Re: Hunting or Tactical Play?

**Karkianman101** · 04-27-2005, 08:29 PM

What I meant was that ALL the t's were IN the dark atrium, or right outside it. none were watching green door. None were at hosties. non were above. they were in the building at dark atrium with complete disregard for the possibility of a ct slipping in green and taking all the hosties ftw.

**Root** · 04-27-2005, 08:42 PM

Maybe if you'd taken a bit longer they would have redeployed some of their team to cover the other door. Maybe they felt they could deal with the other door from where they were. I don't know what they were thinking. I wouldn't (didn't in fact) deploy my team that way, but we all have our own tactics.

Root

**SephirothValentine** · 04-28-2005, 12:10 PM

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by atrium and thus I am unsure what map your talking about. Although they were only there and someone COULD have gone a different way and gotten the hostages, but did you? No, instead it seems all your team went that way (thus some surprise was on there side) (it also seems they perdicted that you would go that way which is a risky menuevor but can usually give them an upper hand). Unfortuantly for them, you were able to kill them all. If they were able to break through they would be able to flank from multiple sides (very tactical in my view). Personally I also think taking the hostie rescue zones is also a nice tactic (if you get there alive that is).

**Root** · 04-28-2005, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by SephirothValentine

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by atrium

Go through either of the apartment routes and you exit into the atrium, underneath the window of the back hostage room.

Root

**aesop rock** · 02-22-2006, 06:52 PM

Has anyone ever discussed the possibility or legitimacy of designation of flankers on defense? I am curious what TGCS:S's policy on this is. If, according to team agreement, 2-3 defenders want to form a 'flanking team', is it allowed? The idea of this team isn't to 'gain kills', but rather to pin the objective in a favorable position. I will use cbble. Forgive me, as I don't remember the names of the sites. Right now I'll talk about the big outside bombsite (not the one in CT spawn, the other one). Lets say the terrorists push that bombsite (relatively slow progression, not a rush.)

Before the round began, three team members were designated 'pressure/flankers'. They take position in the defense post (the sniper area with the ladder, in the middle) so that they can gain intel. Intel reports suggest the bomb is moving through the hallway to [the bombsite], but your team has put on a strong defense outside, and the Ts are holed up in the box room.

You acknowledge this, and your team silently moves up the ramp towards the main courtyard, and then up the small stairs to the right, where they eventually come up on unexpecting terrorists. Suppressors engaged, your team applies pressure from the middle of the map. Terrorists are now faced with a very strong and tactically advantaged opponent.

Now, this scenario may not be considered legit, but if it was allowed, the terrorists might consider:

Instead of all terrorists moving together and facing the same way, it would take but ONE smart T to completely nullify, and even counter, this strategy. The terrorist, seeing the flank maneuver developing, notifies his team of 2-3 'rats', as the call it in AA. Suddenly, it becomes apparant to the CTs that the Terrorist force has put on a 'front' at the bombsite, and clearly has used some of its manpower elsewhere. Terrorists push into the bombsite, claiming it, and eventually win the round.

I am certain that everyone that reads this will agree that these tactics are, indeed, legit. What will not, probably, be agreed is if its realistic to expect all players (since TG is, technically, a pub) to think things through enough to seperate real tactics from 'CS tactics' in-game. Anyways, I was bored and I just thought I'd share my opinion. I maintain that, to play tactically, one must consider the possibility that you have not considered all the possibilities. Thanks for putting up with me, again.

"We all make mistakes. We KNOW we make mistakes. I don't know ANY military commander, who is honest, that will say he has not made a mistake. There's a wonderful phrase, "The Fog of War". What the fog of war means is.. war is so complex, that's it's beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables. Our judgement.. our understanding.. are not adequate, and we kill people unneccessarily. Wilson said we won the war to end all wars. I'm not so naive, or so simplistic, to believe we can eliminate war. We're not gonna change human nature anytime soon. It isn't that we aren't rational, we ARE rational. But reason has limits." - Robert McNamara, (From the film "The Fog of War" HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)

**Wyzcrak** · 02-22-2006, 09:31 PM

The problem I have with that plan is that you have zero access to the objective you're defending if the Ts in front of you destroy your CT buddies at the bombsites, placing themselves between you and a completely unguarded bombsite.

That having been said, it's a risk that I'm sure I'd occasionally find acceptable. That acceptance would be based on the skill of my CT buddies at the bombsite, the skill of my rat buddies, the skill of the opponents, and the armaments of the CT defenders (I'd want a long reach or two, I think, and some flash/smoke).

Lastly, such a move should be rare, I think.

Arguably, it shouldn't happen on Server 1 at all. Great for Server 2, though.

**Karkianman101** · 02-22-2006, 10:10 PM

I would find it perfectly acceptable, though if it was tried and failed, and tried and failed again, I would advise against trying a third time. PCS doesn't mean you take the safest approach. It means that whatever approach you take considers risk vs reward and value to the objective. This would be a potentially high pay off situation, as even if it was tried and failed once, the T's would be distracted from their frontside that much more in anticipation of another flank.

And thank you for bumping a thread with my old posts in it [/SARCASM]

I hate reading them.

**aesop rock** · 02-23-2006, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

The problem I have with that plan is that you have zero access to the objective you're defending if the Ts in front of you destroy your CT buddies at the bombsites, placing themselves between you and a completely unguarded bombsite.

That having been said, it's a risk that I'm sure I'd occasionally find acceptable. That acceptance would be based on the skill of my CT buddies at the bombsite, the skill of my rat buddies, the skill of the opponents, and the armaments of the CT defenders (I'd want a long reach or two, I think, and some flash/smoke).

Lastly, such a move should be rare, I think.

Arguably, it shouldn't happen on Server 1 at all. Great for Server 2, though.

Thanks for the post reply post.

I agree that it is a considerable risk, as I implied, but if you've ever played Stratego, then you know it's not always good to put your bombs up front.

You see it in football and in war. To mix it up from time to time forces your opponent to be reactive, instead of proactive. As far as the server 1/2 thing, I am really unfamiliar with the relationship between the two servers, but I soon intend to spend a little more time on the PCS server, so I'm sure to learn

.

p.s. speaking of football I owe you 5000 points :\

Kark: I had no idea it was such an old thread. It popped up in my recent threads thing, I think. That's wierd. Anyways, what difference does the age of the thread make? :P

**Uchiha Obito** · 02-23-2006, 06:26 PM

So..... I'm reading this thinking to myself, oh neat, Swoop is back playing on the servers regularly. Then I read a few replies and realize I read this thread a few months ago when it first appeared, is someone actively bumping these?

**Root** · 02-24-2006, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Karkianman101

I would find it perfectly acceptable, though if it was tried and failed, and tried and failed again, I would advise against trying a third time. PCS doesn't mean you take the safest approach. It means that whatever approach you take considers risk vs reward and value to the objective. This would be a potentially high pay off situation, as even if it was tried and failed once, the T's would be distracted from their frontside that much more in anticipation of another flank.

The occasional use of high-risk tactics has been previously debated in the NS forum. By virtue of being high risk, failure can be catastrophic. Success however, not only results in the objective being completed, but by nature of being occasional, keeps everyone on their toes.

To be honest, instead of designated flankers, there are maps where simply defending the same choke points from different positions can do a similar job, in that the offensive team has to react. Using havana as an example, I've yet to see a consitant approach taken to identifying which 2 routes are open, every single round. If the CT's are presented with the 2 atrium routes, an ambush can easily be staged there, by placing PCS Proven players downstairs. Same chokepoint, different positions, and the offensive team will be thrown off balance and forced to rethink.

**Root** · 02-24-2006, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Uchiha Obito

So..... I'm reading this thinking to myself, oh neat, Swoop is back playing on the servers regularly. Then I read a few replies and realize I read this thread a few months ago when it first appeared, is someone actively bumping these?

Check the dates on the last few posts

**TheFeniX** · 03-01-2006, 12:57 PM

I have an issue with a pre-round gameplan of "Let's flank them this time." I consider it abandoning your objective because you aren't going to engage an enemy force at a tactical advantage, you're hoping that you'll come up behind the enemy team for a tactical advantage.

Once you have confirmation of multiple enemy presence, then I consider all bets off on that. If the attackers decide to fight a holding action in hopes of picking off defenders one-by-one, then that's their problem if you come up behind them because you have confirmation of hostile forces in an area. You're defending your objective by taking out an enemy force intent on clearing the bombsite before they move in.

If I was on attackers, moving with zero noise, and had a good expectation of knowing that my position hadn't been made and a group of defenders came in behind me on my side of the map: I'd be dropping landminds like it's nobodies business.

If I was on attackers and was involved in a massive fire-fight for an extended period of time without moving, I'd be kind of dissapointed if I didn't get steam-rolled by the defenders from my 6. My team had failed by that point.

**Karkianman101** · 03-01-2006, 01:52 PM

What if you were sure your position was secure, and you were flanked by a 2 person squad en route to B? Time has to pass for you to get anywhere because you are walking. It might make sense to send a small recon team out with the orders to flank if the oppurtunity presents itself, but with the primary goal of figuring out where the T's are.

**TheFeniX** · 03-01-2006, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Karkianman101

What if you were sure your position was secure, and you were flanked by a 2 person squad en route to B? Time has to pass for you to get anywhere because you are walking. It might make sense to send a small recon team out with the orders to flank if the oppurtunity presents itself, but with the primary goal of figuring out where the T's are.

More details....

I'm going to assume you're talking about the double doors at the bottom of A that leads to the courtyard, then around to B. I hate that area because it's the fastest way to B, yet skirts dangerously close to T spawn.

If the CTs are lead-footing it, then they make easy pickings for Ts.

If they are moving slow, it should be a non-issue.

My problem is that the best way to make it from A > B is to skirt the wall right to your left as it gives you cover because you aren't out in the open. The issue is that CTs use the excuse of (I can be here) to mean they can move all the way to the entrance of T spawn and setup camp. Or use it as an excuse to take a close look an engage Ts, all without caring about the bombsite. The choke-point they can cover has always been to big for my tastes.

**Karkianman101** · 03-01-2006, 10:42 PM

I mean if the game has been in progress with not a peep (this is on cbble btw), a 2 man CT team is sent through the long hall out to T side and then through the doors out to B, with the orders that if they find T's they are to return the closest way to the bombsite, unless they feel they have a huge advantage (ala the T's haven't seen them yet, and they can perform a successful flank).

Thread Tools

Display