The movement can give you away when you might otherwise have gone unnoticed, though.
Upvote
0
Tactics Defense: Is it a myth?
- Thread starter DingBat
- Start date
The movement can give you away when you might otherwise have gone unnoticed, though.
Defense is not a myth. I was recently playing hedgehog with around 20 players total on one of the beta servers. With only minimal text chat we all (Axis) decided to defend west farmhouse. The extent of the conversation was roughly such:
Prior to the first round engagement:
"Lets all hold one farmhouse"
"West-it has a small cap zone size"
"Alright"
Prior to second round engagement:
"West again?"
"Yeah"
It was that easy. We all set up there both rounds, and held out almost to the very end of each round, and really only lost because the Russians had more troops. It was a very narrow margin of loss. We all counterattacked, but only when the Russians attack waves were weakened and vulnerable. We layed ambushes just outside the cap zones and blew their PC's many a time before they could reach the cap zone. The counterattack is an important part of any defense, but has to be used wisely.
Granted, all this teamwork could have been due to the fact that this was the 1047 beta test, and players were more likely to have been more serious about the game than were your average pub player.
Prior to the first round engagement:
"Lets all hold one farmhouse"
"West-it has a small cap zone size"
"Alright"
Prior to second round engagement:
"West again?"
"Yeah"
It was that easy. We all set up there both rounds, and held out almost to the very end of each round, and really only lost because the Russians had more troops. It was a very narrow margin of loss. We all counterattacked, but only when the Russians attack waves were weakened and vulnerable. We layed ambushes just outside the cap zones and blew their PC's many a time before they could reach the cap zone. The counterattack is an important part of any defense, but has to be used wisely.
Granted, all this teamwork could have been due to the fact that this was the 1047 beta test, and players were more likely to have been more serious about the game than were your average pub player.
Upvote
0
I don't think it's a question of players not UNDERSTANDING the concepts of defense, at least in a broad sense. I think most players understand that it's easier to fall back and defend one position, and they do tend to "get" the concept of reinforcements, etc. They might not get the more nuanced points of setting up a GOOD defense (IE: overlapping fields of fire, minimal exposure and chance to be flanked, etc.), but overall I think they "get" it.
The problem, as I see it, is purely psychological. People just don't WANT to defend. It's not what they find fun. Some of this has to do with basic impatience. People want to get out there and kill kill kill. Some of it has to do with wanting to sc0r3 t3h p01ntz and thereby be 1337. In that sense, it's more about their PERSONAL experience in the game, rather than their TEAM winning the round. Who cares if the team won as long as I got top scorer, right?
Mostly, I think it's impatience, though. They DO view defending as boring because it requires you to wait for the enemy to come to you. The problem isn't unique to Red Orchestra, either. It's existed in games like BF1942 and the Forgotten Hope mod for YEARS. In that game, often, you only need, say, 4 positions of 5 held to make the other team's reinforcements "bleed out" (basically tick away with the clock). You only need 3 positions of 5 to have no bleed whatsoever, and run out the clock for the map. But people want to gogogo killkillkill and will regularly make suicidal charges to try to retake a single position (thereby depleting their OWN reinforcements) despite the fact that it's basically indefensible.
It's like trying to recapture the farm from the 2nd Line position on Berezina.
And yet, players will do that. Some of this may be that the maps don't make you instantly feel exposed. Compare the approach from the German spawn on Stalingrad Kessel to the Warehouse to the approach form the Russian spawn at the 2nd Line on Berezina to get to the Farm (I don't remember if the farm's recapturable, but you see my point). In the one case, you've got at least some chance of making it to the capture point, and then if you believe you can actually win, you might get the drop on one or two guys and push the enemy team back if there's enough buddies with you.
On Berezina, though, you're charging across open ground, HIGHLY exposed, etc.
This may partially be due to the fact that many of the stock RO and custom infantry maps are relatively small scale. Berezina and Gorlitz are large-scale combined arms maps with relatively few recapturable positions. As such, I see people actually play defense MOST of the time (although even on Berezina you'll see Russian troops running across the bridge at the final objective. For what reason, I have NO idea).
