The unrealistic elements of flag objectives.

[space]

Flags are good imo because they center teh small number of players on the map in to a confrontation sooner or later.

But large cap radii can be used to allow you to have BOTH the centering ability to ensure you actually have fun (i.e. finding and then using tactics to engage the enemy) AND have strategic freedom to move around an area.

I agree with rudd here - you need the flags to concentrate the players - especially when you have 64 players spread over 16 sq km. Widening the cap zone allows you to still have a degree of "openness" . i cant think of a better way of doing it, and having set objectives is realistic imo.

[Arnoldio]

There should be some flags and added objectives to destroy, objectives being the prymary thing, flags secondary (Korengal style). On kashan, if you destroy antennas in the bunker areas, enemy jets dont respawn, if you cap a flag, you immediately spawn 2 hummers etc...so you get bonuses for doing objectives and taking tactical ground.

[Ragni<RangersPL>]

But large cap radii can be used to allow you to have BOTH the centering ability to ensure you actually have fun (i.e. finding and then using tactics to engage the enemy) AND have strategic freedom to move around an area.

I'm sorry but can you explain it how small cap radii (50m for example) is limiting your "strategic freedom"? You don't need to be inside cap radii all the time when attacking/defending you know... and it's up to you where to go and defend or from which direction to attack so how it's limiting your freedom?


IMO, the only thing it's limiting is your ability to capture/hold flag while engaging the enemy at the same time... that's all it's limiting, but should it be this way?

I guess it has got something to do with players mentality. IMHO, there is no need to stay inside cap radius while defending, just keep the enemy away from it... and it also makes attacking objectives more realistic because you need to actually eliminate the enemy first before you can actually capture the objective.


Ontopic:

Flags, objectives or other things working in the similar way are important to concentrate the players on a specific area of the map to make the map playable... and with the 4x4km maps it's even more important.

My 2 cents

[Rudd]

I'm sorry but can you explain it how small cap radii (50m for example) is limiting your "strategic freedom"? You don't need to be inside cap radii all the time when attacking/defending you know... and it's up to you where to go and defend or from which direction to attack so how it's limiting your freedom?

I'll use Barracuda as an example.

AASv3, the flags are Airfield, North Rock and docks, North rock is the 2nd layer cap.

Now, the smart American Team will not actually go for the flags at the start, but build FBs and other usefull things on other parts of the island in strategic areas.

But the flags ARE NOT PROMOTING THIS STRATEGY, this is just a good American team thinking outside the box since they have no bleed.

On the Chinese Perspective, its boring as F as you have to wait 15-20mins before you see an enemy. On round of Barracuda we just decided to F the flags and defend missle silo (Tactical gamer, server was half full) took the Americans 35mins to cap any of the undefended flags. The Chinese will be mostly at the actual flags to prevent the enemy capping them, why? Because there is a flag there. The flag promotes this strategy since if you aren't on it, an aggressive team can sneak in/get a helo drop right on it. and a 50m cap radius does mean that you have to be nearby, and generally there is open ground between flags.

PROBLEM - why would they defend areas without cover from teh CAS chopper? Why would they rather be in the open than in one of their forts? They are there because there is a flag there, and no real reason. And this can result in 1) crappy placed to defend or 2) arbitrary places to defend

SOLUTION - Cap radii around 400m in size. This size radii covers aroudn half the island. It encompasses Airfield, South Rock, North Rock, Beach fort, beach, supplies.

The Chinese can now defend where they heck they bloody well want, while at the same time they are in a cap zone - i.e. the zone the Americans have to enter if they want the flag. <- I.e. It forces the two sides in to contention. This means the fighting will primarily take place in defensive locations, forts, trenches, bunkers, rather than "cuz there is a flag there"

[Ragni<RangersPL>]

Ok, thanks for clarifying that one Now I know what you mean...

The flag promotes this strategy since if you aren't on it, an aggressive team can sneak in/get a helo drop right on it. and a 50m cap radius does mean that you have to be nearby, and generally there is open ground between flags.

