@ Swamp and the other guys DOD in Ramiel

They can be as close to the DoD as they want. Once they're in the DoD, they're wrong and can be kicked/banned.

ZIPPO wrote:

They can be as close to the DoD as they want. Once they're in the DoD, they're wrong and can be kicked/banned.

I was thinking about this issue, I really am not sure if switching the DOD rule will fix anything. Using the DOD as a "flank cover" is the same as using the map's edge. They somewhat trade range and effectiveness for safety. They can run a smoother operation not use up any other assets for self defence, saving them for the frontline.

They shouldn't be punished further for trading perhaps the ability to cover the whole map, for safety by choosing to nest the base next to DOD.

In a real-world situation the battlefield doesn't have "edges" and we all use them, DOD shouldn't be seen differently. As someone said that would effectively create 2 DODs...Is that fair? to allow and easier approach to a mortar base that already chose to trade some advantages of forward positioning for its more secured placing? Is that the mortar guys problem? Should it be their problem?

So after some consideration I again at the point of leaving the rule as it is, and seing DOD as any other of the maps limits...What about using the maps corners for placing if possible? is that exploiting the games mechanics?

The map edges are infallible and everyone clearly know where they begin and end. The DOD is shifting depending on layer (which leads to some of these placement errors), and more importantly selectively favors one team over the other by its very design. It's *my* DOD, after all -- not yours!

This means that one team can maneuver and engage freely under the cover of DOD while they other cannot. In some cases this will also grant the ability to fire TOWs etc from main base (which may be verboten, but still happens due to human nature) for additional cover. It's a lop-sided arrangement at best.

re assets in DOD: Even if it is wholly unintentional, due to a map misread or calculation, entire or partial asset placement inside DOD for these mortar FOBs happens very regularly. Sure I can pre-prep a C4 and run in and toss it before the timer bleeds me out, but is that fair? What about the mortar tubes which are 50m beyond that? How about the crates that are scattered all around inside DOD? Or the logistics truck? Is that fair game, too? Or the chopper that's inbound to do a resupply drop, as my fire team is about to launch an assault? What about the transport truck coming up with a squad, are they reinforcing and valid targets, or just passing by? It very quickly slides into borderline behavior.

Here's what I've seen happen multiple times over:

Team A builds super mortar FOB "on edge" of DOD.

Team B Assault squad attempts to take it down and bitches that parts of, or entire, FOB is in DOD which make it invulnerable from infantry. Sometimes Team A takes down the firebase (or an admin makes them after much bitching) but a lot of time nothing happens. When that's the case, aside from illegal placement, that means the entire assault took a squad from Team B, or even a partial squad, out of action for what amounts to nothing and is now at an even further disadvantage.

Team B heavy asset squad, like APC, tank, or CAS swings by and levels the place from a distance. It then also kills assets "nearby" the FOB that may happen to be coming out of main from Team A and in DOD. Oops?

Team A members freak out at "base-camping" and being shot in DOD -- probably because most of them were totally unaware of the mortar placement to begin with.

Kicks/temp-bans/arguing over all chat ensue. Much QQ for everyone.

Or we could just put a rule in place that would clearly fix what is a behavioral problem by adding a little distance -- we do this with other maps already. This would at least force the issue into being FAR less subjective as at a glance you can tell if it's DOD or not without having Haley or someone hustle on with the chain crew to measure it out.

Very good points Nardz. Well back to the 1 keypad grid square team for me.

Let's see if someone on the other side of the argument comes up with something too.