Project Reality Forums

Basically, what the title says: a delay before the you can capture the next set of CPs after you captured the first one.

Most of the time when a CP is captured and you can't immediately counter attack the attackers, you'll have to pull back to another flag and that takes assets and time and usually you'll will have none of those.

Another issue with defending CPs is also that you need to split up. For example US takes Fishing on Qwai - now PLA must split up and go defend two flags while trying to retake Fishing.

And most of the times I've seen, the enemy will be quicker in attacking (strange huh) and if you'll want to defend the CP, you'll have to get rid of the attackers sitting there.

If a delay was implemented, it would force the attacking team to set up on the newly captured CP which would sort of force them to establish defenses there first (which is good) and it would give time to the other team to pull back to their CPs.

Of course stalling at the second Cps would still be possible, but the defending team would have precious time in sweeping the forward enemy squads off the CP.

tbh most of the time a team loses when the enemy team is very aggressive, which is hard to counter as it takes longer to get somewhere, set up defenses and prepare yourself as does driving up to the CP and get on it.

Of course you could say "have a good commander and he'll order squads to defend before the CP goes down", the problem is that such occasions are RARE and even if it happens, that doesn't mean you'll be successful at it too.

There's also the logistical nightmare of getting the defenders somewhere quickly, especially on huge maps like Fools Road, Kashan etc.

Discuss

Yea I would like this to discourage rushing and attacking of flags that are uncappable however the delay shouldnt be too much, 1 min or so with maybe 5 mins for maps like kashan

Not a fan of the idea. Your punishing a team that is doing well and rewarding a team that isn't. The defending team wasn't able to defend it's objective so now we give them extra help while the team that was coordinated and successfully attacked most likely with a team effort is givin a negative effect. I understand where you are coming from...we have all been in the situation before and it sucks, but we have all been on the other side too where you doing the stomping it's not fair to punish them for working together. My 2 cents anyway.

I disagree. Cant say that this is realistic or good for gameplay

Jonny wrote:It wont stop immediate attacks at all, it will just delay the capping a little.

QFT

it would ruin the gameplay, many times i have seen an "infiltration" squad move on to the next flag so that they can cap it when another goes down, its similar to the real world tactic of diversions,

enemy forces are pulled of defending 1 point to defend an other, ether drawing forces away from flag 1 in the chain to defend flag 2 or the attack on flag 1 takes troops away from flag 2 making it easier for the infiltration team to get in position unnoticed

it would ruin the gameplay, many times i have seen an "infiltration" squad move on to the next flag so that they can cap it when another goes down, its similar to the real world tactic of diversions,

enemy forces are pulled of defending 1 point to defend an other, ether drawing forces away from flag 1 in the chain to defend flag 2 or the attack on flag 1 takes troops away from flag 2 making it easier for the infiltration team to get in position unnoticed

A good team will be punished for being good. When we have a good com or SL's we have friendlies at two CP's if possible atleast assualting the two of them, means we can take down 2 Cp really quick but it requires teamwork to execute it perfect. therefore a no from me.

Jonny wrote:
I still think the whole stationary CP idea is bad, it should be replaced with a system where one team has an initial bunker/FB and there must ALWAYS be at least one fully built for the whole round for them to win, similar to the counter attack mode, but the flags mark points of interest and are uncapable but allow you to build a bunker instead of a FB, to provide more protection/a more difficult to destroy objective.

This is an amazing concept, superb thinking. I am sure i heard similar concepts to this mentioned before - do you know if there is a thread?

Thought provoking indeed!

ostupidman wrote:Not a fan of the idea. Your punishing a team that is doing well and rewarding a team that isn't. The defending team wasn't able to defend it's objective so now we give them extra help while the team that was coordinated and successfully attacked most likely with a team effort is givin a negative effect. I understand where you are coming from...we have all been in the situation before and it sucks, but we have all been on the other side too where you doing the stomping it's not fair to punish them for working together. My 2 cents anyway.

yeah i agree here i mean the whole point of tactics is to do something like one caps the current flag while the next moves forward to quickly cap the next, if you remove the ability that takes away the whole point of having a commander(other than getting assets).

another point is IRL it is timings that are very imporant as we all know, why? because alot of operations require everything to happen simultaniously. for example you need to take buildings A, B, and C at the same time, or else if you only cap A, B and C troops will know to expect you. infact if players had a really good commander your troops would allready be pinned down at your main first thing by armour.