The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

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 » Sat 14 Apr 2012 09:50

If you have more firepower, you can kill his units before they deal serious damage to yours.

Two abrams beat a T80 with little damage. Because a T80 beats a brams in a 1v1, doesn't mean that in a 2v1 one of the abrams will be dead.

johnsushant wrote:
DeuZerre wrote:I don't really understand the whole "attacking always costs more than defending" everyone is talking about.


Attacking IS always costlier than defending. This has been explained time and again and it is absolutely right for it to be so. Even the last game by EUGEN had the system where a 35$ AT would fight 60$ tanks with ease. The point is that in every game there exists an incentive to attack instead of defend. In RUSE one needs to go out on the offensive to get funds and also pushing the enemy to his base makes you very immune from the enemy arty.

In this game there is absolutely no reason to attack simply because it IS NOT worth it.


Because you shouldn't go attacking a strong defence without an overwhelmingly strong force yourself.
Last edited by DeuZerre on Sat 14 Apr 2012 09:54, edited 1 time in total.
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.

johnsushant
Sergeant Major
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 07:30
Contact:

Re: The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

Postby johnsushant » Sat 14 Apr 2012 09:51

Hegemon wrote:I disagree. With so big advantage you will win easily, as you can field more and better units. And if you don't like point games just play time games.


In general game experiences of mine show otherwise. Also time games not available in ranked(MY BIGGEST CONCERN ATM).

johnsushant
Sergeant Major
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 07:30
Contact:

Re: The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

Postby johnsushant » Sat 14 Apr 2012 09:53

DeuZerre wrote:If you have more firepower, you can kill his units before they deal serious damage to yours.

Two abrams beat a T80 with little damage. Because a T80 beats a brams in a 1v1, doesn't mean that in a 2v1 one of the abrams will be dead.


It will be stupid for me to use tanks for defense. I would use cheap like AT jeeps and stuff. It will be GG for you once you lose any of those high cost units to me.
Last edited by OpusTheFowl on Sat 14 Apr 2012 16:09, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Language

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 » Sat 14 Apr 2012 09:56

johnsushant wrote:
DeuZerre wrote:If you have more firepower, you can kill his units before they deal serious damage to yours.

Two abrams beat a T80 with little damage. Because a T80 beats a brams in a 1v1, doesn't mean that in a 2v1 one of the abrams will be dead.


It will be stupid for me to use tanks for defense. I would use cheap like AT jeeps and stuff. It will be GG for you once you lose any of those high cost units to me.


It's jsut the theory... Don't read this literally. It means that while something defending might kill an equivalent force (it's logical), if the attacking force is stronger the damage received by the attacker will be exponentially smaller.
Last edited by DeuZerre on Sat 14 Apr 2012 09:58, edited 1 time in total.
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.

Hegemon
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon 19 Mar 2012 07:33
Contact:

Re: The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

Postby Hegemon » Sat 14 Apr 2012 09:57

In my experience is the otherwise. You are forced to attack when enemy have more ground, because he can deploy a much better force in time if you don't. When you camp on your base, you just encourage enemy to shell the hell out of you.
To be honest I don't like ranked - it is stressful for me :roll:
REDDQ wrote:T-80U shoots AP rounds made of pure Communism... any more questions?

johnsushant
Sergeant Major
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 07:30
Contact:

Re: The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

Postby johnsushant » Sat 14 Apr 2012 09:58

johnsushant wrote:
DeuZerre wrote:
If you have more firepower, you can kill his units before they deal serious damage to yours.

Two abrams beat a T80 with little damage. Because a T80 beats a brams in a 1v1, doesn't mean that in a 2v1 one of the abrams will be dead.


It will be stupid for me to use tanks for defense. I would use cheap like AT jeeps and stuff. It will be GG for you once you lose any of those high cost units to me.


It's jsut the theory... Don't read this literally. It means that while something defending might kill an equivalent force, if the attacking force is stronger the damage received by the attacker will be exponentially smaller.

In a realistic game situation the relative points gain the enemy has over you couldn't be over 2. This means that you will be defending a point probably in front of your main base for a start.
If he brings too many commands then obviously they won't be defended well enough. Time to start command sniping. In a real game situation you are versus a noob if he lets you field an army double the size of his.

johnsushant
Sergeant Major
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 07:30
Contact:

Re: The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

Postby johnsushant » Sat 14 Apr 2012 10:00

Hegemon wrote:In my experience is the otherwise. You are forced to attack when enemy have more ground, because he can deploy a much better force in time if you don't. When you camp on your base, you just encourage enemy to shell the hell out of you.
To be honest I don't like ranked - it is stressful for me :roll:


What is say is mainly applicable for ranked games. When the enemy has more ground then you are supposed to command snipe and not suicide into his huge army(this being common logic). And if he camping from the start then expect him to have some arty blowing you all through the game.

The game plays very differently when the number of players is more. Multiple players tend to assume complementary roles meaning that one can focus on arty and securing sectors while other focuses on fending of the enemy.
Last edited by johnsushant on Sat 14 Apr 2012 10:02, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Sat 14 Apr 2012 10:01

johnsushant wrote:
johnsushant wrote:
DeuZerre wrote:
If you have more firepower, you can kill his units before they deal serious damage to yours.

Two abrams beat a T80 with little damage. Because a T80 beats a brams in a 1v1, doesn't mean that in a 2v1 one of the abrams will be dead.


It will be stupid for me to use tanks for defense. I would use cheap like AT jeeps and stuff. It will be GG for you once you lose any of those high cost units to me.


It's jsut the theory... Don't read this literally. It means that while something defending might kill an equivalent force, if the attacking force is stronger the damage received by the attacker will be exponentially smaller.

In a realistic game situation the relative points gain the enemy has over you couldn't be over 2. This means that you will be defending a point probably in front of your main base for a start.
If he brings too many commands then obviously they won't be defended well enough. Time to start command sniping. In a real game situation you are versus a noob if he lets you field an army double the size of his.


Well, it happens more often than not. (appart when facing guys like Tigga who are extermely good at managing their units).

You mmay not have a true 2v1 situation on the battlefield, but while a defender has to defend a broad area in order not to be outflanked, the attacker can focus in one area, causing the attacker/.defender ratio to go up to 3v1 in that specific area.

As an attacker, seize the initiative. Don't go at his strongpoints, attack the weak parts. You have recon to localise these. Use naughty tricks like shelling a forest while attacking an other one when his reinforcements go there, expecting you to attack...
Last edited by DeuZerre on Sat 14 Apr 2012 10:04, edited 1 time in total.
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.

MadMantiz
Master Sergeant
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon 5 Mar 2012 17:35
Location: Umeå
Contact:

Re: The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

Postby MadMantiz » Sat 14 Apr 2012 10:03

Why does it have to be that you gain the exact amount of points a unit is worth when you kill it? This is one of the main reason cheap spam works because as long as they kill more than they are worth themselves, it is a winning proposition for the spammer.

Right now you are not only punished by paying a high price for premium units that will not only lose to spam, they will punish your back when they die too and give your opponent a lot of points for killing it.

How would it be if you just gained a set amount of points for every destroyed unit regardless of what it is, or based on category. That way you would have to think a lot more and all kinds of rushes would be very costly. Mass t34 spam would cost the rusher a lot, mass infantry spam would cost even more (because of both the cost of the transport and infantry), heli spam as well. It would force people to think quality instead of quantity, and make every single unit important.

johnsushant
Sergeant Major
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 07:30
Contact:

Re: The Problem with the Game - The Victory Conditions

Postby johnsushant » Sat 14 Apr 2012 10:08

DeuZerre wrote:
johnsushant wrote:
johnsushant wrote:
DeuZerre wrote:
If you have more firepower, you can kill his units before they deal serious damage to yours.

Two abrams beat a T80 with little damage. Because a T80 beats a brams in a 1v1, doesn't mean that in a 2v1 one of the abrams will be dead.


It will be stupid for me to use tanks for defense. I would use cheap like AT jeeps and stuff. It will be GG for you once you lose any of those high cost units to me.


It's jsut the theory... Don't read this literally. It means that while something defending might kill an equivalent force, if the attacking force is stronger the damage received by the attacker will be exponentially smaller.

In a realistic game situation the relative points gain the enemy has over you couldn't be over 2. This means that you will be defending a point probably in front of your main base for a start.
If he brings too many commands then obviously they won't be defended well enough. Time to start command sniping. In a real game situation you are versus a noob if he lets you field an army double the size of his.


Well, it happens more often than not. (appart when facing guys like Tigga who are extermely good at managing their units).

You mmay not have a true 2v1 situation on the battlefield, but while a defender has to defend a broad area in order not to be outflanked, the attacker can focus in one area, causing the attacker/.defender ratio to go up to 3v1 in that specific area.


One cannot base gameplay decisions on the basis that only pros can do it. I for fact got matched into 1800+ ELO games often when I was below the base 1500 ELO.

The situation in fact is quite the opposite to what you explained. A defender defends his base. An attacker attacks the base. An attacker also has to keep track of all the commands spread at places he has conquered considering he wants to take advantage of actually making the attack. Now a smart defender will work on clearing commands from the map while the attacker waits for points to come.

Return to “Wargame : European Escalation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests