chainsaw wrote:I just want to say, play more conquest.
I'd like to, but as I said, we've tried conquest and havn't found it that attractive. I guess that since units dying doesn't matter as much allows people to be more reckless. In turn, that makes it feel more spammy.
Same thing sorta goes for 4v4 games and lower. Having more points and larger sectors to cover also means that micro management of every units becomes harder or even impossible, which is very stressfull. To me it's just shoving a bunch of units into strategic positions, hoping they can survive on their own while you focus on a push elsewhere (at least that's how it was when we did those types of games back in AirLand).
In my oppinition 10v10 tactical games have found that perfect micro management sweet spot. One can have full controll over each and every units and you really have to as well. One unit dying can mean a whole lot of difference and every unit is important. It's more of a thinkers game that way. One really have to outsmart the opponent.
Xeno426 wrote:Issue #6: The game is not at all balanced for 10v10 destruction. Destruction games in general heavily reward artillery spam, and 10v10 have a whole net of issues all their own.
While it won't fix all your problems, trying playing smaller games in Conquest mode. Incomes are fixed, and hiding the CV does nothing, because it just makes that person lose faster. Arty still exists, but putting too many points into arty will leave the person weak on the ground, letting the enemy push in.
It's quite a shift for Destruction players, because it really encourages aggressive gameplay. People have to push if they want to win.
10v10 tactical conquest games are rare unfortunately (or maybe it's my filter settings?).
Also, I do not find the game to be that imbalanced for 10v10 destruction tbh, sure you find players who wholly focus on heli/arty/jet spam, but countered right, that isn't a problem. It's just bad tactics which often leads to a (quick and boring) loss on their side if countered properly.
Aggressive gameplay is also both necessary and encouraged in destruction. Aggressiveness is a great counter against arty spam since spammers usually lack defence in depht (they are set on entrenched warfare). So a break in their lines often allows you to push through and forth into their main, or break the rest of their front.
However that's also one of the beauties of destruction, even if you are loosing terrain and can't push back you may very well be winning. You just have to make sure that the enemys push gets expensive enough. If you are loosing grounds and units in a conquest conquest game you have basically allready lost.
As I said, many of these issues and solutions don't apply to other game modes, but unless they carry undesireable side effects into those game modes it shouldn't be a problem. I know Wargame wasn't designed with 10v10 tactical destruction primarily in mind however it is still a valid and integral part of wargame with a large player base.
These are my subjective oppinions and reasons for playing the modes i play. There are other people who think different. This is perfectly fine. However I feel we're falling into a discussion on which game mode is better (which is highly subjective and in this thread, kind of irrelevant) and are loosing focus from the aforementioned issues.
I feel that