-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I'd disagree. It means you need to use different tactics and think about the map somewhat differently; whether that's a problem or not is probably more a case of personal taste. Personally I prefer the frontline system, but I can see why someone who enjoyed the sector based system of Wargame might dislike it.
I don't think either are necessarily the case. You don't need a presence across the entire map; if we both push our respective left flanks and miss each other all that happens is the front line rotates ninety degrees. Forces have to engage at some point in order to make any difference to the battle. What the frontline system does do is make where that engagement happens dynamic according to the players involved rather than being a 'set' position according to the map, which is no bad thing. This kind of gets into tactical decisions - on some maps, with some divisions, I might post a picket force to cover the flanks; on other maps, with other divisions, I might be better off moving to occupy the centre ground in force.
I don't think it's division capabilities as it is the theatre that's dictating map design. We don't have complex maps because Normandy isn't a complex geography. Maybe if they incorporated other theatres we might see more varied terrain (Italy would provide for the mountains; Netherlands for the rivers).
It places more emphasis on knowing the division and units you're playing rather than the map. I wouldn't consider that a bad thing. I'd also argue it's an easier learning curve - if you understand how the division you're playing (and your deck) works it's transferable to any map; when it's the map dictating the battle a lot of the nitty gritty of deck management and faction selection is gone in favour of understanding the map instead.
The same applied to the sector system to be fair. It's less of an issue with the frontline - the victory clock is based on simple area control, so as long as 51% of the battlefield is covered in your colour (whether contigous or not) you're the one winning. Sneaking units around can work, but as above we're getting into tactics here; if we're bogged down in the centre and I haven't covered the flanks sneaking a few units around can work. If I'm beating you back in the centre however about the best you can hope for is it might buy you a few seconds.
Conversely much easier to lure your opponent into overextending before isolating their probing force, and thanks to the way the surrender mechanics works, much easier to annihilate said force once you've shut down their corridor
It's simply different information, and therefore requires different misinformation to pull off a bluff. The only real downside I see in that respect is that you can use it to target area attacks with artillery / aircraft. There's still an element of risk since you don't know precisely what you're shooting at (trying to strafe a panzer with machineguns doesn't usually work out so well) but it's still a bit easier than the old "hunt the CV".
It's an abstraction in either case. I think the frontline approach is probably better suited to WWII, particularly the Normandy campaign, than the sector control method (in fact I think it could be argued one of the problems the Allies had was approaching the campaign as a question of occupying strategic goals rather than pushing the line), though neither could be claimed as particularly accurate at the level SD focuses on. I think Close Combat probably presented the best interpretation in regards to historical accuracy, but as you say gameplay should be the first consideration and the CC approach only really works when you have multiple battles on the same map, with each battle affecting the next.
From a military perspective, the Navy and air forces roles where to support the Marines/army, if you don't own land you don't win. The ocean is a dynamic environment and a front line will punish the combat. However if you absolutely control the waters, then taking an island would be relatively trivial as you can divert a large amount of firepower as supporting fire.
First of all, imo the frontline is a great feature. It makes conquest much better than it has been in WG. And as a consequence it is much more popular now (WG lobbies were usally dominated by destruction games).
Especially it allows qite diiferent tactics on the same map. In contrast to the old zone system, which encouraged to always rush for the same zones and often very quickly resulted in a early win/loss, if an important hot spot was lost.
But I also agree, that this makes the game more difficult to learn. It is much easier to reach an acceptable skill level, if you first focus on one single tactic on one map with one deck. This was easier with the WG system.
Although I like the current system, it could be worth to try some modifications of the frontline system or some addtional game modes. SD has introduced some new features and it will take some time and some try and error to find out, how the best implementation for this features looks like. In WG this polishing was done from EE to RD. Resulting in a stable playerbase at RD. For SD this works still needs to be done and testing some different solutions wolud be the best way for it.
Therefore I would appreciate, if Eugen or some modders could realize some of the proposed moddified frontline modes. So everybody can try, which one is most fun to play:
Especially it allows qite diiferent tactics on the same map. In contrast to the old zone system, which encouraged to always rush for the same zones and often very quickly resulted in a early win/loss, if an important hot spot was lost.
But I also agree, that this makes the game more difficult to learn. It is much easier to reach an acceptable skill level, if you first focus on one single tactic on one map with one deck. This was easier with the WG system.
Although I like the current system, it could be worth to try some modifications of the frontline system or some addtional game modes. SD has introduced some new features and it will take some time and some try and error to find out, how the best implementation for this features looks like. In WG this polishing was done from EE to RD. Resulting in a stable playerbase at RD. For SD this works still needs to be done and testing some different solutions wolud be the best way for it.
Therefore I would appreciate, if Eugen or some modders could realize some of the proposed moddified frontline modes. So everybody can try, which one is most fun to play:
- mixed frontline/zone system as proposed by I WUB PUGS. But imo the zones should only give bonus points and overall map control should also matter.
- Let only command units affect the frontline (as proposed in Eugen forum somewhere). This could have some interesting advantages:
- this allows sneaky attacks. If you do not have command units in your attack force, the attack will not be visible in the frontline
- pushing the frontline with single units or empty transports no more possible
- the advancing player needs to invest in more command units instead of combat units. This gives the defending player the possibility to come back.
- The current problems with high vet are reduced, if command units have a different function and do not give vet bonus anymore
- Could be a nice trade-off, if you want to risk to put a command unit in an area, which is not 100% safe. Or if you prefer to lose some map control.
- Only disadvantage: CV snipping is back again.
- this allows sneaky attacks. If you do not have command units in your attack force, the attack will not be visible in the frontline
- Maybe someone has more ideas, like interesting offense/defense modes for the frontline mechanic
I would love to have a little animation showing the front line changing. I would also love statistics like how many units of a type were fielded and lost.
It's painful to read such statements in 2017 when we know for years all you had to do is change a little bit the parameters to avoid such rushes.
40 min game with all but 3 circles to hold and you had the best games you could hope for a Wargame.
It died with EE because 1) at that time, a big part of the community cherished Destruction mode and didn't want to really try the Conquest mode (how many "big" players tried it one or two times with basics settings and then calling it a spam-rush fest and demeaning it until today ?). The community felt way more comfortable with the camping-arty -sometimes mass Pact chopper- fest we enjoyed everyday. (Some guys like @Drrty-D even found the circles ugly, because, yeah, all the distorded zones look really better
Imo the EE conquest had the most movement out of any game mode that we have currently.Some people have some rose tinted glasses on for that original conquest mode. Why I do not know, but it died as it rightfully deserved to. It was a disaster and painful to play, and only helped to reinforce the cancer that is destruction. The only thing worse than it was siege, and thank goodness that mode died as well. Mercifully conquest evolved into so much better, and it stuck around for 2 games.
Strange how some people thought that it was just a "simple matter of tweaking paramaters" and suddenly it was better.
Crotou is right about changing the parameters. Sometimes that mode was even more hard core than Total Destruction, you remember vab and BTR rushes because you only needed a few more zones than half. However if you need say 16 out of 20 zones. Things get a bit different, you actually have to push deep. BTR and Vabs don't hold zones. They snatched them if they couldn't be stopped, it was part of how to get a win if you only a few off. However all it takes is having your own vehicle in the circle to prevent it from being captured.
It's pretty tough, I havn't played it much myself. However it really puts emphasis on pushing, counter attacks and pretty much how deep all depends on how many of those Circles you tell the game you want to be the victory condition. Although it's just like destruction with less zones to capture so Spam is a silly to say as you get less income usually.. So it's not all that different from Destruction, just the Victory Condition Requires pushing. How deep depends on the settings. If it's only a few more than half than yeah, APC rushes can end the game in minutes. However if its 75% or more, the game can go quite long and be pretty dang tough sometimes.
EE Conquest was the deepest gamemode ever in the series. You had to handle both Conquest points, by outplaying and taking the land, and your economy by putting CVs in income zones. You could still play the CV sniping meme but it only affected the income, not the direct road to victory.
It wrecked all the cheesy tactics : spam-rush, arty-camping, CV sniping, mass chopper, etc.
It wrecked all the cheesy tactics : spam-rush, arty-camping, CV sniping, mass chopper, etc.
Last edited:
And invented a new one: the 30s-before-the-end rush ...
Oh yeah,the famous "ending rush" ? You mean a final push to win by one circle ? Meaning the game was even between the two sides ? Meaning the team who succesfully take the point plays better ?
Where is the problem ?
EDIT : no need to disagree when you never tried it, Fade.
Last edited:
The end rush usually only works well if you've managed to inflict significantly more losses than you've taken so that you have both the spare points to invest in a rush and also enough gaps and or panicked units to exploit.
Its far from game breaking and if you lose to it you've usually got only yourself to blame.
Its far from game breaking and if you lose to it you've usually got only yourself to blame.
wtf is this end rush meme? maybe it works if your opponent goes afk or has no units left on the board but that is not a rush....
I'm not so sure, but It's probably something like "There are only 2 or 3 minutes left in the game, Losses don't matter so might as well Prep the Final All in push" Both sides can do it but the leading team usually will have more resources to make it happen so you just get a No risk way to ensure your lead by All In with the timer is near the end even if your rush fails They won't be able to counter attack in time. Just leaving commands behind and even if they kill them there will only be a few seconds left so unless they destroy them all it won't lose you the game for doing an All in push.
With the circles and a really even game, If the final push gets you more circles it would be a kind Win or Loss that would just be marginal at best. When the game could of gone either way.
I'm thinking of any kind of Timer near the end of the game. As long as losses don't count there isn't much reason for not pushing near the end of a match. In any game mode, as the last 30 seconds big losses won't change the outcome for the game, usually.
In destruction it can be seen as trying to drain your fob by the match end with Artillery as it's 'Free points' Although you would need to have deployed the Artillery.
With the circles and a really even game, If the final push gets you more circles it would be a kind Win or Loss that would just be marginal at best. When the game could of gone either way.
I'm thinking of any kind of Timer near the end of the game. As long as losses don't count there isn't much reason for not pushing near the end of a match. In any game mode, as the last 30 seconds big losses won't change the outcome for the game, usually.
In destruction it can be seen as trying to drain your fob by the match end with Artillery as it's 'Free points' Although you would need to have deployed the Artillery.
Last edited: