|TG| TacticalGamer.com (North America)

[PLODDITHANLEY]

I thinks it's good using tactics that are more complicated than rushing from one cappable flag to another. The idea of a partial squad holding the hill with TOWs and .50's would seem a worthwhile use of manpower with this flag layout.

[Web_cole]

Well, that plateau dominates the map. It's a key position to take for either team as it is the perfect staging point to attack any objective on the map. By controlling it, you can effectively cut off half the map for the opposing team.

You definitely need to deny the PLA that point. Its an easy place for a fob to steam troops down to the swamp. Although sending too many guys there can be more of a hindrance for your team.

Agreed and agreed. Its also not a great idea to attack and leave an enemy force at your back. And just because there wasn't an FoB there isn't to say there couldn't be one in the future, if it wasn't dealt with.

[Jigsaw]

One thing that I've noticed on TG is how there is a massive amount of teamwork which is often fruitless in the case of taking an objective. I've seen round after round, each team set up defenses and get ready for assaults and whatnot, but they end up not materializing or simply fizzling out, or in the screenshot below, happening but for a pretty much useless place.

The thing about Barracuda is that, at least imho, the flags themselves are almost entirely irrelevant. As US you are primarily concerned with cutting off Chinese supply routes and getting established on the island. You will always stand far better chance of taking flags if you secure the key control areas on the map, and the supply fortification is the ultimate in that regard.

This is from my US Tactics Guide for Barracuda:

Jigsaw;1282667']For me the ultimate objective should generally be the storage area in the island center, regardless of whether it is an active flag or not. Controlling the center of the map allows you to control much of the rest of the land area and you can easily disrupt Chinese supply movements going to the Western flags, making them much easier to control. In addition it is an ideal location for Chinese AA (indeed there is already a mapper placed AA there at round start).

As the US you have the power to assault anywhere on the map and from virtually any direction. Use this crucial advantage and surprise your enemy as often as you can. Flank attacks are very effective here given the open terrain and using this will allow you to control your firefights and gain the advantage.

[fuzzhead]

Yes was my decision to send 2 infantry squads plus an APC to move up and clear out all enemy presence from that hill position, then immediately move to capture the swamps.

There was a number of reasons for this coming from a commanders perspective, most of it probably wont make sense unless you have commanded alot of times so you understand the challenges with commanding in PR. Commanding in PR is prety complicated in that there is a mix of real life strategy involved but much more than that you need a deep understanding of the mechanics of the game combined with the abilities of your squads.

Heres some breakdown on the psychological, logistical, tactical and strategical reasons to make an attack on an area that is not currently a Control Point but has an enemy presence that is engaging your current defensive Control Point:

Psychological

- Commander needs to first gain the trust and respect of the units under him. When entering a round of PR that is already well underway, there was no way to lay down an over arching strategy upon immediately moving up into the command seat. Without any kind of overall strategy, commander usually gets little to no attention from the squads as they are already well underway doing what they want to do.

- Friendly Squad Leaders HATE when they are in a defensive stance, and being attacked from a fixed position some distance away, but are unable to attack this position because that would move them off the objective position and as well would tie up their squad doing something seen as "not useful" by the rest of the team. However if the Commander gives them the go ahead to do this, its assumed the Commander is on the ball and already has a squad lined up to take over defense while they are out dealing with the enemy fixed position. This will in turn boost the confidence/trust level between this squad leader and commander.

- If a Commander simply orders squads to attack next, ignoring other enemy activity and planning, this gives squad leaders a very gungho attitude and also means Commander has not much control over the whole team, which will result in alot of needless casualties. If the round comes down to KDR (which it did) it does not bode well for the team that didn't pick its battles but rather just rushed the next flag each time.

- Last but probably the most important psychological reason for myself to make these "Non objective assaults" is: Fun. Yes you can play the map everytime by rushing the exact same flags, taking the same routes, getting herded into the same bottlenecks and either winning the fight or (more often) losing and trying all over again, OR.... you could mix it up and have some fun, while helping out your team.

- Morale plays a big factor when your team is forced to hold a position indefinitely while all attempts at assault completely fail. One successful coordinated attack is usually much better than several small fast attacks with fewer numbers. This is especially true if all squads are disciplined and none are attacking, it lures the enemy into a false sense of security, makes the enemy defenders less attentive as nothing is happening so they start goofing around, and if your squads are all on the ball because they have made several coordinated secondary assaults, it will greatly increase the chances of catching the enemy offguard while your own forces are on the top of their game.


Logistical

- Enemy logistics to the swamp were being fed by the road leading from the Hillside supply that was assaulted. Taking out a supply route is good way to weaken the enemy, ESPECIALLY if its in conjunction with area attacks and CAS strikes, enemy will feel weakened, low on ammo and no chance of supply, really helps to turn the odds when the objective assault is executed.

- Friendly supplies could quickly be ferried to the Supply hill to make a temp FOB (although this didnt happen because of time restraint). Also denying enemy AA here meant that helicopters were free to quickly ferry troops from the swamps to next objective once captured.



Tactical

- In this particular scenario, already there was 2 previous attempts to attack the swamp objective (that I witnessed before stepping up to CO). Both attempts failed completely, with 12 friendly KIA and unknown enemy casualties. The route along the beach or through the swamp did not offer ideal cover against a fixed dug in enemy.

- Moving through the swamps while having to deal with both shooters on the ridgeline and on the beach would be perfect situation for the enemy and very difficult for friendlies to fight through


Strategical

- Sending more men through the obvious route did not seem ideal and would be a problem with the squad leader to commander trust situation (see psychological paragraph above) should those attacks continue to be unsuccesful.

- APC coverage would be ideal from the high ground supply hill, however sending a lone APC against a squad with AT support would probably end in a lost APC (and again) a weakened trust between the commander and the APC crew.

- At the time of attack, it was unknown what strength the enemy had at the supply hill. An alternative to a full out assault could have been sending a sniper team for recon of the area, however that option was not really avaliable at the time, but infantry squads WERE avaliable so you use what you got

- Sending 2 squads versus 1.... is a valid concern as over-deploying excess troops could mean needless casualties as well as taking away defense from the main objective... however defense was setup back at the trenchline and getting 2 squads to work together to clear an area is an important 'training' step to do before a major assault on the main objective that WILL have lots of enemy. Letting the 2 squads do a "mockup" assault on a secondary objective gives them time to iron out the kinks and work out the problems before doing it on a main assault where if any major mistake is made, will doom the whole operation.





Anyways those are just a few points there was alot more to it than that, but there is alot of Commander tactics discussion in the tactics section of these forums.

Im not saying I did extremely well as commander, I enjoy playing commander but dont get to do it as often as I like, but please if you see a commander trying to get something done that might not be what your used to, give him a try and try to work with him as its not an easy job, but could pay off greatly and offer you some new experiences besides the standard "each squad rushes at the next flag seperately and gets killed over and over until something else happens" which is sadly happening all too often these days

[cyberzomby]

Not to start a flame war, but I thought we just had that whole stacking e-drama thing, than someone else in here says TG is stacking and than look at this: Just taken:

http://www.xfire.com/profile/cyberzomby ... #104348649

http://www.xfire.com/profile/cyberzomby ... #104348651

Other team stacked with TG inhouse squads. Me and a bunch of people saying it on mumble and in the team so I'm not just wining Nor am I complaining, I can understand people wanting to play together but you should let others do the same than ^-^

EDIT:
Seems theres some more TG inhouse squad members on our side now. So some of 'm seem to have the spirit you where reffering to earlier. I think what Im asking is: Is this something you want us plebs reporting trough the Report command so one of the senior's can have a say if there needs to be some balancing? Or is that only required if one team gets beaten down by the other team again and again? Just wondering when the line has been crossed

EDIT 2:
15 minutes in to Yamalia and they are already at our fore last flag. While our team was just moving like normal.

[Rudd]

Christ fuzz, just copy and paste that essay in to all the enemy's xfires and you'll cause them to run in fear, screaming in to the night.

[cyberzomby]

Yea I'm sorry, but Im gonna lessen the friendlyness of my post a tad. First, you yell at us for rushing a map, and now you do the EXACT same thing for a round or two? Come on... And I dont even like Yamalia Like I said, its not about the rushing. If it was ANY other server I would have just tried to make it work or left and found another one. But you dont go make a scene and yell at us for doing this, while you are allowed to do it.

[Jigsaw]

Not to start a flame war, but I thought we just had that whole stacking e-drama thing, than someone else in here says TG is stacking and than look at this: Just taken:

Cyb3rzomby's Screenshots - Xfire

Cyb3rzomby's Screenshots - Xfire

Other team stacked with TG inhouse squads. Me and a bunch of people saying it on mumble and in the team so I'm not just wining Nor am I complaining, I can understand people wanting to play together but you should let others do the same than ^-^

So in those two screenshots I count in the first, 3 TG tagged players not including the TG-Irr and in the second 5 others, all from the same IHS. By that analysis your argument is that a total of 8 players on the other team are causing the teams to be stacked, disregarding the fact that there are 23 other players on the OPFOR and an equal number on your side.

There is nothing wrong with those players wanting to play with their friends, I always try to play with fellow [DM] members so I really can't see what is wrong there. If you're getting beaten then that's just down to superior skill, the only reason people complain about teamstacking is because it gives them a visual excuse for their own inability to co-ordinate a team as well as the OPFOR, as opposed to just getting beaten by a team of randoms.

[cyberzomby]

We played with 6 to 8 OD-S people when we got scolded at. So thats the same number. Why is this ok, but that wasnt. Plus, we got told not to rush so everyone could have fun. And thats what happened today when there where (I'm counting 11) TG people from inhouse squad. Thats 1/3rd of a team.

[Silly_Savage]

Agreed with Jigsaw.

If you consider that stacking, then you probably don't play on TG that often. It's not the tags that matter, it's the player's abilities.

[cyberzomby]

You dont get my point. When we where not stacked like that 2 weeks ago we got yelled at for stacking. Read 2 pages back. I come here thinking it had more to do with an off-day for the person who yelled at us (wich I was right at ) but than Hero told me that the angry person did had a point. So! We should try not to stack as much and not rush. Thats my point. Im not complaining about losing or stacking, I'm here out of principals. Tell me to NOT do something, NOT do it yourself as well than. And I played there a lot. I'm playing there again this evening cause I love the teamwork and atmosphere (hardly played PR since the last event) Even when they are not sticking by there own principals.

I agree, 5 people is not stacking, but thats not what we heard 2 weeks ago. We heard that 6 to 8 people from one clan is stacking.

[d1sp0sabl3H3r0]

You dont get my point. When we where not stacked like that 2 weeks ago we got yelled at for stacking. Read 2 pages back. I come here thinking it had more to do with an off-day for the person who yelled at us (wich I was right at ) but than Hero told me that the angry person did had a point. So! We should try not to stack as much and not rush. Thats my point. Im not complaining about losing or stacking, I'm here out of principals. Tell me to NOT do something, NOT do it yourself as well than. And I played there a lot. I'm playing there again this evening cause I love the teamwork and atmosphere (hardly played PR since the last event) Even when they are not sticking by there own principals.

I agree, 5 people is not stacking, but thats not what we heard 2 weeks ago. We heard that 6 to 8 people from one clan is stacking.

Who "yelled" at you for stacking? Who said 6-8 clan members on one side is stacking?

There are no rules on TG dictating who can play where. We simply ask players to be mindful of the balance and to take it upon themselves, without the assistance of the admins, to try to keep the teams even if one team is steamrolling another team round after round.

Five or six TG-tagged players on one side is not teamstacking. For all we know, they weren't even in the same squad and very well may not have even been involved in rushing the forward flags.

Let's try to keep an even head about these things, and for Pete's sake (whoever the hell Pete is), let's not call "TEAMSTACKING" after one round. Or, in other words, let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill.

[Rudd]

Great game today on ramiel, barracuda saw the USMC get pretty pwned, but the insurgents won 20-0 on ramiel, the USA lost so many assets, OG warrior got 43 kills, very impressive.

[cyberzomby]

I just drew those conclusions after that "incident" with Silent Eagle followed after Barracuda. But like Rudd said, was a great game of Ramiel. Didnt start this thing up again because we lost those earlier games. Was just wondering when its team stacking or rushing. And when its not allowed. Its fine for one map but dont do it map after map is what your saying?

[Web_cole]

Great game today on ramiel, barracuda saw the USMC get pretty pwned, but the insurgents won 20-0 on ramiel, the USA lost so many assets, OG warrior got 43 kills, very impressive.

That Ramiel round was pure gold

[Mongolian_dude]

I've been kicked for stacking before and I've also been kicked for calling out against stacking, but quite literally, if you cant beat them- join them.


...mongol...

[Jigsaw]

How come the server has been so empty just recently, in particular during peak Euro times? Very very strange

[Elektro]

How come the server has been so empty just recently, in particular during peak Euro times? Very very strange

Recession.

[chrisweb89]

I think its because of the summer months ending and school/work starting again. Atleast for me I have a few hours of gametime unlike the poor europeans.