Go Back   Project Reality Tournament Forums > PUBLIC FORUM > General Tournament Discussion

Welcome to the Project Reality Forums! Join the Project Reality forums! Contact Us

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2017-03-04, 06:02   #21
[R-COM]​ytman
Retired PRT Command

 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 534
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

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.
__________________

Last edited by ytman; 2017-03-04 at 06:13.
ytman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-03-12, 15:38   #22
Merchant
C12 Member

 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Etobicoke (Toronto), Ontario, Canada
Posts: 704
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by ytman View Post
... 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.
Merchant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-03-13, 00:07   #23
Senshi
Lead Admin / Retired EMC CO
 
Senshi's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Wiesbaden
Posts: 2,369
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

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.
__________________
Senshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-03-13, 09:17   #24
Jizzco
Task Force Member

 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: London
Posts: 783
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

Glorious Fizzco hero of China xD. Still remember screaming at YT to accept that AA

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
__________________
Jizzco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-03-13, 11:31   #25
[T-ADM]WebCole
Administrator
 
WebCole's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,906
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senshi View Post
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.
__________________
"The art of the compromise, hold your nose and close your eyes,
We dream of a brand new start, but we dream in the dark for the most part."
WebCole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-03-13, 11:57   #26
Alexswesnipr
Task Force Member

 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Skåne
Posts: 1,371
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-03-29, 13:14   #27
Alexswesnipr
Task Force Member

 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Skåne
Posts: 1,371
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

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.
Alexswesnipr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-03-29, 18:17   #28
[T-ADM]Yrkidding
Lead Admin / Retired APN SCO
 
Yrkidding's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,208
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

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

Some of the ribbons are better quality outside the doc.
__________________

"It is good that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it."
- Robert E. Lee

[PR]MRF|Cossack: "Just do it."™
Yrkidding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-03-30, 02:56   #29
[T-CON]​mectus11
Tournament Contributor
 
mectus11's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Zimbabwe
Posts: 909
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

See Senshi we could've had cool ribbons like they did!
__________________
mectus11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-03-30, 06:52   #30
Senshi
Lead Admin / Retired EMC CO
 
Senshi's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Wiesbaden
Posts: 2,369
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

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 .
__________________
Senshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
c12, intel or battleplan, sharing, thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:30.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All Content Copyright ©2004 - 2016, Project Reality.

Project Reality is a computer game and the Project Reality Tournament is an organized simulation of that game.
The PRT is not affiliated with and does not seek to emulate the practices or ideals of any current military force, foreign or domestic.
Name or organizational similarities are aesthetical only.