AAS capture order

[Ason]

Hello! Before I say anything I will say that I haven't played 1.0 that much so I might of missed some changes.

I want to ask why the CPs have a capture order. The thing I'm missing in PR especially after seeing all Syrian videos is the "stationary" fighting, where it seems like one side is holding lets say a compound and the other side is holding an airfield 500 m away, and the fighting goes on between these two spots for a longer period, ofcourse smaller units going around flanking and getting close to eachother. At the moment I got a feeling that all squads are special forces and both teams are basically just always running around the map searching for eachother. ( Or maybe i'm totally wrong and wars for the past 20 years have been fought exactly like it is in PR atm )

What I wonder is wouldn't it be better if each layer had more CPs spread out across the map, or maybe not even more just to make the current ones all cappable whenever you want (remove capture order)?
Wouldn't this give more variation in strategy and stuff since teams can always decide on their own how to capture the CPs?

If more CPs were added maybe the minimap would be more strategic and territorial showing different areas controlled by different team like a strategy game aswell.
And also giving the possibility for a small group to be cut of from the rest and encircled just like in real life, something like this, as you see in upper right corner a small village with mec fighters have been cut of and maybe needs to call in heli to come rescue them or something. Maybe creating more complex situation on battlefield, where squads really need to work togheter to decide which CP to go for and which to sacrifice if needed etc.



Well, basically this is not a suggestion but more of a question since I'm sure it was changed from vbf2 style for a reason. But you can take it as a suggestion if you want

Btw I haven't slept for 30 hours so im sorry about misspelling and a bit confusing text

[Gracler]

This is exactly what the capture "order" is achieving. Instead of having everyone run around like ants across the entire map, they are forced to capture the next 1 or 2 (if linked) flags in the capture order.
I especially like linked flags as they bring out that We attack here while you attack there co-operation feeling.

[Arc_Shielder]

While I understand where you're getting at, the teams would be even more scattered that way.

[Ason]

I feel like atm it all comes down to 1 CP which = CQC, because everyone is just going for that one CP. While if there were more options like in the pictures, the fighting could be made more longrange while both teams are actually defending a CP. And when the map settles when both sides got all there first CP that's when offensive on different CP begins, wouldn't this spread the combat over a larger part of the map which could maybe improve gameplay now when 100p ?

In real life war isn't it usually like longrange and then after x days/weeks one side retreats before it actually goes to close combat? If there were more CPs people would maybe consider retreating more and maybe choose an easier target etc?

[MaxBooZe]

This is exactly what Planetside is trying to achieve and it's not working and they have over a 100 players on the map at all times. The problem with this is that a team can work it's hardest to strongpoint the entire front line but it only takes 1 helicopter to get behind your lines. Also if you spread across the map your defense is so thin that the enemy would only need to find a specific location and push with all their manpower and assets to crush your defence.

For this to work correctly you would need a lot of players and preferably just a bit larger maps and CPs. Because if you were to implement this right now, for example on Kashan, you would have the bunkers and then a whole lot of sand that you'd be fighting over. The same on woodland maps, there would be 2 or 3 interesting CPs (most likely far behind a team's frontline) and the rest would be forest or a hill or sand that you'd be fighting over.

Also it would require a lot of extra transport and teamwork that we can just not deliver with the playercount. If there's a breach on one side of the defence your team has to scatter and sacrifice a flank to reinforce the breach. Which wouldn't work because most likely the breach is so large that you can't stop the advance unless you pull everyone from the entire map to that area, which leaves the rest of the CPs undefended.

The reason armies in a real scenario can hold a wider frontline is because besides those frontline units they have reserve units, maybe even QRF units, support units, logistical support, on call air support etc etc. Things we can either not do due to the playercount and/or due to the BF2 engine and perhaps just limitation of what we want to achieve with the game.

[Gracler]

This is exactly what Planetside is trying to achieve and it's not working and they have over a 100 players on the map at all times. The problem with this is that a team can work it's hardest to strongpoint the entire front line but it only takes 1 helicopter to get behind your lines. Also if you spread across the map your defense is so thin that the enemy would only need to find a specific location and push with all their manpower and assets to crush your defence.

For this to work correctly you would need a lot of players and preferably just a bit larger maps and CPs. Because if you were to implement this right now, for example on Kashan, you would have the bunkers and then a whole lot of sand that you'd be fighting over. The same on woodland maps, there would be 2 or 3 interesting CPs (most likely far behind a team's frontline) and the rest would be forest or a hill or sand that you'd be fighting over.

Also it would require a lot of extra transport and teamwork that we can just not deliver with the playercount. If there's a breach on one side of the defence your team has to scatter and sacrifice a flank to reinforce the breach. Which wouldn't work because most likely the breach is so large that you can't stop the advance unless you pull everyone from the entire map to that area, which leaves the rest of the CPs undefended.

The reason armies in a real scenario can hold a wider frontline is because besides those frontline units they have reserve units, maybe even QRF units, support units, logistical support, on call air support etc etc. Things we can either not do due to the playercount and/or due to the BF2 engine and perhaps just limitation of what we want to achieve with the game.

I agree, before the capture order was invented you lost flags without a fight all the time because very few wants to defend a flag that might be attacked in 5 min... it might be attacked in 2 hours?.

By the time you almost have full control and left 1 squad to defend each flag you either run out of attacking force or you start loosing the flag furthest behind the front-line.... then you have to do a 180 on all your forces which just creates even more chaos. This is how vBF2 works and it is very arcade stylish.

[Gracler]

Btw you may have heard of the game "Frontlines - Fuel of War".

Some of the people behind it also made BF2, but unfortunately the game was never a huge success mainly because of performance issues and the hi-tech advantages vs the limited ability to hide and the small scale of the maps.

The idea behind it is great though.

The trailer makes it looks much cooler than it actually is (like with many other trailers)

[PFunk]

If PR has succeeded at one thing that practically no other mainstream objective based shooter has, its managing to get large groups of players fighting together over the same chunk of ground on big maps.

Nearly every shooter out there accomplishes this concentration of players by making maps into cleverly disguised dungeons. Those that do venture into the open map concept often do poorly or wimp out. They like the open world idea, but they don't actually try to generate the PR level of difficulty in the actual shooting or the million other little details that PR is different with. There are finally some games trying, like the derivatives of Red Orchestra, but I still find them clunkier than PR.

Max's summary is pretty much it.

[matty1053]

This would just be like...
vBF2 Flags...


It's pretty boring especially when you have everyone scattered across the map.

[Heavy Death]

If the CP size is made larger, then it would be more like this.

[SIDEKILL3R]

If PR has succeeded at one thing that practically no other mainstream objective based shooter has, its managing to get large groups of players fighting together over the same chunk of ground on big maps.

got that right man no other mod or game just as good as this due to mumble of course

[PFunk]

got that right man no other mod or game just as good as this due to mumble of course

Well, I don't want to give mumble too much credit. It came along relatively late in PR's life and PR was doing a great job of creating massed fights before then, but to Mumble's credit it really pushed it to the next level for pubbers.

I remember when Mumble was a brand new thing, and in the PRT we used it for the first time, before any other PRT team did I'm pretty sure. It wasn't PR Mumble, it was just the universal client. It was pretty wicked. In the middle of a frantic PRT battle I see my SL walk over to another squad's SL, and take a knee and consult on whats happening with direct chat. Face to face intel sharing, enemy status and likely movements, then quick as that on our way.

Until mumble the best coordination happened over Teamspeak. Now its not necessary mostly.