Because my last thread lost it's meaning because of some tension with another forum member, I'm dropping this here:
Someone has created the theory that stalemating a game is better than sending every player to the deadbox. This is only a half truth if you have another shot at coming back into the tourney or you know that reinforcments are on the way which would give you enough of a tactical advantage and a manuver element because you'd already have an established base of fire (in my thinking anyway, it would take some manuvering but very workable).
But in the average game, 5 on 5 rec games between friends, this is not the case. In fact, in a scenario game or a tourney, I'd rather deadbox myself and every player on my team because if I stalemate a game it means that I did NOT take every opportunity to win and manuver and get angles to push the op for back and squeeze them.
So, the story-
The plan was simple: the op for had to move across a small open part of the field and some kid decided to stay and wait and I agreed. Poor discipline let to pre-mature detection so we had to pull-out in an orderly fashion.
I was supposed to get cover fire to leave but that didn't happen so I had two players, one pounding the front of my bunker to keep my pinned and the other unloading on the side and we had a few seconds of snap shooting beofre I stood up and suppressed the guy on my flank and disappeared into the bush.
Realize that at this point, you have no options and must make a move or die/be eliminated. I make referances to real life as well when I say "die" or "kill" so if that offends anyone, contact me via pm or e-mail to discuss it.
What my point is, is when you have the option of getting eliminated or running, run. I'd rather be eliminated from play and know I tried everything than try to hang on to a game that's lost if I don't move. Just my thoughts.