Current meta has nothing to do with units

User avatar
QuakeRiley
Lieutenant
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sat 18 May 2013 02:01
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby QuakeRiley » Mon 19 May 2014 01:39

Saavedra wrote:Learn to use smoke.


And still lose because you lack face down an enemy with more men.
Image
"...In their Centurions, the 8th Hussars have evolved a new type of tank warfare. They taught us that anywhere a tank can go, is tank country: even the tops of mountains."

User avatar
Saavedra
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2014 21:53
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby Saavedra » Mon 19 May 2014 01:39

Mark1157 wrote:Smoke is not 100% fullproof or effective in assaults, and its micro-intensive if counterbattery is involved.


I fail to see the problem.There is no 100% fullproof assault method, and there should not be.

All your complaints pretty much come down to being unwilling to learn how to mount assaults.

User avatar
QuakeRiley
Lieutenant
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sat 18 May 2013 02:01
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby QuakeRiley » Mon 19 May 2014 01:43

[quote="Saavedra"All your complaints pretty much come down to being unwilling to learn how to mount assaults.[/quote]

If you're attacking a city, smoke really won't help you win unless you're facing down cheap as dirt infantry.
Image
"...In their Centurions, the 8th Hussars have evolved a new type of tank warfare. They taught us that anywhere a tank can go, is tank country: even the tops of mountains."

User avatar
Saavedra
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2014 21:53
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby Saavedra » Mon 19 May 2014 02:03

Please, explain to me how reducing the fire your infantry units and transports take as they approach their objective "really won´t help".

solaris
Lieutenant
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon 13 May 2013 06:10
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby solaris » Mon 19 May 2014 02:15

Saavedra wrote:Please, explain to me how reducing the fire your infantry units and transports take as they approach their objective "really won´t help".


Preventing them from engaging at range (particularly if they're hiding in the center of the city to begin with so as to totally negate any support fire from attacking armored vehicles) is like trying to stop a tsunami with plywood. Just because you can't see the world of hurt you're in for doesn't mean it isn't going to break all your toys and laugh at you. This goes double for special forces.

If the only thing defending a city is a few squads of ATGM infantry, smoke away. Otherwise, spend the money on napalm to give yourself a fighting chance.
Anecdotes do not count for game balance.

HoveringKiller
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue 22 Oct 2013 18:43
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby HoveringKiller » Mon 19 May 2014 02:19

solaris wrote:
Saavedra wrote:Please, explain to me how reducing the fire your infantry units and transports take as they approach their objective "really won´t help".


Preventing them from engaging at range (particularly if they're hiding in the center of the city to begin with so as to totally negate any support fire from attacking armored vehicles) is like trying to stop a tsunami with plywood. Just because you can't see the world of hurt you're in for doesn't mean it isn't going to break all your toys and laugh at you. This goes double for special forces.

If the only thing defending a city is a few squads of ATGM infantry, smoke away. Otherwise, spend the money on napalm to give yourself a fighting chance.


I rarely use smoke, and I've found because of this it doesn't really help. Also the aiformentioned small area of coverage unless you have large amounts of arty/mortars and one recon inf on the side that you missed will mess your attack up and allow them to call planes and helos.
Image

User avatar
MajoorHokie
Master Sergeant
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat 25 Feb 2012 20:30
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby MajoorHokie » Mon 19 May 2014 03:17

I agree with almost all of these posts it is simply bad form to let things like "map control" and "superior positioning" get in the way of gameplay. There should be a game mode where the team that losses the most points/units/whatever wins!!!
Image

User avatar
mrgray2011
Sergeant
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu 20 Mar 2014 14:49
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby mrgray2011 » Mon 19 May 2014 03:24

Just stop playing 1v1 maps with 8 players and veryhigh income, srsly. Attacking is much easier in RD then in ALB, if you have problems then you do not use all available tools. Maps are fine imo.

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13128
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby another505 » Mon 19 May 2014 03:31

How the heck this thread goes into l2p when it is about the map design effect on the meta

i agree with OP
Image
Of Salt

Frolix
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri 8 Nov 2013 10:32
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby Frolix » Mon 19 May 2014 04:51

I cannot help but to mention how many people, some with dozens of games, don't understand this blindingly simple concept.

Image

In almost every match between players of equal skill, it comes down to this.
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests