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

[Guderian]

But the ''thing'' is, it does not turn out that way in eir.

[Scyn]

Yeah.. I guess that does seem quite contradictory..

I guess what I mean is that someone who would sacrifice the bulk of their battalion to kill opposing AT and then bring out their blitzkrieg-improved barrel-heat round-P4s are going to mash through their opponents no matter what. The only saving grace to this is that the opposing team may have more infantry to cap with than they do.

[Jazlizard]

Is that any different then sacrificing all of your armor to kill as much as you can? Why is one style acceptable and given a win condition but no the other?

[Scyn]

I wish I could answer that to any effectiveness.. It's been this way for as long as I can remember. except.. Snipers and AT Guns used to be able to cap territory.

[Jazlizard]

Yeah, Ucross afaik first implemented the system. It was to promote actual attacking and prevent 'doom fort' type play. Of course back then the setup times were much longer depending on the size of map (7 minutes on a 4v4 I think?), tank traps built at normal speed, we didn't have R mode along with many other things that have changed since then.

We have come a long way from a balance and game play standpoint I think. This is a compliment and a good thing. I just feel that the system should evolve with the game play so that we can continue to encourage active engagement vs hide and seek.

[Tymathee]

maybe we should change to the way that Botb does it where if you have a majority of your units in a territory you can take it so there's no more one man holding a sector.

what that'll do is there's no more having one soldier and a bunch of armor or whatever in a territory holding it again day 20 rifles or something. yea it may promote blobing a bit more but those blobbers will also be at a disadvantage vs certain counters to that blobing.

I once won a game by putting my captain in a sector and just letting him hold it while i went else where, with the new system like botb, if you say have two gren squads go into the territory, they'll take it from the captain.

[Guderian]

Then tanks need to be able to hold territory, it sounds silly but well you don't have any factories in eir


Still it should be put on the table

[Illegal_Carrot]

Then tanks need to be able to hold territory, it sounds silly but well you don't have any factories in eir


Still it should be put on the table

How about infantry can de-cap territory, but no actually capture it while there's a tank on it.
little things like Jeeps and even armored cars should not get this ability, however.

[Guderian]

first point is to true, second is also true.

hmm and i propose that radio cars can ''lockdown'' the territories.

[EliteGren]

hmm and i propose that radio cars can ''lockdown'' the territories.

What gives?

[Illegal_Carrot]

first point is to true, second is also true.

hmm and i propose that radio cars can ''lockdown'' the territories.

What do you mean by 'radio car?' The Scorched Earth radio scout car, or a whole new unit?

[Guderian]

I mean the vampire fwagon

[petewinny23]

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.

DasNob is right here if you spend all your infantry in early to mid game on destroying all the enimes AT guns and infantry AT squads and possibly most of their tanks as in the case of the more commonly used axis tactic just so u can bring your tanks on mid to end game literally unopposed then your strategy has failed.......keep some infantry in reserve for the end or buy more infantry with PP!

This back capping tactic is a solid counter to this and should be left in the game to keep things interesting!

[Jebus]

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)

This.

[scrapking]

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)

Also this, fully agreed.

What I don't understand is why we don't have map sectoring standards, or force re-edits on existing maps to get it under control.

It's not only the number of sectors across, but when one or more sectors "tendrils" deep past one or more bordering sectors - allowing the capping of back sectors that would not otherwise be bordered by any frontline units.  Road sectors are a prime example, but it occurs in other ways on quite a few maps.

[Jazlizard]

Yes this can be adjusted via better sectoring, although the larger maps maybe be more challenging. I think it would be a good start to see how it works, just not sure how much of a burden it is to our mappers.

[DuckOfDoom]

I think this could be easily solved by adding a minimap flash to the sector that is being capped, just like in vCoh.

[Jazlizard]

That could ruin some surprise flanking moves though and somewhat diminish the usefulness of the fog of war.

[DuckOfDoom]

That could ruin some surprise flanking moves though and somewhat diminish the usefulness of the fog of war.

Thats true. Maybe caping should only start after the infantry unit has been stationary for 10+ seconds...

[jackmccrack]

L2play noob, how do you think the Allies won WWII IRL?