Back capping

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Jazlizard]

I don't like the way back capping and the pop-cap mechanic are in their current sate. To be honest I never have.

I've used it to win games I had no business winning, and have suffered frustrating losses due to it.

Now before I go further, part of the reason for the system, at least so I was told, was to make sure that more of the map was utilized and that people didn't create their 'doom forts' and the game becomes a camp fest. Ok... I can buy that and it certainly does do a good job of making sure that at least when a defensive line is created it roughly has to span the width of the map. It also makes map control important and gives players a bonus for controlling more of the map, which I'm sure promotes the type of game play the devs intend and for the most part we all enjoy.

But here is what I don't like about the system. The late game cap races. They seem absurd. Usually this involves half dead units or pios/engineers running around for no other reason then to capture a sector, only to force the opposing team to do the same or search around for those 1 or 2 squads. It penalizes late armor pushes and makes it so that even when a team is out of counters they can still win by simply running around till they make your pop 0, and late in the game this may not take very long to do and spending resources to counter something that really has no significance on the battlefield can cost you whatever other positions you already hold.

So I know I'm going to get flamed. The usual lrn2play is to be an expected reply, but I'm honestly trying to make the game more enjoyable and the battles more about battling then chasing units around.

If near the end of the game your team has no AT and the opposing side has a couple tanks with a few infantry squads, you can still win by simply running around till the pop cap runs out. That seems extremely lame to me.

Now I'm not one to complain about anything without providing a possible alternative, so hear me out.

I think everyone agrees that map control should be a important part of the game and promotes a good style of game play. Having the pop cap advantage is a big boost for those who can push their enemies back, I have no issues with this. However I think there should be a limit on how low you can push the enemy, say down to 25 pop, which is what you start with. A 40pop team vs a 25 pop team should be an easy victory and still promotes the emphasis of map control without making it ridiculous.

I also think that a sector should not be able to be captured if there is a vehicle in it, it doesn't make sense to have sector control change simply because someone has a tank in it, and the opposing play has an infantry squad in it. Please note, I'm not saying that all vehicles should be able to capture territory, I think that just makes the problem worse and should be kept as a doctrine/faction/specific units ability if anything, but vehicles should be able to hold territory. I'm not sure if this is something that is programmable or not but it would be neat to see, if not perhaps make their capture rate so slow that it effectively is the same thing.

Before I end, I am still in favor of the territory control victory, if you don't have enough units to control the minimum amount of sectors, then it will still be possible to literally push your enemy off the field, but I think the pop cap victory should be removed and limited so that map control is still emphasized, but doesn't dominate the late game as it currently does.

[Guderian]

Your getting flanked in better terms, so counter attack.


Else send back a small patrol to deal with that one  rifle squad or whatever.


Will get back to you i have a huge **** headache and only read the top.

[DerangedGerman]

You can always just cap behind the back-cappers, and cut the captured territory off.

[Jazlizard]

I could chase them around, but you have to give somewhere. I don't consider it a legitimate flank as they have no intention of attacking me, if it was a legitimate threat then I would pay for the mistake or letting the units go by.

Why should part of the game consist of chasing down units that have no intention of fighting?

[Guderian]

They are ''flanking'' your supply lines. Now are you going to attack or secure your supply lines.....Eir is fucking brilliant

[CrazyWR]

the problem results when one team is down to virtually nothing but armor, and the other side has nothing but vanilla infantry or specialist AI-infantry left.  The team with nothing but armor tries to run around finding all the infantry squads, but, especially on 3v3 and 4v4 maps, this is liable to take quite some time, during which time, the other team continues to cap and you lose pop.  Even though you clearly would win if the battle type was annihilation, you end up losing because you are out of infantry to recap territory.  Its a bit silly to be honest...

[Skaevola]

I could chase them around, but you have to give somewhere. I don't consider it a legitimate flank as they have no intention of attacking me, if it was a legitimate threat then I would pay for the mistake or letting the units go by.

Why should part of the game consist of chasing down units that have no intention of fighting?

Wait are you saying you aren't paying for your lack of attacking? You said you lost the game. Seriously L2P - If you have armor just cut off their backcapping supply line with a single rifle squad with a tank for support or anything really.

[Unkn0wn]

Personally I've always been of the opinion backcapping is a map's flaw rather than a flaw in the design of MCP.
Crossroads is a good example of this, more than 3 sectors wide on a 2vs2 map just screams for backcapping.
(The problem increases if the map is a hedge maze, etc)

[DasNoob]

If you find that you keep running into the situation late game were all you have is armor... it is time to change the build of your company to include more infantry.  I had to do it with my PE.

[Mysthalin]

Simply reduce the territory requirements and the rate at which you LOSE popcap if you have the smaller part of hte territory under control in the late-game. -5.00 popcap gain when you have 30 percent of hte map is what breaks it, not back-capping itself .

[Jazlizard]

No I can attack all I want, but I can cap someone out faster then they can generally attack, especially in a 3v3 or 4v4 map, and if all they have left is infantry they can certain hold onto those sectors long enough while they continue to cap around the map.

Crazy gave a good example of something that I have seen happen, it's not that the person doesn't have much infantry left in their company(although this is sometimes the case). It's that most of their pop is being taken up by vehicles, chasing the units down can result in even more territory lost as you shift your infantry to find the capping units.

Are there ways to counter back capping? Sure, I'm not arguing that, but when you can win a battle by avoiding a battle, I got an issue, saying they are cutting off my imaginary supply lines is nice, but they are already getting rewarded by getting more pop for themselves, reducing my own pop, "flanking" me and having a chance to kill my units as they come on the field once the spawn buff wears off, if they can't win with all those advantages, why should they win simply because they have more infantry on the field then I do at a particular point in the game?

If you like the mechanic, that's cool, say why you like it, I'm not arguing it doesn't have some counters.

[Guderian]

Well it is that there 'IS' actually an end to the argument cause back capping is a viable strategy.

It can be countered in the form of counter attack (while a few retain the other zones)

Now if the other side gets over run, Congratulations you have been lured.

It is a viable strategy.

[Jazlizard]

Only because the current mechanics make it a viable strategy.

[Killer344]

A needed one against the wher support team spammage.

[Jazlizard]

A needed one against the wher support team spammage.

Could you explain?

[Guderian]

Backcapping is needed as it gives the players a big reason to switch from their defending positions and counter.

Else you could yust sit there.

[Jazlizard]

As I already explained if you just sit there, you'll still lose pop, if you can't beat 25 pop with 40 pop then you're doing something wrong.

Why should I be forced to move my position simply because you move yours? If you are indeed flanking me, then I'll pay for it with the loss of my units.

[Scyn]

It's the risk you take when running with Heavy Tanks on the field or waiting until the very end to bring tanks on so there's very little the opposing team can do to kill the tanks.

Unfortunately that's a flaw in the balance between Allied and Axis armor and their effective counters of wiping out opposing AT. You may sacrifice your units to kill paks.. or sacrifice units to kill 57s so that heavy armor can roam more freely. But all those sacrifices ultimately lead to a shortage in infantry.

Should vehicles be able to cap? Sure, but only light vehicles as there is no good reason that a king tiger should be able to hold a sector against a swarm of infantry that, though they cannot kill it, also cannot proceed in the other objective of the game, which is controlling territory.

Simply put, there's has to be more than 1 way to win. Otherwise the people with the most units or the people with the most powerful units would always prevail.

[Guderian]

To have a quick summaries and a simplifying of one tactic with backcapping: It is a huge win against people who call in double kts (team wise) or even tripple kts.

[Jazlizard]

Simply put, there's has to be more than 1 way to win. Otherwise the people with the most units or the people with the most powerful units would always prevail.

This statement is contradictory, you can't have the most units and the most powerful, you get to pick either or, or somewhere in between. What's funny is that under this particular win condition, the person with the most infantry wins, which seems contrary to what you actually want to achieve.

There would still be 2 methods of winning as you'd be able to win via capturing and holding territory as well as annihilation/surrender. And of course there is always the option to add another win objective.