Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

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

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Nerdfish » Thu 19 Oct 2017 06:45

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.

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.


Wargame tools is down. Just had a game where I fended off an helo rush with a fairly standard defensive opening in this mode. I will post it when it goes up.

Did some other tests on conquest income.
Conquest income is 7 per 4 second tick, or roughly 100 per minute.

by the time a reinforcing squad in a M113 drove to the central town between E and D from A, I have accumulated 360 Req points at the standard conquest income rate. The amount of accumulated income during the time a reinforcing tank come from G is around 450 points.

To put in context of how crazy this is, the late era line inf has availability of 16 without vet. The total cost of which is 320 with tracked transport. In conquest you can afford to replace ONE ENTIRE CARD OF LINE INF BEFORE THEY ENTER COMBAT. You can afford to buy TWO CARDS OF 20 pt ATGM (16 X 25) or TWO HORNETS after enemy tanks leave their spawn, before they enter combat.

Deploying this many units is by definition spam.
Conquest doesn't promote spamming, it requires. Not spamming means floating and losing.
It's profound hypocrisy that players that does not know the first thing about tactics pretend to be better players because they excel at a game mode so forgiving that it hands them a new army before the first one even get into the fight. A really good player wouldn't care they have no income, they can win with what they have. So if you are good, you'd want to play without income, it separates you from all the noobs who spam.

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1536
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Markenzwieback » Thu 19 Oct 2017 13:24

Gotta raise the discussion quality in this thread a little again. So here I go...


Image

Image

Sorry, not sorry.
Last edited by Markenzwieback on Thu 19 Oct 2017 13:26, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Thu 19 Oct 2017 13:25

Clearly a spam bot. Reported it already.

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8365
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Fade2Gray » Thu 19 Oct 2017 13:40

Nerdfish wrote:
Spoiler : :
Did some other tests on conquest income.
Conquest income is 7 per 4 second tick, or roughly 100 per minute.

by the time a reinforcing squad in a M113 drove to the central town between E and D from A, I have accumulated 360 Req points at the standard conquest income rate. The amount of accumulated income during the time a reinforcing tank come from G is around 450 points.

To put in context of how crazy this is, the late era line inf has availability of 16 without vet. The total cost of which is 320 with tracked transport. In conquest you can afford to replace ONE ENTIRE CARD OF LINE INF BEFORE THEY ENTER COMBAT. You can afford to buy TWO CARDS OF 20 pt ATGM (16 X 25) or TWO HORNETS after enemy tanks leave their spawn, before they enter combat.

Deploying this many units is by definition spam.
Conquest doesn't promote spamming, it requires. Not spamming means floating and losing.
It's profound hypocrisy that players that does not know the first thing about tactics pretend to be better players because they excel at a game mode so forgiving that it hands them a new army before the first one even get into the fight. A really good player wouldn't care they have no income, they can win with what they have. So if you are good, you'd want to play without income, it separates you from all the noobs who spam.

These are some very bizarre "results" to come up with your "testing." From someone who regularly plays conquest, often 3-5 games a day when I do get on for the day, the flaws in these "results" are overwhelming. I'll start with the biggest problems in these "results" and work my way down.

To put in context of how crazy this is, the late era line inf has availability of 16 without vet. The total cost of which is 320 with tracked transport. In conquest you can afford to replace ONE ENTIRE CARD OF LINE INF BEFORE THEY ENTER COMBAT.

This is most likely extreme cherry picking. In conquest combat often kicks off around the 1:20-1:40 minute mark, with tanks getting stuck in at the later end of the spectrum. On the larger maps it might be a bit longer if you gun for a more far flung zone, but overall you are engaged in combat at the 1:30ish mark.

You can afford to buy TWO CARDS OF 20 pt ATGM (16 X 25) or TWO HORNETS after enemy tanks leave their spawn, before they enter combat.

Again, cherry picking or blatantly warped "results." Take for example Meme Ridge, center lane tank combat generally begins heavy at the 1:30 mark. Assuming starting with maybe 5-15 points left over after deployment, at this point you should have just enough points saved up to buy 1 ATGM plane, such as a FA-18C Hornet.

A really good player wouldn't care they have no income, they can win with what they have. So if you are good, you'd want to play without income, it separates you from all the noobs who spam.

Is there specific fallacy for just being edgy? If you can't handle a wave of mere cheap line infantry just being thrown at you, then the problem isn't the steady income of conquest, it is your complete and utter lack of skill. A really good player can adapt to any play style, whether it's total destruction or conquest with a normal income rate. Terrible players can't adapt, and make excuses based on buzzwords, such as "spam."

by the time a reinforcing squad in a M113 drove to the central town between E and D from A

This is a bizarre thing to reference for conquest. Conquest is all about speed, about getting to those critical points on the map and outfighting your opponent for control of them. With your references to opening moves, the vast majority of your infantry shouldn't be in tracked vehicles. Reinforcements for infantry should be overwhelmingly in fast APCs, unless you are Israel and you have OPelda waves to unleash.

Markenzwieback wrote:Gotta raise the discussion quality in this thread a little again. So here I go...


Image

Image

Sorry, not sorry.

Kissanime has so many bloody popups and what not that I stopped using it ages ago, but yeah that signature is pretty shady looking.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
integ3r
Lieutenant
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mon 3 Jun 2013 03:10
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby integ3r » Thu 19 Oct 2017 14:32

Fade2Gray wrote:See above, and what has often been said many many times. Ultimately this will not change anything,

Just want to make clear that that is exactly the point.
Conquest is a completely fine game mode, however it is unappealing to new players.

The point of the system described in my post is to retain 99% of what makes conquest good but add in elements which appeals to newer players so that they can play the game and rationalise failure as "well I didn't do too bad, just gotta grab a bit more territory next time! " (provided they actually do manage to get more kills..) Effectively letting them play "destruction", but in practice teaching and encouraging them into the conquest skillset.

In effect, conquest is not really changed, only its appeal is broadened. Thus with this mode, you can get rid regular destruction and conquest and this would be the only mode and the playerbase would all be playing the "same game".

You could potentially end up in a scenario where you got the most kills, had slightly more conquest points but got pushed out at the end and you'd still win. Because that sort of scenario appeals to the destruction crowd, it'd in effect make conquest more appealing without really changing how its played very much.

It would also allow comeback scenarios where you're behind on conq points but if you can just make that great push and secure many zones and kills, you'll still win whereas now this is more or less impossible as the only alternative victory condition in conquest is total destruction of all CVs which in late game is almost never attained.

Because, IMO, destruction really needs to go... It turns the game into sitzkrieg, arty spam, and unit sniping. There's no pushes or attacking short of a player getting bored. In fact, the mode punishes it due to risk-reward. If you're gonna lose to a push, you can just retreat with little consequence whereas in conq you'd probably want to hold on to the territory at all costs.
Last edited by integ3r on Thu 19 Oct 2017 14:52, edited 4 times in total.
"How do into gaem of war? How 2 git gud?":
Spoiler : :

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

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Nerdfish » Thu 19 Oct 2017 14:43

I just had a friend attack me 4 times with different variations of heli rushes and I fended them all off.
Heli rushes are not more powerful in no income conquest because The game doesn't give you free income to follow it up with anything else. if it fails you lose.
WG tools still down. will post them whenever it goes back up.

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1536
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Markenzwieback » Thu 19 Oct 2017 14:47

Nerdfish wrote:I just had a friend attack me 4 times with different variations of heli rushes and I fended them all off.
Heli rushes are not more powerful in no income conquest because The game doesn't give you free income to follow it up with anything else. if it fails you lose.
WG tools still down. will post them whenever it goes back up.

The problem is not defending against a helo rush, but knowing when to defend. You cannot defend against a helo rush when you don't know its coming and play a regular deployment. Therefore your test is pretty useless, as you knew what was coming beforehand.
Image

User avatar
[EUG]MadMat
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 14970
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 13:31
Location: Paris, France.
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby [EUG]MadMat » Thu 19 Oct 2017 14:51

Razzmann wrote:Clearly a spam bot. Reported it already.

It seems so.
I've removed it.

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 » Thu 19 Oct 2017 14:52

Nerdfish wrote:I just had a friend attack me 4 times with different variations of heli rushes and I fended them all off.
Heli rushes are not more powerful in no income conquest because The game doesn't give you free income to follow it up with anything else. if it fails you lose.
WG tools still down. will post them whenever it goes back up.

Replays please.

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

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Nerdfish » Thu 19 Oct 2017 14:56

integ3r wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:See above, and what has often been said many many times. Ultimately this will not change anything,

Just want to make clear that that is exactly the point.
Conquest is a completely fine game mode, however it is unappealing to new players.


Conquest is not fine, player count of SD vs RD (a 3 yr old game) attest to it.
It's also extremely unappealing to a lot of experienced players. Those who play the game for the tactics. In Rasputin and Ataka told me in no uncertain turns they will not buy a WG4 without destruction. Deleting destruction will instantly kill the game, Feel free to do a test, Mat. I am not responsible if you go bankrupt.

Truly skilled players will not be effected by having no income. It only penalize people who throw away their units under the assumption they will get replaced in a minute anyway. If you are afraid of having no income, you are a spammer. :lol: It's that simple.
So far zero income Tactical Conquest games are shaping up to be very entertaining.
Last edited by Nerdfish on Thu 19 Oct 2017 15:03, edited 3 times in total.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests