Strategy question: When playing Destruction, why attack?

broskiier
Private First-Class
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat 31 Aug 2013 07:57
Contact:

Strategy question: When playing Destruction, why attack?

Postby broskiier » Mon 9 Sep 2013 22:48

Hey guys (and gals),

been playing WAB for a few weeks now and am really digging it. My main RTS experience in the past has been with Company of Heroes, which is tactical RTS that takes place at the platoon-level. Much smaller scale and all ranked games are Conquest-style (with the caveat that you can destroy the enemy's base and win, as well), so the concept of taking and holding points seems natural to me.

As you may have guessed, switching to larger maps and a points-for-kills system has been quite an adjustment. (I know that I could play Conquest on WAB too, but I know that Destruction is sort of the default game mode, so I've chose to learn that one).

The idea of awarding points only for destruction of units seems a bit odd to me, because the natural question then becomes "Why would I ever want to attack?" The safest bet seems to be to lock down a couple of sectors with garrisoned infantry, set up your recon, and wait.

Now, if both players come in with that attitude, it seems to be an easy recipe for a draw.

In the games I've played, I've usually been the one (needlessly) pushing an offensive and walking into my opponents prepared defenses, thus sacrificing a bundle of points. Even if my attack succeeds, having gained an extra sector doesn't really help me close the gap between our point totals. This is why I ask "why should I attack?"

Please discuss.

User avatar
Sgt._Pepper
Lieutenant
Posts: 1422
Joined: Sat 15 Jun 2013 10:57
Location: South Tyrol, Italy
Contact:

Re: Strategy question: When playing Destruction, why attack?

Postby Sgt._Pepper » Mon 9 Sep 2013 23:13

broskiier wrote:Hey guys (and gals),

been playing WAB for a few weeks now and am really digging it. My main RTS experience in the past has been with Company of Heroes, which is tactical RTS that takes place at the platoon-level. Much smaller scale and all ranked games are Conquest-style (with the caveat that you can destroy the enemy's base and win, as well), so the concept of taking and holding points seems natural to me.

As you may have guessed, switching to larger maps and a points-for-kills system has been quite an adjustment. (I know that I could play Conquest on WAB too, but I know that Destruction is sort of the default game mode, so I've chose to learn that one).

The idea of awarding points only for destruction of units seems a bit odd to me, because the natural question then becomes "Why would I ever want to attack?" The safest bet seems to be to lock down a couple of sectors with garrisoned infantry, set up your recon, and wait.

Now, if both players come in with that attitude, it seems to be an easy recipe for a draw.

In the games I've played, I've usually been the one (needlessly) pushing an offensive and walking into my opponents prepared defenses, thus sacrificing a bundle of points. Even if my attack succeeds, having gained an extra sector doesn't really help me close the gap between our point totals. This is why I ask "why should I attack?"

Please discuss.


Your real question shouldn't be why to attack in destruction, but why to play destruction??
I would really advice you to switch to conquest, especially because that's what you are used to from CoH. Since Conquest was released I haven't played a single Destruction game(at least I think so). Actually it was said that Conquest would become the new ranked mode, which would make it the default game mode, I think.

It might not answer your question, but I would strongly advice you to switch gamemode.
Image

Vermillion_Hawk
Sergeant Major
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri 17 May 2013 03:18
Contact:

Re: Strategy question: When playing Destruction, why attack?

Postby Vermillion_Hawk » Mon 9 Sep 2013 23:21

Or, you could not listen to people proposing small solutions to a bigger picture of what is perceived as a problem, and instead hear this:

In destruction, attacking and controlling territory is as important as it is in Conquest. The fact of the matter is, if you do not have equal or greater income than your opponent then you are at a serious disadvantage. It's similar to Conquest, but much less gamey and more focusing on actual tactics, in that in order to tip the balance and roll over your opponent, you don't need to gain X amount of victory points but rather you must gain unit superiority and attack where the enemy is weakest. Conquest still doesn't change much, or anything really, of the so-called "turtling" that people supposedly loathe in Destruction. It only puts it in a new venue. The person with territorial superiority enjoys the exact same amount of tactical freedom to turtle or attack as they see fit as in Destruction. Equal income changes nothing, since one player will always be on the defense and one player will always be on the attack.

Elgemannen
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun 28 Apr 2013 16:08
Contact:

Re: Strategy question: When playing Destruction, why attack?

Postby Elgemannen » Mon 9 Sep 2013 23:28

depends a little on whether you're playing total destruction or with a point cap. If you're playing to 8k points or whatever, there are few good arguments for attacking unless you find a superb weak spot you can take advantage of.

If you're playing TD, especially without a timelimit or with 60 min, attacking will grant you more zones giving you more points. Also the goal of TD is destroying your enemy, which requires you to destroy the enemy CVs, and you basically don't have anything to loose (except that the lost units cannot be used anymore, obviously) by attacking.

Hospy
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013 20:31
Contact:

Re: Strategy question: When playing Destruction, why attack?

Postby Hospy » Mon 9 Sep 2013 23:37

If you can push a defender back into his starting zone, it gives him very little wiggle room to maneuver in. You can line up ATGM teams on reinforcement lanes, and artillery becomes pretty deadly with a target rich environment.

User avatar
Mako
General
Posts: 7352
Joined: Sun 5 May 2013 20:00
Location: Cascadia
Contact:

Re: Strategy question: When playing Destruction, why attack?

Postby Mako » Mon 9 Sep 2013 23:41

It's often best to simply camp.

In short, you really don't need to attack. (Unless you get down on points, then it's attack or lose)
If there's two kinds of players, those that like challenges and those that want a fair game, pubstomps should make everyone happy.

Vermillion_Hawk
Sergeant Major
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri 17 May 2013 03:18
Contact:

Re: Strategy question: When playing Destruction, why attack?

Postby Vermillion_Hawk » Mon 9 Sep 2013 23:43

If you camp you will lose against a player of equal or greater skill level.

User avatar
Numbers
Warrant Officer
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed 10 Jul 2013 18:33
Contact:

Re: Strategy question: When playing Destruction, why attack?

Postby Numbers » Mon 9 Sep 2013 23:47

My suggestion if you don't like the Sitzkrieg meta of Destruction: Play Total Destruction. Total Destruction forces you to go on the offensive eventually in most cases, as you have to destroy all enemy CVs.

Edit: It's also great if you enjoy huge, epic battles.
Last edited by Numbers on Tue 10 Sep 2013 00:05, edited 2 times in total.
Image

User avatar
QuakeRiley
Lieutenant
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sat 18 May 2013 02:01
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Strategy question: When playing Destruction, why attack?

Postby QuakeRiley » Mon 9 Sep 2013 23:51

Total destruction. It is like Conquest except the first 5 minutes don't tend to define who wins and you get some good fun of throwing your deck at the enemy.

Though I do enjoy normal destruction, if someone just camps I get my recon infantry to scout around and drop shells on their AA and CVs. It either makes them move or makes me win.
Image
"...In their Centurions, the 8th Hussars have evolved a new type of tank warfare. They taught us that anywhere a tank can go, is tank country: even the tops of mountains."

User avatar
ericdude88
Captain
Posts: 1678
Joined: Sat 10 Mar 2012 00:56

Re: Strategy question: When playing Destruction, why attack?

Postby ericdude88 » Mon 9 Sep 2013 23:57

You don't attack in destruction...If you want to win just camp. Destruction sucks anyway so IDK why you play it. Switch to conquest would be my advice, it makes wargame alot better.

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests