Project Reality Forums

Just an idea:

A. To capture a flag you need to build a bunker (forward outpost) at flag radius.

B. To neutralize a flag you need to destroy enemy bunker (base too).

No more flag capture needed by troops, only build/destroy bunkers. Just think about it.



Edit:

UPDATE(2) TO THE SUGGESTION

Title should be "Flag Capture by Building "FCPs""


A. To capture a flag you need to build a "Forward Command Post" (it's just a name no need to stick with it) at flag radius.

B. To neutralize a flag you need to destroy enemy "Forward Command Post".

"FCP" would be some small object, like a radio on top of box you have now at firebases and bunkers, so it can be hidden reasonable well. Engineer class should be given small demolition charges (preferably timer detonated, like slams) to clear out possible defensive emplacements around the "FCP".

"FCP" should be able to be damaged by small arms fire (like insurgent caches), but it could not be destroyed. "FCP" would only get destroyed after certain delay if it is damaged. That would be required to prevent hit-and-run tactics for destroying "FCP" when the enemy don't actually have control of the area.

For building and repairing the "FCP" you would need to use the shovel. Order to build you would also need two supply crates, but maybe supply truck could be given more supply crates, e.g. 4 of them.

Most parts of the new requirements for game logic and other stuff are small details, but some parts might need a bit more redesigning.

1) There could therefore only be 4 flags on any map. You can only build 4 forward outposts anywhere.

2) Would not work on every map. Having to build a bunker in Kashan causes headaches for some people.

3) Command and Control is somewhat like this. Building outposts gives you a method of attack, and once you have 4 you go after the only enemy flag on the map, which is their main. If played tactically, it is actually a lot more interesting than your method suggested, no offense; It just leads to MUCH different strategy on maps.

Celestial1 wrote:1) There could therefore only be 4 flags on any map. You can only build 4 forward outposts anywhere.

You can change that, like no limits for bunkers but only 2 firebases.

Celestial1 wrote:2) Would not work on every map. Having to build a bunker in Kashan causes headaches for some people.

Yes it's hard sometimes, but why should it be easy? And it would be same for both teams.

Celestial1 wrote:3) Command and Control is somewhat like this. Building outposts gives you a method of attack, and once you have 4 you go after the only enemy flag on the map, which is their main. If played tactically, it is actually a lot more interesting than your method suggested, no offense; It just leads to MUCH different strategy on maps.

Yep, C&C is very similar, there's just no AAS - if you have it, flag capture would flow much like it does now, probably just slower.

The logic is very simple if you just replace troops by bunker. The outcome is you still need troops, but like in the actual role they are intended: setting defences and defending; attacking, locating enemy defences and destroying them. Now best way to cap a flag is just hide at flag capping area as much as you can.

Raising a flag is only symbol for victory.

I don't see the reason for this, really. I mean, once you've killed or driven out every enemy on, say, a hill, you control that hill. No need to build a bunker there - there's no enemy presence, you have presence, you're in control. I see the reasoning behind this, but I don't really like the idea.

It'd be an interesting special objective or something, though, like a 'special CP' that requires you to fortify it before you can move on and capture the next, but I don't really like that idea either.

Could be cool in some maps.

Safekeeper wrote:I don't see the reason for this, really. I mean, once you've killed or driven out every enemy on, say, a hill, you control that hill. No need to build a bunker there - there's no enemy presence, you have presence, you're in control. I see the reasoning behind this, but I don't really like the idea.

It'd be an interesting special objective or something, though, like a 'special CP' that requires you to fortify it before you can move on and capture the next, but I don't really like that idea either.

It's up to you whether you like it not, of course. It's just at the moment flag capture battles are more like in guerilla wars: fast (mostly on foot) infantry attacks without any logistics. Usually conventional armys use loads of preparations before attack, and if defending, would never left positions unfortified somehow, even if it would be only foxholes or sandbags. And there's always logistics to resupply troops at line. If you've ever been in military service you would notice the difference(s) between the game and real army.

When I was in service there was a saying "your always busy for waiting", and what would better way to wait than dig yourself nice little foxhole

To go a bit further with the proposed idea system could be like this: To capture a flag (which should have a relative large radius) you need to place bunker (let's call it like Forward Command Post). After establishing FCP you could deploy secondary spawn point (a firebase) in certain radius of FCP, but not necessarily at flag area, to represent your reserves. If your FCP gets overrun (knifed as it is now) and you loose the control of the flag you still would have your secondary spawnpoint order to recapture the flag, if it's not also overrun. Rest would same as it is now, with AAS and everything else. AAS could also control whether a bunker can be overrun or not at that particular moment.

Second point would be redesigning bunkers and firebases as smaller objects, e.g. radio on a table or something like that, order to hide the spawnpoint well enough.

Sounds good, but the bunker should not be a spawnpoint. One thing I hate about FOPs is the enemy soldiers popping out of nowhere when your squad is approaching it to knife the radio. With your proposed system this would become more common as the bunkers have become the main objectives.

Fishbone wrote:Sounds good, but the bunker should not be a spawnpoint. One thing I hate about FOPs is the enemy soldiers popping out of nowhere when your squad is approaching it to knife the radio. With your proposed system this would become more common as the bunkers have become the main objectives.

i like that no spawn idea, more fair... how about two types of firebases normal ones (spawns) and "capture" ones

Yes, separate spawnpoint could work too. So order to capture a flag you should make a "forward command post" or whatever, which you have to defend, and a "bunker" so that you can defend it. Maybe there still should be separate firebases left like there is now for tactical maneuvers.

Edit: Actually, maybe there shouldn't be a "bunker" at all, only "FCP" somewhere (well hidden) at flag, and you could place a firebase anywhere you think it is best, but not too close to the "FCP".

So you would have a spawnpoint on every flag. No, no, no, no, no.

also makes logistics/co trucks more important !!!! im liking this more and more! now having/crewing CO trucks are important and a supply "line" from base (which spawns them to the flags needed to be capped are use full)

RedAlertSF wrote:So you would have a spawnpoint on every flag. No, no, no, no, no.

gazzthompson wrote:i like that no spawn idea, more fair... how about two types of firebases normal ones (spawns) and "capture" ones

RedAlertSF wrote:So you would have a spawnpoint on every flag. No, no, no, no, no.

Yep, when I first came to this idea I thought that the spawnpoint at every flag was the weakest part. If you really change the idea so that there isn't a spawnpoint, but you have to protect your "FCP", it changes the idea a lot. No more troops hiding at flags, just troops attacking and defending "FCPs" order to take flags, which actually have become strategical areas on different parts of the map.

It sounds good.

Perhaps split the bunker and firebase again?


Firebase as the only model forward outpost, which could be built anywhere and from which you could spawn and request kits.
Bunker as the tool to capture a flag. You couldn't spawn at it and you couldn't request kits from it. Could allow to build sandbags and wires around it.

RedAlertSF wrote:So you would have a spawnpoint on every flag. No, no, no, no, no.

You can do this currently on low flag count maps with current bunkers and RPs.

I like the idea but how about combine it into C&C in a manner like this...

Instead of 'flags' there are 'control areas' which are larger than flags (think just a bit smaller than the main mestia flags). You can only place FOBs inside the control areas and you must place one FOB inside each control area in order to be able to assault the enemies main. This would combine C&C mode with your idea to make a bit more control than the duck hunt the C&C mode becomes when looking for enemy FOBs.

Deadfast wrote:Bunker as the tool to capture a flag. You couldn't spawn at it and you couldn't request kits from it. Could allow to build sandbags and wires around it.

I think that "bunker" shouldn't be a bunker anymore. It's too easy to locate specially on airmaps. Perhaps something like FH2 has as commanders post (radio on a table), it just would be deployable anywhere on the flag area. There should also be buildings or something else to give cover on every flag on every map. But that should be all, if it would be possible surround by razorwire or sadbags it could be too hard for enemy forces to enter, but that's more like what one prefers. So maybe there should be certain small radius where you can't place anything else, no razor, sandbags or spawnpoints, only troops allowed. Or maybe Engineer class should be given small demolition charges to clear out defensive structures. There are many open questions but I still think the idea has potential.

Deadfast wrote:It sounds good.

Perhaps split the bunker and firebase again?


Firebase as the only model forward outpost, which could be built anywhere and from which you could spawn and request kits.
Bunker as the tool to capture a flag. You couldn't spawn at it and you couldn't request kits from it. Could allow to build sandbags and wires around it.

sounds good man !!! dunno if its how the OP would like it, but i defiantly do.

so you can turn a flag white with infantry , control area , CO truck convoy comes in and builds. flag captured.

Couldn't you attack the enemy's back flag and by destroying the bunker it turns grey. I guess capturing would be based on the closest flag to the front like it is now and only allow bunkers on the next attack point and on previous flags.

There should be spawning on the flags you own and transport available for the flags you own. So the more flags you control the more humvees you get.

I think whole flag capture is just symbolic way of showing how teams are losing/gaining ground areas during the war. Flags are only showing what areas are under team 1 control and what areas are under team 2 control.

Why would you like to force teams destroy/build some structure as a symbol of gaining/losing piece of land in battle ? I think its far more realistic that the team who has more troops in the area, has/is going to have that piece of land marked under it's control with a flag-symbol.

It is an interesting idea, but how about not requiring a bunker to be built in a flag capture radius. For example the AAS game mode would work normally as it does now when soldiers capture a control point. But when your team builds a bunker in the flag capture radius after they have taken the control point the opposing team cannot take the flag until that bunker is destroyed.

This way there won't be a big deal about having spawn points at every flag, because bunkers won't have to be built at every flag. But if the team wants to build one and make it harder for the enemy to advance then they can.

Just my $.02