Tactics & Supplies

Good morning soldiers,

Today we discuss tactics. Our goal is to provide you with the best tools for the job. For that we order you, the veterans, to disclose your most common tactics in the form of a brief listing of various typical tactics, a rigorous description of what you intended to achieve with them and how you executed them. You might want to mention the weapons that provided you with an optimal advantage when carrying out a specific tactic.

The input you will provide will be analyzed and escalated through the chain of command. We will then receive corresponding supplies and make them available to you, so that next time you fight you will be given the best chance to fulfill your given role.

We are now awaiting your input.


Degeling's picture

Well... I remember the CO going on about rush a place on the map, one person holds the ground.. That is quite a way not to need another tactic, hehe, and often quite resourceful.

The better ones in 2v2 AGs were where you took out the 'worst' player together to team up and kill the better one. (When in Small House this could be seen as a problem, since the time where the VPs were placed in beds, it was impossible to take it against a skilled player.)

Sometimes, mostly in bigger AG games, there were teams, like the second highest in chain got control of that part of the map, shouting the commands over vent or TS.. Fun times.

On weapons, well the MG mostly was used to hold the fort, while the MPs were used to rush. Sometimes it was better to use the MG/Bar in a rush but meh... =D Also preshifting nades to a decicated nade guy, while giving another more ammo was common.

salz's picture

I don't have much to offer since this was something like 15 years ago for me and I was a kid, but I remember one tactic in certain areas of the map was to put 3 of your guys at the back end of an enclosure, and keep one at the front side of it laying behind a wall. If someone rushed the wall and tried to get into a position to return fire and maybe attempt a flank, you use that hidden guy to stun some of his guys with grenades, pop up and finish off some kills.

At best I remember taking out a whole squad like that, at worst I was discovered, failed to stun nade them, and lost 1 guy and still had suppression up with an MG/BAR.
dude's picture

I remember hiding behind corners, under windows, etc. . Not sure how realistic that was but that made the game so fun because you always had be afraid whenever walking about corners.
bacchus's picture

it took me a lot of games to realize on any map how to get eyes on a doorway or window from a range that was not within nade range, but however you could place a solider that was in nade range but not seen before u could land a nade on any1 coming thru a door/divider. great defense for one spot... but in planning you could also just keep eyes and forego having a solider there to nade.

clearly having eyes but yet being able to defend that position was a part of the learning curve of the old game. or eyes and being able to retreat slowly when being largely out numbered. certainly a lot more to the learning curve in the old game, but I would like to think these are the easiest to incorporate here...
Speake's picture

To be honest the tactics used, depended on entirely who the CO was and how the makeup of the team was. For example, in a large numbered AG Game, say 5v5-8v8, take KFG for example. Note this example isn't pliable for all circumstances. I remember Wes being the main lead would take either himself or another of high rank to sit on border and walk while rushing the lower members to distract. And using to his advantage the behind suprise and putting the entire team in a pickle which either had the team rush Wes counter and have Wes's team put us in a corner where he led us so his team could take us out. So as i would call it, Bait and Corner Tactic.

Another one, would be such as Degeling said, ganging up on the lowest members and isolating the CO, but usually it would be the opposite seeing as 3 squads are hard to deal with.

UBG is known for using the the snipe game and having a few good naders upfront but they are all out in the open but have their members spread in sorta of a umbrella so that anyone in it would get sniped from 3-4 diff directions which stress levels were very high.

So really it all depended on what AG it was, and who their leader was and their pref on map and styles.

It Smaller games, such as 2v2-4v4 it was more of a quick based game having the best players vs best players and worst vs worst, such as SH you would have 1-2 squads at hay 1 watching forest and main holding mid/beds- or you would rush either way and depending on whos holding mid/sh the game was usually deciding on who held, not all the time of course. Having Eyes had alot to do with the playstyles aswell. As a pupil of Chap in learning this game, I'm decent at nading etc so I was usually holding and nading efficiently, but I'm not good at beign part of a rush so In my case I always hated having rank to the point that I would allow myself to die for the better good of the team since I could see everything. Having the one with Eyes hold is very good since he can sit and hold while paying attention to the rush/rest and telliing the team where the opposition is. Therefore directing the assault as he saw fit.

So to say the least there is not specific tactics that can be used, its to the discretion of the CO and his chain.

NOW to weapons.....

The MG was mainly the Sniper and to put the stress down on the Naders of the opposition team, the person holding this wasn't necassarily good at nading but knew strategy well enough to be able to hold and consort and call oppostion placments.

The MP was mainly for the fast, naders of the team that could easily get a stun off and quick shot off before any oppostion could oppose. These players were also provided the occasional Grenade Box to increase the nade count depending on thier placement. And most of all every MP was given a Ammo Box seeing as only 200 shots go quick in a long game. So this player would recieve most of the Supplies and hardly anything would go to the rifleman.

The post dude submitted puttly it mildy aswell for the MP users, they could get a shot off well before a rifleman anyday around a corner. and to be able to click down and have a shot immdiately increased our odds.

Hope this helped, hope to see ya'll soon in Testing :)

Costas's picture

Every map allowed for different tactics. I suppose you are more interested in the concept of them. Leaving small squabbles like 2vs2 aside that really there is no tactic there and going on to 4vs4 and above is where tactics would apply.

1. As much as the egos of certain veteran commanders wouldn't allow them to agree, the truth is that in order to be able to command the troops in the battle you really need to be zoomed out and not engaged in close combat as much as possible. That was more evident than never before during the big games like 10vs10 or like the campaign games.
2. Eyes should be set according to plan. The guy at the bottom of the totem pole would be in the center, thus providing crucial eyes on a wide area in the middle of the field to everyone else. Your indoor fighter guys should have enough eyes outside to see what's happening. Add to it verbal communications such as Ventrilo and you are successful.
3. Weapon distribution also according to plan. There are two ways to use an MG/BAR as defense. Number one is to hold a far out flank by yourself. An MG can slow a massive flank long enough for your teammates to support you or flank the enemy flankers and put them in a crossfire. Number two, is to use it to destroy an enemy attack. The MG would go on a 30-50 degree angle adjustment to a fortified position where 1-2 teams are holding like a wooded tree area or walls. Think of brewery windows facing woods. What happens is the enemy troops behind trees/cover aim straight to their opponents at trees. The MG is hitting them on an angle and cleaning them out from a distance further than the defenders closer to the enemy, thus out of stress. The MPs are also great for defense in fortified position as stress only, a garand has higher chances of getting snipes at a distance, but the stress is a powerful weapon.
4. Maybe more important than anything, communications. Bad commanders set a plan and don't talk after that. Good commander set the plan and adjust amidst the battle accordingly.
5. Know your enemy but more importantly know your teammates. As in any team game, you are only as strong as your weakest link. So plan accordingly. Have the weakest player in the middle of the action surrounded by your better fighters that have his/her eyes and are ready to assist. Or, use him as bait. Quite often someone would be bait and take one for the team. A lot of players go after the kills and not the victory so quite often in AG games you would see teams chasing a retreating player and forgetting about the VPs. So stupid yet it happened all the time. A smart CO can use a lure to drive away the defenders and come from the back and steal the VPs.
6. If you feel you are at a disadvantage, turn the tables around by hitting a specific spot overwhelming what normally would be 1 defending squad but setup your team in such a way that you cut off the re-enforcements. In many of the big maps, we would storm real hard the middle of the map and take it and then the rest of the enemy would be cut off and isolated on either side. Although you'd think that by outing us in the middle and be surrounded by the enemy would be a disaster, if actually planned and executed properly, the opposite would happen. Once you own the middle of the map and you have defensive positions it's really hard for the opponents to come back from it, regroup and take it. This is why as Allies I'd attack and take over manoir from the beginning. The enemy would be left half of them at outer wall and the rest at horse fields. With troops holding at trees in front of maison and at the hut or whatever it was called on the other side close to farmhouse, the guys inside would have eyes outside and be able to get to the windows and destroy the remaining squads.
Mrdood92's picture

