jepzilla

At this time, I'd like to draw your attention to the Tactical Gamer Primer (queue drumroll, please), specifically part 3:

The gunship is a vehicle for two people, a pilot and a gunner, much like modern-day attack helicopters, both in real life and those found in Battlefield 2. The gunship team should work together to destroy enemy armor and decimate enemy infantry, and in capable hands is a valuable and dangerous asset to the team. However the gunship does lack certain features, for example drop pods. But this can be excused since the gunship is not a transport aircraft.

The use of gunships as transport aircraft is not in-line with TG's philosophy and goals, and is not acceptable on our servers.

For those of you who have played Battlefield at TG for a long time, this is a reminder, and for those who have joined us with 2142, a friendly heads-up. This is an old rule and one we haven't paid it much heed over the past several months, however we're going to resume our enforcement of it.

Hidus

Thank god minsk isn't in rotation on this server.

Guardianx11x

So you can't fly to inner bridge...land...get out and place a becon on the roof...then fly away?

Or is that ok, but not dropping a SL gunner off, then picking up one of his squadmates?

__________________

FBmantis

The bold phrase makes it pretty clear Guardian. Its time to stop misusing an attack focused vehicle for transport means to negate map design.

__________________

Guardianx11x

Alright, thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know if he was talking about people using the gunship as transport ONLY, such as flying to a flag and abandoning it. The reason why I posed the question is that the primer is disallowing activities that are not aligned with "real-world combat strategy". This phrasing works great for say...Jihad jeeping, where it is obvious nobody would strap explosives to a jeep, then tuck and roll while its in neutral. However, I think it’s conceivable that a SL would use the fast maneuverable aircraft to place a beacon behind enemy lines. Is abandoning the gunship an option? Clearly not. I just do not see how using the gunship to place a beacon violates the type of gameplay the primer is striving to uphold.

__________________

Anospa

You wouldn't be able to jump out of a gunship. Transport helicopters, it is possible to parachute or jump out of without disrupting the flight and popping a cockpit.

__________________


"Brittle?! Dude you just took a localized tactical warhead to the face." -Eroak

FBmantis

These Gunships are obviously designed as attack choppers that have some plane like qualities. There is nothing about this vehicle that is designed to transport people from place to place. Armies in real life don't transport people in two seat attack choppers. So yes...doing so goes against the spirit of the primer.

The problem gets heightened when maps are designed without transport choppers. Think about Suez for example. There is no transport choppers on that map for a reason. The map is designed linearly and the EU main is meant to be difficult to take due to all the armor. When people use gunships for SL insertions they are not only misusing the vehicle but they are going against the intended flow of the map. Squad assaults on the ground are quite a bit more difficult...they know your coming sooner, the SL and beacon are much more at risk and the armor can negate infantry entry points...as it should be....as it was designed.

Minsk although rarely played is another example. The initial chokepoint is horrible but lets be honest here....that is completely how dice intended the map to play out. If they wanted people to just fly right past the chokepoint and do a SL insertion they would have added a transport chopper and changed the map design.

__________________

machowner

I like that this is going to be enforced now.
.................................

With that said I think enforcing the rule would make that map a little more interesting, for a vehicle map anyway.

Eroak

Basicly...It's getting back to the basics.

We are not here to find flaws in the maps and finding ways to use weapons in other ways they were not ment for. I do respect that sharp mind that can find these flaws of games. But, it's not the TG way of practice. Were are here to have a balanced, near-real life game with other gamers with the same philosophy. We are not here to walk that gray line of questionable tactics and see what we can get away with. Lets get back to that game and enjoy playing with like minded people!


If you think something is questionable, research the tactic. If you can't find information on the tactic, ask a admin then. Don't just do something that you might feel is walking that grey line until you know it's a "good" tactic. It'll keep the headaches to a minimum.

__________________

Acreo Aeneas

Thanks for the friendly reminder Jep.

__________________
Acreo_Aeneas
Former 9th Member

BZ55

As Guardian got at, Suez may a source of drama as this policy hasn't been rigerously enforced on that map. So although I agree that enforcing this policy will make game play generally more enjoyable, I'm thinking that we'll need to spell out the policy to pubbies. Perhaps adding the line "Gunships are NOT allowed for personnel transport" to the other lines that we have on the server splash is the answer?

In any case, I think it's great to be more forceful with this policy as it will make certain maps play much more in the spirit of how they were meant to be played.

One thing that I'm trying to understand is that while I think the basis of this policy is well-founded, there's still no policy against rooftop beacons. In other words, it seems that not allowing rooftop beacons is in-keeping with the basis for not allowing gunships as transports, so it seems that may be worth addressing while we're talking about playing maps as they were intended to be played. It seems like outsiders may get confused over the consistency of our pholosophy, since rooftop beacons and using gunships as transports have more similarities than differences. Links to past discussions on the issue:

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...-spawning.html
http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...e-tactics.html


Andy

__________________

|TG-9th|BZ55
"By Any Means"

jepzilla

The reasons why rooftop beacons are allowed have been explained, in great detail, on numerous occasions, and the decisions are not inconsistent. Decisions about such things are always made by weighing the impact on realism, gameplay and administrative overhead.

However, this thread is not about rooftop beacons and is not the place for arguing about that tactic.

Tarenth

Humm...

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

Okay, if there is a gunship then there will probably be a gunship squad. Have the SL of the gunship squad pilot and a SL of the infantry squad be the gunner. Gunship is then flown to drop point and infantry SL bails to deploy beacon/spawn SMs and the real gunner of the Gunship squad can spawn on the gunship SL as the gunner.

The gunship is still used as a transportation device, but intentionaly with the coordinated efforts of two squads.

__________________
My sanity is not in question...
It was a confirmed casualty some time ago.

cloudz0rs

How about intentionally running people over with a jeep??

__________________
|TG-Irr|cloudz0rs =)
<3 Norah Jones! on COD4!

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. ^_^

Blowing up your FAV in order to destroy a tank, however, isn't. Though with the prolific use of IEDs in the real world that starts getting iffy.

__________________
My sanity is not in question...
It was a confirmed casualty some time ago.