Strategy question: When playing Destruction, why attack?

[M3SS3NG3R]

Until they manage to put in the much needed anti ninja CV mechanics and somehow fix right click to win helicopter spam on small maps, total destruction with no time limit will stay as a joke competitively. I've been a proponent of total destruction w/o time limit before conquest was released. I've also played economics mode as an alternative. At the end of the day, my assessment is that conquest is superior to both of them. It demands the most skills (you need to know how to defend and attack locations quickly and optimally), is the most fair (both teams have equal deployment resource so only thing that matters is how you use your units) and has the smallest room for stupid cheese tactics (no magic strategy to win the game in 5 min or drag it on forever).

If you don't have enough time to mount a counter attack maybe set the point limit/time limit higher next time?

[ch3cooh]

If you get asskicked with cheesy tricks you are not as experienced as you claim to be.
And to the other ones: You are early quitters, thx for making my point.

[Ribar]

If you play limited destruction : one way or the other it promotes camping.
If you play unlimited destruction : you either play it until your enemy gets annihilated,surrenders or before one of you runs out of CVs or critical units to keep up with the other party,it is more or less a battle of attrition.
In conquest the one who has more kills does have the edge in material,but it doesn't mean he will win,the other side has increased chances of winning with equal income.With time passing by the early points advantage matters less,the same applies in chess:if you have 8 pawns and opponent has 7,you don't have much of an advantage,but if you trade down,in the end you're left with 1 piece while opponent has none,so it is better to press on the attack at early game,late game attacks are much harder to conduct.

[BassiveMollocks]

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.

For fun? I hate having a game where I play defensivley, much more fun to set up attacks.

[Drang]

Im with ch3cooh on this one. If you dont kill all enemy cvs the game ends unfinished.

Its like playing chess with a 15 minute limit and stop playing when it expires even though both kings keep standing.
Who cares about number of pawns lost. If you dont kill the king its a waste of time for me, which is why i play TD without time limit or at least 60 min hoping to finish what i have started before the game ends abruptly.

A pity there is no 90 min limit. I hate when game end when i am already steamrolling their last sector.

Couldn't agree more.
Nice Chess-Analogy btw.

Except real warfare doesn't function anything like this.

[M3SS3NG3R]

If you get asskicked with cheesy tricks you are not as experienced as you claim to be.
And to the other ones: You are early quitters, thx for making my point.

You saying it takes experience to cut down the time finding your opponent's CV in the forest on Battle for Fjord?

If you haven't experienced that maybe you are not as experienced as you claim to be yourself.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

If you get asskicked with cheesy tricks you are not as experienced as you claim to be.
And to the other ones: You are early quitters, thx for making my point.

You saying it takes experience to cut down the time finding your opponent's CV in the forest on Battle for Fjord?

If you haven't experienced that maybe you are not as experienced as you claim to be yourself.

It doesn't take experience, it takes 2 minutes and an attack helicopter.

Im with ch3cooh on this one. If you dont kill all enemy cvs the game ends unfinished.

Its like playing chess with a 15 minute limit and stop playing when it expires even though both kings keep standing.
Who cares about number of pawns lost. If you dont kill the king its a waste of time for me, which is why i play TD without time limit or at least 60 min hoping to finish what i have started before the game ends abruptly.

A pity there is no 90 min limit. I hate when game end when i am already steamrolling their last sector.

Couldn't agree more.
Nice Chess-Analogy btw.

Except real warfare doesn't function anything like this.

Whereas in real war the Soviets will just back down and admit defeat once NATO holds a few sectors for a couple minutes.

[Random]

I lose interest in a game if it is 95% certain that I will win after 10 minutes of play. In conquest a game like this is going to be over in max. 10 minutes more. In TD/60min it takes 50 minutes more at worst, on average maybe 25 minutes more.

I think it comes down whether you enjoy a game the most as long as it`s undecided and then lose interest, or if you enjoy the feeling of slowly accumulating a bigger lead (or keeping the lead you have) over the other team(often includes camping,since the other team has to get a bunch of kills sooner or later).

[ch3cooh]

If you get asskicked with cheesy tricks you are not as experienced as you claim to be.
And to the other ones: You are early quitters, thx for making my point.

You saying it takes experience to cut down the time finding your opponent's CV in the forest on Battle for Fjord?

If you haven't experienced that maybe you are not as experienced as you claim to be yourself.

If you put your cv into an obvious forest it's your own fault.
I'm a Colonel so I know the cheesy tricks. Just have good ground/plane-AA and don't let them spy on you. Known AA/CV should be relocated.

[Kreved]

Conquest