Re: Misuse of Vehicles

**cloudz0rs** · 06-10-2007, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Tarenth

Roadkills are allowed...nay...encouraged on the TG servers. In fact, make sure they're dead by backing up and doing it again a few times while honking your horn. ^_^

LOL, alrighty =p
one time i was bored and went around running people over with my jeep while singing the song from cartoons with the chase scenes thingy... too bad i didn't have my mic open, i was squad leader at the time. and i got the WHEEEL OF HAZARDDD pin and i couldn't stop laughing =p funny name for a pin

**FBmantis** · 06-10-2007, 02:11 PM

This game is not called Carmegeddon...by all means knock out someone on your way to a destination but constantly driving around just to be a smacktard who wants to run people over will get you removed from the server.

Originally Posted by Tarenth

Humm...

What about a CO coordinated multi-squad effort using the gunship?

The gunship is still used as a transportation device,

Did you even read this thread?

**sc1ence** · 06-10-2007, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Tarenth

What about a CO coordinated multi-squad effort using the gunship?

first, a reminder from the TG primer

3) 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.

I understand your question and think it is a good one. What makes this game particularly difficult to apply the primer to is that we are in the year 2142 and people pod out of the sky etc. .

Now in a near simulation environment, you may think, well if this was a real war and I needed to take over those strategic positions, I would do whatever I needed to do to win. I would certainly insert an SL with a gunship so my troops could pod in on him. Guardian's post and the post I quoted above both seem to be using that kind of thinking. Before this rule emphasis, I used this gunship insertion on TG servers without shame for the same logical reason.

I am still learning the TG way, and am not ashamed to say I still have more to learn.

The point we are making here is that using the gunship to transport people is not a real world strategy. It is exploiting the game design to your advantage. The game has troop transport ships. If EA/DICE wanted transport ships to be used on a map, they would provide them. When a map is designed to have troop transport by air, it will have an air transport ship. When a map is designed to not have troop transport by air, it will not have an air transport ship.

The gunship is designed to be a gunship. To use it to transport a whole squad is taking advantage of a limitation of the game. We have to accept some artificial constraints when playing these games in a near simulation environment. When things are not perfectly clear, we try to hold to the spirit of the primer and do our best to keep things near simulation. In the case of vehicle use, this means using vehicles for thier intended purpose.

RDX jihad jeeping is another prime example of a behavior we outlaw due to the FAV being used in a way that is not consistent with its intended use which is fast troop transport/mounted anti infantry gun. Same goes for using a FAV to simply tool around trying to run people over.

**machowner** · 06-10-2007, 06:08 PM

I think it is easier to explain it by saying we are going by the modern military of today. We can only theorize about what a military would do in 2142. Since it is all theories I am sure we could all come up with logical arguments for either side. If we stick to what we know and what the much intended use of the vehicle is for, we should all be safe in understanding the rules of our server.

**Icefoxen** · 06-13-2007, 12:22 AM

I'm not sure how I feel about this rule (not that my feelings are relevant, but I can see both sides of this discussion), but I'll be sure to follow it as I respect the rules of this community. I understand and respect that it is not considered a "real world" strategy and therefore can be seen as something in conflict with the Primer. I also respect that some more liberal interpretations of the Primer leave room to interpret this as acceptable. Regardless, this is no big deal and I completely understand the reasoning behind this rule.

Taking the gunship for the purpose of rushing a beacon can sometimes actually hurt the team anyhow, given the gunship ends up deep behind enemy lines and vulnerable during the beacon deployment of an SL. Especially if another pilot doesn't get into it quickly to field it, it can end up being more a hindrance than an advantage. As such, this is something I have tended to avoid doing, and given that there is a rule against it, will now completely avoid.

I had no idea there was a rule against this before this post, so thank you for pointing this out.

**Urit** · 06-17-2007, 04:06 PM

Speaking of misuse of vehicles: I know this is currently a "gentlemen's rule" but it would not be out of place as a server rule - if there is a named squad for an asset, LEAVE THAT ASSET FOR THEM.

Every time I see a gunship-capable map, some idiot that has NO idea how to fly grabs it (despite the GUNSHIP squad that's almost invariably there), and repeatedly gets it killed by hovering over AA turrets and the like. If the Gunship squad DOES manage to get into the gunship, most of the time they get pilumed by the jealous idiot (which is definitely against server rules - intentional TK). The same thing happens if they hop in while you're waiting for your gunner. They refuse to hop out or DO hop out and TK the vehicle.

The same thing happens with other squads. Armor squads on Suez, Walker squads on Belgrade, and so on. Now, you can argue that the only way they'll get good at flying/driving/walkering is to practice - they should make their own named squad then. If they want a gunship, they should call it, get a gunner, and lock it. It should not be a vehicle freeforall. Same thing for jeeps at the start of round. SLs should get first priority for jeeps if they need to rush.

**sc1ence** · 06-17-2007, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Urit

Speaking of misuse of vehicles: I know this is currently a "gentlemen's rule" but it would not be out of place as a server rule - if there is a named squad for an asset, LEAVE THAT ASSET FOR THEM.

This works OK as a gentleman's rule. Where it can be enforced is if the commander instructs all squads to leave certain vehicles for certain squads. This may need to be done over teamchat at start of round. I find this works very well.

**MDFubar** · 06-18-2007, 09:00 AM

I have noticed that in the beginning of a round I will notify the CO of our intentions and any assets needed, IE. buggy or APC , and then they usually announce to the other players to leave one for us. AS for the whole flying thing, no offense, but if you don't know how to fly....practice on a pub server or an unpopulated one where you can try things out. I used to try to fly, but broke my stick, not I just stick to the ground and do what I can.

**Ferris Bueller** · 06-24-2007, 03:42 AM

One of the big things ive seen lately is transport abuse. The most common is someone taking a transport and flying dead at a tank/apc/walker and bailing out at the last second. The big problem with this lies not only in the vehicle ramming, but also that anyone left in the transport gets killed and usually someone amongst the dead winds up with a few TK's when they were not at fault. So be on the lookout guys.

**Tarenth** · 06-25-2007, 12:55 PM

People who treat air resources like oversized TV missiles make me sick. Not only is it very hard to avoid getting killed by such falling flaming wrecks, but the people inside get screwed when they get killed for no reason other than the pilot wanting a quick kill.

If a gunship/transport takes me out with rockets and lead then I'll tip my hat off to the gunners and pilot before seeking out the nearest AA turret to return the favor. If one falls on my head because someone thought it would be fun to drop a transport full of people on me to take me out then I want to kick them so hard they have trouble loging on to the EA server.

**NecktieRemedy** · 07-03-2007, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by Tarenth

People who treat air resources like oversized TV missiles make me sick. Not only is it very hard to avoid getting killed by such falling flaming wrecks, but the people inside get screwed when they get killed for no reason other than the pilot wanting a quick kill.

If a gunship/transport takes me out with rockets and lead then I'll tip my hat off to the gunners and pilot before seeking out the nearest AA turret to return the favor. If one falls on my head because someone thought it would be fun to drop a transport full of people on me to take me out then I want to kick them so hard they have trouble loging on to the EA server.

LOL
It's a n00b tactic really, if it was an accident by another gunship pilot then it's all good. But inentionally, it is a bunch of crap.
The only thing though, it is rather unfortunate that if there is a squad called gunship, and I WANT to fly a gunship, then I can't.... and it is frustrating.

**Icehawk217** · 07-03-2007, 01:14 AM

Speaking of the people inside suiciding planes being screwed, two, or three days ago now i was in a AirTrans squad on Sidi. Forget who our SL was, but im sure someone here remebers. Anyway, he perssed the 'eject' button instead of 'w' and all 6 people in the plane died. we lost both rounds with our pathetic attempts at using the roflcoptr strategy. Real sad if anyone remembers.

**Tllyx** · 07-03-2007, 09:10 PM

Pay attention to the bold print.

Downed U.S. Pilots in Daring Hostile Fire Escape

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Internatio...3342148&page=1

In a dramatic rescue worthy of any action movie, two Army helicopter pilots shot down south of Baghdad Monday evaded capture by their attackers and then flew to safety, one of them strapped to the side of an Apache helicopter not designed to take additional passengers.

