Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Insurgency Baserape Rule - or Taliban =/= Insurgents

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Insurgency Baserape Rule - or Taliban =/= Insurgents

    Hello fellow TacticalGamers!

    The right for insurgents to attack coalition main bases existed because the insurgents were sort of under-powered compared to a regular armed force. They had bad weapons, a minimum amount of medical supplies and no advanced vehicles (e.g. flying/armored).

    Now, in .85, the Insurgents got buffed and there are new "insurgent" factions: the Taliban. But theres a huge difference between those dudes and the old Insurgents faction. They can/have:
    - regular armed combat medics
    - set rally points
    - request kits

    Why should the Taliban be allowed to attack hostile uncapturable bases? There really is no reason.

    This thread is primarily about the Taliban's, not about the Insurgents' right to baserape.
    |TG|muttonchops

  • #2
    Re: Insurgency Baserape Rule - or Taliban =/= Insurgents

    Gday sniggedi,

    i think the reason why insurgents can attack UCB is because; insurgents generally do not adhere to rules of combat/war, whereas regular armies do.

    Thats my take.............
    |TG-Irr| Aus-trooper

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Insurgency Baserape Rule - or Taliban =/= Insurgents

      Because the taliban do attack allied bases with rpg and mortars and basically act like terrorists would

      All the forces are localised except maybe aircraft/jdam ability of the allies


      Its not an overpowering tactic


      If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you have obviously failed to plan properly.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Insurgency Baserape Rule - or Taliban =/= Insurgents

        Realism.

        We haven't discussed changing the rules yet and to be honest I don't see it coming up any time soon. Insurgency is very, very hard for the BluFor team. They need to defend their main base and it requires a of teamwork, but they can be successful.

        It also seems pretty clear that it is the developer's intent to allow this type of behavior, otherwise you wouldn't be able to walk right up to the exits on the US main on Fallujah nor Karbala.

        Mainly though it is realism. We try to mimic real life ROE on insurgency for both sides. US cannot fire into mosques, no matter what, and insurgency has no rules.

        "You milsim guys are ruining the game."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Insurgency Baserape Rule - or Taliban =/= Insurgents

          Yeah, I understand the realism part but I talked heard a handful of people complaining about the rule even before I did.

          PR is still a game and even the devs know that, so there are still some points where gameplay is higher rated than realism.
          |TG|muttonchops

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Insurgency Baserape Rule - or Taliban =/= Insurgents

            I think the map makers failed to consider this topic, however, making it very easy to drive right into most bases or fire over very low walls/fences. I would like to see the dome-of-death extended on several of the maps to at least "simulate" the idea that most bases have 24/7 static defenders watching the base at all times. We "should" have defenders watching our main bases...but everyone knows that most of the time we don't have many players willing to spend an entire round babysitting. Sure would be cool if we could get AI "bots" to mount stationary weapons in the mains to fire on incoming insurgents. I think a UAV flying over the main would be a cool & helpful addition, although I don't know if this is used.
            |TG-X|WAREHOUSE

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Insurgency Baserape Rule - or Taliban =/= Insurgents

              I dislike the idea of RPG's shooting right into the main base proper from a mosque tower and not being able to return fire. Camping the exits with IEDs is one thing, but at least you can defend that. I would like to see it permitted for snipers to engage actively hostile targets in the mosque tower, becuase honestly if a SAM or RPG was firing out of the top and risking a multimillion dollar BH or Cobra, an accurate sniper round would probably be used, even if by local military forces. Indiscriminate or HE rounds are a different matter.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Insurgency Baserape Rule - or Taliban =/= Insurgents

                Originally posted by w.WAREHOUSE View Post
                I think a UAV flying over the main would be a cool & helpful addition, although I don't know if this is used.
                That is indeed a pretty good idea.
                |TG|muttonchops

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Insurgency Baserape Rule - or Taliban =/= Insurgents

                  Originally posted by ForGlory&Pain View Post
                  I dislike the idea of RPG's shooting right into the main base proper from a mosque tower and not being able to return fire.
                  As far as I know, the only map where this is possible is Fallujah. However, the tall tower is technically NOT a mosque (i.e not a permanent spawn) and more of a palace. The Americans CAN engage targets there.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Insurgency Baserape Rule - or Taliban =/= Insurgents

                    They mortar and rocket US bases constantly in real life.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Insurgency Baserape Rule - or Taliban =/= Insurgents

                      Baserape is fine IMO, it's a real life tactic for insurgents and the taliban, if you are growing tired of it take some initiative and squad lead a base defence squad.

                      Damnit Blizzard, fix ZvT already >.<
                      In Soviet Russian, Arma admins are nice to you!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Insurgency Baserape Rule - or Taliban =/= Insurgents

                        Originally posted by Spitfire14 View Post
                        They mortar and rocket US bases constantly in real life.
                        So would regular armies. Supply depots and command posts are important targets.

                        I think the realism part is no argument in this discussion since if we want to have realism, there shouldn't be a no baserape rule at all.
                        |TG|muttonchops

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Insurgency Baserape Rule - or Taliban =/= Insurgents

                          I don't really care either way, but like muttonchops said the realism argument has no weight, Real life armies make bases a priorty target.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Insurgency Baserape Rule - or Taliban =/= Insurgents

                            The problem I see with base raping now is that the assets cost tickets, yet the teams have no control over when they spawn in. You cannot delay their spawn until you have secured you base. If you base is under full siege by rpgs and mortars wouldn't you delay the delivery of new equipment until you could secure the area?
                            |TG-12th| Namebot

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Insurgency Baserape Rule - or Taliban =/= Insurgents

                              Originally posted by Namebot View Post
                              The problem I see with base raping now is that the assets cost tickets, yet the teams have no control over when they spawn in. You cannot delay their spawn until you have secured you base. If you base is under full siege by rpgs and mortars wouldn't you delay the delivery of new equipment until you could secure the area?
                              This is true, but since mortars are on a 30 minute timer, you can pretty much gauge when an attack is coming.

                              More importantly, you simply cannot control what happens to an asset once they are in control of players on your own team.

                              Yesterday on Archer, we had a pilot try to fly a huey under a hanger, resulting in 15 tickets lost instantaneously when the huey crashed into a jeep parked under the hanger. Shortly afterward, a humvee with troops in it was returning to base, hit the hesco barrier and the collision mesh of the barbed wire - dead humvee.

                              We lost more tickets to our own players than the Taliban inflicted on us by baserape. Actually, we defended the main for the first 30 minutes or more of the round, easily repulsed their first attempt at baserape and I think that was their only attempt. So, it can be done. It just takes some players who are willing to sacrifice their "fun" for the good of the team.

                              The rule isn't going to change in the near future, so I think it is up to players to adapt and overcome. A large part of this is that the assets do cost tickets, but instead of trying to protect those assets with tactics, the players seem to want the admins to do it for them.

                              "You milsim guys are ruining the game."

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X