Jump to content

Recommended Posts

OVERVIEW:

 

This game mode is comprised of two distinct phases:

  • Phase 1: The "Build and Recon" phase
  • Phase 2: The "Attack and Defend" phase

 

31zj1Rv.png

 

 

A conventional faction is tasked with establishing bases in pre-determined Areas of Operation under a time-crunch and with limited resources. During this process, the indigenous and non-conventional insurgent faction is free to move, observe, but not aggress. They use the time the occupational force is building to plan attacks, and to bolster their attack capacity with scavenged resources.

 

Once a specified time has passed, the insurgent cell goes active and begins to assault the FOBs in any desired order. Time, not life, is limited, and they recieve bonus time for each FOB reduced. If all FOBs are destroyed the insurgency prevails, otherwise the Conventional force is the victor.

 

Phase 1: Build and Recon.

 

Conventional Faction's Goals:

  • Primary: Choose a location in each assigned AO to establish and secure a FOB with the intent to defend it against attack.

  • Secondary: Eliminate available resources encountered on the battlefield that could be salvaged and used for enemy weaponry.

Non-Conventional Faction's Goals:

  • Primary: Observe the movements of the newly arrived occupational forces to discover where and how they establish their FOBs, devising methods for future assault.

  • Secondary: Scavenge available materials littering the fields (Cars, Barrels, Guns, etc) to fabricate weapons that will aid in the large-scale assault of enemy fortifications.

Further Explanation of Phase 1:

 

During Phase One, The conventional faction finds its self on the border of the map, unestablished, and lacking any main-base. They do have equipment that includes the supplies with which they need to build their base. They have, marked on their maps, clearly defined AOs that they need to establish themselves in before the end of the first phase. Where they choose to establish themselves is up to their strategic discretion, but the FOB centerpiece needs to be within the range of the AO to qualify as a defensive establishment. During the course of this phase, the supply trucks will need to be distributed among the bases and the structures planned and built in a manner that anticipates an inevitable assault.

The non-conventional faction is present for this phase as well. They are unarmed, and they are fair-target if they approach the occupational forces within a certain radius while in the AOs. They can choose to push that limit if they need to, but they can get shot, reducing their team's available limiting-resource (time) for the next phase. The conventional faction can also choose to venture out, to reduce available in-field resources for IED/VBIED fabrication. Doing so would come at the expense of construction man-power, a trade off that would need to be qualified.

 

 

Phase 2: Attack and Defend Phase

 

Conventional Faction's Goals:

  • Primary: Maintain the establishment of a qualified FOB in the presence of at least one AO by the end of the game.

  • Secondary: Maintain all established FOBs to reduce the time allotted for attacking.

Non-Conventional Faction's Goals:

  • Primary: Destroy ALL enemy FOBs to rid the map of occupational forces

  • Secondary: Destroy an Enemy FOB to gain additional time for attacking.

Further Explanation of Phase 2:

 

The previously established FOBs need now to be defended against an onslaught of enemy aggression, utilizing all tools typical of the non-conventional factions, and any additional attack assets like VBIEDs and Barrel-Bombs/Hell-Cannons etc to destroy the extablished structures with the ultimate goal of removing each one from the map.

Both factions have unlimited respawns, but the time-down for each player's consecutive death could be modulated to achieve optimal balance. The limiting factor for this attack phase is time. The attacking force has a limited initial time allotted to achieve the reduction of an established FOB. Each FOB destroyed will grant additional time to the attack phase. If all FOBs are destroyed, the non-conventional forces are victorious. If there is a remaining FOB, no matter how reduced, in any one of the AOs on the map when the time runs out, the Conventional Faction Wins.

 

 

Terrain:

 

  • This game mode could take place in any existing terrain.

  • That terrain would need to be divided into sectors.

  • These sectors are AOs or "Areas of Operation", the control of which is the primary point of contest.

  • These sectors can sum to the whole map, but do not need to.

 

Map Sample Layouts:
 

QZ437jZ.png

 

Ex 1: Structural Sequester. Defense forces opted to place their FOBs based on existing available structures, and optimized logistics flow.

 

upF7C19.png

 

Ex 2. FOB Cluster. Defense forces opted for close proximity FOBs, sacrificing optimal structure for optimal support capacity.

 

Further Considerations:

 

 

Key Balancing Components:

  • Phase 1 ROE for Conventional Faction

  • Time for Phase 1

  • Starting Resources for Phase 1

  • Form of Logistical Resources for Phase 1 (Heli/Wheeled)

  • Time allotted for Attack phase

  • Time bonus given for FOB destruction

  • Quantity of scavengeable resources

Key Flexibility:

  • Scale-able AOs size and quantities depending on player server size

  • AO demarcation on maps

  • FOB Proximities

  • Non-AO space for safe insurgent operations.

This game mode idea is centralized around the FOB building mechanics, and could also utilize the scavenge and weapon crafting suggestion I made here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it, but how would the attacking team spawn? If they could also build FOBs that would put them at a clear advantage, since they can lose theirs and the defenders cant. Can you expand on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I cant presently pin down FOB mechanics because they arent totally pinned down as it is.

FOBs represent the ability for a force to recieve reinforcements.

Currently, there is a proximity mechanic that can be used to "siege" a FOB to prevent spawn capabilites. This same mechanic would work well enough in that, the defending force needs to keep the attacking force reduced sufficiently to facilitate reinforcement.

I have made the primary limiting factor in this game mode "time." This is to provide impetus for action. The reason you want to avoid death at this point is to avoid temporary force reduction. If too many of your team are down waiting for respawn, whos going to defend the FOB? This is where a FOB gets over-run.

I imagine players needing up to a 2 minute death count. This adds viability to medical triage; Reviving returns soldiers to duty much faster than waiting for respawn.

I cant say I have every mechanic worked out to perfection, but I think as a framework theres enough there that Id like to see something like it in game.

 

 

EDIT:

 

I misunderstood your initial question: Whether or not Insurgents could place FOBs, and the respawn mechanics that accompany.

In my mind, the insurgents would not have access to fobs, or at least not inside the pre-designated AOs. Rather, they could use rally points, and a group of various fixed spawn points around the perimeter of the map. The idea here being they are able to enter from virtually any direction. The idea here is not to limit Insurgent spawn-ability, but also that hunting Insurgent spawns and FOBs is not a core element of this mode, and hunting Spawns would be futile.

Edited by unfrail
Musunderstood Question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you combined the game modes of skirmish, push, and occupy in insurgency. For me a simple attack and defend game mode works. One team designated to hold certain positions, while the other designated to attack. Sounds similar to AAS in a sense, but then again AAS in general has DNA to every other game mode. I like your game mode ideas, but i think they have to be simple enough for an average joe to understand them quickly, especially if they are coming from more well known AAA titles. Hopefully the Dev's will create descriptions of each game mode further down the road to help alleviate this issue we currently have.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you combined the game modes of skirmish, push, and occupy in insurgency. For me a simple attack and defend game mode works. One team designated to hold certain positions, while the other designated to attack. Sounds similar to AAS in a sense, but then again AAS in general has DNA to every other game mode.

 

I think it has the strongest similarity of Push, in that there is a definitive defending team trying to hold a position from an attacking team. On a small scale, with only one FOB, it might play very much like Push, but the problem with Push is the defense position is arbitrarily fixed, and the attack direction is always the same. This makes Push very dependent on map-design, and in many cases it becomes a game of "shooting fish in a barrel."

 

In the mode I have proposed, The defending force gets to choose their point of defense, and they get to bolster the defenses. They can constrict vehicular paths to slow-down VBIEDs. Put Razorwire in canals to make passage more difficult. While the map-maker defines a general area, the defenders choose the place the battle will happen.

Not only that, but the attackers now have the capacity to attack from all directions. This means you need effective watch. If there are 2 FOBs to defend, which one will get attacked? How able are your forces to respond?

 

I think prefacing the game with a period for crafting is a hands on time where defense strategies and communitcations structures (read: good Squad Leaders and SL-comms) can be established "hands-on", in preparation for a future firefight. Add in the Insurgent force counterpart of recon, scavenging and crafting whilst establishing their own comms effectiveness and an attack-plan, and I think there will be the capacity for some extremely intense matches, creative application of base-building and hopefully some form of weapons crafting for the non-conventional forces.

 

 I like your game mode ideas, but i think they have to be simple enough for an average joe to understand them quickly, especially if they are coming from more well known AAA titles. Hopefully the Dev's will create descriptions of each game mode further down the road to help alleviate this issue we currently have.

 

I'm perpetually guilty of the "wall of text." I swear I really try to simplify.

 

If you're an Insurgent, the game is simple:

  • Find cool shit to make bombs (ph1)
  • Figure out where enemy bases are (ph1)
  • Blow up enemy bases with bombs you made. (ph2)

If you are Conventional Force member its equally simple:

  • Build Radio in each zone. (ph1)
  • Build defenses to protect each Radio (ph1)
  • Defend each Radio till timer runs out. (ph2)

Sure there are alternate complexities that multipath the tactics, but this is the core game, and I think it sounds really fun, despite needing some inevitable tweaks.

 

I greatly appreciate the feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm liking the way this looks. It reminds me skirmish on Insurgency regarding the mission of defending a cache (in this case your FOB)... and the time rewards/penalties should definitely keep the action in a steady minimum, with the potential for "time-crunching" motivation that would push players to increase their combat pace.

 

A thought came my way about using AO's for another potential reward/penalty system, on top of being able to disrupt and limit insurgency operations in those areas. The idea stemmed from INS:Skirmish, where your team spawns back when a control point is taken. If the AO had an ability to be secured by either team, according to the number of forces within it, they would control it. Having a FOB in a certain AO would not necessarily consider you in control of the area when your forces are outnumbered in the AO it resides in. This could give conventional squads indication of when they are, or not, maintaining the primary influence of their respective AO.

 

Here's where a reward/penalty mechanism can come into play: what if controlling the AO itself had an affect on spawn times, and incapacitation time limits. Holding the majority influence of an AO could result in faster respawn times and extended incapacitation time limits. Inversely, not having control of your AO will result in extended respawn times and reduced incapacitation time limits. These effects would only be relative to the AO you are in. That is to say, a player who is an AO they control, will have not have the penalties of a player who is not in a controlled AO. It wouldn't be a shared penalty across the entire team.

 

This would make it an incentive to keep enemy numbers down enough in an attack/defense to hinder their effectiveness when reviving and respawning. For conventional forces, it could force the necessary reinforcement of a FOB that is under attack when the team is aware their fellow players are under a stricter penalty when killed in combat.

 

 

*** I'm not sure if this kind of mechanism would give too much momentum to quantitative force, and reduce players in an under-dog scenario too much to be considered balanced. It may be exploitable, maybe not, sounded cool to me. Either way I look at it, your original idea has a solid foundation for a great game mode! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-snip-

 

Some good points, and I agree it does hold similarity to Skirmish in some regards.

 

There are some issues I have with "zones controlled through greater numbers" I will try to explain, but perhaps you could shed different light on the matter.

  • If having a larger number of troops in the zone persuades its "capture" alone, then no combat is necessary to obtain an upper-hand.
  • The ability for tactical subversion is reduced when your quantity of force is betrayed by a "digital balance."

Take this image for example:

 

f1KRMqe.png

 

In each of these scenarios, meta-info is known by each team about the other simply due to their individual weight in each zone.

  • On the left, they know their forces are distributed equally.
  • In the middle, They know the Attacking force is heavy on one side.
  • On the right, they know the defending force is heavier in one FOB.

This meta-knowledge is akin to screen-cheating. Its gaining knowledge about the enemy without direct interaction or observation. This removes, or at least greatly hinders, the capacity for sneak-attacks. It greatly robs the "Art of War" from the game.

Without zones, the same image below:

 

CR8ykdH.png

In none of these scenarios do the other forces know exactly what to expect outside what they have observed through recon, or through aggression. This makes more room for tactical brilliance, where a quick assessment of force and the more rapid maneuver as a team will reward either side. How the defenders choose to defend, and how the attackers choose to attack, is completely up to their teamwork, strategy, and cooperation. Its a game, and it could get intense.

