Jump to content
PolishKruk

Remove objective capture zones

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Major Trouble said:

 

Dunkirk

ROFLMAO. Thanks for that. That was a good laugh. I guess I should have noted an exception for the French.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PolishKruk said:

ROFLMAO. Thanks for that. That was a good laugh. I guess I should have noted an exception for the French.

 

It wasn't just the French. It was the British expeditionary forces as a whole. It's was the biggest 'strategic withdrawl' that came to mind. Sometimes giving ground, reorganising, getting help from allies and mounting a counter attack is a better strategy the just getting wiped out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than have a magical space which has such a high value (current AAS flag system), I would like to replace those objectives with objects or locations which provide strategic benefit such as watch towers, or walls which surround areas or or perhaps locations containing items such as an AA gun or other weapon or items that can increase asset availability eg a movable supply crate or a vehicle.

In a way the mini-objectives can work in the same way as the current AAS system but on a much smaller scale and require more of an area to be controlled than just the outside of a wall. 

 

The current system allows easy alteration of these objectives so future variations to objective locations is possible, it would be a shame to lose this potential. For this reason I would like to see a set of these mini-objectives which are linked to make up the larger objective. Map editors could then place the items to make variations on a single map design in the same way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Major Trouble said:

 

It wasn't just the French. It was the British expeditionary forces as a whole. It's was the biggest 'strategic withdrawl' that came to mind. Sometimes giving ground, reorganising, getting help from allies and mounting a counter attack is a better strategy the just getting wiped out.

I would call that more of a rout than a withdraw. Lets face it, once the Germans broke out of the Ardennes the Brits started running and not even the Channel stopped them. The largest one I can think of is the Coalition's withdraw across Europe that drew Napoleon all the way to Moscow to get ravaged by winter. But this is all terribly off topic and I'm not here to refight the opening stages of WW2.

8 hours ago, suds said:

Rather than have a magical space which has such a high value (current AAS flag system), I would like to replace those objectives with objects or locations which provide strategic benefit such as watch towers, or walls which surround areas or or perhaps locations containing items such as an AA gun or other weapon or items that can increase asset availability eg a movable supply crate or a vehicle.

In a way the mini-objectives can work in the same way as the current AAS system but on a much smaller scale and require more of an area to be controlled than just the outside of a wall. 

 

The current system allows easy alteration of these objectives so future variations to objective locations is possible, it would be a shame to lose this potential. For this reason I would like to see a set of these mini-objectives which are linked to make up the larger objective. Map editors could then place the items to make variations on a single map design in the same way. 

I like this too. Its something tangible to help explain why one position is more important than another. The current system, IMO, is lacking and does not highlight important man made or natural features. No bridges or roads and only one "hill" across all of the maps we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2016 at 9:31 PM, PolishKruk said:

How does it make sense? One group shows up with more people so the smaller group leaves? I'm sorry but that's not how combat works.

 

To turn your own example around on you: if you are attacking an area with a larger force but the enemy still maintains a presence in the area then you are not in control of that area. Likewise if I attack an objective with a numerically inferior force against a numerically superior force, the fact that my forces are in the area means they no longer control the entire area.

 

My point is the only metric that is used to determine control of an objective should not be which side has more people there.

Interesting, I did not look at it that way. A larger force still provides an advantage(as it should) but is not a guarantee of success. I think keeping them spread out and not solely located in/around compounds would help utilize terrain better.

 

Well, it makes sense for me. If people of both sides are in the area, the side with more people are superior to the others, so they are in "control" of the area. Its their choice if they accept a smaller number of enemies in their territory or not. Whoever wants to cap has to take the action! And if you are outnumbered you cant cap, so you have to take action. If you defend with 4 people, you deserve to be ignored from a whole squad just capping you somewhere. If you want to defend, defend the whole area. If you defend the whole area with 4 people, you would know pretty fast if you get outnumbered or not.

 

For me its logical, but maybe its not for you and we are not on the same page.

I just hope it doesnt get changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets test this with some theoretical cap points:

 

Example1:

A lighthouse

team 1 has 2 players at the top.

team 2 has 6 players at the bottom.

All players are alive and inside the cap area. Who is in control of the objective "lighthouse" ?

 

Example2:

A large compound with high walls and 3 entry points

team 1 has 3 players camping entry points. They are able to prevent all players from entering the compound or when each player does die they are able to get re-enforcements from outside the compound before the enemy is able to enter.

team 2 has 15 players outside the compound but against the wall.

All players are in the cap area. Who is in control of the objective "large compound" ?

 

clearly in the above examples the name of the objective gives a location, if the objective is a village then the answer may be different.

In my version of a cap point consisting of mini-objectives the village could be defined by a number of these mini-objectives which require actual control (conflict, Action!, FUN!) rather than a larger group sitting nearby but within the magical boundary. This adds more tactical play to the game as well as more action.

 

Currently I know I can take my squad and sit outside a compound and in many cases, cap it without firing a shot. This allows another 3 players on my team to rush the next point which in most cases will not be defended. This method of play just has no depth to it, this thread is suggesting ways to address this, to make the objectives more realistic and at the same time improving gameplay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, suds said:

lets test this with some theoretical cap points:

 

Example1:

A lighthouse

team 1 has 2 players at the top.

team 2 has 6 players at the bottom.

All players are alive and inside the cap area. Who is in control of the objective "lighthouse" ?

 

Example2:

A large compound with high walls and 3 entry points

team 1 has 3 players camping entry points. They are able to prevent all players from entering the compound or when each player does die they are able to get re-enforcements from outside the compound before the enemy is able to enter.

team 2 has 15 players outside the compound but against the wall.

All players are in the cap area. Who is in control of the objective "large compound" ?

 

clearly in the above examples the name of the objective gives a location, if the objective is a village then the answer may be different.

In my version of a cap point consisting of mini-objectives the village could be defined by a number of these mini-objectives which require actual control (conflict, Action!, FUN!) rather than a larger group sitting nearby but within the magical boundary. This adds more tactical play to the game as well as more action.

 

Currently I know I can take my squad and sit outside a compound and in many cases, cap it without firing a shot. This allows another 3 players on my team to rush the next point which in most cases will not be defended. This method of play just has no depth to it, this thread is suggesting ways to address this, to make the objectives more realistic and at the same time improving gameplay. 

This could be sorted partially by sizing the cap area based on location and using an "invisible mesh" to define it instead of a sphere.

 

You have a compound? The capture area is the compound's inner surface (to prevent it from being capped from outside).

As for the lighthouse, in the case you described the area is still being disputed. As long as you don't clear the lighthouse you cannot say that you control it especially since the lighthouse itself is the strategic objective.

Just my 2 cents

Edited by MirceaDogaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MirceaDogaru said:

As for the lighthouse, in the case you described the area is still being disputed.

 

Maybe we could address this kind of situations like Insurgency (the game) does with cap points? 
Even if the cap bar is full, you can't take it while there is an enemy inside?

The cap will be neutral at this point, but will stay that way until it is 100% under your control?

Just a suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't exactly know the current mechanic but capturing team should be double in numbers in order to capture the flag. Sounds okay in my head. If there's 10 defending 20 attacker should be there. How about this? :P

Edited by lastpuritan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lastpuritan said:

How about this?

 

I disagree. Why should you be able to cap the point when you are 2 squads, but the enemy has 1?
This means that they are somewhere in the cap  -> they have control of part of the cap  -> you don't control 100% of it. Doesn't make sense as "taking the cap" means you are in control of it.. Or should at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2016 at 2:11 PM, Elirah said:

 

Well, it makes sense for me. If people of both sides are in the area, the side with more people are superior to the others, so they are in "control" of the area. Its their choice if they accept a smaller number of enemies in their territory or not. Whoever wants to cap has to take the action! And if you are outnumbered you cant cap, so you have to take action. If you defend with 4 people, you deserve to be ignored from a whole squad just capping you somewhere. If you want to defend, defend the whole area. If you defend the whole area with 4 people, you would know pretty fast if you get outnumbered or not.

 

For me its logical, but maybe its not for you and we are not on the same page.

I just hope it doesnt get changed.

I'll answer with:

1 hour ago, molomo58 said:

 

I disagree. Why should you be able to cap the point when you are 2 squads, but the enemy has 1?
This means that they are somewhere in the cap  -> they have control of part of the cap  -> you don't control 100% of it. Doesn't make sense as "taking the cap" means you are in control of it.. Or should at the very least.

And yes Elirah, we obviously are not on the same page but that is ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lesser played version of this concept in PR called CnC which I prefer over standard AAS mode.

 

A game mode without flags or capturable objectives is also referred to as Team Deathmatch.

Edited by MuffriDer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MuffriDer said:

There is a lesser played version of this concept in PR called CnC.

 

I prefer it over standard AAS mode.

 

A game mode without flags of objectives is also referred to as Team Deathmatch.

Interesting, never heard of it nor did I ever play that mode.

 

Also, who's talking about removing objectives? Because I surely am not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×