Insurgency: Assets based on cache destruction

[Nimise]

My idea is to make to so that different assets spawn after x amout of caches have been destroyed. With this system it would reward the teams more for defending/attacking e.g. if you really want that tank/jet you have to "earn" it.

At first they have transport vehicles only transport humvee/jeep.

After 2 caches they get light vehicles with guns 50 humvee/jeep.

After 4 caches they get transport helis. +10 tickets including ones from caches.

After 6 caches they get attack helis/apcs. +10 tickets including ones from caches.

After 7 caches they get tank/other heavy vehicles/jets. +20 tickets including ones from caches.

[goguapsy]

My idea is to make to so that different assets spawn after x amout of caches have been destroyed. With this system it would reward the teams more for defending/attacking e.g. if you really want that tank/jet you have to "earn" it.

At first they have transport vehicles only transport humvee/jeep.

After 2 caches they get light vehicles with guns 50 humvee/jeep.

After 4 caches they get transport helis. +10 tickets including ones from caches.

After 6 caches they get attack helis/apcs. +10 tickets including ones from caches.

After 7 caches they get tank/other heavy vehicles/jets. +20 tickets including ones from caches.

HAha sometimes we have a hard time getting the first and second cache with strykers and LBs! Talk about limiting vehicles! XD

[snooggums]

So as they get additional caches they get more valuable assets for the insurgents to kill and sap away their remaining tickets? I don't like it.

[Drunkenup]

This ones iffy to be honest. I mean, it sounds like CoD4. I gotta get this many kills to unlock this. Reality really isn't about privilage, since in real life, we'll use everything to our disposal to finish up the enemy.

[Nimise]

HAha sometimes we have a hard time getting the first and second cache with strykers and LBs! Talk about limiting vehicles! XD

Thats more of a player problem.
Also if you think about it vehicles can hurt your ability to find caches. 8 people manning vehicles=8 less people searching for a cache. And apcs really cant support the inf in closed cities like the one in basra.

[Rudd]

I don't think gameplay would be good with the system you propose as it doesn't really make logical sense on why the assets change

I like having objectives on the map that directly affect the team's ability to destroy the enemy, either by being positions of quality of their own, e.g. by being easily defensible, or being somehow useful in a plausible supply line.

For the latter having vehicles spawn from that flag is a good gameplay aspect imo giving greater strategic choices.

Korengal showcased this concept, and I like it.

E.g.

Basrah, hold the VCP blufor get extra warrior(s), opfor get more bomb cars (i.e. no1 is checking the vehicles get it?! )

Karbala, I'd like to see a flag where the old US base was, if you hold it the LBs spawn, if you lose it, more bomb cars.

etc, that kind of stuff.

INS maps have mostly got a fortified position that works for this.

This also has the benefit of something to do when waiting for intel, sweeping random parts of teh map for caches sometimes works...sometimes just loses you tickets.

[Kain888]

Maybe you should put this in reverse? Limiting insurgents/taliban assets due to cache lost.

For Talibans - they won't be able to request special kits so often when caches are destroyed (illustrating that less caches = less heavy weapons). This will help Blufor on Taliban maps where they often have hard times.

For Insurgents maybe pickup kits will spawn less often?

[Nimise]

I don't think gameplay would be good with the system you propose as it doesn't really make logical sense on why the assets change

I like having objectives on the map that directly affect the team's ability to destroy the enemy, either by being positions of quality of their own, e.g. by being easily defensible, or being somehow useful in a plausible supply line.

For the latter having vehicles spawn from that flag is a good gameplay aspect imo giving greater strategic choices.

Korengal showcased this concept, and I like it.

E.g.

Basrah, hold the VCP blufor get extra warrior(s), opfor get more bomb cars (i.e. no1 is checking the vehicles get it?! )

Karbala, I'd like to see a flag where the old US base was, if you hold it the LBs spawn, if you lose it, more bomb cars.

etc, that kind of stuff.

INS maps have mostly got a fortified position that works for this.

This also has the benefit of something to do when waiting for intel, sweeping random parts of teh map for caches sometimes works...sometimes just loses you tickets.

The problem with secondary objectives is that many times there is a couple squads bleeding tickets(and manpower) for such a minor thing like a striker. With the system I am suggesting they get vehicles by completing the primary objective.

Maybe you should put this in reverse? Limiting insurgents/taliban assets due to cache lost.

For Talibans - they won't be able to request special kits so often when caches are destroyed (illustrating that less caches = less heavy weapons). This will help Blufor on Taliban maps where they often have hard times.

For Insurgents maybe pickup kits will spawn less often?

That would be interesting. But how would it work with insurgents....maybe pkm wont spawn after 5 caches or something.

[DeltaFart]

Actuallly I was liking the idea, since I'd say it would work good in opposite way for INsurgents, like less bomb cars spawn as the caches of explosives disappear. It seems absurd to have them with unlimited resources when their resources are theoretically being destroyed

Or is that just me?

[Sprats]

i noticed americans want less stuff for insurgent, more for blufor team. sad...

[DeltaFart]

i noticed americans want less stuff for insurgent, more for blufor team. sad...

Ohh hahaha

[goguapsy]

Thats more of a player problem.
Also if you think about it vehicles can hurt your ability to find caches. 8 people manning vehicles=8 less people searching for a cache. And apcs really cant support the inf in closed cities like the one in basra.

Actually APCs are a hell of support. And I prefer 2 INF squads and 2 APCs then 3 INF squads TBH. Moar firep0wer, l3ss d34ths. Was playing today on TG (Karbala) and strykers were VITAL.

[boilerrat]

It seems like bluefor always lose, even though they have more kills overall.

That is because they focus on vehicles instead of hunting caches.

If the INS maps were mostly infantry and maybe 2 .50 humvees there would be more caches down, they would focus more on searching than messing with vehicles.

[Nimise]

It seems like bluefor always lose, even though they have more kills overall.

That is because they focus on vehicles instead of hunting caches.

If the INS maps were mostly infantry and maybe 2 .50 humvees there would be more caches down, they would focus more on searching than messing with vehicles.

I have to agree but that will never happen unfortunately

[IAJTHOMAS]

So, the worse the other team is losing, the more stuff you get to kick them with when they're down? Doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

[goguapsy]

It seems like bluefor always lose, even though they have more kills overall.

That is because they focus on vehicles instead of hunting caches.

If the INS maps were mostly infantry and maybe 2 .50 humvees there would be more caches down, they would focus more on searching than messing with vehicles.

Noo, I don't think so.

Vehicles and scopes are what makes the team win. Therefore IMO the APCs and LBs and stuff are very necessary...

[Nimise]

So, the worse the other team is losing, the more stuff you get to kick them with when they're down? Doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

It doesn't really work that way with caches e.g. the insurgent team is not any weaker after 8 caches then after only 1.