 

In this game mode, I have abandoned the concept of "controlled" because, what does that even mean? Do the US have control over Afghanistan? Did they ever have "control" over Iraq?

What they did do, was persist in presence, which despite casualties, was to them "success". Conversely, success for the insurgency is not "having more people in a boundary" but driving the presence from an area.

 

Thats what I was hoping to capture with this FOB implementation, where the FOB represents "the ability of a force to sustain its presence through reinforcements"

 

Let me know if that makes sense, and if I misunderstood your intended logic.

 

Thanks for reading, and sorry for the perpetual text-walls. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like walls, just for the record  :)

 

You have explained this very well. I agree with your reason to abandon the idea of controlling an area. You're right, control isn't black and white. You're philosophy behind this game mode makes sense.

 

So the AO's are intended represent possible areas of insurgent activities and are suggested to be occupied with the intent to disrupt insurgent acquisition (of weaponry) and operations?

 

I can see that as being a good enough reason to suggest a necessity in occupation of all these areas in order to acquire the intel and resistance needed to survive the assaults. If I'm understanding this correctly; building multiple FOB's in a single AO may increase your local defensive abilities, but cause a lack of reconnaissance and presence to prevent another area from being used to build the weapons, and amass numbers, to be used as a counter such said FOB concentration (unless overlapped in each AO, like your FOB cluster example).

 

At the moment I cannot think of anything more to suggest for enhancing the gameplay of this idea, but I like what's here and the philosophy behind it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the AO's are intended represent possible areas of insurgent activities and are suggested to be occupied with the intent to disrupt insurgent acquisition (of weaponry) and operations?

 

Think of it more as "Command has assigned you to establish a base in Logar Valley" where "Logar Valley" is your AO. AOs could be the map, or a subsection of a map, depending on player count and map-size. They are "orders of occupation" with the flexibility of choosing where and how you will do so successfully.

A successful deployment to Kandahar wasn't killing every insurgent, which is impossible, but surviving the deployment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this helps but what if after the defending force, having held a FOB for a certain period of time, can then upgrade it to higher tier defences (MG emplacement, watchtower etc).

If the defenders had concentrated on maintaining one FOB at the expense of the other to get a main FOB up and running then they could then spare manpower to bolster the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this helps but what if after the defending force, having held a FOB for a certain period of time, can then upgrade it to higher tier defences (MG emplacement, watchtower etc).

If the defenders had concentrated on maintaining one FOB at the expense of the other to get a main FOB up and running then they could then spare manpower to bolster the other.

 

I was undecided on whether or not the defenders would have a fixed amount of Resources, or whether or not they would get supply drops from time to time.

 

I think initially, for the "Build Phase" they would have a fixed amount.

 

I could see the commander calling in supply crate para-drops as the round progresses, for repairs, or upgrades, as they choose. I think thats a good idea. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could play out like an RTS game but we are the little figures on the ground building the bases and the commander is the player overseeing his troops doing what he's instructed. Much of the tried and tested dynamics could be incorporated here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could play out like an RTS game but we are the little figures on the ground building the bases and the commander is the player overseeing his troops doing what he's instructed. Much of the tried and tested dynamics could be incorporated here.

 

My main goal was to create a game mode where a team had a fat pile of resources, and their number one priority was to go build bases. It needs to be done with purpose. With consideration for the consequential attack. They need to plan, move, build, and do it all as quick as possible, cause what good is a base that no-one ever attacks?

The trouble is keeping the other guys busy at the same time. They can be watching as "civilians in disguise" for the construction phase. Observing the strategies, and preparing their attack plans. Or they can scavenge and be assembling IEDs/VBIEDs in preparation for the attack. That, to me, sounds equally as fun.

"Go build cool sh-t, then see who's was built better; weapons or bases."

 

The rest of the above mechanics go to encourage actions along this line, with time limits to build, and time limits to attack.

 

"Go crazy. See if you can knock the castle down." :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love it. FOB defence and construction is fun - combined with patrolling to intercept and ambush the bad guys would be an interesting dynamic.

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

×