Page 2 of 2
Re: Indirect fire, what went wrong here?
Posted: 2009-06-17 05:14
by charliegrs
theres no self gratification in indirect suppressive fire. no body counts, no dead bodies flying in the air. and sadly, for alot of PR players thats all that matters. nevermind the fact that throwing a few HE rounds into a building before a fellow squad enters can make the difference between a capped flag or a dead squad.
sorry im kinda bitter from a round i had today similar to the OPS experience.
Re: Indirect fire, what went wrong here?
Posted: 2009-06-17 08:09
by PLODDITHANLEY
I am a relative noob with only a few months PR experience I play 90% medic and I have learnt:
I rarely if ever run out of ammo (except epipens) as medic as I die quite often.
With ironsights medic kit I am lucky to hit distant targets.
So:
I fire lots at markers or in the general direction of suspected enemies, I generally empty one complete magazine on single shoot, then reload while moving.
But:
I am very often the only one to do that.
If I am foolish enough to put down suppresive fire on a suspected enemy position to cover my squad to let them move I am invariably left out on my own as they all bugger off having seemingly forgotten me!
Verdict:
Perhaps time to play on tournament or clan battles.
Re: Indirect fire, what went wrong here?
Posted: 2009-06-17 08:14
by cyberzomby
Dr2B Rudd wrote:Well, the thing is that the APC was driven by PRT members, I'm not gonna say which team
Not the first time I was surprised by the quality of PRT guys
But yea as stated by a lot of people. Trying to let people lay down surpressive fire is impossible. Same for an APC. It seems that the only people who are going to town on surpressive fire are the CAS pilots on 'cuda
yes, PLODDITHANLEY, as an almost full-time PR medic I can agree. I do the same thing but usually its just me providing covering fire for the rest to move around the target.
Re: Indirect fire, what went wrong here?
Posted: 2009-06-17 16:13
by Orford
Seams to be the way some play, Wont shoot unless they see the bad guys.
I/we (*NwA*) have been running a PR server for a couple of weeks now and we try and mix up the members so we get to know our regular player groupe. The other day i was SqL and for the first 30mins of the match I tried and tried to drill into the guys in my squad "any fire is supressing fire" after a good number of contacts they finally got to see how effective shooting in the genral direction of the incoming can be. By the end of the round I had a heavy MG with medic as a 2 man fire support and the other 3 with me constantly pushing up on the cache in a 2x2 formation, fire reload on the move etc etc and if things got really bad I called on the MG to openup in the genral direction of my marker and we pushed up as a 4 while the bullets flew over head. The down side of this is the BF2 mentality of the opasition OH THERES GUN FIRE LETS RUN TO IT AND KILL SOME ONE. So we got into alot of contacts but always able to mount a defence/supression while we healed up revived our dead. To the point of sq2 and 5 having free run on the cache as all the bad guys had run over to us to see who they could kill ie my squad. At the end of the round as we was attacking the last cache my ego was very well massaged with comments of "that was the best game of PR ive ever had" "wow lads nice work dam awsome" just to mention two.
Well to OP I guess its just there are still so many BF2 players out there who chase the kill and dont get what PR is all about.
To sum it up BF2 kills per round = win
In PR kills dont matter the kills can be 0 I like to think that my deaths are low and the squad i was in would be players I would squad up with again and again even if the teams dosnt win the round.
Re: Indirect fire, what went wrong here?
Posted: 2009-06-17 17:13
by AquaticPenguin
black-wolf wrote:Players wanted to see their targets before they actually fire.
^ This in short. I often find I'm the one doing the suppressing fire in squads as a medic instead of the guys with the acogs and MGs. People will just fire when they see a head poke up rather than flanking. The same applies for vehicles, quite often .50 cals
Re: Indirect fire, what went wrong here?
Posted: 2009-06-17 17:27
by goguapsy
crAck_sh0t wrote:People in PR can't grasp the concept on indirect fire.
Only chuck Norris can
indirect fire?
if chuck norris fires a rifle, he always gets a headshot. no matter how many walls are between him and the enemy. the deviation system in pr doesnt affect him, its afraid to get HS as well
Re: Indirect fire, what went wrong here?
Posted: 2009-06-17 17:35
by Ironfist7997
/\ that because Chuck guides the bullet with his mind

he can track 128 targets and engage 16 targets simultaneously
with the current mg kit, marker supression is the only decent thing the kit can do wtihout the elcan sight and as such if i'm using that kit thats what i will do. If RM then i'll try and put as many rounds as i can down range until i sight a hostile and can place aimed shots into him.
Re: Indirect fire, what went wrong here?
Posted: 2009-06-18 07:54
by Freelance_Commando
Or maybe they were just getting paid off by the enemy to just ignore them.
It does happen....
Re: Indirect fire, what went wrong here?
Posted: 2009-06-18 15:54
by Skodz
Yeah, a lot of public players tends not to shoot if they cant see targets... It require some training or very good players to have them shoot at what you say when they don't see the targets.
Sad because it does is very useful sometime.