[Insurgency] Artillery should not destroy caches/vehicles safe in main.

[snooggums]

I’m posting these together because they are related, if one was changed without the other I think it would actually tip the current balance where as changing both would be even and keep the intended game play for Insurgency.

Part 1
Currently artillery for Coalition forces can be used to destroy Insurgent caches when a direct result cannot be made due to a good defense by the Insurgents. What this often means is on Op Archer, two or more caches will end up in the C4 city area. The Coalition will camp in the hills around the city and call in artillery until the cache is destroyed instead of having to control the city and remove the caches by hand. This ruins game play as it makes defense of the caches worthless once the artillery is available, and removes the area control that is part of the Insurgency game mode.

Solution: Make the caches invulnerable to artillery. This would allow the Arty to be used to destroy buildings and clear out infantry but still require the troops to go in and secure.

Part 2
I also believe that vehicles that spawn in main should not be worth points until they are used. A chopper/humvee/command truck, etc should only give points once it I used, allowing assets to be left in main and not in danger of having Big Red come in and score 60 free points every 20 minutes. If the vehicles are used and later returned to main they should be worth the points even if abandoned there.

Solution: Tie the vehicle’s point value to whether a soldier has entered the vehicle. If the vehicle has had at least one person hop in and out it would count, but if the Choppers were grounded the whole round they would not be worth points. Insurgents could still kill them to keep them from being used, but they would not be a liability while unused in main like they are now. This could also be solved by having safe locations in main (bunkers etc) to hide the vehicles in but I think having them safe at spawn would keep the foot soldiers out in the field instead of having a parking attendant.

[Hotrod76]

Well, real artilery shell would destroy anything in its path. If its raining 155mm shell on a village, you can be sure that if a shell fall very close to a cache, it will destroy it. Dont understand why you complain, especialy since there is only 1 ARTY strike each game.

[R.J.Travis]

I'm sorry but this seems kinda Pro INS with out helping the Coalition side at all.

The Arty was made to do what your talking about Its made to hit a spot where INF just won't do If you get 2-3 cache in a small zone your going to get arty call down on you.

I would suggest you try and ask the [R-Dev] to make it so two or more cache can't spawn with in a arty strike zone.

Making it to where arty did not kill the cache but giving the INS 1 spot for there full team to be at is not fair as there are no armor or atk heli to support the INF like in real life and would just waste bluefour ticks.

[snooggums]

If the US did not lose tickets for unused assets at their main they would often have an extra 50-100 tickets based on the battles I have been in. That favors the Coalition in my opinion.

So the team would be looking at a higher amount of tickets to mount an assault with. The whole team would then be attacking a single area, and 32 Coalition > 32 Insurgents. Artillery is not required to destroy the caches without entering the buildings, calling an arty strike in first to clear the area for infantry assault would work.

For hotrod: what map only has a single arty strike? There might be a long wait between strikes but I've had multiples brought down on the same map destroying multiple caches at different times.

[[uBp]Irish]

Part 1
Currently artillery for Coalition forces can be used to destroy Insurgent caches when a direct result cannot be made due to a good defense by the Insurgents. What this often means is on Op Archer, two or more caches will end up in the C4 city area. The Coalition will camp in the hills around the city and call in artillery until the cache is destroyed instead of having to control the city and remove the caches by hand. This ruins game play as it makes defense of the caches worthless once the artillery is available, and removes the area control that is part of the Insurgency game mode.

-- Realistic. What would you rather do, send in troops that can get shot up from an ambush or call in direct/indirect fire on a known enemy position. Easy answer. No.

Part 2
I also believe that vehicles that spawn in main should not be worth points until they are used. A chopper/humvee/command truck, etc should only give points once it I used, allowing assets to be left in main and not in danger of having Big Red come in and score 60 free points every 20 minutes. If the vehicles are used and later returned to main they should be worth the points even if abandoned there.

-- Again, Realistic. I can't account for the frequency but I know Coalition forces had to deal early on and sporadically now with mortar attacks by insurgents on their bases/FOBs. If your team chooses not to have a ::basic:: base defense team, than that's your own fault. If you've got an insurgent team camping the hills calling in fire, I'm pretty sure it's the coalition's fault for not choosing to secure the area directly around their base.


The problem with caches is the fact that one cache can spawn where another cache just got destroyed, thus getting 2 caches for the price of 1. This is more or less a coding issue. With my severe lack of coding experience, I would just say, that if a cache is destroyed another one should not spawn within X-meters of the previous cache location. could easily solve that problem.

[nick20404]

Leave it the way it is, you should not have a bunch of your team crowded around the cache anyways, so if it gets hit by artillery that is your fault.

[snooggums]

Irish;979253']The problem with caches is the fact that one cache can spawn where another cache just got destroyed, thus getting 2 caches for the price of 1. This is more or less a coding issue. With my severe lack of coding experience, I would just say, that if a cache is destroyed another one should not spawn within X-meters of the previous cache location. could easily solve that problem.

I'm talking about having two or three caches already in play next to each other getting artied, I'm not even commenting on caches that respawn causing additional caches to be destroyed. I've seen all three currently shown caches taken out by a single arty strike, if one had respawned it could have been 4.

Leave it the way it is, you should not have a bunch of your team crowded around the cache anyways, so if it gets hit by artillery that is your fault.

What does your comment have to do with the thread?

[nick20404]

I'm talking about having two or three caches already in play next to each other getting artied, I'm not even commenting on caches that respawn causing additional caches to be destroyed. I've seen all three currently shown caches taken out by a single arty strike, if one had respawned it could have been 4.



What does your comment have to do with the thread?

My comment means that there is nothing wrong the the artillery shells and they are realistic.

If artillery is destroying your caches you need to stop having all your teammates stand directly on it so the enemy won't drop artillery on your cache.

The simple fact is if you guys were not standing on the caches spamming rockets reloading your weapons constantly the enemy would not have called an mortar/arty strike on your and the caches would not have been destroyed, this is something you have to think about while your insurgent, we can make all weapons inert to certain things and soon the game will be ****.


Besides what your describing rarely happens anyways everyone knows you are here because something happened in game that made you angry like everyone else who makes a ridiculous request.

[snooggums]

stuff

Using arty to kill caches is rare? Happens all the time on the TG server.

Destroying idle vehicles in main? Happens all the time.

I was the one who called in the three cache arty kill, all three were marked on the map from intel collection. We had been attacking the other possible cache areas and just got the intel to tell us where they were, we didn't even have to see anyone on the caches.

Two cache kills happen regularly on a server with teamplay, but even a single arty cache kill is against the point of insurgency. I don't feel like I'm taken advantage of when my cache gets artied, I think that it is bad gameplay on either side, and it happened multiple times before I even posted the suggestion.

But you are just a troll suggesting unrelated items (rocket spam/friendlies on the cache) when the point is: an indirect attack allows the Coalition to kill a cache without the need to clear it on foot. The arty should kill the defenses, not kill the defenses and also kill a cache or two. Even APC fire spam killing caches is bad gameplay, they should be destroyed by hand held items like incendiary grenades to show the Coalition has controlled the area.

And the Coalition shouldn't lose points for unused vehicles such as choppers if they are grounded and unused. I'm not trying to bump up one side over the other, just pointing out bad gameplay.

[martov]

err.... arty is ussually thrown at civilian villages?, I think you guys have your priorities wrong

[atshii]

I don't object to using arty to take out caches, having arty or airstrikes destroying enemy positions is pretty normal for coalition forces in Iraq/Afganishtan, for what I can understand.

But currently the arty can take out caches in caves under lots of stone (in Operation Archer for example), that is something that should be taken out.

