Project Reality Forums

Tbh this just sounds like you had a bad round of PR then decided that because the enemy was clever that can't be allowed

I've been around here along time buddy.

I have presented a logical argument for my suggestion. You don't have to agree with me, but don't disrespect me by claiming it's a rage suggestion. The tactic described has been used since the very first time I played Muttrah during the beta testing.

CONSOLODATING YOUR POSITIONS I.E making sure the Secure positions STAY Secure

Enemy truck is vulnerable to (in no particular order)
1) CAS
2) Mines
3) APC
4) AT

CAS needs to catch it, if CAS is reloading/not spawned then truck gets trough

Mines need to be on every road, and this limits the APCs so isn't generally used

APCs need to catch it (or just plain be alive) at the same time as covering friendlies from enemy APCs, in terms of combat the enemy APCs are the higher priority.

AT could catch it, but if ur on the ground the chances of AT watching every road at every second are nil. If the AT is in a buiding you have a better view, but trucks are fast enough to hve a chance, and walls are high enough to give them cover, as the aspect angle from the buildings is more favourable than on the ground, but not much better.

So, no. The enemy don't get to use this tactic against only **** teams. They use it against good times too.

And its not just muttrah that has this, that's just an example. Barracuda, USMC building a FB in enemy Main is another sucky tactic.

And I wanna be clear, I don't mind if an SA7 or an APC runs though to the docks or whatever, cuz those are mobile and an asset the team will miss if misued. 1 Dude with 1 truck usually isn't missed.

Your Infantry should still be able to take out a FB so close/behind your lines.

Trucks are vulnerbale to standard infantry, shoot the driver, simples Not eays for one person, but a LMG and a full squad could easily take out the Logistics truck, and anyway, then you would be aware that the enemy are building a FB behind you and take them out before they finish.

I'm dissrepecting you as much as you dissrespected me saying that I was the one going off-topic about commanders when I responded to an on topic post using it as an example, tbh I find that arrogant. It doesn't matter how long you've been around, still sounds like you want things changed due to not being able to deal with threats.

I never knew that in real life we said to our enemy "Oh wait hang on, thats not in your territory, you can't build an outpost there." I thought that instead we made sure they didn't by using clearance patrols etc. etc.

Also your helis can avoid the AA, again simple.

Look the point isn´t whether you can do it, what you should be doing etc.

The point is enemy shouldn´t be building fortifications in terrain they don´t have control of (represented by flags).

Only withing a certain radius (not necessarily the cap one) of their flag.

I'm dissrepecting you as much as you dissrespected me saying that I was the one going off-topic about commanders when I responded to an on topic post using it as an example, tbh I find that arrogant. It doesn't matter how long you've been around, still sounds like you want things changed due to not being able to deal with threats.

oh my god....

Your Infantry should still be able to take out a FB so close/behind your lines.

my earlier post

The more I think about that person's comment on vBF2, the more I agree with it. either make it so you can't build FBs inside enemy flags/there are restrictions or just make the flags cappable at all times <- since that will result in the tactics some people apparently want to see

According to some people the enemy should be able to sneak 1 truck though allowing their whole team to us the teleportation devices they have invented to spawn behind enemy lines. And that the defending team should have to send squads to secure, secure flags. Well, might as well make the flag cappable then, since that will DEFINATELY result in defending squads going back to resecure flags.

Yes I read your earlier post....

Still doesn't alter the fact that there is nothing wrong that when an enemy FB has been spotted (you obviously spotted this one) that the Infantry should have no problem taking it out.

And Why shouldn't they?

Because that area is controlled by you and is your territory?

Or Beause the area is your territory, and therefore defended by your troops?

It would make for a better game if the attacking forces had to make sure nobody got past them, more tactical thinking rather than just "Right we're going to move into cap radius and try and clear out all the enemy".

I think a SL thinking "Right, we're gonna try n sneak past the enemy, build a firebase with AA, and ambush their logistical support, which in turn will help the rest of the team defeat them as eventually their supply crates will run out or we'll take them out." is thinking alot more tactically then just rushing a flag...

LOL Royal_marine_machine give it up man.

You can't expect players who are busy using RL tactics on the front lines to run all the way back to a rear CP just to frag some noobs who fail to understand the purpose of AAS gameplay (i.e. flag-by-flag).

In RL, there are people defending those rear positions and a any goofs trying to play Rambo and sneak past enemy lines will end up in body bags. In PR, there's no one back there to stop them from making a nuisance of themselves. Hence the need for territorial restrictions.

It has absolutely *uck-all to do with tactics and stopping trucks from getting past you and all that other stuff you were talking about.

It is about maintaining a standard of gameplay that proportionally represents--and this is a concept many around here need to understand--real-life battlefield factors.

