Timeline to Campaign 2

[styphon]

With reinforcements you still have to win 2 rounds to take the map, your enemy has to win 3 rounds to win.

If both ambush and covert assault are used they would negate each other.. The covert assault would spot the ambush but have to redirect their attack to neutralise it.

The idea behind tactical strike is to stop situations where the enemy has a defensive strong hold that you can't take but can't afford to leave them free to attack you from there. Just use a tactical strike to stop them from attacking from there and concentrate tour attacks where you need them.

Something like the EMP was initially on there but eventually removed as being too op.

[a432]

With reinforcements you still have to win 2 rounds to take the map, your enemy has to win 3 rounds to win.

So then the map has the potential to be played out in 4 rounds then instead of only 3?

[.Sup]

With reinforcements you still have to win 2 rounds to take the map, your enemy has to win 3 rounds to win.

So in the worst case scenario we could play 5 rounds of the same map? Did I got this right?

[madcow]

With reinforcements you still have to win 2 rounds to take the map, your enemy has to win 3 rounds to win.

So in the worst case scenario we could play 5 rounds of the same map? Did I got this right?

That would be four rounds as a432 said (attacker wins 2, defender wins 2 or attacker wins 1, defender wins 3).

[XrunawayX]

Just curious, in the best of 3 format, if one side wins the first 2 rounds, is the 3rd round played for fun, or do you move to the next map?

[Goggles]

Just curious, in the best of 3 format, if one side wins the first 2 rounds, is the 3rd round played for fun, or do you move to the next map?

We move on to the next map Every round of battle we play will be worth something.

[Hitman47]

if one team wins 2 rounds there is no 3rd round.

[.Sup]

if one team wins 2 rounds there is no 3rd round.

Since the main focus for this campaign was to make the two armies as balanced as possible I don't think that this will be the most often outcome.

[WoodenPlank]

if one team wins 2 rounds there is no 3rd round.

Since the main focus for this campaign was to make the two armies as balanced as possible I don't think that this will be the most often outcome.

Let us hope not.

I'm doing my part to keeping things balanced : I'm gonna request assignment to a ground unit!

[a432]

That would be four rounds as a432 said (attacker wins 2, defender wins 2 or attacker wins 1, defender wins 3).

I feel the way you said that is misleading. To use reinforcements you don't need to be the attacker. Either attacker or defender may use the ability. Somewhat more correct is Team A wins 2, Team B wins 2 (team A is victorious) or Team A wins 1, Team B wins 3 (Team B is victorious) where Team A was the team to use the reinforcement ability in both examples.

Something like the EMP was initially on there but eventually removed as being too op.

You could just make it's cost significantly more expensive as opposed to removing it.

Another idea on the same note is Strategic airbase bombing : Your air-forces strategic bomber wing has successfully neutralized the opponents airbases threw carpet bombing so much so that enemy air operations cannot take place in the region.

Could set it up for a singe round with the opposing army not allowed to use air vehicles or the whole map. Also you could change the parameters as to say the air operations can only function in a limited capacity. i.e. Only one jet may be used out of all air assets or only 1 chopper. etc..

On the same note as above you could do Strategic Air interdiction: You air-forces have successfully neutralized opposing reinforcing amour divisions and bridges on their way to the battle. You may expect no enemy Armour next round.

As in the first round on a map is played normally but round 2 or 3 (generals choice) the opposing side is not allowed to use tanks, AA, or APC.

[styphon]

Pretty much everything you suggested was on there to start with and removed at a later date. These are not designed to penalise players. The primary aim of BO items is to extend the campaign. Removing the ability for people to use vehicles penalises the air force or armour drivers. We don't want that.

[Shrapnel]

I think it'd be too difficult to enforce unless there was a server setting to remove the equipment from one side.

Even if one side stuck to the rules of no equipment the opposing side may find the empty vehicles too inviting and steal them, especially the ones that spawn at flags. I.e., side A has elimintaed enemy armor, side B takes a flag where armor spawns but leaves it empty since they can't use it, a player from side A may jump in the empty tank at that flag since armor isn't off limits to them. Also an issue for air on maps like Damavand and Sharqi.

Also, how much fun would it be to try and play Firestorm or Caspian with only one side having armor.

[WoodenPlank]

I think it'd be too difficult to enforce unless there was a server setting to remove the equipment from one side.

Even if one side stuck to the rules of no equipment the opposing side may find the empty vehicles too inviting and steal them, especially the ones that spawn at flags. I.e., side A has elimintaed enemy armor, side B takes a flag where armor spawns but leaves it empty since they can't use it, a player from side A may jump in the empty tank at that flag since armor isn't off limits to them. Also an issue for air on maps like Damavand and Sharqi.

Also, how much fun would it be to try and play Firestorm or Caspian with only one side having armor.

My original suggestion for an EM attack had included an option of only applying it to main base armor spawns, and not jeeps/buggies. Armor that spawned at capped flags would be usable(by both sides), as would any armor stolen from the team that deployed the attack. I dont blame the TAs for leaving it out, though.