The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

AGTMADCAT
Corporal
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu 16 Feb 2012 23:10
Contact:

Re: The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

Postby AGTMADCAT » Fri 23 Mar 2012 19:08

Wait wait wait... you guys don't keep a strategic point reserve, to use once you've met the enemy and know what tools you'll need to get the job done? O_o Are you all completely mad? Is that really what I haven't been getting when people complain about "rushing"? That people are guessing at the force composition they'll need, and then if the other person randomly selected one that counters theirs, that's something to complain about? I almost *never* use all of my starting deployment points right away. It's not that hard to fight a delaying action with your initial troops, so that you can bring on the appropriate tools to rebuff the enemy assault. You always need a reserve. Always. Or a partner with a reserve, that works too.

-AGT

User avatar
Hob_Gadling
Captain
Posts: 1621
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 00:15
Contact:

Re: The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

Postby Hob_Gadling » Fri 23 Mar 2012 19:10

So essentially, VTS1 spam is broken? Yes, yes it is and it will be fixed.

Shanks13
Specialist
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri 23 Mar 2012 08:04
Contact:

Re: The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

Postby Shanks13 » Fri 23 Mar 2012 20:40

You lost me here; positioning and maneuvering greatly affect the outcome of any game.


Not really? Let me clarify.

Yes, there are some things that are very important. Keeping your units spread out to avoid artillery attacks, moving from cover to cover, etc. Those things matter. But it's not as though those actions are particularly difficult, nor do they involve any great amount of precision. Getting units in "approximately the right place" is usually good enough. And even then, it's not always enough. I'm ranked in the mid 1500s, yet using a Marder rush, I was able to beat an upper 1800-ranked individual who did his best to maneuver and make a comeback. I played like utter while he maneuvered his ass off and it didn't make the slightest bit of difference. I was in a similar position when I was rushed by a bunch of cheap infantry in their carriers. No amount of maneuvering of my choppers and autocannons could keep them from breaking through to my CV.

If spam wasn't so prevalent, I would totally grant you this point.

In regards to command unit sniping... I play 1v1 all the time and hardly any of my games come down to command unit sniping? If you don't recon the map and have defense around them... That isn't really a problem to do with the game.


When I say CV sniping, I really mean something more along the lines of a spam that allows for a blind rush for the CVs. You can see it coming, but that doesn't mean you can do anything about it besides hope your CV can run faster than whatever is coming after it.

I take it you aren't a fan of wargaming, which I think is where you're frustration stems from. As a long time fan of miniature wargaming, Wargame is like a dream come true, and I take offense to your comment about my dice.


Very much the opposite. I do like wargaming. I'll admit I don't do a lot of it, but from what I have played, I can honestly say I enjoy it. The thing with Wargame, though, is that a match is effectively one dice roll that happens right at the start. In wargaming, it's a series of dice rolls that favors whoever engages most intelligently.

Ouch. Iwill be blunt: How can you not see a rush coming? Air recon is the fast way of knowing. Get a fast air reco, send it to the most obvious rush road, and you will see if he is a dumb rusher or not.


See my later point. You can detect a rush. But you have to assume the rush will be coming and save a substantial amount of points in order to deploy a counter, leaving you at a distinct time disadvantage. Prisoners dilemma and all that.

The point of the CVs system is to prevent blind offence, including spams and rushes: You are forced into spending points in commands and protecting them in order to reduce the impact of attack only, or you end up vulnerable.


In theory, yes. In practice, no. Taking a CV and stashing in some godforsaken corner of the map will probably keep it safe, especially if it's got a small AA defense. This is the reason I liked Tigga's suggestion that not having a CV in a territory should start a countdown.

I'm level 40 and I play to win. I will typically buy 16 to 20 Marder VSTs in any game. I will continue doing this until the rules change. I would prefer the game to be somewhat more tilted toward heavy tanks but that's just a preference based on realism-- I play the rules of the game as they stand.


And I don't blame you. I've done it, too. It's very satisfying the first few times, but after that, there is simply no challenge in it. In my experience, the only time a Marder rush fails is when it meets a counter spam.

So essentially, VTS1 spam is broken? Yes, yes it is and it will be fixed.


More than that. I recall Tigga, I think, saying that bentguru already knows where he's going next, once the VTS1 spam is "fixed." And that's just my point. There will always be a small pool of units that are the most cost effective, and since having more units is generally better than having a few strong units (in this game, at least), I expect to keep seeing spam strategies prevail.
Last edited by OpusTheFowl on Tue 24 Apr 2012 16:38, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Language

bentguru
Warrant Officer
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon 20 Feb 2012 02:30
Contact:

Re: The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

Postby bentguru » Fri 23 Mar 2012 21:25

I would much rather see ranked games end when 1) all of the opposing side's command units have been wiped out or 2) When one side does not control a sector for 5 minutes.

It would place a much greater emphasis on long term economy as the game wont end right at the point where the defensive player's superior income is finally making a difference.

Merkaba954
Sergeant
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2012 02:29
Contact:

Re: The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

Postby Merkaba954 » Sat 24 Mar 2012 15:59

Spams of ground.units suck but they can be dealt with.

However heli spam can be really tough. Its hard to leave enough points in reserve to field enough ujits to defend it. If they have recon heli aa heli atgm heli and gunships. Usually a lot of gunships with atgm a couple apaches or mi28 and crap load of fairly cheap gunships with a couple aa helo and dedicated atgm helo. Cannon based aa just doesn't have the range to deal with that and they are about the only thing you could field the numbers needed to counter it. Missile aa I awesome but ones that are really effective are also expensive so even if ypu get 4 or 5 out that is not gonna stop 15 choppers with atgm. You would need to spend like 500 points to have a suitable defense and 500 out of 1500 is a lot to have left over. I have defended.the spam a few time but only because I didn't get everything I wanted deployed and had like 500 ppints still to spend when the game started so I sent out like 6 aa infantry and all the sam batterys I could. Evemtually they ran out.of choppers and just tookwhat was left somewhere else.but then all I had on the field were mostly aa troops so I cpuldnt help the front
If the above post is grammatically incorrect don't flame me bro. Some idiot phone designers decided touch screen phone don't need an easy way to navigate through things. How I miss my little track pad

User avatar
diana olympos
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2357
Joined: Sat 14 Jan 2012 23:34
Contact:

Re: The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

Postby diana olympos » Sat 24 Mar 2012 16:11

that's weird merkada... cause everybody say exact the opposite.. the ground unit is hard to counter rush.. but air is simple...
Image

AGTMADCAT
Corporal
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu 16 Feb 2012 23:10
Contact:

Re: The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

Postby AGTMADCAT » Fri 13 Apr 2012 17:54

I love having a blob of helicopters come after me (I won't call it rushing, because it doesn't always happen at the begining), since those choppers are usually worth hundreds or maybe thousands of points, and SAMs do splash damage. :D Before the splash damage, they could be a real pain, but now 2-3 Rolands, with a bit of luck, can take out most of a blob of Hinds. If they don't get them all, that's fine - rolands are pretty cheap, so you can always bring on more.

And for some reason people keep flying Cobras over forests that I've filled with infantry, which is loads of easy points. And if there's not a lot of forests, that's what my KUBs and BUKs (And BUKM1s) are for. I often end up with Apaches trying to retreat into BUK coverage areas - and it doesn't take a lot of hits to take those down.

-AGT

User avatar
marechal_darsh
Sergeant Major
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon 5 Mar 2012 21:19
Contact:

Re: The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

Postby marechal_darsh » Fri 13 Apr 2012 21:09

Shanks13 wrote:Long-time lurker, first-time poster giving his thoughts on why matches (specifically 1v1 matches) are effectively broken in Wargame. I think this is something of a novel explanation.

The main problem, as far as I see it, is the way a match is setup. There are two means of winning. You can either destroy all your opponent's command vehicles or you can score a given amount of points. It seems like a neat setup, but because of the "economy" in the game, these victory conditions end up generating the spam-based gameplay that has apparently become standard.

To put it simply, the victory conditions encourage spamming. It's a no-brainer. You have no economy to manage. You start on essentially exactly equal footing with your opponent. Since micro is fairly limited in this game, maneuvers in the field are of limited effect on outcome, and probably only really have an effect on games where two players are equally skilled and are using equally good strategies. With those factors removed, the game is boiled down to using the most cost-effective units. That's why the Marder spam works, amongst others. It doesn't matter how many points you lose as long as your opponent loses more (or loses his command). Consequently, not employing the unit that gives the most bang for your buck and has the fewest "weaknesses" makes a lot of sense. I won't blame people for doing the most intelligent thing, but it's terribly boring. And regardless of how costs are tweaked, I don't think this problem can be solved as long as the current victory condition of "score X points" exists, if scoring is based on unit kills. Costs can be increased and then those units simply won't be used. There will always be a unit that is the best for the cost, though, and in efforts to dissuade spam by increasing cost or decreasing availability, you end up screwing up the balance of a "normal" match that doesn't involve spam. There is no way to win here.

As far as spam goes: Yes, it is a serious problem. Anyone who claims that spam can be beaten by a skilled player is wrong. I've beaten a handful of players I certainly shouldn't have beaten with spam strategies (primarily the Marder spam). And having been on the receiving end of various spams, I can say that yes, had I known what was coming, I could have won. But the reality is that there is no way to know what spam might be coming. I can pretty well determine I'm going to get spammed if my opponent is done deploying in about fifteen seconds. I don't know what spam it will be, though, and a smart spammer won't end deployment until a fair amount of time has passed. This generates a new problem, and I'll get to it shortly.

The destruction of command vehicles ends up being a very poor victory condition, mainly because of how the "economy" is structured. Since there is no need to gather resources to begin with, command vehicles are instantly vulernable. This necessitates the purchase of a second CV in order to attempt to lessen the odds of a knock-out punch. The problem here is that CVs are a hefty investment, and the purchase of two basically means that players act on the assumption that they will lose one, and that's ridiculous. The viability of spam coupled with the vulnerability of CVs is a recipe for disaster.

I don't want it to seem like I think CVs are too weak or that it's a bad victory condition, because really, it's not. It's not dissimilar from other RTS victory conditions of "destroy the main base." The problem is that because a) there is no economic build-up, b) CVs are expensive, and c) CVs are inherently vulnerable and highly visible (in terms of their territory location), early assassinations, usually from spam, are far too viable and remove the combat aspect from the game. The game ends up boiling down to protecting your CVs while trying to snipe your opponent's CVs. Maybe that's fun for some people, but it's not in the spirit of an RTS game, I don't believe.

Going back the problem spam generates: Knowing the spamming and CV assassinations are the most effective strategies, the setup for the game changes. The objectives become picking a spam/assassination strategy of your own and detecting what strategy is being employed by the enemy. This boils down to either spamming and hoping you can kill enough units or get the CV before your opponent does the same to you, or rushing out recon before deploying anything more than a defensive shell of units and only deploying once you know what's coming. Very much a prisoner's dilemma.

The problem with two people blindly rushing each other is obvious. It's just that--a blind rush. There's nothing interesting about it, nor is there any skill involved. You might think, then, that it's obviously best to sit back and figure out what's coming. If it's a spam with an obvious counter (helicopter spam), then yeah, you'd be right. But if it's something that is essentially counter-immune, you've got a problem (Marder spam). Furthermore, if your opponent isn't spamming, then you've let your opponent have a time advantage is setting up on the field. My point here is that, under current conditions, the game is practically a dice roll, and there is nothing interesting or skillful about rolling dice.

Sorry if I rambled a bit, hopefully you get what I'm trying to say (mainly that the problem isn't the units as much as it is the victory conditions). I really want to continue enjoying this game, but under current conditions, I don't see how that will be possible. Nor do I think making some minor changes will solve the problem.


+1

We need to remove the CV destruction as a victory condition and holding zone should give us victory points rather than the destruction of units like in the campaign mission "comme en 14" (don't know the title in english) which is excellent.

It's damage than the last dlc hasn't redone the victory conditions but only propose a changement on the starting positions on only 2 maps, perhaps for the next patch :?:
"Impossible n'est pas français"

Napoléon Bonaparte

User avatar
DeuZerre
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 11125
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 23:17
Location: Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, Earth, Ground, Eurasian Continent, Main Landmass.
Contact:

Re: The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

Postby DeuZerre » Fri 13 Apr 2012 21:11

Totally and utterly AGAINST removing this condition.

People are forced to buy command vehicles in order not to die at the loss of a single one, and through logical process go capturing additional objectives.

If you lose all your command, you did many stupid things. Including not getting armoured ones.
Image
Marshal honoris causa
FLX wrote:Removing the weaknesses from the divisions leads to all divisions being the same in the long run. We won't proceed like that.

User avatar
buczer
Warrant Officer
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri 27 Jan 2012 21:59
Location: People's Republic of Poland
Contact:

Re: The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

Postby buczer » Fri 13 Apr 2012 21:24

marechal_darsh wrote:
+1

We need to remove the CV destruction as a victory condition and holding zone should give us victory points rather than the destruction of units like in the campaign mission "comme en 14" (don't know the title in english) which is excellent.

It's damage than the last dlc hasn't redone the victory conditions but only propose a changement on the starting positions on only 2 maps, perhaps for the next patch :?:


It will make game offensive oriented, and its good. It will make players to care less about units, and its not that good. But why not having alternatives? You want play a "hold the ground as long as you have soldiers"- style game? Play COH-like mode. You want play the game, where keeping units alive metters more? Play standard game.

SO I AM AGAINST REMOVAL "FRAGS" FROM GIVING VICTORY POINTS.
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests