sordavie

I moved my squad between the middle and southern flags as needed. I just told the guys to keep to the eastern side of the hill. We didn't have any trouble from the apc. Someone suggested going over there and C4ing it. That was fine by me, but it really wasn't doing anything to us unless you went over the other side of the hill; and that was unnecessary since we were winning just by holding the middle and southern flags. In the end, we didn't go over to try and destroy it--not worth the effort given that we were winning.

Is it only the GER apc that can shoot over the wall (aside from the Dingo and Dozer)?

__________________

ThaGoat

I'm going to umm interject here on this.
1) Spawn camping = No No!
2) Defense of a flag = Acceptable Tactic!
3) Bad portion of a map design allowing defense tactic to be in view of Spawn = Not that players fault and in fact guys (and I'm not defending the action here.) The whole lane of fire was being utilized by him in a defensive tactic from the farm all the way down to the bridge area. I tried numerous times along that lane to reach him on foot and by armor. He wasnt just concentrating fire on that center flag spawn. But the game design allows a person to spawn at other points also. Other flags or squad leaders (one of the reasons why I like the PR Rally Point spawn method and the basic ability to hide your spawn). Everybody knows the defense tactic at the Wheat Silo. It provides a huge lane of fire on that map size. It provides excellant cover for the vehicles. If he had just been concentrating fire on that one spawn point area, I'd have a prob with it. But utilizing the whole area from the north to the south, IMO I really can't argue the tactic.

Thats the risk of spawning on a flag, you never know whos running by, whos laying there waiting for you, whos scanning the area. I get frustrated when this happens all the time, but I have spawn options to. Get your squad leader in his/her safe position and use them, then work it. You know whats stopping you, so either sneak over and eliminate the problem, or just deny them the chance to target you.

khaerus

The tactic Rockford is talking about, just in case it wasn't clear:

Players can use an APC to fire at several buildings surrounding an enemy CP and get multiple splash-damage kills without engaging the targets directly. Yes, it can/does kill players as they spawn in; no, the targets can't successfully return fire from their positions. The Monastery flag is worst for this...

When I've seen guys do it on the server, it's been used as constant harassment fire (meaning over the course of minutes at a time) and usually accompanied by no special effort to take the target flag, though that's no consolation to the squad tasked with defending that flag. Regardless, I've really only seen it on Green Acres, where the map design makes it possible, moreso than others.

I don't like it especially, and I think the tactic is definitely exploiting map design and mechanics (though I don't think it should be labeled an 'illegal' tactic exactly.) We probably need to discuss it on an admin level, specifically because it does involve indirectly camping spawn points within the CPs radius, whether or not it's a player's intention to do so. That's my opinion as an admin.

As a player, I kind of let out a sigh, and treat it as bad weather: "oh man, it's raining again. I guess we spend this round keeping some joker well-fed over there." Guys want to get their kills, and even if they can't cap a flag with splash damage, they'll annoy the heck out of you.

About this:

Please note that the guys 'crying foul' won the round through some tactical play. They didn't give up their flag, they didn't tuck theirs tails and run away, and they won the round- sounds to me like they have the idea of "tactical combat on this server" down fine.

They were complaining, in fact, about the shelling of a flag with no intention to cap (remember, that's "not a terribly useful tactic," and thus throws itself headlong into a thread discussing tactical play on the server.) It's a fair discussion to have.

__________________


TG Primer--TG FAQs--BF2 Rules/SOPs--TeamSpeak--Admin!

Rick_Slick

Khaerus, I respectfully disagree.

I wasn't there, but I interpret that ParkBench was implying that his forces WERE attacking that center flag, thus the suppression fire. So there was intent to cap. Even if there wasn't, the more people on the opposing team that are tied up, spawning in under heavy fire instead of spawning in somewhere more useful, the easier it is for the rest of his team to capture and defend the other flags on the map. Simple tactics... get your enemy to unwisely commit his forces to a no-win situation to cause opportunity elsewhere on the map.

The 'victim' team in question had other options and chose not to take them. Yes, they still won the round in spite of their poor tactical decisions regarding that flag, but I don't see a reason why they are crying foul over their own decisions under fire.

khaerus

I'm not sure I can make the point any more clear, but the forces wisely committed to defending that flag held it and won the round, in the midst of the "no-win" situation- It would have been a worse idea, tactically, to leave the flag to the other team. Tactically, the continuous splash-damage fire was not enough to drive the defenders from their positions. The team firing that splash-damage lead should have, perhaps, changed their tactics to actually win the CP, but chose to continue firing for those kills- and yeah, that can be frustrating when you're the target.

Part of what was frustrating to the OP was the fact that the guy firing the splash damage called the tactic "playing defense." A little rub, I know, and not anything to get riled up about, but that kind of indicates an intention to simply annoy and harass the other team, rather than specifically cap the flag. Which is, of course, exactly what happened: annoy, harass, no cap. And that's exactly what the OP wants to talk about: he does not agree that that's much of a valid tactic, or much fun for anyone but the guy playing 'Space Invaders' with the APC.

Oh, man, everybody's gonna be running for those positions next time that map comes up, I can see it now...

__________________


TG Primer--TG FAQs--BF2 Rules/SOPs--TeamSpeak--Admin!

FBmantis

We need to redirect this conversation because the accusations need to stop. I watched the BR file of this round in its entirety. I did not see a single spawnkill and zero intent to spawncamp. This was a case of a superior defensive position used to surpress/negate traffic lanes of approach. Most of the time said player was supporting infantry movements as well.

Yes it is an amazing spot and you can not kill him at range. That is the beauty of superior positioning and the lunacy of continuously putting yourself in harms way to a known threat. Lets change this topic to Green Acres gameplay dynamics.

__________________

Rick_Slick

I'm not sure what gameplay dynamics there are to discuss on this map. Same as any other map...

1) Some flags have more strategic value than others: The flag where the APC parked and has that level of protection and field of fire is a strategic point of high value, so adjust flag capturing priorities appropriately. There are many other flags of high strategic value on maps that we apply this concept to (i.e. Factory for USMC on Karkand in Vanilla BF2). Common sense.

2) Don't spawn in under heavy fire: If you are spawning in on a flag that's under fire, maybe it would be better to spawn elsewhere so you remain alive long enough to move in and eliminate the threat from a different angle of attack. Just like you would if someone's bombarding one of your flags with arty. Again, common sense.

Namebot

Anyone who watches the record file can see that attackers on the flag nearest the apc when identified were made priority targets, everything else was a target of opportunity.

The apc can be(and in fact was hit multiple times during that round) in the position it was in. Granted it is made much more difficult, but that is the point of using cover. If this is a problem then it should be addressed as a map issue and not as a player issue.

When you consider the ability of the apc to use the walls to great affect, you should also consider how the map plays as a whole. My experience has been that the US is at a disadvantage on this map as they can lose their armor spawns which are spread out over every flag. The wheat silo flag is the only one which contains 2 and along with the center town flag is the most defensible. This makes it "the" flag to hold. If it is lost the US forces will continually lose ground until they are capped out or regain this flag. Every other flag gives equal or greater ability for UKR to bring their armor to bear.

As noted UKR still won quite handily.

This particular aspect certainly could be changed, but if it is then UKR would be at a larger disadvantage without further tweaking. Also note that this aspect is present on other maps as well.

__________________

ThaGoat

Thus the cabbage has mind controlz on ur brainz!!!

Its good to see points made, comments made. Makes me proud to run with you guys, cuz u can discuss in a issue without calling names.....And thats what makes us uber l33t fantastical umm thingie peoples....

KuDoS to you all.........

WhiskeySix

My two cents:

$0.01: "Killing lots of baddies" is tactically sound. The game is about reducing your opponents tickets, and in some circumstances you can harvest more tickets killing defenders than you would get if you capture it and get bleed. The counter to this tactic is either to hold spawn, spawn elsewhere, or stay behind cover.

$0.01: We should all remember to keep overall gameplay in mind... For example, on Yalta 16, I've seen one team get both APC's - 8 infantry going against 6 infantry plus 2 Heavy APC's... there, there was literally no counter... no room to flank and no alternative flags at which to spawn.

__________________




Reflexes are for mistakes only. Reaction implies surprise. Be surprised less.

Faust

I lean towards the idea that in war games, there should be as few rules as possible. It's war aftrer all right?

But if we are going to have rules then they need to be fairly adhered to - and I believe that some of our regular players may need to reconsider the difference between suppressive fire\supporting fire\and spawn camping.

Although I was not impacted by the events Rockford brought up - I believe I have been repeatedly killed when spawning in by heavy vehicles not closing in to take the point. I call that that spawn camping, unless they are clearly laying cover for an infantry assault. If there are no attacking infantry - or the accompanying infantry chose to lay outside and shoot in - then that is spawn camping too right?

When I read comments about suppressive fire with the intent of discouraging opponents from spawning in - that sounds like spawn camping is a legitmate tactic here.


The rules are too vague for me to clearly interpret. Can one of our Admins please clarify?

Here is what the TG BF2 rules say:

Spawn Camping
On our BF2 server, spawn camping is not permitted.

"Spawn camping" requires a certain INTENT. To spawn camp, it must be your INTENT to EXPLOIT a player's post-spawn lack of orientation while attacking that player. You are sitting (camp), waiting to attack a player immediately after he enters gameplay (spawn). This is spawn camping, and it is not allowed on Tactical Gamer's BF2 server.

jb4

This is when you need to split the hair and the conversation goes one direction or another. I was in the town squad for the entire round. The term "spawn camping" was thrown around in VOIP out of frustration by some. If you want to go by definitions, it absolutely was not spawn camping since everybody could spawn in safely and gain their orientation. If you went to the side of the point where the APC was parked in plain view, you would face some suppressive fire especially in all of the areas on the bridge side where enemy troops were crossing to attack. If you stayed away, the APC could not touch you. In the OP, the question may have been more of "is that a fair way to play it and is that how we want to do it at TG?" We will all have a different opinion on that one.

I have played several rounds on this map and Wheat Silo is a must have point for the US. In almost every round I have played, vehicles sit behind the wall and do the exact same thing. This was not a first, it was more like a 59th. If there is a complaint to be made, question the map dynamics, height of the wall, coverage of vehicle turrets, etc. Was this part of the devs plan? Is it supposed to be this way or is it just chance? Did they have an idea of how that would play out in the game? How does that fit with the TG style of play? Fair questions for discussion.

When it comes to tactics, the decision to stay and defend in light of the suppressive fire was the right thing to do. The SL made all the right choices and in the end the UKR won. Spawn camping, tactical choices and map dynamics are all every different topics. All of the people involved are solid guys and clearly it became a little frustrating but we need to separate the issues here because when it all gets lumped together it is unfair to both points of view. IMO, this is about map dynamics.

__________________



POE2 Overview|BF2v Server Rules|Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising

rockford_69

sorry i was just asking if it was Tg or not. everyone made great points and yes if we could kill it we would have..
but there is no way to get a rocket over that wall to get a hit.
the idea about changing the wall is the best i think if it can be done...

like i said before in my badly laid out post lol..... I did not mean it against anyone more as a way to bring up a way to fix this... it is a bad spot to be able to just sit there and shoot on a flag...

If there was a way to kill it then we would have a fighting chance against it...
i was even getting hit on the back sides of the houses out of the firing lanes in behind cover...


Thanks for all your guys input on this.

RockFord

Iamthefallen

Hang on a second though... we, as a squad, never made a concerted effort in taking the APC out.

Maybe the wall should be changed, I just think that first we should at least try to take it out before declaring it impossible.

__________________



| Wearing the TG tags | Reporting infractions | How to get started with PoE |

[tR]Greasy_mullet

Just to give some perspective on the map design, that wall was placed there to give a "defensive" advantage as the rest of the flags tend to favor Ukraine. It also gives the Allies a good staging area to attack the next 2 closest flags which the person in the APC was doing. If somebody is causing that much chaos, then I highly recomend that you dedicate some team resources to go after them.

Also these what are "spawn camping" posts come up kind of often. Personally I see it as when you are backed into a corner with no place else to spawn. If you are at a forward flag trying to hold it, it is a very valid tactic to shell the piss out of that flag and make the defending team PAY!

__________________
Leet Ninjaish Sniper/Pilot