terrorist / counter-terrorist water warfare games

[LIGHT ANNIHILATOR]

Here are the rules for terrorist and counter terrorist water war games. Where each side has certian advantages.

The game is best played in soakfest format, but can also be played in 1hk

Terrorist rules

can only use air pressure rifles and smaller cps cannons

can only use water ballons if they are stolen from the counter-terrorist side

must have 33-60% more people than the counter- terrorist side

can engage the enemy any way they want

cannot have a base ( this is a advantage)

less experienced players must be on the terrorist side

cannot use camoflauge


Counter terrorist rules

can use any weapons they want (preferably large cps cannons

can use water ballons

can use stealth but can only engage the enemy from one side (unless they are surrounded)

must have a base

can use camoflauge

have more experienced people

Rules for both sides

both teams can use stealth

game can have no less than 7 people ( 4 terrorists 3 counter- terrorists )

All rules subject to change





Edited By LIGHT ANNIHILATOR on 1127767877

[emperor_james]

Ummm... is there exactly a point? It seems to me that it is only a set of rules for setting up the teams, and definately not real game, which should have objectives. Also, some of the rules seem ridiculous, like the experienced on the terrorist side and the inexperienced on the counter terrorist, all the waterballoon stuff, the terrorists not using camoflouge, and the counter terrorists only attacking from one side. And I'm not at all sure how not having a base is supoosed to be an advantage.

[DX]

And I'm not at all sure how not having a base is supoosed to be an advantage.

Not having a base is a huge advantage. I have to remember to write an article on that. Actually, few things will give you a bigger advantage than going baseless. Veteran teams can be deadly effective this way. You have nothing needing protection, your enemy has nothing to attack except your team, you can move all over the battlefield, while the enemy must defend their base. Going baseless gives your side flexability, shapelessness, and the initiative, which is crucial to winning a war. A team with a base has a difficult time taking the initiative, or momentum. You can launch attack after attack after attack on their base. What can the enemy raid? Nothing. They must confront your team and you can choose the rest of the battlefield as your defense.

Although I agree with Emperor James that the rest of this game makes little sense. The experienced players should be on the terrorist side, and the terrorists shouldn't have any weapon restrictions or water balloon restrictions. Look at Iraq. The have pretty good weapons. And the counter-terrorists should be able to engage from more than one flank. In addition, for this to be in any way realistic, the counter-terrorist side would have to outnumber the terrorist side by at least 2:1. ???

[Spinner]

And I'm not at all sure how not having a base is supoosed to be an advantage.

Not having a base is a huge advantage.

I wouldn't agree with that. I understand your point, and concede that bases are often not useful, but if they are constructed carefully and strategically they can prove to be very useful.

[LIGHT ANNIHILATOR]

I will take all of your ideas into consideration and edit it so it makes more sense.

Edit: bases are a advantage but only if they are fortified (like if they have a fence around them)



Edited By LIGHT ANNIHILATOR on 1127855821

[emperor_james]

A base can only be a disadvantage if you have to defend it, that is, if you lose if it is captured. Otherwise, it is purely an advantage, if only to give you the option of using it.

[DX]

A heavily fortified base can be an advantage, but often they are a burden and/or too easy to take. Also, the team with the base can be driven back to it, forced to defend, and lose the initiative. The initiative is one of the most overlooked and ignored factors on the battlefield. If you control the initiative, you set the tempo of the battle and build up momentum. If you lose it, then you may see a huge reversal of fate or at least take damage, whether it be in kills or lost ground. Basically, many teams rely too heavily on bases. You don't always need one and in some cases it can be much better to do without one. Establishing a series of strong positions can be superior to building one or two large bases. By using the land, you can raid the enemy base and return to your strong defensive positions if necessary. The base is a perfect target for your team to hit, but the enemy would have to face your soldiers in open combat in order to retaliate. They would have no other target. Without a base, you can take the offensive and hold the enemy to defense. A defensive campaign is very difficult to win and requires usage of your best strategy. So the point is, holding the initiative and going on the offensive greatly increases your chances of victory when the dust finally settles.

[emperor_james]

Why would you be forced to defend it? The only thing that can make a base a disadvantage is objectives, and anything in the objectives that allows you to lose is a disadvantage no matter what it is.

[DX]

If the other team employs tactics that force you to retreat in the direction of your base, then traps you in that area. A well constructed/fortified base is obviously an exception. You can hold a good base almost indefinately, provided that the enemy is too weak or inexperienced to keep up pressure, if you have enough stashed water, and if numbers and experience are in your favor.



Edited By Duxburian on 1127963413

[emperor_james]

My point was that, objectives permitting, there is no reason for you not to abandom the base altogether, so you aren't really trapped in the area at all.

[LIGHT ANNIHILATOR]

After thinking about this for a while, i have decided to leave the rules as they are and drop the idea.

[Striker]

That could be like water CS! Terrorist side gets a alarm clock ( waterproof) and sets it at say 2 mins. then the CT side has to defuse the bomb. But you'd have to use soaker tags or something like that,\, and I hate ST's

[83-1154123461]

I have to agree, this is an exxellent rebirth of CS (counter-strike), but knowing how to die is hard, especially for younger kids, unless u use soaker tags ,but they really suck and they werre from HASBRO!!!! *DUN DUN duuuun.....*:p

[Croc]

Someone posted a thread about instead of using soakertags, you could just T.P. yourself. When the toilet paper breaks at any point, then you "die".

[WaterWolf]

If you just have one or two water sources, your enemy can deny you use of them, then hunt you down and soak you while your low on water and It would be too much to carry your whole battles supply of water on your back.

I think that for two fairly good sized teams, (8 people?) playing CTF, a battle field with multiple water sources and two bases, with the bases being well fortified enough that they can be effectively defended by a quarter of your team would be ideal. Then, using shift changes, you can keep two people guarding the base, with the others able to be deployed however you want. And, if you need to, you can pull these reserves to the front, or have them outflank an enemy position that has you pinned down, ect ect.

But the use of bases really varies with what game your playing and how many people you have. Like if you have over six people on your side, It would probably be a good idea to have a base with multiple reload sources. Otherwise, would could get caught low on water and with the filling of guns going to slowly at an unfortified reload station.

But if you are playing somthing like a 1HK game with fewer than six people on your team, then I could definitely see the bases being more of a handicap than a help. I also think that how well the base is planned and constructed is an important factor of wether or not it will be useful.

[DX]

In CTF, I still would not have a base. I would hide the flag somewhere [in plain view, although in the thickest vegetation possible] and send all men to the front. Sounds risky, but it really isn't. If the enemy doesn't know you're baseless, they won't know where to look for your flag. If there's no base, every nook and cranny in the whole battlefield could be the flag area. However, they would only find that out after searching all over for your non-existant base.

With no defense to worry about, you can have overwhelming attack power, and may be able to shut enemy attackers back in their base. A whole team trapped in a fortified position is one heck of a turkeyshoot. By rotating out members to refill, you can keep them pinned indefinately. And if they manage to break out, you can simply swing your lines around and take their base, the flag, and game over! If your rules force you to return to your "base" with the enemy flag, your team could sacrifice themselves in kill exchanges to allow the flag bearer to sprint back unchecked.

A risky, but smart strategy would be to place your flag very close to the enemy's base. Again, in plain view yet not in plain view. By going off far away like usual, you can lure the enemy to search in places that are totally wrong!

But the use of bases really varies with what game your playing and how many people you have. Like if you have over six people on your side, It would probably be a good idea to have a base with multiple reload sources. Otherwise, would could get caught low on water and with the filling of guns going to slowly at an unfortified reload station.

How many people you have should not matter. If I had over 6 people, I would go baseless as usual. If I had 20 people, I would go baseless as usual.

Unfortified refilling areas are safer than fortified bases. In local history, my team has never lost a kill during refilling [we do the very safe method of "refilling by rotation". However, we were handed a 3-and-out the last time we used a strong defensive position. If threatened, you can actually switch from a refilling position to an ambush/defensive position really fast, if your refilling area has good cover. In a base, you can't run away as easily or adjust positions as well.

The one thing I would agree with is the planning and construction of a base determining its usefulness. Location is key. So are the height and thickness of the walls, what material are used, etc. Natural protection is better than man-made defenses, such as positioning your base in a dense reed grove, a patch of thornbushes, or a steep hill. Roofs are cheap and cowardly. Tarps are cheap and cowardly.

The function of your base matters a whole lot too, something few think of. Is it a defensive last resort? A command center? An early warning outpost? An ambush fort? A stronghold for protecting a vital trail or fording point? A fake decoy distraction? What you plan on using the base for should dictate where you place it, what you use to build/defend it, and the such.



Edited By Duxburian on 1154293269

[WaterWolf]

What I think of my base as is : A Command Station, a safe refill/re-arm position and a defensive last resort.

For smaller sub base/outposts: A refill station and a position that gives you control over an important tactical area or paths.

And what about a WBL nest? A somewhat fortified area, with a wide view of the battle field, most-likely on top of a hill, that is built specially for Water Balloon Launcher to fire from and reload at. That might be interesting. ???

All in all, I really think that the usefulness of a base varies so much, that it becomes more of a personal preference and style of play.

Soak On.

[DX]

That's a very static style of waging war. AKA, sticking to a couple of positions and not wanting to have to move. The kind of style I used in my first organzied battles. We would set up at some fortified base and wait to be attacked.

Now my team has adapted a VC-esque style of fighting and moving. Our rather short, light artillery can be fired from any position imaginable, anything with enough open space to stick the barrel out. The most effective defense has been conducted in the semi-open, while our worst was conducted from atop a strong hill. We've been swept from Ivy Hill in a matter of minutes, despite having severe technological superiority and height advantage. In another battle, we were ambushed at the base of Ivy hill, then took it from the Waterbridge defenders in a record ~30 seconds. I was almost swept from Reed Hill in the 2nd war, a position where I once held off 3 attackers for an hour. Our local tactics have rendered forts and hills totally obsolete. When we do take hill positions, it is for a brief view of the battlefield, then we leave. Most of the most stunning successes have been in the reed positions. On our battlefields, the most tactical, fluid, cunning, and unconventional team wins the day.

[WaterWolf]

For the WBL nest, I'm not saying that you set up your artillery there and don't move around with it. I'm just talking about a spot that is a particularly good position to fire from at a large section of the battlefield. But you might only use it a few times per game, or none at all depending on the circumstances.

And I'm not saying that I would "set up at some fortified base and wait to be attacked."

As I said in my above post: "A Command Station, a safe refill/re-arm position and a defensive last resort."

That doesn't seem imply sitting in one spot waiting for an attack and thats not what I intend to do.

[Stencil]

If you had loads and loads of people you could play with hostages, like in CS.