Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1387
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby FrangibleCover » Sat 21 Oct 2017 02:05

So are we no longer on for Saturday? If you kick off at midnight my time I'm not likely to make it.
[Non-included Nation] Belgium - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Hungary - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Pakistan

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8392
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Fade2Gray » Sat 21 Oct 2017 03:35

Nerdfish wrote:The second point is that a rolling retreat is still a mobile tactic. It's mobile in the backward direction. you pull part of your line back so as the enemy advances, they get flanked by other parts. This is not static "sitzkrieg" you are talking about. And presumably at some point you'd want to roll back to avoid permanent income loss, and that is more moving.

In Wargame if you retreat from superior positions you massively weaken yourself. All maps have vital positions that strengthen your ability greatly. Surrendering those positions weakens you greatly, making flanking all the harder. If you do try to flank at that point, you are more likely to get wiped in the process. Attacking a strong position that you sacrificed leaves you, ironically, open to having your flanking force being flanked in turn. The more key positions you surrender, the easier you are to attack. It often adds up to a domino effect if you don't hold somewhere. This is why I often have destruction players try to be edgy and mock me for how I'm behind them in points a bit, only for me to later crush them hard. Why? Because I made short term sacrifices and pushed them into worse and worse positions. Eventually they simply can not afford to keep retreating, and worse yet I've claimed so many zones that I can utterly overwhelm them thanks to a significant income advantage. Your theorycrafting on that part is deeply flawed.

We just disagree on the definition of maneuvering. by your definition static is everything that does not lead to permanent ground gain. I maintain that any movement that result to an advantage is a tactical maneuver, even if it's as simple as moving your Buks after firing them.

Your definition of maneuver is flawed. The example of moving your BUKs around? Merely movement. Maneuver is the process of actually using movement to facilitate engaging and destroying your enemy. Movement is easy, a child can do it. Maneuver is not, it takes real skill to pull off maneuver.

Destruction has far less maneuver than conquest, and as conquest helps force maneuver and on a much much larger scale, it actively encourages superior game play. As destruction is far more static, it leads to players developing many more lazy tactics. Ironically, this leads to causing newbies to developing many very bad habits. Destruction might be useful as an introduction, but ultimately is not a good tool for helping people develop their abilities at this game.
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 » Sat 21 Oct 2017 11:58

FrangibleCover wrote:So are we no longer on for Saturday? If you kick off at midnight my time I'm not likely to make it.


I am on right now. I was only able to get one game so far and it was against an absolute noob.

Had a couple more games, both against randoms and against friends.
I can say with confidence Tactical Conquest don't last 10 mins unless I am up against someone who has no clue.
Wargame Tools still buggered, can't post anything.

Couldn't get pubs, played a couple more with friends and they have been great ! will post them as soon as wg tools go up.

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1387
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby FrangibleCover » Sun 22 Oct 2017 01:48

Here I am and here I have been refreshing the server browser for forty minutes. Guess I've missed you so far. I'm going to call it a night around half past 1, I think.

EDIT: It's half one, I've used a replay to add Nerdfish as a friend, he hasn't played the game in fourteen hours. This was worth staying up for.
[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 » Sun 22 Oct 2017 04:21

Nerdfish wrote:
FrangibleCover wrote:So are we no longer on for Saturday? If you kick off at midnight my time I'm not likely to make it.


I am on right now. I was only able to get one game so far and it was against an absolute noob.

Had a couple more games, both against randoms and against friends.
I can say with confidence Tactical Conquest don't last 10 mins unless I am up against someone who has no clue.
Wargame Tools still buggered, can't post anything.

Couldn't get pubs, played a couple more with friends and they have been great ! will post them as soon as wg tools go up.


We are in different time zone mate, sorry. The tactical conquests are worth the wait. You don't have to wait for me, you can play against randoms and it's good fun.

I have starting to see increasingly innovative stuff from randoms. One guy went air, hit me hard at the start but I came back he quit.
There are so many viable ways to play this it's amazing.

Again why is wg tools buggered.

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

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby integ3r » Mon 23 Oct 2017 16:23

Here's the thing about conquest no income.

The whole point of conquest is to discourage passive, campy, artilleryspammy play...

How in the world is then a passive, campy, artillery spammy mode the "best of both worlds"? Arguably even more passive and campy than destruction! :?

Either you play it super duper safe, only inching up recon and artillery spamming things where you suspect you can get a few kills, there's no risk in shelling bushes at more or less random so you don't even need recon, just make an educuated guess, or you just put everything in an all-in attack because everything else will just be beating around the bush for 10 minutes and there is not gonna be any sort of build up of forces since your starting force is what you're gonna get, in which case the game just degenerates into a single drawn out battle.

It's completely ridiculous to me the notion that "actually, destruction just requires a different skillset that is just as valid!". Pure delusion. I get that one can think it's just as or even more fun than conquest, but to really think it requires equivalent skill? Maybe if that came out of the mouth of a skilled conquest player, it'd carry some weight, but it never does. And conquest players always beat destruction players in both game-modes..

The reason is simple. The request for the conquest game mode came as a direct result of top players complaining that destruction is too campy, passive and has a low skill ceiling. I.e.: The request came from GOOD DESTRUCTION PLAYERS who could see it for what it is.

There hasn't been any complaints from the top players as far as I know after the current iteration of conquest where income was separated from zone control, which was the way it used to be, awarding the winner of the opening engagement more CQ points and more purchasing power and defender advantage, which was ridiculous slippery slope.

I'd argue that defending is STILL too easy in this game, as recon performs quite poorly and can't see ATGMs in buildings until very close, can't see stuff in forests too well, and in general can't see much without exposing themselves to great danger. Another reason why fighting recon having stealth bonus is such cancer. Hence recon by suicide or recon by "risk taking" with low cost units being necessary. That might seem "spammy", but ultimately, if you can't defend against that, maybe you're not as good at defending as you thought you were and the crutch of people being too afraid to take risks keeps your flanks safe.
"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 » Tue 24 Oct 2017 01:32

integ3r wrote:Here's the thing about conquest no income.

The whole point of conquest is to discourage passive, campy, artilleryspammy play...

How in the world is then a passive, campy, artillery spammy mode the "best of both worlds"? Arguably even more passive and campy than destruction! :?

Either you play it super duper safe, only inching up recon and artillery spamming things where you suspect you can get a few kills, there's no risk in shelling bushes at more or less random so you don't even need recon, just make an educuated guess, or you just put everything in an all-in attack because everything else will just be beating around the bush for 10 minutes and there is not gonna be any sort of build up of forces since your starting force is what you're gonna get, in which case the game just degenerates into a single drawn out battle.


I have already beaten two people who went arty on Saturday in no-income conq.

There isn't enough unit density to defend them from flanking recons. And there isn't enough unit density for shelling random bush to matter. The lower the unit density the easier it is to pay attention to individual units so arty rarely do anything beside killing the odd atgm.
If someone invest in arty and enough static defense to cover all angles, you can counter this by buying an extra command tank :D Arty is only good for breaking a deadlock, in that case it's a valid strategy.

And games tend to last a lot longer than 10 mins. The reduced unit density also lead to a lot of maneuvering as both player are trying to cover additional ground without engaging superior forces. 20-30 min is the norm.

Again the wg tool site is buggered so I can't post these yet.
I'd suggest playing some games to see for yourself:
1 v 1, Starting pt 2000, Conquest Point 1000, time limit 45 min.
Find out for yourself if it's "passive and campy and low skill ceiling" :lol:

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8392
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Fade2Gray » Tue 24 Oct 2017 02:42

integ3r wrote:I'd argue that defending is STILL too easy in this game, as recon performs quite poorly and can't see ATGMs in buildings until very close, can't see stuff in forests too well, and in general can't see much without exposing themselves to great danger. Another reason why fighting recon having stealth bonus is such cancer. Hence recon by suicide or recon by "risk taking" with low cost units being necessary. That might seem "spammy", but ultimately, if you can't defend against that, maybe you're not as good at defending as you thought you were and the crutch of people being too afraid to take risks keeps your flanks safe.

I'd dare argue that ATGMs are useless half the time nowadays. With smoke you can bait ATGMs into wasting ammo for nothing. Pop out, wait for them to fire, reverse away. If you manage to creep forward enough, you can force fire on a location that the missiles came from.

Personally, I think the balance of attacking and defending is pretty solid as is. "Risk taking" is a needed thing, you probe and try to identify a weak point to exploit. IMO it works, though it would be nice to do away with the CV sniping mechanics.

Nerdfish wrote:And games tend to last a lot longer than 10 mins. 20-30 min is the norm.

It speaks volumes about when he tries to play a normal game of conquest he gets crushed in only 10 minutes or less. 20+ minutes is the norm for me in a conquest game assuming balanced teams.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
Bollywood Baloney
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu 7 May 2015 21:32
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Bollywood Baloney » Sat 18 Nov 2017 11:45

Wargames come and go, centuries pass, and some day the universe will enter a state of heat death. But just moments before that happens, the very last bit of energy in the entire cosmos will carry a transmission of a Nerdfish anti-conquest thread

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12177
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Mike » Sat 18 Nov 2017 23:16

I remember playing a destruction game and I scored 70% of the team's points with my Longbows. For some reason they would never use anything other than a lone Strela-10M to shot them down across an open field.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests