Cheap or tactical? - Page 2

**Sabre_Tooth_Tigger** · 09-03-2007, 05:44 PM

I'd leave any chinese squad immediately attacking the tunnel on OGT because you are attacking traffic thats leaving their main flag. Attacking the temple immediately would be ok by me though.

So I guess my personal rule would be to leave the last two flags alone till you have a legitamate interest.

On 7 gates, the uk squad should drop a RP just outside temple and wait till Fort is grey then carry on with what would then be a fair two pronged attack.

On OGT you'd drop a RP near tunnel but not advance till both bridges were capped.

Mines can be dropped but actual ambushes or occupation is no good for gameplay, every map could be shortened by just having each side immediately attack the others UCB or even the next flag in sequence - that happened in a recent scrim I think.

Whats really needed is a change in the game to stop this being a cheap and easy way to win every map

kittykatnub · 09-03-2007, 09:03 PM

They should make something that will be like the out of bounds on a flag area but it goes away after you can cap the flag. Dunno if thats even possible though.

**Ghost Dog** · 09-04-2007, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kittykatnub

They should make something that will be like the out of bounds on a flag area but it goes away after you can cap the flag. Dunno if thats even possible though.

That has been suggested before... dunno what happened to the idea. I 'd love to see a cone of death on every uncapable flag, it would actually make a lot of sense for a gamemode like this. Perhaps they should make it so that if a previous flag is greyed you are allowed to move into the next flag, but as soon as your team loses that previous flag, you have a certain amount of time to move out of the flag area.

Then of course, probably the reason why they won't do this... you will no longer be able to destroy assets in an uncapable base and I can imagine this being a problem with the CO assets (bunkers, AA,...).

kittykatnub · 09-04-2007, 03:01 AM

You could always get AT and shoot at the things lol.

westyfield · 09-04-2007, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kittykatnub

You could always get AT and shoot at the things lol.

Whee I'm in your base just follow the trail of smoke and kill me and the rest of my squad who are giving me ammo, healing etc...
Also is HAT powerful enough to take out a commander asset?

kittykatnub · 09-04-2007, 03:22 PM

I know it takes 2 L-AT shots to destroy a bunker.

**Ghost Dog** · 10-08-2007, 03:04 AM

Sorry for digging this thread up, but I have a certain urge to post this.

During the weekend I saw a lot of forward attacks and imo they destroy the entire idea of AAS and make most games end in vanilla-styled gameplay, where one team gets completely walked over. Of course it 's a very effective strategy but what 's the point of playing AAS if people go to whichever flag they like... I saw it happen on Qwai, Jabal and Kashan Desert (in this last case I mean multiple squads going to the center bunkers and one squad being wiped out at the only flag in play).

The maps weren't designed for this kind of gameplay and therefor some teams have a huge advantage when using these tactics because they can get there first. Maps like Jabal are totally taken out of their intended gameplay and end up in US being slaughtered before they can even reach the beach.

This should not happen on TG and is certainly not what the devs had in mind when developing these maps... gameplay gets very poor because of this and there 's no place left for tactics.

**BigGaayAl** · 10-08-2007, 01:39 PM

People, it is very simple. You can go anywhere on the map, even the ucb, if you follow strict ROE. I've read the rules very carefully, and that is what they say. As soon as you shoot one guy that wasn't clearly attacking you however, you are breaking the rules.

It's very simple, it's allowed, plz dont confuse betterdead.

On ghostdog's remarks, the forward attacks are allowed, but they ruin many maps like Jabal and Kashan. It's more fun not to do it, but yo may get less points and lose. I would choose a GG over PWNAGE personally.

**TheSkudDestroyer** · 10-08-2007, 02:50 PM

Jabal and kashan should have subtle gentlemans agreements on such matters. Jabal is the worst.

What comes to mind is that as soon as there is a chinese TG-veteren squad, we ALWAYS rush mine. ALWAYS. And then the other team says the teams are unfair.

The mine does get tedious.

**Sabre_Tooth_Tigger** · 10-08-2007, 02:59 PM

Some maps could be better designed, if the first two flags are weak you are making it very tempting for one side to confine their enemy there.

Examples,

Jabal. USA Carrier and the beach flags. Very hard to capture & hold. This applies to any (beach) assault map of course but its made worse by that dam mountain on this map

EJOD - The USA gas station is very exposed as is the HQ. The HQ & 1st flag are the weakest flags in the game which is surely wrong imo. The MEC first two can be attacked by tanks also but arent as bad

Qwai - USA mine base (2nd flag), attack there and its game over before its started

OGT - Tunnel is capped at the start of the map which is good but you can still stop any traffic passing by. Or you just surge for temple

All that cover surrounding the temple flag & the maps general terrain makes this the least of the offending maps really

Kashan of course is famous for promoting this whole idea. I dont like this map so I wont comment further

A great positive example I think is how they fixed 7 gates. They added another flag, discounting the ucb/1st flag syndrome and those two flags have low line of sight.
I dont even like this map really but I think its pretty good overall now.
Great balance is had by the last two flags, the brit apc advantage is completely negated by the fortress's close confines and the chinese then gain the upperhand in the game.

You used to be able to just attack the chinese HQ flag right at the start of the game and basically win that way. This happened on TG, the argument being if no enemy was killed then it was ok to occupy their ucb.

Possible fixes I like to see tried on the above maps:

Jabal - A less direct path to west beach. Cars have no warmup time, helis do so usa are setup for a fall from the start. Make it more bumpy, blocked by a destroyable (c4 must be used) series of rockfalls or whatever

Allow dam flag to be approached/entered from the water (south)?
Give (USA) engineers grapple hooks?
Move the MEC UCB further back? NE maybe

Ejod - (more) Brims around the HQ flags or buildings, palm trees.
Ruin needs to be more ruined or block that north entrance. (maybe a commander can try that in future games)
Gas station needs palm trees on the roadsides

Qwai - The USA are strong on mobility, mine is the wrong base for them. Reverse the sides of the map for each force and USA would suit temple far better.
Less radical would be have mine captured at map start. Facility is the 1st flag to capture after pigfarm
Let USA spawn at mine like they can with facility. A more direct road from HQ to mine?

OGT - No access to tunnel from the west rivershore. The hillside is too steep and/or blocked by excessive bamboo/bushes. No helicopter for chinese, more trucks

Those are all changes the devs could do, maybe we can just agree on TG you dont attack the first two flags before AAS says (ucb & 1st flag)
That includes the grey flag trick.

Not because I like rules, if anything I'd prefer none but because it'd give games a chance for better gameplay

Apologies for the waffle anyhow

**TheSkudDestroyer** · 10-08-2007, 03:19 PM

Gentleman's agreements are really hard for even some TG regs to follow politely. A prime example would be the 60 player street game we had on PW night last night. I simply typed in "Gentleman's agreement not to use AT rockets with so many players?" And alot said yes.

Then I see several TG regs using LATs, which while within the rules, I was hoping it wouldnt happen.

The worst is to see HAT in the hands of a regular on such a small cramped map. While you can use any AT against covered units, when a majority of players are trying to limit this behavior... for one regular to openly use it infront of everyone is a disappointment to me.

While this is very off topic, it just illustrates how players abuse these non-official rules and take advantage of those around them.

Maps like street NEED these unofficial Gentleman's agreements!

EDIT: I smell a new topic

**Sabre_Tooth_Tigger** · 10-08-2007, 03:53 PM

Street isnt a proper map anyway hence why its just played on password night at present.

The first two flags would have to be an actual rule like HAT on infantary is. Not exactly ideal but something that would apply to all wether they agree or not.

I posted on the devs forum anyway, any big change has to be done via the game really. Anything too tenuious is just a pain to admin imo

If nothing else the more aware people are of these maps vunerablities the less likely it will be easily taken advantage of

**thegreatnardini** · 10-08-2007, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

Gentleman's agreements are really hard for even some TG regs to follow politely. A prime example would be the 60 player street game we had on PW night last night. I simply typed in "Gentleman's agreement not to use AT rockets with so many players?" And alot said yes.

Then I see several TG regs using LATs, which while within the rules, I was hoping it wouldnt happen.

The worst is to see HAT in the hands of a regular on such a small cramped map. While you can use any AT against covered units, when a majority of players are trying to limit this behavior... for one regular to openly use it infront of everyone is a disappointment to me.

While this is very off topic, it just illustrates how players abuse these non-official rules and take advantage of those around them.

Maps like street NEED these unofficial Gentleman's agreements!

EDIT: I smell a new topic

One of the biggest problems with these agreements is new people joining the server. Back in the day when we'd have to seed our bf servers and there would be only 4-10 people on for an entire map, most of the time we would opt for no vehicles or snipers, etc. When new people joined in, however, they didn't know about the agreement and hopped in a tank. The same applies with our PR server

**snooggums** · 10-08-2007, 10:53 PM

The solution to the original topic (hiding in the sealable base on 7 gates) is that the squad being there but not to destroy assets should be kicked from the server. Furthermore, should they happen to be discovered there a squad should run in and knife them, as per server rules they can only fight back if shot at. Hilarity ensues.

Frankly, since 7 gates has two flags on it's last AAS listing I think the whole castle should be considered the UCB until River Fort is taken. I also think that PR needs it's own specific definitions of what assets are up for grabs and what conditions you can enter their UCB as (such as requiring commander permission).

**BigGaayAl** · 10-09-2007, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snooggums

The solution to the original topic (hiding in the sealable base on 7 gates) is that the squad being there but not to destroy assets should be kicked from the server. Furthermore, should they happen to be discovered there a squad should run in and knife them, as per server rules they can only fight back if shot at. Hilarity ensues.

Frankly, since 7 gates has two flags on it's last AAS listing I think the whole castle should be considered the UCB until River Fort is taken. I also think that PR needs it's own specific definitions of what assets are up for grabs and what conditions you can enter their UCB as (such as requiring commander permission).

I guess we need some quotes from the rules.

"UCB Assaults
Players acting within their commander's authorization MAY attack structures (UAV Trailer, Radar Dish & Artillery) within the enemy UCB, vehicles within the UCB are OFF LIMITS. These attackers may also STAY in the opposition's UCB to make sure the destroyed structures STAY destroyed. It is the responsibility of the commander to determine if maintaining an assault on the enemy UCB is tactically viable and strategically advisable."

Now PR is still a bit outside these rules, and Seven Gates is special as it has NO/TWO ucb's.

The rule here does say you need the intention to destroy assets, but intention is always debatable. If you are staying on a main flag without attacking anyone, you will probably also destroy assets you see. In the end the rules say nothing about advancing to cap a flag in AAS, but you can reasonably infer that if you have a good reason to go to the flag, and you don't attack anyone, its not a problem.

"It is the responsibility of the attacker to not spawn camp while in the opposition UCB, for any reason or amount of time. The attacker may and should defend himself and his fellow soldiers from attack during his objective in the UCB, but at no point may he spawn camp, even if the only alternative is death and/or failing his UCB objective."

This says nothing about knife attacks. If you are in a ucb, and the enemy raises his gun to shoot you, you "may and should defend" yourself.

So if you see an enemy squad, and you don't want them to kill you, just leave them and hike out of that ucb. The second you engage them or repair stuff, it's open season.

Ps you ALWAYS require commander permission, but if he doesn't give orders to your squad, you have permission.

09-03-2007, 05:44 PM	#16 (permalink)
Sabre_Tooth_Tigger Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: افغانستان Posts: 2,449	Re: Cheap or tactical? I'd leave any chinese squad immediately attacking the tunnel on OGT because you are attacking traffic thats leaving their main flag. Attacking the temple immediately would be ok by me though. So I guess my personal rule would be to leave the last two flags alone till you have a legitamate interest. On 7 gates, the uk squad should drop a RP just outside temple and wait till Fort is grey then carry on with what would then be a fair two pronged attack. On OGT you'd drop a RP near tunnel but not advance till both bridges were capped. Mines can be dropped but actual ambushes or occupation is no good for gameplay, every map could be shortened by just having each side immediately attack the others UCB or even the next flag in sequence - that happened in a recent scrim I think. Whats really needed is a change in the game to stop this being a cheap and easy way to win every map __________________ *WWII German infantry weapons in detail* Last edited by Sabre_Tooth_Tigger; 09-03-2007 at 06:17 PM.

09-03-2007, 09:03 PM	#17 (permalink)
kittykatnub Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 541	Re: Cheap or tactical? They should make something that will be like the out of bounds on a flag area but it goes away after you can cap the flag. Dunno if thats even possible though. __________________ unlocks_r_emo / Pistolfied ~ xfire = pistolfied ~ PSN = Pistolfied Video card shat itself. Awaiting on a new computer >.<

09-04-2007, 03:01 AM	#19 (permalink)
kittykatnub Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 541	Re: Cheap or tactical? You could always get AT and shoot at the things lol. __________________ unlocks_r_emo / Pistolfied ~ xfire = pistolfied ~ PSN = Pistolfied Video card shat itself. Awaiting on a new computer >.<

09-04-2007, 03:22 PM	#21 (permalink)
kittykatnub Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 541	Re: Cheap or tactical? I know it takes 2 L-AT shots to destroy a bunker. __________________ unlocks_r_emo / Pistolfied ~ xfire = pistolfied ~ PSN = Pistolfied Video card shat itself. Awaiting on a new computer >.<

10-08-2007, 03:04 AM	#22 (permalink)
Ghost Dog Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Belgium Age: 26 Posts: 926	Re: Cheap or tactical? Sorry for digging this thread up, but I have a certain urge to post this. During the weekend I saw a lot of forward attacks and imo they destroy the entire idea of AAS and make most games end in vanilla-styled gameplay, where one team gets completely walked over. Of course it 's a very effective strategy but what 's the point of playing AAS if people go to whichever flag they like... I saw it happen on Qwai, Jabal and Kashan Desert (in this last case I mean multiple squads going to the center bunkers and one squad being wiped out at the only flag in play). The maps weren't designed for this kind of gameplay and therefor some teams have a huge advantage when using these tactics because they can get there first. Maps like Jabal are totally taken out of their intended gameplay and end up in US being slaughtered before they can even reach the beach. This should not happen on TG and is certainly not what the devs had in mind when developing these maps... gameplay gets very poor because of this and there 's no place left for tactics. __________________ Xfire: Iaintyourm8 \| Ingame: \|TG\| GhostDog \| Steam: Zuigmijnballen Nominate a player \| Support the community \| List of admins

10-08-2007, 01:39 PM	#23 (permalink)
BigGaayAl Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: gent, belgium Posts: 1,488	Re: Cheap or tactical? People, it is very simple. You can go anywhere on the map, even the ucb, if you follow strict ROE. I've read the rules very carefully, and that is what they say. As soon as you shoot one guy that wasn't clearly attacking you however, you are breaking the rules. It's very simple, it's allowed, plz dont confuse betterdead. On ghostdog's remarks, the forward attacks are allowed, but they ruin many maps like Jabal and Kashan. It's more fun not to do it, but yo may get less points and lose. I would choose a GG over PWNAGE personally. __________________ 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

10-08-2007, 02:50 PM	#24 (permalink)
TheSkudDestroyer Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: NY Posts: 3,203	Re: Cheap or tactical? Jabal and kashan should have subtle gentlemans agreements on such matters. Jabal is the worst. What comes to mind is that as soon as there is a chinese TG-veteren squad, we ALWAYS rush mine. ALWAYS. And then the other team says the teams are unfair. The mine does get tedious. __________________ \|TG-6th\|Skud 6.5 weeks Lackland AFB 8 months Keesler AFB, 1W0X1 - Weather The 6th Devils - Now with MORE Air Force! "...I simply stated "Video Games". They thought I was joking..."

10-08-2007, 02:59 PM	#25 (permalink)
Sabre_Tooth_Tigger Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: افغانستان Posts: 2,449	Unfair Leverage Some maps could be better designed, if the first two flags are weak you are making it very tempting for one side to confine their enemy there. Examples, Jabal. USA Carrier and the beach flags. Very hard to capture & hold. This applies to any (beach) assault map of course but its made worse by that dam mountain on this map EJOD - The USA gas station is very exposed as is the HQ. The HQ & 1st flag are the weakest flags in the game which is surely wrong imo. The MEC first two can be attacked by tanks also but arent as bad Qwai - USA mine base (2nd flag), attack there and its game over before its started OGT - Tunnel is capped at the start of the map which is good but you can still stop any traffic passing by. Or you just surge for temple All that cover surrounding the temple flag & the maps general terrain makes this the least of the offending maps really Kashan of course is famous for promoting this whole idea. I dont like this map so I wont comment further A great positive example I think is how they fixed 7 gates. They added another flag, discounting the ucb/1st flag syndrome and those two flags have low line of sight. I dont even like this map really but I think its pretty good overall now. Great balance is had by the last two flags, the brit apc advantage is completely negated by the fortress's close confines and the chinese then gain the upperhand in the game. You used to be able to just attack the chinese HQ flag right at the start of the game and basically win that way. This happened on TG, the argument being if no enemy was killed then it was ok to occupy their ucb. Possible fixes I like to see tried on the above maps: Jabal - A less direct path to west beach. Cars have no warmup time, helis do so usa are setup for a fall from the start. Make it more bumpy, blocked by a destroyable (c4 must be used) series of rockfalls or whatever Allow dam flag to be approached/entered from the water (south)? Give (USA) engineers grapple hooks? Move the MEC UCB further back? NE maybe Ejod - (more) Brims around the HQ flags or buildings, palm trees. Ruin needs to be more ruined or block that north entrance. (maybe a commander can try that in future games) Gas station needs palm trees on the roadsides Qwai - The USA are strong on mobility, mine is the wrong base for them. Reverse the sides of the map for each force and USA would suit temple far better. Less radical would be have mine captured at map start. Facility is the 1st flag to capture after pigfarm Let USA spawn at mine like they can with facility. A more direct road from HQ to mine? OGT - No access to tunnel from the west rivershore. The hillside is too steep and/or blocked by excessive bamboo/bushes. No helicopter for chinese, more trucks Those are all changes the devs could do, maybe we can just agree on TG you dont attack the first two flags before AAS says (ucb & 1st flag) That includes the grey flag trick. Not because I like rules, if anything I'd prefer none but because it'd give games a chance for better gameplay Apologies for the waffle anyhow __________________ *WWII German infantry weapons in detail* Last edited by Sabre_Tooth_Tigger; 10-08-2007 at 03:17 PM.

10-08-2007, 03:19 PM	#26 (permalink)
TheSkudDestroyer Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: NY Posts: 3,203	Re: Cheap or tactical? Gentleman's agreements are really hard for even some TG regs to follow politely. A prime example would be the 60 player street game we had on PW night last night. I simply typed in "Gentleman's agreement not to use AT rockets with so many players?" And alot said yes. Then I see several TG regs using LATs, which while within the rules, I was hoping it wouldnt happen. The worst is to see HAT in the hands of a regular on such a small cramped map. While you can use any AT against covered units, when a majority of players are trying to limit this behavior... for one regular to openly use it infront of everyone is a disappointment to me. While this is very off topic, it just illustrates how players abuse these non-official rules and take advantage of those around them. Maps like street NEED these unofficial Gentleman's agreements! EDIT: I smell a new topic __________________ \|TG-6th\|Skud 6.5 weeks Lackland AFB 8 months Keesler AFB, 1W0X1 - Weather The 6th Devils - Now with MORE Air Force! "...I simply stated "Video Games". They thought I was joking..."

10-08-2007, 03:53 PM	#27 (permalink)
Sabre_Tooth_Tigger Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: افغانستان Posts: 2,449	Re: Cheap or tactical? Street isnt a proper map anyway hence why its just played on password night at present. The first two flags would have to be an actual rule like HAT on infantary is. Not exactly ideal but something that would apply to all wether they agree or not. I posted on the devs forum anyway, any big change has to be done via the game really. Anything too tenuious is just a pain to admin imo If nothing else the more aware people are of these maps vunerablities the less likely it will be easily taken advantage of __________________ *WWII German infantry weapons in detail*

10-08-2007, 10:53 PM	#29 (permalink)
snooggums Join Date: Sep 2006 Age: 31 Posts: 573	Re: Cheap or tactical? The solution to the original topic (hiding in the sealable base on 7 gates) is that the squad being there but not to destroy assets should be kicked from the server. Furthermore, should they happen to be discovered there a squad should run in and knife them, as per server rules they can only fight back if shot at. Hilarity ensues. Frankly, since 7 gates has two flags on it's last AAS listing I think the whole castle should be considered the UCB until River Fort is taken. I also think that PR needs it's own specific definitions of what assets are up for grabs and what conditions you can enter their UCB as (such as requiring commander permission). __________________

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links