Project Reality Forums

Fairly self explanatory. Basically I think that PR has gotten a but monotonous to some people, and yes while adding new maps is a good way to keep interest high, in the longer term, with no real campaign ect for BF2, the current AAS mode opens itself to becoming very linear and repetitive, which is a shame considering the size of the maps. I can do the exact same tactics on a map for basically the same results. I have a few ideas or variations to maps to make them play somewhat differently. BF2 in a sense exceeds PR in replay value because you have options as far as what objectives you want to get. This also makes commanders actually have a use. Right now, you have at most 2-3 flags to send squads to, and you a by and large a construction foreman most of the round. I essentially have three separate ideas:

1. Allow all flags to be neutralized at any time. There are plenty of reasons for this but the least of which being that it makes PR about controlling ground, and not just hopping from flag to flag LAPD style. Right now you can leave entire grids wide open.

2. Not all objectives should appear on a map the same way. The names can stay at an area or structure, but it shouldn't necessarily have an objective smack in the middle. Flags should be as much as 300m away from a named area, which will make improvisation and application of tactics (as opposed to repeating a drill) actually necessary. While the flags should be pre positioned (so we don't have two flags 20m apart), they should be deployed a different way every time. They should all be somewhere near an important structure, or hill, or obvious choke point, or river crossing ect (pretty much every hill and large bridge should have a flag). Some of the flags tbh aren't worth much tactically. This is a problem on the older PR/Vanilla maps that weren't designed with longer range combat in mind. Without a flag, a lot of areas would be places that you would want to avoid (ie the middle of a city surrounded by hills with water to one side and the enemy base on the other). If flags were put into areas that you would naturally go to, then it might open up a lot of places that are usually unused on maps.

3. It seems now about who sets their spawn closest to a flag wins by default as they will have more people to secure and objective obviously. Bunkers and firebases can amplify this to a large extent. Tactics go right out the window as an attack quickly degenerates into a spawn/grenade fest. If all important structures were destructible then it would eliminate grenade spamming. Having 1-2 small entrances to an invincible structure doesn't even make sense in theory. Some immediate examples come to mind such as how Mine used to be on Qwai, some Militia bunkers ect, and the Clown car spawning inside VCP basrah 0.6. Instead of having random destructible structures that are generally unused for obvious reasons, why not have the most relevant ones to the game be destructible? If VCP ect had destructible walls then grenade spam would all but vanish, and there would have played less like vanilla. Also aren't bunkers primary function in real life to provide protection in an area that otherwise is exposed? Right now they are just used as large rally points and don't do much as far as denying an area goes. I would like to see HGM's or TOW's, added and spawn removed from them, because it feels very tactical until I run into one, then its just engispawn away.

Allow me to reiterate that these are separate ideas. I've been thinking about this for some time, so I wonder what other people think. Ok then...

I'd prefer the scenario mode that has been in the works for about 2 years ago. I was under the impression at the time that scenario would nearly replace AAS and have such randomized objectives.

However, two years later, scenario is still nowhere to be seen.

so kinda like a mapper would make the map and then he would make up a whole bunch of diffrent layouts. then python would pick a layer from a selection of them to load. as far as i understand this should work. but my understanding of python is very limited. over all i would really like to see something like this implemented into pr so each battle would be diffrent.

Well thought out suggestions, I really like them all. You make a very good point about the bunkers, and I also really like the idea of being able to neutralize flags out of order. I think simply adding that would create a lot more tactical innovation.

I like all the suggestions but the first. The decision to make the flags cappable in only a certain order has a host of reasons to support it. Ex. With 32 players no team can keep every flag defended, etc. Maybe you could group them into groups of at least two. Once you take those two (or more) flags you can move onto the next. This grouping would signify taking control of a strategic zone. Then you would need to capture the next zone, and so forth.

Flag 1-2-3-4-5

If you've got 1, you can take 2, and neutralize 3.

i like that way, cus the other team cant go to your main and cap it, but still some more choice then just going to one base.

I like your ideas.

The current maps that have been created are to invoke a sence of realism in the way that they are sort of randomly placed scenery. Where is if you place scenery and geomatry to promote different tactical events you might end up with superb battle situations.

If you have an important stratigic location that needs to be capped to create a stranglehold, having a narrow causeway to get into such a location can,
(A)make an extremely dangerous position for entering and exiting,
(B)make two horizontal ambush points.
This would effectivley channel all the enemys into one choke point which they have to use to their advantage to assault. Obviously there needs to be secritive ways of getting around this(like the hole in the toilets in the bunkers), but all that goes out the window when a powerfull unit like a gunship or a JDAM comes along and bombards from the air. and even this can be improved by AA, AAA, and overhead cover.
And the battles could be emmensley interesting if there were multipal events such as these.

On Kashan the bunkers are inaccessable to short range tanks, so Infantry is required to cap, its good, but it can easily be obsolete by lack of players on the map (as this usually inspires players to jump into air assets and ignore the flags)

One other problem is a map like operation ghost train when infantry approach the trenches...
They have en entire 360 degree manipulation of the hill, but the scenery is so dense that nobody can gain intel, and subsiquently all the party members are spread out, creating a very disorganised rabble. Instead there should be rings of sandbag like structures and tunnels for players to manipulate. However that hill has lots of good points as well.

Buildings and rooms are perfect for channeling players into narrow corridores and making for very good firefights, but they arnt hard enough, because there are so many slipperly ways to get around and fight in the open that nobody uses the building for cover. and in the end, the fight is over and done with using a dirty sneaky method and everyone gets ticked off.

The bunkers, should be very strong, instead they are patheticly weak, and nobody in their right mind would use them for cover, they are open and obvious, and are used for weapon aquisition and rally points, and are very easy to camp.
In fact, i have found that you can stand underneath a tall fire base and camp from inside an invisible forcefield that nobody can see through.
My point being that the commander assets should be changed greatly.

About the comment on commanders being construction site formen. this is 100% accurate!!! You build for half the game, then your stuff gets destroyed again and you build for the other half of the game. And nobody gives a damn about them until the last moment when an attack appears, its the same with engineers fixing the tanks.

I try not to flood the forum with problems, but its the players that are manipulating the problems and irritating all the rest of the players.
Crewmen dont have wrenches, people hog the air assets, and the commanders are obsolete, all very large issues hindering gameplay. but this thing with the repositioning of flags, could greatly increase the gameplay. so i am in total support of it. good work i couldnt have said it better.
thanks for reading.

All who vote for randomizing say yay!

Randomizing is great. I think on Basrah they've done this excellently. You never know where the 10 caches are, or the two dozen Insurgent spawn points. It's excellent.

I don't think AAS should be withdrawn, but modified. I agree that forcing games to revolve around one flag at a time can become tedious. This is helped by other factors; many maps now have multiple flags which can be capped simeltaneously (Zatar for example) which is excellent. I'd like to see more of it. I don't really want to see it removed entirely; nothing's more infuriating then being on the verge of exterminating your opponent with a huge attack against his main base, only to find that two or three of the enemy managed to slip by and are now taking YOUR main, and then you have to turn around and do the damned thing all over again...

It'd be cooler if there were "sliding importance" flags, that required more people present around the flag to cap it. For instance, rather than two, say main bases require a full 6 people to cap; "secondary" flags take 4 people, so on and so forth, so that the impetus of needing to defend your flanks and rear is there, but it's not so severe; the enemy would have to "slip by" with a rather large attack force to cap your back flags.

Just showing I like the idea.