It is not about literally reproducing a RL battlefield, assuming that was possible in a game (which it definitely isn't).

Is that clear enough? RL combat. RL tactics. You want fantasy combat where tactics mean $hit and you spend your time chasing after lone wolf noobs? There are plenty of vBF2 servers at your disposal.

Dr2B Rudd wrote: An alternative to simply "YOU CANT BUILD HERE" could be that 4 crates are required for FBs outside of cap zones. since theoretically teh AAS follows supply routes, and since your not connected to the supply route alla CoH, you need 4 crates

But then that makes players too dependent on other players willing to deliver all those crates--and in most of the PR rounds I've played, that level of player cooperation is rare.

And this doesn't really solve your problem, it just makes it a bit more time-consuming (never underestimate a noob's determination to *uck around instead of fighting). In AAS, there should really be no activity in rear positions.

Alex6714 wrote:Look the point isn´t whether you can do it, what you should be doing etc.

The point is enemy shouldn´t be building fortifications in terrain they don´t have control of (represented by flags).

Only withing a certain radius (not necessarily the cap one) of their flag.

Funny how people fail to understand this most basic of points.

BF2 players need to understand that people who play PR to spend some time fighting ina semi-realistic setting in a realistic manner, not to waste their time dealing with "clever" players who prefer to spend their time taking advantage of every exploit in the game.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:I don't like that 2 guys

wait...

actually

I hate that only 1 guy can build a FB in an enemy flag and shoot down choppers, because its not particularly teamwork orientated, and its not very skillful. a mobile AA, sure thats the point, but a static AA should be about more than 'plonk this anywhere'

If you can manage to make it behing enemy lines, get 2 supply boxes from a helo or 1 logistic truck, both of which are loud as hell behing enemy lines, build the FOB yourself, then construct the AA yourself without being spotted, you may quite possibly be the luckiest player who has played this game lol. I agree with the others. It brings a different dimension to playing and allows players to flank.

The way you are suggesting it would basically limit battles to head on engagements WW1 style which aren't done now. Don't get me wrong, I am not for building FOBs on top of enemy flags right next to or on their main or something like that, but if you manage to get by the enemy undetected and put an FOB on their flag, you probably deserve to have it. If that flag is near the front, it shoudn't be undefended anyways.

Look at The Battle of the Bulge. I can't remember exactly, but the Germans essentially cut the US and Patton's forces in half by getting in between them. Its the same premise here.

Look at The Battle of the Bulge. I can't remember exactly, but the Germans essentially cut the US and Patton's forces in half by getting in between them. Its the same premise here.

please tell me the size of the area of operations of the battle of teh bulge

then compare to the size of the typical PR map

WW1 engagement is not what would happen imo as firebases are not the only spawn points avaliable. The tactical options avaliable with firebases would be very similar, its just you cant grab a engineer kit and build one singlehanded in an enemy flag.

flanking can still happen, but it isn't with a firebase, I think that rally points should and would be immune to the restrictions since only 1 squad can spawn on it and they already have pre-requisites in being made.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:please tell me the size of the area of operations of the battle of teh bulge

then compare to the size of the typical PR map

WW1 engagement

I think the battle was in 1944 Rudd.

I think FOB's setup just for AA emplacements in enenmy flags is darn right stupid tbh.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:If you can manage to make it behing enemy lines, get 2 supply boxes from a helo or 1 logistic truck, both of which are loud as hell behing enemy lines, build the FOB yourself, then construct the AA yourself without being spotted, you may quite possibly be the luckiest player who has played this game lol. I agree with the others. It brings a different dimension to playing and allows players to flank.

The way you are suggesting it would basically limit battles to head on engagements WW1 style which aren't done now. Don't get me wrong, I am not for building FOBs on top of enemy flags right next to or on their main or something like that, but if you manage to get by the enemy undetected and put an FOB on their flag, you probably deserve to have it. If that flag is near the front, it shoudn't be undefended anyways.

Look at The Battle of the Bulge. I can't remember exactly, but the Germans essentially cut the US and Patton's forces in half by getting in between them. Its the same premise here.

You have rally points for that. Firebases are supposed to be built on location you have control over, its supposed to be a fortification of an area near your frontline not 1km behind enemy lines.

If you say it will be WW1 tactics with people just throwing things at each other you fail in that conclusion. It isnt so that you need to have firebases behind enemy lines(especially in OP example where there are newly set up firebases at the docks 2 flags behind enemy controled area.), thats just to stupid you can use fire and move tactics without a firebase the SL actually have a RP he can set up.

Ok at first i was a bit "this could be a bad idea" but after playing muttrah today i can fully see why, me and [PR]NATO|DonDoom where in an APC and we chased a supply truck from mosque all the way to docks, and .:IGI:. alex6741 was saying "thats just stupid why is he all the way up there away from the fighting, hes wasting tickets" and it now makes alot more sense, having these mysterious FBs just appear miles away from any fighting is just dumb and actually makes the side building the FBs loose as you have men away from the fighting, sorry Rudd for doubting this idea.

(EDIT. remeberd the numbers and added more speech in)
Edit2. added the .: to the IGI tags as i heard thats how the like em.

Different rules for AAS and Insurgency though?

Wow...I put in time trying to honestly and objectively explain this from a balanced gameplay/realism perspective, so people can understand the logic behind the need for the proposed territorial restrictions....and still people fail to get the logic.

This "tactic" is an exploit. It is not an interesting dynamic (at least not to mature players). It is not realistic (especially in the case of AAS maps). Restricting it does not lead to attrition-like gameplay. It is an annoyance to players who take this game seriously.

Try not thinking what YOU want for a change and think about what is good for PR (i.e. realistic tactical gameplay).

Any tactical benefits of this exploit do not outweigh costs to gameplay. It needs to be changed in v0.86.

End of discussion.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:please tell me the size of the area of operations of the battle of teh bulge

then compare to the size of the typical PR map

WW1 engagement is not what would happen imo as firebases are not the only spawn points avaliable. The tactical options avaliable with firebases would be very similar, its just you cant grab a engineer kit and build one singlehanded in an enemy flag.

flanking can still happen, but it isn't with a firebase, I think that rally points should and would be immune to the restrictions since only 1 squad can spawn on it and they already have pre-requisites in being made.

It doesn't matter about the size of the map because they are based on real life locations most of the time, (just slightly smaller). The premise is still the same too which is seperating enemy forces by setting up an FOB/outpost. And if you seriously think that 1 guy can build an FOB by himself all the time, then you must be playing a different game then I am because I next to never see that. Don't count 1 isolated incident as speaking for every game.


And you just contradicted your entire statement with that last line of having "pre-requisites in being made." FOBs have much more requirements than making an RP. All an RP needs is 3 people. An FOB needs

1. Helo or Logistic truck
2. 2 Crates
3. Officer kit or Engineer kit (only 2)
4. Shovel
5. Time and being sneaky

If you really have a problem with 1 man lone wolfing, getting lucky, and building a firebase as an engineer, why didn't you just suggest that they take that ability away from the engineer? That I would agree with.

Smuke wrote:I think the battle was in 1944 Rudd.

1944-45.

Zimmer wrote:You have rally points for that. Firebases are supposed to be built on location you have control over, its supposed to be a fortification of an area near your frontline not 1km behind enemy lines.

Not all the time. Kha Shan in Vietnam is one example. Look at the FOBs and outpost in Afganistan that are attacked from all sides by taliban fighters. Warfare today like back in Vietnam is unconventional, so having a FOB/outpost in enemy controlled territory is not "fake" or out of the question.

There is no such thing as a "front line" in modern warfare. Helicopters have also made the ability of getting supplies and setting up outposts behind enemy lines possible. Hence my "Kha Shan" reference.

If you say it will be WW1 tactics with people just throwing things at each other you fail in that conclusion. It isnt so that you need to have firebases behind enemy lines(especially in OP example where there are newly set up firebases at the docks 2 flags behind enemy controled area.), thats just to stupid you can use fire and move tactics without a firebase the SL actually have a RP he can set up.

You fail completely if you let an enemy set up a firebase behind your enemy lines without taking him out. If a friendly force has moved completely out of an area, then they deserve to have that territory taken over, as long as it is not close to their main.

Soldier to have 1 person build a FOB you need to make a squad with 2 people in, you both get combat engineers and then you both take a supply truck and each go your seperate ways. It is easily done in PR. You can have a FOB and AA plus some wire up in around 5 minutes if your efficient.

then you must be playing a different game then I am because I next to never see that. Don't count 1 isolated incident as speaking for every game.

As I've said b4.

I've been playing muttrah since it was first brought out in beta. I've seen this tactic in around 70% of muttrah rounds I've played as MEC, and suspected it around 50% of the time as USMC.


technically you only need one dude. He joins a squad, he gets combat engineer, he leaves and makes a new squad. He can set FOBs and build htem how he wants.

I've seen it plenty of times now. Its not teamwork orientated and I don't think its a desireable gameplay tactic for the reasons I've stated.

And you just contradicted your entire statement with that last line of having "pre-requisites in being made." FOBs have much more requirements than making an RP. All an RP needs is 3 people. An FOB needs

Contradiction is when I make a previous point of mine conflict with a new point. I have not done this. My point is that it doesn't take 1 dude to set up a RP, it takes squad teamwork.

Not all the time. Kha Shan in Vietnam is one example. Look at the FOBs and outpost in Afganistan that are attacked from all sides by taliban fighters. Warfare today like back in Vietnam is unconventional, so having a FOB/outpost in enemy controlled territory is not "fake" or out of the question.

Please notice no1 has been talking about insurgency mode. The only map that might fall in to this discussion is Korengal, and I'm sure you can see how that wouldn't be affected by the discussion.

If a friendly force has moved completely out of an area, then they deserve to have that territory taken over, as long as it is not close to their main.

Now think about that sentance. You are advocating the return of vBF2 cappable bases. Do you not see the similarity in tactics?

The reason for AAS is to center the combat in an area to
1) Give the impression there are more players on the map than there really are
2) Keep the combat intense and give players objectives rather than 'milling around'
3) To give the impression that there is a supply line
4) Increase teamwork, so that squads work together to take one objective/defend one objective
5) To keep the game fresh, as it means you fight over particular areas for some time, then move on.

This is just my opinion but if you let an enemy make a FOB behind your lines then that's your problem but then again im thinking of a whole squad not some lone wolves.

Cheditor wrote:Soldier to have 1 person build a FOB you need to make a squad with 2 people in, you both get combat engineers and then you both take a supply truck and each go your seperate ways. It is easily done in PR. You can have a FOB and AA plus some wire up in around 5 minutes if your efficient.

Then you are basically reinforcing my point that it has even more requirements. I agree that if an engineer went a long ways away and built a firebase he would be successful, but if he tried to go into enemy occupied territory alone, he would get owned if the team is competent.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:As I've said b4.

I've been playing muttrah since it was first brought out in beta. I've seen this tactic in around 70% of muttrah rounds I've played as MEC, and suspected it around 50% of the time as USMC.

Trust me, I play alot too and since the release of Muttrah and with Grimsoldier and I almost never see this. If the US sucks and doesn't get a foothold in the city early, they deserve to have enemies come behind them. Don't forget that the MEC on Muttrah are the defenders and natives too, so they would naturally have the resources, ability, and knowledge of the land to flank the US. And just because you see it on 1 map doesn't mean it happens on everymap or would effect every map positively if changed.

technically you only need one dude. He joins a squad, he gets combat engineer, he leaves and makes a new squad. He can set FOBs and build htem how he wants.

I've seen it plenty of times now. Its not teamwork orientated and I don't think its a desireable gameplay tactic for the reasons I've stated.

Then complain about the engineer being able to do it, not the current system. The engineer being able to have a shovel and build alone is the problem, not the current system......... I would agree with you on this point.

Contradiction is when I make a previous point of mine conflict with a new point. I have not done this. My point is that it doesn't take 1 dude to set up a RP, it takes squad teamwork.

It is a contradiction because you said it has requirements. So does building a FOB, especially alone. They aren't ALL "typical" requirements. There are only 2 engineer kits for 1 which maybe taken already. You have to go there with 2 crates either by vehicle or chopper for 2, which attracts attention. And 3, you have to be alone for 5+ minutes and safely hidden while unarmed in order to build. Not to mention the big smoke plum that goes up from building. How are they not requirements? It is no different from the RP.

Please notice no1 has been talking about insurgency mode. The only map that might fall in to this discussion is Korengal, and I'm sure you can see how that wouldn't be affected by the discussion.

You obviously missed my "Battle of the Buldge reference. WW2 was the last "conventional war", so that example obviously holds true. The Germans split the American lines just like what we are discussing.

Now think about that sentance. You are advocating the return of vBF2 cappable bases. Do you not see the similarity in tactics?

The reason for AAS is to center the combat in an area to
1) Give the impression there are more players on the map than there really are
2) Keep the combat intense and give players objectives rather than 'milling around'
3) To give the impression that there is a supply line
4) Increase teamwork, so that squads work together to take one objective/defend one objective
5) To keep the game fresh, as it means you fight over particular areas for some time, then move on.

Uhhhh, no I am not. I never want a return to those BF2 tactics. Your whole 5 points is just wrong though because the US/MEC STILL have to fight over that particular piece of land. Yes, the MEC may build a firebase behind US lines. Doesn't mean they have to stop going for that objective now. All it means is that they are coming at the US from another direction and flanking it. There is still as much teamwork involved and what I am saying actually keeps the game "fresher" and "more interesting" because the enemy can attack from any direction anytime, so games are never the same.


The way you are suggesting would basically limit combat to head on engagements which are just meat grinders. Yes, RPs can get behind enemy lines, but those don't last forever, especially if the combat is head on. The whole "supply line" idea doesn't mean it literally has to be in a line like WW1. Helos make attacking from behind possible now ala my Kha Shan reference.

I've never seen this tactic on Muttrah.