How do people stand playing conquest on popular maps?

User avatar
Shika
Corporal
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri 28 Mar 2014 02:25
Location: Hämeenlinna

How do people stand playing conquest on popular maps?

Postby Shika » Mon 19 Mar 2018 03:50

I loved conquest in ALB, it was awesome and made how much ground you covered actually worth the time. It also rewarded rushes at the beginning.

However in RD frequently I am faced with one thing that ruins conquest. Artillery.

There are games where I rush down my enemy and just gain such a decisive victory at the start there is no chance at coming back for them. There are also a few games where the opposite happens to me(never underestimate how quickly a longbow can kill your aa stacks en route to the middle point..) but my main problem is when I win the point, but it's not entirely decisive. I cannot clear out all the enemy but I own the contested middle or the power point of the zone. Now what? The inevitable buildup of the enemy's artillery. The reality is you can outplay your opponent on the ground game, but now I'm faced with the fact that if I don't have top tier tube artillery, not just mortars, over the next 40-60 minutes I'm going to be bombarded, and the inferior player is going to take the point.

In destruction if I take a contested zone and the enemy is going to do nothing but air/arty the point, I can simply abandon it but leave some ambushes alongside roads etc. and still come out on top. I have no problem shooting and scooting, the problem is in this game mode, on the popular maps(i.e small) you cannot dodge 10+ pieces that they will amass over 20 minutes. So why not just team up and force a zone of another player? Because these maps like Paddy Field have such easily defended lines, it's almost impossible to lose anything beyond the contested zones unless you really suck early. If I push too far on one side it's incredibly easy and safe to use air. It's also important to remember if I try to suicide some units just to fully clear the point out, I'm walking into ambushes and wasting my points while the enemy just spends his on buildup forces and artillery.

So the point is, how the hell do you win conquest games against good players without just spamming top tier tube artillery? I can beat players with high winrates and stacked with buddies but the reality is it doesn't matter when my units are all dead to artillery eventually anyway. This leads to my further frustration with RD as opposed to previous installations. How can people sit here essentially microing artillery for 30-60+ minutes? Doing almost nothing with ground units besides amassing for a rush, it's boring as hell. I'm not talking about combined arms, using smoke wisely, sniping expensive units on the backline with artillery while pushing. I mean a LOT of these matches on paddy field, mudfight, wonsan, etc. all end up with who has more artillery. It's very counter-intuitive to a game mode that is supposed to be about sacrificing units for ground; you don't sacrifice anything, you just spam artillery because it's more efficient.
IGN: Suojeluskunta

User avatar
damoj
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2016 10:07
Contact:

Re: How do people stand playing conquest on popular maps?

Postby damoj » Mon 19 Mar 2018 06:53

manoeuvre

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: How do people stand playing conquest on popular maps?

Postby Fade2Gray » Mon 19 Mar 2018 14:29

This has to be the first time I've ever seen someone say that artillery dominates in conquest. Artillery only really becomes a problem in team games where the map is too crowded. Artillery use is far more important in destruction.

I see you play 1 hour matches as well. Artillery is not the problem, the problem is that you focus on the opening gimmick rush and lack the skill to exploit it later on. The longer the match, the more time the enemy has to make a comeback. It also becomes much more important to trade better than your opponent the longer the match.

If you are playing 1v1 Paddy with more than 1 person per team, then count on arty spam. The problems you mention with arty in conquest in such conditions are even worse in destruction. Don't play such crowded nub games, and the experience is much better and far more fluid.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
Shika
Corporal
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri 28 Mar 2014 02:25
Location: Hämeenlinna

Re: How do people stand playing conquest on popular maps?

Postby Shika » Wed 21 Mar 2018 18:52

Fade2Gray wrote:This has to be the first time I've ever seen someone say that artillery dominates in conquest. Artillery only really becomes a problem in team games where the map is too crowded. Artillery use is far more important in destruction.

I see you play 1 hour matches as well. Artillery is not the problem, the problem is that you focus on the opening gimmick rush and lack the skill to exploit it later on. The longer the match, the more time the enemy has to make a comeback. It also becomes much more important to trade better than your opponent the longer the match.

If you are playing 1v1 Paddy with more than 1 person per team, then count on arty spam. The problems you mention with arty in conquest in such conditions are even worse in destruction. Don't play such crowded nub games, and the experience is much better and far more fluid.

I don't understand how you think artillery is worse in destruction. As I said earlier, in destruction you can just move around and not worry about HAVING to occupy an area that is becoming a no-man's-land. Moving around is a 100% fool-proof way to avoid the vast majority of artillery threat in destruction. In conquest I HAVE to occupy a, usually relatively small, area with a CV and against artillery spammers I usually add another cv because I know it's eventually going to hit.

What I take from you saying the opening gimmick rush means that anyone who outplays the ground game is using a gimmick, but not the guy who gets stomped only to amass artillery? ALB and EE were vastly superior in regards to the fact that the ground game was focused, not microing artillery. What takes more skill to exploit? Choosing your initial push and takeover or sitting back spamming overpowered artillery at forests/cities?

You can use planes to bomb very likely CV spots, that's risk over reward. You have zero risk buying artillery besides point investment. I don't play Paddy Field as it's one of the worst maps in this game(because air/artillery is so strong), even on larger maps as the game goes on longer in conquest artillery becomes very strong because in 1-2 hours games your card count matters, and the more artillery is destroying the more you lose. Especially if it's CVs. The reality is in order to play conquest you NEED top tier artillery unless the map is very artillery unfriendly.

Artillery is strong regardless of the number of players, why? Because the game gives out a lot of cards of it per person, even in a 3v3 each team can have 10+ pieces firing nonstop after 20-30 minutes of buildup. Saying I lack the skill when I completely cover my zones and then sit and wait to play the microing artillery game to see whether or not my enemy is smart enough to move his artillery quick enough is not really what I would call skill.

Anyone saying artillery is more powerful in destruction simply doesn't understand how the 2 modes work. Shooting and scooting is viable in destruction, it's not entirely in conquest. It gives power to players with bad tactical skills because they can fall back on artillery that kills the vast majority of units and start firing on the stupidly small zones that occupy most maps
IGN: Suojeluskunta

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

Re: How do people stand playing conquest on popular maps?

Postby Steamfunk » Wed 21 Mar 2018 22:18

ALB and EE were vastly superior in regards to the fact that the ground game was focused, not microing artillery.


The options were still there and you could summon the Buratino every 30 seconds to deal out some punishment, but the maps really were larger and more open. Paddy Field and Mud Fight are two of the narrowest maps I've ever seen, they look like they were designed for LOL rather than RTS gameplay, that combined with super units makes CV sniping inevitable.

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: How do people stand playing conquest on popular maps?

Postby Razzmann » Wed 21 Mar 2018 22:23

Paddy Field isn't narrow as long as people actually play it for 2v2s, not 3v3s or 4v4s...

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

Re: How do people stand playing conquest on popular maps?

Postby Steamfunk » Wed 21 Mar 2018 22:41

Paddy Field isn't narrow as long as people actually play it for 2v2s, not 3v3s or 4v4s...


I was thinking of the 1v1 map that has about two thirds of the map as empty space, although they claim this was to allow manauevering between zones (or spawn rushing, I suppose). Either way its the same with most jungle maps, small spaces surrounded by trees don't exactly make for open/tactical gameplay.

high_melanin
Sergeant
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu 25 Jan 2018 12:02
Contact:

Re: How do people stand playing conquest on popular maps?

Postby high_melanin » Thu 22 Mar 2018 01:00

Steamfunk wrote:
Paddy Field isn't narrow as long as people actually play it for 2v2s, not 3v3s or 4v4s...


I was thinking of the 1v1 map that has about two thirds of the map as empty space, although they claim this was to allow manauevering between zones (or spawn rushing, I suppose). Either way its the same with most jungle maps, small spaces surrounded by trees don't exactly make for open/tactical gameplay.


It is a decent map, there is a lot of space to move and artillery is not a problem. Do you find the map too small for 1vs1?

User avatar
KattiValk
General
Posts: 6319
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2013 03:39
Location: Houston, Texas (CST)
Contact:

Re: How do people stand playing conquest on popular maps?

Postby KattiValk » Thu 22 Mar 2018 01:56

Maybe you need to get better at mid-late game pushing. If the enemy is safe enough to have a stable front and invest several hundred points into artillery at the same time then maybe you don't really pressure them enough.

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

Re: How do people stand playing conquest on popular maps?

Postby Steamfunk » Thu 22 Mar 2018 05:33

It is a decent map, there is a lot of space to move and artillery is not a problem. Do you find the map too small for 1vs1?


If you look up any of maps in EE/ALB you'll see that they have larger sectors and you can cross the map in any direction - a good example is Mecklenburg/Kalmar. In Paddy Field most of the fighting occurs in this small area on the side of a ridge, the other side is jungle. Maps in RD follow the same pattern - spawn to mid is a narrow corridor and you end up facing a town/river or some other boundary that sets up a positional stand-off involving a few tightly spaced units.

I know someone will say 'tank spam' but if anything RD is too micro-heavy, this is one reason why I can't see it ever being balanced.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest