Frigate battles.

[SuRroundeD By 1]

Anyone ever play Star Wars Battlefront 2? If you have than do any of you remember the space battles? Those were some of the most fun games I have ever played. There was one gametype in that game called Galactic Conquest, which is basically what this community uses (the warmap). In SWBF2 space battles only happened when two ships met up with eachother, whether its over a planet or on some random space in space. While in the FC war's the armies cannot occupy the same space, I did notice something rather odd this time around: Both armies frigates just seemed to pass eachother to attack a map (indicated by green arrows moving from one planet to another.

I'm new to FC (still waiting for bootcamp, yeah that new haha) but would it be possible to have these ship to ship battles in the wars? I had a discussion about it earlier with Silver from BLUE, and he brought up some valid points to not have these battles, one of them including that one army could always have an amazing ship to ship squad and always dominate, making the other army unable to attack. Here is what I suggest:

Two armies frigates move across eachother to go and attack another territory, however because they are crossing eachothers path they decide to battle it out. The map would be on Forge World, with one REDD and one BLUE frigate (even if one side has more than one frigate and etc). In the hangars of the Frigates would be 4 Banshee's and two Falcons, ship defences would include two Chaingun warthogs, a Rocket hog, and a Scorpion on the front. None of the ship defences respawn if destroyed. This would be played as a Slayer or CTF gametype (I'd suggest CTF).

The winning faction only gets the satisfaction of winning and getting to attack, while the losing faction lose's one of their frigates (if there are two than only one is destroyed, as if the other fled). In losing a frigate this also means that the losing side would lose 190 troops (seeing as each frigate carries 190 troops or less). The remaining Frigate would attack the selected area (just with less reinforcements). IF the losing team only had one frigate, than they would lose that frigate and would be unable to attack the planet that they planned on attacking, leaving them to an only defense battle night.

The losing army wouldn't be Frigateless though, a new one would spawn at the cost of say: 1,500cR. This is only if the losing army lost their last Frigate.

Just an idea though. I thought it would be pretty cool to have these kind of battles, maybe relive some memories from SWBF2. I have played ship on ship maps before on Reach, and they were extremely fun and long (some matches coming up to a few hours just to win a game of CTF). There might be a few technical difficulties that I have not predicted (due to being new to the community) but I would like to know what you guys think.

[Spartanbh]

No offense to you or anything, this is one of those ideas that can't be brought into reality. It's an amazing concept and gives people a good imagination of what an awesome ship-to-ship battle would be like, but the problem is is that the Halo: Reach gameplay and "world" just can't support an evenly matched game like this. I'm sure this would make a terrific fun custom game for shits and giggles, but the problem when it comes to the wars is that the community strives to create a 99.9% perfectly even playing field, and those just don't cut it, especially since when the only way to get to the other ship would pretty much be by flying.

Like I said, good idea and everything, but it just can't be brought into reality. Maybe a perk or something could be created along the lines of this though, but definitely not an actual gametype and game.

[SuRroundeD By 1]

I see what you mean Spartan, but could you please clarify how this would be unevenly matched with both sides having the exact same equipment. The only thing that differs is skill in flying but that could be compared to skill with a DMR or Sniper Rifle on the ground.

While each army would only have one way to enter (flying) I don't see how this would make the gametype uneven. I'm not saying your wrong, or I'm right, I just don't see that the problem is (maybe thats because its almost 1 in the morning over here and I'm tired haha). Could you please give me examples of how this would be unfair?

[Spartanbh]

It's harder to explain over text than it is to actually show. For one, The Falcons can only carry 3 people at a time, and after enough damage (that, keep in mind like you said, would be coming from constant barrages of tank guns, warthog guns, and other explosive weapons) will blow up (unlike in the previous Halo games where the vehicle's health was based on the players health). It's just realistically impossible in the game of Halo. The difference that made Battlefront so exciting in those scenarios was that you could have 24-32 people playing and you had those giant dropships. There would be not enough people for a real ship-to-ship battle for Halo. There are 16 people, and when you think of it as the way you have set up, there just is not enough people because there are only 8 on each team. Thats 3 people for the warthogs, 1 person for the tank, 6 people for the falcons, and 4 people for the banshees if you wanted to utilize all weapons at one point. Thats 14 people FOR ONE SIDE. It's just unrealistically impossible. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. Believe me, we want to have a fun war sim community, but we can't stretch it past the Halo: Reach limits. There's just no possible way to make it work in a totally even way.

[SuRroundeD By 1]

Ok, I see what you mean now haha. I guess your right, maybe it could do without the ship defenses but that wouldn't be as fun. Haha starting to wish Halo had a 24 player limit at least, like BF3 will have (for console).

[Spartanbh]

Yeah I know what you mean, it would be awesome and stuff but Bungie never got the hint that a lot of people like BIG all-out war games like Battlefield and Battlefront are. Don't get me wrong, it was a good suggestion and was thinking outside the box and that's what we like from members of the community, but like I said, we have to keep it within reasonable limits.

[Gargoyle]

Now, we could put this idea into like another battle map perk like thing. Not really a perk, but what if we had like a random roll dice and the winner of the frigate battle had like another tiny increase to casuality rates.

[SuRroundeD By 1]

Now, we could put this idea into like another battle map perk like thing. Not really a perk, but what if we had like a random roll dice and the winner of the frigate battle had like another tiny increase to casuality rates.

Seems reasonable. Two frigates cross and luck desides which one takes casualties (but then we would have to take away the part about the frigate being destroyed I think). Just add more casualties to attacking side that lost the battle.

Say BLUE and REDD cross, BLUE is roll's 1,3,5, and REDD is rolls 2,4,6. Lets just say the DICE rolls a 3, so BLUE wins. When red attacks (lets say they win) they will take 20% casualties, but lets say this perk doubles the casualty rate for the attackers, so the REDD side instead takes 40% casualties. So if REDD attacked with 100 troops they would end up with 60 instead of 80 after the battle . . . sounds good to me.

Maybe though instead of doubling casualties we just add an automatic 10% or 20% increase to casualties? This way if the attackers lose 50% of their troops in battle they wouldn't end up losing all 100% of the troops.

[Nocte]

The War Council has already completely wiped this idea away because it would come down to dice just being rolled to see which force wins, besides the battle is over Reach not the space that surrounds it! I wish that we could make this work, but we have looked at every avenue and it just won't work.

[GhostHammer]

We discussed that idea Garg, but we never really had much come of it.


Love the idea of the ship to ship battle, but Spartan is correct. Shame too, cause I would LOVE that as I quite enjoyed Battle Front.