No announcement yet.

Capture or kill? =>kill

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Capture or kill? =>kill

    Hi guys.


    For some time I've been suspecting most ps2 platoons have een too focused on capturing game-mechanic-objectives (generator, control points). I think it is a natural reflex for most people leading in ps2 to word orders in terms of desrtoy x, cap y.

    This creates sort of a tunnel vision in the players where they are trying to run past enemy fire to get somewhere and THEN start fighting. A very frustrating experience that is wholly counter intuitive. A lone soldier will never play that way. He will advance slower, and give himself a good chance of either surviving an engagement, or at least having a good chance of killing before being killed.

    Thus the platoon is wanting to play in a way that is totally opposite to how an individual would instinctively play. Hence discipline problems arise, perhaps rightly so. Even more importantly morale goes down trough bottom of whatever it is things proverbially fall trough in English.

    On defense people end up pocketed in little fortresses as the enemy surrounds them and most likely wins unless you have superior numbers.

    2) Kill

    So I got thinking, what if I just ask people to kill? I'll try and put them somewhere, I'll try and get them to work together in some way, but what if I can use that natural instinctive play to my advantage? If I ask them to kill, they will turn on all those instincts and use them to the benefit of all? All need need to get them to do is do that killing in the way i'm asking them, or from the place I'm asking them to do it.

    All I need a a few guys keeping an eye on an objective, if I have most of my people in good positions actually controlling the area instead of just the points.

    Meanwhile people are getting more kills. They never have to run trough fire to get somewhere. They are getting points, they are having fun and they are more successful than on their own.

    Capture or kill?

    I say :Kill. Kill kill kill.

    If you still lose the point or generator, you would have lost it anyway, but now you lost it while fighting from much better positions, without forcing yourself to do things you know won't work. Just retreat and come at them another way. Morale is high and the enemy won the fight, but you haven't lost the battle.

  • #2
    Re: Capture or kill? =>kill

    I think its a collection of the two really. I mean in the end most things fail because of over extension and in a game where people can respawn (and therefore give the impression of hundred or thousand play battles) kills aren't terribly important alone.

    In large scale operations you need to balance out killing and objective capture to be successful. There also needs to be a proper distribution of labour. You get one platoon to be a skirmisher and the group that interdicts the enemy respawns and then you have another platoon holding the base internally.

    I definately agree that far too often point capture appears to be top priority before... you know... killing the sunderer or blocking the spawn room's reinforcements.
    No person can simply just be; they are what they do.


    • #3
      Re: Capture or kill? =>kill

      The beaches of Normandy come to mind after reading this. Sometimes, it's required to run through enemy fire to beat them out of the bunkers. Those bunkers that provide area denial. Standing back trying to out kill an enemy that can be back on the firing line in less than 30 seconds, accomplishes nothing. Breaking the means for the enemy to reinforce itself quickly, is killing the enemy. That means in PS2, getting caps or destroying SCU's. Having sunders give a false sense of team reinforcement, they can be destroyed quickly, and are always primary targets for the enemy, so should not be relied on unless you are dedicated in defending them. But, by defending them you are decreasing the amount of force applied to completing the objectives. Beacons are just as temporary.

      Flanking enemy positions sometimes requires you to run through enemy fire. There's a right way and wrong way to do it though. We do not utilize smoke as cover when moving from cover to cover. We'd do better if we did. The ability to force the enemy to have to look more than 90 degrees to pick his target, forces them to fall back or they will die. The flank Delta squad did before NS Storage during FNF, proved that. To get to where we where, we had to run past enemy magriders that were being engaged by the other squads. Stealth, using terrain to obfuscate and down right sprinting past them, allowed us to get in position and force them out of their position.

      Completing your objectives, set down by SL/PL, will kill the enemy. Example time. In CS:S, gameplay is very objective based, you have 7-8 guys per side either defending or assaulting. At TG, with the Primer in mind, it became a game of strategy, letting people run everywhere trying to kill the enemy, doing what we called killhunting, was not allowed. The reason was simple, if too many people were running everywhere trying to kill the enemy, one guy could sneak past and complete their objective, winning the round. What good are you to the team if your actions are counter to what should be done? If people were defending every avenue to the objective and through clear concise com's call out contacts, the enemy would have to do the same or be wiped out.

      Teamwork and clear concise com's, win the day. As well as knowing when to retreat and regroup. I see that used only after we grind out for 20 minutes. There is a better time, usually within 5 minutes of the enemies push. A PL could ID it as when ~75% of the platoon is spawning in on the Sunders all at once. That would be a good clue that there is a superior force on target.


      • #4
        Re: Capture or kill? =>kill

        @ BigGaayAl: Good point you are making there, I completely understand. Too often I find myself doing rather incautious things desperately trying to stay in cohesion with the squad or to get to that objective, rather then accepting that doing so is at the moment not possible.
        A way to counter this issue is “adapt and coordinate” I'd say. A squad that loses it's coordination in such situations*1 over the striving of the single members to get the job done is doomed to failure. A squad that maintains it coordination but still does not adapt to the circumstances will fail as well.
        The first goal shut thus be – in case of getting to some gen and blowing it up – to first get there as a whole (or as a whole sub-unit which has that specific task) without significant casualties. Then the objective is updated: destroy the gen and what not...
        This whole issue is a psychological one: The individuals want to succeed at the task. To do so the unit requires cohesion (the “task” itself might even be to simply not lose cohesion). But because the unit does not communicate*2 sufficiently to coordinate itself, the individual player feels urged to act in that incautious way so the unit does not fail it's task, however this leads in most of the cases to failing it in even greater measure.
        *1 “such situations”: Situations that make fulfilling a a certain objective very difficult to impossible.
        *2 ideally of course this goes without actual communication. The individuals simply need to keep up their situational awareness in hindsight to their unit's status and react accordingly to it.
        (This in turn suggest that there have to be some individuals that do not sufficiently try to maintain the cohesion (cohesion in most of the cases is key to success) of the unit (be at willingly or not) which then leads to the problems in the first place)




        TeamSpeak 3 Server




        Twitter Feed