Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Let Them Bleed!

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

  • Let Them Bleed!

    Such a frustrating loss. I won't name the map or the time, so as not to upset anyone.

    We were down, but still had a chance at a great comeback. We beat the enemy down to one flag and had them in the bleed. But the commander continued to order assaults on the one remaining flag. There were, of course, two dozen enemy at that position, many of which were probably ordered to defend at all costs.

    The result was huge casualties for us and the enemy was able to run past our corpses and re-take other flags. I begged our SL to request permission to defend instead of assault the last position, as we were the only squad between the enemy and another flag, but he refused (following orders like a good SL). I followed orders, too, knowing we were throwing away a golden opportunity. Within a few minutes, we were back in the bleed and the war was all but over.

    Tactical lessons:

    1) When trying to make a comeback, you need two things: the enemy in the bleed AND forced to go on the offensive. Having the enemy in the bleed is good, but the advantage can be negated if you are losing tons of troops on meaningless assaults. The enemy is already bleeding, why take another flag (unless there are necessary assets at that pos.)?

    2) Assaulting the last enemy position is a VERY risky proposition. These are TGers, they know how to defend, and they WILL get by you. Instead, hem them in and defend. Make them come to you. C-4 every flag, use tanks to defend, use support and medic kits etc. You should choose the ground to defend, which is one of the most basic tenets of war.

    That loss will stay with me. We had them, but threw away our advantage for lack of tactical acumen. So please, spread the word: LET THEM BLEED.
    Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    -Plato

  • #2
    Re: Let Them Bleed!

    Originally posted by TheRooster1
    The result was huge casualties for us and the enemy was able to run past our corpses and re-take other flags. I begged our SL to request permission to defend instead of assault the last position, as we were the only squad between the enemy and another flag, but he refused (following orders like a good SL). I followed orders, too, knowing we were throwing away a golden opportunity. Within a few minutes, we were back in the bleed and the war was all but over.
    I wouldnt call that a good squad leader. That's just a robot following a command without thinking. The commander is not an omniscient deity. The orders are a general way to suggestion an action. Accomplishing that action is up to the squad leader. Just because an order is given to attack a flag, that doesnt mean ignore everything else except attacking that flag. If you are moving to the attack objective just when the flag you are leaving gets attacked, the commander is most likely unaware and is not going to issue a defend order. A decision like that to defend should be immediately given by a good squad leader unless there is already sufficient defenders present. I highly doubt that the commander would have preferred to have that flag capped at the cost of losing the other flags. And there is no such command on the command menu that says that. The squad leader should be well aware of that. What do you think separates the good squad leaders from the bad? Good squad leaders actually think and not just follow.

    Originally posted by TheRooster1
    1) When trying to make a comeback, you need two things: the enemy in the bleed AND forced to go on the offensive. Having the enemy in the bleed is good, but the advantage can be negated if you are losing tons of troops on meaningless assaults. The enemy is already bleeding, why take another flag (unless there are necessary assets at that pos.)?

    2) Assaulting the last enemy position is a VERY risky proposition. These are TGers, they know how to defend, and they WILL get by you. Instead, hem them in and defend. Make them come to you. C-4 every flag, use tanks to defend, use support and medic kits etc. You should choose the ground to defend, which is one of the most basic tenets of war.

    That loss will stay with me. We had them, but threw away our advantage for lack of tactical acumen. So please, spread the word: LET THEM BLEED.
    Rooster, what you have described is just one way of winning, not the only way. For example, the enemy in bleed and forced to defend. How can the enemy attempt to take more flags when the ones they own are under contest? Stopping the enemy from forming a counter-attack is very effective. Sticking to only one tactic makes you predictable.

    The second thing is that there is a difference from attacking a flag and capturing it. Two different intents. If I tell an airplane to attack a flag, it certainly is not going to cap it. Ground squads have both options. Once again, there is no command on the command menu that says attack but dont capture, that falls onto the squad leader. So me mowing down anyone leaving that last flag is assaulting it, but I have no intention of getting anywhere near the flag radius. Under constant attack, the other team normally gets confused in such situations on deciding whether to run the blockade or stay in an attempt to defend the last flag. As long as you hem them in on all sides, very seldom do they break out. But this comes down to the squad leaders and their actions. Thus the difference between the good and the bad.
    -33rd- BaneII
    Smokers & Jokers

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Let Them Bleed!

      Of course all tactics need to be adaptable. But this situation comes up often. The tactical advantage is there, but COs want to keep assaulting instead of sit back and defend. In doing so, they turn an advatage into a disadvantage. Defense is ALWAYS the preferred mode of combat. You choose the ground, you can take cover while the enemy has to move. Defense, of course, it not always an option, but it should be the goal in terms of operational paradigms. The CO should want to get his team to a position where all they have to do is maintain the status quo. Terrain, inertia, and combat tactical advantage will then all be on his side.

      If you have a spare squad that can attack the last enemy position while others defend, so much the better. But if you don't, all squads should defend and let the enemy come to them.

      "How can the enemy attempt to take more flags when the ones they own are under contest?" Its easy, send a squad past all the dead troops who died assaulting your strongly held position. Attack the position they just left empty, attack vacuity.


      As for being a good/bad SL, this is touchy. When is it OK to disobey orders? The rules clearly state etc etc. . .

      Great debate here. Its like a frikin war college.
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
      -Plato

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Let Them Bleed!

        The commander always sees more than you do. Like it or not, there is absolutely no way for a team to defend all but one flag on a map against another team. Why? You're spread out over something like 6 flags, and the enemy can go ahead and attack one. You simply cannot defend all the flags equally. There are only a few ways to go up against this. The first one is to defend each flag the same amount, and when one goes down launch a full out assault on it. That seems to be the strategy you're advocating: containment until they're able to break out (which is inevitable). There's nothing wrong with this strategy. Some COs, like you if you were in that position, would do this.

        The second option is to do what you're mad at the CO for doing: assault the enemy at their only flag. They say the best defense is a good offense. Anyone who has ever played a game of Karkand knows that it's basically impossible to move out and secure a flag when your spawn point is being assaulted. Instead of spreading your forces all around the map and playing whack-a-mole whenever the concentrated enemy assault breaks through your thin defensive line, assaulting their one remaining position assures that you NEVER have to deal with breakouts. You're going to lose tickets, yes, but nobody is going to take one of your flags. Your problem is that it's basically impossible to take the last flag, since the enemy is spawning back in on it. This is true; you're probably not going to turn it unless you commit every single one of your players and then some. What you will do is prevent the enemy from getting out. By doing this, you can have minimal defense (1-2 squads) and be assured you won't lose any flags, as opposed to your strategy where every single squad is on defense and you ARE assured that you will lose a flag once 4 enemy squads roll in to take it.

        Commanding is hard. There's no clear cut strategy. You were frustrated because you were being sent into the meat grinder, but imagine how you would feel if your entire team was spread out over 5 flags and 4 enemy squads overwhelmed your position. That would quickly turn from a defense into a route.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Let Them Bleed!

          "You were frustrated because you were being sent into the meat grinder, but imagine how you would feel if your entire team was spread out over 5 flags and 4 enemy squads overwhelmed your position. That would quickly turn from a defense into a route."

          Not at all, I love the meatgrinder, unless it is contraindicated by the tactical reality of the fight. Containment is possible in certain situations. It may not last forever, but it can last 5-10 mintues, which is enough to turn a war. And my team, instead of being "spread out over 5 flags", was ordered to concentrate in one spot. Not a good idea.


          Attacking should NEVER be the mode unless you have a high chance of success. Attacking a stronghold is always a bad idea. That seems to be what your advocating. I can't imagine what a CO could see that would call for 6 guys to attack 18.

          Anyway, I was putting forth a sound strategy. Its always possible to simply say "well, what if what if what if" without any real basis. Getting the enemy in the bleed and holding him there is a sound strategy regardless.
          Only the dead have seen the end of war.
          -Plato

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Let Them Bleed!

            Originally posted by TheRooster1
            Attacking should NEVER be the mode unless you have a high chance of success. Attacking a stronghold is always a bad idea. That seems to be what your advocating. I can't imagine what a CO could see that would call for 6 guys to attack 18.
            You are still confusing attacking with capturing. You say attacking with a high chance of success. Success of what? Success of taking the stronghold or success of keeping the defenders contained? Attacking is an action, it is not the purpose.

            And yes, as a squad leader, I would give the order to attack 18 guys. And with the right guys, win. Because if my squad can tie up 18 guys at one flag, that is 12 others of my team that are unopposed. A small force can tie up a larger force with the right tactics. The key is the intention, not the action. And that is what I specialize in as a squad leader.
            -33rd- BaneII
            Smokers & Jokers

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Let Them Bleed!

              Originally posted by TychoCelchuuu
              The commander always sees more than you do.
              Nope, the commander is not omniscient. The scanner shows only a snapshot of a fluid battlefield and the red dots do not tell whether it is a vehicle or infantry. The UAV is good for small area and the zoom only shows a very small area. And when the assets are down, the zoom is the only thing available and cannot be used to cover the whole battlefield. The commander may have a better overview of the battlefield, but is not all knowing. I am always reminded of Aliens when I think of commanding. Sure you got a whole bunch of red dots coming at you, but what does it really tell you?
              -33rd- BaneII
              Smokers & Jokers

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Let Them Bleed!

                well, heck, if you can kill 18 TG fighters with 6 men, then there is not need for strategy at all!
                Simply unleash your dogs on the enemy and kill every single one of them, despite a 1:3 ratio. That's not strategy, that's hope against overwhelming odds.


                "You are still confusing attacking with capturing."

                So you are advocating attacking to defend/contain. That was my original premise, contain. I don't understand the idea of attacking to not capture. Would you run up and attack but make sure to stay outside the flag perimeter? Kill them all and then camp? I think you are advocating the tactic I have suggested, contain the enemy.
                Only the dead have seen the end of war.
                -Plato

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Let Them Bleed!

                  There is a big difference between attacking to contain and attacking to capture. If your objective is to get the flag, the squad leader parks himself on a hill or behind a building. A few guys rush in to see if it's clear, and if it is you capture the flag, else you start shooting.

                  Attacking a flag to contain consists of basically luring the defenders into firefights. You don't need to bother establishing if someone is there or not; you just need to shoot and whoever pops up enough so that they stop going towards their objective, get to cover, and try to deal with you.

                  When a commander orders 6 guys to attack 18, he doesn't want you to KILL all 18. He wants you to make those 18 people spend a long time shooting at you, instead of letting them walk around. What you want is for the commander to let those 18 people mosey over to a flag and take it. What I'm advocating is for the squad, instead of chilling at the flag and waiting for the 18 people to steamroll over you, to engage the 18 people waaaay before they get near the flag. Yes, you'll die, and the enemy will keep moving, but in this case you'll have 18 or so people with a little less ammo moving towards your spawn point (where you are ready), instead of 18 people with a brand new flag.

                  You are basing your tactics off the idea that defending is the best option, and that a defender has a gigantic advantage in each fight. This is true of real life but this is often not true of BF2. The attackers can come from any direction they want and can stay concealed until they fire. This is not true of defenders. I find it much more advantageous to engage the enemy on their territory, where a loss means all they get are a few kills and victory means I gain more ground, than to engage the enemy on my territory where a loss means they capture my flag and a victory means I just get to sit there and wait for them to come again.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Let Them Bleed!

                    I beg to differ... with a good command you know where the enemys comming from all the time... if they are in a fast mover you get to hear it and your squad should be able to defend against a car or armour...

                    In some games I've managed to hold key locations either alone or with little team assistance with a little help from the commander spotting the enemys that break through the net...

                    Knowledge is power... if you know where the enemy is and they dont know where you are, usually wont matter what weapon you have you should be able to kill them...
                    Last edited by MrPaladin-TPF-; 02-02-2006, 04:08 PM.
                    "Victory without Honor, is Pointless..."
                    "I regret that I only have 1 life per spawn, to give to my team...."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Let Them Bleed!

                      "Attacking a flag to contain consists of basically luring the defenders into firefights"

                      We sure are splitting hairs at this point. Ummm "attacking to lure" instead of simply saying defend. . .ok you win. I can't parse words any better than that!

                      "What you want is for the commander to let those 18 people mosey over to a flag and take it."
                      Huh? what? Is that what you inferred from my suggestion that we defend our flags?

                      This thread has outlived its usefullness, I'm afraid. I'm done.

                      If your ever CO, Tycho, remember to tell your guys to "Lure" the enemy and "attack to contain" instead of simply "defend". Should work great.
                      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
                      -Plato

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Let Them Bleed!

                        You can't draw broad conclusions from 1 specific battle, it's a mistake to do so. In this case, I feel the commander was wrong - if you are DOWN tickets and have the enemy in bleed contain (and contain == defense). Attacking a flag will almost net you further point loss than defending. Attacking the last flag of the enemies can be a vaild strategy if you are UP tickets, but being DOWN tickets it's a very risky proposition.

                        Again though, you can't draw broad conclusions from this. In this specific case it proabably was a strategic error in calling for an attack.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Let Them Bleed!

                          Originally posted by TheRooster1
                          "Attacking a flag to contain consists of basically luring the defenders into firefights"

                          We sure are splitting hairs at this point. Ummm "attacking to lure" instead of simply saying defend. . .ok you win. I can't parse words any better than that!
                          "Defend" is to C4 the flag, get in a .50 cal, and wait for the enemy to come so you can fight them off. "Attacking to lure" would be to move up over to a hill overlooking an ENEMY flag and start shooting. They're entirely different. I think when I said lure, you picture enemies coming to you at the flag and getting cut down. I mean "lure" as in "tie up the enemy." The only objective is to keep them busy, not to lead them into some elaborate trap.

                          Originally posted by TheRooster1
                          "What you want is for the commander to let those 18 people mosey over to a flag and take it."
                          Huh? what? Is that what you inferred from my suggestion that we defend our flags?
                          Look, if you defend 6 flags with 6 squads, the enemy will assault one flag with 6 squads. YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE THAT ONE FLAG. The only other option is to defend that one flag with 6 squads, but obviously you can't do that since they'll just take an undefended flag.

                          You can't have the best of both worlds. If you're defending, you can never bring as many people to the fight as you can if you're attacking, unless you're down to one flag (which you aren't).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Let Them Bleed!

                            Originally posted by TychoCelchuuu
                            You can't have the best of both worlds. If you're defending, you can never bring as many people to the fight as you can if you're attacking, unless you're down to one flag (which you aren't).

                            I think the problem is with the wording we are using... please instaed of callign it 'defending 6 flags' use the term 'containing the enemy at one flag'

                            At best 1 city flag only contains 1 or 2 vehicles... so keeping a UAV over the site and watch for breakouts is better then taking squads into killzones and losing the advantage of the ticket bleed...

                            the enemy is losing... don't throw them any candy... make them fight to get out of their dire situation...

                            PS. I also advise that intermittently you have 1 squad make a rush to nuturalize that final flag... because as soon as its nutural, the enemy can't spawn and you can lockout the game... it only takes a few players to jump from a hummer to get that flag white
                            "Victory without Honor, is Pointless..."
                            "I regret that I only have 1 life per spawn, to give to my team...."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Let Them Bleed!

                              I'm with Rooster. When I command, I order assaults only until they're bleeding. This is based on the simple fact that defending is "easier" than assaulting. You have the advantage of a few mintues of down time, to set up defensive positions and surprise an already tense enemy. I might send a squad to intercept the attacking forces midway, but no endless assaults on the last flag.



                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X