Backcaping

[{UN}Coolio (Retired)]

Id like to see that the force that does the rear caping needs to stay inside the capzone to keep the flag neutral. If they move out of capzone or are killed the flag flips back to its previous owner.

That should force the agressor to keep up occupation and make it easyer for the defender to raise it, while improving the gameplay (add. combat).

[Raptor-6]

Coolio I think you came up with a great idea!!

[BazookaBoy]

yes that does sound like another good measure to prevent too much back capping whilst not limiting tactical choices too much

[SnowBall]

I disagree. Those cap zones are far to small to hide in, as all you'd need to do is fly by and do a rocket run. That wouldn't be what I would call "Combat." Why don't we just keep it the way we have it now. No sense in changing something we haven't fully tested.

[BazookaBoy]

It's a suggestion so of course it would need testing, but in principal the idea is still valid in what it is seeking to acheive.

You want to disrupt an enemy supply line you can do it, but you can't just do it and run onto another rear base. Which could lead to a chase around the rear of the area of operations, spreading the armys out and getting away from the focused battle.

With this suggestion, if it is possible to code, you get the disruption you seek as long as you are willing to commit your own troops to acheive it. The enemy knows where you are, so you know there is going to be a retaliation. If it's from the air, find a safe spot or step out of the zone whilst the rockets come in and then move back.

[SnowBall]

The explanation you set, sounds great on paper. I think if you reread my post earlier, I explain how the zones are too small to hide sufficiently. Running from the zones would provide even less cover. It has become rather apparent to me that my opinion isn't valued. You do what you want. I'll stop caring. So much for the for player by player idea. It was a nice campaign slogan though. Cheers.

[Raptor-6]

I think all we are trying to accomplish is to prevent a situation that we have already encountered, (maybe not in this tourney), that results in fox hunts for small raiding groups that are able to cap zone after zone away from the front. Now if you want to defend against this then you need to cover those flags with either AI or real players. Since there are probably not enough AI to do the entire job then that means that a few poor sods will need to stand around with fingers up their butt waiting for an attack that may not even happen. Or you could be in one of the groups that have to traverse the map retaking flags that have no defenders in them. Either way, that doesn't seem like much fun at all. Those are the situations that we are tying to prevent.

In all honesty, Coolio's idea still gives the opposing force the ability to disrupt supply lines by taking a back flag, but also ensures that when a force is sent to retake the flag, there will most likely be someone there to fight. That seems like an improvement over the situations outlined above.

The rocket strafes, well that is just part of the game. Like Baz said, either find some cover or pick a flag that has some. This has been with us for a long time and frankly it's the same for both sides. We could also look at putting in bunkers like we have done in the past.

Another idea is to deploy an AA soldier as part of the raiding party.

[Steveak44]

The explanation you set, sounds great on paper. I think if you reread my post earlier, I explain how the zones are too small to hide sufficiently. Running from the zones would provide even less cover. It has become rather apparent to me that my opinion isn't valued. You do what you want. I'll stop caring. So much for the for player by player idea. It was a nice campaign slogan though. Cheers.


So since some people don't like your opinion or it isn't the most popular the whole system is borked, heh? Its For Players by Players not Doyle's World.

[BazookaBoy]

EVERYONE without except is entitled to have their opinions and post them in a constructive manor as part of a discussion.

This is a suggestions thread and as such we would expect discussions on the good and bad points of each idea. You raised you concerns regarding the size of the zone and seemed to imply that this in itself would rule out this idea as being valid.

I have replied with my opinion that the there are places to hide in the zones or you can 'play cat and mouse' dogging in and out of the zones if you expect an air attack. However, you seem to believe that this means your opinions are not be valued, which is not the case, it is simply that I have a differing view and expressed it as part of this discussion..

[[1]MFR.BarmyArmy]

An interesting idea ... so what exactly is the rule...?

Remember that flags are stateless ( by design ) in that they have no memory, they do not remember what has happened only what is happening.

So what ever the rule is you have to express it using only what is true at that point not what has happened before.

Also currently if all forces vacate the cap zone then the current action is that the script stops executing ( if no-one is there then nothing will happen ).

I'll give this some thought, but as with all these things its not quite as simple as it first seems.

While Doyle may not get points for a statesman like delivery ( he was a marine once - so no suprises there ) he is right, some of the cap zones are too fricken small to be worth hiding in.

I'll throw this one into the ring: the only reason that back-capping is an issue is because of forward-spawning or ( the ability to deny forward-spawning by back-capping )... supposing I changed the rule for forward-spawning slightly....

The idea behind having to own all neighbours is to prevent spawning into a combat zone, if you own all surrounding flags then the one being spawned at should be 'safe', I could alter the rule to say as long as a) you have a working supplyline to a mil base, and are surrounded by friendly or neutral bases then you can spawn there...

... there that should stimulate some debate...

BA

Id like to see that the force that does the rear caping needs to stay inside the capzone to keep the flag neutral. If they move out of capzone or are killed the flag flips back to its previous owner.

That should force the agressor to keep up occupation and make it easyer for the defender to raise it, while improving the gameplay (add. combat).

[[8]72|JSgt.Super64]

Interesting points here. But if I recall, a team attacking one of these "back-caps" cannot actually cap the objective at all. Simply turn it gray. Proper use of AI can be used to defend these objectives if you see them go gray and the proper use of MHQ's to bypass the loss of a spawn zone. I say lets wait and see how a couple battle days carry out before we go making any changes. Everyone should stop panicking. Not to mention this would be discussed by the Council and tested before we make a change simply on a player request.

[Steveak44]

Generally, I like Coolio's idea or some variation of it that will make backcapping more risky or difficult. I see backcapping being very easy to do on the current map and our numbers.

1/2Pfc.Barmy|rsi|;55749'] some of the cap zones are too fricken small to be worth hiding in. Then...ah...don't hide in 'em.:) Cap and get out. Defend from outside the zone. On the other side, I kinda thought that (for our current numbers) that Corazol was too big last week. I think at one point Red and at least 6 in zone and Blue must have had a few because it wasn't turning and for a long time we still were not encountering each other.


1/2Pfc.Barmy|rsi|;55749']I'll throw this one into the ring: the only reason that back-capping is an issue is because of forward-spawning or ( the ability to deny forward-spawning by back-capping )... supposing I changed the rule for forward-spawning slightly.... If I were general...:rolleyes: I would definitely backcap to disrupt the spawn and resource system and I think backcapping would still be an issue without forward-spawning. Depending on the situation backcapping might become necessary just to disrupt resources. The map is still big and sparsely populated. Piece of cake to get a 3-4 man backcapping team into the rear it would just take longer to get into place and harder to maintain if the team takes casualties.

All this talk about hiding is starting to make me a little nervous:o. I'd really hate to see us end up with ArmAI part Deux.

[[1]MFR.BarmyArmy]

Personally it amuses me that Coolio complains loudest about back-capping.

Because as an impartial observer I believe that the Russians are in a better position to expoit the back-capping situation that the US.

Their unit arrangement, leadership and army psychologie are much more pre disposed to it than the US machine, which IMHO is less well equiped atm to think "outside of the box."

just my $0.02

BA

[{UN}.Nurmdog]

I am uncertain of how the back caps work, even after reading this thread and the rules posted. I can see how this could get complicated, however I have another idea to "spice it up" (if this is not already true). It would make sense that IF an Army loses a rearward zone due to a back cap that Army would not be allowed to take any new zones until they get ownership of the back zone. This would simulate a cut in supplies and make it necessary for the split Army (back capped) to get it's zone(s) back, does that make sense? I would think you should be allowed to neutralize zones when under back cap penalty so you could return the favor to the other Army...

[BazookaBoy]

Essentially what we are talking about when we use the phrase 'back capping' is attacking an enemies base that is not in the front line.

The front line would be determined as any base that you would be able to attack and take ownership off. So in the current map on day 1 both sides own everything up to Corazol, so Corazol is the front line.

The linked objective system, states that to take ownership (change to your colour) of an objective you must own a specific number of it's neighbours (the objectives which are next to it). If you attack an objective and do not hold the required number of neighbours you will only be able to turn the objective neutral.

This discussion is about a tactic which has been used in the past where the enemy would send a small team behind enemy lines to attack and neutralise objectives that they know they will not be able to capture because they don't hold it's neighbours.

One reason for this tactic is to deny the enemy the resources points these objectives would give. The other is to break the enemy's ability to forward spawn (to forward spawn you must own all the neighbours of the objective with the ability to forward spawn).

In the past the enemy unit as neutralised one objective then move straight onto another and another etc so although you may send a team back to look for them it turns into a cat and mouse chase. Also sending a lot of troops back to sort the issue out, removes them from the front line and from the main battle so it affects both teams and can lead to less fighting in the places we want to have the fighting because both sides are sending so many troops to their rear or behind the enemy lines.

This is not the most fun type of play and annoys quite a few of our players. As would having to be on guard at one of these rear most bases of the off chance that the enemy would send somebody to attack. Putting AI in all of these bases would seem to be an option but would turn the BFCO or whoever has to control them into an RTS player who probably only gets to move AI for the duration of the match.

There is no doubting that 'back capping' is a tactic which has some basis in real life operations, but this discussion is about finding a way to allow the tactic without it dominating the gameplay.

[[1]MFR.BarmyArmy]

At the point at which victory is more easily achieved by denying enemy access to the battlefield by limiting the ability to spawn then in my opinion something is going wrong.

1) There are two types of spawn location the first is a ground-based spawn where both vehicles and personnelle can be created, the second is an paracute drop where only personelle can be forward spawned. The current map has NO paracute drops which would allow infantry to get onto the field and admittidly with limited armour/air support. But that still better than being kicked to the arse end of the map.

2) If this still becomes a problem then we are forced to consider changing so that infantry can be spawned under 'looser' conditions than vehicles, meaning even if an objective is disabled for vehicle spawning then again infantry can still spawn forward.

What I am aware of is that currently with very 'simple' rules, we are still discovering unexpected "features".

I suggest we fight on, accept that this is the first map of any size that we have produced with the new objectives-system, and allow generals, unit commanders and map-designers learn how the current simple system works, and the consequences of design, so that we can improve out design technique for tour 2.

As oppose to applying a band-aid to the code to fix the current map, which will potentially introduce new bugs, and make the system even more complicated to design for later.

Adding more complexity is not the answer.

BA

[[1]MFR|GySgt.The_Jag]

I agree with Barmy, let's see how it turns out to be, as is now!

[[8]72|JSgt.Super64]

I must ask one question, Barmy. Why is it that if we get "back capped" at one of those small objectives listed, we lose Dolores, but if the same objective on the Russian side is capped, they are pushed all the way back to their main? It would seem they should only be pushed back to Eponia. The US side is pushed back to Cayo. And still able to get to the front in a reasonable amount of time.

I think these objectives play an important *wildcard* factor in our battles. But they should be made to slightly cripple forward spawning.... not rip it off at the neck and throw the head in the gutter while th body falls to the floor, flopping around and squirting blood. (ok, maybe that was a bit of a grizzly visual. lol)

[[AToW]Dren]

There are only 2 objects worth of back-capping on each side.
Both of these gives nice tactical touch to game.
If you see one of these turning neutral, call airlift and send couple boys to clear the are and take it back. 3 guys aint that much...

The idea that units should stay in area is bit, well boring...
Do you see yourself standing on object behind lines for 3hours? listening for maby incoming helos? shooting butterflyes? Iv seen it and many from old 2nd has seen it also, and its FAR from fun.

[Raptor-6]

RB|1Lt.Dren;55962']There are only 2 objects worth of back-capping on each side.


The idea that units should stay in area is bit, well boring...
Do you see yourself standing on object behind lines for 3hours? listening for maby incoming helos? shooting butterflyes? Iv seen it and many from old 2nd has seen it also, and its FAR from fun.

Well Dren the idea of having to take back flags that three guys are back capping seems equally boring. After Sunday's battle it seems clear that the current setup although well intentioned is not suitable. So what's the answer? I'm not sure I know, but we need a change for game play sake IMHO.

[[8]72|JSgt.Super64]

What if we reduced these back-cap objectives from 3 to just one? Much less for AI to guard and much less cat&mouse back there. And quicker to retake and get the supply chain working again and longer for enemy to cap it.

Maybe (im no scripter so Barmy, chime in) for just these objectives it takes less time for the army defending that part of the island to retake. For example, the Water Tower near Dolores would take like 8 minutes to cap. And 4 minutes for the US to retake. That way its more work for the attacking side. And easier for the defending to re-establish their supply chain.

[Raptor-6]

Maybe another piece to this is the further back you go from the front lines the longer it takes the enemy to turn the point gray.

[{8}3|Lt.Hooves]

I like the dynamic times but again that will take some time to develop. Also if an army is back capped and loses their forward pesonal and equipment spawn. They still ahve MHQ's to fill the gap until the back flag is regained.
Its a tactic, and with more players joining everyday, what this back capping will equate to is small skirmishes all over the map, which in my opinion would be AWESOME, this way we will actually get to use the air drops and other toys that will be introduced in campaign 2, so lets ride it out have the Generals come to a gentlemens agreement to not end the battle in one day, and lets fight it out by pushing through eachother, not around eachother (to a small extent).

[BazookaBoy]

Small skirmishes all over the map weren't fun, we had that at ArmAI and you may as well just have played tag. You spent you time moving to back cap or capture back an objective that had been back capped.

I agree that something along the lines of back capping could be fun if we find the right way to implement it. Barmy is a talented guy and I'm sure can work some of the ideas into the capturing system. But this takes time and testing. So keep the ideas comming but for Campaign1 this can only realistically be managed via an agreement between the generals.

[[1]MFR.BarmyArmy]

Thank you Baz. Thread sound-byte of the day...


There is no doubting that 'back capping' is a tactic which has some basis in real life operations, but this discussion is about finding a way to allow the tactic without it dominating the gameplay.