# Heavily defended gimmie objectives. **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [June 20, 2016, 9:45pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/heavily-defended-gimmie-objectives/102339 "2016-06-20T21:45:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![robkrush](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/a9adbd/32.png) [@robkrush](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/robkrush)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 9:45pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/heavily-defended-gimmie-objectives/102339/1 "2016-06-20T21:45:00Z")
It’d be kinda neat to have the gimmie objectives (the ones closest to each team’s base) have heavy defenses like pill boxes, tank traps, emplaced artillery and machine guns, etc. This would make getting ALL the objectives harder and make spawn camping harder. Obviously the defenses would point away from your base so that if the enemy capped your gimmie objective they couldn’t use the defenses agaist you. Would be an idea for some maps anyway. What do you think? ---
**Author:** ![MartinBabl](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@MartinBabl](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/MartinBabl)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 9:59pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/heavily-defended-gimmie-objectives/102339/2 "2016-06-20T21:59:00Z")
I really like this idea. I agree, will make maps more balanced and prevent base to a degree. ---
**Author:** ![robkrush](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/a9adbd/32.png) [@robkrush](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/robkrush)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 11:43pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/heavily-defended-gimmie-objectives/102339/3 "2016-06-20T23:43:00Z")
> [@MartinBabl](#): > > I really like this idea. I agree, will make maps more balanced and prevent base to a degree. Thanks! It would be nice for the losing team to have a spot to fall back too and try to rally from. ---
**Author:** ![Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/loqtrall/32/100975_2.png) [@Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Loqtrall)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 11:47pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/heavily-defended-gimmie-objectives/102339/4 "2016-06-20T23:47:00Z")
Neat idea. I like the idea of getting outcapped by the enemy and have essentially a “fall back” obj in order to ward them off from being able to dominate you completely. It’d probably be fun as hell to be on the offensive side in that situation as well, sort of like a “storming of Normandy Beach” type situation. ---
**Author:** ![robkrush](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/a9adbd/32.png) [@robkrush](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/robkrush)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 11:58pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/heavily-defended-gimmie-objectives/102339/5 "2016-06-20T23:58:00Z")
> [@Loqtrall](#): > > Neat idea. I like the idea of getting outcapped by the enemy and have essentially a “fall back” obj in order to ward them off from being able to dominate you completely. > > It’d probably be fun as hell to be on the offensive side in that situation as well, sort of like a “storming of Normandy Beach” type situation. Exactly. Fun to be defending and mowing down attackers. Equally as fun to be attacking, trying to break through that last line of defense. I think that attackers would really throw themselves at the defenders. Especially since they would be winning so why not? Would create some really interesting mass charge and massacres. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Sir-xer21](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/sir-xer21/32/103487_2.png) [@Sir-xer21](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Sir-xer21)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 12:32am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/heavily-defended-gimmie-objectives/102339/6 "2016-06-21T00:32:00Z")
This is one of the best ideas i’ve seen on this forum yet. ---
**Author:** ![MartinBabl](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@MartinBabl](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/MartinBabl)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 12:42am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/heavily-defended-gimmie-objectives/102339/7 "2016-06-21T00:42:00Z")
robkrush for lead level designer! ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzbling](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/fuzzbling/32/102025_2.png) [@Fuzzbling](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Fuzzbling)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 12:48am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/heavily-defended-gimmie-objectives/102339/8 "2016-06-21T00:48:00Z")
I support this idea! ---
**Author:** ![HaitianVacation](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/87869e/32.png) [@HaitianVacation](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/HaitianVacation)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 3:07am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/heavily-defended-gimmie-objectives/102339/9 "2016-06-21T03:07:00Z")
> [@robkrush](#): > > It’d be kinda neat to have the gimmie objectives (the ones closest to each team’s base) have heavy defenses like pill boxes, tank traps, emplaced artillery and machine guns, etc. > > This would make getting ALL the objectives harder and make spawn camping harder. Obviously the defenses would point away from your base so that if the enemy capped your gimmie objective they couldn’t use the defenses agaist you. > > Would be an idea for some maps anyway. What do you think? Creating objectives that are more than irrelevant flag pole is just too much work it would seem. Players have been asking for rational objectives for decades now and nope. ---
**Author:** ![DevilsBathtub](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/devilsbathtub/32/101705_2.png) [@DevilsBathtub](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/DevilsBathtub)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 5:53am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/heavily-defended-gimmie-objectives/102339/10 "2016-06-21T05:53:00Z")
> [@HaitianVacation](#): > > > [@robkrush](#): > > > > It’d be kinda neat to have the gimmie objectives (the ones closest to each team’s base) have heavy defenses like pill boxes, tank traps, emplaced artillery and machine guns, etc. > > > > This would make getting ALL the objectives harder and make spawn camping harder. Obviously the defenses would point away from your base so that if the enemy capped your gimmie objective they couldn’t use the defenses agaist you. > > > > Would be an idea for some maps anyway. What do you think? > > Creating objectives that are more than irrelevant flag pole is just too much work it would seem. Players have been asking for rational objectives for decades now and nope. yeah but that windill is important to the war effort ---
**Author:** ![MartinBabl](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@MartinBabl](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/MartinBabl)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 7:59am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/heavily-defended-gimmie-objectives/102339/11 "2016-06-21T07:59:00Z")
Bringing map design to new heights after a not so successful levelution phase. ---
**Author:** ![Jihad\_Jockey](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/jihad_jockey/32/102395_2.png) [@Jihad\_Jockey](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Jihad_Jockey)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 8:12am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/heavily-defended-gimmie-objectives/102339/12 "2016-06-21T08:12:00Z")
> [@Sir-xer21](#): > > This is one of the best ideas i’ve seen on this forum yet. ---
**Author:** ![BrowneManStrikes](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4da419/32.png) [@BrowneManStrikes](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/BrowneManStrikes)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 10:15am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/heavily-defended-gimmie-objectives/102339/13 "2016-06-21T10:15:00Z")
THE HOUSE APPROVES THIS MOTION ---
**Author:** ![Benny9393](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/benny9393/32/101317_2.png) [@Benny9393](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Benny9393)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 10:20am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/heavily-defended-gimmie-objectives/102339/14 "2016-06-21T10:20:00Z")
I actually mentioned a similar idea to this way back in the days of Bf3. However my idea was to have it on every flag, but I think your idea of having it just on the gimme objectives is a great idea. I’ve always said that objectives are taken and lost too quickly. With this suggestion you’d have essentially ‘normal’ conquest and also a real challenge if you were dominating. Awesome idea. ---
**Author:** ![HaveThisRocket](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/7bcc69/32.png) [@HaveThisRocket](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/HaveThisRocket)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 10:22am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/heavily-defended-gimmie-objectives/102339/15 "2016-06-21T10:22:00Z")
Ill agree only if the base has a crapload of AA emplacements muahaha ---
**Author:** ![robkrush](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/a9adbd/32.png) [@robkrush](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/robkrush)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 12:07pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/heavily-defended-gimmie-objectives/102339/16 "2016-06-21T12:07:00Z")
> [@HaveThisRocket](#): > > Ill agree only if the base has a crapload of AA emplacements muahaha Should be able to turn the emplaced mg’s on the slow flying wwi planes easy. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![VenomRTX](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/venomrtx/32/103986_2.png) [@VenomRTX](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/VenomRTX)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 1:31pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/heavily-defended-gimmie-objectives/102339/17 "2016-06-21T13:31:00Z")
I like this. It’d bring a “Rush” feel to a Conquest game.