Re: Questionable tactics?

**Pokerface** · 10-06-2005, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Bommando

I like battles to be as realistic as possible within the realms of playability.

Ditching an aircraft for the sole purpose of getting to a waypoint does not fall into that thinking for me. Certainly not against the rules, but I would hate to have to account for these tactics as a CO. I prefer the kind of games we have now.

Da, comrade.

Getting a jet to drop you off at a CP? Sure, I'll buy that. Taking the jet for the SOLE purpose of getting to the CP faster? Danger Will Robinson.

**BHack** · 10-06-2005, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by asch

Tactical Gamer Primer (required reading for everyone!)

Thanks for that post asch.

How does it apply to a game like world of warcraft though? Or is it only applied to games that it can easily be applied to, like bf2.

**Mateo** · 10-06-2005, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Bhack

Well I can tell you as a CO, that in my frame of mind the tactical advantage of owning important flags early to set up the win is much, much, higher than not having air superiority during the first 45 seconds of the round. Sure you may get bombed a few times... but cmon...

Ticket bleed can get managed after the first 45 seconds of the round. Given the generally sorry state of AA in the game, you won't keep those flags you capped early if the other team has a capable bomber crew supporting their assualt squads.

Even if all I tell them as CO is, keep the opfor off my assault team's back, I want my best pilots in the air, right from the start of the game.

**BHack** · 10-06-2005, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Pokerface

Da, comrade.

Getting a jet to drop you off at a CP? Sure, I'll buy that. Taking the jet for the SOLE purpose of getting to the CP faster? Danger Will Robinson.

Wait? Being dropped off by a jet is ok? that conforms with the #3 rule of the primer that asch just posted?

Surely, you shouldn't do that as it certainly does not 'as closely as possible' conform to realism.

See what i'm getting at? It's easy to have a few set rules such as no bunny hopping and no attacking the ucb. But rules such as #3 in the primer are so broad the exact meaning in any different game is highly open to intrepretation.

**BHack** · 10-06-2005, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by TG_Mateo

Ticket bleed can get managed after the first 45 seconds of the round. Given the generally sorry state of AA in the game, you won't keep those flags you capped early if the other team has a capable bomber crew supporting their assualt squads.

Even if all I tell them as CO is, keep the opfor off my assault team's back, I want my best pilots in the air, right from the start of the game.

Fair enough, what about the fact that the zatar wetland center spawn gives you the attack helo? Probably THE most effective weapon at keeping the opfor off your assault team's back.

Not only do you stand a much higher chance of getting that extremely important asset, but you stand a much higher chance of keeping it out of your enemy's hand.

Good debate.

**AzrealDarkmoon** · 10-06-2005, 02:57 PM

I have hopped in Blackhawks/Jeeps and told my squad not to spawn til I am at the location. Using a non tranport asset for the purpose...ehhhh

Now switching Squad Leaders is something I would frown on.

Az

**Turbo** · 10-06-2005, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Bhack

Your last sentence, I think, is wrong. Your actually not wasting assets. Your using map assets MORE effectively.

Last time I checked destroying a jet is not a way to use it MORE effectively, that usually involves bombing the enemy and taking out enemy planes.

**Pokerface** · 10-06-2005, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Bhack

Wait? Being dropped off by a jet is ok? that conforms with the #3 rule of the primer that asch just posted?

Surely, you shouldn't do that as it certainly does not 'as closely as possible' conform to realism.

See what i'm getting at? It's easy to have a few set rules such as no bunny hopping and no attacking the ucb. But rules such as #3 in the primer are so broad the exact meaning in any different game is highly open to intrepretation.

Again, as Bo stated, the balance is between reality and gameplay. An airdrop like this -- to me at least -- is within the realm of reality, and short of modding in a C130 or two, as close to approximating a squad airdrop as possible,

**BHack** · 10-06-2005, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Turbo

Last time I checked destroying a jet is not a way to use it MORE effectively, that usually involves bombing the enemy and taking out enemy planes.

It is the fastest asset in the game.

It is the quickest way to get somewhere.

Using it for 45 seconds to capture MORE assets and spawn points IS more effective than bombing the enemy and taking out planes, IN the same 45 second time frame.

In my opinion, and thats what I meant.

Whether or not TG servers allow that is irrelevant to the fact that it is better use of the jet, in the frame of this game. Again, in my opinion.

**Malum** · 10-06-2005, 03:25 PM

hah! Good luck doing that. If you can get those tactics to work, more power to ya.

**Acid** · 10-06-2005, 03:31 PM

but if this were real world mechanics and gameplay like we are trying to simulate here at TG, you wouldnt just waste a 5million dollar fighter jet just to get a CP faster than driving in a jeep. the only way i would find that acceptable is if you hopped in as a bomber and the pilot kept on flying. you would just ask to be "dropped off" at your suggested Capture point and then everyone could spawn.

**BHack** · 10-06-2005, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Pokerface

Again, as Bo stated, the balance is between reality and gameplay. An airdrop like this -- to me at least -- is within the realm of reality, and short of modding in a C130 or two, as close to approximating a squad airdrop as possible,

Right, assuming your not counting the blackhawk which was designed in the game for transportation of squads. But I see what your saying in that its not a true airdrop if your not in a plane as you would be in real life.

So your attempting to simulate a real world military tactic in the game with the vehicles you are given. Obviously the bomber modeled in the game, of which you would be using for this, was not designed to have people jumping out of it for transport.

Ok so how is this different than using a jet to transport yourself, attempting to simulate the same real world military tactic?

1. Well, in your scenario the jet isn't destroyed, which would be your argument.

I could come back saying that, while yes, I destroy the asset; your use of it completely halves the power of that asset to do what it was intended to do in the game. Having a gunner in that seat is much better use of that plane than flying someone somewhere only to jump out.

Again, where do you draw the line? So I hope we both agree that, while in different ways, we are 'wasting' the asset. And not using said asset in the manner that it would be realistically used in a real world scenario. So does it come down to HOW MUCH we are wasting the asset in accordance with attempting to simulate a real world military tactic in this game?

What I mean to say is, rule #3 states you must use the game's assets in the manner of the vehicle they are modeled after in real life. Your ad-hoc use of the bomber as a transport to simulate a different vehicle is a violation of that rule. Maybe a lesser violation than destroying it completely. But until they do model that C130, you really should be using a jeep or other transport vehicle... according to the rule.

**leejo** · 10-06-2005, 03:47 PM

The purpose of allowing players to spawn on the SL is, I think, to simulate actual battles that have more than 32 people on each side, and to compensate for the lack of real fear the soldiers have. In RL we would never take the chances we do in this game.

The purpose is NOT to allow a single member of a squad to jet into a hot spot and then magically have the full squad magically appear around that member.

It's a clever idea, but it's certainly gaming the game. Do you honestly think it's anything but that?

**Pokerface** · 10-06-2005, 03:52 PM

I think it's pretty clear where the line's drawn, actually.

Is taking a jet (solo), hopping out and having it crash into the wilderness the manner in which the vehicle was intended to be used? Of course not. It's incredibly wasteful and egotistic.

What about someone else flying it, and having you hop out? And the plane continues to remain in the air, functioning in its support role? Maybe not an obvious intention, but something still FAR more grounded in reality than the previous suggestion. And game-wise, if it's jet-squad SL who's flying, the second seat can be filled in the air by a spawner, so the (very real) possibility exists that you aren't wasting the asset at all.

I'm still a little confused as to where our disconnect is on this.

**BHack** · 10-06-2005, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by leejo

The purpose of allowing players to spawn on the SL is, I think, to simulate actual battles that have more than 32 people on each side, and to compensate for the lack of real fear the soldiers have. In RL we would never take the chances we do in this game.

The purpose is NOT to allow a single member of a squad to jet into a hot spot and then magically have the full squad magically appear around that member.

It's a clever idea, but it's certainly gaming the game. Do you honestly think it's anything but that?

No. I do think its gaming the game.

But you say that the purpose of the Spawn point is to simulate larger battles (as would happen in a real war) than 32 players.

Well what if I say my tactic simulates a real world platoon being air dropped to a hotspot by use of a fast plane? Since we're dealing with 'magic' here. Them magically appearing next to me is everyone being airdropped out of the same vehicle. Just as them magically appearing around you in your situation represents reinforcements.

Thread Tools

Display