![]() |


|
|||||||
| Joint Operations - General Discussion General discussion forums for Joint Operations. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
![]() Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Syracuse, NY
Age: 42
Posts: 504
|
Having played the game for over a week now a few things are becoming readily apparent.
1. There are WAY too many snipers. 2. The majority of people seem obsessed with charging at and capturing bases. Since we can't change number one, perhaps we should do our part to change number two. The inherent problem with the base captures is that it can lead to seemingly unwinnable firefights with no real accomplishment. How many times have you fought for the same piece of ground for 30 minutes? I was thinking a bit about last nights match so here's a little change up I'd like to see us try as a group. Two me it's appealling because it's tactical and will allow us to work more closely as a group. I'd suggest we set up two fireteams with at least four guys in each team. You have a least one medic in each group, preferably two. An engi with stingers and gunners or riflemen would make up the remainder of the team. I personally think that every team should have a gunner just for the suppression capability. If we can get more than 8 guys then we just keep adding teams. Next we go look at the map. It's pretty easy to figure out where the enemy and vehicles are going to be coming from. Based upon the terrain, we could pick a primary point and set up some ambushes. We could also set up a secondary point as a fallback in case we need to retreat and regroup. We'd probably need to switch periodically just so our position didn't get compromized. One or two guys act as spotters with binocs and the rest of us just wait to strike. What do you all think? The average smacktard on a server is just going to grab a vehicle and drive straight to the nearest battle. As a unit, we can make sure they never get there? ![]()
__________________
“Waiting to be awakened by some unexpected thunderous roar, never dying...the sleeping giant lives and will sleep no more”. - John Seabrook |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) | |
|
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 4,460
|
Re: A change in tactics
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) |
![]() Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Denver
Age: 38
Posts: 3,129
|
Re: A change in tactics
mmmm....I smell claymores! That sounds like a great plan.
Some of the fights last quite a while. I know from GR experience some people get tired of leading for very long. We can switch it around in game as we die and have to rejoin (keep those medics alive!) |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 (permalink) |
![]() Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Riverside, CA
Age: 29
Posts: 377
|
Re: A change in tactics
Once you secure a point is the other team going to move on the base you are cutting the route to?
Once I get the reatail version I'll be in there, I always choose medic and try to keep everyone alive, so thats where I'll fit in the team. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) | |
![]() Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Syracuse, NY
Age: 42
Posts: 504
|
Re: A change in tactics
Quote:
I LOVE the idea of claymores. How bout we take it a step further, we could set up kill zones for engi's with mortars!
__________________
“Waiting to be awakened by some unexpected thunderous roar, never dying...the sleeping giant lives and will sleep no more”. - John Seabrook |
|
|
|
|
| Sponsored links | |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 (permalink) |
|
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tecumseh, ON Canada
Posts: 287
|
Re: A change in tactics
Those are some very good ideas. The one weakness I see arising is that there will always be a "Wombat" around that will simply grab the nearest vehicle and head off to die a glorious death somewhere, usually at a non-strategic sector. This makes assembling, and keeping, a large fireteam together very difficult. I don't know how many times I've respawned just in time to see a helo leave with no one else on board. Getting, and staying, at a location are the tricky parts.
The other thing is base defence. Last night some of us played a marathon game (3 hrs. plus), and it was still going when we all left. It seemed that everytime we mounted a good offence, we'd usually lose a base behind us in the process because no one bothered to defend. It's a tough issue considering there are so many players, most of which are simply doing their own thing. However, our base assults were very well co-ordinated I thought--Karma and RYN, our 2 super-meds kept ppl alive at critical times, allowing us to exert a lot of pressure, usually successfully. Anyway, just my 2 cents worth. I think we're on to something, we simply need a bit of fine-tuning. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 (permalink) |
|
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 4,460
|
Re: A change in tactics
That map was just insane. I'm assuming it was an official map for a large crowd. I don't think the server was configured properly for a map of that size and design. The zones were very large and taking the middle zones spread forces thin. I noticed respawn times were non-existant making it difficult to take over an island.
If we can get enough of us online and on the same team at the same time, we can probably break up into two groups. We can do a leap frog for capturing zones. The group that captures will defend while the other group captures the next point. |
|
|
|
| Sponsored links | |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Real Urban Tactics (Long Read) | civdiv0211 | Battlefield 2 - Tactics and Missions Discussion | 6 | 02-16-2006 01:20 PM |