...but isn't it the defenders fault they let the enemy to do that? They let the enemy to sneak in so they failed at defending the objective... right? And yes, you need to be somewhere near the objectives simply because you are defending them. It's really strange to defend an airfield (for example) and sitting somewhere 300m away from it in the middle of a jungle without even seeing that airfield...

SOLUTION - Cap radii around 400m in size. This size radii covers aroudn half the island. It encompasses Airfield, South Rock, North Rock, Beach fort, beach, supplies.

..but with so huge cap zone you can also loose the flag if the enemy have more soldiers then you have inside cap radii, you can fortify wherever you want and still loose it... so what's the point of having better defending positions if you can loose without the fight only because the enemy have outnumbered your forces? If the flag will start to go down you need to look for the enemy and leave your position anyway (at least a part of your team). Now, try to find him inside such a huge cap radius...

[Rudd]

...but isn't it the defenders fault they let the enemy to do that? They let the enemy to sneak in so they failed at defending the objective... right? And yes, you need to be somewhere near the objectives simply because you are defending them. It's really strange to defend an airfield (for example) and sitting somewhere 300m away from it in the middle of a jungle without even seeing that airfield...

They didn't fail at defending the objetive, they failed at standing in a 50m radius of something

It's really strange to defend an airfield (for example) and sitting somewhere 300m away from it in the middle of a jungle without even seeing that airfield...

You don't need to be inside cap radii all the time when attacking/defending you know...

A second ago you were saying they should defend away from the flag...now you want them on the flag?...

And you missed my point anyway. THe flag radii is not about "You must defend teh airfield" (seriously...why defend an airfield when all you're gonna get is CASed...you don't even gain anything from it, there's no cover) its about encouraging engagement by the teams while not forcing each team to sit in a specific 50m radius circle.

..but with so huge cap zone you can also loose the flag if the enemy have more soldiers then you have inside cap radii, you can fortify wherever you want and still loose it... so what's the point of having better defending positions if you can loose without the fight only because the enemy have outnumbered your forces? If the flag will start to go down you need to look for the enemy and leave your position anyway (at least a part of your team). Now, try to find him inside such a huge cap radius...

if 3 USMC squads got on to the west side of the island, and there is only 1 Chi squad there. The USMC will cap the flag, imo that is a good thing. Why should one Chi squad prevent the cap if the USMC have out manouvred the Chi team? because of the presence of teh Chi squad the cap will be slow, and the chi can use that thing...what's it called...erm...TEAMWORK to get reinforcements to the flag under attack.

If the USMC leave the flag with that Chi squad on it still...then the Chi get the flag back. Thus the USMC hve to deal with them sooner or later.

I would also say, this is not unprecedented. This kind of flag design is seen on OGT, and imo it works very well.

With a large cap radii the Chi team can go "Right, I want a squad to defend teh Beach Fort, A squad to defend teh Supply Base, a squad to defend Docks and a squad to defend North Rock."

Why did they choose those locations? Cover, easy to resupply, places to hide from CAS. They CHOSE those locations. They weren't forced in to them by 50m cap radii. If you are in the 50m, the flag is safe, but you are not. If you are away from the cap radius the flag is not safe but at least they don't know where you are just by seeing the huge flag on the map.

Well, thats my opinion anyway.

[Sirex[SWE][MoW]]

Guys the main problem is still that why do they need to defend the flags in the first place? On that map i would argue to secure landing terrain/control heights to shoot choppers so they can gather more reinforcement, but would it not be easier if the commander took a good look at the map and chose where they think they can do that best instead of using flags?

Then much more strategy comes in to place, the Chinese commander might not feel to grab the bunker but instead ambush the road or something? This would allow for more natural gameplay, especially since both team has an end objective!
Defend or take the silo! Do what is required to succeed with that.

[Ragni<RangersPL>]

They didn't fail at defending the objetive, they failed at standing in a 50m radius of something

They failed because they let the enemy to go through (or flank) their position. You don't need (but you can if you want) to stand inside small cap zone to defend it. You don't need to sit inside cap zone once the flag is captured, once it's captured it's yours so you don't need to stand there any more to maintain control over that flag... all you need to do is prevent the enemy from getting there... Standing inside cap zone is the most common way of defending but it's not the only way.
So, they didn't failed at standing inside cap zone, they failed at preventing the enemy from standing inside cap zone.

A second ago you were saying they should defend away from the flag...now you want them on the flag?...

Here, I hope it's sound more obvious now, sorry for not making myself clear earlier
This one is about huge cap zones:

It's really strange to defend an airfield (for example) and sitting inside cap zone somewhere 300m away from it in the middle of a jungle without even seeing that airfield...

This one is about small cap zones:

You don't need to be inside cap radii all the time when attacking/defending if the cap zone is small you know...

If the USMC leave the flag with that Chi squad on it still...then the Chi get the flag back. Thus the USMC hve to deal with them sooner or later.

That's a big "if"... and you know as well as I know it's not so obvious situation... and many times it's like "we will stay and recapture as soon as they leave", and couple minutes later it's too late because the enemy was already on the next objective waiting for the first flag to be captured and some of the USMC didn't leave (muttrah comes to my mind).
I know there is a "rush syndrome" on the servers recently but I wouldn't count on it during defence.

THe flag radii is not about "You must defend teh airfield" (seriously...why defend an airfield when all you're gonna get is CASed...you don't even gain anything from it, there's no cover) its about encouraging engagement by the teams while not forcing each team to sit in a specific 50m radius circle.

Come on Rudd, you don't need to encourage players from one team to engage players from the opposite team.... it's a freakin' FPS, what else they're going to do? It's not like they will sit back in mains and chat for the whole round if there will be no flags "encouraging" them to engage
Actually you don't need flags at all to have action.... but then it will turn in to simple team deathmatch.
Flags give a depth to the gameplay so it's not only about kills but also about controlling the flags which represent a tactically valuable objectives or a front line of the battle (btw. someone should really define it someday)...and now it's also area control on some maps (TBH, I'm not a big fan of them, see below*).
What's the purpose of the flags? Both of us know the flags are useful for concentrating players on the smaller area which is good considering the size of the bigger maps and makes the fights more intense. IMO, huge cap zones make something exactly the opposite... players are more scattered over an area which makes the main point of having flags less useful.

*IMHO, less flags and larger cap radii leads only to team deathmatch kind of gameplay. Why? Imagine extreme version of that map (minimum number of flags, maximum cap radius).... It would look like 4x4km map with one neutral flag in the middle with cap radius covering whole map. Now, try to tell me it's still about capturing the objective... No it isn't, it's just a team deathmatch map with useless flag in the middle. That's why I prefer to fight for something specific then just a piece of landscape.


You have the full right to disagree with me, obviously we have different opinions about it. Anyway, it was really interesting to know your opinion and it made me think about the ways of improving current flag system.

Cheers

[Sirex[SWE][MoW]]

But irl warfare is team deathmatch .

[Cobhris]

[MoW];1106743']But irl warfare is team deathmatch .

Look at the casualty counts for WWII and then tell me that war is a deathmatch.

Anyway, I like the flags. They keep up some semblance of organization on public servers, where having a commander is rare and having an active commander is even rarer. Most players just squad up and start marching to the flags to seize them Without flags, I can already see people doing one of two things:

1) They just drive around the map in armored vehicles looking for enemy bases to destroy. The game becomes insurgency with two insurgent factions.
2)Both sides just dig into fortified bases with a few bored people running around aimlessly looking for enemy soldiers to fight. The game becomes team deathmatch with movable spawn points.

The flags in AAS are good because they add direction to pub games, and for those who want to play without flags, the option already exists in the Command and Control mode.

[Murphy]

I'm going to have to agree with Cobhris, CnC is great fun if you have players willing to act in cohesion with each other. But if you're talking about the average pub game people will butt heads, and there will always be dissension amongst the SLs/Comm.

So as pointed out you would most likely end up with half the team turtling, and half the team haphazardly wasting assets as they search for something to blow up. Not much room in between, and little to no room for a commander to assign actual objectives and expect them to be met.

The flags stand as anchors of focus, and as such they ease the tension because there are no if/ands or buts about it you have to get that flag. I really would like some flags to be put in more logical areas, but I guess it's done for the sake of having a hard area to defend making it heavily disputed for.

[Cassius]

In real battles you have a couple of hundred troops to control ground with. In PR you have 60 people at the same time on a map. The flags "split" the battle and focus it on an area. IRL there would be battles raging around severa flags at the same time. In PR those battles are kind of split up, because of lack of numbers. With CNC you have the same problem, lack of numbers. Instead of 400 men being on a search and destroy, 30 are. With that limitation something is needed to focus the number of players around an objective and flags do that. Maybe the cap zones can be refined.

[obZen]

I think we should just recreate some real fights that have happened.

ie: 20 fortified enemy hold a compound, 40 enemy try to take it from them.


YouTube - CF dawn raid on a Taliban compoud, video by Scott Kesterson something like that.

[Turner]

The game is fine

[Wicca]

I would say CnC. Where players are encuraged to defend and find FOBs are pretty boring. no offense.

I would say, at all the servers ive played, with or without commander, team deathmatch is possible.

Worst case scenario is that the team doesnt cooperate, and with no flags to " go to" players will be encuraged to kill the enemy, and so team chat messages will probaly be more important.

The sniper role, (Yes im saying this) Would actually be really usefull, and people would nag at lonewolfers, except when we actually know where the enemy is, and their still sitting on their lonely top loooking at air.

If real life shows us anything, its there is no objective, you decide what is important, and so objectives are created as they are required to promote either your own team, or demise the enemy.

Finding an enemy FOB in Team death match, what will that mean?

Finding an enemy in team death match, what will that mean?

Will the squad stick togheter?

How long will it take from transport to contact?

Will our tactical situational awarness change, since we are no longer required to "hold each foot" of ground to avoid the loss of a flag?

Im thinking gameplay will be close to Insurgency, but with the sole purpose of finding the enemy.
So squadleaders have a way of "spotting" with their radio, that might incent the other gamers to go there and kill them, or be killed.

[Celestial1]

Skimmed through the thread, so forgive me if something has already been mentioned...

What about making randomly generated objectives? Think insurgency, where caches are flags and there is only 1 "active" at a time. These objectives should be different for each team; for instance, the USMC may need to capture the Airstrip on Barracuda, but the Chinese objective is Supply Fortification. There would also be a chance for these objectives to match, or be very close to one another (ie. Chinese goes for Airstrip, USMC goes for South Rock fortification), and they'd have to fight off one another to get their objective accomplished and to stop the enemy's objective. Tickets/vehicles/etc could be rewarded for accomplishing objectives (for example, securing Supply Fort as Chinese could give a 50 ticket gain; Securing a beach objective as USMC with an LAV could spawn Helicopters to reinforce, etc).



(Speaking of... what ever happened to scenario mode...)

[Cossack]

Yes, i think this is a great idea. No flags... But, as I am the squad leader, this flags are my navigation on the whole map. They are rock solid chock points for me. I think if you want this idea become real, then somebody must make new order giving system. Build The new chain of command. Nobody really respect the commanders orders and these nine squads are lone wolfs (they cant even communicate properly with each other). This is my opinion in this mater.

[Amir]

No flags + very important strongholds/strategic places. Would be nice
Because at some points it just gets stupid when you fight over a flag and if one of team gets a bleed they don't do anything at all. Also it's not fun any more for the attackers ( in my opinion ) when the enemy is ticket bleeding because the game ends in like 10 minutes or so.

[Looy]

I think a map where the only flags are both bases would be awesome. Other points would still be marked on the map, but only to highlight good tactical positions.

Then basically the only value in capturing an area would be the terrain advantage.