Project Reality Forums

I must admit I've had some nice fire fights while defending Outpost CP on korengal valley recently and I remember how epic fire fights was inside a vehicle checkpoint on Al Bashra back in a days when it was possible to capture it.

So, I would like to suggest an additional Control Point on every insurgency map, just like korengal valley have it at the moment (Outpost), and just like al bashra had it in the past (VCP).
The control point would be available to capture for both sides but I think the coalition forces should have the control over it at the beginning of the round with some temporary spawn point in there. The place should be big enough to put a forward outpost in there and maybe some other placeable assets inside and around it

The whole idea isn't new as you can see but it's not used on all maps and now with only two caches available at the same time it is possible to have at least one squad dedicated to defend/attack that CP. It would add a new element for the game play which is an insurgency attack on an outpost..... and afaik it happens in RL, especially in Afghanistan.

Suggested placement of those control points:
- Al Bashra: vehicle checkpoint is almost perfect (but it could be a little bit bigger)
- Fallujah West: hmmm... Red Cross compound?
- Karbala: previous US base may be a little bit too big so maybe a residence in G7kp6?
- Korengal Valley: Current outpost is fine
- Operation archer: maybe outpost/checkpoint at B4pk7 after some small modifications?
- Ramiel: Outpost in D5kp3?

Now, there could be some kind of a reward for holding those positions. Not so valuable and large in numbers to avoid turning insurgency mode in to some kind of "king of the hill" mode but still valuable enough to hold it. It should be a little reinforcement but noticeable (or unique, depends on the map).

Idea #1, obvious and less complicated

Profits for coalition forces:
- some additional vehicles spawned at main base (respawnable)
- a relatively safe place to put a forward outpost on the enemy territory


Profits for insurgents/talibans (options, depends on the map):
- some additional light vehicles all over the map (respawnable) - insurgents/talibans
- additional spawn points (destroyable or expireable?) - insurgents/talibans
- additional pickup kits - insurgents only

Idea#2, more complicated and I'm not sure if it is possible to code

Profit for coalition forces:
- while holding, the coalition forces are slowly gaining small amount of tickets per given period of time, for example 1 ticket per every 2 minutes (which means 30 tickets per hour... not such an overkill IMO)

Profit for insurgents/talibans:
- while holding, the coalition forces Intel Points are slowly decreasing with a rate of, let's say.... 1 IP per 1 minute.



Opinions?

I second This, and maybe on Basrah make it so if you have VCP for like 5-10 minuets you get 1 or 2 SAXON APC's i know you guys have that model hiding in their somewhere, only seen it once and really don't know why it was removed Enlighten me please.

And i think this add on would make the game more fun with more Teamwork.

I like Idea 2 better, if it could work.
The Archer flag should be the castle IMO.

Last night i was working on my map and toyed with the idea of making the cargo ship (which is out at sea) under the control of the opfor at the start, and before the coalition get a helicopter they have to take the boats & apcs and secure it. A kind of semi-piracy thing to delay the spawn of the heli and start the round off with a bang.

I think putting the flags in insurgency would create a better gameplay atmosphere and there would be better firefights and overall would improve the game.

Both of your ideas are good and i support having this implimented

billdan wrote: The Archer flag should be the castle IMO.

The castle on archer isnt a good staging point for blufor, their outpost with the hesco barriers is much better and perfectly placed.

The only problem is that having a control point on insurgency maps always distracts the team from the real objective.. destroying the caches. I've seen rounds on Korengal where all but 1 squad of the US team attacks outpost the whole round. While that other squad is up against at least half of the taliban team and is trying to take out the caches on its own but gets destroyed (I've been in that kind of squad many times). The ticket gain along with extra assets could be able to offset this.

Exactly Stoobywon, if anyone remembers the old VCP flag from albasrah 0.5 days, it really detracted from the insurgency gameplay. There's a reason the devs made only 2 caches active at a time - They want people to be fighting over the caches.

That being said, I do sort of like this idea, but only if it gave the USMC team more tickets for holding it, because [just from my experience, feel free to disagree] they have enough trouble with getting their current assets destroyed and losing tickets, and adding more fuel to that fire would be counter-productive IMO. About 4/5 times when I'm playing as an insurgent we end up winning the round by killing all their assets and they run out of tickets within about an hour to an hour and a half. A slow trickle (like 1 ticket per minute?) would mean that the Bluforce certainly could not be callous with their deaths but it would help in those times where it comes down to one last cache but they only have 12 tickets left or whatever... it would keep the fight going that little bit longer.

I like both ideas, but of course they could detract from the real objective of caches as usual. Instead, why not just cut the amount of caches down to half for this gameplay type and make only 1 available on the map at a time? That way, the US could gain tickets from idea two (would have to be more), but still be balanced out by having to face a tougher and more centralized insurgent team?

stoobywon wrote:The only problem is that having a control point on insurgency maps always distracts the team from the real objective.. destroying the caches.

Yep. I would rather suggest a new game mode where they have to hold that outpost against the insurgents at all costs, rather than put outposts in every insurgency game. Ive seen it happen way to often on Korengal. Either the caches are way to easy because half the insurgent team is attacking or defending the outpost, or the other way around where its to hard as coalition, for the same reason

And engineer: Thats not what insurgency was made for. Like I said, we need that defend game-mode back. The one that seven gates was first. Where you could not take flags back.

[R-COM]cyberzomby wrote:Yep. I would rather suggest a new game mode where they have to hold that outpost against the insurgents at all costs, rather than put outposts in every insurgency game. Ive seen it happen way to often on Korengal. Either the caches are way to easy because half the insurgent team is attacking or defending the outpost, or the other way around where its to hard as coalition, for the same reason

And engineer: Thats not what insurgency was made for. Like I said, we need that defend game-mode back. The one that seven gates was first. Where you could not take flags back.

Yeah their was a Mode called Counter Attack, Why not re add it with some maps like Kashan, Bashrah, 7Gates again and so on so forth.

That game mode Required Teamwork and it was such a shame when they removed it.

badmojo420 wrote:Last night i was working on my map and toyed with the idea of making the cargo ship (which is out at sea) under the control of the opfor at the start, and before the coalition get a helicopter they have to take the boats & apcs and secure it. A kind of semi-piracy thing to delay the spawn of the heli and start the round off with a bang.

Put AA on the ship, and use that as the explanation. Command doesn't want to send in birds unless they take an AA area out.

I completely agree. I remember earlier we had checkpoints on Archer and Ramiel, which seem to have been removed. It just adds a nice element to the fight.