Secondary Objective - Rework ( concept idea )

a bit of context:

greetings, today i would like to suggest to rework the secondary objectives.

i’ll start by saying that it’s a good idea in paper, but badly implemented inside enlisted.

as somewhat “experienced” player of this game, i somewhat like the secondary objective, both when defending as a german, and attacking as american. and yes, we are speaking of arifield.

but the more i think about it, the more i realized that it’s totally one sided. weather americans players can argue that the map it self it’s heavily in favor of the defenders and therefore needs tickets to proceed, this is somewhat truee. but on the other hand, the germans arguing that are next to be impossible to defend those baloons, they are right as well.

and objectively speaking, those secondary objectives are too " easy " to be shutted down, and little can be done to defend them no matter what nations is doing what.

and from it, an endless and pointles argument will rise.

so that’s why today, i’m here to suggest a rework. without further do, let’s begin:

Main Suggestion:

ok so, the main idea of the secondary objectives, we must first define what secondary objective should be. i’ll take a few examples from other games that somewhat did this right. but the general idea is that secondary objectives must be dynamic. usually located a bit behind from capture points in order to be reached, but not strickly " gifted " to the attackers ( like the baloons ).

so here are my suggestions that includes new types of objectives:

Static Trucks, halftracks, AA, & Destructable Objectives:

Opel Blitz KFZ 305_3D 88mm main-qimg-659094be356ebd2724b0bdf88d40cd8c
the general idea, is to include a few destructable objects behind the capture points to somewhat pull up a fight for both teams ( instead of baloons in the air that it’s not that challenging ).

as the name suggest, those are static, they cannot move on their own, nor be pushed to be relocated somewhere else.

and as entitled, it would be good to introduce AA flak position for the americans to destroy, Oil trucks, radios, and perhaps baloons as well, but not strickly in the air so that the defenders can’t do nothing.

Officer ( NPC Squad ):

he is part of the secondary objective that gives additional tickets if killed, and usually the officer is located inside some houses to be protected from artillery, and sniper fire. so the attacker team has to get dirty. ( the officer, if taken down, he will not respawn. neither his " minions " )

he will generally stay inside those houses
but everytime that a capture point gets captured, this officer will leave the area, and reposition him self and the squad to another location a bit behind the capture point ( not the grey area, otherwise attackers cannot reach him ) and when he is retreating, it’s a good opportunity to strike him down for the attackers. or find him at the next location. the squad is mainly filled with troopers made of 3 stars, with not upgraded bolt action rifles. ( their behavior is usually mediocre. where they cannot " snipe " players from far positions, but they can somewhat answer the fire when in close quarter.
the officer on the other hand, is going to be the only one with smg or semi auto rifle. ( i would say 2 star level, after all, his job is not to fight. since the defenders has to defend him in order to somewhat prevent the attackers from getting their reinforcement )

speed is the key factor ( just like in real life ).

and for those who are wondering:
commander hat is a thing in the game:
image
( taken from Enlisted E3 2018: ‘Invasion of Normandy / The Beach’ map gameplay - YouTube )
( which cosmetics for the commander should be unique and recognizable like the following screenshot: ):

which is made with the moscow MG uniform squad, and a CO hat. so that he is distinctive even in lone wolf hardcore:

3c7220fe02d898ba599475430f820652a5b90463
( i tried my best )
next;

AI vehicles ( tanks & airplanes )

now, according to the older Q&A, one of the first ever made about enlisted, stated that vehicles were controlled by AI, and they didn’t had plans to make those vehicles " playable ". as such, it could be a great time to introduce those back.

( and i’m sure they are somewhere sitting in the dust. worst thing that can happen, they take them from war thunder )

ideally, we can all agree that an AI wondering on the map one tapping attackers across the map is no fun, so the idea here, is that the tank is sitting still, and cannot shoot above 150/200 meters. they also use not upgraded vehicles.

so it would work that there’s a functional tank inside one of the bunker or placed somewhere else that ocassionally shoots, and provide a bit of a challenge to take it down, but it’s not going to be overpowered at the point where it wipes out more squad than the actual players. which the tank for the germans that i had in mind, was the PZ.BEFWG.IV J ( which it’s basically a commander tank that has worse turett traverse compared the actual PZ IV J and you can look up about it in war thunder )

and for airplanes, those usually fly around defenders refill point, and engage only if it’s range. to also provide a bit of gameplay for airplanes as well. and make the battlefield a bit open and alive. ( usually, should be a bf109 or a not weaponized airplane, dunno, it’s up to the devs for that regard ).

and lastly;

Capture/Hold:

photo-capture
the capture / hold secondary objective, is something like a capture point, but much smaller, and much quicker to capture.

those are a bit… weird even for me to explain them.
but the general idea, is that there are circles around objectives that could be valuable ( like radio towers, radio in general, ammo caches or whatever or the more logical one for me that i had in mind which it’s also the icon, prisoners) and the attackers must stay in the circle for 5/10 seconds in order to gain reinforcment and that is all.

How to they work

ba99b205df1734df89f55927c43ad598
unlike the baloons, it would be better if those secondary objectives are dynamic and changes most of the time. something “complex” to not always make those objectives like it gets repetitive to the nausea.
attackers shouldn’t be able to tell the secondary objectives unless they are close by ( let’s say 100 meters ), than an icon will appear.

so yeah, objective should be different, and provide somewhat of a challenge for both forces instead being gifted to one faction, or another. and also creates unique and fun experience while playing.

but that is what i think.

in conclusion

if you folks want to add or change anything, let’s argue about it and adjust it to make it better for everyone.

and if you have questions, just ask.

cheers for hearing me out, and i hope devs can to the very least, get some nice idea or fully copy it, ( i don’t mind. i just want the situations to be changed, and made it more interestring )

9 Likes

Hey! You there! Get back to the queue! :smile:

exept, i do not liked that idea because required too much in terms of engine capability, and coding. which destroy entire bridges it’s just… no.

because it doesn’t adress the current maps as well.

are you going to put a bridge inside the airport?.

that’s why i decided to make a new one and make it more " interactible " than just go to point A, and blow it up. like, those are generic and bland.

Try harder :upside_down_face:

you see, it’s not with wishes that we make things around my dear…

still, it’s the same:

I’m not sure what you mean but ok.

In a game where all you have is cap zones, it actually adds more diversity.
Also:

Isn’t that basically the same but smaller scale?

1 Like

So after I made a mess under your post I can finally say something about it :smile:

I really like NPC NCO assasination idea. Especially scenario like a “HQ” in one of the bunkers on d-day map sounds nice. We already have full AI squads so we can as well give them a meaning.

But I have mixed feelings about AI vehicles. For example tank is neither parked or in combat, it’s in an odd state that seems fully fictional to me. Similarly for the planes, they would just roam around and yell “come and shoot me”. It seems too artifitial to me to like it.

The rest ideas are - capture - which we already have and - plant a bomb - which we already talked about. Pretty much standard things in games, nothing to disagree here.

as i said, everyone can have opinions. mess or not, i just hope to watch improvements.

glad you like it.

that is why i stated:

so we avoid those situations.

plant a bomb sounds more apropriate.

but at the same time, goes under the " destroy object thingys " so i don’t know.

perhaps could work as a great combination.

i’ll let this one figure out for the devs :smiley:

I mean that a tank sitting still and engaging only if somebody is nearby, sounds fully artificial. Like all options are bad: moving, siting still, engaging, not engaging, because we end us with one of 3 options: AI hevicle that moves around, shoots people and is an apsolute terminator/noob; something illogical - vehicle stands still and shoots; a parked vehicle that doesn’t shoot (so basically your “destroy target” mission idea).

Name doesn’t matter. What matters is that things go boom!

i mean yeah, at least he does not move so he can be taken out by many ways compared to a moving objective. that’s why. perhaps a hulled down vehicle?

like in the company of hereos serie:

so that he can only shoot, and not move. but just like AIs, they often miss. with mgs ( 4/5 bullets before hitting a target ) and slighlty off target to be fair.

I would rather have a pantherturm in the Berlin but I guess it’s ok. I haven’t thought about hull down tbh.

no thanks. now that you make me think about it,

it was meant to be a panzer IV, not a panther. this would be a bit further than a secondary objective, it becomes a priority xd

( although, i couldn’t find a hulled panzer 4 picture, so i sticked the panther )

1 Like

i dont really like NPC, or AI vehicles. I think that it will be very difficult to implement them properly, and they will propalby be even worse than baloons. They will either be to easy to kill, because they are stupid. Or they will occupy sucha position, that you suddenly start to fight them, instead or real players, its not really secondary anymore.

I really like additional targets, but, we must take into acount, that spliting resources to defend them, may not be the best idea, if attackers are pushing you very hard already, this may lead to mroe snowball games, cuz defenders have hard time defending priority points anyway.

So we have to make thsoe secondaries ALMOST reqired. Actually, to make it better for defenders, I think they should give them bonuses, as long as they hold them. So if attackers decide to not destroy a bridge, they have to be ready for quicker respawns for defenders for example. Radio towers will allow for additional arty for defenders etc. This way we can give defenders reason to defend them, besides not giving attackers more points. I think its more fair, because we dont reward one side only.

1 Like

The whole game is based on them

Even war thunder has AI.

I guess that’s the main reason. To change the gameplay a bit due to how repetitive it can become.

But I guess not everyone is a huge fan of it.

I used to think the same. But than I realized that, it’s not the case that much.

First of all, that’s the main idea of secondary objective. Like, currently, it requires a team of defenders that are supposed to defend balloons, and attackers that needs to shoot those balloons instead of doing something else.

And than,

Attackers and defenders can be wiped out when are on the objective due to cas. As such, people started to spread quite a while. Which make sense to cover more front from both team, and lastly, there are still people that do not play the objective, and staying somewhere else that is not on the objective actually helps to defend and/or attack those objectives.

1 Like

I like the idea of gun emplacements, both artillery and AT. Besides being static targets, they can have a direct influence on the battle, without needing sophisticated AI.

AA emplacements would be powerful against any planes and nearly unassailable by them. They would direct accurate and massed firepower at anything, that dares to appear below the clouds. Basically, close air support is out the window for attackers, until ground troops manage to take out the guns. This is a big advantage for defenders, but they have to defend the guns. The emplacement would be stationed in some side area of the map, so the defenders are forced to split up their troops and neglect the main objective a bit, if they want to keep this advantage.
The only thing I haven’t figured out is how to protect the guns against mortars. Artillery barrages from radiomen can be prevented, by having the guns just slightly out of bounds, though.

AT emplacements would again be stationed at the side of the map, but a good stretch outside the battle zone, so they can’t be reached by infantry. Good concealment and entrenchment/fortification makes them very difficult to take out by tanks, as well. The guns would essentially prevent any flanking maneuvers on that side of the map. It’s pretty much the duty of CAS to take them out. Since a single emplacement is easier to guard than a whole bunch of balloons all over the map, interceptors actually have a chance to do their job. Of course, the guns need to be fortified enough, that they can’t all be taken out by a single bomb carpet. Accurate hits should be necessary.

2 Likes

In some cases we have unoficial secondaries already in game. Like that white house next to lumbermill on Forestry mission, Moscov campaign. I love This house, its mine by divine right. Its also key to this flank of lumbermill, without it you can really mount offensive on primary target. But those buildings dont need any markers, players should be able to evaluate its importance, based on situation.

Perhaps I expressed my self bad, those are static position that are not meant to fire.

Like, those are normal object of the map, and when destroyed they will garant tickets for the attackers.

But, if you get enough likes, and perhaps many people agrees and show support, as I said, I will update it. After all we are making a suggestion to improve the game and doesn’t take me too much to modify.

Cheers for stopping by.

is a good idea, I like it

2 Likes

The cap idea reminds me on the old X point in Foward Airfield (HnG). Like this one.

I understood that, and there is nothing wrong with having these things just as targets but I wanted to expand the idea a bit. I see no reason, why secondary objectives have to be only ticket dispensers, they could give other benefits.

Of course my idea is far more complicated and not something, that a developer can create in an afternoon.