Project Reality Forums

I was thinking about what is more realistic AAS or CNC mode if dont know what that means AAS stands for Attack and secure, and CNC is Command and control.

AAS is the most common game play, lets take muttrah city. You have to capture docks then north city and so on..

CNC is where both teams have to build firebases some where in the map and then take down the enemies and make them bleed tickets.

I find that CNC is better but i think that if the commander post could get abit better, and have abit more power it would be awesome.

Maybe do so that the commander gives out kits ?

Any way this thread is to see what you guys find more realistic

I think AAS is more realistic. You have to fight though a city not secretly set up a base in it. And CnC mode doesn't work without a commander and the commander position is like playing with a couple of toothpicks so I don't think CnC should go on more than AAS.

CnC is theoretically more realistic, but unfortunately its not

AAS results in the most realistic combat, since its quite unrestricted still, but it centers the combat, the combat is presmumably realistic, so the mode is reasonably realistic, the flags just centre the combat.

the reason CnC is not more realistic is this, people put the FBs in rediculous places. e.g. I was just on kashan CnC and all 4 FBs were build as near to the main as humanly possible with 1 at the end of the runway (how the enemy gonna ttack that?) and 2 right at the edge of the map, easy to see when u get near, but who goes to the edge of the map right?

which is why I suggested this a while ago https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... hlight=CnC

It can go both ways but I favor AAS. There it is both teams that compete for an control over the same objective at one point or another.

Airs0ft_S0ldier11 wrote:It can go both ways but I favor AAS. There it is both teams that compete for an control over the same objective at one point or another.

Ditto, although a hybrid would be nice, where the ability to move onto the next flag requires liquidating a firebase if they have one.

Love CnC but it's rarely played. AAS type of play was the main reason I moved from BF2 because it forces people to stick (somewhat) together.

Every game mode of PR is nice though.

This is the most realistic.

GoArmy.com



I haven't played CnC mode once since 0.8 was released so I can't comment on game play differences between it and standard AAS or Insurgency

Proper full on realism would be a mix of the 2 though, with flags having more tactical value i.e. capping a flag with an important road in a rural area would result in perhaps more vehicles being available. There's one example of this on Korengal when then stryker and LB spawn after capping that hilltop flag (whatever it's called) and I think the DEVs want to develop the idea of having more tactical gains from flags in the next release. Code Red Fox seems to have some pretty bid ideas for the epic Insurgency map he's working on.

Personally I think there should be some highly important flags near the edges of maps that are capped and then spawnable vanilla style though, maybe after a time delay if that was at all possible. If anything it's more realistic for re-enforcements to come in on a valuable road CP then some middle of nowhere firebase anyway.

AnRK wrote:Proper full on realism would be a mix of the 2 though, with flags having more tactical value i.e. capping a flag with an important road in a rural area would result in perhaps more vehicles being available. There's one example of this on Korengal when then stryker and LB spawn after capping that hilltop flag (whatever it's called) and I think the DEVs want to develop the idea of having more tactical gains from flags in the next release. Code Red Fox seems to have some pretty bid ideas for the epic Insurgency map he's working on.

Personally I think there should be some highly important flags near the edges of maps that are capped and then spawnable vanilla style though, maybe after a time delay if that was at all possible. If anything it's more realistic for re-enforcements to come in on a valuable road CP then some middle of nowhere firebase anyway.

I really like this idea. News that something akin to this is being worked on makes me love PR that much more, because the game creators work hard to continuously improve it.

CnC is awesome when it works especially on the bigger maps like Kashan - the problem is that it can be exploited by placing firebases in the most obscure and glitchiest places. The solution is to allow firebases to be placed at identified strategic locations (with lots of choice) and a greater distance between each one. When it is played like that - you get very enjoyable gameplay

CnC could be fun if BF2 allowed more players, but now on big maps it usually fail, because its hard to find any action or whole team use assets and only 1 squad build all FBs

CnC is as realistic as capture the flag mod,in other words its bullshit,and gameplay is even worse.

Most of the real battles are fought take place to control some road,hill,city,crossroad,os some plain ground to open/control an airfield etc.That is why most of the wars end too soon,wars end up armies encircled or leave them unoccupied because one side has achieved objectives and rendered the other without supplies without any clear objectivesetc.Results:lots of POWs instead of KIAs .Only exceptions might be attrition wars,even then,commanders have clear objectives.

I just cant believe how many rounds wasted on servers with this ridicolous CnC.If you find this mod fun i suggest playing Kozelsk/Fools road on CnC 2 times...

Not to mention most of the Statics wasted,and as mentioned above,people tend to build FBs either very close to each other,or either at the borders of the maps,figts taking place in some isolated place most of the time,if they ever occur.

+It gives USA huge advantage,which makes the rounds unfair,because on almost every map they have something to fly with,thus to scout with.

Kruder wrote:CnC is as realistic as capture the flag mod,in other words its bullshit,and gameplay is even worse.

Most of the real battles are fought take place to control some road,hill,city,crossroad,os some plain ground to open/control an airfield etc.That is why most of the wars end too soon,wars end up armies encircled or leave them unoccupied because one side has achieved objectives and rendered the other without supplies without any clear objectivesetc.Results:lots of POWs instead of KIAs .Only exceptions might be attrition wars,even then,commanders have clear objectives.

I just cant believe how many rounds wasted on servers with this ridicolous CnC.If you find this mod fun i suggest playing Kozelsk/Fools road on CnC 2 times...

Not to mention most of the Statics wasted,and as mentioned above,people tend to build FBs either very close to each other,or either at the borders of the maps,figts taking place in some isolated place most of the time,if they ever occur.

+It gives USA huge advantage,which makes the rounds unfair,because on almost every map they have something to fly with,thus to scout with.

I'm surprised to say I agree

CnC has so much potential, and when played the way it's supposed to it's amazing, but the way it plays out most of the time is probably the absolute opposite of what the designers intended.

But then again they do say CnC is the hardcore of hardcore, you've got to come up with your own missions, your own objectives.