Conquest without flags?

[Mikemonster]

It would be Kashan, but worse, I reckon.

At least at Kashan you have central flags for the single 'inf' squad to walk to and the rest of the team to 'flank'.

It's just too fast paced a game to do combined arms, and with no flags to co-ordinate on it would be chaos.

Although fingers crossed people would actually use the best ground to build their FOB on.. (Leading to a battle for a hill, as you'd imagine in real life). But even then mortars/CAS would nullify it in favour of a typical 'secret' fob, but the secret fob would have nowhere to attack (as the other side would have the same idea.. :0).

[Heavy Death]

This was tested on Wicca's map "Karenze Offensive" before he put flags on it. I think he didn't go too well.

It was THE shit. One of the nicest rounds of PR ive had, but 200p and a new map contribute to that. We came on the enemy team from the south with the rest of the team holding west. As the enemy pushed notrh and west they got caught in a firefight with the west platoon. It took us quite some time to battle through the remains and link up with the rest of our team. Enemies had a high ground position by then and it was just a long *** long range firefight going on.
No rushing, no capping just plain old "predict enemy movement, ambush, cut them off..." stuff... much better than just being faster to the enemies first flag.

Why nobody plays CnC? Muttrah creates more traffic and that is revenue. All top servers are running those 4 maps wich appeal to the masses otherwise its just not profitable. There could be an agreement so that all the servers would play all the modes and maps but sooner or late (... right off the bat) one would run muttrah only and they would get the population, others would follow because fuck trying if i can have it the easy way and it would end up exactly like it is now.

Im all up for "TDM", but it could turn out in a big derpfest. Exploitation and metagame playstiles would be reduced. Pretty much to zero.

Im all for trying this out.

[Smiddey723]

This was tested on Wicca's map "Karenze Offensive" before he put flags on it. I think he didn't go too well.

It was awful, we ended up waiting on a hill for 2 hours without seeing the enemy team then when they did come all of our weapons were ineffective at the range which we were fighting at. It was basically a fight over who could destroy the tanks. when the tanks had gone the team could just sit 1km away and kill everything

[brezmans]

I don't want to hijack this thread but on the HOG server we play CnC about once or twice a day lately. We put the option in the vote and it sometimes wins. I think it's a good change from AAS and INS, but it will never be as popular as either of those two because the amount of teamwork required to win is higher than on AAS. This might lead to more frustrating games.

We had a small unannounced CnC event yesterday on a locked server with the pass available on our website and the server was full for the majority of the time. Don't write CnC off just yet, it might get a revive in the community if there is enough interest. If you want to support CnC, check PRSPY and see if any of the servers is running it and join in, server admins listen to playernumbers, it's like currency to them

More on topic: A map with no flags and purely a team deathmatch would be boring with no objectives besides killing off your opponents. But maybe a large map with only one flag in the center could be interesting? Centers the fight but gives a whole lot of leeway as to how you want to assault or defend it?

[Bluedrake42]

um... this already exists... its called command and control. how did this suggestion get through?

[SShadowFox]

Here is your answer, made by [R-MOD]Spec about other suggestion, that may apply to this one.

The suggestion is not accepted, I merely wanted to comment.

Source: Add Magazine Ammo Count - Project Reality Forums

[AFsoccer]

If you look at the OP date, it got approved in 2007... before CnC... but it's still a good discussion so we'll keep it open to get feedback/ideas for improvement.

[doop-de-doo]

In warfare, where objectives are involved, usually there is an army that already occupies it (similar to Siege at Ochamchira) and one that conspires to take it. We have plenty of modes that involve objectives, with caches, parts of a city, or even FSBs (firebases).

On the other hand, if we look at some of the cases of the Iraq war, there were no specific objectives other than to overthrow the enemy forces in an expanse of terrain. The Iraq army chose their locations to dig in and fight, and the US forces engaged them as they were found. There was no place to raise your flag and signal your control over the area until one side was defeated.

---

This game mode might seem complicated or boring to those who are not familiar with this style of combat. Methods and behavior needed to make this game mode work would have to be learned in the same way that people learn the ropes when they first play PR. Then again, it would just a game mode, not the only way to play.

[SShadowFox]

Well, on this game-mode, the team that manage to get to high points and other vantage points will win the battle easily and fast, the objectives would be created by the teams, not established previously by the mapper.

But as said above, it would look like hard and complicated, also it looks like CNC but with varied objectives.

[doop-de-doo]

-bumped-

[Truism]

CnC is not this suggestion, CnC is a user placed objective mode. The idea of a DM based mode is fine, but has compatibility issues with the current maps. Additionally, AAS is already primarily determined by kills while the objectives are actually largely superfluous except in heavily mismatched games because of how tickets and bleed work.