Hill objectives

[Harrod200]

A few others agree with me on this. It's not a major thing but it's just something slightly annoying;

On AASv3 maps with randomised flags, the 'Hill xxx' objectives seem rather wasteful. I'm all for the randomised flag locations, but it seems just illogical for an army to completely ignore a base/village/etc and instead concentrate their forces on a hill in the middle of nowhere, with no clear tactical value.

PLEASE, if we're going to have the randomised flags, can we have the possible locations as actual locations, rather than just an arbitrary unmarked location on a map. A town, a village, hell; even a checkpoint on a road, just make the objective SOMETHING. If we're going to fight over a hill, put something on it worth fighting over.

[Wartz]

Hills often have a lot more tactical and strategical value to an army than a village. In fact, most standard tactics for a mobile, armored, air supported modern army call tor bypassing and isolating enemy defended towns/villages/cities. Usually, about the only thing in a village that is seriously worth something is a bridge. Otherwise they are deathtraps with no room to maneuver and little line of sight.

[Expendable Grunt]

There's one particular hill on Fools Road that's pretty bad. It's on the lower left, above the southern road (I'll get a pic next time I swear). It's steep, with a 200m radius. Heavily forested (it's Fools Road ). It turns into a "can't see shit captain" episode each time it shows up.

M.

[SocketMan]

It's true in RL hills have strategic value since the higher you're the
more territory (down below and around) is under you're weapons range.

I think a good PR example would be "Hills of Ham." (old PR map)where the PLA controlled the hills at the start and basically executed everyone below.
The map was small however,F.R or Koz. are much bigger who knows once/if
we get the mortars -these (now)"obscure" hills would have more meaning...

[Tartantyco]

-High ground wins out every time. Take Train Depot on Fool's Road for instance. Holding the Train Depot is holding a small piece of land surrounded by three hills from which you can receive a load of gunfire from. Holding one or more of the surrounding hills however, that gives you staying power.

-It's very hard to implement objectives of actual strategic value to the game. For one you don't have to worry about moving supplies, soldiers, and weaponry across a large stretch of land, thereby necessitating that you have secured stretches of rail and road. Some positions are strategic only by the virtue of somebody building something there. It might be bunkers or artillery positions; if they're well supplied they can pose a threat to your logistics. Basically, unless you have the big picture these things don't really make much sense either way so it doesn't really matter right now exactly where the flags are because there's no reason for anything to have strategic value on most maps right now. Until anybody comes up with a good way of making objectives valuable by themselves, instead of merely being important because that's where the flag is I wouldn't care too much about whether or not an objective is valuable because, basically, it isn't.

[badmojo420]

Originally Posted by Expendable Grunt

There's one particular hill on Fools Road that's pretty bad. It's on the lower left, above the southern road (I'll get a pic next time I swear). It's steep, with a 200m radius. Heavily forested (it's Fools Road ). It turns into a "can't see shit captain" episode each time it shows up.

M.

When this thread got posted i immediately thought of that hill. I like it, the last time i played that map, we were losing bad, but the enemy tanks couldn't touch us around that hill. They even tried moving up onto the hill in their tank, which a few of us reported the exact location of, and shortly after it got a HAT in the ass. Now if that terrain was anything BUT a steep forested hill, that tank would have easily wasted all us infantry with coax fire. Also since you can't see a damn thing, it's great for ambushing a squad camping the flag.

[[R-DEV]Rudd]

Hills in the center of the map are ok...cuz they surely give ur team observational advantage. But the ones around the edge as others have noted are meh.

Having a mix of stationary and random flags would be lovely, though theoretically the strategic freedom should be good, it doesnt seem to work fantastically yet.

Also, why so few flags on AASv3? Rounds tend to tend earlier or become loggerhead contests because of it.

[Tartantyco]

Originally Posted by Dr2B Rudd

Also, why so few flags on AASv3? Rounds tend to tend earlier or become loggerhead contests because of it.

-Indeed. A lot of flag, several bunched together, would make AAS much better I think.

[Expendable Grunt]

Originally Posted by badmojo420

When this thread got posted i immediately thought of that hill. I like it, the last time i played that map, we were losing bad, but the enemy tanks couldn't touch us around that hill. They even tried moving up onto the hill in their tank, which a few of us reported the exact location of, and shortly after it got a HAT in the ass. Now if that terrain was anything BUT a steep forested hill, that tank would have easily wasted all us infantry with coax fire. Also since you can't see a damn thing, it's great for ambushing a squad camping the flag.

Ugh, it was a nightmare. We had two squads of each team oblivious of each other not 100m apart. Then one of us realized it and all you saw was tracers for 2 seconds before both teams lost.

M.