Project Reality Forums

Didn't see this at already suggested list, so making post about it.

At present when you are capturing flag it goes neutral at half way. This means your enemy will know exactly that second where your team have troops. There isn't any connection to real life situation, where you have to first find your enemy and after that figure out means to destroy it. If you could capture a flag without enemy defence they could only blame themselves for letting capturable flag unguarded. Now it's very easy to wait untill you loose a flag and then annihilate everything at that area with bomber or chopper, and soon the flag is back to you with very little efort.

Second issue (in order of importance) would be largering map areas, so there would be constant battle of domination of flag, and third slower capturing time even more as it is now.

Squad Leader1 - Commander, South bunker is being captured by infidel forces
Commander - Squad Leader 2, drop a nuke @ South bunker to eliminate the enemies

Life is life, I highly doubt they are in thoughts of changing this

Capturing flags has gone out of fashion lately regarding realism.

I always saw this as communication channels. (which I think for the most part it is considering you hear responses from the commander over the radio) In reality you would have some non-combatent desk junkies and other military support personnel (not trained in combat) that would be calling in for help if attacked. The time it takes to cap a flag represents the time it takes to clear buildings, secure the area, and reestablish communications on your own network. I doubt games would every simulate this in detail but, games like WW2 Online and others use simple models of the flag capping, radio capturing, and other mechanisms as a symbology to the types of things that take place when a strategic point is captured. Normally strategic points in combat operations would be checking and giving reports through a network to the HQ. In today's modern military its vast, highly accurate, and in realtime. If you took over a facility and they didn't check or it was under attack wouldn't you think this would "flag" something has gone wrong? I always took the neutral flag as a sign of surrender of the facility where communications are interupted. If something like this happens in real life, where your communications were cut, you would know about it, and would send in helicopters etc to investigate.

fubar++ wrote:This means your enemy will know exactly that second where your team have troops. There isn't any connection to real life situation, where you have to first find your enemy and after that figure out means to destroy it. If you could capture a flag without enemy defence they could only blame themselves for letting capturable flag unguarded.

The point was: when flag goes neutral you instantly know that your enemy is there with no one seeing any sight of it. So you should loose your flag if you don't bother guard it.

thats easy to change: set the capture timer in editor to something like 5 seconds, while the neutralize one is 1:30 or 2 mins, so once it's neutral, it's lost and capped by other team in a split.

Question is will this be changed and how it will affect gameplay etc.

Agreed.

I figure in most armies these days, total command locations dont simply "change hands" without more or less the rest of the high command knowing...

Thats not counting tactical nukes obliterating a bunker or leet spec ops sneaking in in the middle of the night...

I imagine a location taking heavy fire, losing control, and radioing in for help. IRL there would be people there who would know the location was falling, there'd be evacuations, etc. depending on the type of command center. In bf2, we have 32 vs 32, all of which are playing (more or less)

I say leave it...

If its gone, I see it turning into more gopher hunting without enemies at the point. Because they dont know its falling into your hands, then you leave, they get there (cuz, of course, they just found out its not theirs anymore) and of course, youre already on the next one... repeat ad infinitum <-- dramatized

I was just wondering about getting rid of neutral flags a couple days ago - but it seems that it will just lead to more whack-a-mole tactics

Heres what I want regarding flags....

Ill use sunset city as an example...

If you have temple and local city (?) as PLA and you have 2 men capping USMC main, I think if you LOSE local city/temple that the capping STOPS on USMC main...

I hate having flags go white because two guys decided to camp out there.

If only there was a way to promote defending that wouldn't ruin gameplay in public servers...

( I always thought of having to keep two people on flags you own in order to keep them non-neutral )

I blame flags and DICE lol.

Well nowdays it often goes this way: Your team captures a flag. Soon as captured everyone leaves it and heads to next capturable flag. If enemy will neutralize it while the are heading there they will run back, or even worse, will be heading to next flag which can't be captured anymore and wait that others will capture flag back.

There should be teamwork like this: Soon as you capture a flag you stay defending it as long as others have captured second flag in order. Then you can leave your flag and head to third flag while others defend second flag. It's very simple but so rarely done properly. Of course there is no guarantee that removing flags going neutral would cause this kind of behavior, but it certainly would make defending flags more essential.