Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does the advantage of "high ground" truly exist? (Delta Caspian)

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

  • Does the advantage of "high ground" truly exist? (Delta Caspian)

    I mentioned last night on TeamSpeak that I did not perceive flag Delta on Caspian Border as having any intrinsic value over other flags due to its geographic feature of being elevated. I was shouted down unanimously. But the more I think about it, the harder it is for me to perceive any advantage gained from holding "the high ground." There are certainly advantages to holding a defensible position, but is that position enhanced by its increased elevation in relation to the attackers?

    My reasoning for asking the questions are these:

    1 - The game does not simulate the physical demand of running up a hill, it is just as easy to sprint up the hill at Delta as it is to sprint across the pavement at Echo.
    2 - Assuming players of equal skill, and factoring in the nature of the weapons in the game, the angle of engagement does not matter. I can snipe players off the top of the Delta cliff from Charlie just as easy as I can snipe players on Charlie from the top of the cliff at Delta. It is always a straight line (with slight bullet drop, depending on weapon and distance), it matters little if it is angled up, down, or level.

    Logistically, I think that Delta is a nightmare to hold. It is an easy target for planes, choppers, and mortars. Any squad defending the top has limited mobility. I think that it being on a hill makes it less appealing than other flags when evaluated individually. But the reason it must be held if possible is because of its location on the map.

    I talked about this with an Iraq veteran that I work with who has combat experience as a tanker and infantryman, he told me that there is no longer any advantage to holding the high ground. His comment was, "If anything, it makes you more of a target."

    Thoughts, comments? I am genuinely curious what you guys think. Perhaps I'm dead wrong, but I can't for the life of me see how.

  • #2
    Re: Does the advantage of "high ground" truly exist? (Delta Caspian)

    This is how I view elevation.

    Advantages:
    It grants vision over the enemy. When looking down at C one can easily see people running around while on the other hand when looking up at D one cannot see the entire flag. This advantage is more obvious when instead of a cliff you are moving up hill. The enemy strength is unknown until you get on level ground. One man can suppress and scout a large area at once.

    Disadvantage:
    Assaulting downhill is worse than assaulting uphill. It is true about what you say with straight lines of fire. While it deceases vision for the people and therefore increases the places for people uphill to hide; it also decreases where the people uphill can set up fire positions. The more area you cover the less effective you will be. When someone is looking downhill over a cliff he can be seen and shot from anyone downhill. -> Tehran Highway US Deployment. Exposure to air which does not have a limited line of sight effectively negates this.

    Caspain
    Specifically for Delta flag on Caspian the cliff can allow a squad to hide and take cover while assaulting D but the position is not holdable because they can be flanked anywhere. But Delta also has several concealed paths that make it very easy to attack. IMO the side away from C is more favorable for the people downhill because of the concealment. But the squad uphill still has better options for flanking. Now when you add air the flag itself has very little cover when dealing with air making it a hot spot for the chopper to just go and kill.

    Given that this game has a fast pace and the flags are very close with tons of cover going up and downhill. Elevation is not really a battle deciding advantage. But can be a great advantage if used correctly.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Does the advantage of "high ground" truly exist? (Delta Caspian)

      Actually, when looking down from the hill you can be easier to pick off if the other team controls all of the lower flag, so forcing the other team to be stuck with only D can be a good idea. The only tough part about assaulting D is if they already have C and control the ground-level so they can pick you off as you run up the hill.



      Former TG-21st
      Swift Mobile On Target

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Does the advantage of "high ground" truly exist? (Delta Caspian)

        Higher ground is better. I eat lots of fiber.
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          If we had video games that allowed you to actually take cover (not just blindly prone out behind a wall) then I would say that the high ground is the way to go....but bf3...it doesn't matter...it's all about who sees who first and who is the better equipped guy in a close medium or far engagement.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Does the advantage of "high ground" truly exist? (Delta Caspian)

            I would highly recommend reading the sections entitled "The Fifth Dream" and "The Sixth Dream" here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24842...-h/24842-h.htm While the scenario is a bit dated, the lessons still have some relevance to modern warfare.

            5. With modern rifles, to guard a drift or locality does not necessitate sitting on top of it (as if it could be picked up and carried away), unless the locality is suitable to hold for other and defensive reasons. It may even be much better to take up your defensive position some way from the spot, and so away from concealed ground, which enables the enemy to crawl up to very close range, concealed and unperceived, and to fire from cover which hides them even when shooting.

            21. A hill may not, after all, though it has "command," be the best place to hold necessarily.
            He was told that he should not kill, and he did not kill, until he got into the Army. Then he was told to kill, and he killed.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Does the advantage of "high ground" truly exist? (Delta Caspian)

              Removing any physics from the equations...

              The largest benefit of holding Flag D is it's location geographically on the map. You can assault B (Checkpoint), C (Forest) & E (Gas Station) from D (Hilltop).

              Secondary benefit, you can have a clear view of the terrain around it and spot for other players or take down aircraft, hypothetically, with Stingers and or Mobile AA if it dared to go up there. Also a tank up there is devastating with a good tanker and zoom optics. If the team has good SOFLAM recon then the guided missile on the tank would also be devastating. Also you could technically have a good mortar position from up there as well.

              Greatest disadvantage if you can be assaulted from no less than four directions at the same time. Two roads & two foot paths. Secondary disadvantage you are easy to spot and take out by aircraft including helo and easy target for mortars from surrounding area. (Who should be sniper bait if you think about it)
              .
              "Young gamers assault while Older gamers flank."
              "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Does the advantage of "high ground" truly exist? (Delta Caspian)

                If I'm on a hill, and you're below it, I can see you and your surroundings. You can't do the same for me.
                That's the primary advantage for me. Sure, we have free air armor and minimaps and spotting in BF3, but those simply negate the advantage provided by the above - they don't erase it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Does the advantage of "high ground" truly exist? (Delta Caspian)

                  Kilroy's sentiments reflect why I value C & D: relatively centralized location. If I'm SL'ing, I prefer to hold flags that allow me to react the most quickly. I think both C and D have their tradeoffs. While you have elevation at D, defending D is more difficult due to the numerous paths leading to D. On the other hand, defending C appears to be a lot easier... the paths from A, E, and B are very open, allowing for easy recognition of enemies. On top of that, the rocks and foliage allow for pretty good cover.

                  The only catch I see to C is that it's at a disadvantage to D. While D is easier to assault, it has excellent cover over C. One other small advantage D has over C is that the sun is located behind D when looking from C, meaning you're partially blinded by the glare if you're at C trying to shoot up at D. While minimal, it's affected me more times than I'd like.


                  Comment

                  Connect

                  Collapse

                  TeamSpeak 3 Server

                  Collapse

                  Advertisement

                  Collapse

                  Twitter Feed

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X