Re: Whole-Team Convoys Don't Work

**snooggums** · 07-27-2009, 11:03 AM

This thread is just silly.

Convoys that are organized and keep moving do work well on an open map, they can keep insurgents at a distance until the caches are shown then they can cover themselves as they advance to it. They don't work well on maps like Korengal in my experience because they are easy to ambush, but I've even seen them work there.

Complaining that the convoys make it not fun for the other team is silly too. If they are moving and engaging the enemy it can effective and doesn't mean the other team can't have fun. Counterattacks just require patience, and sometimes you just have to wait a while for the convoy to enter the city/ambush spot.

And using one map that one time as a reason for it working or not working is not supporting evidence, it is anecdote.

**Dreadnought** · 07-27-2009, 11:46 AM

Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special Olympics. Imjustsayin

**Wicks** · 07-27-2009, 12:08 PM

Ok I'll bite, the initial statement was flawed and deserved a response, sadly some of the responses were pathetic. People are confusing issues here as I see it. People are relating their experiences in a round of ins, i.e whether they had fun or not as to whether or not something is effective, not the same thing guys. People are also jumping on bandwagons and attacking people, which in my opinion is about as pathetic as it gets. These are personal opinions and you guys don't know it all, I know because I have played with most of you and I also don't know it all. The original statement was flawed and should have been prefaced with 'imo' but hey, it got everyones attention.

Firstly convoys do work when executed well and the conditions of that round are favourable. That is fairly obvious in my opinion as it is not a categorical statement and contains several caveats, mainly the conditions of the round and the standard of execution. Those conditions can be applied to almost every strategy as a measure of whether or not it is effective.

Secondly, are convoys always executed well and are they always fun. Short answer no. As Blu-For I have been involved in convoys that are immersive, effective and fun. I have also been involved in convoy's that have been ineffective, dull, timid, and exercise in ego for those involved and a borderline blatant attempt to bore the INS players into disconnecting. RTB'ng eveytime someone fires a round is a dull pain in the backside quite frankly.

Quoting Basrah as an example of the effectiveness of convoys is a poor example in my opinion, sorry. BluFor is able to stand off most caches and pound it with armour, the map is flawed and any half competent BluFor should win every round with the asset imbalance. Caches spawing in limited locations, often outside the city in a small cluster of ultimately undefendable buildings is hardly helping the INS is it? I believe that Korengal is a far better INS map as it removes the imbalance and actually makes BluFor fight for the caches, hence they often struggle.

Believing oneself to be super tactical because you can sit in an APC or tank and shell a few mud huts whilst the insurgent's only counter is a bright red hatch back or a painfully slow semi is laughable. Often these tactical superstars are the players that switch to BluFor every time and rarely play insurgent, not taking their turn with the short end of the stick as it were.

If insurgency maps were truly balanced they would force the BluFor to get up close with the INS for a greater proportion of the caches. In my personal experience this does not happen much and I see caches destroyed by APC's and littlebird strafing regularly.

Yes, going in to the city as BluFor can be fun, yes, you can get a few caches down that way. Have I done it, yes, would I do it again, yes. Can that approach be used in conjuction with a 'convoy' strategy, yes. Would a dual approach be effective, yes imo. A small squad moving into another area to either gather intel or if appropriate actually go for the cache could work quite well don't you think? What with all the focus being on the convoy and whatnot.

Seriously though some people here need to remember they are wearing big boy pants before posting a response. Also to those of you unable to form your own opinions or coherent sentences for that matter, merely chiming in with 'yeah I agree' and 'you're opinion is so stoopid' is the intellectual equivalent to standing at the back of a fight shouting 'yeah, you tell him'.

Honestly, if you can't form a sensible opinion don't chime in.

There is no one tactic, tactics are dependent on resource, situation, timing, response etc. There are no good and bad tactics per se, merely tactics that have a greater chance of success given your understanding of the situation and your enemies disposition at that moment in time. As Dispo pointed out it is often a question of playing the odds.

Had a few people been a bit more civil this could have been an interesting discussion, shame it was spoilt really by the usual nonsense, well done.

**Axis_Sniper** · 07-27-2009, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by A.WICKENS

BluFor is able to stand off most caches and pound it with armour, the map is flawed and any half competent BluFor should win every round with the asset imbalance. Caches spawing in limited locations, often outside the city in a small cluster of ultimately undefendable buildings is hardly helping the INS is it?

This is what I was attempting to earlier, but instead of a well thought out post, where it made sense. I just basically drooled on the keyboard and headbutted the monitor.

**snooggums** · 07-27-2009, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by A.WICKENS

If insurgency maps were truly balanced they would force the BluFor to get up close with the INS for a greater proportion of the caches. In my personal experience this does not happen much and I see caches destroyed by APC's and littlebird strafing regularly.

I suggested that caches should only be able to be destroyed with incendiary grenades (no mortars/c4/IED/HEAT rounds) to simulate the infantry actually going in and making sure the cache was actually destroyed. Killing with artillery/HEAT rounds would still require verification in the real world.

Sadly this was shot down because "A mortar could still destroy it lolz!" missing the point that it represented verification as well as actual destruction. If caches couldn't be destroyed remotely Basrah would be much better and various versions of convoys would be even more effective compared to a few soldiers.

**TMan** · 07-27-2009, 01:14 PM

I favor entering the towns with USA infantry, carefully avoiding insurgents and clearing buildings. With a good medic and proper in squad coordination and teamwork, you can be really effective clearing caches without a scrap of vehicle support.

I think what ever you preferred tactic is, just do it right and do your best.

**Blade.3510** · 07-27-2009, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by O=T-M-A-N=O

I favor entering the towns with USA infantry, carefully avoiding insurgents and clearing buildings. With a good medic and proper in squad coordination and teamwork, you can be really effective clearing caches without a scrap of vehicle support.

I think what ever you preferred tactic is, just do it right and do your best.

or do what my team in the IWS (team D) did in the final game on ramiel use the vehicles to provide a front to defend keeping all the insurgents on the frontline while a small squad (fighters squad) searches behind enemy lines as in this case proved to be so effective we won the game because that squad virtually took down most of the caches

Delta*RandyShugart* · 07-27-2009, 02:54 PM

I know it isn't disputed, but there is nothing wrong with using an area attack on a suspected cache, or 2 suspected caches in the same general area.

Convoy's when used correctly, are very lethal and it is also a great show of teamwork.

Having a 2 man recon hummvw can also be useful as a lead vehicle upon entering a new AO on an insurgency map. Now I don't necessarily agree with driving right through the city, wanted to get shot at or rgp'ed, but having a hummvw going ahead of the convoy can help the convoy upon arrival of where most of the enemy fire is/might come from and also it can be used as a way to inform the convoy of any other enemy movement.

On Maps like Kashan, Qinling, etc, a scout vehicle can scout out an area and alert the armor/apc's/mech infantry units of what is ahead of them. This tactic can be extremely lethal especially when strict weapon discipline is relayed from the SL to the other squad members, nothing can give away a convoy more then the scout vehicle opening fire, and having the enemy look that way.

Now, it could also be used as a distraction, but the enemy will be alerted and will also be relaying that intel to other squads who might start focusing on/paying strict attention to engine noises etc.

Patience and understanding is the key to convoys working. I believe it was .75 or .8, Ramiel was the map, mcgann was the CO, I was a SL working in conjuction with Cougars stryker, I had my infantry line up 3 on each side, SAW gunner on the middle right side looking down the street, and the other infantry squad members keeping an eye out for anything out of the ordinary. Being the SL on the left front side, I was able to call out contacts to the gunner via TS (mumble wasn't around yet or it was in very early beta, i think it was .75) with ease.

This was an extremely successful round, partly because the infantry squads working in conjuction with the strykers were patient and understanding. No one griped or said "when are we going to attack, why are we standing still, blah blah blah." It was smooth and tactical at the same time and the job was done.

I have witnessed similar instances on Kashan, Armor working with AAV's and Logi trucks, setting up convoys and diamond shaped movements, as tanks move across the area in unison trying to complete an objective as well as paying attention to the side objectives at hand.

Convoys are not always needed, however they are a great way of broadcasting implementing teamwork.

I enjoy it immensely even when it might not work out, my only caveat is when players, especially regulars start complaining, or when regulars on the opposite side decide to let the voices inside there head spill out onto global chat about how Side A is taking so long, or how its boring. No one is forcing you to play PR, or on TG's server you can hit ESC at any time, or maybe take that time to make sure your fortifications are set up, everyone is where they are supposed to be etc.

In conjunction to what Tman posted, it is tactically awesome and a great site to see when a convoy is setup in a perimeter and the infantry units working with, and around the convoy go into a enemy area and either A) take out the suspected weapons cache, or B) neutralize the enemy threat/take out an enemy FB and capture the flag.

^ Same from an insurgency POV, when you have techinicals over watching an area and the infantry move in and retake outpost or when the command is given to open fire on the ambush that is setup.

**Startrekern** · 07-27-2009, 05:10 PM

I agree with you about the incindiary grenade-only thing.

I do believe that most of the time the reason that I've seen certain tactics not work is that the Blufor are content to engage at long range, which is admittedly their strong suit, and don't like actually advancing onto where the cache actually is. They feel that they have to kill everyone around the cache before actually going to destroy the cache, which isn't true and is actually time-consuming and never-ending, considering that the insurgents can just respawn whenever they like and don't have tickets.

Also, Randy, what you were talking about with that Ramiel round appears to have been just the Infantry and APCs working together and actually staying on the move going through the city -- not just parking on a hill and shooting at the insurgents.

**Taip3n** · 07-27-2009, 06:17 PM

Thank you Wickens for saying what I have been trying to fathom how to write, over this threads' lifetime, as it descended into the wrong way of thinking. Though I understand people have also echoed such thoughts.

To be honest I did not know how to 'chip in' as the madness continued. It seemed better not get involved as the rabid monster would surely have turned its head. And I am fed up with that monster slavering its jaws on me for one, call me paranoid if you like. This for me was the more frightening aspect of this thread and more telling than anything else of how far 'we' have to go; and hence my position to keep away.

I am glad of those that have put in decent input into this question, as they seem to have found the balance in insight as Wickens discusses. So thanks again, Wickens.

Delta*RandyShugart* · 07-27-2009, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Startrekern

I do believe that most of the time the reason that I've seen certain tactics not work is that the Blufor are content to engage at long range, which is admittedly their strong suit, and don't like actually advancing onto where the cache actually is. They feel that they have to kill everyone around the cache before actually going to destroy the cache, which isn't true and is actually time-consuming and never-ending, considering that the insurgents can just re-spawn whenever they like and don't have tickets.

The insurgents are able to re-spawn, but lets say they have IED's down, now they have to re-set up those IEDs. The mines will stay for 20 minutes, but after time they will disappear.

RKG's are a underrated weapon, they are extremely lethal, so much in fact that they will take out a logistic truck and hummer's/land rovers who are patrolling through the cities/mountainside roads, and thy will inflict damage to APC's and Strykers.

Killing everyone around the Cache, and near it is a great tactic, why not.....
If I am assaulting a cache and have armor support I'm more than happy to have the armor take out the infantry/quell the threat, so when I move in with my squad/other squads the threat of a spawn point is diminished and all there is, is the threat of a grenade trap that someone missed and trips.

I'd rather take my time as a bluefor player especially on an insurgent map where every ticket counts, even if it means that it takes a long time, win or lose. If its so annoying to the insurgent players, that's fine, it just means they will get antsy and go out in the open more, or prove to be more harmful to their team because they feel "the bluefor side is taking to long."

Originally Posted by Startrekern

Also, Randy, what you were talking about with that Ramiel round appears to have been just the Infantry and APCs working together and actually staying on the move going through the city -- not just parking on a hill and shooting at the insurgents.

From what I remember it was Stryker's in the city, with infantry, and there was some Hummer support, I do recall that because a few days later I stepped up as CO and implemented that same type of layout.

Its a first person shooter, if a team feels that having the hummer's or strykers exposed on a hill is a tactic they wish to use, or if they have players covering their rear as the infantry then moves onto the objective, it is what it is. Its far better than a lone Stryker going into the city without transporting any infantry. Stryker's are transports, no matter what anyone thinks, and the only useful way to use a transport of that caliber is to use it in conjunction with infantry, and logistics and or Hummer Support.

There have been way to many times that I have seen TG PR Regulars take Strykers deep into Ramiel, not transporting infantry and "BOOM!" they get destroyed, all the while had there been some patience and thought, the Stryker could have at least supported the infantry on its approach.

Also, going knee deep into Ramiel (Just using it as an example) in this particular case is tough, the threat of mines/ieds is very high, they are able to be disguised very well, and rushing through the city is a quick way to lose tickets + driver and gunner of the Stryker, or Hummer, or other squad members, etc. Incl. Transports trucks/Hummer's.

Armor support is exactly what it says, and what it is used for in RL scenario's. It's there to give support to the infantry.

Which is why when used correctly and with the right tactics in mind Mech-Inf units are lethal in PR, and when backed by supporting Armor units and then add Air Support, it is a thing to see, I've seen it a few times now and its amazing at what can be accomplished.

I just started this book titled "House to House" Ristin actually suggested it to me, and let me tell you, there is a reason why infantry units work with Bradley IFV's, and why Bradley IFV's have the name Infantry Fighting Vehicle attached to them, they are powerhouses which have crewman who are able to unleash a vicious wrath of reality to those who threaten the vehicle and the infantry which use them.

Israel is another excellent example of Mech-Infantry, hell, even the Germans in WW2 utilized this tactic extremely well.

The cool thing is that we as PR players use tactics that we have seen, or read about, as well as expanding those tactics and making up our own as we go along, the bottom line is that teamwork is a must with convoy's and tacticalgamer is based upon that very notion, because without teamwork nothing is tactical.

*I do see what you are saying though startrek, and I hope that what I posted doesn't come across as being snide, curt or rash. It was not intended to be that way at all.*

**Berlancic** · 07-27-2009, 06:58 PM

Yes thanks.
IMO agreeing with people on their topic is fine.
Beating them down for it is not.

**Wookie** · 07-27-2009, 07:35 PM

Having been on both sides of the "convoy tactic" all I can say is BORING.....but I can't say it's ineffective because I've seen it work too many times....especially on insurgency maps.....

game on....

**Berlancic** · 07-28-2009, 05:28 AM

For starters, some of you arguing against Star don't seem to realise his 'rush' tactic is what he thinks is good in his opinion.

He was not saying it is better to use his tactic. He said that's what he sometimes did. He was not trying to persuade anyone that his tactic was good. That's just what he liked doing because he thought it was a good tactic.

Also, you cannot truly judge his opinion until you have tried it practically. There are probably many things Star left out because he didn't want to write a long post.
I am talking about the last paragraph in his post. The one Cougar spoke of.
Ferris, you can't really use probabilty because you are going to leave out many things that can't be included in it. What if the insurgent team was slow or had little co-ordination? I guess you could say that you are going on generalisations, and you'd probably be right.
Can some of you at least try to view Startrekern's side?

**Ferris Bueller** · 07-28-2009, 06:04 AM

No, not really, and if you go back and examine the very first post, actually, let me quote it for you:

Originally Posted by Startrekern

This practice has been proven to be unsuccessful time and time again. So I ask you, why do you think people still insist on doing it?

Having your entire team in one place doesn't really work. If you must convoy, do it in smaller groups of 2 squads instead of 5-6 squads + armor in one place. That is a recipe for disaster.

That seems relatively matter-of-fact to me, or am I being obtuse about some part of it?

In response to your last couple parts there:
-I have tried his tactics. MANY times. Sure, sometimes they work, most times they dont.
-Generalizations are BASED on probability. You cant make a generalization without it being right the majority of the time. Thats why the term exists.
-As I stated in my first post, there will be times in which ANY tactic will be successful, but most of the time, it wont be. I very rarely see insurgent teams so disorganized that they will let a single squad mow them down.

As I said in my last post, I'd be happy to accept someone's position if it was well thought out and well presented. Theorizing on tactics without any kind of tactical analysis, as has gone on repeatedly in this thread, is not what I mean by that. So no, I cant see his side. I've seen his side fail more than it has succeeded, and I pointed out exactly why.

Lastly, whats wrong with making a long post? A long, well thought out point-by-point cover of your desired topic is going to yield results of a much more positive nature. Look at Wickens last post. Do you think people would have respected it as much if he had just boiled it all down and said "wow, some people here are being idiots and everyone needs to think about what theyre saying before they post"? No. He put forth the effort to make sure his points were made clearly, concisely and understood by all. If you want to be taken seriously in a written discussion, laziness doesnt cut the mustard. You want to get a point across, take the time to make it well rather than just calling everyone into the street for a flame war.

Thread Tools

Display