New insurgency game mode

[Ecko]

The current insurgency game mode, whilst being fun, isn't a good portrayal of an already positioned occupation force trying to remove a radical group of people. Currently, insurgency is far closer to the first few weeks of taking control of an area, with removing resources disabling future insurgent attacks. So hence forth, I will talk about the current insurgency game mode as "Insurgency-Raid" or "IR".

Insurgency Occupation (IO)

I'll use al basrah as an example map for this game mode, I've try too keep everything reasonable within the bf2 engine.

The ticket system would remain the same as it is in IR. The non cap spawn point would move to a less direct position, far away from the main combat zone, best example would be a small village at the top right of the map.
In the city, village and a couple of houses there would be rally points as the current IR uses.

So far we have, an dynamic attack force, that can attack from plenty of directions, but can also have that ability cut off.

Now, for the brits there would be patrol routes that need to be filled, much like the old VIP game mode, there would be check points to reach. Once reached, it wouldn't have to be returned to for 2-5 minutes and these check points would be distributed throughout the map with 50 percent being random check points.

Such places for static check points would be the cross roads in the main city, the big house at village, the bridges, palace, main road on the north west island. There would be 10-30 check points, once again balance is a key thing.

Victory conditions; Britain can only win by time, that is it. Insurgent, by disrupting patrols enough that 1-5 check points have gone over there alloted 2-5minuite patrol period.


There are problems with this mode though, which with some dynamic thinking could be resolved, the main problem is the amount of check points. If we had 32, that would mean 1 person could each hold a check point on his own if the server was full. But as the server gets more empty, keeping all the check points active would become even harder, this would mean for a server to start playing this game mode it would be really hard. A solution would be that per every 1-5 people joining a check point could be added.

EDIT: 10 minute start up, this would mean that all the patrol points would be inert until 10 minutes is up, allowing joining, kit acquisition and deployment of forward bases to support patrols.



Opinions? and problems you can see as well!

[Ecko]

I dont think time should be the main victory condition, there should be a number of points the brits need to go through to win, in one truck.

It should be in a set order that is randomised at the start of each run.

The insurgents would get to know about one which is 3-7 jumps ahead to allow ambushes and to stop the brits knowing where the insurgents are.

The brits get 5 mins to drive to the next one, before the run is reset and they loose tickets. They should have to go through 5 insurgent held points before the win, then return to the main or VCP safely.

That would be a lot like the old VIP mode, which I personally love... but I still personally don't find it fitting as an insurgency type game mode. Coalition forces IMO should have no real objective apart from not lose. They did the winning when they took over the area from the previously standing army.

[Ecko]

But if the insurgent team really sucks then there is little point in playing it for the full hour. Just one long, successful, patrol should make them able to reassure the population that they are there to protect them and are actively doing it, so win.

EDIT:
It would also be longer and go through more vehicles and points, but not stupidly long.

I see where you are coming from, but how often do insurgency games end due to every cache being destroyed? Also when they do, it's at least taken an hour just to find them... I see a much larger chance of the brits losing quickly due to lack of organization than insurgents doing nothing for 3 hours.

Also, this is an attempt at a realistic occupation whilst not being boring. One long patrol wouldn't stop an uprising, it would just stop that one patrol if the insurgents won, or leave more troops to die the next time there is an attack if it made it unscratched.

[Doc_Frank]

That's an awesome idea Ecko!

This way the allied armies could really be forced to do their main job of the game mode. I'll try to sketch my view of your plan, might be different than your original and might add some new good points:

-- Checkpoints would work basically as flags, until they're "captured" the allied force have to remain in the area.

-- Road and house checkpoints should be separated. Patrol areas would be "captured" (checked) faster and would be on a larger area but they would also spawn faster. Houses/hideouts might consist of more sub-areas (two stories of a buliding, a house and a back-alley, etc.)

-- If the regular army can't or doesn't control the checkpoint by a deadline, they'll have a certain bleed, increasing with more uncontrolled areas. The deadline should be levelled, like "urgent mission", "suspicious sighting", "routine patrol"

-- Fake checkpoints could be added to model the routine manoeuvres. Those should not appear on the insurgents' map as an area to control.

-- The insurgents should lose if the allied forces would achive a certain number of area checks, fakes not included. The exact number however should not be revealed for the regular army.


