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 14:57

Markenzwieback wrote:
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.


I defended with standard defensive openers (every single time). you will see when I post them.
of course if you open aggressively you run the risk of getting splattered by 20 gunships, that's just a risk you have to take.

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 15:03

Nerdfish wrote:It's also extremely unappealing to a lot of experienced players. Those who play the game for the tactics.

You mean not doing anything and just spamming artillery? I remember all the whining about sitzkrieg.

Contrary to what one might think since there's no +70 showing up per kill, having more units than your opponent is an advantage in itself, so it's not like every unit is expendable or losses don't matter in conq.
"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 15:23

integ3r wrote:
Nerdfish wrote:It's also extremely unappealing to a lot of experienced players. Those who play the game for the tactics.

You mean not doing anything and just spamming artillery? I remember all the whining about sitzkrieg.

Contrary to what one might think since there's no +70 showing up per kill, having more units than your opponent is an advantage in itself, so it's not like every unit is expendable or losses don't matter in conq.


You can't have both sitzkrieg and artillery spam. One smerch volley and the sitzkrieg is over. Everything must be moving constantly, scouting, dodging, exploiting openings caused by artillery. sitting still will just get you bombed back to the stone age.
Having more units than your opponent in conquest is a very temporary advantage, due to the outrageous income of conquest both armies are constantly getting larger. an 1000 to 500 difference in army strength becomes 1500 to 1000 after five min and 2000 to 1500 after 10 mins. this is my original analysis in the first post: if you can grab an additional sector in a rush, it's nearly impossible to lose units fast enough to lose that sector.

User avatar
KattiValk
General
Posts: 6278
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2013 03:39
Location: Houston, Texas (CST)
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby KattiValk » Thu 19 Oct 2017 17:10

I personally like int3ger's opinion.

Also you people need to rein in the vitriolic stuff.

Nerdfish wrote:You can't have both sitzkrieg and artillery spam. One smerch volley and the sitzkrieg is over. Everything must be moving constantly, scouting, dodging, exploiting openings caused by artillery. sitting still will just get you bombed back to the stone age.
You classify sitzkrieg so basically. Shuffling around behind and on a front without real substantial direct contact is still a static game. Simply moving your high-value units perpendicular to a Smerch's trajectory and then getting back into a safe area behind cover where the enemy likely wouldn't arty is not mobile gameplay. Sure it consumes gas, but in the end, you're not changing the layout of the battle at all.

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Steamfunk » Thu 19 Oct 2017 17:25

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.


I see no reason why they would do that - destruction is the original game mode, the campaign is based on destruction and so are most of the servers. It's not an either/or situation, people can play whatever they like.

Contrary to what one might think since there's no +70 showing up per kill, having more units than your opponent is an advantage in itself, so it's not like every unit is expendable or losses don't matter in conq.


Conquest used to show those points as well, I assume they were removed so that players didn't confuse them with victory points.

User avatar
Crotou
Colonel
Posts: 2559
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2012 20:36
Location: DM's keep
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Crotou » Thu 19 Oct 2017 20:40

To all new guys passing by, Destruction mode community is nowadays composed of Nerdfish, TankGirl and 18 friends of them. They play mostly 10v10 Destru on 4v4 maps. Best of both worlds.

Nerdfish wrote:You can't have both sitzkrieg and artillery spam.


Watch any WEE ranked game. SPOILER : arty camping FTW
Image

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8396
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 22:01

integ3r wrote: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.

You know, these are some outstanding points. I'm sold, I like it. Ironically though your first point kinda negates one certain type of coneback in conquest as you've pointed out, but your reasoning is solid and I support it.

Nerdfish wrote:
integ3r wrote:
Nerdfish wrote:It's also extremely unappealing to a lot of experienced players. Those who play the game for the tactics.

You mean not doing anything and just spamming artillery? I remember all the whining about sitzkrieg.

Contrary to what one might think since there's no +70 showing up per kill, having more units than your opponent is an advantage in itself, so it's not like every unit is expendable or losses don't matter in conq.


You can't have both sitzkrieg and artillery spam. One smerch volley and the sitzkrieg is over. Everything must be moving constantly, scouting, dodging, exploiting openings caused by artillery. sitting still will just get you bombed back to the stone age.
Having more units than your opponent in conquest is a very temporary advantage, due to the outrageous income of conquest both armies are constantly getting larger. an 1000 to 500 difference in army strength becomes 1500 to 1000 after five min and 2000 to 1500 after 10 mins. this is my original analysis in the first post: if you can grab an additional sector in a rush, it's nearly impossible to lose units fast enough to lose that sector.

Sitzkrieg involves staying within your area without actually trying to attack with actual ground forces. Shuffling units around to avoid artillery or to react to a possible push is still sitzkrieg. Your original "analysis" is deeply flawed and you have repeatedly tried to warp definitions in order to suit your own agenda.

Nerdfish, I challenge you and your friends to a 3v3 conquest on Meme Ridge. Honestly we need to see how you actually operate in a normal conquest game before anything else. If you are so good at actual tactics we need to see them in game for ourselves. Don't worry, we can do a destruction game afterwards to see if you can win in that mode as well.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

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 23:25

KattiValk wrote:I personally like int3ger's opinion.

Also you people need to rein in the vitriolic stuff.

Nerdfish wrote:You can't have both sitzkrieg and artillery spam. One smerch volley and the sitzkrieg is over. Everything must be moving constantly, scouting, dodging, exploiting openings caused by artillery. sitting still will just get you bombed back to the stone age.
You classify sitzkrieg so basically. Shuffling around behind and on a front without real substantial direct contact is still a static game. Simply moving your high-value units perpendicular to a Smerch's trajectory and then getting back into a safe area behind cover where the enemy likely wouldn't arty is not mobile gameplay. Sure it consumes gas, but in the end, you're not changing the layout of the battle at all.


If you are the guy with the smerch, if you don't have contact with the enemy, where do you know to arty ?
The best positions for an arty battle are:
- You can see them and they can't see you
- You are moving but they are not.
There are no safe areas. if you put things behind cover there is a chance an infiltrating units will see them. And they will be dead.
The mobile gameplay are the commando teams sneaking around the map. and they often kill each other without air or arty intervention.
Destruction become static when the map is too small for flanking and infiltration. But those maps basically force static play.

Attacking also happens in dest, but the goal is to kill enemy units or force them to camp and then pull out. I often tell newbies in 10 v 10 to attack and retreat, and not camp out in one place and be sitting ducks for the firestorm. Being forced to stay in a defensive position is really bad. Artillery is in general much more effective against someone defending since you can guess all the places to camp, if they are attacking it's much harder. To lead shots so that they land on enemy exactly as they run into your defending units take phenomenal luck.
Last edited by Nerdfish on Thu 19 Oct 2017 23:55, edited 5 times in total.

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 23:27

Crotou wrote:To all new guys passing by, Destruction mode community is nowadays composed of Nerdfish, TankGirl and 18 friends of them. They play mostly 10v10 Destru on 4v4 maps. Best of both worlds.

Nerdfish wrote:You can't have both sitzkrieg and artillery spam.


Watch any WEE ranked game. SPOILER : arty camping FTW


I played back in WEE day. Actually IFV rush was all the rage back then, depending the era. :lol:
And there ware WAY more than 18 friends, more like 800, considering the current player base of WGRD is higher than SD44, which was built around getting Conquest to work.
Considering the former being 4 year old and the later in its prime, Let's just say Dest players stick around, Conq players don't.
Last edited by Nerdfish on Fri 20 Oct 2017 05:17, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8396
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 23:50

We really do need to organize some team games of Nerdfish and his buddies against some major conquest players. It will be interesting to see how well the destru crew does against the conquest crew in both normal game modes.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jzagami and 13 guests