Re: Schwa's Guide: de_aaa Defense.

**Atomic Dog** · 01-17-2007, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Root

If you read this thread, you'll see that I shot Schwa's plan down with one of my own.

So you're saying that the only thing "broken" about Schwa's plan is his A Defense...and that the only correct solution is to scrap any idea of recon, communication and teamwork and replace it with a couple guys sitting on the bullseye itself waiting to get overran by T's?

I don't understand why you would consider this a solid plan at all. Maybe an explanation as to why you feel it's tactically viable? Having reread the post all I saw was a trashing of Schwa's work, which is of value to the community, only to find no explanation of how your plan of camping A proper had any effective tactical use.

I think we're all wanting to know why because it seems that your words, as a game officer, concerning Schwa's "broken" plan were a bit harsh. And I honestly do expect you to have something better to back up that up with. It's only fair considering the ammount of personal time Schwa must have put in just to bring this to the community. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I really haven't seen this good of a tactical thread in a long long time.

**Root** · 01-17-2007, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Atomic Dog

So you're saying that the only thing "broken" about Schwa's plan is his A Defense...and that the only correct solution is to scrap any idea of recon, communication and teamwork and replace it with a couple guys sitting on the bullseye itself waiting to get overran by T's?

I don't understand why you would consider this a solid plan at all.

Because I've probably seen every variation of Schwas plan implemented almost every time I've played on aaa, and it rarely works. Also, I'm not saying a couple of guys. I'm saying a 4 man fireteam that is loaded with nades (not spending all their cash on M4's and not being able to afford anything else), and therefore well equipped to slow the T's down, hurt them, possibly even force them to retreat.

**Greflin** · 01-17-2007, 01:54 PM

I don't see any way 3 ct's as schwa has designated can guard inside A, and win. Even 4 if you had them would be hard pressed to do this. There is a lack of cover, and so many vulnerable positions. You can't see in the windows very well so pray you don't get a sniper. And then once you are all tucked inside the bomb site and they flash it twice they can walk right in and take you out, plant and then wait for the ct's to come from B and do the same.

Properly guarding a and expecting to win requires recon. You have to have an idea of where they are, and that center room on cats is KEY, to either teams victory. Holding that room is a very big advantage to either team. It can see ground B, ground A, A cats, and B cats, you can tell just where the t's are going and most of the time if they have a bomb. That would let you know more about in round adjustments, which would give you the best chance of winning.

Perhaps I am missing some spots from guarding A closer to the bomb site, but I am not seeing them ingame.

**Root** · 01-17-2007, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Greflin

And then once you are all tucked inside the bomb site and they flash it twice they can walk right in and take you out, plant and then wait for the ct's to come from B and do the same.

That's why the CT's need to have nades. Flash comes in, flash or HE goes out. Call for backup, repeat nades ad lib until backup arrives. I'm not saying (neither *have* I said) that this is a guaranteed win for CT. Neither have I said it's an easy plan to execute.

**Greflin** · 01-17-2007, 02:48 PM

Still, where would you propose guarding. It is really hard to use nades as a suppressive force if you are flashed before you know anyone is there. Most of the spots inside of A proper can't see much, and there is no way for you to tell where to nade because you do not know where they are coming from. Recon is imperative.

**Root** · 01-17-2007, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Greflin

Still, where would you propose guarding. It is really hard to use nades as a suppressive force if you are flashed before you know anyone is there. Most of the spots inside of A proper can't see much, and there is no way for you to tell where to nade because you do not know where they are coming from. Recon is imperative.

Guard the doorways. Make sure your nades are hot and aimed. All you have to do when the flash comes in is lift a finger, and let the nades loose.

**Atomic Dog** · 01-17-2007, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Root

Guard the doorways. Make sure your nades are hot and aimed. All you have to do when the flash comes in is lift a finger, and let the nades loose.

This is true. I've used this method of nade-for-nade supression in the past with a lot of success. Especially if you've got someone flashing and another fraging as soon as the initial flash comes in.

**Greflin** · 01-17-2007, 02:59 PM

That only works if you are not inside the bombsite completly and are atleast outside with the trailors. I do not see this working from the inside. If you are guarding your doorways inside of the A building, the T's can creep right up to you without you even knowing they are there, once they are there they will flash you, step in shoot you, plant and then the remaining force that is left will run in and face much worse odds. You are saying Schwa's way is broken, but this one is no less broken. It does not provide you with enough cover, or enough view to see the T's coming. At least the other way you had an idea of where to go.

I have personally executed Schwa's way many times and won quite a few of those. It is a solid plan. I have also encountered CT's doing your plan not guarding outside of the bomb site, they were fish in a barrel. Then once you plant you send a T to watch cats window room, one to watch the ground entrance the rest hiding and you have yourself an easily achieved victory.

