Project Reality Forums

I think AAS is not good enough anymore as main gamemode to bring PR to its full enjoyment.
To often nobody is defending or falling back thus teams getting capped out and no firefights happening at all.
(So often 10-20 kills happen and one team is capped out already)
In conclusion the fight has to be concentrated again.

A&D
One team has all flags under control or some greyed. It cannot retake any flags.
One team has to cap all flags and has a bleed on.

Counter-attack
Just like it was in Zatar wetlands.

A&D sounds fun... It existed in PR before, right? (Timer for turns?)

I think if they had missions like in Arma 2 it would be great fun

rushn wrote:I think if they had missions like in Arma 2 it would be great fun

How insightful....

Would be nice if you could explain the core mechanics a bit more Hunter, not really understanding how the counter-attack mode fully works.

Where are these Zatar-wetlands you speak of? Europe?

Counter-attack? Please explain.

badmojo420 wrote:Where are these Zatar-wetlands you speak of? Europe?

Zatar Wetlands is a vanilla BF2 map.

Counter-attack? Please explain.

I THINK he means something like... a team has all flags captured. In the first what, 30 minutes or 1 hour A team attacks and B team defends (B team cannot capture any flags taken from A at this turn). A team has heavier assets than B team.

After an hour the turn changes - A team defends, B team attacks.

i agree with hunter on this one, some maps just seem to end before they even really get going, however, i think its more of a team discipline issue with squads just going off on their own without regard for the team and there is not much you can really do about that

Counter Attack worked as follows:

OPFOR would start with all flags in their possession.

BLUFOR would start with no flags barring their Carrier/Staging Area.

OPFOR could not capture (ie. recapture) flags for the first hour (maybe 2 hours).

BLUFOR would have an asset advantage for the first hour/two hours (for example APCs against only infantry).

OPFOR would get reinforcements in the form of an asset advantage (for example tanks on a map with only APCs) at the same time as they gained the ability to attack (ie. 1-2 hours in).

BLUFOR would have to have consolidated their gains in order to withstand the Counter-Attack.

Tickets would be adjusted in quantity, but functioned the same as AAS.


Hence counter-attack mode. As of 0.7 it existed on Seven Gates, Gulf of Oman and most notably Zatar Wetlands. It only _really_ worked on Zatar Wetlands, which was purged along with Gulf of Oman in the 0.8 patch for no reason other than the fact that it was a Vanilla map which meant it automatically wasn't good enough for PR despite functioning as one of the game's best maps.

The only and I mean, the ONLY problem with Zatar was the AA lock on carrier bug which was fixed for Muttrah.

It was a clear case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I qq'd.

rushn wrote:I think if they had missions like in Arma 2 it would be great fun

No no no, no missions, the only reason I play BF2 and its mods is the lack of missions , that is why they are my favorites.

I like this idea, and i think if it could be re-implementated it would be a godsend to some maps,
Muttrah perhaps? Or even Barracuda

Sorry for not explaining COunter-attack... I didn't think about people not knowing the olde zatarwetlands PR version...

Truism explained it already now.

i agree with hunter on this one, some maps just seem to end before they even really get going, however, i think its more of a team discipline issue with squads just going off on their own without regard for the team and there is not much you can really do about that

Indeed, with perfect players it wouldn't be much of a problem. But let's face reality: most people are not smart enough to read the map and see what a team needs. Most want to attack and get the objective done. Which is their good right! It is not the players fault really. We are used to do what the game tells us to do I guess.
Thus I say the game has to change a bit and implement the counter-attack mode again or the attack&defend mode to get ALL players to work together.


Attack&Defend mode explained with example map: Barracuda
All flags are in Chinese possession.
Chinese CAN NOT retake any flag if fully capped by the US team.
US team has a small ticket bleed to force the US team to cap a flag.
US team objective: Liberate Barracuda Island from Chinese Forces by taking one flag after the other.
CHINA team objective: Hinder US team from taking the island.

advantages in comparision to AAS:

• US team has only to concentrate on attack. Thus no more "undefended" flags to worry about and ranting in teamchat about the whole team going offensive and leaving the already capped flag open to enemy.
• CHINA team has only to worry about defending and can prepare for that task. No more ranting about CHINA squads attacking although all other flags are undefended.
• Fight is concentration on 1 flag only and maybe some certain spots where FOBs were built.

Now, you see this obviously takes out a bit freedom of the gameplay. But this lack of freedom (which is used by many public players to attack only and do nothing else) is compensated with the concentration of fight on one spot.

Counter-attack
Like Attack&defend, although after a certain time CHINA team can retake flags and some assets spawn in. It doesn't have to be ultra heavy assets, just some to help the defending team to push out a bit.
This could be triggered by time or maybe if all flags are taken except the last flag.

Or Zatar could just be put back in.

Not Zatar v2 or anything. Just Zatar. As it was, minimal changes. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

Instead of a bleed during the assault giving the attacking team a bleed if they don't take a flag within a reasonable time frame would be more balanced. Mestia failed when it had the starting bleed because the attacking team's speed at taking one flag determined the game. Instead a structured assault within a reasonable time frame should be the goal.

See my delayed bleed thread in my signature for more information.

snooggums wrote:Instead of a bleed during the assault giving the attacking team a bleed if they don't take a flag within a reasonable time frame would be more balanced. Mestia failed when it had the starting bleed because the attacking team's speed at taking one flag determined the game. Instead a structured assault within a reasonable time frame should be the goal.

See my delayed bleed thread in my signature for more information.

True that sounds good.

As a defensive player, and noting the lack of TEAMwork often found I support this idea.

I have some really good memories of the counter-attack mode. I like the idea of bringing it back.

Momentum could play a big part in how teams fight.
Let's take Muttrah as an example.

At round start, MEC holds all flags.
USMC takes off, moves to Docks, and captures the area while it is undefended.
MEC moves up to North City, and cannot take Docks due to it just being captured.
USMC can push to North City undistracted for a time. If they capture it, they hold the momentum and can continue attacking MEC areas.
If they fail, however, they lose the momentum and cannot capture North City for a short period, having failed their attack. Soon, Docks will be made capture-able for the MEC, while the USMC cannot attack North City for a short time.
After a team has lost momentum and held their flag on the counter-attack, both flags will be available for capture (either team can attack), and momentum is gone until a team makes a move.


If a team has momentum, they should get a substantial amount of time to move up, clear the area, and capture the flag (and of course a bit of extra time). If the team loses momentum, and fails to cap, they must fall back and defend for an amount of time before they can initiate another attack. If teams are at a standstill (momentum lost and flags defended), both flags become available for attack allowing either to take the momentum and attack.




The timer to attack (momentum gained) should be a substantial amount of time. The timer to move to defense (momentum lost) should be relatively short, and the timer to defend (momentum lost, flag open) should be a substantial amount of time.

Fully support the return of Counter-Attack mode, Zatar was one of the better map/mode combination in the PR days...

Celestial1 wrote:The timer to attack (momentum gained) should be a substantial amount of time. The timer to move to defense (momentum lost) should be relatively short, and the timer to defend (momentum lost, flag open) should be a substantial amount of time.

Of capped flags can't be taken back in the assault mode it will be a lot easier to keep up the momentum or patiently organize a new assault on the next flag as they don't have to hold back or worry about getting capped from behind.

The current assault type maps are simply AAS with different starting flag setups and possibly one side not having a bleed (Kozelsk). There is no requirement to take anything but the beachhead on most, and Russia can win Kozelsk without taking a single flag, which is wrong. I agree that there should be plenty of time to organize the actual assault, which gives the defenders time to setup and have a proper fight instead of minor infantry engagements deciding a flag's status.

snooggums wrote:Of capped flags can't be taken back in the assault mode it will be a lot easier to keep up the momentum or patiently organize a new assault on the next flag as they don't have to hold back or worry about getting capped from behind.

That's kind of the point. You now have one team pushing fast and hard, and one that has to really bolster their defenses on a flag to stop their momentum. Instead of a team rushing back to capture an area, they instead reinforce the next area. Instead of both teams attacking, one has to pull back and defend-as a team-to stop the attacker's momentum and once they have, they can attack and get a momentum of their own going.
There could be a lot more surprising moments as well; Blitzkriegs, Full-Force comebacks, you name it.
Again, each flag would have a unique timer set that would allow for counter-attacks to occur, so it's not as if they will always have a strong momentum and steamroll the enemy team; if the defending team can hold off their attackers for just a short while, they will bring the assault to a halt and have the opportunity to regain lost ground.

It may not be directly realistic ("Boss, they took it from us, what should we do?" "Give up! Retreat! There's no way we can get it back for exactly 15 minutes...") it does in a way simulate larger forces and encourage/force teams to follow a particular objective, if only for a length of time.

The idea I'm trying to get across is that it even further emphasizes a frontline; Excluding support units/specialty attack units moving up in advance, the team will be concentrated on their defending point. A team that has enough teamwork to simply get bodies on the area will be rewarded by making it that much harder for the attacking team to keep their momentum.





Also, while I may agree about having 'incentives' to attack would also be a bonus, that's another subject entirely.