this) or strategically on the map itself were removed and the actual terrain on the map would become decisive.