Neutralizing flags, out of order

cap`canabis · Post by **cap`canabis** » 2006-01-11 01:22

What if you were able to neutralize flags , out of order?

i like the idea of having to capture the flags in a particular order, but was wondering what you all thought about the idea of being able to neutralize a flag so that the enemy cannot spawn? this would be very strategic as well

for example. on karkand MEC have only their base remaining, they have to capture the train wreck. what if they could neutralize the market and suburbs before capturing the train wreck? they would still not be able to capture the market until train wreck was caputred, but this option would allow the MEC to push back the USMC forces a bit until the train is capped.

CatTail · Post by **CatTail** » 2006-01-11 01:29

I would like this as well, as it is now it can become a mega camp fest.

beta · Post by **beta** » 2006-01-11 01:34

I believe you are talking about the AAS mode, this is only map-specific.

Reasoning for using AAS: it concentrates the fighting a bit more, instead of most of the players running around in jeeps/tanks/choppers playing "flag tag", they actually fight for the flags!

Harven · Post by **Harven** » 2006-01-11 01:40

I like it how it is.. capping in order.. if you don't like it, play the normal conquest mode... but it does help to make people work as a team.. even if they don't want to.

cap`canabis · Post by **cap`canabis** » 2006-01-11 02:02

there's more to playing this mod then capping flags in a particular order, but i didn't realize AAS was a mode i'll read up some more. just to clarify though, this option wouldn't be like conquest at all.

DangChang · Post by **DangChang** » 2006-01-11 02:05

The problem with this is that it wouldn't be effective on some maps. Say, soldiers from flag D are attacking flag E. A defending soldier from flag E sneaks out and greys A, B, and C. He wouldn't be able to grey flag D because there are so many soldiers spawning from it. Also, soldiers attacking from flag D could send maybe 1-2 soldiers to re-cap the greyed flags.

Post by **NikovK** » 2006-01-11 02:39

Assuming A, B, C, D, and E are all in order, and the enemy holds B-E. A stealthy player could go around the well-defend B and grey out C. Although this wouldn't cause damage to the defenders more than losing a few vehicle spawns, it becomes a serious rear-area threat. If the attackers manage to over-run B, the defenders would have to respawn two flags back at D. Completely neglecting the battle outside of the current AAS goal's capture radius will cut you off from reinforcements for some time, just like a real-world envelopement.

This would also be a great way to minimize ticket bleed on some maps.

Szarko · Post by **Szarko** » 2006-01-11 21:37

i like how it is now... it should not change, because then that would take players away from the action and make it a bit less interesting...

F.N.G. · Post by **F.N.G.** » 2006-01-12 00:22

Yes, then you'd have less team work and more people going the easy way around to get flags and points, instead of working together for a common goal. It would end up something like conquest, I think.

I like it the way it is. I agree with Polskas and Harvens statement.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-01-12 00:25

On the other hand, it could promote teamwork. Being the defending team, you would need to have people stay behind to work as a rear-guard, and being on the front line you'd have to trust your team to do that. Also, it isn't like you'd be losing a flag way to your rear, you know you could only lose the 2 flags closest to your enemy. This would take teamwork from both the attackers and defenders and in my opinion would promote teamwork and strategy. The common goal is the same: victory.

cap`canabis · Post by **cap`canabis** » 2006-01-12 00:37

good points. the goal would still be the same, to capture the next flag. this just gives you an option to neutralize one of the enemy's spawns, hence delaying their reinforcements, and giving your TEAM some more time to cap.

Also, this would force the enemy to retreat from a defensive position, if they have to go back to recapture their lost flag.

I like it the way it is too, just wondering what if...

F.N.G. · Post by **F.N.G.** » 2006-01-12 00:58

The way it is right now symbolizes a "Front Line" of sorts. If you start diverting attention off of the front line with a few stragglers trying to base rape and get points for turning flags, it gets rediculous again. Just like Conquest mode. All it takes is a few guys to screw everything up. and if all you have is 10 guys on the server, how can you leave people in the rear to play guard dog. I think it would suck, and promote all the flag hopping that we see in vanilla BF2.

"Where's all the good fire fights?"

"Idunno everyone is streched all across the whole map, screwing around."

Just my opinion.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-01-12 01:12

Opening the flag behind the flag symbolizing the front line to being neutralized is a far cry from flag hopping. The attacking team would still have to capture the front line CP in order to capture the flags beind it.

F.N.G. · Post by **F.N.G.** » 2006-01-12 01:42

Flag hopping is when you go around to undefended flags and just turn them and move on the the next flag. That is what I am refering to.

This would take the focus off of the Line. Very valuable troops would have to be sent back to capture the flags again. Seems pretty pointless to me. It just gives the attacking team the total advantage. Once the front line flag is captures, this leaves the next flag already turned. That's 2 flags captured in the matter af a minute. This would speed things up way to much in my opinion. The good firefight that we would have had is now gone, because the flag is already taken. Less action. Less fun.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-01-12 01:50

It gives the attacking team the advantage only if they turn the rear flag and capture the front line flag in quick succession. Otherwise, should they be denied turning the second flag (which could easily be recaptured by defenders moving up from the rear, should the attackers not move fast enough) they just lost a bunch of soldiers and took weight off their attacking force. While the defenders are left intact and able to reinforce both positions.

Post by **NikovK** » 2006-01-12 02:01

I think it would broaden the strategic element. Sending a man or two out for harassing the rear could help with a stalemated round.

Since we can already limit what we capture, we can prevent neutral-flag-hopping by only letting the next flag from the front be neutralized.

F.N.G. · Post by **F.N.G.** » 2006-01-12 03:31

Maybe. I just like it the way it is.

Genocide · Post by **Genocide** » 2006-01-12 04:46

NikovK wrote:I think it would broaden the strategic element. Sending a man or two out for harassing the rear could help with a stalemated round.

Since we can already limit what we capture, we can prevent neutral-flag-hopping by only letting the next flag from the front be neutralized.

I agree, Nikovk. Totaly restricting how you neutralize flags would get boring.

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2006-01-12 06:37

This is how I would suggest it:

> All undefended outposts can be nuetralized.

> The designated AAS outpost MUST STILL be captured in order, as usual.

> The team that has the most outposts CAN NOT capture any other outposts until communication to the nuetralized outpost/s located behind or in succeeding order from the designated outpost has been re-established and the outpost/s has been cleared.

> The team that has the least outposts CAN NOT capture any of the nuetralized outposts until the correct designated outpost, set by AAS standards, has been cleared.

I love the idea. Question is, is it possible? If so, I think this would definatly make the game tactics MUCH more "tactical" and "emmersive"..

Post by **NikovK** » 2006-01-12 07:46

If we let them neutralize anything, statwhores might start running around the back end of Karkand... probably best to keep it one from the front.