Capping in EIR

[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

[Katusha]

Just wanted to know what the general idea is for the capping mechanic is currently. Are people OK with one man squads capping? Or do we want it so the side with majority of inf squads in the area caps that point?

Also, is there any way to add a progress bar to a sector's cap status?

[Smokaz]

I'm for reducing infantry capping, and LV, and adding in capping for medium tanks.

[CrazyWR]

would definitely increase the amount of medium tanks, which are fairly rare these days, although I'm curious how you would rework infantry capping.

[aeroblade56]

No the reason why you dont see mediums i can name a list of reason.

Sherman(gets very little accuracy buffs) and smoke has been removed to vet 1(pos smoke anyway)
Cromwell(flank speed moved to vet 1) which is a super nerf considering its got shit armor, its got a pretty weak gun and uses +2 pop for CCT to make it good.

P4( pretty Ok buffs mix of accuracy and speed) nothing has been moved to vet 1 as far as i can tell.
P4IST( pretty much the doomsday device without fireup of elite infantry to escape it and it had nothing moved to vet 1 it wrecks.


Also you dont see much pershings these days do you?. 

Imo giving capping power to mediums is silly. what places does infantry truly have if mediums can cap?. on allies with the removal of fire up rifleman are just recrews and capping power.

[Tymathee]

Or do we want it so the side with majority of inf squads in the area caps that point?

This:

It would promote more infantry squads on the field.

[Katusha]

I think the max medium tanks should do is be able to hold a neutral sector. No decapping of enemy sectors or holding sectors that are already yours.

About medium tank scarcity... I think there's no problem really with AT being too strong on each side. Yes allied ATG's hit hard, and yes pak's usually get two shots off before you can move away, but I think mediums only become popular when they are super easy to use (when AT is weak/expensive).

Also call me crazy but I think tanks should have like 50 range, but pretty low long range accuracy to counter act this. So you can still scare people off at long range but not get too many kills.

Anyway maybe time for another thread

[XIIcorps]

This:

It would promote more infantry squads on the field.

You actually playing EIR would promote people to actually consider to read any text you write

[aeroblade56]

You actually playing EIR would promote people to actually consider to read any text you write

[Unkn0wn]

We've been wanting to implement medium tanks and up holding (not capping) territory for ages :/

[PonySlaystation]

The most obvious change that should happen is that the side that has more soldiers should cap the sector so that you can't hold a sector with a single soldier.

[Smokaz]

would definitely increase the amount of medium tanks, which are fairly rare these days, although I'm curious how you would rework infantry capping.

Maybe change the entities so that you need squad leaders to cap.

[tank130]

We've been wanting to implement medium tanks and up holding (not capping) territory for ages :/

Scenario: 3v3
Picture a push on the front lines resulting in a quick possession of the next line of sectors. All 3 players on side "A" have a medium or two on the field and are holding all new sectors from being recapped by Players "B". Players "A" just need to put one remaining dude of an infantry unit in the sector to cap it.
Players "A" just derp around in the sector avoiding any battle but bleeding players "B" of pop.

Player "B" can only recap that sector if he uses a bigger tank, ATG and/or TD to remove the tank. All of player "B" infantry is useless until Player "A" tank is destroyed.

All Player "A" has to due is run his little medium around in circles avoiding it.


I am sure we all can put a lot more theory craft into this, but I hope you get my point. I think tanks holding territory will create a very stagnant game of cap to win.

[XIIcorps]

I hear you loud and clear tank.
It would degenerate gameplay into cat and mouse scenarios.
The system we have is fine, and if it can be refined into majority inf capping that would be even better.

[nikomas]

The last thing I'd like to see is further encouragement of mass (often allied) capping blob strats, it's effective enough as it is.

[Unkn0wn]

I hear you loud and clear tank.
It would degenerate gameplay into cat and mouse scenarios.
The system we have is fine, and if it can be refined into majority inf capping that would be even better.

With how vulnerable unsupported medium tanks are, I very much doubt people would go and play the capping game with medium or heavy tanks. I doubt it would change much of the current gameplay at all actually, but, against a tank heavy field composition, it would prevent players without any proper AT from playing the capping game rather than fighting.

Think about it, we are talking about granting the ability to hold territory to an additional average of 4, pop-heavy, units per company. That is not going to have that much of an impact either way.

[PonySlaystation]

The last thing I'd like to see is further encouragement of mass (often allied) capping blob strats, it's effective enough as it is.

The problem isn't that players are sending hordes of infantry to backcap, Airborne players send their hordes to fight and then five single soldiers to backcap all the corners of the map. The other side sends some full health squads to recap but are unable to because those single soldiers are preventing them from being taken back.

If the Airborne player wants to send his hordes to backcap then that's all fine and dandy because at least then you can hunt them down and the AB player has a lot to lose.

[hans]

the current capping system prevents camping gameplay. We must be careful to change it. If we do it wrong, it might cause a change of the gameplay.

[Smokaz]

One thing that most wehr players doesn't do as an insurance vs this is to grab more bunkers.

Bunkers might not be able to stand up to satchels, or 2 rr squads.. but you dont build a bunker to do that.

You build it far back in the sector with a 2 man lmg squad inside, or just a single volksgrenadier.

Sadly PE does not have bunkers.

it's never taken off, probably because players rarely discuss their mini-counters anymore, people are more likely to go to the balance forum before the strategy forum.

That said, if someone thinks that a 12 pop tank will be even remotely as effective at holding or capping ground as any capping unit right now, I can't really help them. They are in another part of the world, seeing things, or thinking about godzilla while normal sized velociraptors are chewing their legs off.

[Shabtajus]

With how vulnerable unsupported medium tanks are, I very much doubt people would go and play the capping game with medium or heavy tanks. I doubt it would change much of the current gameplay at all actually, but, against a tank heavy field composition, it would prevent players without any proper AT from playing the capping game rather than fighting.

Think about it, we are talking about granting the ability to hold territory to an additional average of 4, pop-heavy, units per company. That is not going to have that much of an impact either way.

It happened zillion times in late games where 1 tank left to kill and you dont have any AT's you go for cap-win? So that tank now will be vital thing and cap to win will fail.

in my opinion all is needed to do is just reduce increase cap timer. Sometime it turns a little bit too fast

[Mister Schmidt]

~5 years later, why is this suddenly an issue?

I think that's what the real discussion should be.