Project Reality Forums

The Bounding Overwatch aka 'leapfrogging'

The bounding overwatch is the most basic and, when properly implemented, effective method of infantry travel in a "hot" zone.

To preform a bounding overwatch, one element (herinafter: "alpha") moves to a cover and/or concealment position and halts to scan the forward terrain. The second element ("bravo") then moves forward to a new position of cover/concealment which is within visual range of the alpha element. Thus alpha will cover bravo while they are running vunerable in the open. They can engage any threat that may appear and inform the bounding element of incoming threats while they are buisy moving. Bravo then halts at it's place of cover and scans for enemies. If clear, Alpha may move forward to it's next position and so continues the "leapfrogging" until the squad has moved to its objective.

-An element may consist of a single soldier, or half a squad (fireteam) and even vehicles - as long as there are two elements.

-The bounding overwatch is used in areas where contact with the enemy is imminent.



The Australian peel

This is a drill which allows for an orderly withdrawal from overwhelming hostile contact while maintaining a large volume of fire at the enemy.

To perform an Australian peel, a squad must be in close proximity. The point man in a squad unloads his weapon in a withering firestorm at the enemy's direction. When his magazine is empty, he retreats to cover behind his squad. Then, the next man nearest the enemy fires his weapon at the enemy until empty. Naturally, the first soldier will have reloaded by the time the second retreats. Then the third opens up. This process is repeated down through the entire squad until either there is an ammunition shortage or the squad has safely retreated. Remember, you dont have to empty your whole mag, but atleast fire 10 semi rounds before moving.

When "waiting" for your turn to be up front, look at 10 and 2 o'clock so your squad dont get flanked.

From the perspective of the enemy, this drill will seem as though he is faced with a never-ending stream of fire. They will keep their heads down, or be shot up.

You forgot the reverse aussie peelback. Same situation but you're advancing on target instead of retreating. Works well on Timmy when he's run into a house or if you're taking random sniper fire in close.

'[R-DEV wrote:fuzzhead;479108']The Bounding Overwatch aka 'leapfrogging'

Technically that's an Alternating Bounding Overwatch, but I won't hold it against you fuzz

Actually your both right:
- Squad overwatch bound for a known destination, Alpha is always point for the over watch but always last to bound. The other members go rapidly in the same designated order to "good" cover, one after the other. Then the bounding starts again till all reach the location.
- An Alternating Overwatch Bound for traversing unknown zones would be more stealthy and like "leapfrogging". Alpha would bound second after securing point for Beta.

And they will all work so much better if the respawn time is increased to make players NOT want to die!

Western forces providing withdrawls whilst half of them are continuously providing covering fire at any time is so effective that the enemy would have to be suicidal to follow after the withdrawers.

And more blur? And less headshots?

Indeed, something has to be done to effect the "fear of death" in FPS games.

Maybe if a player's past earned points or ranks...heh-heh...could be used to "buy" kits or even a slot in a squad in game, hoping to score more points or rank. When player dies he not only loses a few points he has to re-buy the kit over again. If he's not careful and diligent and dies to much or too quickly he eventually goes into negative ranking....ouch....hahahahaha

JohnnyPissoff wrote:Actually your both right:
- An Alternating Overwatch Bound for traversing unknown zones would be more stealthy and like "leapfrogging".

That was my point. Duh.

Hang on now...I never said you were incorrect. I did in fact say you were both right. I posted to bring to light the differences in the two bounding methods.

KISS

JohnnyPissoff wrote:Hang on now...I never said you were incorrect. I did in fact say you were both right. I posted to bring to light the differences in the two bounding methods.

LOL, that's what the smiley's were for!

And fuzz, are you calling me stupid?

lol jk hehhe

this was actually a repost from someone from the wiki guide, just transfering it here.

its a good tactics, and yes can get much more advanced but to see at least this level of organisation in PR would be amazing... too bad with the weapons handling currently that these tactics are not too useful (mainly due to lack of usefulness in supresive fire)

[R-PUB]MrD wrote:And they will all work so much better if the respawn time is increased to make players NOT want to die!

And people requesting sniper and marksman kits and thinking, that's the only weapon, that can kill at range...

I still say, it's the problem of too much places, where you can spawn and stupid "tactics", which make a particular enemy die all over because of spawn or base rape...and the issue with flanking a sniper or tank and just as you get there, you get killed...
Thats why I'd like C4 to stay...

