Insurgens are allowed to Baseattack - Good or Nasty?

[MaSSive]

No. Definitely not in this game. I know it would be for the sake of realism and true warfare, but game is what it is, and this element is out of the question.

First, not so many players ( 32 vs 32 top ) not well fortified bases, too much great loss of tickets for destroyed assets and manpower, dis-balancing and disrupting gameplay, moving away from initial goals. Simple no.

DOD around bases is there for that purpose and it should consist of two zones. No entering with armed vehicles or any other weapon, and no go zone ( aka redzone ) which will kill you if you dont walk back.

I think NEW server has that kind of zones defined for most of the maps.

Chasing a jet or heli landing in main base is one more thing that disgusts me. Cheap shot, unfair. Some might say hes running away from engagement and he shouldn't go away with it that easy. I might add to that isn't it a cheap and dirt shot to show up from the back of the landing aircraft and shoot it down in that way? Happened to me dozens of times, and most of the times I was not chased at all. Some "players" use this cheap shot tactic ( if I may call it tactic at all ) to get easy kill. Very dirty.

[illidur]

if it was true then why did blufor win consistently on the most popular usa baserape server? i still stand by the fact that a good DOD makes "baserape" just more immersing and one less thing to admin. if one guy can distract a squad thats their fault. i use this kind of tactic as insurgent all the time no matter where i am.

should take away guns because shooting people is a cheap tactic. perhaps im more for it than i thought. i think the problem is not with getting attacked at main, i think its people not knowing what to do or being to lazy to counter.

insurgents dont get jets...

[Brainlaag]

if it was true then why did blufor win consistently on the most popular usa baserape server? i still stand by the fact that a good DOD makes "baserape" just more immersing and one less thing to admin. if one guy can distract a squad thats their fault. i use this kind of tactic as insurgent all the time no matter where i am.

should take away guns because shooting people is a cheap tactic. perhaps im more for it than i thought. i think the problem is not with getting attacked at main, i think its people not knowing what to do or being to lazy to counter.

insurgents dont get jets...

Insurgents don't get tickets, they can throw wave after wave even on a lost battle, yet one single technical can cripple the Blufor team severely. If it wasn't for the asset, I'd not care about some random guys attacking the mainbase.

[pr_profile]

When I send AA missle to Kiowa on Ramiel (from D8 for example) when the heli is going to rtb, is it a baseattack?

[saXoni]

When I send AA missle to Kiowa on Ramiel (from D8 for example) when the heli is going to rtb, is it a baseattack?

As far as I know, D8 is not USA's main base. So no.

[pr_profile]

As far as I know, D8 is not USA's main base. So no.

Thats it. I can stand at the border of punish zone and freely aim at choppers on helipad, right? So it is not a BR?

[saXoni]

Thats it. I can stand at the border of punish zone and freely aim at choppers on helipad, right? So it is not a BR?

No, because the chopper is at the helipad. However, if he's in the air outside the main* you can fire at him.

* This depends on the server-rules.

[ConSs]

I think it's only realistic for insurgents to attack Blufor base, it happens IRL. A conventionally equipped military force should be able to defend their base. Destroying a stationary helo inside blufor main, for example, can be quite frustrating for the pilots. So I understand that point of view. And nobody really wants to stay and defend the main base the whole round. So this is a pretty tricky topic I must admit.

[Furst]

in real life..in real life...in real life!!! cant anyone bring up any good arguments for the legitimation of any baserape in computer games?

in real life a known insurgent "main base" would get JDAMed within minutes. round is ending, blufor wins. wow.

that cant be any basis for a discussion.

[saXoni]

It's really important that gameplay matters more than realism. It doesn't matter how they do it in real-life if it doesn't suit the game.

[Mellanbror]

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

Pretty much yes

[Murphy]

in real life a known insurgent "main base" would get JDAMed within minutes. round is ending, blufor wins. wow.

that cant be any basis for a discussion.

This is probably the strongest point I've read in this thread.

If you want to talk about real life Korengal valley let's talk about how much ordinance was dumped onto the hills, how many real life assets were at blufor disposal at any given time. If you want to talk about real life we're talking about blufor taking as little risk as possible directing massive amounts of firepower (things that go BOOM) at any and all enemy positions. PR does not allow us to call in countless JDAM runs as this would make being insurgents really unfair and extremely frustrating.

You cannot bring real life into the mix without considering how blufor has such a huge advantage over any insurgent fighters, numbers mean jack when you have fighter-bombers, Apaches, and heavy arty blowing everything to hell.

Let the insurgents rape main if blufor can respond with death from above whenever needed, otherwise play the game as it was obviously intended to be as the devs have sought to keep things balanced and entertaining for everyone involved (I personally believe they did a pretty good job getting the point across with the DoD).

[pr|Zer0]

There are some servers, NWA included, which allows only small arms fire in bluefor main(up to PKM ), everything else being forbidden(gary, mining exits, spg etc) and this is fiercely enforced
imo...some small arms fire harassment adds a bit of flavor to insurgency
now...for bluefor to be protected against l337 techie gunners, especially the helipad, surrounding hesco fence should be a big higher...as for lashkar...reduce view distance. As of mortars and jdams, i think mains are protected against such "accidents"

[dtacs]

On NwA attacking the main with vehicles is allowed. Rantbox and I destroyed 2 Kiowa's and a Chinook with the SPG on two separate occasions whilst they were on the pad unmanned.

[Dr Nick PHD]

Acctually I was thinking of this so it would be

Blufor wins by kill all caches or survives match time
insurgents win buy capping blufor mainbase (like in AAS) needs more double the insurgents than blufor in base or depletes blufor tickets

[BulletPr0of]

Acctually I was thinking of this so it would be

Blufor wins by kill all caches or survives match time
insurgents win buy capping blufor mainbase (like in AAS) needs more double the insurgents than blufor in base or depletes blufor tickets

Blufor would find it so hard to get out of main whilst under siege by the insurgents that they would probably never destroy any caches. And equally the Insurgents would have such a hard time getting into the main to cap it because of all the Blufor assets and men trapped inside what is essentially a modern day fort.

This is also excluding the fact that as far as I can see the insurgents IRL would never try a frontal attack on a FOB or anything bigger than a road block to be honest.

Both of the above suggest that with equally matched teams Blufor will win because they survive the match time.

I admit maybe an attack and defend could be fun, attacking team wins by capping the single objective etc but if ever added, it should be it's own game mode, not a revamp of Ins.


As far as base raping as Ins goes - I agree with the small arms only, this includes all handheld AA and AT. I would like to see the cache spawn on Lashkar removed however, I can't remember the exact grid but it is on the hill over looking the German main, allowing infinite ammo for RPG/AA users - as well as being able to defend the cache. Anyone who wants to try attacking a FOB with small arms should be forced to go out of their way to do so, with not much access to ammo.

[Orford]

Rules have intentions, players have win at all cost attitudes. Some times they clash and rules change and evolve as players evolve tactics around the rules.

Main attack.
Intention: to allow ins to counter blufor attacks pulling assets from the front to chase off or kill ins attackers.
Players: Camp the main base, Destroy blufor assets and cripple blufor instead of being able to use the rule as a counter attack option.

I've seen more and more camping with a 50.cal, yes the rules allowed it now changed to small arms only. So it won't be long until a sniper team sits all round shooting into blufor main. Rules evolve just as players tactic do. It's not that either rules or players are wrong we just need to keep developing rules to keep the game play fair for all players not just keep them static for the few.

Another one was don't spawn on unknown caches, that got changed back and dropped as players evolved around the rule and started to search building by building known cache locations. Round ended very quick as caches dropped fast. So the no spawn rule got dropped.

I'm of the opinion that main attack has had its day and shouldn't be allowed at all.


Good thread OP, nice to see a mature discussion.

[saXoni]

I'm of the opinion that main attack has had its day and shouldn't be allowed at all.

Have you ever thought of taking that on to whoever sets the rules for the NwA server?

[Orford]

I along with UKVandal and Daze wrote the original rules since then we have discussions within our admin team.

It's being discussed ATM by the senior admin. Check our website and lobby the green and red admins. The rule makers. I have made my position clear. Politics works some times.



******* NwA rules update *********


No main base attack on INS maps.

AAS only when flag in play, ie No Change.

[Orford]

Bump. ^^^^^

Editing my last post does not show as new reply, please delete this post if necessary.