Limit Firebase Building Locations

[Royal_marine_machine]

Was it me who continued discussing the Commander and quoting it in another post?

I mentioned it once to prove that this game is not realistic in the first place for 32s v 32s, after someone responded to emsaying that the enemy choking the supply lines is realistic by saying not in 32 v 32.

So please keep on topic.

How big are Trucks? How much noise do they make? Do they transport a whole squad? How weak are they?

If a logistics truck and squad managed to sneak past you once then your team obviously isn't very good and doing this thing called CONSOLODATING YOUR POSITIONS I.E making sure the Secure positions STAY Secure.

This can easily be acheived, ESPECIALLY on Muttrah city, by simply not letting anything past a certain line I.E a street, where 1 squad cane easily make sure the enemy team doesn't advance past the line.

Tbh this just sounds like you had a bad round of PR then decided that because the enemy was clever that can't be allowed

[Rudd]

Tbh this just sounds like you had a bad round of PR then decided that because the enemy was clever that can't be allowed

I've been around here along time buddy.

I have presented a logical argument for my suggestion. You don't have to agree with me, but don't disrespect me by claiming it's a rage suggestion. The tactic described has been used since the very first time I played Muttrah during the beta testing.

CONSOLODATING YOUR POSITIONS I.E making sure the Secure positions STAY Secure

Enemy truck is vulnerable to (in no particular order)
1) CAS
2) Mines
3) APC
4) AT

CAS needs to catch it, if CAS is reloading/not spawned then truck gets trough

Mines need to be on every road, and this limits the APCs so isn't generally used

APCs need to catch it (or just plain be alive) at the same time as covering friendlies from enemy APCs, in terms of combat the enemy APCs are the higher priority.

AT could catch it, but if ur on the ground the chances of AT watching every road at every second are nil. If the AT is in a buiding you have a better view, but trucks are fast enough to hve a chance, and walls are high enough to give them cover, as the aspect angle from the buildings is more favourable than on the ground, but not much better.

So, no. The enemy don't get to use this tactic against only crap teams. They use it against good times too.

And its not just muttrah that has this, that's just an example. Barracuda, USMC building a FB in enemy Main is another sucky tactic.

And I wanna be clear, I don't mind if an SA7 or an APC runs though to the docks or whatever, cuz those are mobile and an asset the team will miss if misued. 1 Dude with 1 truck usually isn't missed.

[Royal_marine_machine]

Your Infantry should still be able to take out a FB so close/behind your lines.

Trucks are vulnerbale to standard infantry, shoot the driver, simples Not eays for one person, but a LMG and a full squad could easily take out the Logistics truck, and anyway, then you would be aware that the enemy are building a FB behind you and take them out before they finish.

I'm dissrepecting you as much as you dissrespected me saying that I was the one going off-topic about commanders when I responded to an on topic post using it as an example, tbh I find that arrogant. It doesn't matter how long you've been around, still sounds like you want things changed due to not being able to deal with threats.

I never knew that in real life we said to our enemy "Oh wait hang on, thats not in your territory, you can't build an outpost there." I thought that instead we made sure they didn't by using clearance patrols etc. etc.

Also your helis can avoid the AA, again simple.

[Alex6714]

Look the point isn´t whether you can do it, what you should be doing etc.

The point is enemy shouldn´t be building fortifications in terrain they don´t have control of (represented by flags).

Only withing a certain radius (not necessarily the cap one) of their flag.

[Rudd]

I'm dissrepecting you as much as you dissrespected me saying that I was the one going off-topic about commanders when I responded to an on topic post using it as an example, tbh I find that arrogant. It doesn't matter how long you've been around, still sounds like you want things changed due to not being able to deal with threats.

oh my god....

Your Infantry should still be able to take out a FB so close/behind your lines.

my earlier post

The more I think about that person's comment on vBF2, the more I agree with it. either make it so you can't build FBs inside enemy flags/there are restrictions or just make the flags cappable at all times <- since that will result in the tactics some people apparently want to see

According to some people the enemy should be able to sneak 1 truck though allowing their whole team to us the teleportation devices they have invented to spawn behind enemy lines. And that the defending team should have to send squads to secure, secure flags. Well, might as well make the flag cappable then, since that will DEFINATELY result in defending squads going back to resecure flags.

[Royal_marine_machine]

Yes I read your earlier post....

Still doesn't alter the fact that there is nothing wrong that when an enemy FB has been spotted (you obviously spotted this one) that the Infantry should have no problem taking it out.

And Why shouldn't they?

Because that area is controlled by you and is your territory?

Or Beause the area is your territory, and therefore defended by your troops?

It would make for a better game if the attacking forces had to make sure nobody got past them, more tactical thinking rather than just "Right we're going to move into cap radius and try and clear out all the enemy".

I think a SL thinking "Right, we're gonna try n sneak past the enemy, build a firebase with AA, and ambush their logistical support, which in turn will help the rest of the team defeat them as eventually their supply crates will run out or we'll take them out." is thinking alot more tactically then just rushing a flag...

[sickly]

LOL Royal_marine_machine give it up man.

You can't expect players who are busy using RL tactics on the front lines to run all the way back to a rear CP just to frag some noobs who fail to understand the purpose of AAS gameplay (i.e. flag-by-flag).

In RL, there are people defending those rear positions and a any goofs trying to play Rambo and sneak past enemy lines will end up in body bags. In PR, there's no one back there to stop them from making a nuisance of themselves. Hence the need for territorial restrictions.

It has absolutely *uck-all to do with tactics and stopping trucks from getting past you and all that other stuff you were talking about.

It is about maintaining a standard of gameplay that proportionally represents--and this is a concept many around here need to understand--real-life battlefield factors.

It is not about literally reproducing a RL battlefield, assuming that was possible in a game (which it definitely isn't).

Is that clear enough? RL combat. RL tactics. You want fantasy combat where tactics mean $hit and you spend your time chasing after lone wolf noobs? There are plenty of vBF2 servers at your disposal.

Originally Posted by Dr2B Rudd

An alternative to simply "YOU CANT BUILD HERE" could be that 4 crates are required for FBs outside of cap zones. since theoretically teh AAS follows supply routes, and since your not connected to the supply route alla CoH, you need 4 crates

But then that makes players too dependent on other players willing to deliver all those crates--and in most of the PR rounds I've played, that level of player cooperation is rare.

And this doesn't really solve your problem, it just makes it a bit more time-consuming (never underestimate a noob's determination to *uck around instead of fighting). In AAS, there should really be no activity in rear positions.

Originally Posted by Alex6714

Look the point isn´t whether you can do it, what you should be doing etc.

The point is enemy shouldn´t be building fortifications in terrain they don´t have control of (represented by flags).

Only withing a certain radius (not necessarily the cap one) of their flag.

Funny how people fail to understand this most basic of points.

BF2 players need to understand that people who play PR to spend some time fighting ina semi-realistic setting in a realistic manner, not to waste their time dealing with "clever" players who prefer to spend their time taking advantage of every exploit in the game.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Originally Posted by Dr2B Rudd

I don't like that 2 guys

wait...

actually

I hate that only 1 guy can build a FB in an enemy flag and shoot down choppers, because its not particularly teamwork orientated, and its not very skillful. a mobile AA, sure thats the point, but a static AA should be about more than 'plonk this anywhere'

If you can manage to make it behing enemy lines, get 2 supply boxes from a helo or 1 logistic truck, both of which are loud as hell behing enemy lines, build the FOB yourself, then construct the AA yourself without being spotted, you may quite possibly be the luckiest player who has played this game lol. I agree with the others. It brings a different dimension to playing and allows players to flank.

The way you are suggesting it would basically limit battles to head on engagements WW1 style which aren't done now. Don't get me wrong, I am not for building FOBs on top of enemy flags right next to or on their main or something like that, but if you manage to get by the enemy undetected and put an FOB on their flag, you probably deserve to have it. If that flag is near the front, it shoudn't be undefended anyways.

Look at The Battle of the Bulge. I can't remember exactly, but the Germans essentially cut the US and Patton's forces in half by getting in between them. Its the same premise here.

[Rudd]

Look at The Battle of the Bulge. I can't remember exactly, but the Germans essentially cut the US and Patton's forces in half by getting in between them. Its the same premise here.

please tell me the size of the area of operations of the battle of teh bulge

then compare to the size of the typical PR map

WW1 engagement is not what would happen imo as firebases are not the only spawn points avaliable. The tactical options avaliable with firebases would be very similar, its just you cant grab a engineer kit and build one singlehanded in an enemy flag.

flanking can still happen, but it isn't with a firebase, I think that rally points should and would be immune to the restrictions since only 1 squad can spawn on it and they already have pre-requisites in being made.

[Smuke]

Originally Posted by Dr2B Rudd

please tell me the size of the area of operations of the battle of teh bulge

then compare to the size of the typical PR map

WW1 engagement

I think the battle was in 1944 Rudd.

I think FOB's setup just for AA emplacements in enenmy flags is darn right stupid tbh.