+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 18
Discussion: Project Reality / PR:BF2 - I broke these rules - sorry - Tactical Gamers Server - Sunday 7pm CST
MAP: Wetlands
2) Players are not allowed into
-
07-22-2007, 10:14 PM #1Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Age
- 31
- Posts
- 238
I broke these rules - sorry
Tactical Gamers Server - Sunday 7pm CST
MAP: Wetlands
2) Players are not allowed into the enemy UCB for any reason other than for the sole purpose of destroying the enemy's assets (artillery/uav/radar). Restricted acts include:
Addendum: In the project reality mod, a main (base) flag shall be considered a UCB unless the AAS Headquarters (HQ) message states to capture it.
I moved my squad deep into enemy territory to disrupts armor re-enforcements by laying mines and destroying bridges two flags out from the MEC Main airbase.
We did not attack the MEC airbase but did attack supply trucks and armor that moved past our position enroute to the front.
I wasn't aware (until now, reading the rules) that this was outside the boundaries. I was under the impression that the only base off-limits was the uncap-main.
Sorry about that fellas.
-
07-22-2007, 11:24 PM #2
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- New York (no, not the city)
- Age
- 34
- Posts
- 2,512
Re: I broke these rules - sorry
These actions can be allowed as long as they are performed a reasonable away from the Uncap base (200m or so). The rules stated above are to prevent people from blowing up unmanned vehicles, or camp players as they spawn in the base. Vehicles that move out of the base are fair game.
|TG-6th|Belhade
"I am actually looking forward to watching Jon and Kate plus 8." - Dirtboy
-
07-23-2007, 12:12 AM #3Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Age
- 31
- Posts
- 238
Re: I broke these rules - sorry
Here's the map in question with my squad as US.
The green is the base we were operating out of. The blue areas are where we laid mines and destroyed with C4.
img72.imageshack.us/img72/9758/zatarwetlands64menumapcl5.jpg
The bases to the left were MEC and Neutral, respectively. The base we were operating out of was at the time, enemy uncap.
*Sorry I can't embed the image. I don't have 15 posts yet...
-
07-23-2007, 03:12 AM #4
Re: I broke these rules - sorry
Just dont attack the uncap or vehicles and players leaving it. People lay mines then get carried away and start ambushing and indirectly attack a base they cant capture.
Happens on every map I think, on EJOD we had tanks attacking traffic leaving the main base when the city flags were the actual contested flags.
On Jabal, USA attack the bridge coming out of the MEC main, lay mines blow the bridge up then graduate to attacking every vehicle that tries to leave its own base - sucky tbh. Meanwhile the actual front line is at the dam, miles away
The devs backed away from destroying rally points every time a flag is taken because it was pretty harsh but I think this is the reason they even considered that
If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you have obviously failed to plan properly.
-
07-23-2007, 07:18 AM #5
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Posts
- 322
Re: I broke these rules - sorry
Didn't we have a discussion a month or so ago where admins clarified that there is only one uncap per side, either an actual UCB or the last flag/group the team has?
-
07-23-2007, 07:27 AM #6
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,636
Re: I broke these rules - sorry
You can be anywhere on the battlefield with the sole restrictions being on the flags that have the circle and cross through it, or on the VERY last flags that can be captured. Apart from that, ambush away. Now, if a CO tells you to be somewhere else, make sure you get there.
Lucky Shot
-
07-23-2007, 08:09 AM #7
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Posts
- 322
Re: I broke these rules - sorry
Yes, that's what I've always thought. But you can forgive players their confusion when jmaker, a BFx admin, says "Belhade has written up an excellent explanation on why a 'pre-emptive' attack on an uncontested control point is not allowed here. Please keep the fight over the control points in the sequence designated by the AAS order."
http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...ally-mean.html
-
07-23-2007, 08:36 AM #8
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,636
Re: I broke these rules - sorry
We had a discussion on this within the admin forums and sometimes things change. However, this was the direction that we were proceeding in.
Lucky ShotUCBs are UCBS, with the addition of the most back flag on maps where a team does not have a UCB, IF IT IS NOT IN PLAY. Confusing, but it's like this: Team A does not have a UCB. All flags are in play except their back-most flag, until the quartermaster says that it can be captured. Then all flags are in-play. If it can no longer be captured, then it goes out of play again and should be considered a UCB.
-
07-23-2007, 08:41 AM #9
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Warren, OH
- Age
- 32
- Posts
- 3,069
Re: I broke these rules - sorry
Where's the confusion? My quote from that thread was when a squad was just camping a flag when it was not even in play. This thread is just talking about being out in the open battlefield. I have no problems with that. Sorry if that confused anyone.
Originally Posted by Lucky Shot
|TG-12th| jmaker
-
07-23-2007, 09:36 AM #10
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Belgium
- Age
- 29
- Posts
- 1,851
Re: I broke these rules - sorry
I believe this is the right thread:
You state it 's not a rule but will you actually kick/ban players for ignoring this? Originally Posted by How to report player issues on the PR server
Last week I created an AIR squad on Kashan Desert and locked it to avoid people just joining the first squad without looking at the name. I typed in the chat that the squad is open to everybody willing to fly and that they just had to ask for an invite... Unfortunately, that didn't work out very well. The round started and I saw one guy running straight for the LB (not part of my squad), I got in next to him and sent him an invite. No reply and a flipped LB on take off... I then found out there was a second squad called 'AIR1', so obviously I asked why they created a second squad if there already was one. SL replied that I didn't have the right to fly the vehicles myself just because I have a faster pc... lol. Alright, no big deal, I said it was a misunderstanding and explained to him the reason why I locked the squad. I then invited him and his squad into mine which lead to an awesome round I must say (until I got kicked for a SM
).
Next day I created another AIR squad on Daqing Oil Fields, this time I did not lock it and clearly told people over VOIP that anyone in the squad 's sole purpose is air transport/support. Guess what, round started and 2 players rushed to the Cobra and took off with it (*couch* one of em replied in this thread *couch*). This lead to me creating a new squad as there is no purpose to having a 5 man squad for one blackhawk. We clearly stated in the chat that next time they should create an AIR squad or join one if there is one... no response. I can understand they were busy flying the Cobra and had no time to reply, yet stuff like this should not be allowed imo. I don't care if someone else takes the Cobra/F16/A10 or whatever, but if I create an AIR squad I expect people flying air assets to join my squad and follow SL/CO 's orders.
I heard Top Cat talk about specialized squads, where all members are limited to the SL 's kit (or perhaps a few others, but not all). I really hope they introduce this in future versions cause I think it 's a great idea. Of course people will still have to name their squads in stead of just ALPHA, BETA,... but it will definitely improve gameplay I think. Common names for squads should be Infantry, Ambush, Air, Armour, Co Assist, Sabotage,...Last edited by Ghost Dog; 07-23-2007 at 09:52 AM.
-
07-23-2007, 11:01 AM #11
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Gone for the weekend folks!
- Age
- 35
- Posts
- 2,578
Re: I broke these rules - sorry
I'm not sure how things are in PR, I know you guys run a tighter ship than normal, but in 2142 the named squad is more of a guideline than a rule. When we create a Transport or Attackship squad, we hope that players will respect our claim and our strategic intent, but we wouldn't kick someone for hopping in before we can get to it. Having breaking the claim be a kickable offense is a short road to people abusing the claiming system, and leads to a lot of extra admin workload.
-
07-23-2007, 11:41 AM #12
Re: I broke these rules - sorry
I was in th esame round I believe, doing the same thing. We were berated by half the enemy team because we were at a flag close to the mec uncap, and they stated we couldn't because it wasn't cappable at that moment. Many urged us to read the rules, and we assured them they had it wrong. Some confusion has been created by a recent post in the forum saying that any uncappable flag is off limits (even if not the last flag). Originally Posted by vanity11
***
About the air squad procedures. I've seen a TG player that I appreciate and like to play with do the following recently.
We made an air squad with Ghostdog, it filled up immediately, so ghost started dividing the assets over the squads. we got to the chopper and saw a person in. This player had a full alpha squad. Following my complaints, he made a chopper squad, leaving the alpha squad, which always has most pubbies, in total disarray. That just destroyed our round opening right there. By the time all those players get in a decent squad, the enemy has capped half the map. Then later I saw the same chopper squad, and it had 6 members, including a tank and a sniper.
I only want to bring this up for discussion, and I hope this is not taken personal. I just want to make people think of huge detrimental effect running squads in that way has on the whole team. The confusion generated by one squad being disbanded just after the start of the round, and later the squad that has no cohesion at all can totally disable a team.
I remember how well the specialized squad worked on TG on vanilla...yes! Vanilla! For some reason it worked then, but it's just disappeared.
Using air-squads is not strictly in the rules AFAIK but it is just so much better for the whole team if you do.What it's like to play online games as a grown-up:http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-i...e_gaming/1.jpg
"Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!"
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
(Einstein, both)
***I will be in India 14 dec till end of januari***
-
07-23-2007, 07:41 PM #13
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- New York (no, not the city)
- Age
- 34
- Posts
- 2,512
Re: I broke these rules - sorry
The difference, as I perceive the two situations in this thread and the other, is this: Originally Posted by mingmong
The previous thread that I wrote in, the squad in question was within the confines of the Temple flag, waiting for enemies to spawn in and find them, thus initiating the engagement. This thread, the squad is outside the base, intercepting armor on the way to the front lines. Different situations, though this may also be considered one of those questionable tactics.|TG-6th|Belhade
"I am actually looking forward to watching Jon and Kate plus 8." - Dirtboy
-
07-23-2007, 08:49 PM #14
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- 1123, 6536, 5321
- Age
- 29
- Posts
- 9,244
Re: I broke these rules - sorry
Heres the up and down of it as i see it:
These guys were in the right as far as I can see from the limited explanation given. Even if their team was down to one flag, destruction of assets, blockading routes, and cutting enemy supply lines, (so long as the actions are not called into question by the commander) are all acceptable and encouraged tactics. The bridges they were assaulting were of a sufficient distance out from the UCB to allow enemy troops to compensate movement if they desired to do so. They were not camping an uncappable flag. They were not directly assaulting the UCB.
What they did do was effectively buy their team a windo of opportunity for advancement without the worry of fresh enemy armor rolling up. Whether or not their team took advantage of this is really irrelevant. Whether or not the enemy team found this tactic to be annoying is absolutely irrelevant. It's simulated warfare folks, and throughout the many threads posted on this topic, we have come to the solid conclusion that cutting enemy supply routes and guerrilla tactics used against vehicle movement are absolutely part of a simulated warfare scenario, so long as these activities adhere to the basic rules we have outlined.
There should be NO confusion here. So long as they were not camping a flag that was uncappable, assaulting the UCB, disobeying commander orders, or being an obvious detriment to their team, nobody can possibly fault them for their actions. It's obvious from the report/confessional he gave that the flag was not their target, but simply the delay and annoyance of enemy movement.
It's simple guys. We dont really need a huge discussion over something that has been hammered out and carved in stone for a long time now, do we?
|TG-6th|Ferris Bueller
-
07-23-2007, 09:35 PM #15
Re: I broke these rules - sorry
Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller
As an example, camping the MEC Jabal northern most bridge would be not true of the above imo. There is a limited path for MEC back to the front line.
A good general rule to me would be to avoid attacking any team as they progress from their last to the next flag unless you are capturing either of those flags.
So in the above case MEC main flag and the area between city/factory should not be camped. Laying mines or blowing up the bridge and then moving away is something I might do myself though.
On the USA side, a poor tactic imo would be for a vodnik to park at west beach beachhead and fire his 50 cal at blackhawks leaving the carrier/approaching dam.
I can see why people think its a grey area or perfectly fine even but it makes for poor gameplay and relates to a ucb attack imo.
For the record Im not keen on air squads, I have given them a try but find them counter productive personally. I prefer a more mixed squad where troops on the ground can give the pilot greater detail on a battle/flag or call in a strike.
Sometimes a commander will do similar or often he will not. Im glad it is just a guideline, maybe something more preorganised could be arranged for a password night that would be backed by an admin as required on the night
If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you have obviously failed to plan properly.
Reply With Quote
|TG-6th|GhostDog
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Bookmarks