Don't worry, all the remaining fun parts will be removed in the next iteration.
-
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.
Don't worry, all the remaining fun parts will be removed in the next iteration.
Realistically, a division does not decide to retreat after 15 minute because the enemy drove to the river first
Conquest is not historically accurate. A unit lose ground because it decide to retreat, it doesn't decide to retreat because it lost ground.
At tactical level, the concept is absurd, you are not conquering anything if the enemy army is still there.
We went over this many, many times.
If the game was realistic, victory should be determined by concrete objectives and global morale. (like total war)
You didn't even read his post, or the post he was replying to. You are so bent out of shape over being shot down in your jihad to make destruction look good that you are just shoehorning your rambling blabble about it wherever you can.Realistically, a division does not decide to retreat after 15 minute because the enemy drove to the river first
Conquest is not historically accurate. A unit lose ground because it decide to retreat, it doesn't decide to retreat because it lost ground.
At tactical level, the concept is absurd, you are not conquering anything if the enemy army is still there.
We went over this many, many times.
If the game was realistic, victory should be determined by concrete objectives and global morale. (like total war)
Ofc I read his post, he said the dev think this is a role playing game, so it wasn't designed for fun. I pointed out if it was realistic game, it wouldn't be conquest.
If it was a fun game, it wouldn't be about conquest neither, considering the total number of conquest players is about the same number of downvote i get whenever I post.
If it was a fun game, it wouldn't be about conquest neither, considering the total number of conquest players is about the same number of downvote i get whenever I post.
Just because you don't find roleplaying fun doesn't mean someone else can't enjoy it.
I do find authenticity important. I am merely pointing out it's not all that authentic neither.
Your arguments about destruction being "authentic" hold no water whatsoever. All you have in its defense is fallacy upon fallacy, and that you are trying to bring up your petty points about it in a discussion where it is not even relevant doesn't help your case either.
Ive tried starting up games around 10pm Pacifc. Sometimes I get lucky and can get a 2v2 or larger going but most times I'll sit for 30 min and see a few people join and leave.
It's common sense really, if an army is attacking something, they'd not attack it piecemeal. They'd wait for the entire Battlegroup has arrived before beginning operation. Give me example of ONE example where one side arrived piecemeal and decide to retreat before the entire battlegroup is deployed.
Why would you be attacking if the enemy does not hold the objective before you get there ?
Can you explain what conquest victory means outside the game ? what does it mean to hold 51% of an arbitrary square of terrain for 20 minutes as opposed to 49% ? You opponent retreat ? surrenders ? commit Seppuku because they are so awed by your mastery of strategy ?
Yes, every ww2 offensive was basically two armies sitting around, firing artillery at one another until one side quits because it took slightly more damage from the bombardment than the opponent.
topkek
Small unit actions are pretty common, it's something called initiative. The US military is big on it, especially in the USMC where they value aggression. The US Army tends to be a bit more methodical, but when we see something we can exploit we are ruthless about doing so.
Have you ever even studied the US military's doctrine? It focuses highly on personal initiative and doing things the enemy doesn't expect.
This is blatantly warping how the game is played. Both sides are in a meeting engagement and thus both are arriving piecemeal, why are you warping how the game works?
...
........
.................
You can't be serious.
Note the strawman, I never said destruction is realistic.
in Battle of the Bulge (which is technically a campaign), Germany pushed allies back, gained ground, but had to retreat because their supply got wrecked by air power. Germans were attacking the entire time. At the end of the campaign allies pushed them back to the Frontline before the campaign.
According to conquest scores, allies suffered a total defeat because they had 0 points, because they never got past 50/50 the entire time. According to Dest score they won because they wrecked all the supply trucks so the Germans have to Abandon their armor when they ran. Who really won this one ?
Just give one example of a battle won by temporary control of something, anything.
Yes "you can't be serious" really lend weight to your arguments.
Since you claimed this is the US military Doctrine, give an example in WW2, where units entered a meeting engagement piecemeal, instead of arriving all at once.
The whole idea that you can only mobilize one tank per minute, and you can lose the engagement before they can mobilize is insane.
just imagine your battlegroup driving to the battlefield with a minute (1 km at 60kmh) between tanks. and suddenly, they all decide to turn around and give up because the enemy held 51% for 20 minutes before they could reach the battle.
It's so ridiculous it boggles the mind.
