Conquest Mode Review

Sukesa
Corporal
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2011 17:43
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby Sukesa » Thu 1 Aug 2013 23:00

DiabloTigerSix wrote:W:EE CQ mechanics, please.



+10000 simple as that

Chesnok
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu 2 May 2013 22:01
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby Chesnok » Thu 1 Aug 2013 23:08

Sukesa wrote:
DiabloTigerSix wrote:W:EE CQ mechanics, please.



+10000 simple as that

Please, no. WEE Conquest, while fun, often devolved into players running recon jeeps all over the place to capture the "little circles" that represented map control points.

The ALB version of conquest will end up trumping WEE conquest in popularity, with time and a few tweaks from Eugen. Give it a couple weeks to mature, it just came out today and y'all are already down on it :roll:

Grosnours
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2091
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2012 23:00
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby Grosnours » Thu 1 Aug 2013 23:13

Chesnok wrote:Please, no. WEE Conquest, while fun, often devolved into mediocre players whose opponents didn't know any better with running recon jeeps all over the place to capture the "little circles" that represented map control points.

FTFY
WEE Conquest was easy to exploit if your opponent didn't know much about the mode. But once the ropes learned, no lame would work (rush meant leaving circles undefended, blobbing the same) as you needed map control, full entire control of the map, to succeed.
At least up until the infamous 5 last minutes where all bets were off. But no one ever said WEE conquest was perfect. :D
Image

Morganan
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 08:36
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby Morganan » Thu 1 Aug 2013 23:28

I think income being tied to the same zones the points are accrued from isn't the best idea. If the income was done something like how WiC does it where there is a cap on your total points, less units you have on the field the higher your income, the more units the lower your income.

Chesnok
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu 2 May 2013 22:01
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby Chesnok » Thu 1 Aug 2013 23:45

Grosnours wrote:
Chesnok wrote:Please, no. WEE Conquest, while fun, often devolved into mediocre players whose opponents didn't know any better with running recon jeeps all over the place to capture the "little circles" that represented map control points.

FTFY
WEE Conquest was easy to exploit if your opponent didn't know much about the mode. But once the ropes learned, no lame would work (rush meant leaving circles undefended, blobbing the same) as you needed map control, full entire control of the map, to succeed.
At least up until the infamous 5 last minutes where all bets were off. But no one ever said WEE conquest was perfect. :D

I remember it being pretty hard to actually lose to the constant swarm of jeeps and cheap APCs thing that showed up here and there in EE conquest, but some people just seemed to think it would work.

User avatar
monochromatic
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun 19 May 2013 16:05
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby monochromatic » Fri 2 Aug 2013 00:14

I am a bit disappointed with the game mode, although not surprised on what was to come.... yeah, having the game decided on a "who settles in the middle first" basis isn't that fun.

And HOW I MISS THE FLYING NUMBERS... killing units is even a bit less satisfying for me now :(

User avatar
F15X32
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed 29 May 2013 09:37
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby F15X32 » Fri 2 Aug 2013 00:37

monochromatic wrote:And HOW I MISS THE FLYING NUMBERS... killing units is even a bit less satisfying for me now :(


Agreed. I used those to identify whether a unit was destroyed if my recon unit had been destroyed, for example, in an air strike. Makes it harder to stay on top of enemy units engaging my forces.
Image

dimabernat
Warrant Officer
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue 24 Apr 2012 23:50
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby dimabernat » Fri 2 Aug 2013 00:49

What about this.
1. Make more then 1 zone that you need to capture in order to win.
2. The zone that need to be capture will be captured by army size in it and not CV.
3. Or keep with CV but make that zone a lot larger so not any heli infentry rush and camp all game will win it.
4. This is kinda diffrenet: what about AI force that you need to battle to gain access to that zone?

5. Bigger map to make the guy holding that "wining zone" to spread out leavening him vulnerable to flanks.

User avatar
F15X32
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed 29 May 2013 09:37
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby F15X32 » Fri 2 Aug 2013 01:46

After playing MP Conquest, I think the biggest problem is that VPs are acculmated far too quickly. I want the time taken to win with two more sectors than the enemy at four or five sectors more. By the time I can get units to the combat area, and the first wave has been defeated, the game is nearly or is over!
Image

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

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby naizarak » Fri 2 Aug 2013 02:14

F15X32 wrote:After playing MP Conquest, I think the biggest problem is that VPs are acculmated far too quickly. I want the time taken to win with two more sectors than the enemy at four or five sectors more. By the time I can get units to the combat area, and the first wave has been defeated, the game is nearly or is over!


this is also a big problem. 1200 points accumulate waaaayyyy too quickly. the bare minimum should be 2000.

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests