Well yes obvoiusly. The fact that i crouch down behind a barrel might be "tactical" but thats common sense. I was referring to something more in line of actual strategy, as in determining where or how to attack a building/objective
At least you seem to understand the difference between tactics and strategy. The strategy is not determined by the tactics, nor are the tactics determined by the strategy. One is the plan, the other the method of making that plan happen.
Crouching behind a barrel is the tactic, the strategy is not being seen. There are many, many ways to not be seen. You can do it out in the open without any cover if you can get the enemy to look somewhere else.
Mods plays an integral role in this series but it should not have to carry it.
I'm not talking about independent mods. I'm talking about the fact TWI long ago announced that there will be much more content including half-tracks and so on. Clearly THESE maps are not the ONLY maps TWI has in mind.
They certainly didnt do it alone
The first man through the door is always alone. What if you get cut off? What if your entire squad dies?
The things I talk about work whether you are on your own or with a couple of guys or the whole team, because they are about maximising your chances of staying alive so that you can fight alone OR with a team. They are the individual and small unit tactics that everyone should know if they want to really have fun playing a game like this.
If everyone does the same things, they are a well oiled team that will work well even if no one says a word.
As i said i own a m48, and maneuvering that thing in a cramped hallway would be a nightmare.
No one said it was easy. I said it was possible, and that in fact they had no choice. That didn't make it easy. That's why bolt action rifles are gone. The bolt action and the SMG merged to become the assault rifle. A jack of all trades, but a master of none.
Yes that makes sense, unfortunately that doesnt happen in the game. As i said, i just run through it blasting everyone with my rifle; if i want to be reeeeeeally tactical i let go of "w" and maybe play around with the strafe keys
Well then, I'd like to play against you. It would be fun to see who got the upper hand. When I'm around, and a team mate is having one of those hallways duels, I just flank and kill the enemy. That's what a real assault trooper would do. I usually haven't got time to wait for my team mate to get around to clearing that hall.
Except it didnt take 10sec to clear a whole building,
It doesn't in the game either.
Just running through and killing a couple of guys and then leaving is not "clearing" it. The enemy might have simply pulled back to consolidate and counter attack.
The assault guy who is running and gunning, isn't clearing the building. He is assaulting it. The riflemen who come in behind him to mop up the wounded and secure and defend the building are the ones that clear it.
You rarely see a building get cleared in RO2. Not for more than 10 seconds, anyway. The guys who should be doing it are usually still hanging back SHOOTING at it and ME.
Here is the simple way it should be. The assault guys are lightweight fast moving but not particularly hard hitting scouts. They charge ahead, eliminating weak enemies, and bypassing and encircling hard enemies. When they have finished assaulting INTO and objective, they start assulting OUT of it on the other side. Speed and agility are their strengths. Stopping takes away those strengths. That's for riflemen.
So in a house clearing example, the assault guys are first in and first out, killing as much as they can, but suppressing (there is that word again) the defenders. They do that by making a few guys seem to be dozens of guys, by circling around, attacking from different angles, moving in and out of rooms, so that the enemy can never figure out where or how many of them are in there. They are doing this so the enemy inside is not shooting at the riflemen outside who should now be moving forward after covering the initial assault.
Once the riflemen get into the objective, the assault guys push straight out after the enemy. The idea is to keep harassing him so he can't stop and organise a counter attack. The assault guys are now trying to push the enemy back to the NEXT objective, while the riflemen clear the house.
Anyone that could out manoeuvre the riflemen in the house is either trying to leave the house being chased by your assault troops, or is so hunkered down it will take a protracted effort to clear him out. The riflemen can handle that.
It's the assault troops job now to be out in front of the objective preventing the enemy from coming back to reinforce the few survivors.
I dont camp and snipe, i run through with my k98; i think i've said this already
I'm saying THEY are camping and sniping, and run and gun ALWAYS beats camp and snipe, no matter what weapon. That is why they banned it from RO1. TWI thought that run and gun should be beaten by camp and snipe, but for some reason it never does... so they set the rules to FORCE it to.
It even makes perfect sense when you think about it. Camp and snipe relies on you hiding somewhere and shooting people. If I'm running around, it's more likely I will find you. If I'm running, its LESS likely you will HIT me, even if you shoot.
Just LOGICALLY, run and gun is superior. The only reason you have trouble with accepting that is because you have been lied to by game designers for so long, that you don't recognise the truth, even when it is blindingly obvious.
the stories of how terrifyingly effective mg emplacements were?...are we on the same page here?
Define "emplacement". The problem is, even documentaries and so on do not show you what is really going on. The compress the battlefield so that they can tell the story they are trying to tell. You'll see a fixed MG emplacement firing, then see the bullets and sometimes you'll even see both. But what they are doing is pulling the gun from 800m away and dropping it 100m away. It's unrealistic, but you can at least get an idea of what is going on.
So that is the picture people have in their minds. I have sat there, beside a REAL support MG on a tripod and watched it firing. It is every bit as accurate and deadly as you expect.
But it takes a whole team and soem time to break it down and move it then set it up again. You HAVE to be outside the enemy's rifle range or you will die. It's that simple. You can argue all you want, but I have DONE IT. Not PLAYED it. REAL SOLDIERS, REAL MG's.
The effects you are thinking of are created by fire support platoons, not the squad machine gunner, if he tried it, he would likely die. Have you seen the emplacements they use in Iraq? Bullet proof glass sandbags all round, tiny firing slits...
That's what a fixed MG needs to survive against untrained insurgents. If you don't move you better be heavily fortified or you will die, even 800m away. Snipers look for exactly these kinds of gun. Even with all the drones and robots and stealth fighters and so on... in Iraq, to this day... if the MG doesn't move it's a long way away and heavily fortified. That's the way real world armies work. Why are you resisting the truth? This is why I doubt you're finding it as easy as you say.
Perhaps, but i was actually referring to how well the modeled the effectiveness of an mg, not its representation. As it stands, mg's emplacements are no more terrifying than that guy with the rifle.
If your bullet hits, they die. That's what effective means. Nothing else.
You really think the MG is the big fear on the battlefield? You're wrong. MG's are noisy, easy to find and they don't have the nasty tendency to blow your brains out just as you're taking a dump. If you know the things I know, dealing with an MG is fairly easy unless you panic. Remember all those movie scenes of recruits crawling under barbed wire while their instructor fires over their head with an MG? They do that so you get used to it and realise if it isn't hitting you it can't hurt you.
The basic training given to every raw recruit TEACHES them that the MG is not as scary as you think. Every platoon has one, and yet you don't really hear stories about MG's mowing people down by the hundred any more.
That was World War One. They learned from it. They adapted. What I am saying is what they figured out, and it's still taught today.
Just because you're a veteran doesnt mean you'd moronically charge an mg nest head on.
No, but a veteran knows that a fixed MG can only fire sustained when the gun is locked down and can't traverse very quickly. That's why it is so accurate. But in close it's a weakness. All you have to do is angle off faster than the gun can traverse, and he will miss you. While he is unlocking and moving the gun to get an angle on you, you will have closed the distance and killed him.
Same goes for a gunner lying prone behind his gun. The bipod limits movement, which helps you to be accurate, but it also stops you from traversing the gun very far without picking the whole thing up and moving it. All I have to do is get outside that small arc and you have to stop firing to move. If there are two of us and we run in different directions, one of us will be able to stop and shoot you when you try to shoot at the other.
See, I have DONE this. I know what it's like to try and track a target on the bipod FOR REAL. I know the real world limitations that rarely even get mentioned in games.
You would likely use common sense and try to either bypass it or hit it from its flanks
One minute you'rte acting like the gun can pin people down just by being there, the next you are saying you can bypass it. This is because you have a whole bunch of confused ideas about the gun, some real, some fake, and they are messing with the logic of your argument.
You can bypass a gun, because although it can shoot a lot of bullets a very long way, unless they are hitting you, they mean NOTHING. You can simply ignore them and move until you are safe. That is what every soldier is taught, and you have picked up when you talk about bypassing, but you haven't realised that it means the gun isn't as dangerous as you think.
That is why movement is key. If the enemy tries to flank the gun, it HAS to move, or it is no longer doing it's job. It isn't suppressing them because they are moving, and it isn't killing them. Firing 100 rounds at an empty field won't change that.
spoiler: it takes 250,000 rounds for every confirmed kill
That's what happens when you try to fight a war at long distance. That's why you need to get in close. Modern armies are very casualty averse. They will waste time and resources to save lives. In WWII, lives were less precious than resources.
Ask the poor Soviet rifleman.
This is getting too long, and I'm itching for a round, so I'll check back later and address the rest if you still want me to.
