Morganan

Err, you do realize that TG is one of the 2 or 3 US servers, so of course it's going to be highly populated by the small PR community.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only person who should be able to "ignore" the AAS messages is the commander. Squad leaders aren't supposed to think strategically, just tactically. Rounds without a commander on either side should be fights between contested flags and cutting off reinforcements headed to those area's. Nobody should be anywhere but where the AAS system tells them to be, or where the CO orders them to be.

That's "reality" from any military perspective.

Think of SM's as the privates/corporals.
Think of SL's as the lieutenant.
The AAS system as the captain.
The commander as the major.

Then there is a clear chain of command. Without a commander, the AAS system determines what is in-play, and what isnt. With a commander, he decides. (UCB's notwithstanding)


There you have it.

Paul386

Well, the guy who MADE 7 Gates disagrees with you. He said that the maps were DESIGNED for such tactics.

[R-DEV]Rhino - Lead Mapper

"yes this is what is ment to be done with AAS, part of most map designs is to do these sort of things"

In response to me saying:

"Although all of these tactics "violate" the AAS, they all seem to be actual tactical gameplay. In reality, a force would do such things as attacking enemy supply lines and attempt to secure a flag before it is the main objective.

However, many service prohibit this (Tactical Gamer for one), which I find ironic because they call themselves "Tactical."

What do people have to say about the legitimacy of such tactics?"

Morganan

None of the maps are made with balance or really any true military thinking in mind. So his ideas about how a map should be played "in reality" are about as worthwhile as a 3 year idea's on good stocks. A stupid little busted out town isn't valuable in military thinking unless roads converge there. A hilltop with good sight-lines and good cover is more valuable to a military force then some busted out bunker alongside a single road with basically no armor present for either side.

Maybe you should explain to the mapper what tactical means. He is describing a strategic mindset, certainly not a tactical one. The AAS system is a strategic one, it lays out the overall strategy forces should employ to take the CP's on a map. Go here, cap this point, then defend it or attack this one. Tactics are how you go about achieving the given objectives. That means do you use snipers, assault in 2's, lay down smoke, call in air-support before you attack, lay down suppressive fire then assault, etc. A strategic mindset has people going to cut off reinforcements to an area, mine strategic road networks, jump "a CP ahead", etc. The commander should be the only person thinking strategically, not squad leaders or even squad members. The commanders job is to lay out a strategy to help his/her team win the map, the rest of the teams job is to follow the commanders orders to the best of their ability.

It's why I firmly believe only commanders should be able to order squads to do anything other then what the AAS system tells them to do.

Gahlas

If you are not at a main you can do that stuff...

As long as you are not attacking the last flag or the UCB there isn't a problem. How many flags are there normally? 6? 7? You can't attack 2 of them, that leaves all the other spots open for your supply line attacks etc. It doesn't sound like you are missing out on anything other then a high probability of spawn killing and all the other great reasons explained in the rules and numerous other threads/disscussions about UCB rule justification.

It is all very clear to me. Don't attack the last flag. You are not missing out on anything that would just cause problems 99.9% of the time.

Tempus summed it up pretty clearly. You can do what you like at bases other than mains, or final flags. Just don't spawn camp. No rethinking needed.

I am confused what you are getting at here... perhaps you should read the rules and see things a bit better.

GangreneDST

Just to be clear, attack or move to wherever as long as the uncap base is not being attacked. I can move my squad two flags ahead (as long as it is not the uncap) if I think my team is in a good position to take those two flags without my squad.

As long as this is the rule, I will instruct new players on the server accordingly. I have been incorrectly telling players on the server that it is against TG rules to attack the next base until the one before it is at least gray. This is what I was told by squad leaders I respect and I definitely have not been alone on the server with this incorrect understanding.

This could alter strategy quite a bit. A commander could have Alpha and Beta squads engaging objective one. Meanwhile Delta squad is double timing it to objective two. Just before objective one is gray, delta can move in a clear enemy resistance at two. The enemy sees the gray flag on objective one and organizes a counterattack on objective one. Alpha squad digs in to defend objective one while Beta double times it to objective three. The counterattack may crush Alpha squad, but it is too late. Delta has taken objective two. By the time the enemy gets to objective two, three is taken... In other words, the enemy can be outmaneuvered by a smaller force.

The reason I want to be clear it that if I maneuver my squad ahead, I want to know I'm not breaking the letter or the intent of the TG server rules. Not just for my sake but for all the new people I may end up advising.

2 Para

In terms of actual squad play, 2142 and many other FPS based games are completely unreal, evident merely with the way that people fight when engaging others. In a battle soldiers wouldn't just bimble around with whoever it would be a lot more co-ordinated. For example in a firefight it would be good if soldiers spaced themselves out instead of all rushing into a tiny confined space, soon to all be killed by some nade spamming noob.

Paul386

Okay, thankyou for clearing it up. It appears that the TG rules allow us to use these tactics. However, not all TG admins seem to be following the TG rules? Because I was told I would be kicked for doing something that is within TG rules.

fuzzhead

Morganan: the problem with only commanders thinking strategically is that Ive yet to see a commander truly think 'strategically', on either TG server or others.

Squad Leaders that think strategic are usually the ones leading the battle. Its very rare to get a good commander and even rarer to get a good commander with good squad leaders who all listen to the commanders strategic plan.

Hopefully at one point this will happen though

Morganan

There-in lies where my current issues with the mod stem. The mod is made for the type of play I described, yet it plays out more like how you describe.

I have no answers to get it to play how we both probably want in a public setting with no time to lay out a basic strategy and make adjustments based on the players taking part in the game. I bet in an organized "match" with 12, 24 or 32 people on a side who want to play together as a team this mod has the type of gameplay everyone who has ever competed in a battlefield match could only previously dream of. (myself included) In unfortunately what is normal pubbie play, you just hope the people in your squad/team aren't morons that make you want to scream.

I have honestly found (no offense intended to anyone in particular) that most people who use these "forward missions" not related directly to commander orders or the AAS system more times then not hurt their team in the long run and don't help them without simply spawn-camping the generic spawns which just proves they can kill helpless people and not play the game in the style you guys are trying to create.

Ghost Dog

Quoted from the BF2 Rules & Guidelines
Obviously this rule creates a lot of confusion. Destroying RP 's is not included in the restricted acts because I assume they were none existing at that time. It does clearly state though that you should only be there to destroy enemy assets. Question is, can a Rally Point (not created by a SL) be seen as an enemy asset and is it allowed be attacked inside a UCB/TUCB? If this is the case, expect to see a lot of spawnkilling...

Maybe the admins should gather and rewrite this part so there is less confusion .

__________________

Xfire: Iaintyourm8 | Ingame: |TG| GhostDog | Steam: Zuigmijnballen

Nominate a player | Support the community | List of admins

Sabre_Tooth_Tigger

In the past Ive destroyed these base rally points on maps such as pheonix but on 7 gates its fairly pointless I think. THeres a dozen of them spread around the base for convenience, you wont stop people spawning at that base like on pheonix.


Also theres an AA gun at chinese ucb that fires on the next flag, planting c4 on that is valid I guess though a rocket fired on it would be quicker to do.


Also on basra I'd consider going behind lines and destroying spawn cars as valid but we dont play AAS any more just insurgency and in theory the brits own the entire map anyway so everything is their turf to play on as they wish though the insurgents still get tons of vehicles at palace - I would destroy all those personally (in the apache it would be easy and quick to do)



Bunkers at flags including ucb earn tickets, so destroying those has a purpose ,again giving a reason to attack a ucb. The purpose should be the bunkers destruction and I still disagree with occupying the ucb or the roads leading from it.
It should be an attack as part of the campaign, not a campaign of ucb attacks, ie. rp just outside of a ucb

I did realise in beta that the devs definetly have different ideas on ucb attacks to the TG rules but on the other hand they also seem to believe in a fair fight

__________________

fuzzhead

yea really need to re-write your rules as PR is getting further and further away from BF2 in terms of commander assets...

no more vanilla artillery, now we have new bunkers and firebases that have many strategic value such as:
-Kit Request Location
-Spawn Location
-Ammo Resupply for Infantry and Vehicles
-Defense Position
-Ability to place further defnses around these positions
-Ticket generation

So destroying a bunker can and does have a lasting impact on the enemy team.

As well as bunkers, the following other things now have strategic importance to destroy (unlike vanilla bf2)

- Command Trailer (if destroyed unable to build any more commander assets)
- AA Guns (they no longer respawn and can be placed around the map with the commander so destroying them is of importance to friendly aircraft)
- Razorwire (Can block areas for infantry access and are obstacles that should be cleared to allow faster movement)
- TOW positions (now take a long time to respawn so destroying them is meaningful, as well you cannot use an enemy TOW position so keeping them around is bad idea)

BigGaayAl

Fuzzhead, the only structure usually in the base now is the command post. I can hear the excuses now: "I wanted to bomb the command post in the ucb when I accidentally shot the jets sitting on the runway and the rest of their infantry..."

Yesterday I heard this excuse. One guy was shot when he spawned at the attack chopper, the enemy said "Hey they were shooting at us". LOL. Have one guy on the airfield shoot at you, then kill them all...


I don't see why the devs don't make a choice between:
1) AASv2 = front lines. It was designed to create front lines, and the impression of the larger battle. The front-line is were it's at, you have no business "destroying asse(t)s

2) Baseraping: Scrap all the flags, just use bunkers and two main bases. You decide where you make your "flag"=bunker. Then you can keep a squad back to defend your base, as would be REALISTIC (opposed to the bases with a few defenceless infantry in it waiting for their kit). It will be TDM but hey if that is what people want?

3) Insurgency: doesn't have a problem with the whole issue.

*In general mappers should put the LAST FLAG ON HIGHER GROUND!
This is the biggest problem of Al Kuffrah. A last flag with height allows you to push back instead of the 15min massacre. The mec base on Zatar is the way it should be done

*On thinking strategically. The last time I tried this as a CO, Tim AFsoccer (on PWnight) said he and his friends had run into me before and proceeded to call me an "idiot". He is still playing yet was reported through the chat ...I know I'm lazy.

At the moment, TG doesn't have enough active PR players to effectively run the command structure. The only one that really gets this done is Santa when he is co. It worked better in vanilla.
The general PR squad leader thinks he is ...well the general. All PR players are much smarter tactically and strategically, that seems to be exactly why they don't follow your orders. They think they know better, yet won't give you good advice over voip even. The thing is also, they probably do know better, as you only have a stupid 2D map as info while they have the 3d environment. The squad doesn't need the CO for info, it is the other way around. Face it, the CO is just Bob the Builder now, not much more at all.

Possible fix: GIVE CO DISCIPLINARY POWERS! Deserters will be shot etc. I don't know how, but the CO needs this power.

__________________
Support your right to arm bears. ~Cleveland Amory

I am a kind of paranoiac in reverse. I suspect people of plotting to make me happy. ~J.D. Salinger

Sabre_Tooth_Tigger

If the commander could kick a SL from their own squad that'd get their attention

Also its not just the command post at UCB, it doesnt happen often but the CO can build a bunker there and it gets something like 5 tickets every 10 mins which over a 3 hour game would be 90 extra tickets for the team

__________________

asch

Can you elaborate a bit on this? What changes should we be looking at?

Based on your post, I'm guessing we need to clarify if CO placed objects are considered CO assets.

__________________
| My Maps

Gaming Videos by Tactical Gamers

Fear the Frog! | Kill the Frog! | An Inconvenient Truth

"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." -- Tactical Gamer Primer