Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If there is no bleed, dont attack

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

  • If there is no bleed, dont attack

    In PR, the vast majority of the maps do not have bleed when you have 50% + 1 flags. Instead, you have to have a super majority of flags to cause bleed. This is very difficult to attain, and since you have to attack to do this, you actually lose more tickets by trying to do it.

    However, there is another kind of "bleed". If your team has better positioning than the enemy team, you will have better k/d ratios, and therefore the enemy's tickets go down faster than yours. In almost every single PR map, getting better positioning as opposed to more flags can mean the difference between winning or losing.

    Lets take Quai for instance (the map with the Govt Offices and Fishing village that are separated by a large river). I can almost guarantee that if the US team puts a squad on the north bridge, a squad on the south bridge, and everyone else around the Offices, you will win. The chinese will feel compelled to attack, and they will lose more tickets since they are not on defense. They should not be able to capture the flag either, since 32 people are on it.

    You might say that taking fishing village and then estate is the best because you get bleed. Thats one way to go, but just how many tickets are you willing to waste in attacking fishing and estate? Its very difficult because you need at least 1 squad on Offices (maybe 2), 2 squads to attack fishing (at least), and another to be on Estate. Assuming your team is good enough to do this, what if the enemy has 32 people around Fishing? Its 32 vs 12, and you will lose a ton of tickets AND you wont get the flags necessary to cause bleed.

    So overall, i think more COs need to adopt completely defensive strategies because of the fact that bleed is so difficult to get in PR. Move squads to chokepoints that lead to your CP, and spread them out but within range of your CP. Have squads ready to move around to help other squads as well. If you do this, you will have a man advantage in every battle, and you will be defending. All of this adds up to better k/d ratios, and therefore a "ticket bleed".

  • #2
    Re: If there is no bleed, dont attack

    This is a strategy I often employ when I'm at CO. It's pretty simple to get the first set of flags in most maps and perhaps another flag in the next set. I will then encourage squads to hunker down and let the enemies break on them like waves upon a cliff. It's hard to keep most people reigned in in this manner, since everyone wants to run and gun. But it does tend to work well, once you point out that your team has a secure lead in tickets.
    |TG-6th|Belhade
    "I am actually looking forward to watching Jon and Kate plus 8." - Dirtboy




    Comment


    • #3
      Re: If there is no bleed, dont attack

      Originally posted by Santa View Post
      All of this adds up to better k/d ratios, and therefore a "ticket bleed".
      Thank you. People always say that a players KDR means nothing. If I kill 20 people and die once thats a 20:1 ticket advantage for my team. Im glad others are understanding now.

      On River I also think that holding either Fish or Gov is the best way to go. Holding both strings your team out to far and bleeds tickets while you lose to attackers. Holding one will draw the other squad into a attack they cant win destroying not only their tickets but their moral and teamwork as well. Kicking a team when their down is the best way to trick them into an attack they cant win.
      doYouEvenLuftwaffe

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: If there is no bleed, dont attack

        Originally posted by Portable.Cougar View Post
        Thank you. People always say that a players KDR means nothing. If I kill 20 people and die once thats a 20:1 ticket advantage for my team. Im glad others are understanding now.
        Yeah. You shouldn't necessarily think, "Oh my god i need that next kill on the scoreboard!", but the squad leader should be asking himself, "Am i putting my squad in a position where they will die infrequently, but kill a lot?". I guess what im trying to say is that in real life, a leader wouldn't put his guys in a position where they get killed and couldnt kill. Just because the game assigns points to a kill, doesn't mean its necessarily evil or unTG-like.

        If you are too aggressive a leader and your squad cant even keep a 1.0 k/d ratio, you are more of a detriment to the team than anything else because you are losing tickets faster than you can take away the enemy's tickets.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: If there is no bleed, dont attack

          Well said santa, well said
          doYouEvenLuftwaffe

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: If there is no bleed, dont attack

            Santa,

            While I do agree with this strategy and like Belhade I also attempt to use this. However, this can also lead to a gap in defensive coverage. Both bridges are too far away to guard them both and maintain total security of the Govt. Office. The Chinese can insert from behind a friendly defensive perimeter and wreck havoc. Once they take the office, and the US was not advancing, then the US CO needs to focus on Processing Fac. Once again if the fight gets to this point, more often times then not, the US looses the round (IMO). As stated earlier, if Govt. Offices are secured, I think the best defensive position is the Fishing Village. Especially if you have already obtained the four flags and have leeway to fall back and defend govt offices. It all boils down to the proper defense, and having the squads seperated and in the correct defensive positions.
            I agree with the bleed but think that too many tickets can be lost in an improper defensive position.
            Discuss........
            Last edited by Bc2ID; 04-29-2007, 06:46 AM. Reason: Grammah
            "Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results." Gen. George Patton

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: If there is no bleed, dont attack

              Well there are basically two choices one can make.

              1) We are a lot better then the opposition, and will push them off the map.
              (copyright :Root :))


              2) We are about as good as the other team, so we must try to win by outkilling the enemy and gaining a kdr advantage on them.

              Most of the time 2) will be the wisest choice, and if you are in a case of 1), well then you probably will will anyway, because your team is a lot better for some reason.

              However 2) does not mean you do not have to attack. I think I would always keep at least a minimal squad on attack orders; just so the enemy cannot let his guard down to zerg your defense. This squad then has more of an infiltration/disruption role then.

              With some luck, this small squad may on its own cap a flag or more.

              One of the strengths of defending closer to your base is that you have n easier time getting back to the front. For instance say on qwai you defend Fishing with all usmc squads, when you do lose that flag, it will be impossible to get all the squads back there in time. What is needed instead is an attack on government. because of logistical limitations.

              I think generally, if you lose a lot of squads on the far side of the map, you should first bring them back into defense close by. Then when all the squads are up and running again you can send out people to attack.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: If there is no bleed, dont attack

                While this is viable in a scrimmage setting, I don't see it happening even on a PW night. It's hard to get your whole squad just to sit back and take a rush all night, let alone the whole team.

                I love the strategy and have preached it on a smaller level to teh squads I've been in. ALso, know what they need to get bleed. If you are 2 or 3 flags removed from them having a bleed, that means you have 2 or 3 flags to give. Don't get bogged down trying to defend a flag when you could pull back and setup better for the next.
                |TG-12th| tHa_KhAn

                XBL GT: Khan58

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: If there is no bleed, dont attack

                  I am of the mind, and it is a small one, that 1 sq on D for any flag should be enough to hold off attackers for an appropriate amount of time to get the next flag on the totem pole. A Dfence perimeter around almost any flag should be enough to hold the other guys out long enough to cap the next one and be able to leave the priors alone. 9x's out of 10 the enemy keeps attacking an uncappable because of the resistence they met and the desire to "show the defenders who's boss." Even when the D sq has already left and moved on - thereby wasting effort where it will never come to fruition unless the rest of their team pulls their heads out of their butts.

                  Getting everyone on D, though having good things possible, leaves the whole team on autopilot. People get bored and start shooting each other or just up in the air. The river could wind up being the 38th paralel and the American team could wind up being there for 50 years waiting for a decisive battle (not like that could happen in real life...... oh, wait, it did and is).

                  I play an aggressive game. Even if I have my squad on D I am always hunting for bad guys or rp's. The best way to protect my guys is to give them current intel I figure. Even if I run into the flag on my own and find 2 squads attempting to cap it or defend it my squad will know their approximate strength and location. Some haven't figured out how to work with this type of play yet and that is fine, others have gotten it down pretty solid, all in all I think it is a mix of D and attack that will create a win. You just have to put the guys in the right place at the right time and let the chips fall where they may.
                  sigpic
                  Don't let the bastards grind you down!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: If there is no bleed, dont attack

                    Originally posted by tHa_KhAn View Post
                    While this is viable in a scrimmage setting, I don't see it happening even on a PW night. It's hard to get your whole squad just to sit back and take a rush all night, let alone the whole team.
                    I did this last night in Ghost Train and it was not a PW night. Granted, i had trouble with one squad, but i think most of the squads were on board and understood the idea of the strategy. At the start, explain to the squads the strategy and why defending will lead to a win. Then, keep the squads updated on the tickets and how you are increasing the lead or gaining on the enemy. Last night when we went from being ~10 tickets down to being up ~15 tickets, i typed in chat that we had a 25 ticket turn around in 2 minutes and i had very few problems after that.

                    However, if you are trying a new strategy that a lot of people probably wont agree with, get on TS and get an admin to be ready to kick SLs that dont follow your orders. All the admins here take pride in kicking people that dont follow orders ;)

                    Originally posted by Bc2ID
                    While I do agree with this strategy and like Belhade I also attempt to use this. However, this can also lead to a gap in defensive coverage. Both bridges are too far away to guard them both and maintain total security of the Govt. Office.
                    I would probably have 3 squads in and around Govt Office. One directly on the flag, one on the north, and one on the south. The squads on the flank could merely have a fireteam of 3 keep the bridge out, while the other 3 stay within the walls and ontop of the rooftops waiting in ambush. It really isnt even necessary to keep the bridges down since they are so easy to repair. The fireteam is there to slow the enemy down till they get reinforcements from another squad, or can fall back into the walls of the complex. Also, the tanks and APCs would be along the main road in support of all of the squads. Anyway, im getting too far into the tactics of this rather than simply the strategy.

                    Originally posted by Bc2ID
                    The Chinese can insert from behind a friendly defensive perimeter and wreck havoc. Once they take the office, and the US was not advancing, then the US CO needs to focus on Processing Fac. Once again if the fight gets to this point, more often times then not, the US looses the round (IMO).
                    Yes they can do that. But they are also pouring across open fields if they are trying to setup RPs behind govt office. There would be tanks on the road, supported by the squads that are on defense. It would be extremely difficult to attack from the east in any amount of force that could be threatening. I think the only way you could take govt office with that many people defending it would be to siege it from all 4 corners, systematically taking out RPs, APCs, and tanks. I only know one CO that would be capable of orchestrating that, and itd be difficult even for him.

                    Originally posted by Bc2ID
                    As stated earlier, if Govt. Offices are secured, I think the best defensive position is the Fishing Village. Especially if you have already obtained the four flags and have leeway to fall back and defend govt offices. It all boils down to the proper defense, and having the squads separated and in the correct defensive positions.
                    I disagree. Having both govt and fishing means you are spread out on defense across the two, and STILL arent incurring a ticket bleed on the enemy. If they hit you in force at any one CP, they have a man advantage, a better k/d, and therefore you are losing tickets.

                    I think an important thing to understand in PR is that flags do not matter. Most of the time, they do not cause bleed. The only reason they are there is to focus the battle, and for the purposes of this strategy, they are used to funnel the enemy into a centralized location. Basically, if you have a forward flag that the enemy has to capture in order to proceed in the map, you know exactly where they are coming from. So use this to your advantage, by putting squads at chokepoints leading to the CP, tanks in support, etc etc. Basically, put up a wall.

                    PR has made it so that instead of flags mattering, squad setups and positioning matter. Strategys based on TEAM defenses rather than squad based defenses lead to an overall better k/d for the team due to man advantages everywhere.

                    Originally posted by Bc2ID
                    I agree with the bleed but think that too many tickets can be lost in an improper defensive position.
                    Most military tacticians agree that to be successful on offense, you need a 3:1 advantage. For bf2, its probably more like a 2:1 advantage. If you are on defense and are able to have a man advantage, it is very difficult to lose tickets. If a team cant increase a lead while being purely on defense, they will lose regardless of whatever strategy you use. That team is simply too weak.

                    Originally posted by IOOB_583
                    I think it is a mix of D and attack that will create a win. You just have to put the guys in the right place at the right time and let the chips fall where they may.
                    I agree. If i had one squad that was either full of TG members, IHS, blkops, or led by fuzzhead or atlanta, i would have them near fishing village in the hills. Even if they are outnumbered, they will probably be good enough to keep a positive k/d ratio and still contribute in ticket count. They will also contribute by sucking the enemy's resources back into a guerrilla fight on the hills. Also, if they are the best squad, they should even be able to capture a flag from one other squad. If they can do that, that means yet another squad is pulled back. The rest of my team, approximately 24 people, would be focused on defending.

                    If you do this, its very important you pick that squad carefully. It needs to be your best, most lethal squad, and you need to give them the lion's share of the special kits.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: If there is no bleed, dont attack

                      Well (not a challenge) I for one would like to see your plan put in place. Maybe we could run a training session utilizing your strategy to see how well it does. Or try it tonight if the map comes up during PW time. I realize that flags do not matter, which was not the counterpoint I was making. I have never defended from directly in the flag radius, and do not encourage it. On this map, my opinion is that the fishing villiage is easier to defend from than the govt. office. If you can gain the high ground, then the enemy can only come from three directions. Whereas defending from the office invites a defensive perimeter on four angles. I have seen some very good and very bad defensive schemes. A defensive perimeter is not one where you place bodies on the flag. You must gain cover, height, and have a good field of firing positions.
                      "Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results." Gen. George Patton

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: If there is no bleed, dont attack

                        Originally posted by Bc2ID View Post
                        Well (not a challenge) I for one would like to see your plan put in place. Maybe we could run a training session utilizing your strategy to see how well it does. Or try it tonight if the map comes up during PW time. I realize that flags do not matter, which was not the counterpoint I was making. I have never defended from directly in the flag radius, and do not encourage it. On this map, my opinion is that the fishing villiage is easier to defend from than the govt. office. If you can gain the high ground, then the enemy can only come from three directions. Whereas defending from the office invites a defensive perimeter on four angles. I have seen some very good and very bad defensive schemes. A defensive perimeter is not one where you place bodies on the flag. You must gain cover, height, and have a good field of firing positions.
                        Fishing is probably easier to defend because of the hills and such, but not if you are USMC. You wont be able to effectively get APCs and tanks to support, but China can easily do so. If you are on your side of the river, you have all of these things and China will have a harder time keeping APC/tanks alive on your side of the river.

                        For tonight, i might command if im in the mood for it. At some point in the future though, ill definitely keep using this strategy.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: If there is no bleed, dont attack

                          I definately think it is viable, I am just interested in seeing it deployed. I would gladly take up a SL slot, on either side. ;-)


                          B
                          "Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results." Gen. George Patton

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: If there is no bleed, dont attack

                            Originally posted by IOOB_583 View Post

                            Getting everyone on D, though having good things possible, leaves the whole team on autopilot. People get bored and start shooting each other or just up in the air.
                            It is absurd to me to that defense would be more boring. Its the same enemy, the same amount of encounters, only he has to walk, while you get to work on positioning. I think this is confusing a lack of patience with boringness. This is exactly why such strategies rarely work out.

                            A good defense means being busy just as much, you could have people patrolling for RP's for instance.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: If there is no bleed, dont attack

                              Originally posted by Santa View Post
                              I think an important thing to understand in PR is that flags do not matter. Most of the time, they do not cause bleed.
                              This is still my principle issue with PR (and more specifically AAS): holding strategic points provides (in most cases) little if any actual advantage. So the smart way to play in most cases is to cut off bleed (typically very easy to do) and wage a battle of attrition.

                              I still think bleed needs to be revisited to make real estate more relevant, other than as a step towards pushing a team off a map. There should exist some kind of incentive to having land area contested, otherwise it boils down to a deathmatch where K: D ratios are the primary metric of success, as described in this thread.
                              Beatnik

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X