The walker rush for Cerbere Landing

**DocGuo** · 03-07-2009, 02:48 PM

I want to pose a question to the community asking why more people don't prepare for the walker rush along the west side of cerbere. I almost always walk around that lane bypassing the entire defending team...people should realize this by now and recognize my tactics!!

On defense I focus my squad on solely taking out the walker and buggy...this forces the other team to slowly walk up the hill instead of rushing past...This tactic was deemed allowable as the walker is a means of transportation...

Do people have a problem with this tactic in some way or are people not willing to pull out an engineer kit?

**PM..** · 03-07-2009, 02:58 PM

I think we just about have 1 or 2 engies to cope with the buggy normally, and rarely have engineers assigned to mine west, middle and east.. Your right though, if someone calls out the walker is coming, I don't think I ever see anyone use the rorshe on that west side.

**pred011586** · 03-07-2009, 03:33 PM

I think the main problem with defending that, is that nobody wants to be the squad that let them take STC/Church, nor does anybody want the buggy going up the main road. With one or two engineers mining the main road everyone else comes in assault. Nobody wants the buggy to get past, so everybody ends up mining the main road. It boils down to the fact that it's hard to rely on what the other SLs are going to do.

Having a squad dedicated to that west path/hill area isn't that bad of an idea, it's something I might try next time I SL on CB. Both the Buggy and Walker can get up there, and the buggy can still get to command via the west hill path. So defending that whole area is useful, plus you got the high ground against infantry coming in from office ruins.

**Reaperassault** · 03-07-2009, 05:54 PM

nothing wrong with putting some mines down to stop it but it's a shame that we are letting people use the walker as a transport, legal like you said but in my opinion against the spirit of the walkers role on the field

**DocGuo** · 03-07-2009, 11:33 PM

That's just it...the walker is a big hulking machine and it has to fight an uphill battle!

It's top gun is weak since the walker is constantly moving thereby ruining aim and has very limited firepower.

There are only three lanes the walker can ascend....the left,center and right...the center is a no go...people prepare for that all the time..the emp mines will trip and stall the walker...(a stalled walker is a dead walker...heck it's flanked from both sides!!!)....any good TG squad can emp it to death and eventually somebody will get to it..we're too damn efficient!

The rorshe is also a big big deterrent... the church flag is also impenetrable since a walker can't get around that hillside too easily and people have mines all the way along the main road anyways....

I wish I could use a walker according to the "spirit of the use", but let's be honest...the intro movie to the BF2142 game shows the PAC walker moving up the center of the main road...stomping and killing everything in it's wake...really?

At church, the walker can support a squad very well... but that's just it....the actual church building restricts free movement along with those trees!! They make the big walker a liability more than an active force...The driver can't position the machine so easily without having to worry about stalling because a low hanging wall or tree is blocking movement. They should have made this game destructible with walkers!!!

**pred011586** · 03-07-2009, 11:59 PM

I ran a WestHill squad on CB, earlier today. We didn't see any buggy/walker action, but the squad worked really nicely... until PAC threw everything at Church.

What I did was have an engineer mine up the hill next to STC, one Recon put RDX amongst the motion mines, and I came in as Support. I quickly realized however, that with all the defenses set up for a Walker/Buggy rush, we were sorely lacking in our ability to stall infantry. So I dropped a supply crate, stayed back a bit, and started chucking EMP nades towards office ruins. Apparently the EMPs pissed off PAC enough that their CO dropped three orbitals on us as soon as they recharged. We were able to keep PAC fairly contained down in Office Ruins, but then all of PAC hit Church then flooded STC from the opposite side and we found ourselves hightailing it back to CC before we got capped out.

Throughout the round, the Walker only tried to go up the west side once, but stopped at Office Ruins long enough for our CO to EMP/OS it before it could get to us. =(

This is definitely a setup I'll use again:
SL Support, EMP spam the hill towards STC from office ruins, so that the enemy can't shoot back.
1 Engie, Mine the hill
1 Recon (or a 2nd Engie), RDX the hill (or flag) and put APMs around the flag
3 Assaults, rockets, and defib.

**machowner** · 03-08-2009, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by Reaperassault

nothing wrong with putting some mines down to stop it but it's a shame that we are letting people use the walker as a transport, legal like you said but in my opinion against the spirit of the walkers role on the field

Your dead on Reap, I also fell it was similar to way some were using the gunship to transport the SL somewhere and should be against our rules. Walker/gunship is a support role, not transport.

**[AGB]Quasae** · 03-08-2009, 05:07 AM

I smoke walkers for breakfast! westside!

**Reminshi** · 03-08-2009, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by Reaperassault

nothing wrong with putting some mines down to stop it but it's a shame that we are letting people use the walker as a transport, legal like you said but in my opinion against the spirit of the walkers role on the field

I love the Walkers. But the PAC walker is useless in the beginning of Cerbere Landing, it can do nothing, you could just delete it from the map, and get two buggies instead, would be way better.

The walker is more usefull as a squadleader rush on the west side, as Doc said. I've done it a couple of times, works fine, but can easily be stopped by only one smart engineer.

**Lusitano Louco** · 03-09-2009, 10:24 AM

I wouldn't call rushing up the west side using it as transport. It is an attack vehicle taking on an active attack role or even working as a diversion to split enemy resources. I think that is acceptable because there is a high likelihood of success. If a gunship goes for a back flag it is different because it flies it can in effect bypass all the action. Not so with the walker, which can be effective along the way but can't get bogged down since there are several rorsch cannons along the way. The other thing to consider is that a rush works best right at the beginning before there is infantry crossing the roads in front of the buggy or running around under the walker's legs.

Both back roads are usually not well defended. The first thing I usually ask my SL is if he needs an engy and then proceed to mine the back road because I know that someone else already has the main road covered.

**Reaperassault** · 03-09-2009, 11:11 AM

there is nothing wrong with going up the west side but when 6 people pop out of that walker on roadblock is when the pandas become sad

**pred011586** · 03-09-2009, 02:20 PM

Looking at both sides of the walker transport on CB, it's tough to decide either way. Using the the walker as a bipedal APC does seem unfair at first, but when you think about it, it is rather easy to counter. A squad on the west hill can rather easily stop not just the walker coming up, but also an infantry rush on STC. Not only that, but the typical buggy rush defenses on the main road are equally effective at stopping the walker. Keep in mind also, that a buggy can go up the west hill and get all the way to command center, even if not to stop the walker, the west hill should to be mined to stop a buggy breakthrough up that way, which happens to be the same defense against the walker going up that way.

If PAC wants to use the walker as a transport, I say bring it on! Nothing says i love you like turning an expensive bipedal death machine into a pile of smoldering scrap metal. =)

**Zhohar** · 03-09-2009, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by pred011586

Looking at both sides of the walker transport on CB, it's tough to decide either way. Using the the walker as a bipedal APC does seem unfair at first, but when you think about it, it is rather easy to counter.

Why should the fact that it's easily counterable be a part of it at all? Several key prohibited behaviours on our server can be very easily countered. This makes them no less against the spirit and intent of our community.

**jazy2** · 03-09-2009, 05:27 PM

I'm with Reaper on this. The walker should not be used as a troop transport.
We don't allow the gunship to do it and I think it's the same thing. Imagine 2 SL's using it and just popping out to allow squad bombs all over the place!

A walker and 10 infantry to deal with in a matter of moments

**pred011586** · 03-09-2009, 05:33 PM

Reason being, out of all the things that could be/are considered exploits, or round changing, using the Walker as a transport has a far lesser impact, and does have some things in it's favor. Compared to say using the gunship as a transport which on Minsk simply isn't fair for EU, using the Walker as a transport on CB doesn't tilt the balance of the round in PAC's favor as dramatically, as it's alot easier to get to Roadblock from STC/Church than it is to get to Hill from Frontlines. Sure the walker is built for destruction, and not troop transportation, but seeing as CB is the only map where this is an issue, and using the walker for transportation on that map is suicide against a proper defense, I don't see it as that much of a problem. If there are other similar exploits that aren't allowed other than the Gunship as a transport, then let me know, because I honestly can't think of anything similar. Actually the only other exploits that's not similar that's prohibited that I can think off the top of my head is ramming, beacon exploits, and bunny hopping.

As for breaking the spirit of the game, if I had the ability to have soldiers magically spawn on me in the middle of an intense battle, and I had the choice between getting from point A to point B in an armored mech, or a souped up go-kart, I'd take the mech any day. That makes alot more sense to me than air-dropping soldiers from a harrier jet built as an anti-armor aerial gun platform.

Thread Tools

Display

The walker rush for Cerbere Landing

Re: The walker rush for Cerbere Landing

Re: The walker rush for Cerbere Landing

Re: The walker rush for Cerbere Landing

Re: The walker rush for Cerbere Landing

Re: The walker rush for Cerbere Landing

Re: The walker rush for Cerbere Landing

Re: The walker rush for Cerbere Landing

Re: The walker rush for Cerbere Landing

Re: The walker rush for Cerbere Landing

Re: The walker rush for Cerbere Landing

Re: The walker rush for Cerbere Landing

Re: The walker rush for Cerbere Landing

Re: The walker rush for Cerbere Landing

Re: The walker rush for Cerbere Landing

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

Project Reality: ArmA2 v0.15 -...

Rayne's Eye on Independant Gaming:...

Panzer Corps Named Wargame of the...

Two New Multi-Mission Events for...

Tactical Gamer Podcast Series - TG...

Recent Blog Entries

More Feedback from YouTube Viewers

:d

The Best Video Feedback

Beyond SOPA: ACTA, WIPO, and the...

Common Mistakes: #10