Project Reality Forums

I don't like the idea, it's like going to war without any intel. But I think flags should be removed from minimaps and there should be only markers and text. This way you wouldn't know where the enemies are. Or maybe the first flags could be hidden to prevent rape, but not all.

Also ingame messages "X captured control point Y" should be visible just to the team that captured a flag, not the enemies.

The maps arent inteded to be rushed.

Beirut lets say. Each team must cap cca 2 flags and then they meet in terms of flags. That represents RUS quickly launching assault on a undefended city and IDF trying to secure as much of it as they can before RUS gets hold of a larger part.

On Op BArracuda though, PLA has the island well defended wich makes them having all the flags in possesion by default, wich represents PLA being warned or just having well defended island before the attack. That is your chance to stop the enemies at the first flag and stall them as much as you want.

Rushing like that just defeats the purpose of the maps and the style the mapper has chosen.

i really like this idea, however if this was introduced i'd love to see the "have to build FOB on flag to capture" idea that was suggested a little while ago and if this idea is also acompanied by the FOB drain supply crates then it would make the game much more realistic imo.
$0.02

killonsight95 wrote:i really like this idea, however if this was introduced i'd love to see the "have to build FOB on flag to capture" idea that was suggested a little while ago and if this idea is also acompanied by the FOB drain supply crates then it would make the game much more realistic imo.
$0.02

That takes many FOBs away. You can still make it at the flag if you want, more freedom = better PR.

Thanks a lot for your answers guys. I do not agree with the fact that an army goes on battle without intel because you are not supposed to know exactly where the enemy is. In pr gameplay wins over realism.

ChizNizzle wrote:Either this or as it is. Why would we have two random AAS gamemodes. Like having insurgency as it is now and another gamemode where cache markers are coloured different. Makes no difference in gameplay.

Well the thing is that on certain maps like for example kashan desert the flags have a pretty logic order. Hiding them there would not help since everybody would know where the next one would be.
You cannot really put flags in the middle of the desert.

And because of that I suggested a different game mode for the maps where it makes sense and where you can logically move the flags (like qwai river e.g.)

Yeah like i said in my first post

ChizNizzle wrote: 1. There wont be any points behind you. Is there any now? No.

2. Rushing like that is too easy. If you want that tactic you should risk it or prepare it well. Now it just defeats the point of the game actually. The feature would represent your team not knowing enemy locations until you "collide" with them on ther path, imagine getting "intel" to "reveal" the next flag, wich is allready there but invisible at the moment.

1. think of it this way, on Silent Eagle, you're the Russians. you just captured the central vill, and oh look the next point we magically didn't know we had to capture is that hill thats on the right flank AND partially behind the vill.

2. what i'm simply saying is, no force would venture out into the field not knowing what they had to capture. it's just retarded. it practically disregards the whole element of military planning. currently, we don't know where our enemy is until we meet them in battle. if we're heading to a point that's just magically appeared on our map (taking a giant shit on the whole team's situational awareness) that we need to capture, odds are that the enemy is heading/already ready there anyway.

right now, we can say, 'hey squad 1 and 2, you head to central vill, that's our first objective. squad 3 and 4, you head to hill __, so that once we lock down the vill, you're in a position to capture/assault our next objective. squad 5 and 6, head to objective ___ to stall/halt/cause hell for the enemy that will be wanting that position.'

another prime example, i've just watched the film We Were Soldiers, literally like 20 minutes ago. once on the field, Moore didn't go 'right we're holding the landing zone and the knoll. oh noes, the creek bed, where did that come from? didn't realise we had to hold that at aaall'.

apologies for my sarcasm-extreme

Serbiak wrote:Well the thing is that on certain maps like for example kashan desert the flags have a pretty logic order. Hiding them there would not help since everybody would know where the next one would be.
You cannot really put flags in the middle of the desert.

And because of that I suggested a different game mode for the maps where it makes sense and where you can logically move the flags (like qwai river e.g.)

I know what you meant, im just saying that even if you have a map like Kashan wich has static flags, you can still use this method, it just wouldnt work so well. So no nneed for a completely another gamemode. (I dont think NV or SV gets rushed at all in Kashan. More do bunkers, but thats a logical point to take.)

TheOldBreed wrote:1. think of it this way, on Silent Eagle, you're the Russians. you just captured the central vill, and oh look the next point we magically didn't know we had to capture is that hill thats on the right flank AND partially behind the vill.

2. what i'm simply saying is, no force would venture out into the field not knowing what they had to capture. it's just retarded. it practically disregards the whole element of military planning. currently, we don't know where our enemy is until we meet them in battle. if we're heading to a point that's just magically appeared on our map (taking a giant shit on the whole team's situational awareness) that we need to capture, odds are that the enemy is heading/already ready there anyway.

right now, we can say, 'hey squad 1 and 2, you head to central vill, that's our first objective. squad 3 and 4, you head to hill __, so that once we lock down the vill, you're in a position to capture/assault our next objective. squad 5 and 6, head to objective ___ to stall/halt/cause hell for the enemy that will be wanting that position.'

1. Im not sure how the flag grouping is on SE, so you might be right.

2. Intel is a thing wich ranges from knowing wich country you will attack to position of a single soldier. I think that now both teams have enough intel to go around just because they happen to be in the same city, at the same time and being deployed in the same second. I believe thats pretty much WINtel.

3. How do you know that the enemy will want that position in the first place. In real life i mean. Why wouldnt they take that other house 500m away? So, even if you dont see their flags, send a recon team out to investigate where their first flag is and stall them. You could do it just as efficiently as you do now just without the other team havin a giant "WE ARE OVER HERE" sign over their heads.

This would kind of show what CO wants to do with the team (well obviously he wouldnt have the control over that) but still.

Good idea to improve gameplay. But I also think it is very realistic. As far as I know every conventional army set its battle plans from start to end. So they have to know which order to move long before the battle starts.

alberto_di_gio wrote:Good idea to improve gameplay. But I also think it is very realistic. As far as I know every conventional army set its battle plans from start to end. So they have to know which order to move long before the battle starts.

Yeah they do know where to go, but why would the enemy have or know the same spots. A bit weird dthat is.

There's also the problem that even with intelligence and battle plans, the battlefield changes. Although it's random and not based on team outcomes, it can help simulate a change in plans or logistics that occurs, and can help prevent both teams from using the same tactics over and over each time the map plays.

But this idea could also instead be made into a different game mode, like Command & Control, or a variant of AAS. The only thing is that you have to hope the servers will play such maps. This also depends on what maps have predictable vs. unpredictable potential flag areas, as was discussed before in this thread.

Maybe show the next 2 flags? It seems kind of like a compromise for all the agruments here..

Of course it wouldn't really help for all the maps where it would show all the flags for one side (eg. Russians on Silent eagle)

ChizNizzle wrote:Yeah they do know where to go, but why would the enemy have or know the same spots. A bit weird dthat is.

In my opinion it is like that:

BLUFOR GENERAL: "Ok gentleman. We have to capture get those bunkers if we gonna control the desert. And to clear the way towards bunkers we have to capture North City first."

OPFOR GENERAL: "Ok lads. They wanna limit our desert movement. To do that they need to get bunkers. But first they have to make their way through North City."

Of course applied to whole map plan

I disagree.

Cap points are based on strategic locations; locations Commanders would mutually be aware of and seek to capture. On entering the field, everyone would know where the points to control are from the start.

alberto_di_gio wrote:In my opinion it is like that:

BLUFOR GENERAL: "Ok gentleman. We have to capture get those bunkers if we gonna control the desert. And to clear the way towards bunkers we have to capture North City first."

OPFOR GENERAL: "Ok lads. They wanna limit our desert movement. To do that they need to get bunkers. But first they have to make their way through North City."

Of course applied to whole map plan

This is for Kashan and maps like that yes. But for other maps it isnt.

And two flags in advance seems a bit too much, though maybe it could be done so ( dont know if possible) that you can see two flags but the second one only if it is neutral.


Why no DEVs in this topic so far? Or are you completely ninja guys?

Imchicken1 wrote:Of course it wouldn't really help for all the maps where it would show all the flags for one side (eg. Russians on Silent eagle)

Yeah this idea only really works for the maps where:

1. Both teams have flags to defend (unless you want the defence team to have a major advantage)

2. The flags are not fixed in the current version (e.g. qwai river)


This really makes good intel pretty useful. The scout helos could really come in a whole new use to PR.

Serbiak wrote:Yeah this idea only really works for the maps where:

1. Both teams have flags to defend (unless you want the defence team to have a major advantage)

If you ahve your whole island guarded i'd say you have that major advantage. I mean, it makes sense pretty much.

ChizNizzle wrote:If you ahve your whole island guarded i'd say you have that major advantage. I mean, it makes sense pretty much.

Speaking of islands... For example Baracuda. It is one of the maps that after first one 2 opposite flags come together. Last night we divided in to two and got both in a short time. Though it almost took us 1 hour to capture the first. I guess it is the only map that BLUFOR have to pass over other flags to capture the first one

ChizNizzle wrote:If you ahve your whole island guarded i'd say you have that major advantage. I mean, it makes sense pretty much.

He who defends everything defends nothing!