Jump to content


"Do not cross the bridge!" on Pearl River OR How to save "new players" from them...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
39 replies to this topic

thewolfpack #1 Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:31 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 50561 battles
  • 1,390
  • [LEOHQ] LEOHQ
  • Member since:
    06-15-2011
http://wotreplays.co...fpack-churchill
IF you want a laugh, just watch the first 2 mins =)
A creative approach on bridge crossers =)
Have fun!
Added a pic, if you don't want to watch the rp in the thread (post 4).

Posted Image

Angry B1 is "seruisly" Angry!


Edited by thewolfpack, 15 October 2013 - 10:49 PM.


HitMan1986 #2 Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:41 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 11057 battles
  • 201
  • Member since:
    02-14-2012
NICE   :great:
I wrote so often things like "def at bridge" or "lets def here *pingping*" ... this is a god way ... i wonder that no one starts to teamdmg   :teethhappy:

Edited by HitMan1986, 15 October 2013 - 10:42 PM.


meister_leuchte #3 Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:41 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 26629 battles
  • 185
  • Member since:
    01-04-2011
i had a game on that map today and the first one to die in the middle of that canyon on pearl river was our elc amx!

morons do what morons do. you can't do anything about it.

thewolfpack #4 Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:43 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 50561 battles
  • 1,390
  • [LEOHQ] LEOHQ
  • Member since:
    06-15-2011

Posted Image

Angry B1 is "seruisly" Angry!


Edited by thewolfpack, 15 October 2013 - 10:44 PM.


BattleMetalChris #5 Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:52 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9222 battles
  • 7,685
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-18-2011
haha, amazing  :teethhappy:
I love the way that everyone trying to insult you for it was a tomato.
If you hadn't done that, that B1 would have been able to charge down there and make MINCEMEAT of the two KV1s and a Churchill hiding there. You stole THREE KILLS from him!  :teethhappy:

Edited by BattleMetalChris, 15 October 2013 - 10:54 PM.


LeMoron #6 Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:52 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 2460 battles
  • 636
  • Member since:
    06-13-2012
go to play cod plz

threefuries #7 Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:55 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 13892 battles
  • 82
  • [HF79] HF79
  • Member since:
    07-14-2012
Excellent!

Snowman79 #8 Posted 15 October 2013 - 11:21 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26318 battles
  • 244
  • Member since:
    05-16-2011
good job! gotta try this in high tiers too  :trollface:

Junesrawr #9 Posted 15 October 2013 - 11:35 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13710 battles
  • 227
  • [CELL] CELL
  • Member since:
    05-27-2012
No offense, but I think not crossing that bridge isn't exactly the best way to go.
Often (most of the times my team applied this tactic), it ended up in a stalemate by the bridge with the enemy not advancing at all while their other flank in the hills raped our lights/meds and chewed us up from behind making that 'defense' behind the bridge pretty much useless since you can't defend yourself from two sides.
This is just a way too defensive way to go to my mind. I'd rather have some quick-paced close quarter shooting in the valley where tanks actually get shot at and die and where you can make use of gun depression and high alpha guns. Gets the game going, you know. Less sitting and waiting, more action.

Edited by Junesrawr, 15 October 2013 - 11:46 PM.


VeryRisky #10 Posted 15 October 2013 - 11:42 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 17127 battles
  • 8,529
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-11-2012

View PostJunesrawr, on 15 October 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

Less sitting and waiting, more action.

Is winning overated?

Junesrawr #11 Posted 15 October 2013 - 11:44 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13710 battles
  • 227
  • [CELL] CELL
  • Member since:
    05-27-2012
My point is that I feel that staying behind the bridge and defend generally leads to more defeats than victories. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Snowman79 #12 Posted 15 October 2013 - 11:46 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26318 battles
  • 244
  • Member since:
    05-16-2011

View PostJunesrawr, on 15 October 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

No offense, but I think not crossing that bridge isn't exactly the best way to go.
Often (most of the times my team applied this tactic), it ended up in a stalemate by the bridge with the enemy not advancing at all while their other flank in the hills raped our lights/meds and chewed us up from behind making that 'defense' behind the bridge pretty much useless since you can't defend yourself from two sides.
This is just a way too defensive way to go to my mind. I'd rather have some quick-paced close quarter shooting in the valley where tanks actually get shot at and die and where you can make use of gun depression and high alpha guns. Gets the game going, you know. Less sitting and waiting, more action.
the plan is to hold the bridge with minimum forces and push the other side...massing a lot of tanks at the bridge is just stupid...2 heavy tanks and a td supported by an arty can hold off 2 or 3 times as many tanks, while the other 11 smashes the enemy on the hills...
p.s. got 7k dmg and 19500 potential dmg received at the bridge defence with my IS4...and survived ...

Edited by Snowman79, 15 October 2013 - 11:49 PM.


Junesrawr #13 Posted 15 October 2013 - 11:49 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13710 battles
  • 227
  • [CELL] CELL
  • Member since:
    05-27-2012
Yeah, I believe that works, problem is only that in the games I've been so far there was usually too many tanks defending the bridge which led to the scenario described above. Seems like this plan requires some more coordination than just 'dont cross bridge'.

Edited by Junesrawr, 15 October 2013 - 11:50 PM.


Snowman79 #14 Posted 15 October 2013 - 11:51 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26318 battles
  • 244
  • Member since:
    05-16-2011

View PostJunesrawr, on 15 October 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

Yeah, I believe that works, problem is only that in the games I've been so far there was usually too many tanks defending the bridge which lead to the scenario described above. Seems like this plan requires some more coordination that just 'dont cross bridge'.
agree...you need a good team as well...and by good i refer to players experienced enough to understand a plan in 30 second prior to game :)

Edited by Snowman79, 15 October 2013 - 11:52 PM.


lemthepimpmeard #15 Posted 15 October 2013 - 11:59 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 27248 battles
  • 4,253
  • Member since:
    08-24-2012
Did that with my KV2 and a KV4 parked over the bridge, with a KV1Sport for good measure, we marmalised them and even I got a good amount of dmg in a tier 8 game where I was more use as a roadblock than a tank.

The rage in some Eastern European language from the enemy was priceless.

ClassicFrog #16 Posted 16 October 2013 - 12:03 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 44193 battles
  • 2,981
  • Member since:
    04-05-2012
I have tried to block the bridge with my IS-3 like that and got 2 shots from my team mate T34 zombie who pushed forward along with others like him only to die seconds later. Needless to say I could not hold the bridge alone with 800 hp missing and we got capped in no time. The only comfort I had was that I actually earned creds on the battle for all the dmg I have done while defending and from the compensation and the fact that T34 player had to pay quite a bill for the team damage and his own repairs.

On a side note, I always enjoy battles on the Pearl River when the south team can organise themselves to defend the bridge and not rush, regardless of the side I spawn at. It sort of restores (some) faith in wot community.

HbreeD #17 Posted 16 October 2013 - 12:06 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 53777 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    05-19-2011
@ mister junesrawr: defending at the bridge is only part of the equation, ofc if 10 tanks defend at bridge you will lose, what most people such as yourself fail to understand is that 3 maybe 4 well placed tanks can hold the bridge no problem , while the rest of the team should take control of the middle city side and the left flank in a combined effort to get cross fire and focus fire, if they have so many forces at bridge to destroy your defense there then they will have less tanks covering the other flanks, this is pretty much bulletproof because it's easy to get back from the city to defend/reset the cap to ensure your victory, ofc if you check the minimap and do a little bit of math on the tanks that were spotted and where , and you realize that the enemy has caught on about your def at bridge tactic and went the other way, the defending tanks can at that point start advancing through the bridge and catch the enemy of guard putting pressure on their cap, i'm not saying this is going to work every time well at least not in randoms cuz of the lack of understanding of tactics from the common players but this how it should be played in my opinion GL & HF

lemthepimpmeard #18 Posted 16 October 2013 - 12:11 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 27248 battles
  • 4,253
  • Member since:
    08-24-2012

View PostClassicFrog, on 16 October 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

I have tried to block the bridge with my IS-3 like that and got 2 shots from my team mate T34 zombie who pushed forward along with others like him only to die seconds later. Needless to say I could not hold the bridge alone with 800 hp missing and we got capped in no time. The only comfort I had was that I actually earned creds on the battle for all the dmg I have done while defending and from the compensation and the fact that T34 player had to pay quite a bill for the team damage and his own repairs.

On a side note, I always enjoy battles on the Pearl River when the south team can organise themselves to defend the bridge and not rush, regardless of the side I spawn at. It sort of restores (some) faith in wot community.

Oh I had the opposite.
I've watched replays of the setup so when we spawned North warned the team to prepare for an ambush, it was a decent team too so they listened.
We mopped up the tanks in the valley and pushed on, I warned of ambush.

They had a TOG II* which I guessed was on bridge (It should have been, mine would have been) but no, nothing. Their TOG was basecamping. I felt a bit of a prat, but that was mitigated by some good TOG on TOG action from me.

Dongfeng_division #19 Posted 16 October 2013 - 12:43 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 44226 battles
  • 2,291
  • Member since:
    07-20-2011
Oh wow, nice tactic, I didn't think of that before :)

Shadow5x #20 Posted 16 October 2013 - 12:54 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 15461 battles
  • 157
  • [A0W] A0W
  • Member since:
    01-20-2011

View PostJunesrawr, on 15 October 2013 - 11:44 PM, said:

My point is that I feel that staying behind the bridge and defend generally leads to more defeats than victories. Feel free to prove me wrong.
thats because most people don't know how to ambush, most people camp behind the bridge in that small hill like you said and that is wrong, you should be on the side of the bridge, if you do this the enemy has to expose their soft sides to you before it can shot back, take a look http://www.youtube.c...82sYa1&index=26 we were only 3 there
also OP +1 good show  :teethhappy:

Edited by Shadow5x, 16 October 2013 - 01:00 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users