Teamwork

[PFunk]

Remind your favorite server admins that almost every map has an alternate and infantry layer... so you don't have to worry about combined arms. The layers are there yet I rarely see them played.

The problem is that servers are motivated by keeping numbers up and frankly thats just like putting reality TV on stations: people are drawn to the same old **** and usually its the stuff that doesn't require a lot of work to make it entertaining.

Assets are like reality tv. Bear with me on this one. You have to put a lot of work into being good at infantry in PR, its not just good enough to listen and do what you're told, there's an amount of personal responsibility in putting back into what the SL is putting out so that he gets feedback and the squad functions as a unit. Past that you need to be proficient as an individual and often times its really unforgiving even when you are if you get caught in the wrong situations.

Enter assets. They are instant gratification because... well a lot of people just like being in them. They may not even do anything with them but they'll sure as shit enjoy having that crewman or pilot kit. Just look at all the times on Muttrah when the flag has been pushed to the centre of the city and Helo drops are pretty much pointless wastes of tickets, how often do you see 3 hueys sitting on the pad waiting for someone to need a crate. The best hope these guys have of being useful is if we US somehow doesn't have a fob and they have to drop someone into Docks to get one back up. They do nothing but basically put tickets at risk by flying out there and doing a job that would be more efficiently done by a logi truck which itself is worth fewer tickets. They still sit on the carrier and pwn as useless trans that'll just cost their team probably 40 or 50 tickets that needn't have been lost.

Look at any round of Kashan. Half the time one team never even makes it to bunkers because nobody forms infantry and everybody makes pointless asset squads that can't cap flags or just get blown away cause they think a solo tank in the middle of buttfuck4kp6 is helping.

Thats all really gay right? But guess what, people who play like it and servers like to have their numbers up. How else do you explain 24/7 servers being active? Who wants to play the same thing over and over? People who like to spam their leet assets, thats who. And servers will put up with it cause they know if they don't have the numbers they die.

Some good communities can change it up, throw in an alt layer, do some less than loved maps, but really how often do we see some good maps clear a server because people are looking for that same core of 4 or 5 maps to play over and over?

Its unfortunate but thats how it plays out. Servers don't listen to guys who want fun different maps usually because they're the minority, and then they'll be the 8 guys a side left after the map switch.

Honestly this could probably be solved by removing the loading screen telling you what map it is, or just make it so that every loading screen has Muttrah on it with a random Kokan just to fake them out.

[BloodyDeed]

Great post pfunk, you really got the point.
We at New Era would love to play more different maps but most of the time we are forced to play the same ones.
What would you do if there are 12 [XYZ] guys on a server screaming "if you put kashan inf we will all leave".
I think most of the admins do not have problems with alternative maps, its up to the players.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

[Mikemonster]

I can totally understand why people like assets. I like them as well, they are extremely useful for killing a FOB or getting flown into a city.

I just think that the focus of PR is on the assets and that is where a lot of the innovation and attention is put. As a result the maps use these new vehicles/assets at the expense of the Infantry that have been around since day 1.

It's undoubtedly a natural progression and each release is a vast improvement, but I think the numbers don't add up in relation to Infantry squads, and as a result infantry is very unrewarding (compare the Inf SL's conversations in Mumble after the round to the Cobra Pilot/APC crews').

[PricelineNegotiator]

Hold on here. You're almost missing the point. Assets to me aren't about "herp derp middle of nowhere". They are about assisting the infantry. They are one of the most essential parts of the game. They promote teamwork. There is no way in hell that infantry in Kashan bunkers could defend themselves from the other team's armor column without having their own armor squads helping to take out the enemy armor. To eliminate the assets just wouldn't make sense. It would make the battlefield unrealistic and dull. It's not about instant gratification, it's about the gratification knowing that you helped take out the infantry's biggest problems. I've been a squad leader many a times, and I believe I can say that the biggest worry for infantry is assets.

[Kwalc297]

Assets to me aren't about "herp derp middle of nowhere". They are about assisting the infantry.

This right here.

[ledo1222]

Hold on here. You're almost missing the point. Assets to me aren't about "herp derp middle of nowhere". They are about assisting the infantry.

But yet that never happens because the Armour always has its own personal agenda.

Thats why you usally see Inf SQ teamwork more than Armour team work.

[PricelineNegotiator]

But yet that never happens because the Armour always has its own personal agenda.

Thats why you usally see Inf SQ teamwork more than Armour team work.

I agree with you that it doesn't happen as often as it should, but if I'm playing I do my best to play the supporting role. Asset squads need your help as much as you need them. As infantry, you see and hear a lot more.

Imagine this: An infantry squad on Kashan is held up in the bunkers by an enemy BMP and an MBT. They do nothing to communicate with the A-10 that could easily annihilate both of the armor in one run. The bulk of the information that a pilot gets is from squads on the ground. He can't do anything until he knows about it. By you not telling him, you shoot yourself in the foot. Simple as that.

[FLAP_BRBGOING2MOON]

But yet that never happens because the Armour always has its own personal agenda.

Thats why you usually see Inf SQ teamwork more than Armour team work.

As an infantryman turned asset whore, I can tell you PR is a totally different game when you are a tank/apc commander. it turns from the infantryman's flag/cache based objectives into attrition based play. instead of figuring out how to get to an objective I find myself looking to stop the enemy's ability to "wage war" with ambushes on enemy armor and hit-n-runs on fobs/hideouts. although this might not always be direct infantry support it will always help the common infantryman because if there is no armor in your way or no way for their inf to easily reinforce, I am doing my job. of course I will throw a few heat rounds in a building and take out a harassing BMP if the inf needs and REQUESTS it. but, and i must stress this point. tanks and cas cannot be your personal lapdogs, nor can we be everywhere at once. we cannot hover over you and provide total area control, we will die if we do that. when we die we cannot tell the medic to throw smoke and ill yell. when we die we have the entire team to answer to and cost the team 20 mins of disadvantage. we cannot stick with your squad because the one pop-up hat that we didn't see can cost so much more than the one marksman you didn't mop up. How hard is it to wipe an entire squad? how hard is it to hat an apc/tank/heli?

there is simply no margin for error.

ins and city AAS is different because you cannot get hat-sniped from view distance, and mech inf becomes much more effective.

[Arc_Shielder]

There is no way in hell that infantry in Kashan bunkers could defend themselves from the other team's armor column without having their own armor squads helping to take out the enemy armor.

...how exactly is the hypothetical armor reduction of 6 vs 6 to 3 vs 3 going to make any difference in that logic?

[PricelineNegotiator]

...how exactly is the hypothetical armor reduction of 6 vs 6 to 3 vs 3 going to make any difference in that logic?

I'm entirely confused and don't understand where this argument was brought up or how I am involved.

[Arc_Shielder]

I'm entirely confused and don't understand where this argument was brought up or how I am involved.

To further simplify things, you disagree with armor reduction yet there's nothing in your reasoning that explains why. A reduction of armor in my team would also imply a reduction of armor in the other team, therefore the way you perceive the role of armor or how it acts on the ground wouldn't change at all.

[PricelineNegotiator]

To further simplify things, you disagree with armor reduction yet there's nothing in your reasoning that explains why. A reduction of armor in my team would also imply a reduction of armor in the other team, therefore the way you perceive the role of armor or how it acts on the ground wouldn't change at all.

No, I actually never said anything about keeping or losing armor. I merely stated the purpose of armor and what infantry are supposed to do in order to have the assets/armor help them. I didn't even know that armor reduction was a part of the thread. Sorry for the confusion.

Edit: I now see in my first post in this thread where I said "to eliminate the assets...". My bad. I think the current layout for all layers is fine, and vehicles should not be made smaller in quantities. You should have 2.5 inf squads and the rest are support roles around the infantry (tanks, apcs, anti-air, trans, air) in order to have a balanced battlefield. The only way to improve the battle overall would be to add players for each server to about 80 players, that way you could have 4 infantry squads at all times doing the things they need to and the inf battles would be a lot larger so that each map would be able to have infantry and asset aspects. But that lies within the limitation of the BF2 engine, and isn't something we can immediately produce for every server.

[Durkie]

we cannot stick with your squad because the one pop-up hat that we didn't see

This it is just to easy to get shot by a HAT or a LAT (APC). on asset heavy maps there are 2.5 infantry squads and 4 anti tank weapons + TOW's. thats why when I am in a tank I am more afraid of infantry then of enemy armour. IMO if you reduced the amount of AT INF weapons, you will see the armour more working together with the infantry.

[PLODDITHANLEY]

Kashan as MEC last night.

MEC armour goes as always up to around north outpost to await enemy armour.

Surely it also makes sense to keep the armour south of bunkers, forcing enemy armour nearer the infantry so they can be HAT'ed, TOWed and lazed?

