Conquest Mode Review

naizarak
Captain
Posts: 1626
Joined: Tue 25 Dec 2012 12:53
Contact:

Conquest Mode Review

Postby naizarak » Thu 1 Aug 2013 20:59

Having played a few games, I think conquest mode has potential but it's still flawed in the same, familiar ways.

The game is still decided by the early rush. Once a player secures the important parts of the map and gains a victory point advantage, they have no reason to attack(which makes sense). Now unlike destruction, the defenders actually have to counter attack and can't just sit back behind their lines of defenses.

The idea is good and the way game should be played, but the problem is that income points also scale with sectors. How are the losers meant to recover and successfully gain back territory when they're on the offensive - an inherent disadvantage - AND down on income points?

Logic states that income points need to be kept completely separate from victory points, and equal for both teams. Or it needs to be inversely proportional to your victory point income.



TLDR:
Conquest is inherently broken, the losers have no way of counterattacking because of the income system.


EDIT:Can we just agree that the best way of fixing conquest would be to:
a)equalize income for both teams
b)significantly increase the point limit
Last edited by naizarak on Fri 2 Aug 2013 21:44, edited 1 time in total.

-HP-
Corporal
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon 24 Jun 2013 23:54
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby -HP- » Thu 1 Aug 2013 21:02

Haven't played it yet but I'm disappointed to hear the deployment points still scale with map control. I definitely agree that deployment points should be equal for both teams throughout the match to allow the losing side to mount counterattacks.

Doeko
Master Sergeant
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed 15 May 2013 16:48
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby Doeko » Thu 1 Aug 2013 21:05

1) I agree that conquest would be better if income were to be sepparated from the zones
2) In a way, I also disagree. Because if you take a lot of space then you need income from that space in order to be able to defend it. If points did not scale it would be too difficult to keep sectors
2.1) Since it is hard to attack, this may be somewhat fair

!) Conquest is still 100x better than destruction. In destruction many players actually don't even bother with the middle of the map and just camp on their side, letting you come to them (inevitably running into ATGM and all sorts of other solid defences). This (annoying) strategy will not be viable anymore with conquest.

ALso there is no reason to not sit back when you have the tactical advantage, imo. This game isn't built to end with a rush to the enemy's base and completely destroy him (except TD, but TD sucks in a lot of ways). The game is to seize the advantage and then keep it, forcing the other's hand to recapture the advantage.

rrev
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 20:19
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby rrev » Thu 1 Aug 2013 21:15

Yep, just rush the key positions with helos and your own anti-helo plane and then sit there, alt-TABing once in a while :D
Still a fun and intense game mode, sometimes.
Last edited by rrev on Thu 1 Aug 2013 21:16, edited 1 time in total.

M3SS3NG3R
Sergeant
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun 30 Jun 2013 19:25
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby M3SS3NG3R » Thu 1 Aug 2013 21:16

Can't say I'm surprised to hear this. We called it out like half a month ago.

Ways to fix it:

1. Lower income for the middle zones that will be contested during the initial rush. Increase income for the starting zones.

2. Bigger maps to allow more possibilities of flanking maneuver/ambush. This will also increase the difficulty of resupplying the defending front.

User avatar
saber2243
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun 25 Mar 2012 14:51
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby saber2243 » Thu 1 Aug 2013 21:27

Play the maps the were built for the mode such as MORA where all the center zones are worth 2 points so a 2-4 point income advantage isn't that big of a deal
Peace through Superior Firepower
Image

solaris
Lieutenant
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon 13 May 2013 06:10
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby solaris » Thu 1 Aug 2013 21:31

More to the point:

Just like economy, the players who are under the most pressure to advance are the players least able to do so.
Anecdotes do not count for game balance.

M3SS3NG3R
Sergeant
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun 30 Jun 2013 19:25
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby M3SS3NG3R » Thu 1 Aug 2013 21:33

solaris wrote:More to the point:

Just like economy, the players who are under the most pressure to advance are the players least able to do so.


True, but at least trying to advance doesn't directly lead to said player shooting himself in the foot in the process :mrgreen:

zach5421
Corporal
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon 16 Apr 2012 01:57
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby zach5421 » Thu 1 Aug 2013 21:34

I just finished a 2v2 with a 800 point goal and on Copenhagen for 1 hour and it was really fun on our left we pushed forward and got counterattacked and pushed back on on the right it was tank and atgm chaos were nether me or him knew if we could hold of at the end I ran out of units and ammo. It was the most fun i had in a while.
Image

User avatar
DiabloTigerSix
Colonel
Posts: 2579
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 21:06
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby DiabloTigerSix » Thu 1 Aug 2013 21:40

W:EE CQ mechanics, please.

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests