Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Combined" arms - armor and infantry working together to capture/defend flags?

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

  • "Combined" arms - armor and infantry working together to capture/defend flags?

    How do ya'll envision a combined arms assault in BF3? Let's use the example of US attack on Checkpoint (Delta) on Caspian with infantry and ground-based armor.

    I guess what I'm asking is - is there any real benefit to having a tank squad SL coordinating the assault on Checkpoint with an infantry squad SL ... beyond the fact that they both "land" on the flag at the same time. I know it's much too early to talk advanced tactics or strategies, but let's get a discussion going. How was combined arms done best in previous titles?

  • #2
    Re: "Combined" arms - armor and infantry working together to capture/defend flags?

    Well, I don't have audio at the moment (possibly bad words), but something like this:



    Again, I don't have audio, but by footage alone I can tell you this kind of gameplay often destroys opposition in PR. I can't imagine it being ineffective in BF3.
    Skud


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: "Combined" arms - armor and infantry working together to capture/defend flags?

      Combined Arms in the vanilla BF games mainly happened at the air level when talking about multiple squad coordination. Tanks typically were handled within their own squads. Of course there were exceptions depending on the map layout or situation.

      Given the smaller bf3 squad size and assuming they give us enough squads to work with I would imagine the major vehicle assets(air,AA,ucb armor) will be housed in their own separate squads to move around as needed. Flag based armor will still be utilized within the infantry squads.

      Combined arms between infantry and armor should certainly come about but I don't have enough experience to say how that will play out. BF2/POE2 tanks could be quite successful up close side by side with infantry. 2142 they were big snipers that overlooked areas due to the optics and vulnerability to being EMP'd and killed in one hit by the pilum. Someone else can chime in on PR as the few times I played it I never really encountered any armor. The strengths of BF3 tanks weighed against their threats will dicate how armor support plays out in BF3. BF3 tanks have an optics unlock so they could be part sniper but there is also scanner unlocks which could be very useful when moving in with infantry.

      Air should be pretty easy to coordinate and work as everyone is used to. Tank in your way? Assuming the pilots have the needed unlock and there is no local AA threat then call in a strike. Boom - dead. Choppers can tackle infantry as well but if it plays out like past titles there is a limited killing window that the chopper can stay in action before enemy counter measures force it to displace. If the assault is not successful within that limited window it could fail. Something else to remember is the farther you are into enemy territory the less likely you will have support for combined arms gameplay.

      Also worth noting is the non armor based coordination I look forward to seeing. Mortars pounding a dug in defense ahead of an assault or shelling an enemy advance. Micro UAV up above relaying intel. We also can't forget a good sniper - nothing more annoying than having a good sniper in overwatch when the enemy already has their hands full with up close contacts.
      |TG-12th|mantis

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: "Combined" arms - armor and infantry working together to capture/defend flags?

        Originally posted by FBmantis View Post
        Mortars pounding a dug in defense ahead of an assault or shelling an enemy advance.
        You rang???

        I deserve a ribbon for Mortar Specialist

        Artillery conquers and infantry occupies.
        J.F.C. Fuller

        Proud to have been a member of the 5th, 71st and my beloved 19th

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: "Combined" arms - armor and infantry working together to capture/defend flags?

          i remember from 2142 many times there would be vehicle squads such as tank,apc, gunship, or transport roflcopter squads that would be there to bascially take out the enemy equivelent or there armor, so tank vs. tank. this mainly happened to help protect the infantry so they wouldnt be bothered by an enenmy tank. such as on belgrade, a tank with no armor to fight was super destruction
          |TG-Irr| di1lweed1212

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: "Combined" arms - armor and infantry working together to capture/defend flags?

            Originally posted by FBmantis View Post
            Combined Arms in the vanilla BF games mainly happened at the air level when talking about multiple squad coordination. Tanks typically were handled within their own squads. Of course there were exceptions depending on the map layout or situation.
            There's an added logistical challenge of 4-man squads in BF3. If it takes two for a tank, the other two just cannot provide good CQ protection for the tank. It's almost forced to have a tank squad and an infantry squad working side by side.
            This is great from a teamwork perspective, but the VOIP logistics are apt to reduce this to rubble before it's born. Combined arms is just another reason why we need well-implemented in-game VOIP. Squad-based VOIP + SL-SL channels would make co-ordination a hundred times easier.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: "Combined" arms - armor and infantry working together to capture/defend flags?

              Originally posted by FBmantis View Post
              Given the smaller bf3 squad size and assuming they give us enough squads to work with I would imagine the major vehicle assets(air,AA,ucb armor) will be housed in their own separate squads to move around as needed. Flag based armor will still be utilized within the infantry squads.
              This is the way it was handled when I left 21CW a long time ago with the exception that, depending on the map, the armor team could roll-up to a back flag and swap a main-base APC for a flag tank. Depending on the campaign, you either had to test into that company (companies formed squads in-server) or, before persistent nicknames, put a suffix after your name to indicate you were armor qualified.

              I think that is the best way because all of the ticket analyses I did showed that tanks edged-out aircraft for sheer killing power. Perhaps due to the fact that there were usually more tanks and fewer aircraft per map. This means that you want to keep them forward at the action rather than idle guarding a back flag.

              One thing is for certain, on a FF-on, focused (as opposed to pubbie) server, infantry won't advance ahead of armor. I've sat there as commander (BF42/DC and BF2 in tournament games and watched infantry stall if the tanks fall behind. Tanks have to be forward and aggressive, not spaming from the back. Lost too many rounds to believe that spamming from the back works when you need to take a flag.

              Combined arms takes ground, infantry holds ground.

              http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/user/58Congo/

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: "Combined" arms - armor and infantry working together to capture/defend flags?

                Pre-assigned vehicles to squads, and pre-assigned orders to take and hold to keep it simple. Squad A and B are to take checkpoint. Squad A gets the tank and is to support B in taking the checkpoint. They figure the rest out on the ground either through voip or channel commander or in game chat. This way they only focus on holding and securing until Team lead if there is even one, decides to reassign one of them? I'm not sure how that would work, but at least two squads know what they need to do, they know they get one of the two tanks, and they will be able to go there as a team and work it out with limited voip (if voip is limited).

                I find that tanks are huge fat targets easily supceptible to infantry without support. That being said, they also can't charge into an objective because they can easily get C4'd, RPG'd, hit mines without again, infantry support. Infantry can constantly respawn on each other and therefore keep pushing. Tanks cannot. Tanks therefore need to stay close, hull down, hug corners, and play a support role while occupying the enemy tank. The infantry squad however needs to take key parts of say "Checkpoint", by occupying the buildings, or the flanking areas. Tanks can use smoke, and infantry can also use smoke.

                One reason why I think they wanted to make squads smaller (4) is because most games are currently designed around 4 friends. What happens though is that you have to pick and choose how your loadouts will work. Do you bring smoke so you can move around more when taking an objective and cover your squad to flank the enemy? Do you bring two assault classes so one can still heal your squad? Do you bring only 1 engineer instead of two, when two can kill a tank no problem but 1 will need a lot of time if the tank is being repaired? What about support, to restock all the rockets needed for the 1 engineer? And lets not forget Recon, who is absolutely needed to respawn the squad if they get wiped out.

                I think it will end up with the squad calling the shots and the armored support supporting the capture rather than leading it due to how its role is not persistent during the whole fight (especially when it gets destroyed by a number of possible factors).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: "Combined" arms - armor and infantry working together to capture/defend flags?

                  Originally posted by Ski-Racer View Post

                  One thing is for certain, on a FF-on, focused (as opposed to pubbie) server, infantry won't advance ahead of armor. I've sat there as commander (BF42/DC and BF2 in tournament games and watched infantry stall if the tanks fall behind. Tanks have to be forward and aggressive, not spaming from the back. Lost too many rounds to believe that spamming from the back works when you need to take a flag.
                  I agree, to a point. 2142, the armor was very balanced against engineers, so they were incredibly fragile. They were able to push up and clear areas, but as soon as the enemy regrouped and countered, any armor pieces would need to pull back into cover and allow the infantry to clear the area. Combined armor/infantry pushes worked very well, but the armor had to be much more defensive.

                  I bring this up because its all game dependent. The way vehicle-infantry balance in 2142 made armor very fragile, whereas (from my personal experience), armor in BF2 was quite strong and could operate with a bigger margin of error.

                  I think BF3 is going to have a healthy balance, perhaps maybe allowing the armor to push slightly harder than 2142 (no future weapons such as motion mines/etc).

                  Comment

                  Connect

                  Collapse

                  TeamSpeak 3 Server

                  Collapse

                  Advertisement

                  Collapse

                  Twitter Feed

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X