The present technique means armour is fighting on a 1 to 1 level, with seemingly a 50% chance of winning.

Wouldn't it be more successful to force the enemy armour to face the whole team?

In last nights battle all our armour was killed thus the MEC infantry was trapped by an intelligent US team all over the hills just shooting down into bunkers, they were good just not bothering to try to cap NB just killing our tickets slowly from the mountains.

To respond to poster above if you have the infantry well at your front surely the chance of being HATed is far reduced?

[BloodyDeed]

This is one of the things that needs a tweak.
The game is so much about combined warfare but if you look at the tanks (especially on kashan) they mostly fight on their own.
They play some kind of their own game, tanks vs tanks.
In most cases the gameplay would not change much if you just remove them.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

[Wicca]

In my opinnion, if you have the tanks cap flags, and the infantry support them. It would make more sense. Since thats how it is done in the real army.

Same with APCs and other assets. Infantry is a mere support asset, the real "workers" in any game is the assets, if they are used efficently. They have more armor, more weapons and move faster.

If infantry attempts to support tanks jets and assets, instead of the other way around, we might see another type of warfare.

I also think we should decrease the amount of assets on each map. If infantry is the main element of a game, fobs and similar will pop up more, and tanks wont roam the map alone, cause there will not be enough of them to pose any major threat.

[Tit4Tat]

Hold on here. You're almost missing the point. Assets to me aren't about "herp derp middle of nowhere". They are about assisting the infantry. They are one of the most essential parts of the game. They promote teamwork. There is no way in hell that infantry in Kashan bunkers could defend themselves from the other team's armor column without having their own armor squads helping to take out the enemy armor. To eliminate the assets just wouldn't make sense. It would make the battlefield unrealistic and dull. It's not about instant gratification, it's about the gratification knowing that you helped take out the infantry's biggest problems. I've been a squad leader many a times, and I believe I can say that the biggest worry for infantry is assets.

sorry to say PricelineNegotiator... but ive seen u on a NwA server camping MEC main with AAV..and only moving after being told couple of times to move or u would of got kiked.

i can see that this thread makes sense....as BT's quote " Its good to talk" but i just cant see anything changing....saying that i agree with somethings being said here...

[FLAP_BRBGOING2MOON]

In my opinnion, if you have the tanks cap flags, and the infantry support them. It would make more sense. Since thats how it is done in the real army.

Same with APCs and other assets. Infantry is a mere support asset, the real "workers" in any game is the assets, if they are used efficently. They have more armor, more weapons and move faster.

If infantry attempts to support tanks jets and assets, instead of the other way around, we might see another type of warfare.

I also think we should decrease the amount of assets on each map. If infantry is the main element of a game, fobs and similar will pop up more, and tanks wont roam the map alone, cause there will not be enough of them to pose any major threat.

armor is at a colossal disadvantage simply due to the eryx/smaw pop-up. the thing i see too often is ONE guy in the middle of nowhere. one guy with a mobile GUIDED missile that he can fire at me from view distance, without me having any way of figuring out where he is. Even if I had inf supporting me, not much they could do about it unless they brought a lucky sniper with them. even as a lonewolf with a hat you do more damage than a stationary tow, this makes absolutely zero sense. infantry should be nowhere near as effective as an MBT or dug-in positions at standoff range, only in close quarters should they be this effective. this is the reason we cannot sit at the bunkers with you guys. trust me, there is nothing more rewarding than rollin' through Gaza's streets with an inf squad on mumble.

tl;dr not every strategy is effective on every map, on small maps the value of mech inf is colossal. but on larger maps direct infantry support still does not counter armor's bane, they simply slow it down.

[Durkie]

To respond to poster above if you have the infantry well at your front surely the chance of being HATed is far reduced?

The problem is they can just pop up an shoot. and with friendlies moving in and enemies running al around the place an HAT that is popping up is not that visible. And in an urban environment there are way to many flanking routes. IMO the introduction of the 128 players will be better because then you will have more of an front-line and it will reduce the % AT kits per Player/Squad.

[Mikemonster]

Like Wicca said, the Inf are generally there to support the tanks.

But that's presuming that a PR battlefield is like real life, which it can't be due to numbers.

So we end up with the right proportion of assets to real life, but a disproportionaltely large (I think) number of assets to Inf for PR.

Personally I think the game is about infantry, so i'm a bit skewed on this. But there aren't usually enough Inf squads to support each other, so why are we also simulating Cobras, Chinooks, AAVP's and Abrams.. Let alone a dedicated logistics system..