Hello. I have a suggestion to change or add a new gamemode that should be more active and interesting to both sides, because, now, the team which defends have to stay in 1 point all the time if enemies cannot capture anything and that makes this current game mode boring. The main idea of my new game mode is that the both sides attack, and wins the team which captures all the points, of course this could take a lot of time, but both teams (like in defense or attack modes) had 1000 lives or a timer, for example 20 minutes.
If we pick the option with lives, then 1 team will run out of lives if nobody wins by capturing and so the team with lives left can capture the rest points.
Second option with timer - if time runs out, the team with most points captured wins, like you can see in the image, the V2 have 7 points, so teams dont have an option to get a draw while having same amount of points captured. One team will sure get 1 point more at the end.
Talking about V1 - this could be a classic variant of this game mode. 1 line - team with most points captured wins or team which captures all enemy points wins, or team which lives ends loses because they cannot capture any point or defend it.
About V2 - this could be an option for more players in battle than we have now, but maybe not and we could use this variant also now, because there are not that many players. This is almost the same as V1, but a little different.
Variations could be more, but those are some basic which came into my mind.
Feel free to add or suggest something. Might be that this idea was viewed before but I hope not.
And i repeat, the main idea is active gameplay, so 1 side (defending one) didnt have to sit at one point while enemies cannot capture it the whole battle like it happens now.
It sounds nice but if I remember correctly devs said sth about realistic objectives. I can’t imagine your gamemode being realistic in any way. In 99% of cases one side deffends objectives and other side atacks objectives, but I have never heard about other types of operations (vietnam is the only exeption I know) but I’m not a military so I may be wrong.
I don’t really understand how V1 would look in practice, but V2 is in War Thunder naval battles and is a solid game mode. Arguably it would work better for infantry than boats.
There’s not going to be a realistic game mode on this small of a scale.
War Thunder air RB is the closest we get to realistic objectives and it’s still not flawless.
We would either need an unobtainable player count or, like air RB, a metric shitton of bots.
I don’t see connection between gamemode and current number of players in a match. It doesn’t matter if 2 players capture the point or 10 players. Invasion gamemode is good example, it’s quite close to reality and it works.
V1 in practice would look like this - 2 teams attack the middle point, which team wins the middle point can push further points and capture the last one to win.
I’m saying complex game modes need more players to be possible.
The call for realism is functionally a call for complexity.
Invasion is no more realistic either. If anything it’s less realistic because counterattacks are impossible.
Makes more sense. The way I was looking at it seemed more like both teams were trying to cap their closest points first, which wouldn’t make any sense.
It’s still closer to reality than for example deathmatch.
You know what? Scrap everything I wrote before. I LOVE this idea! I want gamemode with possibility to counterattack! So I can finally have a good reason to force implementation of Lafette!