Yes the suppressive fire is kinda lame for any meaningful real world tactics. Although if used in conjunction with other ground tactics it might just get you by. That's why I posted the thread (fire control) here in this forum.

When BF2 first came out a couple of guys in the clan I was in at the time decided to utilize bounding and fire control (the rest of the clan laughed at us practicing, those guys were the ones that stayed with vBF2 the others and I eventually attempted to start a PR squad for league play)

Anyway we practiced in full servers for hours and days, more or less ignoring the game play and concentrating on bounding to preset destinations (trying more to stay alive than to get kills) and using fire control when caught in the open. Man I gotta tell you we got tight as hell as a team, so this stuff does work. If for at least getting your squad working together as an engine, not several individuals working alone together, because after awhile without calling for it, we would naturally fall into our bounding and firing order.

[R-PUB]MrD wrote:And they will all work so much better if the respawn time is increased to make players NOT want to die!.

Oh no if this happens i'll never get in before the end of the match

yea Johnny has a good point, practising these techniques is great for overall teamwork improvement, getting used to formations, knowing where your squadmates will be ALWAYS (you dont even have to look, you just KNOW where they are cause you have trained so much you know they will be in the right place).

So even if the techniques dont fit exactly the gameplay currently pressent, it will still advance your skills.

And when/if we eventually get PR gameplay to a point where using real world tactics is highly regarded and useful, then you will already be prepared.

Problem is, players want to kill other players, not spray bullets at them to make them go hide...

We should remove the points for killing and kill count and only the points from all the rest would count and win.

agreed we need less reward for killing and more reward for staying alive and working as squad... but that is sepereate topic hehe

But it's more related to this than mother to a son

The issue of how effective suppressing fire in PR is a horribly complex one....

bullet penetration...
visual ID + lighting and camo affect...
range of engagements...
extremity of terrain...
access to equipment...
tactics involving supp. and flank...
varying accuracy of weapons...

All of the above are some of the glorious factors . Fail to consider them all and you will fail to make suppressing fire as effective as it can be in RL! *

Therefore, i believe that one should avoid simplifying the issue by suggesting just 1 or 2 causes and solutions!

A yes Fuzz, lets keep it on topic so...


I have implemented the 'leapfrogging' tactic in game (3-5 times) to an affect.....what affect, cant comment!


Squad organization advise implementation for 'leapfrogging' and The Australian peel tactics:

Organize the squad into 3 fire teams of 2 men each. Name the fire teams 1, 2, and 3.

Ft. 2 contains the squad leader and 1 medic. Ft. 3 contains a support gunner. Therefore Ft. 3 is the most adapt for laying down suppressing fire.

It can be much easier for 2 players to stay very close to one another than it is for 3 players to do so. Therefore the 2 man fire team can often be more organized than a 3 man fire team.
This organization can help then because order is utterly vital for these tactics.

The 'leapfrog' and Aussie peel rely on the same principal; part of the squad suppresses an enemy position, allowing the other part of the squad to move with a increased degree of safety. In the case of the 'leapfrog', part of the squad moves towards the enemy, while in the Aussie peel they move away.

The suppressing fire and movement in terms of the 3 ft.s is as follows:

Ft. 3, using 1 supp. gun can lay about an equal amount of suppressing fire as both Ft. 1 and Ft. 2 combined.
It is vital that the amount of suppressing fire is kept steady (does not decrease) because a decrease in fire can allow the enemy to return fire much easier and therefore suppress you - Your men die and/or cant return fire therefore the 2 tactics will collapse!


Therefore
Ft. 3 should lay down suppressing fire while Ft. 1 and 2 move.
Ft. 1 and 2 should lay down suppressing fire while Ft. 3 moves.

In certain circumstances:

You can have both Ft. 3 and either Ft. 1 or 2 suppressing while the other Ft. (1 or 2) moves. This means for a short while you can lay down 3/4 of the squads total suppressing fire capacity, rather than just 1/2.

This show the greater flexibility 3 ft.s has over 2 ft.s. With names like 1, 2 and 3, communication is simpler and quicker. E.g 1, 2 - MOVE... 3 - SUPPRESS!!!

When all members of the squad respond (text or mike), i find this method of organization much easier to maintain (ft.s staying alive and together) and as importantly i find tactics such as the leapfrog significantly easier to, quite simply. "Pull off". I hope you may also.




*So Fuzz, am i right to be confident that the DEVs do very much understand the present challenges that face players in-game who try and Pull off Stunts like these, understand why many are unrealistic and are considering ways to remove such! ;)