Playing the game wrong

[Tim270]

I give up............................. Remind me to be as polite as you next time your on my server and you need something.

Yeah my comment was out of line, but to me that was how I interpreted your argument on the matter, it was neither that it was good or bad, but people should not do it. Its just my way of arguing, trying to be concise and to the point in minimal words and although that does sound insulting now reading it again, that was not my intention when writing the post

@dtacs, Supply lines are key to battle! Logi trucks are the most important asset that you have, no fobs and its curtains.

[L4gi]

Text.

I invite you to play with me any day!

[PinkFloyd-]

Rushing is a tactic. If enemy cannot forsee that the flag with the big purple thingo is going to be capped they shouldn't be ingame.

[Arnoldio]

rushing is a viable and realistic tactic. nothing wrong with it.

historical examples of the rush: German blitzkreig, they destroyed Polish armies and other armies using blitzkreig; US invasion of Iraq, the US supply line could hardly keep up with the armor and mech inf as they rushed to Bagdad.

rushing should be used with a special forces type squad flanking or setting up an distant FOB with TOW AA to disrupt enemy reinforcements etc

Yeah but they started rushing from germany, kept on battling until they reached the capital. (well i dont know where they went but you know...), they didnt go from Berlin to Warsaw and ignored everything inbetween, waiting for that other part of the army to battle through everything they should of too...

[dtacs]

[quote=""'[R-MOD"]Bob_Marley;1282041']Well, you can, actually.

You're out manuvering and out thinking the opponent (ie doing what you're supposed to). This is a competitive game, so play to win or don't play at all.

Rushing is only effective if the enemy are dumb enough to be taken off guard by it (in which case, they deserve to loose). Rushing forces are typically lightly armed and equipped and if the enemy team is prepared to deal with them will usually find themselves running into a larger, better equipped force and getting thier faces beaten in.

The absolute worst thing you can do in any game is what your opponent expects you to do, because they'll counter it. In PR most people, most of the time, are far too used to rounds going down a specific way and if anyone does something to upset they get derided as using "unrealistic" or "unfair" tactics. Such name calling is the final hiding place of people who simply don't have the will to do whats required to win.

Claims of fighting "fair" or with "honour" should be called out for the bull**** they are. People who make them cannot play to win and try to bring others down to thier level.

You're not fulfiling your own potential, you're letting your team down and you're going against the very spirit of what is an inherently competitive game.[/quote]
You wasted alot of time writing that post without properly reading mine - I was saying that things like the Baghdad armor assault in 2003 cannot be translated into PR as they are on a massive scale with more than 32 people.

Rushing in PR is to cap a point or destroy an objective. The assault on Baghdad and whatnot are huge sieges to destroy or overtake the city with thousands of people involved. Wait, scrap that, tens of thousands.

• Iraqi troops: 45,000
• US troops: 30,000

Source: Battle of Baghdad (2003) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please be sure to read posts properly as to not waste your time, or mine.

Far too often I see people playing the wrong way - failing to make use of every available tool and tactic to achieve victory is the absolutely worst way to play.

Think about that for a minute. There is a Tunguska sitting at main, an infantry rape machine, however there are no enemy air assets up making it useless for the concept it must fulfill. Are you failing and not reaching full potential by not using it against infantry? If something does something else excellent, like a transport truck running over infantry, are you failing by not using it for that purpose?

[quote="Tim270""]Supply lines are key to battle! Logi trucks are the most important asset that you have, no fobs and its curtains.[/quote]
Incorrect. Supply lines are the key to military offensives, not small skirmishes (AKA PR rounds) with no more than 64 people being involved. This is what 'supply lines' are. Supply systems in PR involves a Logi driving a crate which spawns a magical sandbags/camnet construction which people can be reborn on.

[Psyrus]

Claims of fighting "fair" or with "honour" should be called out for the bull**** they are. People who make them cannot play to win and try to bring others down to thier level.

So because they don't agree with your 'kick em while they're down' philosophy, you deride their play style and arguably their character though your wording. Classy ??:

[Boris.T.Spider]

Rushing is a tactic. If enemy cannot foresee that the flag with the big purple thingo is going to be capped they shouldn't be ingame.

Pink, the rush tactics being referenced here are attacks outside of the AAS order, for example MEC rushing the docks flag on Mutrah, MEC rushing North Vil on Kashan, etc. Essentially using the asymmetric nature of certain maps to exploit either a delay or a needed supply line where the exploitablity doesn't exist for their own faction. So while US can rush the South/Central areas on Mutrah, by the time they reach the area the entire MEC team has had sufficient time to disperse themselves up the map. Or the example for Kashan, where North Village is the US' main supply line and South Village is not the MEC main supply line.

The issue is probably most obvious on Mutrah though, the MEC can beat the US team to docks every time, if they so desire. Once there, they can set up AA/TOW/.50's, and because the US is against the clock to get that flag before they start ticket bleed, the only option available to them is to throw everything at docks. 15 minutes into the round the US team is out of choppers and sitting waiting on the carrier for the round to end.

On Kashan, the problem is that the US have a wide open area approximately 1300M by 500M as a supply line, vulnerable from two directions and has absolutely nothing to do with the battle while the bunkers are in play. Yes it is defensible, but it requires man power and assets to be taken from other areas of the battle, weakening the whole team and if it is never attacked, well the defenders get to spend 2 hours staring at empty desert. MEC can practically guarantee that the US team will be unable to find sufficient people selfless enough to defend this entire route. The disparity is thought that MEC's supply route is much shorter, on much more uneven terrain and is the main operating area for their armoured assets anyway, it is possible to camp, but the rewards are fewer, the risks greater and the camper needs to fight through an active battlefield or slowly navigate some rather harsh terrain, rather than an easy path through an area unconnected with primary fighting.

I think the problem with Mutrah could be resolved in one of two ways, either giving the US a choice of initial cap similar to Mutrah V1 or removing the ticket bleed allowing the US to take a more measured approach to attacking. The US vulnerability on Kashan, on the other hand, is slightly more complex.

[Arnoldio]

But if US attack very hard when MEC are setting up at Docks,there is a chance they will destroy them, then MEC doesnt have anybody on other flags so US can go far in to the east city...

[Boris.T.Spider]

since the flag count was reduced MEC can quite easily send 15+ men to docks without compromising their own flag cap order. If the Docks attack fails, the other 15+ on the team will usualy have built enough FB's around the city to give the defeated docks attackers a choice of spawn. So there is a chance it wont work, but little chance it will backfire.

[Tim270]

Incorrect. Supply lines are the key to military offensives, not small skirmishes (AKA PR rounds) with no more than 64 people being involved. This is what 'supply lines' are. Supply systems in PR involves a Logi driving a crate which spawns a magical sandbags/camnet construction which people can be reborn on.

Its the representation of a full scale war. Obviously you would never get 32 people assaulting for example muttrah with only something like 20 on foot, however as the engine is limited to this amount of players, its the best its going to get and mechanics such as supplies are the representation of a larger supply chain 'dumbed down' so its not over complicated and works with in the confines of the gameplay while still achieving what its meant to represent, supplying the team and fobs. They are also key to defence, no fobs = no bodys on the flag.

[CallousDisregard]

Its the representation of a full scale war. Obviously you would never get 32 people assaulting for example muttrah with only something like 20 on foot, however as the engine is limited to this amount of players, its the best its going to get and mechanics such as supplies are the representation of a larger supply chain 'dumbed down' so its not over complicated and works with in the confines of the gameplay while still achieving what its meant to represent, supplying the team and fobs. They are also key to defence, no fobs = no bodys on the flag.

I agree.
Try to play a game w/ your supply line interdicted and you will lose and lose quickly.
The point of how fast the US hit Bagdhad is right on point because, if I recall correctly, the advance was halted to allow the logistics to catch up.
That is what often happens with the "rushing" tactic and the rush force is under-equipped and cannot be resupplied.
But unlike Iraq, in PR the enemy is rarely shattered and demoralized by the rush and usually cleans it up, leaving the rushing team overextended.

[drs79]

I agree.
Try to play a game w/ your supply line interdicted and you will lose and lose quickly.
The point of how fast the US hit Bagdhad is right on point because, if I recall correctly, the advance was halted to allow the logistics to catch up.
That is what often happens with the "rushing" tactic and the rush force is under-equipped and cannot be resupplied.
But unlike Iraq, in PR the enemy is rarely shattered and demoralized by the rush and usually cleans it up, leaving the rushing team overextended.

Good Point Callous!!

I also believe the amount of time it took for coalition forces to reach Baghdad was also in part to trying to minimize the total amount of civilian casualties. Each target had to be confirmed/reconfirmed. The reason Baghdad lost power was not due to the US destroying the electricity grids/systems but it was due to it a) being so old and the concussion of bombs actually knocking out the power.

A really great example of this can be seen on urban insurgency maps. The penalties which bluefor forces receive upon firing on unarmed targets is in direct correlation to ROEs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Bob_Marley]

You wasted alot of time writing that post without properly reading mine - I was saying that things like the Baghdad armor assault in 2003 cannot be translated into PR as they are on a massive scale with more than 32 people.

Rushing in PR is to cap a point or destroy an objective. The assault on Baghdad and whatnot are huge sieges to destroy or overtake the city with thousands of people involved. Wait, scrap that, tens of thousands.

• Iraqi troops: 45,000
• US troops: 30,000

Source: Battle of Baghdad (2003) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scale is irrelevent. It doesn't matter if you're blocking and clearing a single squad or the entire third shock army, if you can cut off the enemy for reiforcements and resupply they die easier. Additionally, in PR, it means they have to whether to attack the guys who just rushed past them (and come out of position) so they won't get overwhelmed or try and take on your main force with much more limited supplies & numbers.

Additionally, rushing presents the same problem for the rusher - they're usually left in a position without resupply or reinforcement - unless you got cought off guard rushing forces can usually be delt with fairly quickly and easily.

Additionally - PR is scaled. Not even the mighty US Marines think they can mount an amphibious assault on a major port with 30 guys at a time.

Please be sure to read posts properly as to not waste your time, or mine.

Think about that for a minute. There is a Tunguska sitting at main, an infantry rape machine, however there are no enemy air assets up making it useless for the concept it must fulfill. Are you failing and not reaching full potential by not using it against infantry? If something does something else excellent, like a transport truck running over infantry, are you failing by not using it for that purpose?

Yep. An idle asset is a useless asset. If theres no aircraft to use a Tunguska on, I'd turn those 30mm cannon on infantry and soft skinned vehicles without a second thought. Also, the Tunguska is a dual purpose system. What, exactly, is "wrong" with using a Tunguska in the anti-personell role? Its not as if there isn't precident in real life (The use of AAA in Afghanistan against elevated positions and again in Chechnya against insurgents on roof tops or in basements). Infact, such use inspired the Russians to build a vehicle specifically for this purpose - the BMPT.

It also nicely demonstrates the scaling in PR - Tunguskas are assigned at regimental level. Not, as you put it "for minor skirmishes" between platoon sized forces.

Additionally, its a question of using assets to thier full potential. Using a supply truck expressly for running people over isn't particularly effective and will probably result in the loss of the asset. If you happen to be driving somewhere and someone is in the way, sure, why not?