Finding the balance would require a lot of testing. Anyway this would make for a really exciting scenario with the possibility of well-planned ambushes and counter-attacks.

[Hfett]

Yeah Random Checkpoints on a Xtraction game would be nice


Everytime the map would play diferent

Could be called Convoy
And we could make something like this:
Both teams start's with 1000 tickets

Everytime the suv cross a checkpoint(will be random) the insurgents lose 50 tickets
Everytime the Suv is destroyed the British lose's 50 tickets


The round ends if the British lose to many Suv's or if they cross to many checkpoints

[Ecko]

That's an awesome idea Ecko!

This way the allied armies could really be forced to do their main job of the game mode. I'll try to sketch my view of your plan, might be different than your original and might add some new good points:

-- Checkpoints would work basically as flags, until they're "captured" the allied force have to remain in the area.

-- Road and house checkpoints should be separated. Patrol areas would be "captured" (checked) faster and would be on a larger area but they would also spawn faster. Houses/hideouts might consist of more sub-areas (two stories of a buliding, a house and a back-alley, etc.)

I like that, never even crossed my mind too separate how long it would take to "Lock down" an area. Naturally a building would take long than a street.

-- If the regular army can't or doesn't control the checkpoint by a deadline, they'll have a certain bleed, increasing with more uncontrolled areas. The deadline should be levelled, like "urgent mission", "suspicious sighting", "routine patrol"

Bleed would be a better idea, that way although you still get penalized for not doing the objectives, you don't automatically lose. Would be a good safe guard against losing all forward spawn points plus vehicles.

-- Fake checkpoints could be added to model the routine manoeuvres. Those should not appear on the insurgents' map as an area to control.

I don't really agree with this, even if through mis-information a patrol went to a different area to check, it would still be functioning as a deterrent force (Unless it was sent to the middle of no where)

-- The insurgents should lose if the allied forces would achive a certain number of area checks, fakes not included. The exact number however should not be revealed for the regular army.

Prehaps, but I think the number would have to be quite high for the games to have a potential of lasting a fairly long time. An hour to 2 seems to be the ideal game length for most players.


Finding the balance would require a lot of testing. Anyway this would make for a really exciting scenario with the possibility of well-planned ambushes and counter-attacks.

My opinion in red.
Balance is exactly the key thing, but if it's done right it would work. IR had the same problem with balancing and it's only just now that it seems perfect.

[Doc_Frank]

My idea with the 4th point was to create a realistic environment, where not every area contains threat. If combined with 2nd point about levelling the urgency of the checkpoints (urgent/suspicious/routine) these fakes would mostly be routines, sometimes suspicious, but never urgent. This would give some idea of the soldiers what to expect.

[Ecko]

My idea with the 4th point was to create a realistic environment, where not every area contains threat. If combined with 2nd point about levelling the urgency of the checkpoints (urgent/suspicious/routine) these fakes would mostly be routines, sometimes suspicious, but never urgent. This would give some idea of the soldiers what to expect.

Ok I see what you mean... to build further on this Routine, Suspicious and Urgent "Zones". For each one cleared you would get a certain amount of points, this being what you need as British to win. So 1 point per a level, routine being 1 point and urgent being 3.

But, how do you define what is "Urgent". Say there is an check point flagged as Urgent, why would it be Urgent? Because the amount of time it hasn't be checked? If so... you would be earning more points potentially for visiting an area with no more resistance than a routine patrol point.

[Doc_Frank]

But, how do you define what is "Urgent". Say there is an check point flagged as Urgent, why would it be Urgent? Because the amount of time it hasn't be checked? If so... you would be earning more points potentially for visiting an area with no more resistance than a routine patrol point.

Checkpoints would appear as what threat they pose (no advance in level), but they start causing bleeding faster and/or more seriously if left unchecked. They could be indicated separetely on the map as yellow-orange-red markers.
Example: message appears on hud, "Suspicious sighting reported: sector E7". After let's say 5 minutes passed without checking the area, a fixed bleeding would start.

Leaving an urgent mission unprosecuted would cause serious ticket bleeding, while the lessers would do less (even the fakes).

Checkpoints would appear respectively to their threat-level, urgent missions would show up in like every 15th-20th minute, while routines would in every 3rd-5th. I really can't tell how it would work alright.

..................

Thinking this through, there's no need for the road-patrols as a different checkpoint if we have the threat-level theme, all of them would be a routine.