Type of warfare

[77SiCaRiO77]

agree in everything but the time of capturing , 10 seconds sound not enought , maybe 30 will fit better , but all depend if the type of flag(more seconds to capture an important objetive ,etc) .

[[uBp]Irish]

i read through this post and thought kinda the same thing.

only instead of reducing the amount of time to take flags, what if it was more of like AASv3.

i say this by as it stands now, you have to take says 2 flags before you can take flags that are behind it.

What if you make it so you essentially have 4 flags instead of 2. but hold on picture this.

What if say on qwai river, chinese has to hold estate/temple and then get fishing ..>government office. What if you made it so that the Chinese could go ahead and rush towards fishing village, cap that, and then they cant move on until temple/estate are captured. That's if you're playing one side. But think of it as the Americans. If it's adapted from what i just said, make it so Americans after they have governement office/mines/production and are working on fishing, they can attack and cap estate/temple. HOWEVER the americans couldnt attack outpost until they had fishing village.

It sounds a little charlie-foxtroted fropm the way i was saying it, but that way americans could work on fishing village from two fronts. From governement and the river, as well as from behind from Estate or Temple. You get your flanking attacks that small special forces/elite teams would do and then move in on an objective in a joint effort with the conventional attack. It would need to be tweaked but this way you also allow it so that if a back flag is taken, those attackers can poosibly cut off the chain of supplies by holding off a vital supply road to the fight. THey could be the blocker force for the conventional forces in the back to take the flags unopposed and move up and join the fight.

[SuperTimo]

i agree too IRL a war of attrition as most games become would not be tolerated, look at the team total of deaths, hundrends imagine if in afganistan hundreds of british and insurgents were killed in each battle, what is this WWIII?? in the first gulf war we lost hrdley any men at all.

[Saobh]

i agree too IRL a war of attrition as most games become would not be tolerated, look at the team total of deaths, hundrends imagine if in afganistan hundreds of british and insurgents were killed in each battle, what is this WWIII?? in the first gulf war we lost hrdley any men at all.

Yeah but thats because they had the squad bug ...

[Teek]

The flag should suggest who controls the flag, if it is greyed, then it is contested. If all enemeys and spawns in a area are dead then the flag should start capping unless a new spawn point moves in the area.

[zeidmaan]

If you make the capping of flags quick than you have to defend flags and not the territory around it. You would have to have troops exactly on the flag. But only few flags are actual bunkers. Take fishing village for example. You wouldnt be able to move to the forrest that is all around the flag. Because if you do than the enemy can rush in with a jeep, jump out, dolphin dive, roll left - roll right and the flag is capped. They die and you cap it back. And than the same thing all over again. Thats how vanilla is played - exclusively in the flag radious.

With long capping times you can spread around, get on the hills, roofs, cranes etc. 100 meters away and still get back in time if the enemy manages to sneak through. Thats the beauty of it. Entire map is a battlefield.

[[T]Terranova7]

Not to mention... maneuver warfare is more of a strategic aspect of war. In many ways the sides depicted in PR are engaged in maneuver warfare as the maps themselves usually represent strategic territory or a key objective. Take Operation Ghost Train for example... you would think why in the world are two fighting forces fighting over some inhospitable jungle, but if you read the map briefing you learn that the British have designated an assault in the region in order to cut off the PLA's supply line. Now that is in many ways attrition warfare, but it has nothing to do with how AAS plays.

I think AAS in many ways simulates one force securing a region, tackling strong points where one side digs itself in. One side is basically displacing to a secondary position when one of their flags is lost, while the other is making an advancement toward their goal of securing the area.

AAS to me is merely a way to keep the action between sides both constant and intense. There's never a dull moment when defending or assaulting a CP, and why should there be.

[77SiCaRiO77]

you are confusing cap time with cap radius , and no , this is not like vanilla , in vanilla a flag is captured in 5 seg. , and acording to this sugestion it will be like 30-40 seg for low priority areas , and like 1-2 minust for high priority or important objetives areas , diferent from vanilla and diferent from the stay-crouched-for-3-minutes-in.each-flag-to-capture-it-even-when-is-a-white-flag of PR.

[Robbeh]

if you want to ensure that the flags are capped and then defended properly during the next advance you could change the flag rules so that flags in competition require a team member within their radius at all times or they slowly turn back to gray and also require no members of the opposing team within its radius before it starts capping...
this way it would be up to the maps designer to ensure that there are multiple flags or only a single flag in competition depending on how they want that area of the map to play and also allows the use of quicker capping times

[Winterfrost]

I have a good suggestion: flag capture time should be greatly reduced but it takes 4-6 people to capture the flag

edit: but personally we shouldn't have flags at all, in favor of more objective type warfare some of these objectives should be mobile