How do people stand playing conquest on popular maps?

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 » Thu 22 Mar 2018 06:16

Shika wrote:I don't understand how you think artillery is worse in destruction.

You must be new here, but don't worry I can't begin to fathom how anyone, other than someone very inexperienced, can find arty more abusive in conquest than 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.

You can do the same in conquest. Moving around, in conquest, is a solid way to avoid arty bombardment. Get creative with where you park the CVs after you've pushed all enemy recon out of the zone, watch for incoming arty, and you'll be fine. Your comparison, as much, is deeply flawed.

Also, you said you can withdraw from a zone. That is extremely bad and sacrifices the initiative. If you sacrifice key points, your enemy can control them. You can end up allowing the enemy to cap more zones, and get more points, and thus mass more units than you. If you keep sacrificing ground, then you are trapping yourself into a smaller and smaller area, thus will less room to move around in, and thus become even more vulnerable to arty.

"But I can set ambushes!"

Which I can screen for with 5 pt units, and then pick off with overwhelming force as desired.

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?

It's a gimmick because it's all you are good at. You are good at opening moves, but crumble in the long game. Thus? You are a gimmick player. "But I could rush in ALB!" Yeah, you could exploit the far worse cheese in ALB, good for you.

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 play 1v1 Paddy at 4v4 and come crying about arty spam, ie with the map massively crowded and on a 1 hour match, then turn around and declare EE/ALB superior?

I am disappoint.

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.

You NEED top tier arty? Hardly. I bring a card of 40 pt mortars, a card of HE MLRS, maybe SMERCH if im USSR, and that's it. The mortars lay smoke. The MLRS mass stuns what I'm about to attack.


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.

If someone has 10+ pieces firing nonstop they they are wasting their FOBs for little. They will not be able to resupply their ground units before long, and thus cripple their ground game. That you can win the middle but fail to spread out enough to prevent mass arty fire from inflicting heavy casualties on you speaks volumes.

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

:lol:

Thanks for the entertainment.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

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 10:48

Steamfunk wrote:In Paddy Field most of the fighting occurs in this small area on the side of a ridge, the other side is jungle.


And you can push both.

Steamfunk wrote: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.


The set of decent maps is not large for sure, but the ranked pool is pretty good.

Steamfunk wrote: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.


RD is not micro-heavy.

Steamfunk wrote:this is one reason why I can't see it ever being balanced.


No, eugen is the reason it will not be balanced.

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

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

Postby Steamfunk » Fri 23 Mar 2018 01:59

RD is not micro-heavy.


Well it depends on how much you think is enough, for me it's gone some way in that direction.

You can do the same in conquest. Moving around, in conquest, is a solid way to avoid arty bombardment.


That's the not always the case, although I think it comes down to most sectors being small patches surrounded by trees. It seems like they decided to focus on defending lanes rather than controlling larger areas of the map, you always had chokepoints but there were at least a few paths through the mid.

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 » Fri 23 Mar 2018 06:55

Steamfunk wrote:
You can do the same in conquest. Moving around, in conquest, is a solid way to avoid arty bombardment.


That's the not always the case, although I think it comes down to most sectors being small patches surrounded by trees. It seems like they decided to focus on defending lanes rather than controlling larger areas of the map, you always had chokepoints but there were at least a few paths through the mid.

If you sacrifice the initiative and allow the enemy to start to box you in, like what the OP freely admits to doing, then yeah you are going to get hammered by arty. If I win the fight for the mid, I admit I go cautious for about 5, maybe 10 minutes tops, but after that? I go hyper aggressive again and relentlessly push. If the other team investments in 10+ tube artillery when they are on the defensive, they are going to collapse.

How else does the enemy team mass so much arty unless the OP just sits back and let's them mass up?

This "arty ruins conquest" is the most baffling thing I've ever seen. I can kinda understand the "LOL conquest is nothing but spamming, not skill!" argument(some people simply can not adapt to the higher skill required of handling more units with more aggressive play style), but blaming tube arty arty spam has me totally lost. I mean, 10+ tube arty pieces across the entire team? That'll suck FOBs dry at a horrific rate. How many FOBs did the other team take? If they took more than 4 in a 4v4...

why the devil didn't you totally collapse them by the 20 minute mark? There's a certain pubstomp team that rolls Meme Ridge a lot, and they look to arty spam the road into the city, and they often have 6+ FOBs for it. Hilarity always ensues because I just helo rush the city and their mass of MLRS/BKAN cheese does zilch.

In my games, with good players, I often sometimes see a pair of top tier tubes, sometimes 4. Always I see plenty of mortars, and 1 to 3 MLRS. Personally I'm a huge fan of using mortars in pairs to run smoke.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

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

Postby Markenzwieback » Fri 23 Mar 2018 10:49

Even trying to get four MSTA-S on the field when I was the cunt running two cards in my USSR deck was very sketchy, if the enemy was on their toes. But the second three-four 152mm tubes were on the field, enemy infantry was not having fun times and I could finally recreated propter USSR tactics lol.
Image

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3387
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

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

Postby chykka » Sat 24 Mar 2018 07:03

Some maps are better for macro games. Some are kinda grind fests, as stated some you end up with units packed too tight which is just asking for artillery. Just don't neglect anything else while shoot scooting arty and it's usually more present on some maps than others.
Image

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

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

Postby urogard » Sat 24 Mar 2018 17:49

KattiValk wrote: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.

This is probably more true than anything anyone has posted so far in this thread.

Even someone playing 4v4 paddy field (or even god forbid 10v10), a mars/smerch shower into some treeline will have an effect if you're stupid enough of leaving your force sitting in there.

It's fairly easy to force arty spammers to shoot where you want them to shoot, and usually once that MLRS has fired its salvo, it's going to stay quiet for the next 1-2 minutes. After which it's not hard to present a "juicy target" which you move out of harms way once you see the incoming missiles. Rinse and repeat.

Keep moving and keep pushing, if the frontline is changing, you'll never have enough forces on one spot for even a lucky hit by the arty spammer to hurt. People quickly get into bad habits, which play into this kind of play, but it's easy to avoid if you're paying attention.

User avatar
Shika
Corporal
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri 28 Mar 2014 02:25
Location: Hämeenlinna

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

Postby Shika » Sun 25 Mar 2018 04:26

Fade2Gray wrote:
Shika wrote:I don't understand how you think artillery is worse in destruction.

56%

your entire post oozes this sort of snide superiority

We get it, you joined a year before I did and you're an Israeli mercenary who fought for the north atlantic terror organization.

As for your points everything you said doesn't counter what I did. I'm not going to bother pointing out the flaw in logic such as "You NEED top tier arty? Hardly." then next thing you say you bring a Smerch and MLRS. My advice is you go die for ISIS like a good amerimutt. How's that PTSD treating you lapdog?

as for the other posts I see what you guys are saying but against good players on Paddy Field etc. if I really continually push it's throwing units into a meat grinder. I agree with the idea and use the idea on many other maps but on Paddy Field you hit the wall of the river, at that point it's so easy to send out bombers with very little danger and even fighters have a hard time with the ECM counts on NATO planes. I just had another game where I took 3 points initially only to get spammed with planes in the forest/city that is in the third point up, if that makes sense for reference. 2 bombers and basically my whole force is done, because I overextended. I didn't even have all my units bunched but the damage is done enough. I bought a mig-29 at start but it wasn't enough to stop the F-16, got to ~250 points and now the pushback begins, my ally loses the C point and now my entire point is slowly getting artillery on it and lo and behold they hit a CV eventually. So while I was spending more of my points on units that were easily fed into a grinder by continual aggression, the enemy just amasses more and take the point with little resistance. Still would've won because I held my 2 but my ally could never get the point back even with my help.

So this idea that mass aggression works is simply false. There are too many defensive tools in this game that check on small maps. I'm just going back to Floods and Tough Jungle where I can win easily with my strategy. I get that my stuff doesn't work on small maps, that's fine. I just think it's a very unskillful scenario where artillery and air can have such a massive and safe impact on entire zones. In honesty too Paddy Field probably has some of the worst zoning in the entire game
IGN: Suojeluskunta

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 » Sun 25 Mar 2018 06:44

Shika wrote:Image

That has to be one of the most specular ways to admit to completely and utterly losing the argument I've seen on here in awhile. From insults to shifting goalposts, this is so much failure I can only shake my head. Sad! It isn't just me that's calling you out either, which makes it all the more amusing.

as for the other posts I see what you guys are saying but against good players on Paddy Field etc. if I really continually push it's throwing units into a meat grinder


Learn to push. You won the mid, you have the advantage. Learn to exploit it. Unless you traded so badly that you are put completely and utterly on the defensive, in which case you are even worse than you are letting on.

2 bombers and basically my whole force is done, because I overextended.

...

........

..............

You bunch your units up so much that only 2 bombers wipes you out??

I didn't even have all my units bunched but the damage is done enough

Right.

Post a replay, I have got to see just what this madness is.

So this idea that mass aggression works is simply false

Just stop, because your credibility is lacking right now.

There are too many defensive tools in this game that check on small maps.

*HEADDESK*

Playing 4v4 on a 4v4 map instead of 1v1 or 2v2 maps results in less arty spam, who would have figured that? :roll:
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

XanderTuron
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 591
Joined: Thu 10 Mar 2016 23:17
Contact:

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

Postby XanderTuron » Sun 25 Mar 2018 06:54

lol
My mouth is moving, but nothing relevant is coming out. Also I cannot guarantee that my research is perfect or even remotely accurate.

I have low quality Wargame Red Dragon casts on my youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/XanderTuron

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 11 guests