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 10:13

johnsushant wrote: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.


Protecting commanders from forces coming from a defensive player isn't that hard on most maps.

Surround your commands with infantry. If you hear the "you are under attack" sound, check the minimap, localise the foe killing your infantry, evacuate the command, proceed in wiping out the infiltrators.

I don't call myself a pro. My main way of winning is using enemy mistakes, and I often kill commanders, even while I have the advantage, simply to deny the opponent any way of retaliation/further reinforcements. But I never lost to command sniping.

Attacking isn't being reckless. We are RTS players, not berzerkers, are we?
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 10:14

MadMantiz wrote: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.


I do not like this proposition. With the recent patch high tier tanks did get buffed to a certain extent making them viable to use instead of cheap spams. In general cheap spams are easier to counter when taking the right defensive approach. More stuff means lots of more fuel and ammo being used up. It also means that the cheap stuff will be vulnerable to arty(buratinos and mortars are useful in stopping spams in 1 vs 1).

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 10:16

johnsushant wrote: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.

I said that I don't play ranked. It doesn't mean I don't play 1vs1 :)

For me it is not command sniping, rather surgical strikes with some forces. When enemy has more points you have to assume that he has his commands well defended. If not it is his mistake.
But as Deuzerre written above, as an attacker you have an initiative. So you can sneak up past/around main defenses with an attacking force and push on the home sector for example. I am not saying here about some empty SKOTs or one Heli, I am saying about whole mobile unit.

You can't blame game for opponent not willing attacking your strongest positions. :roll: Just as you can't blame it if you lose because doing so.
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 10:19

DeuZerre wrote:
johnsushant wrote: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.


Protecting commanders from forces coming from a defensive player isn't that hard on most maps.

Surround your commands with infantry. If you hear the "you are under attack" sound, check the minimap, localise the foe killing your infantry, evacuate the command, proceed in wiping out the infiltrators.


And this is what everyone does. All I need to do is send either enough inf to clear the forest myself(the enemy won't use loads of his points to defend CVs). Then send my apc for hunting the running command(skots or VABs).
Most people will use high armour commands which are slow to evacuate.
Last edited by OpusTheFowl on Mon 23 Apr 2012 16:40, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Language

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 10:23

Hegemon wrote:
johnsushant wrote: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.

I said that I don't play ranked. It doesn't mean I don't play 1vs1 :)

For me it is not command sniping, rather surgical strikes with some forces. When enemy has more points you have to assume that he has his commands well defended. If not it is his mistake.
But as Deuzerre written above, as an attacker you have an initiative. So you can sneak up past/around main defenses with an attacking force and push on the home sector for example. I am not saying here about some empty SKOTs or one Heli, I am saying about whole mobile unit.

You can't blame game for opponent not willing attacking your strongest positions. :roll: Just as you can't blame it if you lose because doing so.


I don't see how it will be harder for a defender to save his command when he has 1-2 on the map vs the attacker who obviously has more of them? Also expect the attacker to have a much lesser concentrated force as compared to a defender.

"When enemy has more points you have to assume that he has his commands well defended. If not it is his mistake."
If the enemy has more places on the map capped than you then it is safe to assume that he cannot defend every one of them.

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 10:28

johnsushant wrote:
DeuZerre wrote:
johnsushant wrote: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.


Protecting commanders from forces coming from a defensive player isn't that hard on most maps.

Surround your commands with infantry. If you hear the "you are under attack" sound, check the minimap, localise the foe killing your infantry, evacuate the command, proceed in wiping out the infiltrators.


And this is what everyone does. All I need to do is send either enough inf to clear the forest myself(the enemy won't use loads of his points to defend CVs). Then send my apc for hunting the running command(skots or VABs).
Most people will use high armour commands which are slow to evacuate.


Surprisingly few people think of evacuating... They think that their infantry fort will be enough to defend it. When I play pact, it's Motostrelcis that go defendinc commands, and nato, Chasseurs. They are not there to stop an attack, they are jsut here to warn me. "Hey, the command is under attack, but not shot yet".

If you manage to infiltrate with APCs, something went really wrong in my net... You have recon scattered here and there in order to prevent a ground force to go through. Air forces can manage to dodge my recon net, and unload behind... But that's all, and they cost enought to be a big expense for a player under attack.

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 11:57

johnsushant wrote:I don't see how it will be harder for a defender to save his command when he has 1-2 on the map vs the attacker who obviously has more of them? Also expect the attacker to have a much lesser concentrated force as compared to a defender.

"When enemy has more points you have to assume that he has his commands well defended. If not it is his mistake."
If the enemy has more places on the map capped than you then it is safe to assume that he cannot defend every one of them.

Now we are talking about couteroffensives not about command sniping. And that was exactly my point. I don't know about others, but I don't cap without defensive force at the place. It is quite basic for me.

If you can use one special forces or one heli to take out CV that is only stupidity of the player. If it takes bigger force it is normal attack and definitely proves my point vs yours about inability to conduct offensives.
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 15:36

Hegemon wrote:
johnsushant wrote:I don't see how it will be harder for a defender to save his command when he has 1-2 on the map vs the attacker who obviously has more of them? Also expect the attacker to have a much lesser concentrated force as compared to a defender.

"When enemy has more points you have to assume that he has his commands well defended. If not it is his mistake."
If the enemy has more places on the map capped than you then it is safe to assume that he cannot defend every one of them.

Now we are talking about couteroffensives not about command sniping. And that was exactly my point. I don't know about others, but I don't cap without defensive force at the place. It is quite basic for me.

If you can use one special forces or one heli to take out CV that is only stupidity of the player. If it takes bigger force it is normal attack and definitely proves my point vs yours about inability to conduct offensives.


A defensive force != your whole army. Command sniping doesn't essentially mean one attacking with one inf. It can be recon the command then arty it from your base, simple inf spam, a heli spam or anything as creative as that. It is not possible to put up a flawless defense for your commands especially when there are lots of them.
If i make 4 helis to take down a command that does by no way means I am attacking. Those helis had the sole purpose of hunting which upon completion will go back to some defensive position. There is a stark difference between command sniping and an actual attack from a defensive position.

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 16:02

johnsushant wrote:
Hegemon wrote:
johnsushant wrote:I don't see how it will be harder for a defender to save his command when he has 1-2 on the map vs the attacker who obviously has more of them? Also expect the attacker to have a much lesser concentrated force as compared to a defender.

"When enemy has more points you have to assume that he has his commands well defended. If not it is his mistake."
If the enemy has more places on the map capped than you then it is safe to assume that he cannot defend every one of them.

Now we are talking about couteroffensives not about command sniping. And that was exactly my point. I don't know about others, but I don't cap without defensive force at the place. It is quite basic for me.

If you can use one special forces or one heli to take out CV that is only stupidity of the player. If it takes bigger force it is normal attack and definitely proves my point vs yours about inability to conduct offensives.


A defensive force != your whole army. Command sniping doesn't essentially mean one attacking with one inf. It can be recon the command then arty it from your base, simple inf spam, a heli spam or anything as creative as that. It is not possible to put up a flawless defense for your commands especially when there are lots of them.
If i make 4 helis to take down a command that does by no way means I am attacking. Those helis had the sole purpose of hunting which upon completion will go back to some defensive position. There is a stark difference between command sniping and an actual attack from a defensive position.


Recon then artillery: never works against armoured commands if you are paying attention; As soon as I hear hisses or artillery sounds, i look around to see where it is supposed to land. Again, apying attention helps.

Infantry spam: Again, if you are vulnerable to any land infantry spam, you wade stupidly horrible mistakes, like placing the command too close to the battlefield without enough support, or failed with reconnaissance to prevent if from happening. Air infantry spam doesn't happen, as it is a hefty investment, and a defensive player will spend more in strengthening his defence, and only occasional in the backstabbing stuff.

With an air only attack: If you can be shot shot down by helos, it is: A) bad air defence overall B) letting the opponent build strong enough helicopters that dare fly over forests C) No defence at all around your CVs. Minimal expenses will ruin any air attempt to assassinate your commands. D) extremely stupid placement of the CV
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 17:21

Can we kindly stick to the original topic please?
The one about how pathetic the victory conditions were?

Return to “Wargame : European Escalation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests