Fortify & Assault - New Gamemode Concept

[SleepyHe4d]

I do.
Flags become repetetive and do not allow you to make plans based on which features of the terrain to mke your main defences around, and do not let the players decide what is the best area to defend/the best method to defend it.

There is also little/no recon needed ATM, the enemy know EXACTLY what to attack to defeat you, its not really like you can fall back to defend a different area either, because you absolutely need the flags in a certain order.

Flanking to attack the rear flags is currently though of as a bad tactic, with this method you need a diversion to do that and leads to more realistic gameplay where one/two squads assault a position to get the enemys attention while a few sneak around and get positions to assault several flags at once, overwhelming the enemy in some cases and in others finding a strong defence.

It makes villages and hills strategic, not just as a place to attack/look for the enemy, but as places to fortify and use to slow the enemy and flank around to a position where you may/may not find an entire platoon. Thus making it different from any other map where the enemy are almost always attacking preset arbitrary CPs in order to 'push the enemy back' while the enemy may actually have incredibly stong defences that are just ignored, no matter how strategic.

Basically, its more realistic.

I agree with all the things you bring up but that still doesn't answer the question of why wouldn't you be able to cap it back? That's why I made the compromise of just using this idea in Insurgency where it makes sense that you can't cap them back since the other team actually has to destroy the caches.

I would be all for this though if you were able to recap them. Not only that but depending on what map it is each team would be able to set up a certain number of control points. Like maybe on one map US gets zero control points to set up and MEC gets 5, but on another it could be like 3 control points to set up for each team.

Though that still doesn't solve the problem of this being a game so some players don't take it seriously. Who will get to pick the points? Squad leaders do and commanders have to accept? What if you end up with a commander that will accept anything? Then it's just a race for whatever squad leaders get to the place they want to put a control point first.

About the "Basically, its more realistic" part, well the only way it's more realistic is that you don't know how the map is set up, but then it just drops back down past how realistic it is in the current version because control points will end up in horrible places and obvious good places may not even end up being used.

[OwnRize]

I agree with all the things you bring up but that still doesn't answer the question of why wouldn't you be able to cap it back? .................................................................. Then it's just a race for whatever squad leaders get to the place they want to put a control point first.

I don't see a problem with it at all. Ones again it is all about teamwork. If nobody plays in a team they will loose the game. As easy as that. And I think a commander should send squads to surtain areas to setup those points. The problem that I do see is that the commander is a ********* and doesn't accept no single point to be set and the team will loose the game.
(but we have admins for that who can kick/ban them)

However I would like to see them to be able to cap it back (like flag system). Or else it would look like to much of counter-attack.

[SleepyHe4d]

If you can cap it back then the attackers need to defend it AND the defenders can still take control
It needs to be like this or it will turn into a vanilla-style whack-a-mole game with different CPs each time.

I don't see a problem with that. You just used reality as an excuse to add this gametype and this right here is more realistic.

If you really wanted it to be realistic then both sides should be able to make as many fortifications as they want (with distance limits of course) and instead of being cappable you have to destroy them. Then the commander would be extremely useful and also this would add a lot of strategy to the game, for instance you wouldn't want to make too much and over extend yourself and then get a bunch of your fortifications destroyed.

The way it would work is the other team would lose tickets faster the more fortifications you have but you would lose a big chunk of tickets any time any of your fortifications are destroyed. Of course this simple idea would need some tweaks and changes to make it into a real gametype and give players the incentive to attack instead of just building the whole game.

[Onil]

SleepyHe4d we can't focus only on reality but also on gameplay and in this case this is intended to have a certain impact on the player that needs to defend a location as best as he can in order to win the game. In real life you also don't have the time limit of each round or tickets... but they are needed for game purposes. Same goes in this case with the defeat if the defence is overtaken.

If you really want to have the possibility for the team to try and retake the lost locations then you need to make it more complicated.

For example the attacker has to destroy the enemy asset in order to place his own and with that capture the point. This requires that the assaulting team needs to clear and secure the area in order to be able to built their defence that will capture the location. However this would work best in waves of assaults and that will be too much like Counter Attack mod.

If every location is captured then the tickets will bleed fast and proclaim the winner.

[SleepyHe4d]

What you are suggesting is a way of being alerted to the enemies presence then rushing for that point and directly assaulting them in order to secure that point for yourself, while the enemy have already left for somewhere else which you may have just left undefended, neither side needing defences or cocrdinated assaults to secure a CP.

No idea what you're talking about there.