On Kashan, the problem is that the US have a wide open area approximately 1300M by 500M as a supply line, vulnerable from two directions and has absolutely nothing to do with the battle while the bunkers are in play. Yes it is defensible, but it requires man power and assets to be taken from other areas of the battle, weakening the whole team and if it is never attacked, well the defenders get to spend 2 hours staring at empty desert. MEC can practically guarantee that the US team will be unable to find sufficient people selfless enough to defend this entire route. The disparity is thought that MEC's supply route is much shorter, on much more uneven terrain and is the main operating area for their armoured assets anyway, it is possible to camp, but the rewards are fewer, the risks greater and the camper needs to fight through an active battlefield or slowly navigate some rather harsh terrain, rather than an easy path through an area unconnected with primary fighting.

Keeping the enemy guessing where you're going to hit them is good tactics. It may be a map that isn't absolutely perfectly balanced, but thats an effective strategy for defeating the US on Kashan and theres nothing wrong with that.

So because they don't agree with your 'kick em while they're down' philosophy, you deride their play style and arguably their character though your wording. Classy

It would appear I do, doesn't it? Because I don't want those people on my team, because they're a liability and I don't want them on the opposing team because thier whining gets annoying.

[Meza82]

So because they don't agree with your 'kick em while they're down' philosophy, you deride their play style and arguably their character though your wording. Classy ??:

isnt war all about "kick em while they're down" until they are dead or run fast enough really far away? i think so. no rulez, man! (except for using hacks and exploits/glitches)

[Boris.T.Spider]

Keeping the enemy guessing where you're going to hit them is good tactics. It may be a map that isn't absolutely perfectly balanced, but thats an effective strategy for defeating the US on Kashan and theres nothing wrong with that.

Didn't say there was Bob, just explaining to Pink Floyd the context of 'rush tactic' as addressed in this thread. I would by hypocritical of me, as someone who usually employs guerilla style tactics and rarely fights 'on flag' to say that attacking someone's supply lines is 'wrong' but that doesn't mean I cant draw attention to an imbalance or easily exploitable weakness on a map. We had a similar thing with the bridge on Fools Road, the weakness in the supply line at that point was so often exploited and so game crippling for the attacking side a lot of servers implemented rules about attacking it until the mapper addressed the problem restoring the balance.

Not saying the Kashan issue is exactly the same and it requires rules in place, but if players are having difficulty countering certain tactics, personally I think its more constructive, rather than calling fail, to give advice on why the problem occurred and how it could be countered. However, if we unable to come up with sound ideas for countering certain attacking scenarios, I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that the tactic is either cheap or that there is a problem with the map layout.

[L4gi]

If you are unable to counter something, it means it is the percet tactic to use.

[Boris.T.Spider]

I agree up to a point L4gi, there is nothing quite like getting that 'checkmate' moment on a battle where you have the enemy on the ropes and no matter how hard they struggle, defeat is assured. But defeat should not be assured as easily as getting 12 yahoos in transport trucks and rushing docks before the helos have had time to warm up. Anyway, I'm not going to just cry foul and say they are impossible strategies to beat, I'm going to hit the drawing board and figure out some counters, but one of the problems with pub play is, if it requires a joined up initial strategy from an entire team to beat a cheap *** move by a handful of players, the cheap *** move is always going to pay off. So whatever counter exists is going to have to be actionable by a small amount of players to have any chance of success.

[Arnoldio]

Well it came to my mind, why doesnt Muttrah have all flags MEC favoured at the stard? Because pretty much everytime half of them go and set up at docks to prevent US from landing...

Not saying its wrong/unuseful, just asking why is it that way?

[snooggums]

Well it came to my mind, why doesnt Muttrah have all flags MEC favoured at the stard? Because pretty much everytime half of them go and set up at docks to prevent US from landing...

Not saying its wrong/unuseful, just asking why is it that way?

Good luck to the US capping even the first flag if MEC is able to dedicate it's entire force to the first flag on a landing mission. It doesn't even really work on Kolsezk where you can walk to the first objective on foot.

[Himalde]

Good luck to the US capping even the first flag if MEC is able to dedicate it's entire force to the first flag on a landing mission. It doesn't even really work on Kolsezk where you can walk to the first objective on foot.

And Asad.