Coalition losing points for non-used vehicles is a bit different matter. In real life the vehicles would not be left without guard, as there is always rear-echolon troops around, which is not possible in-game. Changing points values to zero or making non-used vehicles non-destroyable would need some tweeking of ticket counts, however.

[nick20404]

Using arty to kill caches is rare? Happens all the time on the TG server.

Destroying idle vehicles in main? Happens all the time.

I was the one who called in the three cache arty kill, all three were marked on the map from intel collection. We had been attacking the other possible cache areas and just got the intel to tell us where they were, we didn't even have to see anyone on the caches.

Two cache kills happen regularly on a server with teamplay, but even a single arty cache kill is against the point of insurgency. I don't feel like I'm taken advantage of when my cache gets artied, I think that it is bad gameplay on either side, and it happened multiple times before I even posted the suggestion.

But you are just a troll suggesting unrelated items (rocket spam/friendlies on the cache) when the point is: an indirect attack allows the Coalition to kill a cache without the need to clear it on foot. The arty should kill the defenses, not kill the defenses and also kill a cache or two. Even APC fire spam killing caches is bad gameplay, they should be destroyed by hand held items like incendiary grenades to show the Coalition has controlled the area.

And the Coalition shouldn't lose points for unused vehicles such as choppers if they are grounded and unused. I'm not trying to bump up one side over the other, just pointing out bad gameplay.

Well where do I start, I was playing insurgency today for 4 maps and not once did 2 caches ever get blown up at once by an artillery strike, infact not one cache was destroyed by an artillery strike. I have seen a few caches get blown up by artillery strikes and its only when there is a large amount of troops directly on it.

In real life an artillery shell hitting a cash of weapons would destroy it. Caches can be destroyed by anything. Sorry if you think that's bad gameplay but that is just your opinion. Sorry if you think I am a troll but maybe you should play the game longer and enjoy it I don't see why you are getting so hostile about this.

And about the coalition assets losing tickets, your team should be using your assets and guarding there base from attack. If your base gets mortared and all your stuff is in there its your fault. In real life if your base got bombed and all your stuff got destroyed you would still lose the asset, and in the game tickets represent assets so losing tickets in the game is like losing equipment in real life, once you run out of so many tanks/apcs you run out of tickets and have to pull out aka lose the game.

On top of that not all servers are the same so complaining about what happens on one server doesn't mean it happens everywhere so try a new server if you don't like theirs, and attacking the main base in some servers is allowed so making vehicles in main immune to damage would be lame and unrealistic to boot.

[Feriluce]

I don't object to using arty to take out caches, having arty or airstrikes destroying enemy positions is pretty normal for coalition forces in Iraq/Afganishtan, for what I can understand.

But currently the arty can take out caches in caves under lots of stone (in Operation Archer for example), that is something that should be taken out.

This.

Having a cache in the open or in a building taken out by arty strike is fine by me. However, having a cache protected by 10m of stone taking out by arty strikes is just fail. Players can take cover from artillery, mortars and jdams, why shouldnt caches be able to?

[White Rock]

It's fine.

One arty strike a game and it's probably not even gonna end up being used unless three caches spawn on the hill south of the city on archer. (this is almost impossible to assault with a hideout, rallys and cache spawns ontop of it.)

Anti-cache activity is what artillery is for, insurgents don't have many other stationary positions to take out (the main use of artillery, to take down stationary or semi stationary positions)

[TheLean]

I'm sorry but this seems kinda Pro INS with out helping the Coalition side at all.

The Arty was made to do what your talking about Its made to hit a spot where INF just won't do If you get 2-3 cache in a small zone your going to get arty call down on you.

I would suggest you try and ask the [R-Dev] to make it so two or more cache can't spawn with in a arty strike zone.

Making it to where arty did not kill the cache but giving the INS 1 spot for there full team to be at is not fair as there are no armor or atk heli to support the INF like in real life and would just waste bluefour ticks.

Are you sure you read his entire post? Insurgents blowing up vehicles in main has got to be atleast as big a problem as artillery on caches.

[Dunehunter]

Nick, ease up on the accusations there. Keep this discussion civil.

[snooggums]

Well where do I start, I was playing insurgency today for 4 maps and not once did 2 caches ever get blown up at once by an artillery strike, infact not one cache was destroyed by an artillery strike. I have seen a few caches get blown up by artillery strikes and its only when there is a large amount of troops directly on it.

Were the caches even targeted by artillery? If it isn’t happening when you play, why would you argue against the removal since the removal would not affect your game?

In real life an artillery shell hitting a cash of weapons would destroy it. Caches can be destroyed by anything. Sorry if you think that's bad gameplay but that is just your opinion.

In real life soldiers would still have to move in after the artillery strike to verify that it hit its mark. Currently the mark on the map goes away giving the Coalition new intel without effort. The troops should still have to move in on foot to verify the cache is destroyed, represented in game by throwing an incendiary on it. The remote strike killing the cache is bad game play.

Sorry if you think I am a troll but maybe you should play the game longer and enjoy it I don't see why you are getting so hostile about this.

A self fulfilling sentence, suggesting I should play the game longer is unrelated to the point of the thread and is just intended to get a reaction. I’ve played since .5 like a large portion of the current game population, and since insurgency is newer than that I can say I have played enough to form a solid opinion. As stated earlier I did not come up with this after a game or two, it has been bothering me for months. I'm not being hostile. I have not attacked your gameplay abilities, your length of time playing or anything personal. You have personally questioned the person who has the opposing viewpoint instead of just supporting your own, which makes you the hostile one.

And about the coalition assets losing tickets, your team should be using your assets and guarding there base from attack. If your base gets mortared and all your stuff is in there its your fault. In real life if your base got bombed and all your stuff got destroyed you would still lose the asset, and in the game tickets represent assets so losing tickets in the game is like losing equipment in real life, once you run out of so many tanks/apcs you run out of tickets and have to pull out aka lose the game.

“In reality” the Commander could just not send in new vehicles and they would not magically show up at the main base to be destroyed. As easy as it is to mortar/drive big red into a base that is minimally defended (the troops should mostly be out getting caches after all) idle assets shouldn’t count against the tickets. Playing on organized servers makes this more apparent.

On top of that not all servers are the same so complaining about what happens on one server doesn't mean it happens everywhere so try a new server if you don't like theirs, and attacking the main base in some servers is allowed so making vehicles in main immune to damage would be lame and unrealistic to boot.

I like the organization and the fact that they use the assets to the best of their ability, I'm saying the asset itself (artillery) is being used incorrectly when used well.

I didn’t say that vehicles should be undamaged in main, I said they shouldn’t count for tickets. Please read and comprehend entire posts before commenting.

[nick20404]

Were the caches even targeted by artillery? If it isn’t happening when you play, why would you argue against the removal since the removal would not affect your game?


In real life soldiers would still have to move in after the artillery strike to verify that it hit its mark. Currently the mark on the map goes away giving the Coalition new intel without effort. The troops should still have to move in on foot to verify the cache is destroyed, represented in game by throwing an incendiary on it. The remote strike killing the cache is bad game play.


A self fulfilling sentence, suggesting I should play the game longer is unrelated to the point of the thread and is just intended to get a reaction. I’ve played since .5 like a large portion of the current game population, and since insurgency is newer than that I can say I have played enough to form a solid opinion. As stated earlier I did not come up with this after a game or two, it has been bothering me for months. I'm not being hostile. I have not attacked your gameplay abilities, your length of time playing or anything personal. You have personally questioned the person who has the opposing viewpoint instead of just supporting your own, which makes you the hostile one.