You can't seem to understand why anyone would take an objective when the enemy is not there. I mean, that is literally the best time to take an objective! Yet you are confused by this? How? What, am I supposed to sit and wait for the enemy to take it before I try for it?
Yes, it truly is so straight up ridic that it boggles the mind.
Yes, it truly is so straight up ridic that it boggles the mind.
Knowing when to counter attack and when not to is part of war. The Nazis were forced to counter-attack everything because Hitler said so. This bled the Nazi war machine badly, and ground down their forces needlessly and for no gain. This is a terrible example that proves literally nothing on your behalf. Look into battles in the scale of the game where they are meeting engagements if you want to provide proof to back up your claims.
Last edited:
You can't seem to understand why anyone would take an objective when the enemy is not there. I mean, that is literally the best time to take an objective! Yet you are confused by this? How? What, am I supposed to sit and wait for the enemy to take it before I try for it?
Yes, it truly is so straight up ridic that it boggles the mind.
Knowing when to counter attack and when not to is part of war. The Nazis were forced to counter-attack everything because Hitler said so. This bled the Nazi war machine badly, and ground down their forces needlessly and for no gain. This is a terrible example that proves literally nothing on your behalf. Look into battles in the scale of the game where they are meeting engagements if you want to provide proof to back up your claims.
Actually, the germans counter-attacked because that was their doctrine, not "...because Hitler said so."
On reasonable terms, in the early years of the war in the east that was a very workable tactical and operational solution. Post mid-'43 though, once the Soviets started to perfect their deep battle practice, it became suicidal, because the Soviets attacked on too broad a front, with too much force for any localised counter-attack to do much more than delay the inevitable...keeping in mind that Soviet doctrine involved the swapping in and out of contact the lead formations, after only several days in contact or in the lead, whereas the germans were forced by that doctrine to try to fight everywhere with everything, including all their reserves. The german counter-attack doctrine worked well against the western allies for far longer than it did the Russians (while the germans still had a reasonable force size) simply because the western allied doctrines were so poor to begin with and remained poor for the duration of the war.
I don't think i'd characterize the western 'doctrines' as that far off the mark. There were certain aspects in which their operational art was outdated, but others in which they had some clear advantages over their opponents. The US artillery, for example, was quite effective and they had perfected its use fairly early on in the war. The US armored divisions were well-thought out organizations, aside from weak reconnaissance units.
They were behind in certain areas but to classify them as 'so poor' is off the mark, IMO. They also learned from their experience for things and improved, for example, their air liaison capability. The tank destroyer battalions, while not useful in their original role often ended up beefing up the reconnaissance units to improve their capabilities.
Of course, the army of the 90 division gamble was a very different force from that of the USSR and Germany in terms of its requirements- it had fewer line elements available than the other major powers and didn't have the luxury of rotating so often, but the divisions that did exist were very capable organizations in and of themselves and were beefier than the bare-bones infantry divisions that Germany and the USSR ended up using as they hit their manpower squeeze.
Where is everyone ? Playing other games full of speed,violence and momentum.
I only wonder where some forum guys like H.Alexander and Rojan are,was lot more fun with them around,Harolds always productive posts were something this forum miss now.
I only wonder where some forum guys like H.Alexander and Rojan are,was lot more fun with them around,Harolds always productive posts were something this forum miss now
.
Where is everyone ? Playing other games full of speed,violence and momentum.
I only wonder where some forum guys like H.Alexander and Rojan are,was lot more fun with them around,Harolds always productive posts were something this forum miss now
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I have no questions here.
Aaaaand he is back,nice to see you getting involved in the SD44 online gaming community .
.
You can't compare battle of the bulge. That happened over a course of a month. SD44 meeting engagements are probably over a few hours? It's more likely that if two sides are rushing to the same strategic point and they meet, if they are unable to take ground they'll retreat to a better defensive position. Casualties are a strategic thing. Sure you could lose a match in SD44 and your opponent takes a bajillion casualties and wouldn't be able to fight another consecutive battle but that's not SD44 MP. You'll have to play the campaign or Total War for that.
Battle of bloody gulch. Two sides moving and meeting over a strategic objective. One moving to defensive positions and the other moving to counter attack.
Battle of bloody gulch. Two sides moving and meeting over a strategic objective. One moving to defensive positions and the other moving to counter attack.
Last edited: