Ranked map pool

User avatar
TheDemolitionmech
Sergeant
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon 10 Sep 2012 00:17
Contact:

Re: Ranked map pool

Postby TheDemolitionmech » Thu 18 Sep 2014 19:10

Does anyone have a picture of what tropic thunder looked like in the beta? I remember them changing it and now I don't remember what it originally looked like.

User avatar
TheDemolitionmech
Sergeant
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon 10 Sep 2012 00:17
Contact:

Re: Ranked map pool

Postby TheDemolitionmech » Thu 18 Sep 2014 19:23

Xenon wrote:I would disagree with destruction being unsuitable to competitive games now. It might have been unsuitable back when tanks were cost inefficient and when AA would get shot up on the move.

I would say destruction can be a bit more competitive if it wasn't a camp fest and to not benefit people who turtle so much. I would like the system to go back to the way Wargame:ee was. Have home bases worth very little and the middle zones be high in value but not insane. This is so people aren't dripping with money just by capturing a few zones and then sitting there. Right now, you can take a couple zones and have plenty of money to get defenses , which doesn't make attacking worth it and throwing ACTUAL map control out the window. I would like to see these zones worth very little (like in Wargame:ee) so attacking and getting map control is valued more. It would be a fight to try and get economic advantage over each other. Id like to see that happen and see if it works. Then ill consider playing destruction.

Xenon
Sergeant
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun 13 Oct 2013 09:41
Contact:

Re: Ranked map pool

Postby Xenon » Thu 18 Sep 2014 19:54

TheDemolitionmech wrote:I would say destruction can be a bit more competitive if it wasn't a camp fest and to not benefit people who turtle so much. I would like the system to go back to the way Wargame:ee was. Have home bases worth very little and the middle zones be high in value but not insane. This is so people aren't dripping with money just by capturing a few zones and then sitting there. Right now, you can take a couple zones and have plenty of money to get defenses , which doesn't make attacking worth it and throwing ACTUAL map control out the window. I would like to see these zones worth very little (like in Wargame:ee) so attacking and getting map control is valued more. It would be a fight to try and get economic advantage over each other. Id like to see that happen and see if it works. Then ill consider playing destruction.


I partly agree, point values of sectors might be touched up just a bit.

However, where I disagree is the statement that Destruction is about throwing map control out of the window.

This might have been the case before, as I found that turtling is only efficient on any map that is bad (has obvious lanes of any kind). After all the patches in RD, on most maps it's much harder to establish a wall with relatively cheap ATGM units, and as AA can actually move along with the tank push, attacking efficiently is viable.

A "small" +1 or +2 can mean a lot when preparing your forces. Of course, if neither side has a deck that can penetrate the other's defense (as in, it lacks reasonably mobile units that can perform combined arms maneuvers and pose threats), then you will get artillery duels. Otherwise, the game will go into maneuvering and posturing, trying to find out a weak spot in the line and press it, or trying to secure terrain that allows for an attack somewhere. There are tons of interaction there.

Additionally, at the moment, destruction allows for a bigger variety of decks, as you are not tied to rushing a sector right off the bat or having to attack a well-defended sector later on. You can try focusing on using the other parts of the map to your advantage.

I can see Conquest becoming a very good game mode if maps could be reworked so that there are more lanes of attack and better opportunities to contest sectors. That same thing would also make Destruction much better.

User avatar
TheDemolitionmech
Sergeant
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon 10 Sep 2012 00:17
Contact:

Re: Ranked map pool

Postby TheDemolitionmech » Thu 18 Sep 2014 20:19

Xenon wrote:I partly agree, point values of sectors might be touched up just a bit.

However, where I disagree is the statement that Destruction is about throwing map control out of the window.

This might have been the case before, as I found that turtling is only efficient on any map that is bad (has obvious lanes of any kind). After all the patches in RD, on most maps it's much harder to establish a wall with relatively cheap ATGM units, and as AA can actually move along with the tank push, attacking efficiently is viable.

A "small" +1 or +2 can mean a lot when preparing your forces. Of course, if neither side has a deck that can penetrate the other's defense (as in, it lacks reasonably mobile units that can perform combined arms maneuvers and pose threats), then you will get artillery duels. Otherwise, the game will go into maneuvering and posturing, trying to find out a weak spot in the line and press it, or trying to secure terrain that allows for an attack somewhere. There are tons of interaction there.

Additionally, at the moment, destruction allows for a bigger variety of decks, as you are not tied to rushing a sector right off the bat or having to attack a well-defended sector later on. You can try focusing on using the other parts of the map to your advantage.

I can see Conquest becoming a very good game mode if maps could be reworked so that there are more lanes of attack and better opportunities to contest sectors. That same thing would also make Destruction much better.

I still stand by lowering the points in the zones, but I guess I can't judge it too much, simply because I don't play it. I'm just trying to understand what made Wargame:ee destruction work so well, and if at all possible, revert back to that.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 45 guests