I like how it's hard to capture that southern base in the Battle of the Bulge when the Allies have it occupied and the Germans have all of the other bases captured but are still bleeding. It's a very nice challenge and if executed right and good teamwork is present then a good victory is in store. That kind of base is what I think of when you guys mention a "hard to capture" base. :)
a base defended by bunkers trenches and emplaced Pak40's/17 pounders/Zis 76.2mm or B-12 100mm anti tank guns :)
-Moldie-Anyone know if its possible to make a flag uncapturable untill all other flags are captured?
Adapt the "PUSH map mode" technique
Yes thats true, but what if you want them all but the main base capturable. But when all the flags are taken the main base becomes capturable. This possible?
Yes, i just said it: adapt the "push mode".
Here is how the push-mode works (from observation): The flag is surrounded by some kind of a cage that disappears when the appropriate flag is captured. You can surround the main flag by many nested cages, each of which will disappear when appropriate flag is lost. So only after capturing all flags (and thus making all cages disappear) will you get access to main flag
IMHO, it all depends on the map itself. Some maps need a non-capturable base and others are better without them. I fail to see a reason why there has to be one standard for all maps at all. Especially when all maps are different; some radically different.
i hope the dev think about the push mode to every map because that would bring strategy into effect instead of everyone running for a flag
I think it does depend on the map a great deal, as well as the overal design theme of the map.
Personally, I LOVE the idea of push maps, but you really can't do that with most of the maps currently, given how they're set up.
Most maps have a number of positions that are VERY lightly defended. For a push mode, you'd need to have certain flags set up as defensible in a tighter way than they are currently. Many of the uncapturable bases would need this especially.
There are also a number of maps where you NEED an uncapturable base as a design feature. For example, let's say on a map like Tobruk. The allies start with great defensive lines and a substantial positioning advantage. On a map like this, if you didn't have an uncapturable base, what's to stop the Allies from just all rolling forward and camping the German base right at the start of the map? You know how people complain that Pavlov ends before they can even get in the game? With no uncapturable bases, what's to stop this from happening on any map where you can get to the enemy base quickly?
Uncapturable bases serve to force a particular style of gameplay -- namely that one side is attacking and the other side is defending. On a map like Tobruk, the side attacking needs to have an uncapturable base because otherwise you defeat the point of the map.
Now, I'll agree, on some maps, a push mode would be MOST welcome (along with the addition of true defensive lines and fortifications, not haphazardly placed MG nests or the occasional flak gun/AT gun). Gold Beach, the old RtR Operation Husky, Arnhem, etc. all could benefit from one side being forced to push their way forward, instead of zipping to the back to try and bracket the enemy forces.
The ability to capture the "back base" too easily is one of the more annoying things about this game, because it removes the "real war" feel of the game. Yes, it's just a game, and yes it should be fun (I'm usually the guy saying realism shouldn't be the ultimate goal -- fun should), but this is one thing that I think can and should be sacrificed for realism (which would, in turn, make the game itself more fun).
I envision pitched battles with true battle lines, instead of troops scattered here and there defending this or that flag. I'd love to see true defensive lines on a map like Gold Beach where the Allies have to push forward slowly but surely, and the Germans have to dig in and really defend.
So, on some maps, I say keep the uncapturable base to maintain the theme of the map (IE: one side on attack, one on defense). On the other hand, a head-on map like, say, Guadalcanal, you could get rid of the uncapturable base and simply make it so that you have to control ALL the territory before you can assault the final position. On other maps, you could simply leave it as a free for all (though I generally dislike these maps).
One final thought -- urban maps should NEVER be free-for-alls, at least as far as I'm concerned. I wish we had urban maps where you really had to slowly slog your way forward down a pre-defined path and that while you might have 2-3 approaches to a single flag, you'd have to get that one before you could move on to the next, and you couldn't skip a flag (both because of push mode being enabled, and because of the number of approaches). Too often, urban maps are too open and end up impossible to defend. At this point, the game devolves into a CS/Q3DM style frag-fest which, frankly, I think runs counter to the point of this game. Many maps in RTCW did an excellent job of creating pre-defined paths, but offering perhaps 2-3 choices for how you got from A to B (but you couldn't get from A to C). I kinda miss that. :)