Is PCS a little hypocritical on hossie maps?

[Maus]

What I mean is, since the Ts aren't allowed to do anything but guard the hostages, in order for the CTs to actually *get* the hostages they tend to have kill all the terrorists, which seems to make the game into a (slightly orderly) deathmatch. Wouldn't it be more sensible to allow the terrorists to split into two groups, one to guard the hossies and one to cover the rescue point(s), like CTs covering two bombsites?

Of course, determining exactly *how* such a flanking maneuver would be legal in PCS terms is a little tricky. Maybe it could be like the "once the bomb is planted, all rules are off" rule for de_maps, i.e. once the CTs have made their move to break through the Ts perimeter it's permissible for a group to break off to cover the rescue points.

Then again, there's no message going out to everyone like the "bomb has been planted" warning, so the exact moment when you're allowed to move out would be difficult to judge.

The only reason I mention it is that in my 1-2 weeks of playing on the server I have only once seen any hostages getting rescued, because of the battle required to get to them.

Just a random prattlesome thought. Any opinions?

[sheepy]

it is a very good point, but the reality is that t's in real life[ that thig that gets in the way of online games] would actually guard the hozzies, coz even if they died then they would basically me martars to there cause.

[DogMeat]

Subject to PCS restrictions, Ts can move away from the hossies and guard the approaches, and once the hossies are on the move, Ts can go anywhere.

The fact that Ts don't do this is a matter for team tactics.  There's no real need to rewrite the rules, just start thinking tactically... :wink:

[Stryker]

/Me agrees with doggers.

However this does not give Ts the license to wander the map.

[FBG]

so a tactical approach to this would be for a group of t's to let the cts start to rescue the hossies and then set up an ambush at the escape routes?

[TeaLeaf]

so a tactical approach to this would be for a group of t's to let the cts start to rescue the hossies and then set up an ambush at the escape routes?

You have to be careful here as agreement gives the aforementioned 'licence' to wander the map!  Think about the hossie maps and try to figure out where you (as a T) would go to:
(a) avoid meeting a CT coming the other way,
(B) allow the CTs through to rescue the hossies, and
© cover the exit points.
The last of these is the most difficult since by definition the exit points are also the entrance points!

There is also a difficulty here in that we this argument tries to force a cs map to play like a de map - they don't because they are different with different objectives.  

I would have a problem with cs maps if the CTs just hung back and picked off the Ts one by one without ever trying to rescue the hossies, but they don't.  
So every time the CTs kill all the Ts then you have to chalk up another successful hossie rescue.  
I have no problem with a T flanking CTs when they are greatly outnumbered - that's tactical, but it is a little too unrealistic to suggest that the Ts abandon their hossies at the start of the round and move to flank the CTs on their return.  You can only do that in CS because there is a finite map limit behind them.  In real life you would flank them by placing your back to their reinforcements  8O

As a T you should think hossie protection on cs maps.
As a CT you should think hossie rescue on cs maps.

IMO as long as those two objectives remain the priority then most behaviours that result are both PCS and acceptable.

Enjoy!

TL.