Insurgens are allowed to Baseattack - Good or Nasty?

[K4on]

Hello PR-community,

I was just playing some rounds on "Insurgens are allowed to attack the BlueforMain"
-servers and was questioning myself, what pros and cons there are.

Can you tell me what kind of experiences you got from those servers?
What do you prefer more? and most important: why?
Insurgens are allowed to attack the Bluefor Main:
(without suicidevehicles and mortars)

my pros and cons:
CONs
- Bluefor has to be more carefully while leaving the mainbase
- Insurgens may forget about defending their caches
- Bluefor has to play more coordinated and has to provide more Intel (con & pro)

PROs
+ teams get a larger variety of gameplay
+ atm Bluefor is dominating the average Insurgency maps. Attacking the mainbase would balance the teams
+ large Blufor mainbase-DoD on many maps -> so insurgents don't get to close
+ Bluefor has to play more coordinated and has to provide more Intel(con & pro)


PS: Don't give serverfeedback here - therefore are other topics =)
Yeah, i know there are some similar threads, but insurgency gamemode has changed alot since that

[LieutenantNessie]

It's fun, but then again, BLUFOR would have to have people guarding the base all the time. Insurgents can really do some damage, for example few well placed techys/SPG's can wipe out all assets. Same as in Silent eagle, when Russia gets last flag before airbase. Went to the back of their main with a TOW MTLB and raped all choppers landing+apc's and stuff in their main.

[Zrix]

I generally don't like it.

• For it to be balanced, it requires people to actually stay in main and defend it.
• If no one wants to do that task, or the people doing it are incompetent, BLUFOR could very easily lose a lot of important assets that themselves balance the game mode in other areas.
• Having people there also pulls people from the real battle, which would counteract the efforts made to increase player counts on servers.
• There are bases that despite looking nice, are not really designed to be able to withstand attacks. Prime example here has always been Korengal.
• Mainbases are not always meant to only represent a firebase, they can on some maps be a way to bring assets that in RL would otherwise come in from "off map" locations, an example being CAS assets on for example Kokan. So attacking them in or right after leaving base is breaking realism and gameplay as they wouldn't really be in that position to begin with.

I also believe in keeping rules simple. Having rules where you can attack main with X, but not with Y, and only on these maps, but not those, is only asking for players to do stuff that they are not allowed to.

[Brainlaag]

Don't like it in the current state. The idea behind it is very reasonable but it has too many ways to exploit. Usually the Blufor's base placement is somewhat bad (Lashkar/Korengal), or assets are vulnerable to some sneaky techies waiting outside (like Kokan). I generally would support and promote the possibility to conduct raids on bases, as it can give a bit of variety to the game. Sadly, once again, players tend to abuse and exploit every tiny loophole to win the game.

Something which could provide the positive aspects without the exploits of neither, are secondary permanent forward operation bases without any costly assets.

For example, as long as there is no hostile in the vicinity of the VCP on Basrah, there are permanent spawnpoints and landrovers keep respawning there (+ having a forward spawn is always somewhat useful). This way Blufor has a reason to defend that area, without the risk of losing all the gamechanging assets. At the same time Opfor gains a point of interest, leaving them with something to do, next to sitting on the cache listening to the grass growing.

TL;DR No, how it currently works, mainbase assaults shouldn't be allowed under any circumstances.

[Mikemonster]

Not enough players, far too tedious. Even by PR standards.

If people want that amount of realism just go into the spare bedroom at night with the lights off and watch the street for half the night. Can pretend you're on watch in a base somewhere.

[KiloJules]

AFAIK the mainbases in-game are representing the furthest staging area of a force, away from the actual battlefield. People want to create and organize their squads there, fix microfon issues, talk to the totally unknown APC driver about a certain way to drive somewhere...AFAIK it is not meant to be sth. that the enemy troops can easily reach. There is a DoD around them because there are "countless invisible ninja soldiers" to hinder someone to get there...

I AM AGAINST IT - totally! I would not allow shooting in- or outside with any kind of weapon. Any other rule usually leads to stupid situations where people get shot at by small arms fire, they answer with 40mm, receive a RPG and then call out for admins - "Boohoo da enemee is shootin' at uuuus- kick them"...bla bla...

Just add small "every-bulletproof" spheres over mainbases and big enough DoDs to prevent any interaction with that zone.

Of course...ten centi meters after that sphere you can attack them with anything you got!

[Meza82]

100% let the insurgents attack the main with small arms and techies, but add some machine gun and sniper towers in blufor's base. it will make the game that much more hardcore which is what its all about. blufor has scopes, thermal vision (on heavy vehicles), rally points, requestable kits, and so on. i swear, whenever some1 suggest something for the insurgents to have that will give them more of a fighting chance against the blufor everyone says no...c'mon! this is realistic and this is PR. a few marksmen and machine gunners can repel technicals, and anything else the insurgents can throw at them!

[Jolly]

If BLUFOR has one more mainbase with enhanced vehicle(Like A-10 or apache) support in larger map, I'll support baseattack with everything(Maybe insurgents can add some powerful weapons too!).
But now, BLUFOR has very limited resources which made it hard for them to find out all the cacheS, and what's more, Mortar can destory everything in Main, Makes it harder to BLUFOR to win.

[illidur]

actually some of the coolest rounds ive played were on old fallujah doing base defense / attack. but its not perfect. its not really that much of a game changer really. i dont like blufor attacking INS mains specifically, that always feels dirty.

base attack usually happens when the BLUFOR are too chicken to actually move from their main. makes it so you dont get bored because your opposition sucks. its like ticket bleed from getting owned on aas.

i say gameplay doesn't change much either way.

[saXoni]

There are 32 players on each team. BLUFOR needs those 32 men out in the field, not protecting a base.

[Germanius_GER]

Bad Idea, it is just lame to attack the other Mainbase.
Why? Because all those PROs are no so correct and i think, it even make it harder for Insurgents.

PROs???
+ teams get a larger variety of gameplay > all Insurgents will camp the Bluefor Mainbase from now on, see CONs
- Insurgens may forget about defending their caches

+ atm Bluefor is dominating the average Insurgency maps. Attacking the mainbase would balance the teams > How? Now Bluefor can camp inside the Mainbase using all their overpowered Assets to gain free Intel.

+ large Blufor mainbase-DoD on many maps -> so insurgents don't get to close > more camping.

etc..

I think insugency Mode is History.

[Tarranauha200]

On lashkar valley you can baserape that chopper on bad as soon as it lands/spawns. Just place SPG/50.cal on the mountain and blast em.

Still on good server over 90% of insurgents play the game decently. There are really two maps where baserape actyally happens: Korengal and lashkar.

[LieutenantNessie]

On lashkar valley you can baserape that chopper on bad as soon as it lands/spawns. Just place SPG/50.cal on the mountain and blast em.

Still on good server over 90% of insurgents play the game decently. There are really two maps where baserape actyally happens: Korengal and lashkar.

afaik it's accepted widely among servers in Korengal.

[Yrkidding]

I am against allowing insurgents attack main bases. I'd say that the blufor isn't quite as combat dominating as you'd think, they often get repulsed by the sheer amount of times the insurgents can re-spawn near a cache at hideouts etc. that any half-decent insurgent team should have built already, often they have weapons superior in short range combat, ideal for the urban environment that many insurgent maps are set in and ambush alike. The main base is an area for the blufor to regroup, and fall back to without harassment to think of a new plan of attack etc.
Also if you allow base-rape I believe its inevitable that two techies are going to just sit up on a hill overlooking the FOB, with say 2 guys that have RPGs and an ammo techie running ammo to them every now and again just killing blufor team members, assets and the like immediately as they spawn, eliminating any game-play at all.

[illidur]

think about it like this: if an insurgent attacks a main thats one less defending. thats also one less not scouting for firebases or building hideouts.

im against it overall though because assets are worth tickets. but it is realistic and adds another element to the game. people didn't do it very often in H when it was up as its not worth it anymore. unless you knew you could kill a novice helicopter. kill 1 guy and anybody at main would pull a scope on you. basically if you are getting baseraped and feel helpless you are inept. here are some situations:

can't baserape on fallujah, karbala, kokan, archer or albasrah effectively (aside from aa which would happen anywhere).
lashkar can be defended by 1 apc.
korengal gets a crow that can shoot from main to most of the map. its a good idea for 1 to sit there anyways.
gaza you can get sniped sort of. but you get lots of armor there.
ramiel is the only good one imo. not gonna tell how to defend because its my only map i know to rape on. but its possible for helis to hide in main and escape south over the ocean without worry.

so how is it so bad again?

[Furst]

"so what purpose do these machine guns in our main have then?!?"

"..but in real life..!!"

"they shot first!"

usually a discussion about that topic includes any of these sentences above. the answer is simple, but somehow also server dependent.

well, when i think about that topic, the first pictures that come to my mind are those countless bombcars and trucks that made it close to the blufor uncaps leaving behind wrecks and dust plumes (and annoyed blufor players of course).

the reaction to that? many poor "allah" chats, confused blufor teams and a kick or ban every now and then, depending on the server rules.

lets consider the main base as simple spawn point for your team and the assets which are provided to be used to accomplish the challenges of the map.

by the way, the best summary about what a main base in a game is, was already given:

the mainbases in-game are representing the furthest staging area of a force, away from the actual battlefield. People want to create and organize their squads there, fix microfon issues, talk to the totally unknown APC driver

if we add the attributes of PR now, this part gets quite essential. which are some important ones here?

- its a teamwork based game which demands coordination and communication
- 64 player limit
- assets and soldiers cost tickets when killed or lost

the coordination and communication part and why it is so important is already well illustrated by the quote above.

while having a maximum of only 32 players each team in the battle, i think its really needless to say that there are no resources left at all to fulfill things like main base defense.
in addition, there wont be that many people eager enough to do that job. who wants to play a game that forces you to act like you are at work?

and there goes the tickets... destroying unused assets and killing players who just spawned at their main base. wow... what a gentleman way to win a game.
almost everything costs tickets in this game and im sure this is not intented to be exploited like that.

how can baserape be considered a good move or allowed at all? i actually dont know, since it doesnt serve any other purpose than annoying people. this aint about gameplay, its about egoism and pure malicious joy. well done, soldier.

how can someone point out that there are defense structures available and that they could have been used to avoid situations like those? its decoration, a part of the ambiance!

how can someone compare games with real life circumstances? honestly... it may be called "reality", but dude please, its a game.



however, im not a fan of baserape at all and i dont think it adds anything good to the game experience at all. if you like it, you may join a server with these certain rules, but on servers which prohibit it, it simply comes down to good administration and a good player base which knows how to use the report function.

in my opinion, main bases should not have an active role at all. shooting in and out of a main base should be forbidden at any time and punished immediatly since it leads to stupid discussions and immature behaviour.

[Apocalypse89]

I'm against this idea, for both realism and gameplay reasons.

It's unrealistic because, as others have mentioned, the bases represent a location which in real-life would be miles away from combat. I'm no strategist but I doubt any competent military would set up a major airfield half a kilometer away from a major combat zone(unless the insurgents are on the offensive and actively attacking the base, which clearly isn't the case in INS maps), and the DoD is meant to represent that fact. Rules which ban attacking the main base(and vice versa, attacking from the main base) further drive this point home: Bases are meant to be isolated from the rest of the map.

Gameplay-wise, Insurgency is about offensive BLUFOR against defensive insurgents, with the intended scenario being BLUFOR forces hunting for caches and intel in urban or mountainous terrain while being harassed and ambushed by the insurgents, with large battles breaking out once a cache is under threat. Situations where you have a giant firefight just outside the BLUFOR main's gates, with the round ending in either a BLUFOR massacre or insurgents losing to special forces ninja squads who snuck behind enemy lines to attack the barely-defended caches, goes against that spirit. If you want to encourage offensive insurgent tactics, then remove the DoD and make the main bases cappable. Otherwise, they're detrimental to gameplay and the spirit of the game.

And I realise that both the above arguments(realism and the offense vs. defense nature of INS) could be used to justify making the insurgent main attackable, but in that case I'm against it purely for obvious balance reasons.

[mat552]

All things considered? Realistic, but not fun.

[English_infidel]

isnt that what is about? scroatey insugents being a nusence?the fair play rule didnt exsist in kongreal vally for real when they were geting it everyday,nor did Fallujah Ect Ect ..
I dont agre with the rape of air gear, everything else is legit.If you cant put them bed with all the ammo and shit you need at main what chance you got getting a ceche?

[saXoni]

isnt that what is about? scroatey insugents being a nusence?the fair play rule didnt exsist in kongreal vally for real when they were geting it everyday,nor did Fallujah Ect Ect ..
I dont agre with the rape of air gear, everything else is legit.If you cant put them bed with all the ammo and shit you need at main what chance you got getting a ceche?

You're missing a vital part; this is a mod. Gameplay > Reality. It doesn't matter how realistic things are if it fucks the gameplay up. Raping mainbases does. As I've already mentioned, there are 32 players on each team. Having 6 of these guys watching main because some lame idiots would show up and start shooting at your vehicles in there is stupid. Base-rape should be forbidden, so that the mod can be played as it's supposed to be.