“In reality” the Commander could just not send in new vehicles and they would not magically show up at the main base to be destroyed. As easy as it is to mortar/drive big red into a base that is minimally defended (the troops should mostly be out getting caches after all) idle assets shouldn’t count against the tickets. Playing on organized servers makes this more apparent.


I like the organization and the fact that they use the assets to the best of their ability, I'm saying the asset itself (artillery) is being used incorrectly when used well.

I didn’t say that vehicles should be undamaged in main, I said they shouldn’t count for tickets. Please read and comprehend entire posts before commenting.

Well you don't really know what happens in the real military and how they do there operations, but besides all that there are thousands of things that happen that the game can't emulate. There is only so much realism and the things you are saying just don't make sense for the game. You say all these things about how they would do it in real life, well how they would do it is they would find stashed weapon caches inside people houses usaully with little resistance, they will start the long process of collecting all the weapons and stacking them, then they will call in EOD and have them come blow that **** up, and the process is very long and could take all day to kill one large cache.


Unfortunately the bf2 engine can't handle that kind of realism so the points you bring up are not really valid ones. In the world of bf2 it is realistic and losing tickets in base is realistic, sorry I can't explain that better to you but this aint real life and they are not trying to mirror real life they are trying to make a realistic shooter not a role playing game.

The one thing that I think you are right about is the caches re spawning on top of each other isn't very nice but being that caches spawn randomly its kinda hard to stop it, but maybe if they added a 30 second spawn on the caches it would fix that and give the insurgents time to reorganize.

[llPANCHOll]

I would be happy if the Caches didnt spawn right next to each other as frequently as they do, arty comes down, destroys cache.. new cache spawns right next to it... it goes down too.

[R.J.Travis]

Were the caches even targeted by artillery? If it isn’t happening when you play, why would you argue against the removal since the removal would not affect your game?


In real life soldiers would still have to move in after the artillery strike to verify that it hit its mark. Currently the mark on the map goes away giving the Coalition new intel without effort. The troops should still have to move in on foot to verify the cache is destroyed, represented in game by throwing an incendiary on it. The remote strike killing the cache is bad game play.


A self fulfilling sentence, suggesting I should play the game longer is unrelated to the point of the thread and is just intended to get a reaction. I’ve played since .5 like a large portion of the current game population, and since insurgency is newer than that I can say I have played enough to form a solid opinion. As stated earlier I did not come up with this after a game or two, it has been bothering me for months. I'm not being hostile. I have not attacked your gameplay abilities, your length of time playing or anything personal. You have personally questioned the person who has the opposing viewpoint instead of just supporting your own, which makes you the hostile one.

“In reality” the Commander could just not send in new vehicles and they would not magically show up at the main base to be destroyed. As easy as it is to mortar/drive big red into a base that is minimally defended (the troops should mostly be out getting caches after all) idle assets shouldn’t count against the tickets. Playing on organized servers makes this more apparent.


I like the organization and the fact that they use the assets to the best of their ability, I'm saying the asset itself (artillery) is being used incorrectly when used well.

I didn’t say that vehicles should be undamaged in main, I said they shouldn’t count for tickets. Please read and comprehend entire posts before commenting.

Dude it seems like INS is not for you TEAM WORK & TACTICS.

Calling in a good Arty strike taking out all 3 caches saving your team tickets is the best thing to do.

I think you forgotten INS have UN-Limited INF and light vehicle Support.

All you got to do is defend every cache that's not clustered big wip if you lost 3 caches to a Arty Strike you got six more to defend.

If you can see a chain reaction from the hills as the caches go off you do not need to go in and do a sweep.

All I'm reading is fail logic.

The INS can just as easily drop a arty strike on a Large group of Incoming Bluefour costing them tickets Or do a Arty Strike on a outpost killing it and all its defenders.

I will agree that a new cache should not spawn with in 350m of the last destroyed cache.

P.S

[R-MOD]dunehunter your Sig / text MSG makes me laugh so dam hard every time I see it nice find.