Control Game Mode

[SqnLdr]

Why do there need to be flags to represent these areas and ideas?

Consider this: although toned down compared to what Harrod is suggesting, it is along the same lines:
'Hypothetical' situation: Mountains overlooking the area of engagement - a very nice strategic place for some AA. Take the AA out with ground forces before you use any air support, or you'll lose the airsupport. Otherteam: Defend these hills unless you like the taste of hellfires.

Sounds similar to 0.8 Korengal with Laniyal (sp?) to me - with the Littlebird spawn once its safe.

Of course, Laniyal was a flag. But simply destroying and keeping tabs on the AA implacement / destrying the weapons caches that spawn stingers would work just as well without the need for flag nannying. We allready communicate where the AA is on barricuda (yes, even on public games) and this seems like the next step in terms of teamplay.

This could be expanded: Artillery timings are all well and good, but it doesn't matter how often you can shell your enemy if you can't look at them to call it down. If you can get your lads on the ground to a strategic position, you can shell them effectively. A fear of accurate shelling should be more than enough insentive not to allow your enemy to hold this position.

I agree with the 'airport' concept for aircraft resupply - and this would require some sort of owner to stop the attackers simply using it when defenders aren't looking, as well as to represent the ability for the attackers to get supplies as far as the helipad, however what force would deploy a helicopter in a theater without the ability to resupply it?

I feel the focus should be more on intuative and well thought out map design (which PR has by the bucket load), and communication such that the joys of strategic positions are not overlooked by matey blue over there.

If the map loading screen had some red crayon with a circle saying for example "Possible AA here, take out before using Airsupport", "A good vantage point over the enemy strong points" etc (Typical of any game from ARMA to COD4) or something with more flesh to it, then in general I feel all people would respond better to the idea of capturing ground because it is strategicaly vital.

Whilst I do agree that currently the flags are a bit useless, I feel making them more arcad-ily vital is a step backwards.

Let's face it, PR is more than capable of all that.

I still love you Harrod

[Harrod200]

Of course it would be great if flags could be done away with and rounds be based on destroying (and keeping destroyed) areas and assets, but firstly that would be far harder to code, if even possible, and secondly I don't see how this would make it arcadey.

Right now, flags represent control of an area, but in reality when you control an area, you do it for a reason; be it a strategic outlook for forward observers/FSGs, or somewhere you can establish a base to reorganise. All this suggestion is basically doing is implementing that aspect of controlling an area; you lock a place down, you gain the advantage of holding the place. It provides a very large incentive to take and defend a flag, beyond the current 'take the flag, because the game says so' nature of AAS.

I can see a comprimise here though, if possible hacking about with the CnC mode;
Each 'position' has a mapper-defined perimeter (possible hack of the out-of-bounds area?), hilighted on the map. The position is considered secure and thus control and the position's effects granted to the side which has a firebase inside that perimeter. If both sides have a firebase in the area, it is considered contested and neutral; giving the position 3 possible conditions (BluFor, OpFor and Contested). Similarly to CnC, you must have all 4 firebases set inside perimeters, and the enemy must have none before you can attack their main base. Unlike CnC, firebases outside position perimeters do not count towards their 'defensive' line, so building one at the very edge of the map, miles away from the rest of the gameplay would have no effect.

I would love to see the above, and it would be far more in line with PR's. If PR is about area control over blind flag-capping, there needs to be some reason to control the area. Of course, such a set up is very difficult, if possible. The original idea retaining flags still stands, and should be far easier to implement as Controlv1, while the above is created for later versions as v2.

I hate you Squaddie

[$kelet0r]

Isn't this suggestion the same as the complaint about the CnC gamemode not requiring control of strategic positions when placing firebases...which the Devs are going to fix in the next release with a 'ticket based economy' experiment by gaining 'ticket currency' by controlling one of a choice of map-identified strategic points.

[Harrod200]

Not really, no. This is about positions having more tactical value than just tickets, and having clear in-game advantages to holding.

[aperson444]

I like the idea. As long as it's possible I'm all for it. Just try to make more than 4 captures.

[Harrod200]

Well the problem is, with more control zones/flags capturable at once, the team does get far too spread out. 4, 5 at a stretch is really the most that can be done at a time. Given the number of players on a team, even with them spread evenly between 4 flags, that's still only an avg of 8 per flag.

[SleepyHe4d]

When all objectives are held by one side, the enemy main base is made capturable.

I think it would be a pretty fun gametype except for this rule. Imo this makes or breaks it. I think it should be where you don't need any or just need 1 other flag to be able to capture the enemy's main.

That way there's more of a chance for a comeback and you have more choices in what to prioritize or go for.

If you need all flags, it will either be complete domination by one team or the game will just never end since all 4 of the "add on" flags will be easy targets while that team goes for the enemy main.

Actually, honestly, now that I think about it having multiple flags to defend or attack might be too much and it'll just revert back to wack-a-mole style bf2 gameplay. Wow, in fact this gametype sounds exactly like bf2s gametype.

Without the rule I quoted, it's pretty much bf2 on a cappable main base map, and with that rule it's bf2 on an uncappable main base map.

Haha, yeah, definitely a no go on this gametype now imo.

[Rhino]

this kinda game mode sounds like it would fit more a RTS than a FPS tbh.

Thou that isn't my main problem I have with this game mode since IMO it would be good to get some more "RTS elements" into the game for the commander.

The main problem I have with this game mode is that it just doesn't really support a realistic battle. in real battles you fight for ground or to simply destroy the enemy, and if you are fighting for a strategic objective such a fuel dump or w/e, then ehhh you dont have your tanks refuelling off it instantly as soon as you manage to capture it...

Its a interesting idea but ehhh, I think it needs some more realistic elements to it before we could consider making it?

the other problem is as well, how would this fit onto our current maps?

[PR.IT Stek_WAR]

I like it .... as I understand it should be a way very similar to the game "Company of Heroes"


even if, as [R-DEV] Rhino, I see somewhat unrealistic.

[Harrod200]

this kinda game mode sounds like it would fit more a RTS than a FPS tbh.

Thou that isn't my main problem I have with this game mode since IMO it would be good to get some more "RTS elements" into the game for the commander.

The main problem I have with this game mode is that it just doesn't really support a realistic battle. in real battles you fight for ground or to simply destroy the enemy, and if you are fighting for a strategic objective such a fuel dump or w/e, then ehhh you dont have your tanks refuelling off it instantly as soon as you manage to capture it...

Its a interesting idea but ehhh, I think it needs some more realistic elements to it before we could consider making it?

the other problem is as well, how would this fit onto our current maps?

Fuel dumps you wouldn't immediately utilise, no. But artillery positions and potential reinforcements you would. Admittedly you'd have to look at it as a much larger fight than the one battle (for example, after securing the airport at Baghdad, it was used to ship in more troops. That was more than one battle, but in a heated battle, reinforcements would surely be dropped into such a position, just as securing a new artillery position would be used as soon as possible to call in pointy hell upon the enemy.

The ammo dump and base I can see what you mean there. There would need to be a different objective/advantage to holding the positions, or replacements for those zones to get the same advantage for something that would IRL be used (beach LZ to land vehicles?)

Current maps...would need some modification to work. The only one I could really see working straight away is Op Archer;

A MEC base in the NW of the map, a US in the SE. The airport would just be cleaned up a little, made to look a little less bombed-out and lose the dead tanks. The fortress is clearly a perfect artillery overwatch position. add a few static guns on the turrets and you're done there.

Addition of a highway to part of the map would act as a vehicle spawn point, simulating the area acting as an arrival zone for more armour.

That would give 3 strategic positions to take over for the teams to fight over and determine which to prioritise, each providing realistic advantages for the team holding it.

I would love to see more RTS-ness added to an FPS. Commanding is often like playing an RTS with more 'intelligent' (if not quite so obedient) units, so such things would fit quite nicely.

You're still fighting for control of the region, but there are areas in the battle which hold tactical advantages.

Maybe this could be something of an addition to CnCv2 or AASv4, control points outside of flags which are not essential to victory, but if held provide tactical advantages.

[Rhino]

Fuel dumps you wouldn't immediately utilise, no. But artillery positions and potential reinforcements you would. Admittedly you'd have to look at it as a much larger fight than the one battle (for example, after securing the airport at Baghdad, it was used to ship in more troops. That was more than one battle, but in a heated battle, reinforcements would surely be dropped into such a position, just as securing a new artillery position would be used as soon as possible to call in pointy hell upon the enemy.

I'm sure they didn't have a plane land and drop troops off 5mins after the first guys walked into the area... I expect it took them days for them to fully secure the airport before they let any planes into it.

I also dont see by holding a hill how it can realistically effect the rearming time of arty... the reason why arty inst fired off constantly is they only have soo many arty shells to fire. The only way I can see it is that the hill provides a good observation point to spot targets from but ehhh, that isn't going to also effect arty times realistically...

The ammo dump and base I can see what you mean there. There would need to be a different objective/advantage to holding the positions, or replacements for those zones to get the same advantage for something that would IRL be used (beach LZ to land vehicles?)

not that realistic also tbh.

Current maps...would need some modification to work. The only one I could really see working straight away is Op Archer;

A MEC base in the NW of the map, a US in the SE. The airport would just be cleaned up a little, made to look a little less bombed-out and lose the dead tanks. The fortress is clearly a perfect artillery overwatch position. add a few static guns on the turrets and you're done there.

Addition of a highway to part of the map would act as a vehicle spawn point, simulating the area acting as an arrival zone for more armour.

That would give 3 strategic positions to take over for the teams to fight over and determine which to prioritise, each providing realistic advantages for the team holding it.

I would love to see more RTS-ness added to an FPS. Commanding is often like playing an RTS with more 'intelligent' (if not quite so obedient) units, so such things would fit quite nicely.

You're still fighting for control of the region, but there are areas in the battle which hold tactical advantages.

Maybe this could be something of an addition to CnCv2 or AASv4, control points outside of flags which are not essential to victory, but if held provide tactical advantages.

well the first problem here is modifying maps heavily is really out of the question as your talking heaps of work with redoing Lightmaps etc which can be put into new maps. Having the MEC on archer would be kinda odd too, the map far better suits the Taliban since that is realistic for it and being able to have the MEC and taliban on the map would mean having the map cloned, not a option.



All in all, these objectives you speak of are mainly things that will help in the long run but having them help a team in the short term is unrealistic and kinda gamey...

[$kelet0r]

But the suggestion still doesn't make sense - map makers generally already place flags on 'strategic value' locations or like on Quinling for example, require control of a strategic location (aka the high ground) to cpature a control point, otherwise it is justifiably a poor map design decision and should be called and corrected. Where there are hills and airfields, these by design are useful positions to place a firebase near or at as they provide high ground in the former and a safe place to land and drop reinforcements from operations base in the case of the latter. And these are often capture points already. So while the idea sounds good on paper, compared to the existing (flawed) gamemodes, it doesn't offer any real improvements. And it is very gamey on top of that - capture this part of map and suddenly you get an instant and not entirely logical reward - more vehicles (where did they come from), more artillery (why?).

My hope is that the CnC gamemode can be improved to a point where strategic point control (hills, crossroads, fortifications) is required and capturing enemy positions for your own team's use rather than simply destroying them for no obvious gain becomes a reality