Well while I do tend to agree and implement a bleed strategy most times I do have to play devil's advocate here for just a tick.

First while this defensive strategy is the easiest, shortest route to victory, that has never been why I play TG. I play for the tactics. And whether I have bleed or not, I like to employ the most enjoyable tactic(re: coordinated, often sophisticated, always more challenging). When my team secures the third flag, I think about the most fulfilling tactic to contribute to victory even if it is not necessarily the most expedient.

And for me that means fancy ambushes and defense in depth rather than WWI-era static defense in place. To me, it is like nails on a chalk board to sedentarily watch a vacant front from the flag. It makes zero sense why that uncontested 50 meters should be given to the enemy for free when the defense could be setup there. Then it has somewhere to fallback to if it is overrun, has time to call for reinforcements, etc. etc.

This is just more fun to me than exploiting the hard-coded and arbitrary advantage of bleed. And more fun than exploiting the fact that this mod simplifies it further by often giving you fewer CPs necessary to inflict bleed and therefore a much easier time defending the bleed-causing territory since it's only 3 CPs. That allows you to occupy all three simultaneously with enough force defend them rather than patrol them like in vanilla. Call me a camper-hater, but damn if this doesn't seem like individual camping of a game engine advantage wrote large on a team-wide level. I mean obviously all you have to do is sit on those three flags to leverage a tremendous advantage over the enemy.

So my question is if you have a short cut to victory that eliminates the need for enjoyable tactical panache, be it bunny-hopping or totally passive bleed defense, why on earth would you inflict such joyless boredom on yourselves. I realize the raw running and gunning is nearly as good on defense as on offense, but it seems like the bleed advantage lets you be gluttonously lazy in the amount of tactical execution needed to succeed.

Honestly on a gut level it even seems like bad sportsmanship in a game on the public server seeing how it's not a match in a league. But on a more concrete and articulate level, it seems to fly in the face of why we come to TG. Static defenses were conclusively no longer part of a "near-simulation environment" when the first panzers rolled across Europe. When those same panzers stalled during the Russian 'scorched earth' retreat. When Marines landed at Inchon.

Remember while winning is our primary goal it is certainly not at the exclusion of much else, least of all tactics. So when ABRA's squad beats you to crash site and promptly rushes off to raise Cain elsewhere, often with less success, let it be said at he and his squad's funeral, that they died tactically :P

Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine, regardless of the level of advantage, if any, it gives over the opposing team.