No it isn't, more realistic is flanking the enemy to take out their supply lines and generally render them ineffective/dead while keeping yours effective and alive to achieve a preset goal. This may or may not be the destruction of the enemy forces which are likely to be located on a strategic position, one offering a place from which to engage beyond the enemies effective range and/or with relative safety from said enemy forces or to allow control of a major, easily traversed, route through the local area, which must be taken in order to secure the surrounding area for the safe passage of allied forces to a different objective.

Right, well feel free to design this gametype. o.O
If you're aware that this isn't possible with the engine then why would you bring it up?

How does this make the suggestion you're defending any more realistic?

I've explained myself thoroughly enough though so I'll just leave any decisions up to the devs now.

SleepyHe4d we can't focus only on reality but also on gameplay

Yeah, I know that and that is how I was thinking. I take them both into mind and try to find a nice balance. People just have different visions on what is good gameplay and I guess I'm just outnumbered in this case.

[BloodBane611]

Definitely like this idea, agree with jonny that the attackers would need something more than twiddling their thumbs.

I think it's a very workable design, although I don't know about deployable CPs. Still, very innovative, would be an awesome gamemode.

[[T]Terranova7]

I agree with all the things you bring up but that still doesn't answer the question of why wouldn't you be able to cap it back? That's why I made the compromise of just using this idea in Insurgency where it makes sense that you can't cap them back since the other team actually has to destroy the caches.

I would be all for this though if you were able to recap them. Not only that but depending on what map it is each team would be able to set up a certain number of control points. Like maybe on one map US gets zero control points to set up and MEC gets 5, but on another it could be like 3 control points to set up for each team.

Though that still doesn't solve the problem of this being a game so some players don't take it seriously. Who will get to pick the points? Squad leaders do and commanders have to accept? What if you end up with a commander that will accept anything? Then it's just a race for whatever squad leaders get to the place they want to put a control point first.

About the "Basically, its more realistic" part, well the only way it's more realistic is that you don't know how the map is set up, but then it just drops back down past how realistic it is in the current version because control points will end up in horrible places and obvious good places may not even end up being used.

For starters, being able to cap your hardpoints back would cause some problems. I doubt an AAS like order can be applied to the hardpoints, so at any given time all hardpoints can be attacked by the offensive team. Being able to cap these hardpoints back like Jonny said, would create a whack-a-mole conquest style of gaming.

Having both teams deploy Hardpoints just sounds too complicated. Because if you're team is trying to defend your own hardpoints and capture the other teams, then you end spreading out an already thin number of players as you try to balance out your defenders and attackers. Also... I'm not exactly sure on how you would go about splitting the map between the two sides to establish hardpoints.

Although potential smacktards have a better chance of ruining the game, I've taken measures to make sure the deployment of hardpoints is as full proof as possible. For starters, like I said the same rules that apply for rally points would apply here. You would need probably 4 or more players in the squad to begin with, and those squad members would have to be within a certain radius. If we make the hardpoint an object, then there would be a need to build them so having nearby shovels would come in handy. Probably a no to needing a CO approval as one smacktard CO would seriously screw up a game.

In terms of where a hardpoint can and may be placed. Well, IMO a Control Point or in this case a Hardpoint represents a concentration of forces. It doesn't have to be based around a village or some major bunker complex. It can be right in the middle of the desert. Granted, it might not be tactically sound to do so as defending open ground would be exceedingly difficult. So hopefully, players are smart enough to establish hardpoints based around easily defended locations such as a small village, a market square, a key hilltop etc. Don't forget, once a hardpoint is created, bunkers and other defenses can be created afterwards. So any random spot in the middle of the desert can become a player made, fortified base.

____________

Anyhow, I do like Onil's idea about maybe having mapper placed points that the defensive team can choose to "activate" and build around that, as opposed to having players manually set down hardpoints which could potentially lead to glitches.

[PFunk]

I really like the sounds of this. Flexible gameplay with improvisation.

In terms of the wait time I know for a fact that players are more than willing to wait. I also play a game called Team Fortress 2, released by Valve on Steam some months ago. Its a cartoonish game that looks like The Incredibles and has ridiculous but well balanced gameplay.

So whats my point. Well on attack/defend maps where one team is assigned to defend 2 un-recappable control points the attackers are forced to sit inside their spawn for the first minute. In this time the defenders get in place, build equipment, like turrets and teleporters, and then the onslaught begins. Its still a linear battle but the game's major audience is a random mix of CS and Day of Defeat and Quake and UT and anyone else. So basically impatient sods. So with the allegedly mature PR audience I figure that they can wait the 5 or 10.

The question I have is what incentive does the defending team to have to not just turtle up within 5 feet of their indestructible base and us the organic base denfeses on top of the constructed ones? I figure there has to be some incentive to control the terrain and not just defend an artificially placed point. Like why should they contest a beach landing?

I dont' have an answer but it seems to me that you could easily just build a bunch of CPs in the corner of the map and force the enemy to have a full on frontal assault.

[General_J0k3r]

i think the suggestion rules. it might be a pain in the *** regarding balancing from a mapper's POV?

[101 bassdrive]

I like the idea, sounds similar to operation pearl which should have or hopefully still will go down.
I guess you could tweak it just a lilbit and youd have a perfect setup for island hopping, where the defending team would naturally have a hard time recapping one of those islands once the bunker, or hardpoint as you call, on a particular island gets destroyed.

daydream: I still so hope for an islandhopping map with chalkmountains, jungle thicket, ambient monkey and parrot screams aswell as swift speedboat and hueybirdy insertions
like bonds golden gun.

[[T]Terranova7]

I really like the sounds of this. Flexible gameplay with improvisation.

In terms of the wait time I know for a fact that players are more than willing to wait. I also play a game called Team Fortress 2, released by Valve on Steam some months ago. Its a cartoonish game that looks like The Incredibles and has ridiculous but well balanced gameplay.

So whats my point. Well on attack/defend maps where one team is assigned to defend 2 un-recappable control points the attackers are forced to sit inside their spawn for the first minute. In this time the defenders get in place, build equipment, like turrets and teleporters, and then the onslaught begins. Its still a linear battle but the game's major audience is a random mix of CS and Day of Defeat and Quake and UT and anyone else. So basically impatient sods. So with the allegedly mature PR audience I figure that they can wait the 5 or 10.

The question I have is what incentive does the defending team to have to not just turtle up within 5 feet of their indestructible base and us the organic base denfeses on top of the constructed ones? I figure there has to be some incentive to control the terrain and not just defend an artificially placed point. Like why should they contest a beach landing?

I dont' have an answer but it seems to me that you could easily just build a bunch of CPs in the corner of the map and force the enemy to have a full on frontal assault.

There would be no main base for the defending team. At best, you could deploy a CP/Hardpoint within some heavily fortified area (Like Kashan or Qinling's airfields). But obviously the CPs/Hardpoints would have to be a certain distance from one another, and you might not always want to build them in the most obvious places.

All in all though, it's really what the team sees as the best strategy. If they want to hunker down the majority of their CPs around one area, by all means let them. The biggest downside to that is that once one of the initial CP/Hardpoint is found, the rest can be easily identified, then you'll have the one big fragfest over a small area. Considering that the offensive team will usually have the superior firepower (In the form of air support usually) this may not always be the best option if the offenders have good pilots.

[PFunk]

Air support does not go well unless there are HUNDREDS of places that cannot be seen at all from the air. It should be transport only.

Agreed. Or at best the Little Bird Gunship. Also the defenders having air transport would be useful for shifting the defense. It would be an interesting tactical idea to lay a CP with an obvious and logical direction of attack against it and then use air support to drop in behind and ambush.

Yes the more I think about it the more interesting this map idea is. Though it would probably suck half the time on public servers from the lack of coordination.

[snotmaster0]

I like this idea a lot!

There seam to be sooo many cool twists that you could add. Like having to build bases within a certain radius of each other to form a sort of supply line (would also stop from having one massive group of bases with one tiny base off in the most obscure place). Or (as someone suggested) have islands. Or have different kinds of bases that can be built, vehicle base, outpost, etc. Or have tunnels (don't crucify me for suggesting tunnels, I'm sorry mappers) and bases could be built underground. The possibilities are nearly endless.

Also, why no heavy air? Troops still have to take the CP (unless it's something that can be blow up which would be a bad idea in any case), don't troops almost always have air support nowadays, and what do you think AA guns are for killing mosquitoes?

[SinrG-202]

I like this idea. Not so much the attacking team waiting 4 minutes to spawn. that's a bit of a windup, but a lockout area they can't leave would solve that. Also give the TEAM time to get their stuff together.

[DeltaFart]

Love this idea, but sleepyheads argument is illogical.
Look at PG1, where in the hekc were there strategic areas in the desert there?!
And the bulge in WW2, the ardenne were considered to be inpenetrable by armor, so forces weren't stationed there, but the idea that an atttack(if hitler was able to do so) could happen, that area counldn't be overlooked. The fact that the germans got armor in that area is why the bulge was so big(along with a whole bunch of otehr factors but Im making a point)
WW1, that was all just trenches set up from the channel to the alps, no real strategic importance other than they didn't want the enemy getting through

See where Im going?

I hope to see thiis put in