Once again I may be missing the exact spots you are saying, edit the image and show where you are speaking to have your people sit so they can see, and still provide the nades?

**Root** · 01-17-2007, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Greflin

show where you are speaking to have your people sit so they can see, and still provide the nades?

I'm suggesting that they don't need to see. If your nades are hot and aimed, all you need to see is the incoming flash. If the T's decide to walk in without flashing, then they're going to get a surprise anyway.

**Atomic Dog** · 01-17-2007, 03:07 PM

To be honest, the most solid CT defense I've ever seen at A on this map is an exact combination of these two tactics. However, having a guy or two in the bomb site proper was always the last line of defense and not the only. And more often than not, the surviving force of T's, if they managed to penetrate the outer defenses, were no match for the CT's waiting inside the bombsite. Unfortunately, having a suitable force at A for defense means that defense at B is probably lacking. Though I tend to think it takes fewer men to hold down B proper than it does A.

**Atomic Dog** · 01-17-2007, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Root

I'm suggesting that they don't need to see. If your nades are hot and aimed, all you need to see is the incoming flash. If the T's decide to walk in without flashing, then they're going to get a surprise anyway.

The thing I see that can easily hurt the CT's at A, in this situation, is if the T's didn't walk in...but ran in instead. 4 guys holding primed nades are gonna be caught with their pants down by 8 t's holding AKs.

**Root** · 01-17-2007, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Atomic Dog

The thing I see that can easily hurt the CT's at A, in this situation, is if the T's didn't walk in...but ran in instead. 4 guys holding primed nades are gonna be caught with their pants down by 8 t's holding AKs.

I would counter that our heroic CT's will "spot" the incoming T's by virtue of all the noise. Let loose the nades, call for backup, and treat the situation as if a flashbang had come in after a stealth approach.

**Greflin** · 01-17-2007, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Root

I'm suggesting that they don't need to see. If your nades are hot and aimed, all you need to see is the incoming flash. If the T's decide to walk in without flashing, then they're going to get a surprise anyway.

So, after the exchange of flashes you call forbackup without actualy seeing anything as long as they are still showing a pressence? Which makes for a perfect distraction because people will leave B, and the t's can run right in set up shop, all because backup was called for without a bomb being spotted or suffecient knowledge of the opfor numbers?

Atomic Dog is right, a combination of the two is best. But they still requires people not being in the bomb site.

Sneaking t's make no noise, you can stop a rush like this, but a slow moving force wouldn't be stopped by this.

**Atomic Dog** · 01-17-2007, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Root

I would counter that our heroic CT's will "spot" the incoming T's by virtue of all the noise. Let loose the nades, call for backup, and treat the situation as if a flashbang had come in after a stealth approach.

And if you manage to flash the entire entourage of invading T's, the CT's *might* stand a chance. But how often does that happen? More likely the CT's will have time to say something along the lines of "We've got steps over here." And might be able to take 1 or 2 of the T's down, but then you've got 4 dead CT's, a planted bomb, and possibly 6 T's digging in for defense as the remaining CT's scramble one by one to get to the bombsite.

In response to this I would advise the CT's to group up on each other before moving in. So many times I see CT's lose this because they end up coming in one at a time in response to the ticking bomb. This is easy pickins for T's. Though the numbers are still not with the CT's even if they do group up, the odds are still much better than if they weren't.

**Root** · 01-17-2007, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Greflin

So, after the exchange of flashes you call forbackup without actualy seeing anything as long as they are still showing a pressence? Which makes for a perfect distraction because people will leave B, and the t's can run right in set up shop, all because backup was called for without a bomb being spotted or suffecient knowledge of the opfor numbers?

Would not the same be possible, if the CT's set up outside, and spotted 6 or 7 T's? No matter what plan a defending team uses, if the OpFor happens to use the correct counter-plan, they stand a better than average chance of winning.

Alternatively, if the CT's set up outside, and the T's sneak into position and kill the first one, we can safely assume someone at B will get restless. If the T's manage to pick off a second CT, the guys at A will probably be thinking that they're going to be called to A. By the time the third CT goes down (assuming the T's manage to pull it off) you're in a situation where the guy that's left at A is going to want backup, and it would be surprising if the whole fireteam at B stood it's ground. At that point, either the B team runs to A, leaving B undefended, or someone has to make a judgement call as to how many to send to A, reducing the numbers at B.

Originally Posted by Atomic

In response to this I would advise the CT's to group up on each other before moving in. So many times I see CT's lose this because they end up coming in one at a time in response to the ticking bomb. This is easy pickins for T's. Though the numbers are still not with the CT's even if they do group up, the odds are still much better than if they weren't.

Absolutely! Fragmentation is what gets teams killed. That's exactly why we all sit back when a new player rushes off, if they insist on trying to ignore our rules.

Thread Tools

Display