PDA

View Full Version : C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread


Stark38
February 27th, 2017, 09:51 PM
Vadso City Draft Deployment / City Defense: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ZBH78Hcrts_2LubzIZrymt7ZsrgyZcsJX_ua55uIhQg/edit?usp=sharing

Saaremaa Scrimmage Deployment: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PNqVwonzTT47ZfP98ZkUUPrBnOncvvgBdWqiBewHVK0/edit?usp=sharing

Raidonrai
February 27th, 2017, 10:30 PM
Vadso (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Tj8sbfjKrcMvhsVJcU0MkN4IEGB7cZZSrosp0PK-X_4/edit#slide=id.p)

Saaremaa (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1G1GitxCy4vG7FB0rcFpjF0T3xbmEtMAbw7OlqIUQSEA/edit#slide=id.p)

Grozny (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1AZB39o2i53499YtS-0KDj9RBBtgvLeFi27e0BArue88/edit#slide=id.p)

Fools Road (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1XCRSob4sxtWV13-pJfulXb_JUByOPc9sSznczBzyu2M/edit#slide=id.p)

Wanda Shan (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1G84DaTa78RaNI6zusMlerf4ECNK4Lw6lx_fjq2sAZXs/edit#slide=id.p)

Xiangshan (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1wcbwQNcv9zFcktXNWwqNznxAJrywe10IaVFFxOl_VQQ/edit#slide=id.p)

coloured circles with numbers in them = OP

Senshi
February 28th, 2017, 08:26 AM
Op Marlin (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xYPr_dPX_UGgmOHFms13NLMiVHm1bR0RucuXf9bdkQI/edit#slide=id.g18d824f3e7_17_3)

Burning Sands (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1oNp83h2gDrfqRor9OwHcPjeQ_Q761ZlobzDUzp5bBfQ/edit)

Michael_Denmark
February 28th, 2017, 08:46 PM
Thank you for sharing.

In relation to the first battle on Xiangshan, I hope it is okay asking a few questions to the EMC battle-plan, Route 2 RED.

From the very start, the plan make the following statement:

We will most likely not attack PLA Outpost. Too risky, too little benefit.

I fully agree in the analysis. At least as long as the attack would come from the west. Which it did too, later on in the battle. A move that as we know, surprised everyone, with that spirit of EMC audacity. A move that almost succeeded and perhaps could have captured the PLA Outpost?

But what I dont understand, are the reasons behind the decision, to go for the attack anyhow?

Also, when the surprise attack was launched, what made you decide, not to reinforce the harassment force in and around the Blue Box?

Fog of war? What happened?

Again, I hope it is okay to ask these questions. Please accept my apology, should it not be the case.

Senshi
February 28th, 2017, 10:22 PM
The attack was mostly motivated by everyone being insanely bored after the very slow first hour. Also, we were aware that we had a ticket deficit, and a successful push to a new good position (such as PLA outpost and the riverline are) usually means a big ticket gain (bc of squadwipes).

Blue box was planned as a simple AT hunter place, to kill damaged vehicles that try to RTB. It soon showed that APN was happily commiting way too many people there, our few recon guys drawing much more APN manpower than it warranted. So we kept recon there, drawing forces off the frontline, making it much easier to brute-force our assault on the front with superior numbers.

Fisen
February 28th, 2017, 11:33 PM
Heyho! So who did all the work on your BPs on APN? And would be super interesting to take a look at em all.

In EMC is was mostly me making them with a lot of help/input from senshi and timings from our Intel department. I Also saved up most of the BPs in c11 which helped me at the start but in the end I mostly made our BPsfrom scrath. I usually prioritised making them simple and tried making as few slides as possible.

Stark38
March 1st, 2017, 12:16 AM
YTMan has the rest of the documents, whenever he shows up. I think he's still too sad to come back online here.

Michael_Denmark
March 1st, 2017, 12:30 AM
Boredom became decisive. Yes, that first hour was quite static. And here I thought you deliberately had planned, to slow down the pace of battle, in order to strengthen your surprise attack later on.

I just watched your great offensive move again. I forgot that squad 8 did in fact, draw in a good portion of the APN force. Frontliner even got an FOB.


...and a successful push to a new good position (such as PLA outpost and the riverline are) usually means a big ticket gain (bc of squadwipes).

I need to learn to think like that.

Fisen, if you also made the battle-plan for Xiangshan, please allow me to congratulate you on that surprise attack. That move will be what I will remember Campaign 12 for. True organised Audacity.

Raidonrai
March 1st, 2017, 12:34 AM
Xiangshan was nothing compared to Wanda and Vadso m8

Vista
March 1st, 2017, 12:36 AM
Wanda was pretty sweet, probably the closest match in C12. Vadso however was just spam 4 inf squads to get the southern hill, build a TOW, GG.

Michael_Denmark
March 1st, 2017, 12:48 AM
YTMan has the rest of the documents, whenever he shows up. I think he's still too sad to come back online here.

I have watched tournament teams since when, campaign 3 or 4? Played against some of them too. Advised a few of the decision makers as well.

Ytman did very well indeed. As did the whole of APN. In my opinion, both he and his team, has everything to be proud of. Because it achieved something really difficult.

Besides, both the EMC and APN are in overall, as close to equal as I have seen in the tournament, in a loong time. The total kill count says it all. Respect to the administration, for having created these very balanced teams.

Michael_Denmark
March 1st, 2017, 12:51 AM
Xiangshan was nothing compared to Wanda and Vadso m8

Because of the level of coordination on Wanda, during that last squeezing assault?

Filamu
March 1st, 2017, 01:05 AM
Tbh, we planned for a fallback on Xiangshan, although we got pushed back a little more than planned, it was in no way a surprise.
On the other had, the quick deployment on Vadsø contesting our hill, that was completely unexpected. We were expecting you guys to dig in hard.

Raidonrai
March 1st, 2017, 01:50 AM
YTMan has the rest of the documents, whenever he shows up. I think he's still too sad to come back online here.

If you type "google map-name-here (http://i.imgur.com/wr00O38.png)" your browser is likely to suggest the correct google doc URLs, assuming they are all google docs and that you visited them all repeatedly.

Michael_Denmark
March 1st, 2017, 01:54 AM
Tbh, we planned for a fallback on Xiangshan, although we got pushed back a little more than planned, it was in no way a surprise.
On the other had, the quick deployment on Vadsø contesting our hill, that was completely unexpected. We were expecting you guys to dig in hard.


True, the initial APN deployment had all the signs of a trap. Beautiful trap too btw. Same with the APN defense in the north. Seemed to be well planned and in overall worked very well too.

However, the timing of the EMC offensive, did seem to be a surprise. Or at least here from the sideline it did.

Vadsø, yes now I watch it again, I can see it, but up to your post, I actually though something had gone wrong. I did not read that initial tactical APN defeat, as the result of an operational surprise. But now you say it, and watching it again, it is obvious.

Never read it like that, due to the successful reaction from the APN. It handled the defensive situation hereafter, really well. And kept doing so, until Frank_Jaeger and Sephi lost that BTR-80 to Menuen. After that things just went wrong for the APN, for quite some time, until it was 40+ tickets behind. rest is history.

But up to that point, Vadsø, again here from the side line, looks like fight between two very balanced teams.

Raidonrai
March 1st, 2017, 02:29 AM
We won Vadso so decisively due to lack of APN fobs, plain and simple. A single area attack wiped a third of the southern hill defenders and their only means to reinforce. Am genuinely baffled as to why there weren't at least 3 FOBs on that hill.

Stark38
March 1st, 2017, 02:53 AM
If you type "google map-name-here (http://i.imgur.com/wr00O38.png)" your browser is likely to suggest the correct google doc URLs, assuming they are all google docs and that you visited them all repeatedly.

He uses OneDrive :p

Raidonrai
March 1st, 2017, 02:59 AM
what a madman

ytman
March 2nd, 2017, 11:32 PM
We won Vadso so decisively due to lack of APN fobs, plain and simple. A single area attack wiped a third of the southern hill defenders and their only means to reinforce. Am genuinely baffled as to why there weren't at least 3 FOBs on that hill.

Vadso was won decisively because of our effort to attack Tunnel instead of continuing the fight over that southern hill. The number of FOBs don't affect the actual battle, its the number of troops. There was a massive difference in squads fighting on the Southern hill - EMC fielded their entire team while APN fielded just three squads.

I considered that at the 200 ticket mark we couldn't successfully win the hill without redistributing our city forces to combat your larger numbers, so the mission was to buy time until the inevitable artillery strike would come down let the squads get defeated and wiped, while unleashing a counter attack. The counter attack was a failure and that is why it was a big gap, until that devoted effort the ticket balance was approximately even. The biggest failure probably comes from the improperly aimed artillery strike mid-game, it hit a useless target and should have been targeted on the hill or we should have dropped the squads into the tunnel flag and not the F8 hill.


In regard to Xiangshan's baiting. Yes, we did. It was designed from the get go since, on many layers, the terrain was not found to suit our advance and FR deployment was superior. Combine that with a careful dissection of C10s Xiangshan battle I came up with the battle plan that quite literally predicted the assault.


APN C12 Documents:

Pre-Tournament Scrims:

Marlin Folder (https://1drv.ms/f/s!AmXdc8v1thkSlkEOWh4PT_cjl1uR) PowerPoint wasn't used for this.


Burning Sands Folder (https://1drv.ms/f/s!AmXdc8v1thkSlykSTBKJYi0LOidH) === PowerPoint Brief (https://1drv.ms/p/s!AmXdc8v1thkSl10XDjZuuLDiz1zz) ===

Rising Sun

Xiangshan C10 Story (https://1drv.ms/p/s!AmXdc8v1thkSmAbDVKJS7AfyJmJv)
Xiangshan Brief (https://1drv.ms/p/s!AmXdc8v1thkSmBeiyM-uPWm0vMrE)

Wanda Shan (not handled by me)

Stronghold

Fool's (Wrecked) Road (https://1drv.ms/p/s!AmXdc8v1thkSmGP9eEWwfVBLz78p)

Grozny (https://1drv.ms/p/s!AmXdc8v1thkSmRKRus6Yp2QySzuF)
Grozny Rope Building (https://1drv.ms/f/s!AmXdc8v1thkSmQBYHbyPKfpJh63m)

Guardian

Saaremaa
(https://1drv.ms/p/s!AmXdc8v1thkSmUInGyXs60SEOSgG)
Saaremaa Internal AAR (https://1drv.ms/p/s!AmXdc8v1thkSmViYtZdjwnzhS58g)

Vadso (https://1drv.ms/p/s!AmXdc8v1thkSmgVqIvWxJ848baXo)

Senshi
March 3rd, 2017, 09:41 AM
I think you underestimate the importance of FOBs a bit.
If you want to attack a flag, make sure to have at least two FOBS near it, from different (preferably opposed) directions. Only then can you sustain an attack. Not only for squad wipes, also merely for ammo and kits.

Defensively, having a staggered FOB network helps as well: If a frontline FOB becomes overrun or taken down, you got another spawn in. This wards not only against artillery strikes or heavy assets pushing damage, it also wards against sneak attacks. FOBs serve as kind of an early warning system as well (as do squad RPs, btw).

Last, but not least: If you only have one FOB, it is VERY easy for the enemy to identify where you're coming from. It made it very easy to predict where your guys would come from on the hill, and it's easy to get bogged down close around the FOB. More importantly, it gave us the knowledge that you had no way to replenish the line if we took down the FOB and followed up with an assault. We sent recon (and myself with a logi...) to check your rear lines before the final push, and no backup FOBs was simply too much of an invitation.

We were constantly at the FOB limit, creeping up with FOBs, trying to get them up near objectives. We had 3-4 FOBS on the tiny patch on southern hills, which gave a lot of comfort and flexible spawn opportunities to our squads there.

It also helps misdirect and survive area attacks (or mortars) without losing critical infrastructure.

@Xian: I expected you to have a fallback plan :) , and it was clear from your movements that you intended to get pushed back a bit. I still guess we came a bit closer than you liked. Your armored assets had to hunker down a bit (if not destroyed/damaged/rtbed outright) while we were setting up outside PLA outpost. The double-tank-kill was just incredibly unlucky. The assault plan was discussed and prepped for the entire round up to that point, but boredom was really the main motivator to push out.

ytman
March 4th, 2017, 08:02 AM
I'm very open to dissecting our past glories and relating with and understanding where each team failed and succeeded. I love the tactical and strategic analysis and would be very open to crafting some sort of basic guide for would be future COs to maybe look at - but I hate presumption. To assume that we were unaware of the basic properties of FOBs/RPs as a sort of radar, logistics supply, and pressure driver is nearly insulting even if unintentional.

Its simply not something our team had a lack of understanding of - critique execution but do not infer a lack of understanding.

On Vadso your objectives were completely opposite to our objectives. This explains the drastically different approaches to mid-game positioning. We were split between a city defense and a hill capture section - you focused everything on the hill. This was a good approach and executed very well.

The assault on the South Hill was anticipated but it was not anticipated to be 40/48 players - hence our significant defense posture of three squads. Frankly, under such pressure and force imbalance I'm surprised our ticket count was nearly equivalent until we moved to attack.

I would love to actually expand and explain the thought processes and decision making that went into the real-time choices in game if you'd be open for that as two team COs - instead of lectures from the winning CO. I never once thought to lecture you after a loss and frankly always went out of my way to congratulate you when you did win a battle.

This isn't sour grapes, but it is a bit about decorum and what appear to be a lack of reciprocation.


PS: The loss of the tanks was not the reason the assault wasn't sustained on Xiangshan though it greatly contributed to the severity of the counter attack. And do not act like the undoing was just by luck, it does a disservice to one of the better inter-plays of our two teams.

Merchant
March 12th, 2017, 05:38 PM
... The number of FOBs don't affect the actual battle, its the number of troops. There was a massive difference in squads fighting on the Southern hill - EMC fielded their entire team while APN fielded just three squads.

I am going to hazard a guess here that what were meaning to say, what you were thinking of when you wrote the sentence, was something along the lines of (bold your original words, italics your intended words?):

"The number of FOBs we built around Southern hill was not the deciding factor, did not affect the actual battle, it was the ridiculous number of troops your team had positioned on that Southern hill (that we did not anticipate you guys doing) that really made a bigger difference in this match."


When you wrote your post, it came out (though not intended as such) sounding as a simple statement about basic PR play: "The number of FOBs don't affect the actual battle, its the number of troops."


Unintentional statement that lead Senshi to unintentionally misunderstand what you were saying?

From that statement, Senshi likely initially misunderstood the intent of your statement, then before he had a chance to reason that there was no way you were making an unequivocal statement, he just ended up getting caught up (lost) in the euphoria of battle-planning strategy and tactics, and by the time he was wrapping up his post, he'd by then forgot about the improbable statement which had led him down his present path, and so posted that reply.

I know for certain that no one here believes for a second that an experienced player such as yourself does not have a solid understanding of the importance of FOB networks.

An unfortunate mis-statement, which lead to an impassioned post.

Two simple mistakes is what this all looks like to me from here.

This is my "hazarded" presumption... I hope I'm not way off base here.

Senshi
March 13th, 2017, 02:07 AM
Oh, I never replied here. Thought I did, must have gotten lost. Happens more often since I write replies at work and then get interrupted by actual work ;) .


To repeat in short: I expressed myself in a carelessly condescending way, ytman. I realized that when I was re-reading my post. That was not my initial intention, and I apologize. I was just trying to express my thought process on how we developed our FOB networks this campaign, and I felt it worked pretty well for us.

Vadso was a close thing, where I still felt I had very good knowledge of all your troop movements and I believe we managed to react a bit quicker than you on unexpected developments (your bridge attack, and our counter-outcap after that). It still was a close thing and could have gone either way.

Xian: Our perceptions clearly differ, then. My current view: Your retreat towards PLA outpost was well executed, and your usage of assets especially was stellar, but you were not in a great spot overall. Neither were we, but we were gaining ground and started to dig in outside of PLA outpost. I was just holding everyone back to get supplies up the front and get new siege FOBs online when we lost the tanks. At that point the only sensible call to make was a full retreat.

I'd love to hear your understanding of the battle process there.

Jizzco
March 13th, 2017, 11:17 AM
Glorious Fizzco hero of China xD. Still remember screaming at YT to accept that AA :D

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

WebCole
March 13th, 2017, 01:31 PM
Xian: Our perceptions clearly differ, then. My current view: Your retreat towards PLA outpost was well executed, and your usage of assets especially was stellar, but you were not in a great spot overall. Neither were we, but we were gaining ground and started to dig in outside of PLA outpost. I was just holding everyone back to get supplies up the front and get new siege FOBs online when we lost the tanks. At that point the only sensible call to make was a full retreat.

I have to agree. We planned to bait you into an attack on PLA Outpost but the fight there was starting to get away from us until that area attack.

Alexswesnipr
March 13th, 2017, 01:57 PM
Yeah, me as an infantryman on the flag itself didn't feel safe at all in that horrible building. While being shot by multiple ARs I was just waiting for that HE-FRAG shell to kill everyone inside...

Funny thing actually, area attack killed the tanks and a few infantry but not much else. A few kills were actually by APCs using the knowledge that were no tanks and started shooting EMC falling back.

And ALSO, the tickets gained there was on multiple occasions caught up by EMC. Most actually with killing EMC armour and Lempo's squad giving EMC infantry a tough time in the south.

Alexswesnipr
March 29th, 2017, 03:14 PM
Bump here are the images that I made: http://imgur.com/a/1GuW2

It's mostly images that I used to for what I thought would happened in different scenarios in the battles. Pretty weird without context.

Yrkidding
March 29th, 2017, 08:17 PM
Here's the doc with the ribbons me and alex made for APN with explanations/requirements and some of the unused ideas for a little more detail.

APN Ribbons (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C8C-ppfIeLcbAwRLJZxVZQmwV4OCFhXvmj-lYq6VSvw/edit#gid=0)

Some of the ribbons are better quality outside the doc.

mectus11
March 30th, 2017, 04:56 AM
See Senshi we could've had cool ribbons like they did! :(

Senshi
March 30th, 2017, 08:52 AM
We could, but I still stand by my decision that effort/benefit to set it up and especially ensure they are distributed fairly (which does not equal "flashiness") is not worth it :) .

WebCole
March 31st, 2017, 06:57 PM
I agree that its a lot, even too much, work, but disagree otherwise. We should probably have some kind of repository of past campaign ribbons so we don't have to keep making new ones every time. I think Murkey said he has access to some of the old CATA ribbons, and given that both Kidding and Alex are here we could easily ask their permission for their work to be used in successive campaigns.

Yrkidding
March 31st, 2017, 07:57 PM
I'd be more than happy to pass this work on for other campaigns to use. I think ribbons do actually have some decent value and cutting out the work of making new ones makes a lot of sense to me. Something I did with these ribbons was try and make a uniform colour amongst the thin bars to unify them all as APN ribbons, changing that bar of colour is pretty easy to do and is something that me and a T-CON could do prior to a campaign using the primary colour of either team, making it a really easy switch. I can also provide the psd I used to make the ribbons so either team's Propaganda HCO can make special ribbons if they want.

Cutting out the work of setting up all the ribbons and requirements pre-campaign and just recycling them I think makes ribbons make a lot more sense for a team to use them.

(Also, Alex, what happened to your ribbons? They've suddenly disappeared from the doc?)

Alexswesnipr
March 31st, 2017, 08:58 PM
OH shit, i reorganized my imgur I'll fix it soon.

Here's all the ribbons that I have on my hdd, some old ones too. Just for future references
http://imgur.com/a/1GuW2

Yrkidding
March 31st, 2017, 10:00 PM
I'll try and get some done on my own time as well to help you out.

mectus11
March 31st, 2017, 11:48 PM
changing that bar of colour is pretty easy to do and is something that me and a T-CON could do prior to a campaign using the primary colour of either team, making it a really easy switch.

I'm game if one of the teams want to use them I'll help but on a personal opinion and from a view of a guy who loves to do photoshop, I'd rather make my own original stuff than recycle.

Yrkidding
April 1st, 2017, 01:29 AM
I'm game if one of the teams want to use them I'll help but on a personal opinion and from a view of a guy who loves to do photoshop, I'd rather make my own original stuff than recycle.

I'll chat with you soon about this mectus


Edit: Also, Alex, I'm having some trouble remembering which ones we used as final versions lol

Alexswesnipr
April 1st, 2017, 01:57 AM
Yeah mee too lol

Senshi
April 1st, 2017, 08:39 AM
It's a team decision, in the end. Just stated that I personally dislike them, because in the 15 years I play in BF campaigns now I never have seen a fair and universally motivating approach to handing out ribbons. Rather, it more often than not caused some dissent among those players who are less "loud" (=Raidonrai) and flaunt their achievements less. Their achievements tend to get unnoticed and hence unrewarded.
Not a huge deal though, I understand that a lot of people also like these ribbons :) .

Raidonrai
April 1st, 2017, 10:48 AM
But dude that area attack on Vadso tho

Legit tho I agree with Senshi on this and said so at the beginning of the tournament as well, the sort of emotional reward that someone gets out of having a little sticker under their sig really doesn't equate to the potential negative attitude that can arise out of someone's achievements being neglected. Any active effort to ensure that achievements don't go unnoticed will only add another level of unnecessary "work" to the SL/NCO roles that really just isn't necessary.

mectus11
April 1st, 2017, 05:22 PM
If Vista got a ribbon, we would never hear the end of it.

Vista
April 1st, 2017, 05:39 PM
Why are you so mean mectus, I didnt even ask for one

Geronimo
April 2nd, 2017, 11:42 PM
If Vista got a ribbon, we would never hear the end of it.Lets try:
http://i.imgur.com/tDsVTU0.png

Raidonrai
April 4th, 2017, 07:46 AM
sick ribbon tbh

mectus11
October 14th, 2017, 04:56 AM
I see the EMC battleplans weren't hidden behind access only in spirit of fair play. ;)

https://i.imgur.com/PeruxyX.png

oh woops, they were :rolleyes:

Edit
___________________

I'll post some stuff I found out that I still had access to and sharing them since I find it childish to hide shit like previous campaign BPs.

Thankfully Geronimo made these so they were open to view but I made copies so I could make them share only.

Xiangshan Timings (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1GRMXm2WRNqz376p4fBfF9wjjs0zSO9Bgvsj_I-4J4t0/edit?usp=sharing)

Wanda Shan Timings
(https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/103Hp1MZ2tocpcFhlWXWufytUNNL1YrYDrDvyCDFyaeE/edit?usp=sharing)
Vadso City timings (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1OYTRnemMoWdbGZAmyjp32BGMfrTOgxqO-2XRUywTdk8/edit?usp=sharing) (Raidonrai made this)

Doc Senshi made on Grozny for ideas and with timings. (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zx94TwGelZPIT74pJ2W5p3_5sxDVyz8Hr50E3Hf7qE0/edit?usp=sharing)

Honestly this behavior doesn't belong in the PRT, it's just being petty.

al-Khidr
October 14th, 2017, 04:04 PM
Honestly this behavior doesn't belong in the PRT, it's just being petty.

- Gentleman's agreement scrapped.
- Security heightened around battle planning.
- Espionage begins.

I would say this behavior is completely normal for DEFCON 1.

Looks like shit is about to get real at the PRT.

CAS_ual_TY
October 14th, 2017, 04:09 PM
Actually both teams commanders agreed to disagree with their previous agreements :^)

The blocking of EMC BPs doesnt make sense to me, tho. Like, the majority of EMC is in our team; so why hurt your own team? Like, I really dont know why someone would do that.

Or if Im wrong here, and it is actually someone from APN deliberately blocking it, then it would indeed be a bit overkill. Like, that would be the opposite of sportsmanlike. But I wouldnt throw this accusation in until it has been confirmed. This might just be a mistake here (which I hope)

Yrkidding
October 14th, 2017, 04:18 PM
Lets hold off on the speculating for now, gents. We're aware and looking in to what might be done.

hugger
October 14th, 2017, 05:37 PM
Timings were never public and I dont think they should... it's not tactics and doesn't take much brainpower like BPs, it's hard data that everyone can find out if given enough time. I don't really care, but it's a product of time that me, Gero and Raid wasted using a stopwatch. With Geronimo and me being on the opposite sides it's kinda expected that they will be used by both teams tho.

CAS_ual_TY
October 14th, 2017, 05:47 PM
Timings were never public and I dont think they should... it's not tactics and doesn't take much brainpower like BPs, it's hard data that everyone can find out if given enough time. I don't really care, but it's a product of time that me, Gero and Raid wasted using a stopwatch. With Geronimo and me being on the opposite sides it's kinda expected that they will be used by both teams tho.

I see it like this. But I dont see it like this when it comes to data from the last campaign. The stuff from the last campaign should stay public when made public.

If you make your own timings, only share it with your department and leave it like that - ok, your thing. But (as I said) sharing them here for everyone (which I still think is nice, I loved to see APN plans) and then making them private once you chose your team, will only add tensions right now, and at the end of the campaign, when this will thread will actively be used again.

Once again, we dont know what happened. So we should just wait instead of bringing points here

mectus11
October 14th, 2017, 05:51 PM
They're public again so this issue has been resolved I hope, I'm glad it was resolved in a somewhat peaceful way.

Senshi
October 14th, 2017, 05:57 PM
Should be public again. Some permissions got dunked when I moved stuff around in folders, apparently. :confused:

Pro life tip: Instead of immediately assuming the worst of people, it often is wiser to approach oddities level-headed. You'll be surprised to find there usually are simple explanations for most issues.
Prevents edgy drama and appearing foolish.


On the matter of "should or shouldn't things be public": The idea of sharing the BPs (and IMO timings as well) is not only to compare notes after a campaign, but also to allow future (or even non-PRT players) to read and access these files.

For follow-up campaigns this means that both teams can save some time doing the ever-tedious timings (unless one of the frequent-enough patches changes things around, so tread carefully ;) ), and also have the gists of the old BPs, regardless of having been around in previous campaigns. This makes the PRT more accessible to newcomers.
It doesn't make the BP-making easier, though: Both teams know that the other teams know about previous BPs, and there is a finite number of "best approaches" to different scenarios on the maps, so I expect the BPs to get more nuanced. Do I trust the previous BP to have been "perfect" and just dominate by executing it perfectly, despite the enemy maybe expecting it? Where and how can I adapt it to still surprise the enemy? Or do I expect the enemy to expect my adaptions..? It's the same meta mindgames as always, just on a "higher" level.

I was actually thinking of gathering all the stuff from C12 and C13 as well in a central "library" here in the forums, to be accessible for everyone in the future without having to dig through murky archives or browser histories...

I recommend to keep that mindset for the future. Being open and sharing stuff usually benefits all, and it's simply good community spirit. Obviously only once the current campaign is over ;) .

Jizzco
October 14th, 2017, 06:33 PM
Gotta have that PR drama doe

WebCole
October 14th, 2017, 08:52 PM
That's some 10/10 making drama out of literally nothing there lads, keep it up :rolleyes:

Filamu
October 14th, 2017, 09:05 PM
Drama over folder moments. What is next?

CAS_ual_TY
October 14th, 2017, 09:11 PM
Drama over folder moments. What is next?

Drama for calling out drama for calling out drama for calling out drama

mectus11
October 14th, 2017, 09:23 PM
Year has been good for drama, 2017 has been fun :D

Zrix
October 14th, 2017, 09:28 PM
http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/popcorn_jon_stewart.gif

Merchant
October 14th, 2017, 10:56 PM
Timings were never public and I dont think they should... it's not tactics and doesn't take much brainpower like BPs...

Agree, it's up to each team to put in the work and effort if they don't have this kind of data, and want it.

In Defcon 2, or 1, the team that puts in the most work/effort to find map advantages has the right to keep these as a secret weapons against their opponent.

I would disavow the above if the information in question was some glitch in the map or something that gave one team an ungentlemanly advantage in the battle.

While I understand that there is no such thing as gentlemanly battle in real life ( in before DesertFox284 ;)), this tournament is not real life, and the spirit of the tournament should remain one of gentlemanly fair play for both sides to equally enjoy, as the last three campaigns were conducted (don't know about previous ones, as I was not present).

Edit: Ok, so then these are all previous campaign timings then? Good enough, I agree with Senshi's ideas about the team leadership not having to redo all the previous, tedious, time-consuming work.

But anything we discovered while prepping now though... muhahaha... (within the parameters as suggested two paragraphs above).

Duh, responded before having finished the whole thread... :(


Edit 2: While on this subject, what would be the harm of former PRT participants being able to go back into the forum archives in order to sometimes look for or retrieve previous content for re-use?

Why the need to encumber our SLs with requests for them to go find this information for us?

Alexswesnipr
October 14th, 2017, 11:05 PM
More importantly though: this thread made me realize we have a guy from FUCKING CAMPAIGN 2

L4gi
October 15th, 2017, 01:31 AM
Khiddy playing PR happens once in a lifetime. Shame other guys from GCA are gone :(

Michael_Denmark
October 17th, 2017, 01:36 PM
Maybe not the best time to post this, but on the note of timings, generally speaking, they offer a starting advantage only.

Making your opponent belief that your plan depends on those starting timings, could open up some new possibilities, based on presumed enemy movements, reacting to your make-belief on those starting timings.

So basically, your own new timings - litteraly hidden inside the presumed enemy reaction-pattern, to those first timings.

Time inside time.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/DoubleCone.png/1200px-DoubleCone.png

Zrix
October 17th, 2017, 05:09 PM
https://media.giphy.com/media/glmRyiSI3v5E4/giphy.gif

Michael_Denmark
October 17th, 2017, 05:26 PM
Well, writing potential-potentiality would have been too abstract. Been there done that.

The image is the best I could find. You can clearly perceive it as time inside time, in a variety of ways. For instance, the Z axis could represent your momentum in time, during your opening attack, from the very start of the battle, while your opposing team is deploying it self on both the X and Y axis, thus using time in setting up, because it perceive the starting timings as secure enough, in doing so. So Z could be representing both speed, surprise and strength, while the other team has divided those three factors out on two different axis, costing more time. So at point Zero, where all three axis meet, could be the point where your Z timing, so to speak, has cut through their X and Y time.

You could also perceive the image from the decision making cycle. Tons of ways to perceive it.

***
edit
***

Another way could be to perceive the two mirrored cones, as the expected deployment phase from start of the battle. Thus the upper cone is the RPX team on Dovre, while the lower cone is the VOG team on the same map. Both teams expect each other to deploy on both the X and Y axis from start. Thus thereby using time in spreading out there forces, covering their part of the map.

The arrow on the Z axis, however, represent the time Inside this expected timing, where the VOG team, instead of spreading out its forces, instantly converge from start on the center part of the RPX line, with the entire VOG team.

Thus using its own VOG time, so to say, inside what the RPX team may have presumed was a diversion of forces, to cover the line from north to south.

Murkey
October 17th, 2017, 05:44 PM
Shit man, I'm an actual scientist with a PhD, lab coat and everything as well as coming up to a decade of playing PR and I have no idea what that means :/

I through timings meant you had a rough idea of how far you could get out of main before people try to wreck your shit and vice versa.

Being unpredictable (or inside the enemy decision loop) can be useful but not as useful as controlling territory and key parts of the map.

Keep posting though, always open to new ideas :D

Cheers, Murkey.

p.s. Everyone knows that time is in fact a cube. PRT time doubly so.

Michael_Denmark
October 17th, 2017, 06:00 PM
Right. The underlined in the quote, is the traditional school of thought in PR.

Being unpredictable (or inside the enemy decision loop) can be useful but not as useful as controlling territory and key parts of the map.

It is also how I for the most part planned my battles too. However, when you can turn the usefulness of controlled terrain and key parts of the map, into speed and surprise, then you should be able to control the mind of your enemy. Because at this point in the battle, your opponent, does not know where your forces are located, or how strong they are. Fog of War.

When both teams has a fair idea on the timings, because they as here, are posted in public, that create an opportunity, to make your own new timings, based on those posted timings, also representing the pressumed timings. So based on expectation.

At Meuse May 10th, 1940, the French knew the Germans came through the Ardennes. But they thought the Germans needed to bring in artillery at the river, before the attempted to cross. They did not understand that the STUKA was the new artillery, thus the Germans broke the expected idea of timings, during that period.

Alexswesnipr
October 17th, 2017, 06:22 PM
Jesus christ

Aleon
October 18th, 2017, 02:39 PM
I don't think timings mean what you think they mean.

Cossack
October 18th, 2017, 03:38 PM
https://media.giphy.com/media/glmRyiSI3v5E4/giphy.gif

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/ab/abdd928ceb8c9e10268b31c3c26be47c2fe1edb8037feae792 a1fcc40a05e8ca.jpg

Senshi
October 19th, 2017, 10:05 AM
When both teams has a fair idea on the timings, [...] that create an opportunity, to make your own new timings, based on those posted timings, also representing the pressumed timings.

This sentence alone is gold.

Michael_Denmark
October 19th, 2017, 12:39 PM
Jesus christ

Alex, what is that comment supposed to mean? Please help me out here.

I don't think timings mean what you think they mean.

Hmm, I actually think we understand them in the same manner, although I on top of that, might perceive them in another manner as well.

Cossack, once again my tip is too implicit explained. It is though, IMO, a very useful tip, fully supporting Senshis expectation on battleplans getting more nuanced. As explained in post 51;

It doesn't make the BP-making easier, though: Both teams know that the other teams know about previous BPs...so I expect the BPs to get more nuanced.

And Senshi, Thx for pointing out where and how I was too implicit.

This sentence alone is gold. When both teams has a fair idea on the timings, [...] that create an opportunity, to make your own new timings, based on those posted timings, also representing the pressumed timings.

Allright, trying a last time:
- When both teams has a fair idea on the publicized timings, then those timings also represent the presumed timings.
This fact opens up the opportunity to exploit what is presumed. Exploit it with your own attached timing.

Last example, dont worry, ill stop after this one:

From battle start on the Xiangshan map, is it somehow possible, for either RPX or VOG, to stop a part of the opposing team, pressuming it can move safely from Point A to Point B, on its own part of the map?

If it is possible, will it then require an added or subtracted timing, or an an added and subtracted timing, to the publizised timing? Hence a new timing, therefore in principle being a hidden timing.


Please forgive me if I have confused you guys. Not my intention.

Senshi
October 19th, 2017, 12:49 PM
You have the superpower of presenting things in a vastly more complicated manner than necessary, Michael :) .

Your updated explanation of the timing sentence now makes sense, because you properly reference the issues you talk about.

hugger
October 19th, 2017, 01:00 PM
As it was said already, timings show you where you can safely deploy without being greeted with either AA or armor. I don't really see a way to "make your on timings" other than NOT to deploy as far as possible. This doesn't make sense, as the new changes put more importance on holding flags. Ticketwise, yes, letting the enemy advance and cap flags while they are white and then capping back makes them lose 30 tickets. (was done on Dovre last year iirc) I don't think any team will take such a risk on Xiang as gaining ground comes down to asset advantage.

Using the published timings or your own doesn't make a difference, you can't make a truck or a helo go faster and the enemy team will probably not be stupid enough to push to get ambushed on deployment.

Michael_Denmark
October 19th, 2017, 01:06 PM
Well Senshi, yeah, probably. Then again, :) in order of not to complicate that post, I never added all the complexity I wanted to include.

The image however, I think is useful and quite simple when you think of it. Two mirrored patterns, divided by a common threshold, while simultaneously, both mirrored patterns are punctuated by a third pattern. (the hidden timing)

As it was said already, timings show you where you can safely deploy without being greeted with either AA or armor. I don't really see a way to "make your on timings" other than NOT to deploy as far as possible. This doesn't make sense, as the new changes put more importance on holding flags. Ticketwise, yes, letting the enemy advance and cap flags while they are white and then capping back makes them lose 30 tickets. (was done on Dovre last year iirc) I don't think any team will take such a risk on Xiang as gaining ground comes down to asset advantage.

I hear you Hugger, maybe you are right too. It could very well be that I percieve it in a wrongly manner, taking in the definition of timings, that you state.

Using the published timings or your own doesn't make a difference, you can't make a truck or a helo go faster and the enemy team will probably not be stupid enough to push to get ambushed on deployment.

On this one, I agree and disagree.

Merchant
October 19th, 2017, 02:17 PM
Michael is much too humble to reveal it, which is why I have to step in to remind you all that Michael's great, great, great grandfather was Søren Kierkegaard.

It's not overly-complicated thinking, just overly-reasoned thinking :)

Michael_Denmark
October 20th, 2017, 03:54 PM
Good stuff :)

Niels Bohr rock too.