Theories about backcappage

[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

[VERTIGGO]

I've been pondering the use of backcapping for a while and I've come up with some ideas.

Premises:
-Either back cap mechanic is based on historical strategy or it's simply a genius invention for gameplay
-If it's based on historical strategy it's broken: never in history did two volksgrenadiers wander behind allied lines and ruin Patton's chance of victory. Envelopment was successful in many battles, but involved entire divisions in wide flanking maneuvres, not small raiding parties e.g. Kiev, Stalingrad.
-If it's just a "genius invention for gameplay", then i posit that it's not really a great idea at all. It is mostly used as a fail-safe for teams who know they're losing the battle to run around frantically until they've stolen all of the territory that is not being defended. This requires the victorious army to also run around frantically trying to find those several infantrymen or even scout vehicles who are somehow "capturing" all of this strategic territory without ever really "securing" it. IMHO it results in a lot of BS wins for teams who couldn't win except by "usurping the engine".

Suggestions:
I believe it's impossible to entirely eliminate, but it can be tweaked so it's usable as a strategy but not an "I win button" with which a few scout cars can win a battle against an impenetrable defense or tank army.

-capping requirements could increase as the squads get farther from spawn. e.g. capping past the middle of the map would require 2+ squads, and capping the enemies' spawn area row would require 4-5. This would make it possible to envelope, but only in force (a defender would be required to retaliate against such a sizeable force threatening supply lines).

-capping could require some sort of chain back to the main army, as in territory would only cap if friendly troops were in each territory behind in a sort of chain.

These may not be the best solutions but I believe we need something different to reward good strategy and not a few wandering "heroes"...

[Wnb 1337]

Hmm.. I agree that it causes alot of GG's to turn BS
And having like 4-5 in the enemy area would be great since it doesnt have to capping competition, it can be a fight until nothing remains, yet still having the capping idea but with alot of forces

[Unkn0wn]

'Backcapping' is primarily a map related issue, if you lose to backcapping on a proper sized, proper sectored map you really only have yourself to blame for not fielding infantry/holding the line.

[Rocksitter]

 Good idea it makes you  have to take the area not just run a pio squad into it to cap..

 Someone will post that you should protect your flanks and pios are easy to counter so stop whining  ..

[AmPM]

Backcapping is annoying, I am going to post this Rocksitter...

There is no reason you should not have a squad watching your flank, in most maps it doesn't even have to be far from your main line, just at the corner of the sector.

I think that the cap system in general could use a change. Have more squads/men in the sector? More capping power than the enemy, meaning the sector changes sides even if slowly. Keeps people from holding a sector with a 2 man squad hiding in the corner.

[fallensoldier7]

I remember playing a game against you Vertiggo a couple of days ago (maybe yesterday) on the new 3v3 map.  Your team had a 50mm ATHT, KT, pak, 1 volks squad, 2 panthers, and I think 1 squad of stormtroopers.  I was the last guy alive on my team, but I had about 6 squads of vet 2/3 riflemen left (no AT).  Naturally I ran my rifles around, murdered the last infantry squads, and won by capping.  Tell me, how else do we win besides capping?  Is it our fault that you guys took the risk and went for fielding extra tanks rather than some more infantry?

I like back capping.  It prevents things from getting too campy.  Why should a team be forced to attack another team head-on?  Sure, it's annoying to lose a game every now and then because I chose to go for some more killing power (by fielding the extra tank) rather than fielding the 2 infantry squads, but I think back capping is part of the game.  I think it's sad that some people refer to back cappers as cheaters.

These may not be the best solutions but I believe we need something different to reward good strategy and not a few wandering "heroes"...

Not good strategy if you don't put enough infantry on the field to support your tanks.

[VERTIGGO]

Why should a team be forced to attack another team head-on?

Back capping has nothing to do with attacking whatsoever. That's my point. It's one thing if you encircle and attack from the rear, but if you only have rifles with stickies (why else vet2) then use them, it's not our fault you lost all your own tanks/ATGs. Wehr can't afford nearly as much infantry spam as allies unless we float our fuel which is also foolish.

When an army's tanks and heavy weapons are wiped out they can fight with what they have, but they're essentially defeated. This whole mechanic where you run out of population room and are forced to exit the field just because the Red army's massive hordes of serfs are running around somewhere behind the frontlines is completely fabricated and I don't believe it's legitimate to say "how am I supposed to win if I have no AT left?" The answer should be simple. When you run out; you lose, and there shouldn't be some nifty backup plan that allows a few cheap units to beat an army with thousands of resources worth of reinforcements to call in but can't because of the silly timer.

[fallensoldier7]

Why should a team be forced to attack another team head-on?

Back capping has nothing to do with attacking whatsoever. That's my point. It's one thing if you encircle and attack from the rear, but if you only have rifles with stickies (why else vet2) then use them, it's not our fault you lost all your own tanks/ATGs. Wehr can't afford nearly as much infantry spam as allies unless we float our fuel which is also foolish.

When an army's tanks and heavy weapons are wiped out they can fight with what they have, but they're essentially defeated. This whole mechanic where you run out of population room and are forced to exit the field just because the Red army's massive hordes of serfs are running around somewhere behind the frontlines is completely fabricated and I don't believe it's legitimate to say "how am I supposed to win if I have no AT left?" The answer should be simple. When you run out; you lose, and there shouldn't be some nifty backup plan that allows a few cheap units to beat an army with thousands of resources worth of reinforcements to call in but can't because of the silly timer.

Then the Axis could just spam heavy tanks and focus on taking out AT.  The only reason we ran out of AT that game was because Leo had 2 (2!) KTs to go along with ~2 panthers from each of the other players.  This means that all either side has to do is focus on killing AT, and then they win as long as they have some type of heavy tank.

[AmPM]

If you know they are out of Tanks and AT why not pull your own AT off field, bring out more infantry, and use medium tanks or ACs or even HTs to mop up while cutting their supply lines?

There are many games lost just because people are unwilling to pull their heavy tank or artillery off when it becomes a game of capping.

[VERTIGGO]

If you know they are out of Tanks and AT why not pull your own AT off field, bring out more infantry, and use medium tanks or ACs or even HTs to mop up while cutting their supply lines?

There are many games lost just because people are unwilling to pull their heavy tank or artillery off when it becomes a game of capping.

There's absolutely no way to know what they have left. Do you think we counted the ATGs and M18s? IIRC they were infantry heavy and didn't have many tanks overall. I wanted to push forward, but by the time we found what was backcapping, the pop was down to 17 or so and we would have had to sacrifice 35 pop each to field knights and grens to catch the rifle blob. By then what if they had a couple of T17s that were hiding because of the armor dominance? There are endless solutions in hindsight but when your playing, you don't know whats coming.

The real issue is not can my units beat their units, but the fact that they can speed up the timer while crunching your pop limit while evading confrontation. Relic's system of capping revolved around single points which could be defended and had LOS. You couldn't cap from inside a halftrack, and certainly not while cruising around safely. You had to secure the area before capturing it, and we've broken it by allowing certain units like halftracks to abuse it while still restricting other vehicles.

[fallensoldier7]

I think it's pretty obvious if both of my teammates were annihilated..

Oh well, I still think capping is part of the game (and so is back-capping).  Think about it in vCoH.  You're playing Angoville and you're fighting on the east side (you control the west half), but then your opponent goes for a decap of your connecting west-side strategic point.  Isn't that the same as backcapping?  Instead of pop, you lose resources from that back cap.  vCoH resources = EiR population pretty much.

My point is, the back cap was done to take the focus off of a certain point of the map because in that back cap, the player that got cut off would probably go and try to get his point back.  In EiR, if you get back capped you should go see what's up.  If you leave a back cap alone in EiR, you end up at a pop disadvantage, just like if you leave a back cap alone in vCoH, you end up at a severe resource disadvantage.

[Akranadas]

There should be a way to add a multiplier onto individual soldiers within a squad that depletes when members are dead.

So, if a squad is at maximum number, they will cap faster then if there is a squad of 1 man, who will be at a disadvantage and capture significantly slower.

[Groundfire]

There should be a way to add a multiplier onto individual soldiers within a squad that depletes when members are dead.

So, if a squad is at maximum number, they will cap faster then if there is a squad of 1 man, who will be at a disadvantage and capture significantly slower.

This is a good idea. Makes capping a tad more fair. Like the person with more troops in a contested territory gets the cap.

I just dont like this mindset that some players get that backcapping is like a gypsy tactic.

Its utter idiocy to leave a gigantic hole in your line then scream at the enemy "uh uh uh! You cant cap through there! that's backcapping because im too stupid to cover my flanks."

tbh, its purely a game mechanic that can be utilized by everyone. Ive never thought it having RL connections. Just because your the guy with tanks left, that doesnt mean you should win.

my 2 cents

[Computer991]

Seriously i hate this whole mindset of "If you bring heavy tanks,we wont fight you we'll just backcap!"
I dont think people play this mod to watch a backcap fest,I'm almost certain most people like engaging in battle....stop me if i'm wrong,it's annoying having to chase around a halftrack because all the enemy is concerned about is winning

[Ununoctium]

We'll we've incorporated it as a heavy tank mechanic, that you lose cappping power and unit spread. attacking a heavy is stupid a lot fo the time. especially since they do massive damage to AT

[DasNoob]

IMO Back capping is shitty game play that should be removed.

[Mysthalin]

stop me if i'm wrong,it's annoying having to chase around a halftrack because all the enemy is concerned about is winning

So, that means basicaly : "I can't be bothered to cover my flank when I got a heavy, and thus you should just give up once I call the tank on, or you're a cheater otherwise!"

It's exploiting a weakness in the enemie's army, and anything that is against your weakness is annoying - that is true, but you have to adjust - and if you can't, take the loss like a man. It's your fault he's back-capping, not his for playing smart.

[Smokaz]

Opps

[mapleleafsnation]

If it's based on historical strategy it's broken: never in history did two volksgrenadiers wander behind allied lines and ruin Patton's chance of victory. Envelopment was successful in many battles, but involved entire divisions in wide flanking maneuvres, not small raiding parties e.g. Kiev, Stalingrad.

This is cereal-box level tactical analysis. You can encircle an enemy at every level of command. WW2 fighting doctrine (thought of by the likes of Fuller) was largely based on avoiding the enemy strong points, regardless of the country. The section fighting an enemy squad would try to win the exchange of fire and than flank them, that is encircling someone and can be done with 'two volksgrenadiers'. Half a platoon breaking through the line can lead to severe trauma for a whole battalion if they reach far enough, it will disorganize a whole defensive system because they need to shift resources to take care of the breakthrough without weakening their main lines. If you think EIR is division-based gameplay you probably don't know how big a division is...



People who complain about backcapping should just keep a reserve instead of committing 100% of their population to the decisive battle at town X.

[Mysthalin]

I would also like to add a little bit of military theory :
The 4Fs method :
Find, Fix, Flank, Finish.

Could be applied to even a 2 soldiers vs 2 soldiers level.

It is only logical that if you find your enemy at a heavily defended place, you can just fix him there with a few units of your own, as your other units go on to flank, cutting off the enemie's supply lines, and eventualy finishing them off in the war of attrition.