Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coordinating an Attack on a Flag with 2 Fireteams

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

  • [VIDEO] Coordinating an Attack on a Flag with 2 Fireteams

    An example of using Alpha and Bravo fireteams to coordinate an attack:


    sigpic

  • #2
    Re: Coordinating an Attack on a Flag with 2 Fireteams

    It was fun playing with you last night. Im glad to see you were able to capture some footage :)

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Coordinating an Attack on a Flag with 2 Fireteams

      I thought I would offer an alternative viewpoint.

      First a link to the same thread on Battlelog where the responses are not so generous.
      http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3...4489554619858/

      Now, my responses.

      I think dividing the squad into fireteams (I call them buddy teams) is one of the most powerful teamwork concepts around. Why shoot 1 v 1 when you can shoot 2 v 1.

      However, the speed is a serious issue here. I know that Tactical Gamer strives to use real tactics. I'm here to say that SPEED is a REAL TACTIC. Not only is it a real tactic, it is THE REAL TACTIC.

      First, by the numbers. When the video started, US and RU had equal number of tickets (571 to 571). By the end of the video, the US had bled down to 467 tickets to RU's 531. So the sides went from even to the US side having almost a 70 point deficit. The bleed when it's 4 flags to 1 flag is faster than the bleed when it's 3 flags to 2 so you owe it to your team to achieve your objective flag and hold it as quickly as possible.

      Key point is that it's not enough to take a flag. You need to take a flag with the minimum amount of ticket loss. You can barge right in there and end the round with a 3-23 KDR and be hurting your team. You also can take too long to attack and have your side bleed tickets. The latter is what is happening here.

      Okay, back to SPEED being a REAL TACTIC.

      The father of most modern American military doctrine is John Boyd who coined the oft cited OODA loop. This is the root of modern maneuver warfare.

      Book review of a non-military adaptation of the OODA loop. Not a great article but I picked it because you mentioned that you play Battlefield like chess.

      The OODA Loop: Playing chess with half the pieces
      http://venturehacks.com/articles/certain-to-win [venturehacks.com]

      Chess (invented to teach military strategy) has one artificial limitation...alternating turns. In the real world, both sides move as fast as they can. Let's try some simulations when one side can move faster than another.

      Base case:
      Who wins? Grandmaster versus novice when they alternate turns (1 to 1)? The grandmaster of course!

      Alternate cases:
      Who wins? Grandmaster versus novice but the novice gets an extra move (3 moves to the grandmaster's 2)? The novice wins!
      Who wins? Grand master versus novice but the novice has 2 rows of pawns (no rook, knight, bishop, or queen). However, the novice gets 2 moves for the grandmaster's 1. The novice wins!

      So what is most important? SPEED. If one side moves faster than the other then that faster side will prevail. Always.

      Ok, now a more esoteric but more tactical explanation of OODA from a retired SEAL.
      http://progressivecombat.com/pdfs/OODA.pdf [progressivecombat.com]

      Now an incredibly long but incredibly detailed explanation of everything OODA. If you are a student of tactics and teamwork, believe me this is worth the time. Amazingly, this guy is applying OODA to kid's soccer! Don't let that dissuade you, it's actually good because most people understand the game of soccer. For higher level doctrine, these are awesome.

      http://www.youtube.com/user/bettersoccermorefun#g/u [youtube.com]

      http://youtu.be/hmrDKVIFLHk [youtu.be] An introduction to Boyd's OODA loop theory, DMP-pt.1
      http://youtu.be/UywPrsWawL4 [youtu.be] Observations in soccer, DMP-pt.2
      http://youtu.be/Bt7zwJsDSwg [youtu.be] Attention & gaze control in soccer, DMP-pt. 3
      http://youtu.be/U4BU6lpl3DY [youtu.be] Visual targets for attention in soccer, DMP-pt. 4
      http://youtu.be/VC877i_qqDY [youtu.be] Visual workspaces, DMP-pt.5
      http://youtu.be/ussu4WZ0Hx0 [youtu.be] Visual limitations-sensation & perception, DMP-pt. 6
      http://youtu.be/Y5a6KW3f4YU [youtu.be] Complex emergent systems, DMP-pt. 7
      http://youtu.be/yzOt4UdQWLU [youtu.be] Information flow in Orientation, DMP-pt.8
      http://youtu.be/SmIxvU3v8t4 [youtu.be] Dynamical Systems Model & soccer, DMP-pt.9
      http://youtu.be/G_G76mHFQWQ [youtu.be] Clausewitz's Friction & soccer, DMP-pt.10
      http://youtu.be/5kSUrn9pvUs [youtu.be] Friction & the Dynamical Systems Model, DMP-pt.11
      http://youtu.be/rmAsBQIR5fU [youtu.be] Controlling doubt in the decision making process, DMP-pt.12
      http://youtu.be/my1LxCCKW20 [youtu.be] Planting the seeds of doubt, DMP-pt.13
      http://youtu.be/1RsakLmKawE [youtu.be] Certainty & Surprise, DMP-pt.14
      http://youtu.be/139kwIEnRg0 [youtu.be] Non-cooperative centers of gravity, DMP-pt.15
      http://youtu.be/yXVegFy0Ze8 [youtu.be] Connecting the centers, DMP-pt.16
      http://youtu.be/cZI-s5tQ5rk [youtu.be] People & relative value, DMP-pt.17

      In short, Tactical Gamer would be applying real military doctrine if they chose to embrace OODA and move faster. Might win more often too.

      (next post)

      Unfortunately you do not show that you took the objective in your video. It was camping towards your side (flashing) but never taken. But yes, there is something inherently wrong with how you attacked that flag. You cost your team too many tickets due to time. Again, your side went from being even to a 70 point deficit. The difference in bleed tickets per second four-flags-to-one (versus three-flags-to-two) is on your hands.

      A better way would be to divide your squad into 2 buddy teams and sent each to opposite flanks. This is called double envelopment (or pincer movement). If one buddy team stalls due to enemy contact, they can bunker down while the other buddy team continues their flanking. It's basically has become a single envelopment now but single envelopment still works. In your situation, once your buddy team is moving along the right flank/high road, simply drive the RHIB right up to Echo. You would be on the left flank and coming in noisy (the distraction or "bait") which would have helped the other team's silent approach (the "hook")

      It also looks like there was, at best 1 foot-mobile defending Echo. Maybe 2. By sending both buddy teams into the attack right away, you would have had either a 2:1 force advantage or a 4:2 force advantage and be in positions to support/revive each other.

      The flip side is that if you were playing against a enemy coordinating on teamspeak, the enemy-contact-at-echo report would have gone out and reinforcements would have spawned into that flag. Even in a pub game, if players were playing the objective, they would see the flag flashing and would move to reinforce. Or, if they are dead, they would spawn in to reinforce the flashing flag. Either way, the outcome would likely have been a different story because the force ratio would move out of your favor fairly quickly.

      You need to complete Observe-Orient-Decide-Act before your enemy can complete his OODA loop in-response. As soon as the first buddy team was engaged, you and your buddy needed to crash the point to support. You have to assume that the enemy's OODA-Observation has begun. You cannot know if the enemy will choose to not reinforce so you need to take away that option from them. Prisoner's Dilemma.

      Larger picture, 1-2 RU foot-mobile tied up 4 US soldiers and delayed the US capture of Echo. This allowed the RU side to take Alpha, Bravo (negating US IFV), and Charlie while also allowing RU to spend more resources trying to retake Delta (to regain RU IFV). RU never lost the bleed.

      (next post)

      Sorry I mixed-in terminology from non-Battlefield games. By camping I was referring to the flag state where it is hostile but turning neutral [edit: formal term "de-camping the flag] not that you were spawn raping.

      But your position is incorrect. You could not have cost the team a lost flag because you did not have the flag. That is like saying you could have lost the ball in soccer when you never had possession of the ball in the first place.

      "The due time" is the part where you are struggling. Battlefield, like modern warfare, is a time competitive game. "Due time" is as fast as possible to avoid further ticket bleed. This is the part where you need to take the view of the broader battlefield. It's fun raping pubbies who are uncoordinated and at a disadvantage due to lack of VOIP but your doctrine would never win against a coordinated enemy.

      I encourage you to spend $5 and join the 21st Century Warfare tournament on the RU (42MKR) side. It will open your eyes to team that are both focused on the objectives and on winning the game. "Do a shakedown run" with your tactics there and see how they work. Or, have TG challenge the 21CW RU side to a scrim this weekend (they are on break from the tournament). Again, do a shakedown run with your doctrine and see how it works.

      No offense, but without win/loss ratios, there is no feedback loop as to whether what you are doing is working. Plan-do-check-act. Success leaves clues.

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

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Coordinating an Attack on a Flag with 2 Fireteams

        Ski-Racer, thank you for the detailed reply but your analysis is fundamentally flawed.

        You claim I spent an inordinate amount of time "camping".

        I did not. I held Alpha fireteam in position above the flag for less than 20 seconds. The time Bravo spent in the boat waiting (one minute 20 secs) was well spent -- we were in place doing exactly what we should have been doing.

        Other ways of attacking the flag may be valid (and certainly are) but there is nothing inherently wrong with my strategy at that time.

        We took the flag in due time.

        Anything else is mere speculation over a better way or what might have happened.

        I have used this method on occasion for over six years.

        It worked in BF2, BC2 and it works just fine in BF3.

        Speed when necessary, yes. But reckless speed kills.

        And speed is not always necessary nor is it the most important issue.

        There is no one tactic that has precedence over all others in BF3.

        And as to your claim that "there is no feedback loop as to whether what you are doing is working" I would suggest asking those who are regularly in my squad as to whether or not what I do works!

        Again,

        Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed commentary.

        E-Male
        Last edited by E-Male; 01-10-2012, 01:33 PM.
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Coordinating an Attack on a Flag with 2 Fireteams

          Observations from my time at TG:

          Back in 2142, when there were still 6 man squads, I and a few of my peers tried running with fireteams of 3 in conquest rounds, and the effectiveness usually varied on situation.

          The main advantage of the fireteam concept was being able to attack from two different directions, but the disadvantages were reducing the overall firepower and survivability of the squad. With 6 people together, 1 or 2 losses could easily be recouped with revives if the rest of the squad covered. With 2-3 man fireteams with different kits between them, 1-2 losses meant that one person had to revive without any cover (since his team members were dead and the other fireteam was unable to provide effective support), which was usually certain death in close quarters. In other words, splitting into fire teams had the effect of reducing the overall combat effectiveness of the squad in some situations. Additionally, with the spawn-on-SL only system and the lack of built-in fireteam support in the squad menu, organizing it all was pretty difficult. In my opinion, the best employment of the fireteam concept usually came about when the both teams were very close to each other, and it ended up being informal in implementation. I'd be like "Hey, you and you get the eastern entrance, the rest of you come with me through the southern entrance". When we got split up too far, we would generally get isolated and killed pretty quickly. The game was simply too fast-paced to lose time sorting out the organization, and the decrease in survivability and firepower was simply undesirable. In practice, most squads didn't use the fireteam concept extensively and generally had all 6 members move as a unit.

          In BF3, the spawn-on-everyone thing certainly helped make the concept feasible. However, now squad sizes are only 4 people and the fireteams are only 2. Also, the pace of the game is much faster and the weapons much more lethal. I think that using 2 people in a fireteam simply lacks the survivability and the firepower to be useful in most circumstances unless both fireteams stick within 10-20 meters of each other. I do, however, think using 2 "squads" (4 people each) as fireteams is more feasible, just because I think 4 is that magic number where firepower, survivability, and flexibility are balanced. I think keeping at least 4 people close together (10-20 meters max) is absolutely necessary and I would not advise splitting up into groups smaller than that unless said groups stick close together.

          As for Ski-Racer's post, I think he and I just share the perception that the attack in the video was unnecessarily slow. I feel like pushing in with all 4 people together in a hasty attack would have allowed you to take the flag quicker. It seemed like you had superior numbers and generally had the advantage: pushing in hard with your squad together may have allowed you to take the flag quicker and with less deaths than by separating your squad. However, as you say, these are all speculation of what we think may have been a better way to approach the situation. Perhaps these thoughts can be attributed to mere differences in play style and philosophy. Either way, this is all just my take on things.
          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


          • #6
            Re: Coordinating an Attack on a Flag with 2 Fireteams

            Mercenary90,

            Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed reply.

            Some thoughts in response:

            "2 people in a fireteam simply lacks the survivability and the firepower to be useful in most circumstances" -- my experience contradicts this and suggests that it is a bit of an overstatement. Two men, particularly when pitched against one, are quite a weapon (even at mid- to long-range).

            "I feel like pushing in with all 4 people together in a hasty attack would have allowed you to take the flag quicker."

            Feelings are a poor guide here. It may have, and equally so it may have resulted in the squad being entirely wiped out. As you note, such a judgment is entirely subjective. As it was, the way I proceeded with my squad -- fireteam separation, flanking on two fronts (high and low, left and right), and SL in a conservative position, ensured that we took the flag moments after the video above ended.

            As you note, play style and philosophies (for me - simply methodology) differ.

            I can accept that there is always a another way.

            I cannot accept the criticism that my strategy at that time in that instance was inherently flawed or inappropriate to BF3.

            Speed is not the most essential consideration when taking a flag.

            Planning.
            Recon.
            Fireteam separation.
            SL security.
            Force ratio.
            Cohesion.
            Communication.
            Situation Awareness.

            And other factors come into play in a complex mix.

            A well coordinated, cohesive squad brings considerable advantages with it that will often (not always) overcome the much celebrated factor of raw speed.

            It is quite clear that the dominant culture of BF3, with is speed mentality, is contra my standard operating procedures (and here I do not refer to the culture at TG -- which is something quite different than the dominant culture and its prevailing attitudes and values).

            Nonetheless, there is much value in being different on the battlefield.

            Again,
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Coordinating an Attack on a Flag with 2 Fireteams

              Not to hi-jack the thread, but just wanted to comment on Ski-Racer's post. I won't quote any of your post (long) but I thought the information you presented was very interesting. The videos and ideas about tactics, especially in a fast paced engagement, can be used in the virtual world as well. Its no secret that BF3 was designed for fast paced engagement of objectives and interaction with the enemy. Lots of flags spaced fairly close together, and a significant number of enemy (32) spread out in that war theater.

              I think what you say rings true about the speed of battle and adapting very quickly to the information at hand. I would almost go so far as to say that slow moving teams + deaths = defeat. (in BF3).

              Lastly, I surely enjoy E-male's tactical videos and I have learned quite a bit from them. Its pretty fun to watch somebody control one to two squads and see how it all plays out!

              Here's a toast to the tactical side of gaming!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Coordinating an Attack on a Flag with 2 Fireteams

                Originally posted by Mercenary90 View Post
                Observations from my time at TG:
                As for Ski-Racer's post, I think he and I just share the perception that the attack in the video was unnecessarily slow. I feel like pushing in with all 4 people together in a hasty attack would have allowed you to take the flag quicker. It seemed like you had superior numbers and generally had the advantage: pushing in hard with your squad together may have allowed you to take the flag quicker and with less deaths than by separating your squad. However, as you say, these are all speculation of what we think may have been a better way to approach the situation. Perhaps these thoughts can be attributed to mere differences in play style and philosophy. Either way, this is all just my take on things.
                Which is why the often maligned stats are so important. "If you can not measure it, you can not improve it." (Lord Kelvin) http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/

                It's human nature to forget to count the negative observations. That's why so many people believe they have clairvoyance when they dream of a long lost friend then see them the next day. They forget to count the 300 other people they dream about each week and *don't* see the next day.

                The tactics shown in the video are coming from someone who hasn't shown that they work (Win/Loss < 1, Kill/Death < 1) and the replies (and scorn) in Battlelog are ruthless. Moreover, honestly, the way he replies and carries himself on Battlelog is tarnishing the Tactical Gamer brand. He should probably stop putting the Tactical Gamer logo in his videos.

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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Coordinating an Attack on a Flag with 2 Fireteams

                  I just have a question. In the beginning of the video you said you don't quite have the force ratio to move in yet. I watched the video a couple of times and I never saw a friendly come closer. After about 2 minutes you decided to push in on the flag even though the situation was the same. Why was the time right then?
                  ˝Memento audere semper˝


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Coordinating an Attack on a Flag with 2 Fireteams

                    Originally posted by Phoenix. View Post
                    I just have a question. In the beginning of the video you said you don't quite have the force ratio to move in yet. I watched the video a couple of times and I never saw a friendly come closer. After about 2 minutes you decided to push in on the flag even though the situation was the same. Why was the time right then?
                    An excellent question.

                    I received intell at one point from Alpha fireteam lead that a few enemies were present -- but no more. Bravo saw no movement throughout the initial one minute wait period.

                    One error of command (and management) is to endlessly gather data -- at some point a decision must be made, uncertainty faced, and risk undertaken.

                    That point had been reached.

                    Keep in mind it was not 2 minutes -- only one. One minute for Bravo to get in place above the flag. Then an additional 15 seconds before the engagement started -- I think it may have been enemy fire at that point.

                    I ordered Bravo2 to hold the high risk position of boat gunner while I secured a safe spawn point (Which saved the assault in the end and ensured that we took the flag).

                    -- E-Male
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Coordinating an Attack on a Flag with 2 Fireteams

                      Originally posted by Ski-Racer View Post
                      Which is why the often maligned stats are so important. "If you can not measure it, you can not improve it." (Lord Kelvin) http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/

                      It's human nature to forget to count the negative observations. That's why so many people believe they have clairvoyance when they dream of a long lost friend then see them the next day. They forget to count the 300 other people they dream about each week and *don't* see the next day.

                      The tactics shown in the video are coming from someone who hasn't shown that they work (Win/Loss < 1, Kill/Death < 1) and the replies (and scorn) in Battlelog are ruthless. Moreover, honestly, the way he replies and carries himself on Battlelog is tarnishing the Tactical Gamer brand. He should probably stop putting the Tactical Gamer logo in his videos.

                      One might equally say that much about the last century stands in ruins due to the empiricism of the day. There is much of value that can be improved but cannot be measured or weighed.

                      As to your accusation that I have not shown that my tactics work.

                      I strongly suspect that many here at TG have a least a modicum of respect for my methods (which I do not claim are the best or the only way -- diversity of methods is indeed the very essence of TG's uniqueness and strength), and more than a few of TG's supporting and non-supporting members can be found in my squad on almost every evening following my orders. This, I suggest, is proof enough.

                      I do not accept the general opinions found in Battlelog as anything other than an indication of the dominant culture of online gaming. Here at TG we explicitly aspire to be something quite different both in play style and ethics. I do not claim to represent TG within Battlelog (nor have I ever done so) -- nor do I claim to represent the best of TG (I would vote the 70th as a prime candidate).

                      I do know that, regardless of the rather odious responses to my videos in Battlelog, I get almost daily feedback from Battlelog members thanking me for the videos. I also know that as a result of my videos and their presence on Battlelog forums TG has a few new members.

                      I stand to be corrected if I have indeed tarnished the image of TG on Battlelog or, as you claim, I have conversed there in an odious manner.

                      More to the point, I may have been blunt, sometimes cheeky, but I have taken great care not to be unduly rude and never have I been obscene or foul in language.

                      I find your accusations to be unfounded, counterfactual, and presumptuous.

                      Respectfully,

                      E-Male
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Coordinating an Attack on a Flag with 2 Fireteams

                        Originally posted by Ski-Racer View Post
                        Which is why the often maligned stats are so important. "If you can not measure it, you can not improve it." (Lord Kelvin) http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/
                        Perfect. Yet do we have enough data available to make assumptions about his style to label it inefficient or slow? The same could be said about speed based tactics. Are they inefficient? They are losing tickets moving fast? Are they leaving positions uncovered to the sake of other nearby squad (Cuckoo bird parasitism tactic)?

                        Originally posted by Ski-Racer View Post
                        It's human nature to forget to count the negative observations. That's why so many people believe they have clairvoyance when they dream of a long lost friend then see them the next day. They forget to count the 300 other people they dream about each week and *don't* see the next day.
                        That's why including raw footage and battlelog link is our best way (unless there is something better) to make a few assumptions about the gameplay.

                        Originally posted by Ski-Racer View Post
                        The tactics shown in the video are coming from someone who hasn't shown that they work (Win/Loss < 1, Kill/Death < 1) and the replies (and scorn) in Battlelog are ruthless. Moreover, honestly, the way he replies and carries himself on Battlelog is tarnishing the Tactical Gamer brand. He should probably stop putting the Tactical Gamer logo in his videos.
                        I can say that no tactic bf3 mp video ever posted has definitive truth of the best way because situations change. Should I punish him for making those and try to promote his hypothesis? I am even biased to disregard battlelog replies because I have yet to see a server like TG regarding squadwork efforts (I left teamwork behind because @sl on still have to get more traction).

                        I welcome your reply and keep up questioning everything since is the only way we can progress.
                        Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Coordinating an Attack on a Flag with 2 Fireteams

                          Originally posted by E-Male View Post
                          ...
                          Feelings are a poor guide here. It may have, and equally so it may have resulted in the squad being entirely wiped out. As you note, such a judgment is entirely subjective. As it was, the way I proceeded with my squad -- fireteam separation, flanking on two fronts (high and low, left and right), and SL in a conservative position, ensured that we took the flag moments after the video above ended.

                          ...

                          Speed is not the most essential consideration when taking a flag.

                          Planning.
                          Recon.
                          Fireteam separation.
                          SL security.
                          Force ratio.
                          Cohesion.
                          Communication.
                          Situation Awareness.

                          ...
                          You got hung up on merc using the word "feel." It had nothing to do with emotions; he didn't have a situational grasp because he wasn't playing and would have a better idea of what was going on if he were the one playing, not watching a video.

                          Your list of actions all rely on speed. The person that can do those items quickly will be able to put them and their forces in the strongest position possible.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Coordinating an Attack on a Flag with 2 Fireteams

                            Anospa, I am not saying that speed is irrelevant (although I do maintain that stillness is also at times a tactical advantage).

                            I am rejecting the criticism that "the attack in the video was unnecessarily slow" -- that is an entirely speculative judgment.

                            A faster attack might well have failed precisely because it was done faster.

                            Logically, and it terms of probability, it could go either way.

                            Squads attack with great speed all the time in BF3 and often fail.

                            There is little point in saying that it could have gone faster.

                            True.

                            We could have also attacked while wearing high heels and red skirts.

                            I stand by my choices and my men.

                            No matter what they are wearing.

                            -- E-Male
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Coordinating an Attack on a Flag with 2 Fireteams

                              Didn't say you said that, this is what you said:
                              Originally posted by E-Male View Post
                              Speed is not the most essential consideration when taking a flag.
                              I do agree that staying still is necessary sometimes.

                              I just now got a chance to watch your video. Everything was unnecessarily slow. You quickly found out there were only two people on flag, and you had a 2 man advantage.

                              If you were operating closer together and staying mobile, you would have quickly been able to take that, no problem. If you want to deal with logic, you can look at the facts that you had the 2 man advantage and were under bleed, so you had even more incentive to flip the flag quickly. Even if you lost all 4 tickets, it would have been worth, as you bled those tickets out and had two of your men die unrevived during the time it took you to begin to move toward the flag.

                              I'm not going to waste any more time arguing these points with you, because by reading this thread, the linked battlelog one, and some of your other posts, its pretty apparent you don't want to have listen to criticism and would rather draw out arguments and state ridiculousness. Good luck and have fun.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X