The OH-58 Kiowa reconnaissance helicopter flown by Chief Warrant Officers Mark Burrows and Steven Cianfrini was flying a routine mission in support of ground troops when it was forced down by heavy gunfire.

Burrows and Cianfrini survived the crash landing with only minor cuts and bruises, but came under immediate ground fire as the insurgents who had shot them continued to fire on the aircraft.

Facing gunfire from both sides of the helicopter, Burrows and Cianfrini crawled into an irrigation canal next to where the helicopter had crash landed.

Both pilots were soon stuck in neck-deep water with no way to get out because gunfire continued to rain down on them from both sides of the canal.

"Personally, I thought we were done, " said Cianfrini in an interview with ABC News. Burrows said, "I thought that it would be a matter of time before all of those bullets found us."

Originally feeling helpless that they were stuck in the canal, Burrows and Cianfrini now believe "it was kind of a luck thing we got stuck because we didn't know there were attackers on the other side."

After 10 to 15 minutes of sporadic gunfire, the insurgents left the scene leaving both pilots with a sense of "amazement that you're still there."

Having already sent out a distress signal, the pilots soon heard American aircraft overhead.

Burrows made visual contact with a Kiowa helicopter from their unit that guided an Apache helicopter to their position on the ground.

Apaches are narrow two-seater attack helicopters where the pilot sits behind the co-pilot. Designed to carry missiles on its wingmounts, there is no room on the aircraft for additional passengers.

When the Apache landed, Burrows said the co-pilot got out of his front seat to make sure they weren't injured. He then strapped Cianfrini into his seat and closed the hatch.

The Apache pilot then led Burrows to the gun mount on the left side of the helicopter.

"I then sat on a ledge up against the engine and clipped in with a little safety harness strap," said Burrows. "The Apache pilot then went to the other side of the helicopter where he strapped himself in as well."

Once both pilots were safely strapped to the gun mounts, the Apache took off for a Baghdad airstrip. The Apache pilots quickly unloaded their passengers then took off again to continue with their original mission.

Gun camera video released by the Pentagon today shows the Apache in flight with one of the pilots strapped to the gun mount.

Both Burrows and Cinfriani say they were left on the tarmac waiting for an ambulance to arrive, and to reflect on what had just occurred.

"We just kind of stood there and dumbfounded that after that last half hour, 40 minutes we were actually standing in the middle of a ramp in Baghdad," said Burrows.

Both pilots are grateful for their rescue. "We're glad so many people went out of their way to ensure we got home."

So, can this tactic be considered realism now?

**sc1ence** · 07-03-2007, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by IOWarrior

So, can this tactic be considered realism now?

Let me try to clear this up, (unless your question is a joke?).

"considered realism?" I am not sure what you mean by that. But I will assume you mean "Can you now use the gunship for troop transport because a single apache chopper was used for troop transport in an emergency rescue mission?"

No, you cant.

All sorts of improvisation is used in the military. We are not the military, although we play games in a way that is similar to real world. We use the real world intended purpose of vehicles to control things and keep things realistic. We want the game to feel like a normal real world simulation. Jihad jeeping is a classic example of this. This is a real world tactic. Many militaries have used carbombs and suicide tactics. Using jihad jeeps can be considered realism - so could using the gunship for insertion, because real world militaries would do just that if it was their worst option.

We strive for near simulation. We don't strive to make fringe tactics the norm. If we did, every time we play sidi, someone would duct tape a few SLs to the side of their airship and then poop out friendlies over the back flag.

We want near simulation game play. We want to play this game the way it would likely unfold if it were the real thing. using gunships for troop transport simply does not happen often enough for us to reverse this rule.

I would have appreciated it if you tried to make an argument rather then just quote some interesting news story then ask a vague question. It forces me to guess your argument and do all the work. If this matters to you, speak your mind, convince us it makes sense to use gunships for insertion.

**Tllyx** · 07-03-2007, 10:25 PM

Naw, it was more of a joke then any real argument. However, you have brought up a new interesting tool to my attention.

I'm putting in a suggestion to EA/Dice to implement this next patch to the engineer kit.

Thread Tools

Display