184 replies to this topic

[Ghogiel]

Make a fire, roast some marshmallows, sing songs, Gauss and PPC people from 1km, camping is jolly good fun.

[Joseph Mallan]

Megalosauroid, on 24 January 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

Actually the assault game type is bad, conquest goes a long way towards solving the problem because it encourages teams to move around the map and thus you get a bunch of more varied engagements and if one team camps you have options beyond run at them and hope you're a better shot than they are.

The only time assault is bad is when bad players are in it. When in Conquest Some of the team cap a few bases and then it turns to team death match. Also That is a more offensive oriented scenario, so maybe the OP should think about dropping in that scenario only.

[BerryChunks]

Orgasmo, on 24 January 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

What are you? 12 years old?

Orgasmo, on 24 January 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

What are you? 12 years old?

no u r.

[Joseph Mallan]

BerryChunks, on 24 January 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

no u r.

I see what you did there

[GalaxyBluestar]

Megalosauroid, on 24 January 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

Actually the assault game type is bad, conquest goes a long way towards solving the problem because it encourages teams to move around the map and thus you get a bunch of more varied engagements and if one team camps you have options beyond run at them and hope you're a better shot than they are.

conquest fails cause grabbing bases isn't as efficient as the hunting pack of hounds in a power blob formation, those capping get isolated from the team and the domino effect carries to the cappers eventual loss. only inefficient teams without enough scouting lights lose to being outcapped. i've only ever won conquest by capping on about 3-4 matchs out of around 20hours worth of playing it. at least in assault there's a better chance of you being teamed up with a team that won't split and stray to the enemy in a blaze of glory.

we need big maps to make conquest work properly.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 24 January 2013 - 08:25 PM.

[Bad Karma 308]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 January 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

No. No. No. NO!
Camping is fighting defensively. It makes an enemy work for their victory and is a historically strong tactic. There is nothing cowardly in waiting till the enemy comes to you and smashing them while the break themselves against your defenses. Read some Sun Tzu.

Fighting defensively is a valid warfare doctrine. But is usually a tactic used by a smaller force and or a timid and overly cautious commander. The tactic is also used when armies are evenly matched and hope to avoid a direct war of attrition.

Now defense of a location went out with the first world war. War War II saw the emergence of mobile warfare doctrine, which quickly destroyed any value of fixed fortifications, or defense of a location.
IE.. If you are tied to a location, and I'm not, then I know where you are, and I can hit you on conditions of my choosing.

"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man."- George S. Patton

Mobile warfare is punctuated by fast movement, overwhelming firepower, and keeping your enemy constantly off balance and responding to your actions.

Again Patton said it best: Some ******* fool once said that flanks have got to be secure. Since then sonofabitches all over the globe have been guarding their flanks. I don't agree with that. My flanks are something for the enemy to worry about, not me. Before he finds out where my flanks are, I'll be cutting the *******'s throat.

Edited by Bad Karma 308, 24 January 2013 - 08:30 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Bad Karma 308, on 24 January 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

*snip*

Sun Tzu trumps Patton

both arguments are legit and depend on the situation, there's a time and place for everything, even cob pipes.

no wait that was mcarthur...

[GoManGo]

I think the OP is a TTard first they say stay on spawn guard it or your a noob then they yell at you for doing what they say and not go join the fight it ussually ends up like me or whoever guards the spawn against 4-8 players at that point I just log out to hellll with the stompers let them stomp someone else.I think most must be 4man or 4+4man groups it just sucksss period.

Edited by GoManGo, 24 January 2013 - 08:39 PM.

[DaZur]

Peekaboo I C JU, on 24 January 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

I'm Sorry, Camping is not a tactic and only cowards camp....the only teams you see doing it are teams that are completely new and teams who's leaders are completely uneducated and mentally incapable of coming up with REAL tactics......just saying

Wow...

What you call "camping" in real-world battlefield tactics is Sniping. Snipers are used to suppress and or divert enemy forces, provide cover fire, eliminate high-asset targets and demoralize/confuse the enemy.

What point you are missing / overlooking it there is a whole other subset of battlefield tactics specifically created to "counter" Snipers.

While you may view it as "cowardly" (sic) it's a highly prized battlefield tactics and integral to asymmetrical warfare.

[Bad Karma 308]

GalaxyBluestar, on 24 January 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

Sun Tzu trumps Patton

both arguments are legit and depend on the situation, there's a time and place for everything, even cob pipes.

no wait that was mcarthur...

If you really get into Sun Tzu you'd find that he was a great proponent of mobile warfare and movement. He preaches over and over in "the Art of War" to not be defensive and constantly attack. Now, when he get's down into individual battles he uses defensive tactics to let the enemy waste energy on his battle lines and once they tire he attacks, but it was for the battle not the location. His tactics were all about taking the battle to the enemy and shaping the engagement to fight on his terms.

SunTzu --> Von Clausewitz--> Heinz Guderian---> Those philosophies and advent of technologies all culminated in Mobile Warfare Doctrine. Patton just took it to the next level to turn the tables on the Germans.

Edited by Bad Karma 308, 24 January 2013 - 08:44 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Bad Karma 308, on 24 January 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

Fighting defensively is a valid warfare doctrine. But is usually a tactic used by a smaller force and or a timid and overly cautious commander. The tactic is also used when armies are evenly matched and hope to avoid a direct war of attrition.

Now defense of a location went out with the first world war. War War II saw the emergence of mobile warfare doctrine, which quickly destroyed any value of fixed fortifications, or defense of a location.
IE.. If you are tied to a location, and I'm not, then I know where you are, and I can hit you on conditions of my choosing.

"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man."- George S. Patton

Mobile warfare is punctuated by fast movement, overwhelming firepower, and keeping your enemy constantly off balance and responding to your actions.

Again Patton said it best: Some ******* fool once said that flanks have got to be secure. Since then sonofabitches all over the globe have been guarding their flanks. I don't agree with that. My flanks are something for the enemy to worry about, not me. Before he finds out where my flanks are, I'll be cutting the *******'s throat.

Iwo Jima

Wanna talk about Camping to a soldier? Nothing against Patton... But You ain't him.

[Sandslice]

Peekaboo I C JU, on 24 January 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

I am not saying to restrict it, I am just saying it is cowardly


it is an extremely Novice tactic

Actually, the circle dance you'd rather do is an extremely novice tactic; a properly set-up team camp will, barring a very good counter, allow intermediate team tactics like having 5-6 'Mechs simultaneously alpha the first clear target into next Tuesday's patch... and then do it seven more times.

[Pariah Devalis]

Oh man, this guy sounds like the genius who, when the team launched two men down on the high base in Forest Colony, decided to charge in and bitched at us for not following him in.

The rest of us used the narrow valleys to limit the enemies' fire lanes and picked them off one by one, as they came in flush with the idea that they would win given they nearly outnumbered us 2:1.


Hey, OP: Leonidas called. He told me to give you two words; "FORCE MULTIPLIER."

[Bad Karma 308]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 January 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

Iwo Jima

Wanna talk about Camping to a soldier? Nothing against Patton... But You ain't him.

Nor, did I say I was, but I do hold him in high regard. And you weren't in Iwo Jima either so don't go there. But I did my 22 years, been in just about every conflict around the globe since 89. retired as an O-5 with 2 squadron commands under my belt. So tread carefully.

[Dovvol]

Why not just do this Civil War style? We'll just have a map where we spawn 200m apart facing each other and unable to move with no type of cover and just shoot at each other till its over.

While I'm all for more aggressive combat, I also see logic in taking a defensive stance in battle. Using cover when getting fired at and using long range weapons to snipe your enemies to wear them down so basically all you have to do is a little clean up is a tactic that has been used over and over again. Does it work all the time? Not if you have a good team. Heck, I'd kind of like to see some sort of game mode where one team has to defend an area while another attacks. That would show how good your tactics are.

[The Cheese]

Dovvol, on 24 January 2013 - 08:56 PM, said:

Why not just do this Civil War style? We'll just have a map where we spawn 200m apart facing each other and unable to move with no type of cover and just shoot at each other till its over.

Truly, the gentleman's warfare.

[Brilig]

Megalosauroid, on 24 January 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

Agreed it is a legitimate strategy.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Bad Karma 308, on 24 January 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

If you really get into Sun Tzu you'd find that he was a great proponent of mobile warfare and movement. He preaches over and over in "the Art of War" to not be defensive and constantly attack. Now, when he get's down into individual battles he uses defensive tactics to let the enemy waste energy on his battle lines and once they tire he attacks, but it was for the battle not the location. His tactics were all about taking the battle to the enemy and shaping the engagement to fight on his terms.

SunTzu --> Von Clausewitz--> Heinz Guderian---> Those philosophies and advent of technologies all culminated in Mobile Warfare Doctrine. Patton just took it to the next level to turn the tables on the Germans.

yeah agreed blitzkriegs all round!

[Panzerman03]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 January 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

Iwo Jima

Wanna talk about Camping to a soldier? Nothing against Patton... But You ain't him.

That worked out great for the defenders, didn't it? But of course, those were Marines and not soldiers doing the attacking

[Xavier Davion]

Peekaboo I C JU, on 24 January 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

I am not saying to restrict it, I am just saying it is cowardly


it is an extremely Novice tactic

I'm sure there are hundreds of Marines, Rangers, and SEAL team members that would disagree with your assessment. Not to mention those members of the various SWAT teams and SAS units stationed around the world. They are called Snipers, and they "camp" as you call it sometimes for days just to get that perfect shot.

The art of patience and execution of a tactic like this has been used for hundreds of years. So why wouldn't it be used in the year 3050? Your opinion that it is a cowardice act reminds me of a battle where the British and Australian forces fought in WW I. They sat in their trenches and shelled the Turks for an hour. Then they raced out in a massive rush towards the Turkish lines. The Turks, who also sat inside their trenches remained there and opened up on the Brits and Aussies with machine gun fire. During one of these skrims in that battle, the Turks fought a New Zealand force of 760 men. Of those men 711 were dead or wounded. So camping can make the difference between a victory or a defeat.