objective of S&D

[Reaperassault]

The current victory conditions of S&D are to
attackers: plant the bomb and have it explode or kill the other team
defenders: no plant with in the time limit, defuse within the time limit, or eliminate the other team

Is killing the other team the priority or planting, because if we have both it seems like there is a good chance of S&D turning into team deathmatch without respawns

[|SOG| Vir2L]

Planting is the priority, ofcourse....... even though sometimes it doesn't play out that way.

We need to keep informing players to stick to their roles and objectives.

[Clodhopper]

Like Vir2l said, planting is priority, while defending the objectives are also top priority.

I get a bit anal when I see someone moving along on his own, hunting down the other team. To me, that would be an objective if we were playing Team Deathmatch, but we aren't.

Defenders should be sticking near their objectives and ensuring nobody on the attacking team gets NEAR it... not sneaking off and rubbing out the other team. Same goes for attacking team, sticking together and making sure that bomb goes off... not sneaking off to rub out the other team.

That's not to say I don't appreciate it when a round ends with one team eliminated. Usually we end up having some really intense firefights and the game ends with a team eliminated while fighting for an objective... that I like to see!

But to get back to it here, you're exactly right. If folks start playing secret agent man, or hunter... or whatever you want to call that, we may as well just be playing TDM with no respawns... and what fun is that?

Winning conditions are as you say;
Attacking team wins if;

• Bomb is planted and goes off
• Defending team is eliminated

Defending team wins if;

• Bomb is defused
• time runs out
• Attacking team is eliminated

[westyfield]

So is Search and destroy just sabotage without respawns?

[CouponClippr]

Originally Posted by westyfield

So is Search and destroy just sabotage without respawns?

No, because both teams can't be offense in the same round. There is only one possible attacking team and one defending team.

[sc1ence]

If there are no respawns, then total team annihilation should be one available branch of the tactical descision tree - even from the outset of the match.

If the attacking team takes their sweet time getting to the objective there is no reason to sit around and wait. the maps are not that big. You KNOW roughly where they are, why not go hunt them down if they are just going to wait around for their forward running rambos to soften the defense?

If you have voip, and the defenders are defending, why not send your best twitch guy out to hunt down the team? It makes perfect tactical sense. We are not all pawns on the chessboard, and there are LOTS of ways to win a chess match. Bring out the queen early by sending a twitch guy to flank and hunt down the bomb planters. He can act as a scout.

have 1 guy defend each plant point and send the rest on a surprise flanking attack.

another scenerio, 1 guy left defending. 1 bomber that just planted and then hid. Rather than run up and defuse - leading to sure death, he sneaks around to find the planter, then kills them.


the game often seems very predictable, the defense camps and the offense slowly moves in. There is no room for creative tactics if the defense is supposed to only camp its objectives.

[Aruncado]

Everyone is making valid points. I just believe there is a fine line between flanking or clearing an area and hunting. You are supposed to play the objective and in S&D that is to either plant the bomb or stop the other team from planting the bomb. If you happen to kill the entire team while trying to accomplish either goal, then the round will end before the planting or explosion. However, you ended it early while trying to accomplish the primary objective.

Here is a scenario:

You have a seven man team and are on defense. You put three guys on defense at each location and send your last man out to harass the opposing team on their approach.

At this point guy number seven is by definition hunting. Though it can be argued he is hunting to forward the cause of stopping the enemy bomb planter or hunting to discover which bomb site the team is heading to in order for his team to better defend... he is still hunting.

A little later in the game site A gets under fire and over voip the call goes out that A is under attack. Everyone at site B leaves and takes an indirect route to site A around the back of the map to flank from the direction of the assault. They catch the planting team in a pincer maneuver and wipe them out.

This is where I feel we need some clarification. Part of me wants to say that this is also hunting. However, it can also be viewed as an intelligent tactical decision to flank an enemy. I guess it just a left over reflex from 2142 but moving through an enemy spawn area seems wrong. I understand that this is a different game that will require different mindsets and rules... thats why we have these kind of discussions though. At what point does flanking become hunting?

I know I'm no expert, game officer, admin, etc., etc. I honestly don't even have that much time in CoD4 (I'm only up to rank 31). I don't mean to offend anyone or start a fight. I am just asking questions in order to better understand how to play CoD4 the TG way. I <3 TG!

[=Sarc=]

For TG servers, I'd expect that the top priority is to plant the bomb/defend the objective. Eliminating all opposition should be a possibility but probably not one often used. At the beginning of the round, the teams are even and I would think attackers would be probing to figure out the best course of action and defenders would be defending the objective. Unless it's some sort of blitz tactic to gain positional superiority quickly, going on hard offensive from the beginning is TDM.

[jmaker]

I guess it just a left over reflex from 2142 but moving through an enemy spawn area seems wrong.

Once the round starts the entire map is fair game. You only get to spawn in once, so I don't feel that moving through their area where the opposing team initially spawns in at is wrong.

So let me get this straight. Moving while killing people = hunting, and stationary while killing people = camping? Let's just all kit up with RPGs and shoot at buildings hoping cinderblocks fall on people's heads. I thought the objective was to plant/defuse the bomb and kill the opposing team.

So if there's one person left on our side and he's trying to defend both sites, and somehow 1 or 2 players on the opposing side manages to plant the bomb, I sure as hell am not going to beeline straight to the bomb. What am I going to do is to quickly find the rest of their players and take them down. Please do not make a rule stating where you can only 'hunt' players after X number of players are already dead.

How can you even call it hunting when the maps are so small? I would think of hunting as going completely out of your way to kill an opposing player. There's no 'completely out of the way' on these maps.

Bottom line, I agree with sc1ence. Wherever you get killed on the map is irrelevant. If you're helping with the objective and killing the opposing team then great. Even if you're only trying to kill the opposing team, then you're still helping your team. I don't see what the big deal is. This is still a first person shooter.

[|SOG| Vir2L]

I agree withjmaker^^

I got yelled at the other night for "fox-hunting", yet is was apart of our defensive strategy that round to flank the enemy. Well, a few of the "flankers" were taken out and I continued on and eliminated the other team. I then felt the wrath of the other team at the end of the round. They didn't agree with our strategy, and said I shouldn't move past the objective at any point "and if you ever do it again on my server... blah blah blah." I found that quite rude. When did people stop being civil.... things have changed a bit around here.

I started to wonder if I was actually doing something agaist the TG ruleset, because I thought it was a legit tactic because a few of us, on my team agreed on it, but it seems that there were a few players on the other team that were a little pissed off becasue they were flanked, and started yelling out "NO FOX-HUNTING!"

I've been playing on TG for 4 years... starting with Ghost Recon... and then moving to the CoD series.... and have never been yelled at for something like that, until this game came out.

So obviously there is a fine line between fox-hunting and flanking the enemy, depending on who you are. We need to define that for future encounters.

[=Sarc=]

Originally Posted by |SOG| Vir2L

I agree withjmaker^^

I got yelled at the other night for "fox-hunting", yet is was apart of our defensive strategy that round to flank the enemy. Well, a few of the "flankers" were taken out and I continued on and eliminated the other team. I then felt the wrath of the other team at the end of the round. They didn't agree with our strategy, and said I shouldn't move past the objective at any point "and if you ever do it again on my server... blah blah blah." I found that quite rude. When did people stop being civil.... things have changed a bit around here.

I started to wonder if I was actually doing something agaist the TG ruleset, because I thought it was a legit tactic because a few of us, on my team agreed on it, but it seems that there were a few players on the other team that were a little pissed off becasue they were flanked, and started yelling out "NO FOX-HUNTING!"

I've been playing on TG for 4 years... starting with Ghost Recon... and then moving to the CoD series.... and have never been yelled at for something like that, until this game came out.

So obviously there is a fine line between fox-hunting and flanking the enemy, depending on who you are. We need to define that for future encounters.

I don't see anything wrong with what your team did. If this was on the TG server, there isn't a rule about pushing a flank. It's quite a viable tactic to push a flank and either crush the opposition or force them into the other half of your team that's defending the other flank.

Establishing a tactical position past the halfway point of the map is much better than staying behind the objective. Then it's up to the team to decide whether it's better to wait for the enemy to make a move or to push on the enemy.

For the attacking team, I would say planting is better than eliminating the other team. It puts pressure on the defenders to move instead of hide. Although, attempting a bomb plant requires the team to ensure the area is safe.

For the defending team, it's better to hide and let the opposing team do the moving. The first goal should be elminating the other side. This would be better than waiting for the attackers to plant and winning by defusal.

[jex]

What's the point of playing an objective based game and then ignoring the objectives lol? You may as well just play death match. I always go for the objective on S&D. If people aren't, why are they playing here?

As for moving up, if you can't protect your flanks then suffer the consequences. Fox hunting? If it's part of the defending teams plan to push up and flank then they suffer the consequences of loosing defenders on the bomb. Both sides can do either tactic so what's the problem here - can somebody please explain?

[ANGELofDEATH]

Agreed, why play S&D if you are not going to play the objective.. I dont play S&D very often because of the "hunter" game a lot of players get into.

[kin3]

Always protect your flank. That just makes for good strategy. I've played games where we forget this and get owned. But next round you can be sure there will be somebody watching.

[|SOG| Vir2L]

Glad to hear that some of you agree with that.

So.. my understanding is:
The attacking team should be heading for the objective, no foxhunting.... the defending team can do whatever is necessary to stop the other team from planting, which involves flanking sometimes (which is foxhunting to some people, especially if you kill the opposition). lol

I'm hoping I don't get yelled at anymore for doing it.

Guard your flanks!!