Gametype: Hold Position

[Jorgee!]

I wan't to share the idea that the other thread gave to me.... but as the other thread is confused with CnC as it's creator made it that way, i'm starting this new one.


This would be opposite to INSURGENCY GAMEMODE, how? Well, NATO/BLUFOR will have to defend a BIG Base from INSURGENTS, and INSURGENT's objective would be to destroy some Communications posts that would quit 25 tickets to NATO each one.

My idea for a map would be 2 bases, the one that has to be defended, big, and other with heavy/medium assets like transport choppers, apc's, etc.... the idea would be to make the REINFORCEMENTS to cross trhough insurgent's attack way and make them vulnerable to ambushes. Why? Because if you have a BIG base with heavy assets it would be VERY VERY difficult to break it defenses.


Explained the idea, let's go to the basic:

Insurgents:

Tickets: 400
Assets: Techincals, mortars,
Spawn:

• Little main base / bunker / cave with DoD enabled for BLUFOR.
• 10 expiring respawn ramdom caches with GUNS on it (like actual INSURGENT MODE but ALL 7 or 5 CACHES at same time). So they build hideouts.

Other: Caches wouldn't be marked for BLUFOR as objective to destroy. Imagine this as if follows a Insurgent mode map, the BLUFOR is counter-attacking to the past map situation.


Blufor:

Tickets: 300
Assets: APC's, Jeeps, Transport Trucks, Transport Heli, Light Attack choppers.
Objective: Defend communication posts or radios, that would be 2 at time, like actual caches for insurgents.
Spawn: In the two or more bases (mapper logic). So the DEFENDED base wouldn't have heavy assets: The reinforcements have to come from the other corner of the map. But the reinforcements to be able to enter an defend the main base, would need to pass trhough enemy way, being exposed to ambushes.
Other: Wouldn't be able to build FOBS as if you loose the spawn point in the DEFENDED base you would need to spawn at the second base (the one with assets) and be transported to the other base "AS REINFORCEMENT".



Insurgent's weapons cache would be destroyable like know but only for avoid heavy kits like RPG, if one get's destroyed wouldn't affect INS tickets. This is for keep the gamemode focused on defending and not search&destroy.

Any doubt's of my idea i'll try to let it clear.


Obviously mappers will have to get some bigger bases and more complicated to penetrate with more defenses.

[lromero]

Can some delte this i accedentally posted this twice somehow

[lromero]

I like it, it would make a good change. Its fun to play the gametypes we have now but i think its time for something a little new.

[Rhino]

aka, King of the Hill.

We are planning on having a "game mode" like this in the future on Sangin Valley when its released, as stated many times on the forums before...

[Jorgee!]

What is King of the Hill ? A link?

[Rhino]

What is King of the Hill ? A link?

King of the Hill (game) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Standard game mode in many games and although there are some differences between what your suggesting and what we would do, the overall concept is basically the same

[Bringerof_D]

isnt AAS essentially king of the hill?

[goguapsy]

2KM maps US Army vs Taliban = win.

But the Sangin Valley looks pretty kewl as well.


But I wanted a gamemode like this one... A reverse insurgency.

Did you say that the Comm stations would be discovered like caches, or am I misunderstanding your idea?

If so, would it be time-based? Or like, you destroy a Comm station and BLUFOR has 5 to 10 minutes to set up defense on the new place?

isnt AAS essentially king of the hill?

I would say that King of The Hill is normally just one flag. AAS is like an attack/defend situation... or a big king of the hill.

[Rhino]

isnt AAS essentially king of the hill?

Not really since its multiple flags you capture and not just one flag you capture/defend.

How ever AAS can easily be made into KotH quite easily, just needs the flags set up correctly, in fact one of the very first BF2 custom maps was a KotH map, it sucked

[waldov]

I know its been a few years but this suggestion sounds pretty awesome does anyone know if we could potentially see something similar to this in the future? PR is in need of something like this IMO.

[hobbnob]

I know its been a few years but this suggestion sounds pretty awesome does anyone know if we could potentially see something similar to this in the future? PR is in need of something like this IMO.

Rhino said earlier in this thread that it's coming with Sangin. Seeing as Sangin has been hinted at for 1.0 multiple times I'd guess we're also getting king of the hill for 1.0 as well.

[Rhino]

Rhino said earlier in this thread that it's coming with Sangin. Seeing as Sangin has been hinted at for 1.0 multiple times I'd guess we're also getting king of the hill for 1.0 as well.

Sangin and possibly a few other maps in the future may see a "King of the Hill"/"Siege" gamemode in them as mentioned before in this topic BUT its very unlikely that Sangin will make v1.0 so any "hints" you think there are lying about are most likley false.

But we are still working hard on the map and hopefully it will be completed at some point in the near future, just its unlikely to make v1.0 unless v1.0's release is significantly pushed back due to other reasons.

[Moszeusz6Pl]

But there is King of the Hill in PR already, in Siege at Ochmhira alt, and Sandin.

[Rhino]

But there is King of the Hill in PR already, in Siege at Ochmhira alt, and Sandin.

Ye, but Siege at Ochmhira alt was kinda badly done since it had such a big area to defend with such a big flag radius, and Sandin was just a fun map for April Fools and not in the same style of one team has to hold, one team has to attack, where it was both teams have to attack and hold

[Sebi330]

I really like the concept of this gamemode, but I would like to suggest a small modification.
Instead of giving the the INS fixed tickets, give them infinite respawns and instead use a timelimit.

For example the BLUFOR would have to defend a base for 45mins, and meanwhile the INS tries to move in and destroy an objective/cap a flag. This would create the the typical Insurgency atmosphere and would make the attack more fierce. Plus it would make up for the scope advantage the BLUFOR always has, which would be really unfair in this scenario.

BTW,this all really reminds me of the Black Hawk Down Chopper Scene:


PLEASE GREAT PR CODERS; BLESS US WITH THIS NEW GAMEMODE

[Rhino]

I really like the concept of this gamemode, but I would like to suggest a small modification.
Instead of giving the the INS fixed tickets, give them infinite respawns and instead use a timelimit.

For example the BLUFOR would have to defend a base for 45mins, and meanwhile the INS tries to move in and destroy an objective/cap a flag. This would create the the typical Insurgency atmosphere and would make the attack more fierce. Plus it would make up for the scope advantage the BLUFOR always has, which would be really unfair in this scenario.

PLEASE GREAT PR CODERS; BLESS US WITH THIS NEW GAMEMODE

Possibly ye, but then would make players much more inclined to "throw away their lives" with the only put off from that then being the spawn time, but is definitely worth considering

As for coding, as stated before, it doesn't require any coding as the AAS gamemode can be used for this very easily. Although we would clone the gamemode and rename it just so people where clear about what the objective is and to have a time limit and infinite tickets, if we went down that route would require a small tweak to the code too but nothing hard to do, hell even I could code it

[hobbnob]

+1 for infinite OPFOR respawns, possibly with an out-of-bounds-to-opfor secondary base that has a couple of fire support vehicles to help against camping (Blufor can go anywhere inside base 1 and base 2 and between, but only 300m radius around the cappable base to stop them opfor hunting). It would keep combat centralized with perhaps a couple of splinter opfor groups trying to mine the road between the two bases, and vehicles on very long respawn timers could come in and support the main base on occasion. One such example I can think of is having the basrah VCP as the main defending point, but having a couple of WMIK's with GPMG's and 10 minute respawn timers at the airfield that can be used to try and keep the insurgents away.

[tankninja1]

Be cool if the insurgents cashes were BLUFOR objectives and have a dual insurgency thing going on where both teams had to attack and/or defend certain assets to win the game.

[Sebi330]

One such example it can think of is having the basrah VCP as the main defending point

Thats exactly the picture I had in mind when thinking about this gamemode and I really explains my concerns about the BLUFOR scoped rifles . Imagine the following scene :

You and your squad of rebels approach the VCP while it is suppresed by a .50 . Because nobody in your team has a scope ( and in 1.0 for most kits not even a binoc, if I got this right) you have no chance to identify the additional pixel behind the barbed wire and you get picked off by his standard issue rifle, because he can see you while you can not see him.

In normal INS mode, not having a scope isnt really a propblem, because you can force the BLUFOR into CQC situations and chose your battlegrounds. When the INS have to attack, they face a well entrenched enemy with superior technology, sitting in his foxhole with his M21 and perfectly settled deviation.

[quote=""Rhino"]... but then would make players much more inclined to "throw away their lives"[/quote]

In that light I would not call I throwing away a life anymore, but rather many deaths could become a necessity to probe the defenses or create sucide SQs to focus the BLUes attetion away. Thats why I think this gamemode would need infinite lives to the ins.

[quote="hobbnob""] possibly with an out-of-bounds-to-opfor secondary base that has a couple of fire support vehicles to help against camping[/quote]

I don't think that camping is a problem here, what else are you supposed to do as a blufor who should defend his objective. I think even mortar could be slightly OP in this scenario, because with a well coordinated squad you are able to lay down nonstop fire with them and in this way the round could be over pretty fast.

[hobbnob]

Yeah +1 to removing mortars for that. We'd have to have pretty low blufor tickets to make it work, and maybe a GPO change for a couple of the maps to make it difficult for insurgents to actually get into the base. The reason I request lower tickets is because they can't get reinforcements, so they'd only have the 50 or so people there, so perhaps 70 odd tickets.

I'm gonna use the book 'Sniper One' as my example here, it's a bloody good book for anyone who's interested in what happened after the Iraq war was officially ended. In that the guys were besieged in their little base (can't remember what term they used for it now) and the only support they got was the occasional convoy of Warrior IFV's and a squad of PMC's that we don't need because of our specialist kit system. When it got bad they weren't allowed to get further than 1 or 2 hundred meters from the base.

I'm not saying we stick light armour in there, it would be a continuous bloodbath. What I'm saying is we occasionally stick a pair of armed jeep type things (M240 HMMWV on Kokan/Ramiel, GPMG WMIK on Sangin/Basrah etc) that you can use to great effect but can also be taken out easily if they're not careful so it's balanced. I also think that insurgents shouldn't have access to vehicles, as they could simply rush the base and get a couple of guys in there to spawncamp the poor sods.

I also think that we should keep the insurgent's special kits in there as well, PKM's and RPG's would add so much to the "oh ****" mindset of a besieged area.

Also just had a thought, this gamemode would need to completely change with the player numbers. We can't fit 32 (Or, god help us all, 50) players into basrah's VCP, 16 max. For that we'd use the airfield (Could we possibly also use Kashan's airfield with the village being the insurgents main?)