So, I don't think it's a question of not getting the concept. I think it's simply impatience or not giving a damn about one's team and being more interested in killing a bunch of dudes and racking up a high score.
The problem, as I see it, is purely psychological. People just don't WANT to defend. It's not what they find fun. Some of this has to do with basic impatience. People want to get out there and kill kill kill. Some of it has to do with wanting to sc0r3 t3h p01ntz and thereby be 1337. In that sense, it's more about their PERSONAL experience in the game, rather than their TEAM winning the round. Who cares if the team won as long as I got top scorer, right?
Mostly, I think it's impatience, though. They DO view defending as boring because it requires you to wait for the enemy to come to you. The problem isn't unique to Red Orchestra, either. It's existed in games like BF1942 and the Forgotten Hope mod for YEARS. In that game, often, you only need, say, 4 positions of 5 held to make the other team's reinforcements "bleed out" (basically tick away with the clock). You only need 3 positions of 5 to have no bleed whatsoever, and run out the clock for the map. But people want to gogogo killkillkill and will regularly make suicidal charges to try to retake a single position (thereby depleting their OWN reinforcements) despite the fact that it's basically indefensible.
It's like trying to recapture the farm from the 2nd Line position on Berezina.
And yet, players will do that. Some of this may be that the maps don't make you instantly feel exposed. Compare the approach from the German spawn on Stalingrad Kessel to the Warehouse to the approach form the Russian spawn at the 2nd Line on Berezina to get to the Farm (I don't remember if the farm's recapturable, but you see my point). In the one case, you've got at least some chance of making it to the capture point, and then if you believe you can actually win, you might get the drop on one or two guys and push the enemy team back if there's enough buddies with you.
On Berezina, though, you're charging across open ground, HIGHLY exposed, etc.
This may partially be due to the fact that many of the stock RO and custom infantry maps are relatively small scale. Berezina and Gorlitz are large-scale combined arms maps with relatively few recapturable positions. As such, I see people actually play defense MOST of the time (although even on Berezina you'll see Russian troops running across the bridge at the final objective. For what reason, I have NO idea).
So, I don't think it's a question of not getting the concept. I think it's simply impatience or not giving a damn about one's team and being more interested in killing a bunch of dudes and racking up a high score.
Upvote
0
An interesting experiment would be a scoreless mut where all you see is if your team wins or loses put it on a 50 man server and see what happens. I bet the run and gun would be down a notch, or the server would be empty.
Upvote
0
I love co-ordinating a defense on snowy forest variants with allies on the defence.
Many times have I and my clan been able to get people to retreat from the front line to the trenches at 1% reinforcements. From the trenches you have more advantage on the germans that need to attack the last objective.
I use VOIP, my buddies help me by using ingame voice and VOIP to get people to realise what were trying to do.
Often explaining WHY you want them to do smth helps more than just yelling at them to do smth.
We managed to bring down germans from 5% to 0% while we only had 1% left. This happens often, just give the opposing team an objective while you retreat to better positions, making the clock tick down and setting yourself up to pick em off as they charge, put in an arty on popular approach or hiding locations and your golden.
however i wouldn't say defense is broke or impossible, it depends on which server you play and who is playing. More often than not on thedamnedpriests.de server I am able to get teamwork going as an SL, i keep people updated on enemy movement, VOIP is a powerful weapon to motivate people so use it and explain your plan to the troops. Ask for sitreps and people will start to feel like they are part of something bigger, they play a role in your plan, they are engaged in their duty and start getting insight in the battle => more teamwork.
Its all about having someone willing and able (people tend to listen to me more than to that 14 year old spouting nonsense in the form of orders) to talk over VOIP and get a dynamic team working together.
Even if you only get 50% of the players behind your plan, it is likely you will perform better than if no one was following any kind of strategy.
Many times have I and my clan been able to get people to retreat from the front line to the trenches at 1% reinforcements. From the trenches you have more advantage on the germans that need to attack the last objective.
I use VOIP, my buddies help me by using ingame voice and VOIP to get people to realise what were trying to do.
Often explaining WHY you want them to do smth helps more than just yelling at them to do smth.
We managed to bring down germans from 5% to 0% while we only had 1% left. This happens often, just give the opposing team an objective while you retreat to better positions, making the clock tick down and setting yourself up to pick em off as they charge, put in an arty on popular approach or hiding locations and your golden.
however i wouldn't say defense is broke or impossible, it depends on which server you play and who is playing. More often than not on thedamnedpriests.de server I am able to get teamwork going as an SL, i keep people updated on enemy movement, VOIP is a powerful weapon to motivate people so use it and explain your plan to the troops. Ask for sitreps and people will start to feel like they are part of something bigger, they play a role in your plan, they are engaged in their duty and start getting insight in the battle => more teamwork.
Its all about having someone willing and able (people tend to listen to me more than to that 14 year old spouting nonsense in the form of orders) to talk over VOIP and get a dynamic team working together.
Even if you only get 50% of the players behind your plan, it is likely you will perform better than if no one was following any kind of strategy.
Upvote
0
I think that in order to get people stay low and defend gamers should have some penalties for dying. When I started playing RO some moths ago I did everything to stay alive, using basic infantry tactics taught in the army, but gradually I noticed that there's no gain that way. You MUST assault all the time, shoot from the hip and relocate constantly because everyone else is doing that also and you'll get overran if you don't do so. This kind of tactics where soldiers are running around shooting everything that moves will give you high scores when cap zones change owners but sometimes you may die 2-3 times in a row. But that's life, right? Wrong, because in the real life most soldiers are doing everything to stay alive, except some few individuals who most likely end up dead but if they survive they become heroes. In games, almost everyone plays like a reckless hero-wannabe. To change this there should be some improvements. Maybe -5 points every time you die and 1min wait would help? Or some sort of reward for every minute you stay alive after the first few minutes?
Upvote
0
that would just increase the amount of couch potatos, sitting back, doing jack while they should be trying to attack.
This would work with no reinforcements, but enforcing people to stay alive wil only result in boring maps where absolutely nothing happens because the lines will never fall down enough before they are reinforced.
The map is usually all the enforcement you need to play less like a rambo because frankly if you do, you on't even get close enough to get a kill or grenade in the capzone.
I never liked death penalties, it caters to even more camping and even more people too scared to actually run up and cap. The game just doesn't allow it imho. and neither did war. What would have happened if the allies didnt storm omaha and just waited in their boats taking potshots at germans who are hiding in their bunkers? Yeah, nothing at all would have happened. Some phases just require a team to throw themselves into enemy fire for the greater good of overrunning the enemy and capping a zone. Sacrifice 10 to save 50, its not that uncommon.
This would work with no reinforcements, but enforcing people to stay alive wil only result in boring maps where absolutely nothing happens because the lines will never fall down enough before they are reinforced.
The map is usually all the enforcement you need to play less like a rambo because frankly if you do, you on't even get close enough to get a kill or grenade in the capzone.
I never liked death penalties, it caters to even more camping and even more people too scared to actually run up and cap. The game just doesn't allow it imho. and neither did war. What would have happened if the allies didnt storm omaha and just waited in their boats taking potshots at germans who are hiding in their bunkers? Yeah, nothing at all would have happened. Some phases just require a team to throw themselves into enemy fire for the greater good of overrunning the enemy and capping a zone. Sacrifice 10 to save 50, its not that uncommon.
Upvote
0
Rambo players are gonna be rambo players. Nothing will change their playstyle because, the same way you and I enjoy well-thought-out defensive strategies, running from cover to cover, etc., they enjoy racing pell-mell into enemy fire while spraying blindly and lobbing nades everywhere. That's just how they like to play and changing the game by adding things like death penalties won't really do much to their approach to playing.
As for the scoreboard mutator, I've longed for such a mutator (or game) for a while now. Or at least you only see your scores when your team wins. Sadly, I predict many of the servers that ran this would be empty. Like it or not, people are addicted to scores. You'd do better to encourage teamplay by giving them more points for things like kills within the cap zone than you will by eliminating score altogether (though it would be fun to play with like-minded people on a game like that).
As for the scoreboard mutator, I've longed for such a mutator (or game) for a while now. Or at least you only see your scores when your team wins. Sadly, I predict many of the servers that ran this would be empty. Like it or not, people are addicted to scores. You'd do better to encourage teamplay by giving them more points for things like kills within the cap zone than you will by eliminating score altogether (though it would be fun to play with like-minded people on a game like that).
Upvote
0
You can really tell when a machinegunner knows how to defend. Look for good cover not too easy to flank, with chokepoints ahead when you're a MGer.
That way you get flanked less often and your fire is more valuable for area-denial, which usually just means it's a meatgrinder since they don't seem to learn.
Also remember, the MG34 firing in single-shot mode doesn't give away your position. I've been on a mg34 kick lately, rockin' the single-fire like an old WWI machinegun...
Works great at keeping their heads down, zip-zip-zip...
That way you get flanked less often and your fire is more valuable for area-denial, which usually just means it's a meatgrinder since they don't seem to learn.
Also remember, the MG34 firing in single-shot mode doesn't give away your position. I've been on a mg34 kick lately, rockin' the single-fire like an old WWI machinegun...
Works great at keeping their heads down, zip-zip-zip...
Upvote
0
Perhaps instead of scores players should be rewarded with virtual medals for each victory and teamwork i.e. giving ammo to the machinegunners?
Upvote
0
Same difference. Any mechanical system essentially boils down to "scores" regardless of how it's represented (IE: number vs. medal). Look at BF2's system. You get medals (and points) for resupplying folks, right? So what happens? You get two support troopers shooting off bags of ammo then resupplying each other for points. You get points for heals, right? So what happens? You and a guy on the other team (who's your buddy) go find a player, kill him, you revive him, your buddy kills him, you revive him, your buddy kills him, etc.
People abuse any kind of system of rewards because such systems are tied to mechanical, repetitive, easy-to-track tasks that don't consider the context of actions.
Let's say someone got points taken away for dying. The game doesn't know the difference between the schmuck who forgets to throw his primed nade and the guy who distracts a tank and dies so that his friendly tank can take it out. Context is the most important aspect of what we do in game. Which is more valuable? The guy who kills 20 people during the map, or the guy who sits back at a cap zone but manages to kill the one enemy squad leader who snuck around behind defenses and would've captured the position otherwise? I think they're both equally valuable, but the game's scoring system disagrees with me. That's why I see score as meaningless. Unfortuantely, games CAN'T track context.
People abuse any kind of system of rewards because such systems are tied to mechanical, repetitive, easy-to-track tasks that don't consider the context of actions.
Let's say someone got points taken away for dying. The game doesn't know the difference between the schmuck who forgets to throw his primed nade and the guy who distracts a tank and dies so that his friendly tank can take it out. Context is the most important aspect of what we do in game. Which is more valuable? The guy who kills 20 people during the map, or the guy who sits back at a cap zone but manages to kill the one enemy squad leader who snuck around behind defenses and would've captured the position otherwise? I think they're both equally valuable, but the game's scoring system disagrees with me. That's why I see score as meaningless. Unfortuantely, games CAN'T track context.
Upvote
0
Then we need a squad based system sort of the America's Army with the difference that anyone who stray to far away from the squad he or she spawned with gets killed a l
Upvote
0
Perhaps but not necessarily so - Using Team Speak and playing as a group/squad/section with your mates/clan/squad etc. etc. is a force multiplier which more than negates the "zerg" behaviour with arcadestyle players and even when heavily outnumbered the information and communication advantage in addition to the squad style play and a sound grasp of military tactics is in my experience far more effective than zerg players rushing headlong in suicidal deathcharges - Fire and movement is infinitely superiour to the running 'n gunning of the zergs that so often costs their teams the victory.
Fast reflexes and skills aren't solely the property of the "zerg-players" and given the inertia build into in the game it is of less importance than sound tactics and effective teamplay and the combination of fast reflexes, skills, good tactical understanding as well as good communication will own the "zerg-players" every time.
P.S. I really like the phrase "Zerg" as a description of the run 'n gun players - it is quite fitting and very descriptive of certain players' attitude and behaviour.
Fast reflexes and skills aren't solely the property of the "zerg-players" and given the inertia build into in the game it is of less importance than sound tactics and effective teamplay and the combination of fast reflexes, skills, good tactical understanding as well as good communication will own the "zerg-players" every time.
P.S. I really like the phrase "Zerg" as a description of the run 'n gun players - it is quite fitting and very descriptive of certain players' attitude and behaviour.
Upvote
0
I really don't like not being able to recap points. It just doesn't make sense to me that we could clear out the whole place and still not be able to cap. But also, counter attack is part of a defense strategy, nothing will cripple the enemy more than a good counter attack, recapping a point will set the attackers back, defeating their initiative and momentum. Static defenses are the worst kind imo, you just sit there killing and getting killed till the enemy finally overruns you.
And I can't help but laugh at all these "tactical" guys who talk about rushers condecendingly. I'm a very agressive player, I rush a lot, I run through heavy fire, most times it takes the enemy by surprise and they won't know how to react giving you a better chance to kill them. There's nothing more satisfying than rushing a position and shooting the defenders in the back as they flee in panic.
And I can't help but laugh at all these "tactical" guys who talk about rushers condecendingly. I'm a very agressive player, I rush a lot, I run through heavy fire, most times it takes the enemy by surprise and they won't know how to react giving you a better chance to kill them. There's nothing more satisfying than rushing a position and shooting the defenders in the back as they flee in panic.
Upvote
0
when attacked by zergsExcept that I'm talking about the zerg players on your team.
Your idea was that you had to stay near the squad or be killed. The result of that is you get assigned to a squad with 3 zerg players, and while you're setting up the "fire" part of fire and movement they keep going and YOU get killed for straying too far from the squad.
Upvote
0
Very interesting topic and some great insights. From a mapper's point of view, or at least my point of view, I prefer to create a 'scenario' for the players. Too many games and consquently their custom maps (stock as well to some degree) are more 'deathmatch' style maps. Two teams running head long into eachother trying to decimate the other first. This over the last few years has taught too many players the always attack mentallity. In CoD it is the run-around-like-a-headless-chicken while your finger is depressed on the trigger in circle-jerk style maps. Same was more or less true in Mohaa although the dedicated team spawn regions were better than CoD.
The development of Conquest-CNQ for COD that we did was so much like RO. Push style fighting for objectives, some that could be recapped etc. What mappers should do is create more of these situations where the both teams have distinctly different goals. Not to fight over the same objective all round long, UNLESS that is the scenario (Pavlov's House type scenario). On Berezina, I wanted to create that great disparity, the drama, and the tension of being outnumbered 5-2 and having to hold over one kilometer of varied defences. Gradually the map got mutated into more balance numbers-wise and I still think that favors the mindless player. Anyway, what you should strive for is setting a situation where players should think, plan, and above all, work together.
There are few maps that have this format, Berezina and Gorlitz being the ones that come to mind. The further mappers get from death-match style design, the better. Make a scenario map, challenge the teams. Don't make it 50/50. A 20% chance of winning and WINNING is far more satisfying.
The development of Conquest-CNQ for COD that we did was so much like RO. Push style fighting for objectives, some that could be recapped etc. What mappers should do is create more of these situations where the both teams have distinctly different goals. Not to fight over the same objective all round long, UNLESS that is the scenario (Pavlov's House type scenario). On Berezina, I wanted to create that great disparity, the drama, and the tension of being outnumbered 5-2 and having to hold over one kilometer of varied defences. Gradually the map got mutated into more balance numbers-wise and I still think that favors the mindless player. Anyway, what you should strive for is setting a situation where players should think, plan, and above all, work together.
There are few maps that have this format, Berezina and Gorlitz being the ones that come to mind. The further mappers get from death-match style design, the better. Make a scenario map, challenge the teams. Don't make it 50/50. A 20% chance of winning and WINNING is far more satisfying.
Upvote
0
i don't mind if zones arent recappable. More often than not attacking and capping takes a long time because defence has the better positions. If that zone is recappable its just discouraging any further action where when it is not recappable you can tell everyone a good job and get on to the next.
Sometimes the map is too unfair to allow recapping imho.
Sometimes the map is too unfair to allow recapping imho.
Upvote
0
The only thing I disagree with Slyk on here is the 50/50 comment. I think maps should be 50/50, but only in terms of the potential for victory. That does NOT, however, mean mirror-image teams, or even reinforcements.
Throughout ALL the versions of Berezina, the balance has been about managing resources and space for both teams. The Germans have more troops and armor, but have to fire on the move and cover a lot of open ground. However, time is on their side. The Russians have far fewer (or had far fewer -- I don't know how this changed in the final verison) troops, and slower/limited tank spawns, but had the MAJOR advantage of positioning (assuming your teammates are smart enough to use it). They also had space working in their favor, but are working against the clock (mixed with low reinforcements).
Early on, people figured out which objectives were better to defend hard, and which should be abandoned after a token defense to slow the enemy down and let friendlies get dug into position. That's the kind of gameplay I want to see, and it's a hallmark of good defense -- knowing when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em.
Gorlitz is similar. You can piss away all your resources trying to recapture a given position, or you can fall back to a more defensible position and let the enemy piss HIS reinforcements away on the attack. Many players, as Slyk explained, are conditioned towards deathmatch style gameplay. Even many of RO's stock maps are more deathmatch oriented. While there may be a clear defender and attacker, it's often short range, quick action, and several recapturable objectives. That's not to say that you can't play with a serious tactical mindset in stock RO maps, just that they ALSO cater to the loony deathmatch types (well, as much as RO can cater to that crowd, of course).
People learn to play defense more over time, but some of them simply aren't interested and will skip maps like Berezina in favor of close quarters infantry maps. So, there is some level of self-selection involved. But hey, that's why when I'm on a crappy round-robin deathmatch style map, I switch to a server running a larger combined arms map.
Throughout ALL the versions of Berezina, the balance has been about managing resources and space for both teams. The Germans have more troops and armor, but have to fire on the move and cover a lot of open ground. However, time is on their side. The Russians have far fewer (or had far fewer -- I don't know how this changed in the final verison) troops, and slower/limited tank spawns, but had the MAJOR advantage of positioning (assuming your teammates are smart enough to use it). They also had space working in their favor, but are working against the clock (mixed with low reinforcements).
Early on, people figured out which objectives were better to defend hard, and which should be abandoned after a token defense to slow the enemy down and let friendlies get dug into position. That's the kind of gameplay I want to see, and it's a hallmark of good defense -- knowing when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em.
Gorlitz is similar. You can piss away all your resources trying to recapture a given position, or you can fall back to a more defensible position and let the enemy piss HIS reinforcements away on the attack. Many players, as Slyk explained, are conditioned towards deathmatch style gameplay. Even many of RO's stock maps are more deathmatch oriented. While there may be a clear defender and attacker, it's often short range, quick action, and several recapturable objectives. That's not to say that you can't play with a serious tactical mindset in stock RO maps, just that they ALSO cater to the loony deathmatch types (well, as much as RO can cater to that crowd, of course).
People learn to play defense more over time, but some of them simply aren't interested and will skip maps like Berezina in favor of close quarters infantry maps. So, there is some level of self-selection involved. But hey, that's why when I'm on a crappy round-robin deathmatch style map, I switch to a server running a larger combined arms map.
Upvote
0