Secondary objectives for attackers to earn more reinforcements, and location knowledge for defenders

Archive Suggestions - Archive
1

I’ve seen a lot of posts recently saying that attackers have “too few of lives” to effectively push through defenders. PERSONALLY I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT. However, I can get behind the idea of giving additional lives as a reward for completing additional objectives.

Many of us are familiar with “Airfield” on Normandy. The secondary for attackers is to take out balloons, and in return it gives more points for reinforcements. I really think adding more secondary objectives into maps would really help, though I think ground targets would be more balanced than air targets (as AA cannot be countered by defenders).

On the flip side of this however, there needs to be a way for defenders to capitalize on the defense side. Both the main objectives and secondary objectives need to be displayed on the defense’s map. Allowing for fortifications to be set up, if they so choose.

Adding these would add additional risk/reward situations for both offense and defense to capitalize on. It solves the issue of “not enough lives” as taking out the secondary objective has the potential to give lives back at what could be a low cost. Likewise, it may serve as a way to split up defending forces for attackers to push the main objective more effectively.
Though in other games it could work to the defenders advantage, decreasing the amount of attackers that must be dealt with on the main point for long enough that the defenders can put in additional fortifications to hold back the extra waves of troops.

4 Likes
2

Maybe defenders get flak 88 as stationary guns and attackers get points for taking them out

Something other than the balloons because that’s too easy and makes no sense

2 Likes
3

Further idea - attackers have additional point on the flank near the main one.
After capping it, they receive 1.5x cap speed for the main.

But first of all, devs need to remove cap speed and tickets gain imbalance.

4

I completely disagree with this part. Messing with capture speed already makes for extremely unfair games. adding more to that does NOT help balance. The ONLY thing that should increase speed of capture is the amount of soldiers in the objective.

5

But attackers need to spend reinforcements to capture side objective, isn’t this fair?

6

Whether attackers wish to spend reinforcements to capture a side objective is up to them.

  • They have the OPTION to not attack it at all and just attack the main objective, costing no lives.
  • They have the OPTION to attack it, and it may not even be defended, costing them no lives.
  • They have the OPTION to attack it, and it may be defended, costing them some lives but gaining way more from completing it, resulting in more lives gained than lost.
  • They have the OPTION to attack it, and it many be a lost cause resulting in more lives lost than gained.

The ONLY thing that should be awarded is the same thing that is being wagered, which is lives.

1 Like