It was a long time ago since I played probably about 7 or 8 years but I didn't often play in the ag games was only in one if I remember but I loved playing the big open games where strategy wasn't as important because there was little communication as it was. As far as the weapons the CO would either take the best weapons such as the MPS/Thompsons for himself and give either his friends or the next lowest down the rest then they would take what they wanted and pass. As far as actual strategy I like to split my soldiers up usually 2 suppressing while I had 2 attacking with nades I had a very highly sensitive mouse because I was very into games like starcraft and warcraft that required tons of micro and clicking so I could manage two nade battles at once when I was good. My strat was usually just to out grenade my oponent by rushing with two soldiers.
Colosuss's picture

I can say I was one of the worst leaders ever because my game was totally individual. Bur for what I learned from Costas, Don and other good leaders, all strategies dealed with picking the flank you were going to rush and push and slowing down enemies on your other flanks long enough to let your rushing team get their backs.

So your strategy reduces to pick best rushing flank an use as much people as you can there while placing the fewer amount of resources in weaker spots to defend long enough for help to come.

To slow down enemies in weak spots with few ppl, commanders usuallly gave more BAR/MG. The bar/mg strategy was to keep it unstressed and firing all the time to slow hords of enemies. Retreat whenever you needed to avoid lossing bar and try to pop out once in a while to get a kill from non cautious players. Obviously if the weak point of this was that MG/BAR is defending and the rushing spot doesn´t have it. In the other hand, you can leave just one squad defending and more people attacking with more nades assigned. I preferred this strategy for open spaces and fields where BAR/MG was effective against big groups.

The second possibility was when you could defend your weak flank in a bottle neck and rushing happened somewhere else. That way ppl defending should have more nades to stop any bottle neck rush while the rushing flank used the BAR/MG

Beyond that, every result was part of the local strategy followed. That way when attacking we always had one nading/rushing squad while other people used half on their ppl to stress holding enemies while he rushed and/or using the other half to snipe uncovered enemies that counter-attacked to defend themselves.

On the defense of bottlenecks, the key of it was having in the back some eyes/sniper and near the neck exit a fully loaded of nades soldier that would stun every rushing soldier. He should also have short range guns to kill fast and retreat out of incoming nades. Sometimes having a support for that neck soldier was good as he could get stunned if too many enemies came in.
Rapidkiller's picture

Tactics and Weapons only really applies to AG games.

Personally, I thought the game was all about vision. There were enough maps to have a sense of variety but few enough to memorize them if you played enough. After a while, it was much more difficult to come up with something new on the more popular maps.

The last couple years of v1 was dominated by 2v2s-4v4s max really and became a game of nading skill. COs would remember opponent's plans on certain maps and knew they had maybe 3 or 4 core plans and creativity was difficult because of the size of map; as Costas said there really aren't much tactics involved here.

In the rare 5v5 and larger games, over the years I thought plans moved from specific to more general.

In my first couple years plans were very precise in where you went and what your job was. It was all or nothing. If we were rushing, it was push through or die. Defending was (of course) much simpler.

When I had the pleasure of leading my own games in later years, I liked to brainstorm plans together with the team. Eventually we found that simply sending people to key locations and then rerouting troops according to how many enemy troops were seen was a great strategy. I like hiding 1-3 players (depending on the size of game) either in the deployment zone or deep in the corner of the map, unseen, and reroute them as necessary.

Again, as Costas said, sending the lowest on the chain to key locations was a good strategy, so that all soldiers with eyes could make critical decisions themselves. In addition, different players had different strengths and having their input before the planning process was important. I personally think the chain of command and eyes/vision concept should stay the same. It was perfect for a game like this and a happy medium between the two extremes of everyone has vision and nobody has vision.

And to this point, I learned that, as the Chinese say, "your commander is your flagpole." The concept of eyes meant if your commander died it really shot your communication, as it should in real combat. This was something that took time to learn for me as I was always an extreme aggressor.

As for weapons, it was pretty restrictive in v1. MG to the open areas, Mps to enclosed areas, more ammo to the stable snipers, more nades to the front line. Nothing to it. I am happy to see the different types of squads you guys are coming up with in the works.

On a sidenote, I think grenades had too much luck involved. Blindly nading a corner and getting a killernade kill when you wouldn't even have known that you had stunned them could turn an entire game. In addition to more squad variety, I'd hope to see a change in the grenade structure. Perhaps only stun grenades? Health bars?

just my $0.02

Kalzarr Magnus's picture

As mentioned there were a lot of general plans because of how small games were and how few of people played so most people knew what the other team was going to do. Occasionally someone would do a surprise rush on an unlikely area and the results varied on how the other teams CO reacted, or sometimes, especially in those small games, snipes would decide the game.
However on big games there was a lot more room for strategy and the plan really depended on who the CO was, some liked to be sneaky and hide a squad in a corner and pop them out behind the enemy if they rushed the rest of the team. Some would just hold or rush a location, depending on who had the VPs. Others might do a fake rush, then fall back and defend (again it depends on who has VPs.) Also a few people have mentioned that they would put the lowest on the chain in the middle of the action so that everyone else could have eyes on the middle and that was a good option sometimes but I personally wouldnt necessarily do that every time, especially if the middle is the most crucial point. Id usually put the best, or one of the best naders in that spot and have someone with, and without his eyes on each side if possible so that both points of attack would be equally effective. Again most of this stuff depends on the map and who the personnel is.
-Side note- Vent makes everything easier, no one wants to give costas a heart attack because they didnt see orders until the game was over ;P
Also all of this CoC strategy is making me very excited for V2, I just wanna say keep up the great work guys I can only imagine the work everyone is putting in to pull this off. Its gonna be great!
Speake's picture

More discussions similiar to this please!! Getting super amped to play again, I wish v1 didn't have to go down in order for v2 to be made. It would be fun to see everybody again and play a few of the older version before we move into the new version just so that we can viably see the differences made other than graphics and how its played etc. Not to mention have the new people that are into this see what our past is like.

Oh and Hi Kalzarr long-time no see
Kalzarr Magnus's picture

SPEAKE!!! Its been too long my friend. I cant wait for V2, not only for playing the game but for getting back in touch with some of the great people of the CoC community. Speake and Costas i miss you guys, you both made the dying embers of V1 worth lighting every day that i logged on ;P
On a more topic relevant note, maybe we could see a few maps posted so we could get into strategies and plans a little further. Also do we have any timetable on a beta yet?
Costas's picture

Oh captain, my captain :)
(I know you're probably too young to have seen the movie LOL)
I can't wait for the new CoC either, all of my current games seem dull.
Erik's picture

For maps you'll have to hold off your horses for a bit longer I'm afraid. Its one hell of a job :-)

Beta is set for next fall!
Kalzarr Magnus's picture

Oh i didnt necessarily mean V2 maps, Id have to idea how to plan them without knowing more about the new squads and such.
And great I cant wait to play Call again!! Normally i love summer, but i cant wait for fall XD
Erik's picture

Ohhh, woops! I misinterpreted that one :-)

There is a bunch of old maps right here: http://www.callofcombat.com/blog/the-top-five-most-played-maps-of-all-times
InValid's picture

Depending on the style of the map there would be a number of tactics i would employ,

Attacking side:
Usually i would send my best player with the lowest ranks to rush a side i beleived they would understaff or send their worse players too with the hope to overun them and kill some of them whilst I would attempt to slow down the inevitable counter rush they would employ on the other side with traps and suprises. depending on the size of the teams i may have some one hold with me on larger maps.

I would slightly stack 60-40 on the side i beleived they would attack, whilst i would "float" and remain unseen ready to rush to the side they attacked, often i would employ more than one squad to float and wait for the enemy sightings, usually the higher ranks as they have the eyes on their subordinates.

Symetrical(ish) maps:
the hardest type to plan for, usually i would try and get favourable match ups, so in a 2v2 i would get my teamate to hold aand retreat from their best player while i tried to kill their weaker member before swinging round on there best player. Likewise if i thought our weaker player could take theirs id send him to get him whilst i held their better player.
Alex's picture

It's a taboo subject but simply it changed everything. Previously even the best couldn't handle a 3 noob v 1 veteran rush, with HKs, they can, why? Because it should be humanely impossible to control 4 soldiers without losing 1, in old call this worked with the mouse, as such the biggest thing in terms of tactics is movement speed and nading range, both should be increased.

Movement speed was commented on by any new player anyway but the nade range means it will mean you don't have to have super fast grenades plus placement becomes king. The good players threw the nade where you would attempt to dodge to, not where you were.
Jack Frost's picture

It's all a simple fact of remembering that Jack is better than everyone else so shut up and let him be amazing.

In terms of "tactics" though there are far FAR too many factors to voice in words. Who was on your team? Who was on theirs? Amount of players, map choice, who had what rank? Costa had it right on many things as he usually did. But there's many times in which the guy on the bottom was your best player. The guy with rank and all the eyes was a .6 kd with 0 communication and awful judgement.
Some maps had 2 MGs, so guns you could use rediculous ways. Guys with 2 MGs or tossing an MG to a rusher to get sick stress on the guy he's trying to overtake. Some guys had vent some didn't. Tactics are something way too subject to change to honestly be preconceived in any real solid way.

It's something that would have much more pull if say there was a heavy advantage to having good tactic. For instance if a building or location was so massively important to win that the main focus was around it. Like the middle building in UC, in which there were not very many maps that left creativity to a plan. Most were 1 sided, so the plan was essentially "2 hold here, 1 hold here, 2 hold here" etc. It'd make more sense to have pivitol fights on maps than what v1 had. Where instead of basically 80% of maps had an attacking side and a holding side. Make it more competitive, force both sides to commit to an action to take it, or add newer ways to force both sides to engage, I.e. a form of grenade launcher, or mortar to clear a window. That way, rather than have an attacking side and a .... basically sniping side. You have 2 sides that are forced to get engaged close combat more.
Jack Frost's picture

Essentially I guess what I'm saying is in terms of tactics find some ways to draw everyone out. Make em commit, the farm that the attacking side is holding should be just as pivotal as the watch tower the defending side has.

The whole "one side has all the points" layout was a system I really would like to never see again. :P
Imperator's picture

Don't tease me any more with all these concept questions, just release the game already!

NSD till the day I die!
Imperator's picture

Remove the bs snipes pease!!!!!!
Dragon Blood's picture

I love bs snipes myself. They made the game realistic with the probability factor and the luck of a real individual.
Almost seems like the soldiers we controlled are almost like real people except they are mindless and completely under our control.
emmitt222's picture

1. keep the right click to move map its easier than the scroll bars.
2. you've already redone everything you really need for the game different classes, speeds, etc . . . it ads a whole new tactical advantage
3. for marketing you only need to done 1 thing . . . get the game on steam when people see its free to pay they will come flocking anyone who has steam can tell you this
4. I stopped giving opinions after #1 because the game was already great . . .
5. seriously . . . steam (I don't want it to fall apart. I have over 8k game on call)
Dragon Blood's picture

There is a large variety of tactics and each basic one has a variation when it comes down to the person.

For me, I tried to use a large spectrum of tactics in order to throw off people and to be unpredictable. Of course, some worked, some did not.
However I personally enjoyed having a nader up in front, one in the back making sure we wouldn't be flanked and 2 in between so it'd be spread out. This tactic created almost a diamond or rhombus shaped defense. But this was usually used in the field next to a large building.

There are of course too many factors to take in when talking about tactics such as how many other players are with you? How many are killed? How much are you stressed? Are you against an MG or BAR? Where is the enemy coming from? Is the player you are facing experienced or a newbie?

There are many questions when it comes down to the dirt and grit of it.
It also matters how you were trained and if you are learning how to better your skills.

For me in a wide open spaced area with just rocks and trees to hide behind, I usually used 2 soldiers behind 1 tree and the two spread on the sides so I can get a greater probability of a snipe and have enough protection to do so.

Though I am being sort of vague, I would also like to inform of giving certain units most of the grenades and bullets. This assigns troops their field such as a soldier with grenades and a tommy gun being the hit-n-runner/nader. A sniper being handed most of the bullets. A soldier with an MG being the covering fire and fear factor.

I hope I covered enough things for people to be satisfied.

Oh and one more thing.. I'm dying to play again!!!