Talk:Beachhead Tactic
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Opinions? Thoughts? Suggestions & Comments?
What do you think?--James Ennis 12:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- It should probably be noted that this was tried during the recent Giddings Mall siege and it was unsuccessful. --Karekmaps?! 13:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's not to say that it's a bad tactic, just that it's not what killed Giddings.--Karekmaps?! 13:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- What was unsuccessful about it, Karek? It seems to have wasted a bit of AP, when multiple zombies tore down the same final piece of barricade (there were regularly 4 or 5 zombies killing same the last level), but other than that, it seems to have worked well enough. In the early stages of a break in, getting zombie bodies inside is more important than killing a few survivors out of a crowd of over a hundred and fifty (arn't they?) -- boxy talk • i 13:16 2 February 2008 (BST)
- It did waste quite a bit of AP, but the problem was it made minimal fatal impact per day, we were wasting just as much AP as them and they have 10+ times as many people with AP to use. The fact that people were coming in from other corners made keeping the cades down difficult because they had people both actively recading and dumping, it got us stuck in a sort of yo-yo pattern where survivors had a large numbers advantage advantage. --Karekmaps?! 13:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, it seemed successful from the survivor side of the fence. We were running out of bullets, FAKs, and AP ourselves(*). Not to mention the no-doubt massive AP loss trying to put the cades back up. As far as I can tell, the tactic worked. The survivor defense couldn't wipe out the initial force, failed to prevent the beachhead from forming, spent itself trying to do both those, and then the zombies outside took advantage and came gradually trudging inside to start eating us. It's true that there was a bit of a yo-yo effect there for a while, but that's to be expected, and eventually the momentum swung to the zeds and remained there. We could be suffering from mutual fog of war here, though.
- It did waste quite a bit of AP, but the problem was it made minimal fatal impact per day, we were wasting just as much AP as them and they have 10+ times as many people with AP to use. The fact that people were coming in from other corners made keeping the cades down difficult because they had people both actively recading and dumping, it got us stuck in a sort of yo-yo pattern where survivors had a large numbers advantage advantage. --Karekmaps?! 13:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- What was unsuccessful about it, Karek? It seems to have wasted a bit of AP, when multiple zombies tore down the same final piece of barricade (there were regularly 4 or 5 zombies killing same the last level), but other than that, it seems to have worked well enough. In the early stages of a break in, getting zombie bodies inside is more important than killing a few survivors out of a crowd of over a hundred and fifty (arn't they?) -- boxy talk • i 13:16 2 February 2008 (BST)
- (*) Perhaps there should be an additional note concerning the destruction of generators? A few of the beachhead zeds took out all of Giddings' gennies, so mayhaps that should be included?--James Ennis 15:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- What James said (just from the opposite perspective). Getting a huge number of zombies inside, reducing the 'cading and search efficiency (through Interference and genny destruction), coupled with the fact that we could just shamble back inside whenever we were killed (not very often at all, I think I got dumped once) meant that it was only a matter of time before survivors ran out of supplies. It also meant that there were heaps of zombies inside the mall that weren't attacking the cades, and were a timebomb set to go off when their AP regeneration peaked out. I think it was definitely an efficient tactic once the breach was big enough to significantly affect barricading rates (evening out AP expenditure somewhat) -- boxy talk • i 15:40 2 February 2008 (BST)
- I don't know about the supply side of it beyond the fact that I'm aware the numbers are manageable with enough metagame precoordination. I doubt that coordination will come about immediately or already exists due to group size and the lack of any real cohesive intergroup communication. The timebomb thing came after, that's all I'll say on that matter. As for running out of Ammo, I don't really think that would be too much of an issue to tell the truth, groups like Axes High managed to work successfully with an axe and the fantastic FAK search rates make the slightly weaker barricades not as big of a loss as it would first seem. Then again, that depends, again, completely on each survivor and their level of knowledge of what works best, mostly because of the lack of any unifying presence that gives the majority any real usable information or coordination. It may have worked, but, again, it wasn't what made the mall actually fall.--Karekmaps?! 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh no, there were quite a few contributing factors, I'm sure. I just like this tactic, I think it can work well, even if it doesn't contribute to short term fatalities. One of it's greatest benefits is the demoralisation of the survivors. When there are over 100 zombies in a mall, they start running. Do you know what the largest breach has been, that was subsequently repelled? I can't imagine it being much over 20 or 30 zombies (but I'm not a big metagamer to have been involved in such coordination much)?-- boxy talk • i 00:05 3 February 2008 (BST)
- When we were doing this they were repelling 70-80+ zombie groups that broke in. So I'd have to say that's the record, as I don't think any buildings populated enough to repel that many have ever been broken in by that many zombies(old barricades made that near impossible unless you were LUE or Shacknews).--Karekmaps?! 02:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- You mean that 70+ zombies were getting into Giddings at a time, and then getting killed and dumped before reinforcements could arrive? Was this before or after the update? -- boxy talk • i 11:41 5 February 2008 (BST)
- After. It would have been near impossible to get more than maybe 10-20 before the update.--Karekmaps?! 12:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, tell me about it. I got in one day, with full health and half AP, and by the time I managed to open up the ?zoom view, and select a likely target, I was dumped and the cades were up to heavy already -- boxy talk • i 02:00 9 February 2008 (BST)
- It's a good strategy. At the end though, it says "many casualties on both sides". How can zombies have causalties? BoboTalkClown 20:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, tell me about it. I got in one day, with full health and half AP, and by the time I managed to open up the ?zoom view, and select a likely target, I was dumped and the cades were up to heavy already -- boxy talk • i 02:00 9 February 2008 (BST)
- After. It would have been near impossible to get more than maybe 10-20 before the update.--Karekmaps?! 12:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- You mean that 70+ zombies were getting into Giddings at a time, and then getting killed and dumped before reinforcements could arrive? Was this before or after the update? -- boxy talk • i 11:41 5 February 2008 (BST)
- When we were doing this they were repelling 70-80+ zombie groups that broke in. So I'd have to say that's the record, as I don't think any buildings populated enough to repel that many have ever been broken in by that many zombies(old barricades made that near impossible unless you were LUE or Shacknews).--Karekmaps?! 02:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh no, there were quite a few contributing factors, I'm sure. I just like this tactic, I think it can work well, even if it doesn't contribute to short term fatalities. One of it's greatest benefits is the demoralisation of the survivors. When there are over 100 zombies in a mall, they start running. Do you know what the largest breach has been, that was subsequently repelled? I can't imagine it being much over 20 or 30 zombies (but I'm not a big metagamer to have been involved in such coordination much)?-- boxy talk • i 00:05 3 February 2008 (BST)
- I don't know about the supply side of it beyond the fact that I'm aware the numbers are manageable with enough metagame precoordination. I doubt that coordination will come about immediately or already exists due to group size and the lack of any real cohesive intergroup communication. The timebomb thing came after, that's all I'll say on that matter. As for running out of Ammo, I don't really think that would be too much of an issue to tell the truth, groups like Axes High managed to work successfully with an axe and the fantastic FAK search rates make the slightly weaker barricades not as big of a loss as it would first seem. Then again, that depends, again, completely on each survivor and their level of knowledge of what works best, mostly because of the lack of any unifying presence that gives the majority any real usable information or coordination. It may have worked, but, again, it wasn't what made the mall actually fall.--Karekmaps?! 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- What James said (just from the opposite perspective). Getting a huge number of zombies inside, reducing the 'cading and search efficiency (through Interference and genny destruction), coupled with the fact that we could just shamble back inside whenever we were killed (not very often at all, I think I got dumped once) meant that it was only a matter of time before survivors ran out of supplies. It also meant that there were heaps of zombies inside the mall that weren't attacking the cades, and were a timebomb set to go off when their AP regeneration peaked out. I think it was definitely an efficient tactic once the breach was big enough to significantly affect barricading rates (evening out AP expenditure somewhat) -- boxy talk • i 15:40 2 February 2008 (BST)
- (*) Perhaps there should be an additional note concerning the destruction of generators? A few of the beachhead zeds took out all of Giddings' gennies, so mayhaps that should be included?--James Ennis 15:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- If this isn't how BB2 kill Giddings, what is it that did the job? I guess there was one big push where we got 80-100 zombies inside within a couple hours, but the only reason we had a couple hours to do that (rather than 20 minutes max) was because of the "beachhead effect."
Swiers 00:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised that this is called with a special name, i thought this to be like, standart/common-sense sieging tactics. heh. well written article, anyway --~~~~ [talk] 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, its not common sense at all, or at least its a NEW sort of common sense. Previous to the "barricade interference" update, any zombie that got inside a building was best off killing any survivor they could, because the cost of getting in was so huge, and that was the only really effective way to weaken survivor ability to defend the target. Its actually not obvious at all that you might be better off NOT attacking once you get inside, and instead waiting to see how things develop before deciding whether to eat brains or focus on keeping the cades down. Swiers 00:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
