BF2S Forums Wise strategy or Cheap tactic??

BiRdMaN829 wrote:

thinner44 wrote:

BiRdMaN829 wrote:

First of all, just as a general comment that applies to everyone in here, not just this thread: this game is not war.  It is a game.  The comparisons to a real war need to stop.

And you expelled how much energy to tell us the so blindingly obvious. Man, you need to stop and think first

I understand that it is blindingly obvious; yet still, people always compare Battlefield 2 to what someone would do in a real war.  How many times have you read some variation of the phrase "in real life/war blah blah blah" or "real soldiers blah blah blah"?

Here is an example from the post immediately following your useless flame.

BladeRunner wrote:

picasso wrote:

But Rasor, you're not helping your team that way!"

How can preventing the enemy's use of air assets not be 'helping the team'?

I'm no expert in warfare, but as the last 2 Gulf wars (and our own Falklands conflict) clearly show...a Commander in Chief would chew his own nuts off to guarantee his side air-superiority. It has to be one of the major deciding factors in any modern war.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm talkin out of me pipe

OK let me put it another way...

If the fast-moving pixels (that primarilly dominate the higher part of the y axis) that drop big pixels that rip the pixels apart of the things of yours that drop big pixels that rip pixels apart, The people with the red names (compared to your blue name) will have a distinct advantage in the number of pixels that drop big pixels that rip pixels apart. This could lead to your pixels and other blue-named pixels being pwn3d.

...which when you think about it is a little like war...let me call the fast-moving pixels (that primarilly dominate the higher part of the y axis) that drop big pixels that rip the pixels apart 'jets', because they are a little like jets....etc etc etc etc yadda yadda

Better?

Last edited by BladeRunner (2005-11-14 16:01:44)

If you're a good enough pilot to make sure that you stay alive while at the same time killing guys, no-one has any reason to complain. people will though. Just block it out. Make it part of the background noise.

Nag nag nag, bitch bitch bitch...

There's no such thing as spawnrape. Everyone keeps going on "They shouldnt let so and so do this and that, cuz it's not realistic." "Bla bla bla bla bla realistic."

Hitting the enemy with a sledgehammer where it hurts is realistic. Yes it sucks to be on the receiving end of it, but hey, it's a game, virtual bombs can't hurt you. Suck it up and respawn.

kilroy0097 wrote:

For a pilot of a jet to go to the enemy airfield and remove any chance of their jet leaving the ground is a perfectly acceptable tactic. I do not include this tactic in my definition of base raping.  The reason I think its fine is because there are many other options for the enemy to gain an advantage. Simply put a good ground assault could still break out and take flags. While not having air support would suck it is not impossible. Also it's still possible to get that chopper in the air and off someplace. The pilot of the jet is not omnipresent and unless someone spots the heli or they see it while flying then it's pretty much off to the races.

So in short, jets taking out jets either in the air or on the ground is perfectly acceptable in my book.

this thought just came to my mind as i read your post (and its a little of out turn). Shouldnt the airfield and resupply capability for jets be lost if the flag next to it has been capped? Its like the two chopper bases in Mashtuur, which each side will lose if the command post flags next to it is lost. I guess I have been bombed senseless by jets that it grates on me that the resupply is endless

It might make the gameplay more interesting, forcing defense of airfields. But with carrier-based jets, then the disadvantage might be overwhelming as the carriers cant be cap-ed. just my thoughts..a little out of thread.

mikeshw wrote:

kilroy0097 wrote:

For a pilot of a jet to go to the enemy airfield and remove any chance of their jet leaving the ground is a perfectly acceptable tactic. I do not include this tactic in my definition of base raping.  The reason I think its fine is because there are many other options for the enemy to gain an advantage. Simply put a good ground assault could still break out and take flags. While not having air support would suck it is not impossible. Also it's still possible to get that chopper in the air and off someplace. The pilot of the jet is not omnipresent and unless someone spots the heli or they see it while flying then it's pretty much off to the races.

So in short, jets taking out jets either in the air or on the ground is perfectly acceptable in my book.

this thought just came to my mind as i read your post (and its a little of out turn). Shouldnt the airfield and resupply capability for jets be lost if the flag next to it has been capped? Its like the two chopper bases in Mashtuur, which each side will lose if the command post flags next to it is lost. I guess I have been bombed senseless by jets that it grates on me that the resupply is endless

It might make the gameplay more interesting, forcing defense of airfields. But with carrier-based jets, then the disadvantage might be overwhelming as the carriers cant be cap-ed. just my thoughts..a little out of thread.

Actually this is quite a good idea. But lets go a step further. Instead of losing your airfield resupply capability by capping a flag, which already happens I think, this can be done on any map with an airfield. Even those that are next to an uncapable flag.  Have something that inside a building that can't be reached by vehicles or aircraft. It must be reached by infantry. You blow it up with Spec Ops and it shuts off the airfield. No more resupply or repairing.  This would force the enemy to not only defend it but also retake it if lost. Make it another Spec Ops point gainer for blowing it like commander assets. I know people would be fighting hard on some maps to blow that Airfield Power Breaker or Fuel Pipeline. Maybe a bunker underground with a power transformer or next to a large tank there is a covered chainlink fenced area that has the pipeline controls. Just being able to shut down the jets like this would be priceless. Perhaps make a separate one for the Helicopters as well.

Last edited by kilroy0097 (2005-11-15 04:19:03)

kilroy0097 wrote:

mikeshw wrote:

kilroy0097 wrote:

For a pilot of a jet to go to the enemy airfield and remove any chance of their jet leaving the ground is a perfectly acceptable tactic. I do not include this tactic in my definition of base raping.  The reason I think its fine is because there are many other options for the enemy to gain an advantage. Simply put a good ground assault could still break out and take flags. While not having air support would suck it is not impossible. Also it's still possible to get that chopper in the air and off someplace. The pilot of the jet is not omnipresent and unless someone spots the heli or they see it while flying then it's pretty much off to the races.

So in short, jets taking out jets either in the air or on the ground is perfectly acceptable in my book.

this thought just came to my mind as i read your post (and its a little of out turn). Shouldnt the airfield and resupply capability for jets be lost if the flag next to it has been capped? Its like the two chopper bases in Mashtuur, which each side will lose if the command post flags next to it is lost. I guess I have been bombed senseless by jets that it grates on me that the resupply is endless

It might make the gameplay more interesting, forcing defense of airfields. But with carrier-based jets, then the disadvantage might be overwhelming as the carriers cant be cap-ed. just my thoughts..a little out of thread.

Actually this is quite a good idea. But lets go a step further. Instead of losing your airfield resupply capability by capping a flag, which already happens I think, this can be done on any map with an airfield. Even those that are next to an uncapable flag.  Have something that inside a building that can't be reached by vehicles or aircraft. It must be reached by infantry. You blow it up with Spec Ops and it shuts off the airfield. No more resupply or repairing.  This would force the enemy to not only defend it but also retake it if lost. Make it another Spec Ops point gainer for blowing it like commander assets. I know people would be fighting hard on some maps to blow that Airfield Power Breaker or Fuel Pipeline. Maybe a bunker underground with a power transformer or next to a large tank there is a covered chainlink fenced area that has the pipeline controls. Just being able to shut down the jets like this would be priceless. Perhaps make a separate one for the Helicopters as well.

I sincerely hope for "task-based" maps in the expansion. One team defending certain objects / assets, the other trying to capture / destroy them. that's what special forces do anyway. They normally do not engage in large-scale fighting. But I am afraid we will get the usual CP action, just with night vision, some zip lines and tear gas.

Does anyone remember the stop-watch mode in Return to Castle Wolfenstein ? that kicked ass...
Love to see that in SF.

Obadiah wrote:

Excellent analysis.  Shooting fish in a barrel is not a sport!  It IS annoying an unsportsman-like, but it's STILL not as annoying as helicopter whores!!  You know, the people who believe that only they are entittled to the attack hellicopter and try and bully those who would like to fly, or worse, they tk for it!  Those people should be banned.

As I mentioned on another thread, I couldn't agree more. I had 2 children who refused to fly with anyone other than each other. They even kept aiming their weapons at me in the gunner seat, hoping I would TK them. I just sat there. Finally one of them took off, flew high and jumped out. I started a vote, enough people started voting against them and he left.

He actually came back later and was pissed off and shooting at me because he was trying to arrange a stat padding knife fight where I was sniping. He got warned that if he continued, he'd be banned.

A number of good posts here.   Under normal circumstances, I would go with the 'Wise Strategy' route.  It would make perfect sense to deny the opposition their ability to get into the air.  However, due to some glaring shorcomings of BF2, there are several arguments that rate this as a cheap tactic. 

The primary reason I have an issue with base raping with jets and Helos is that Air Defense in BF2 is PATHETIC and on many maps suffer from EXTREMELY bad placement.  The west base on Op Cleansweep...what clown map designer would put a SAM site at the base of a hill where you have no chance of taking out a jet and be vulnerable to a pop-up attack from a helo?  ...and yet, there is no Air Defense at Airstrip?  A few more bad example?  The hotel and river points at Oman.  Horrible placement.

I am pretty damn good at swatting air targets and I am telling you....Air Defense SUCKS.  I have had perfect rear-aspect shots on jets completely miss just because the jet does a barrel roll or does a verticle burn out of visual range.  I REGULARLY miss HOVERING helos on after getting solid, good tone.  Jets already get a free pass since your chances of swatting them from the ground is about 1 in every 30 tries (a very conservative estimate)...so they get all the points in the world with little or no risk of getting shot down.  The biggest problem is that pilots don't have much to fear in this game.

IF there were halfway decent defense options against such a strategy, then I would agree that it is wise strategy.  However, since there isn't any options for the defenders in a situation like that (and all good pilots KNOW this) then I look at it as a cheap exploit and bad sportsmanship and I feel this way regardless of if I am on the giving or receiving end of this method of play.  This is even more the case on maps were one team has less aircraft than the other team where they double team one aircraft in the sky and then tag-team dive bomb them airfield.

Solutions?  Here are a few.

1)  Better SAM tracking.  This can not be denied by anyone.
2)  A BIG one would be a Stinger kit for ground troopers.  There is a HUGE need for this kit.  The AT kit is total ass when it comes to shooting down Helos and lottery-odds impossible when shooting down a jet.
3)  Faster lock tone for jets or at least BVR lock-ons.  I got a damn missile with a 3 mile range.  You mean I can't lock on until I have you in visual range?
4)  System damage to jets or helos that get hit by one missile.  Slower speed, loss of weapons, difficulty controlling the jet or helo.  ANYTHING but having them fly along as if there is no problem.
5)  Tank cannon hits should be one hit kills on any air target.  Period.
6)  Stronger or more numerous base defenses for uncappables.

- BD

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

A number of good posts here.   Under normal circumstances, I would go with the 'Wise Strategy' route.  It would make perfect sense to deny the opposition their ability to get into the air.  However, due to some glaring shorcomings of BF2, there are several arguments that rate this as a cheap tactic. 

The primary reason I have an issue with base raping with jets and Helos is that Air Defense in BF2 is PATHETIC and on many maps suffer from EXTREMELY bad placement.  The west base on Op Cleansweep...what clown map designer would put a SAM site at the base of a hill where you have no chance of taking out a jet and be vulnerable to a pop-up attack from a helo?  ...and yet, there is no Air Defense at Airstrip?  A few more bad example?  The hotel and river points at Oman.  Horrible placement.

I am pretty damn good at swatting air targets and I am telling you....Air Defense SUCKS.  I have had perfect rear-aspect shots on jets completely miss just because the jet does a barrel roll or does a verticle burn out of visual range.  I REGULARLY miss HOVERING helos on after getting solid, good tone.  Jets already get a free pass since your chances of swatting them from the ground is about 1 in every 30 tries (a very conservative estimate)...so they get all the points in the world with little or no risk of getting shot down.  The biggest problem is that pilots don't have much to fear in this game.

IF there were halfway decent defense options against such a strategy, then I would agree that it is wise strategy.  However, since there isn't any options for the defenders in a situation like that (and all good pilots KNOW this) then I look at it as a cheap exploit and bad sportsmanship and I feel this way regardless of if I am on the giving or receiving end of this method of play.  This is even more the case on maps were one team has less aircraft than the other team where they double team one aircraft in the sky and then tag-team dive bomb them airfield.

Solutions?  Here are a few.

1)  Better SAM tracking.  This can not be denied by anyone.
2)  A BIG one would be a Stinger kit for ground troopers.  There is a HUGE need for this kit.  The AT kit is total ass when it comes to shooting down Helos and lottery-odds impossible when shooting down a jet.
3)  Faster lock tone for jets or at least BVR lock-ons.  I got a damn missile with a 3 mile range.  You mean I can't lock on until I have you in visual range?
4)  System damage to jets or helos that get hit by one missile.  Slower speed, loss of weapons, difficulty controlling the jet or helo.  ANYTHING but having them fly along as if there is no problem.
5)  Tank cannon hits should be one hit kills on any air target.  Period.
6)  Stronger or more numerous base defenses for uncappables.

- BD

Agreed, I don't like the tactic but there is nothing wrong with it, the problem is in the game balance.  We all know good pilots are impossible to shoot down, this shouldn't be the case.

Last edited by Snoogans84 (2005-11-15 20:55:36)

[Ahazi] Kaika wrote:

RasorX wrote:

I am a slightly above average jet pilot.  When i hop in any jet my main goal is simple; COMPLETE AIR SUPERIORITY.  Once i get in the air i'll shoot down a jet or two, if i can, and any choppers.  But then once i shoot them down i immediatly go to their airfield and punish them for thinking they can take off again.  I relentlessly circle and destroy the jets as soon as they spawn, ruthlessly mowing down would-be pilots again and again with my lethal machineguns.

To me this makes perfect sense. In the real world, air superiority involoves not letting planes take off in the first place. I mean, why would you?  Letting a jet take off when you have the opportunity to destroy it on the ground is tantamount to calling a "timeout" cause you skinned your knee in combat.

Recently i have heard the other team crying/complaining that this is base raping and for lack of better words "not fair".  In a Kubra Dam map which my team ended up losing, one opponent whom i killed several times said that we would not be losing if our jets would do something besides bomb/strafe their airfield.  This is a silly notion to me.  What would he rather i do in a jet, heal my teammates at 1000mph? Maybe i could open up my cockpit and throw out some ammo bags...

Am i alone in thinking this is an excellent strategy?

See, the main problem is, you gotta give them at least a little time, because as we all know, AA sucks.  So, the only way they have to shoot you down is to get in a jet and either a) do it the hard way, or b) ram you.  Now, by a little time I mean, "just enough time to do a physics-defying takeoff" (assuming F-35 is the plane), not "enough time to let a noob jet whore tk his teammate and take off as slowly as possible."  Basically, just bomb and go back and resupply, and if there's no jets in the air by then, rinse and repeat.

Nope, this is wrong.  You dont HAVE to do anything.

kilroy0097 wrote:

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

Solutions?  Here are a few.

1)  Better SAM tracking.  This can not be denied by anyone.
2)  A BIG one would be a Stinger kit for ground troopers.  There is a HUGE need for this kit.  The AT kit is total ass when it comes to shooting down Helos and lottery-odds impossible when shooting down a jet.
3)  Faster lock tone for jets or at least BVR lock-ons.  I got a damn missile with a 3 mile range.  You mean I can't lock on until I have you in visual range?
4)  System damage to jets or helos that get hit by one missile.  Slower speed, loss of weapons, difficulty controlling the jet or helo.  ANYTHING but having them fly along as if there is no problem.
5)  Tank cannon hits should be one hit kills on any air target.  Period.
6)  Stronger or more numerous base defenses for uncappables.

- BD

Absolutely agree. We can only hope for some brain cells to grow in the programing department of DICE to invoke better and more useful changes. We are the same page on this one BD and I acknowledge your rebuttle due to bad AA or ground defense against air attack.

I second that.  All good stuff Beatdown Patrol.  EA should poll this forum for their next fix ideas.  98% of them would be solved!  I leave 2% for the idiots who still slip in here from time to time and seem to rally support for their crazy causes.