Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Nerdfish
Major
Posts: 1866
Joined: Thu 26 Jan 2012 22:12
Contact:

Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Nerdfish » Mon 16 Oct 2017 13:22

Eugen has tried making some kind of conquest mode since EE days and they are all terrible. :lol: They are so bad that Razzman want to delete destruction, that's probably the only way to make anyone play conquest, beside paying them by the hour.

I have spent quite a bit of time thinking what makes conquest so insufferable. The cause is surprisingly simple: It takes a lot of casualties to move the front line Usually, once the front line is established, both sides take losses but front line stays where it is. It takes a pretty staggering amount of casualties (over 50%) to make the front line collapse, then one side basically rolls over the other. If you don't believe this analysis just go watch a couple hundred replays.

This kind of collapse rarely happens when both sides have income, especially when that income is fixed. Even if a player is very inefficient, they can usually reinforce fast enough to keep the middle sector for five minutes. As a result, whoever wins the rush wins conquest.

This is easily fixed by eliminating income entirely.
For instance, 2000 starting point, 900 point to win, zero income.
Now both defensive and offensive openings are viable. a team can bring extra CVs to attempt to win by rushing the middle sector and holding it for 15 minutes, or bring artillery to kill off over half the opposing army in 15 minutes. Since there are no more reinforcements, any units committed to the rush cannot be present in any other part of the map, thus leaving a another sector open for counterattack.

This also remove all the cheese currently in the game, since there are no longer any reinforcement a gunship rush will need to kill off all the CV to win (and an armored CV would make this REALLY difficult). Even if a CV is landed at opponent's home sector it provide no advantage. Firebombing roads much more risky because a tracked opening (which is suicide right now) have a different speed and couldn't care less about fire.

The most obvious argument against this is that it's too punishing and result in even more caution then the present. However, if you take some risk to snipe one CV (or even a couple supply trucks), it put the enemy in an unrecoverable position unless they do the same to you. The lack of income prevents too much "risk taking" with cheap units, if you lose all your vdv on the map, they are gone.

Another interesting consequence is the unit density decrease over the cause of a battle and make the game increasingly more fluid instead of static. As there are no reinforcements, as both sides take losses, the map become more and more sparse, this leaves more openings for armored push or special force sneak attacks.

Much of this are speculation and I haven't been able to run that many tests because people are scared of zero income. If you are interested in running some tests (or just think that I should "git gud") please let me know. :lol:

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7427
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Razzmann » Mon 16 Oct 2017 13:35

Nerdfish wrote:Eugen has tried making some kind of conquest mode since EE days and they are all terrible. :lol: They are so bad that Razzman want to delete destruction, that's probably the only way to make anyone play conquest, beside paying them by the hour.


FLX wrote:And destruction is more suited to beginners because it gives the feedback of destroyed units and their value. It's an information you have to guess in conquest so it's harder.

viewtopic.php?f=155&t=58663&p=989728#p989728

When even the Dev says destruction is for noobs

Spoiler : :
Image

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1383
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby FrangibleCover » Mon 16 Oct 2017 13:50

Let's conduct a thought experiment. We are playing no income conquest 1v1 as you suggest it on, say, Mudfight. We have both made our deployments. Think for a moment about what you have bought and where it's going to be deployed to, then open up the spoiler to see my opener as the game begins.

Spoiler : :
I have bought an infantry CV in a truck, which I immediately disembark and run into the back forest so you can't find it. I have bought a FOB in case I need the staying power. I have spent the rest of my points on North Korean Mi-25s from the Helo tab. I rush you. Can your opener beat me or would you need to buy some extra AA, which you can't do? All I have to do is find your CVs and kill them.

This game mode is a worse idea than Siege.
[Non-included Nation] Belgium - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Hungary - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Pakistan

Nerdfish
Major
Posts: 1866
Joined: Thu 26 Jan 2012 22:12
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Nerdfish » Mon 16 Oct 2017 14:01

FrangibleCover wrote:Let's conduct a thought experiment. We are playing no income conquest 1v1 as you suggest it on, say, Mudfight. We have both made our deployments. Think for a moment about what you have bought and where it's going to be deployed to, then open up the spoiler to see my opener as the game begins.

Spoiler : :
I have bought an infantry CV in a truck, which I immediately disembark and run into the back forest so you can't find it. I have bought a FOB in case I need the staying power. I have spent the rest of my points on North Korean Mi-25s from the Helo tab. I rush you. Can your opener beat me or would you need to buy some extra AA, which you can't do? All I have to do is find your CVs and kill them.

This game mode is a worse idea than Siege.


Yes I would simply because I main commonwealth. I have ADATS and SAS anyway and my CV are tanks. I haven't thought about the challenger marksman during this experiment but if I just happened to have them it's pretty much a guaranteed win.
Otherwise it depend on if I can spot the Hinds and unload the SAS in time.

Offensive opening would have extreme difficulty with that opener as they do now. But defensive composition are no longer suicidal.
you can have 4 tungs without losing automatically because you don't contest the middle town/sector.
Last edited by Nerdfish on Mon 16 Oct 2017 14:09, edited 1 time in total.

Nerdfish
Major
Posts: 1866
Joined: Thu 26 Jan 2012 22:12
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Nerdfish » Mon 16 Oct 2017 14:03

Razzmann wrote:
Nerdfish wrote:Eugen has tried making some kind of conquest mode since EE days and they are all terrible. :lol: They are so bad that Razzman want to delete destruction, that's probably the only way to make anyone play conquest, beside paying them by the hour.


FLX wrote:And destruction is more suited to beginners because it gives the feedback of destroyed units and their value. It's an information you have to guess in conquest so it's harder.

viewtopic.php?f=155&t=58663&p=989728#p989728

When even the Dev says destruction is for noobs

Spoiler : :
Image


I wouldn't be making this thread if Devs are infallible. :lol:

Spoiler : SD doing so well :
Image

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1539
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Markenzwieback » Mon 16 Oct 2017 14:21

It takes a lot of casualties to move the front line

Yeah, that's what war is all about, unless you plan on fighting sandmonkys (which would roughly be the equivalent of stomping noobs in Wargame :roll: )

And my main problem with destruction over conquest is the following: When you advance the frontline and gain ground, you effectively gain nothing. The opposite is the case many times, because your enemy always is in favor when digging in (remember, you need at least 2:1 and idealy 3:1 ration for attacking forces IRL) and can snipe away at your units pushing. When you push your enemy out of an important crossroads town, which would be a very important objective in conquest (and even more so IRL), destruction will most likely punish you for loosing more units than the defender and putting you at a disadvantage for the rest of the round (despite a vital objective for further operations gained).

Hence a mixture of conquest and destruction could only really be managed when you remove the final goal of having more kills and less deaths than your opponent as the game winning feature. A mixture of objective based points awarded (be it via a reworked SD frontline system or conquest points) and losses taken during the battle should come together. From that point on we would be closer to reality, where essentially running your units into their certain death just to gain ground and keep the +1 conquest point tick going isn't the entire purpose of your army anymore.

This could even give you balancing options, where losses taken by, for example Red Dragon infantry, get discounted for a certain percentage reflecting manpower superiority.
Image

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7427
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Razzmann » Mon 16 Oct 2017 14:23

Don't try to start a serious discussion with him, it's like talking to a wall :P

Nerdfish
Major
Posts: 1866
Joined: Thu 26 Jan 2012 22:12
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Nerdfish » Mon 16 Oct 2017 15:35

Razzmann wrote:Don't try to start a serious discussion with him, it's like talking to a wall :P


Precisely, Conquest players are not interest in middle ground. They are only interested in more stomp victims. why bother with these guys. :lol:

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1539
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Markenzwieback » Mon 16 Oct 2017 18:37

Nerdfish wrote:
Razzmann wrote:Don't try to start a serious discussion with him, it's like talking to a wall :P


Precisely, Conquest players are not interest in middle ground. They are only interested in more stomp victims. why bother with these guys. :lol:

Razz, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. Seen his ramblings over at Paradox forum and decided to reply with a serious comment on his thread here, as I didn't partake in the shitshow. Considering that he rather jumped onto your reply than address my two paragraphs of constructive comment, I think it is indeed pretty pointless to continue a discussion with him. Unless he decides to mature a little.
Image

captaincarnage
Major
Posts: 1879
Joined: Sat 29 Mar 2014 23:50
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby captaincarnage » Mon 16 Oct 2017 19:00

Dear Op,

No.

Regards

Someone who actually understands how conquest works.
I hope your buratino's die screaming.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests