pwn3ge106

Tonight, me and a few people i've made nice with were in a squad on fools road, as militia. so, a freind goes up to the british bridge at the end of the round (<15 left), and blows it with a C4 To stop their vehicles, but then people whined and said it was base rape... Is this true? I could so picture somone doing this in real life to stop the enemy, and doesnt tactical gamer lean towards tactics?
(I was on the tactical gamer server)

TeflonDon

I missed the very begginning so I didnt see that instance. I was commander during the game. The bridge got blown up like every 4 minutes the whole time. It was a ROYAL pain in the ass.

That's perfectly legit.

It was just at the end, when I was told the tank was approaching main, and I look up and see it and it shoots at me that I typed "enemy tank in mine". Then the tank dropped off or supported the sapper and moved on.

__________________

TerribleOne

I'm not an administrator by any means, but from a layman this is a legit tactic. Make the other side think a little before advancing. My two cents.

Ferris Bueller

So long as you werent camping the bridge with HAT or specifically waiting for vehicles exiting the main to be on the bridge to blow it, I see the tactic as being perfectly legal and no different than going in and repeatedly blowing up a command post at a UCB (or anywhere else for that matter). It should fall under destruction of assets.

Now, if you were camping the base in any fashion (i.e. directly attacking vehicles/troops exiting the base) then you're out of line.

__________________
|TG-6th|Ferris Bueller

TeflonDon

They werent attacking the actual base at all, but at points they were waiting just over the bridge. Very debilitating, and a huge tactical advantage if they are always as good at it as they were today. I saw Eol's name blink at one point after I died there, was that your squad?

__________________

msdz

OK, my opinion is that if it is stopping the onslaught of enemy from advancing then it should be ok. As long as the person is NOT in the base actually killing anybody then it is not base raping. So, that would mean they would cry if a person ran in and destroyed any assets that may be in the base before the base is actually capturable. I have seen this a lot lately where people automatically start crying when a soldier is actually just attempting to destroy CO assets. Aother thing along this line is when the team has 2 or 3 squads overlooking a point in the road before the enemy can get to a flag to cap it while one squad is actually defending/capping the flag. The enemy team will say they are out of line for doing so. I do not see how this would be out of line when they are defending the squad that is trying to cap or defend the fllag to begin with.

__________________

Ferris Bueller

Thats absolutely right. The only caveat is we try and keep a gentlemen's agreement that there's a little bit of a buffer zone around the UCB at which people are technically safe, so we dont get instances of people being 100m out from the UCB and getting capped, while the offender says "i'm not baseraping, they're not in the base". But blowing a bridge to stop traffic is just fine. If the other team isnt smart enough to wipe out one squad thats blowing a bridge and preventing their forward momentum, thats their problem.

__________________
|TG-6th|Ferris Bueller

.:CMD:.torenico

Blowing the bridges i totally realistic, they stpo the british reinforcements, and the militia leave, and have a IMPORTANT strategic adventage, using the RPG/ Sappers and using TACTICALLY the T55 (oh the little car of milita, they call it APC) will destroy the remain british forces on the area, (and georgia) and seting up a defence all over the river, they will won =D

AFsoccer

I have to disagree to some extent. The bridge you guys are talking about is the only way out of the British UCB. It is similar to placing mines at the exit of the Chinese UCB on Qwai River, and I know I've heard server admins say that was against server rules.

__________________
|TG-6th| AFsoccer

Catraphact

There must have been a reason to make the Bridge the only way out of the British UCB. Surely, this is deliberate. This begs the question, was this tactic intended?

Sabre_Tooth_Tigger

This is a grey area imo, ie. its easy to step over the line and end up camping a ucb which aint right

Ambushing an ucb or traffic from it is not on imo. So if you plant mines or blow up the bridge, leave for 5 mins.
Dont just wait there till they repair and go back and blow it up, actually leave and do something else before returning


If you activately attack traffic leaving a ucb wait till they reach their first flag. The exception would be if you are capturing that first flag and are killing reinforcements, you then have a legitimate interest

If you mine a UCB road, dont mine their exits directly.
What distance is fair? Personally I would say 60/40 towards the next flag, so plant mines closer to the first flag then to the ucb


Anyway you should read the server rules yourself

__________________

WWII German infantry weapons in detail

<1sk>Headshot

Hm, this is going to be like the 'don't hide inside citadel if it's uncappable' rules.

UberJ

Guys, the bridge is destructible for a reason. Just look at the servers name "Tactical Gamer", saying this is against the rules is completely going against what the server name implies as it is obviously a tactic that would be used in any similar situation irl.

IRS_Agent

I was the person in question putting C4 on the bridge.

I swam across the river, put on the C4, and blew the bridge. The action was kind of natural to do because that bridge was probably the most strategic asset on the map. I understand how this could be abused and turn into camping, but I doubt that would happen very easily. I don't understand how this could be so hating because the bridge is easy enough to defend from this kind of attack; one man at either end of the bridge could easily stop an enemy engineer from planting or having enough time to arm the C4. I understand this tactic is a nuisance but that is the intention; it's a tactical nuisance.

__________________
The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving.



I
#83 of 213 things you cannot do in the army.
83. Must not start any SITREP (Situation Report) with "I recently had an experience I just had to write you about...."

ZaBoo

Is this from earlier this afternoon? We were playing this earlier today and heres how the battle was (at least from my POV). It was pretty much an even game, both teams had two flags under control and hilltop estate was the one flag that was venturing sides.

Soon enough our team realized that there were TWO T62's camping at the village flag smoking anything that attempted to cross the bridge. As squad rally points started to go down (and comm bug took out any asset support) we were all suppressed by these two tanks until we whinnied them back to a distance so we could advance.

Extremely advantageous to the militia as the British do not have much to fight back with - Except for 2 toned down HAT kits.

You can't really compare this to most maps as this is the only one with such an extreme destructible choke point 100-150?m from UCB. -1 rep for the British setting up a horrid HQ.

I think that bridge should be treated as an asset, blow it up and bug out. Normally parking a tank a few flags ahead outside an HQ is frowned upon.