Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Pann

Capture Points - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, hamon said:

Vietnam

The Vietnamese people didn’t defeat the US, the US defeated itself.  We allowed them to entrench themselves and fought them on their terms under some faux sense of US righteousness; again that’s not their winning but it was definitely our losing.  If you think for a moment the US couldn’t have burned those jungles down and dropped daisy cutters till the c-130/mc-130’s ran out of fuel then you’re mistaken.  It would have been wrong of us to do that but we could have (I’m glad we didn’t). 

That’s not an example of a smaller elite force winning but I appreciate the effort.  Smaller elite forces will win fights and some battles but never do the win the war.  Irregular forces don’t win wars.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mandalore said:

O povo vietnamita não derrotou os EUA, os EUA se derrotaram. Nós permitimos que eles se entrincheirassem e lutassem contra eles em seus termos sob um falso senso de justiça dos EUA; mais uma vez não é a sua vitória, mas foi definitivamente a nossa derrota. Se você pensa por um momento, os EUA não poderiam ter queimado aquelas selvas e jogado cortadores de margaridas até que os C-130 / mc-130 ficassem sem combustível, então você está enganado. Teria sido errado de nós fazer isso, mas poderíamos ter (estou feliz que não o fizemos). 

Isso não é um exemplo de uma pequena força de elite ganhando, mas eu aprecio o esforço. Forças de elite menores vencerão lutas e algumas batalhas, mas nunca vencerão a guerra. Forças irregulares não vencem guerras.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Japan

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hamon said:

I enjoy the irony of you using my ancestors glory to try and win you’re argument.  Most of the reason Japan won those engaments was the kamikaze.  We weren’t unified.  We weren’t better geared.  We weren’t used to fighting on the scale the mongols where.  The largest contributing factor was that we hadn’t just been bent over by a typhoon.  Logistically, premodern, Japan was a nightmare to invade because of the prospect of sailing there.  Kublai couldn’t sail his armies there in the winter or fall because his troops would die.  He was forced to set sail during the storm season hoping he could establish a foothold in the summer and then winter in safety.  That never happened, his navy was decimated by the storms.  His transport ships were lucky to make landfall.  His supply chains were fubared.  It foolish imperialism that led him to think he could over extend his empire. 

I get what you’re trying to imply though.  CF needs water and naval battles so storms can decimate armies foolish enough to over extend and attack an archipelago known for its extremely stormy waters.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny that you do not quote the list of troops who have faced each other in Japanese territory on purpose:

JAPAN STRENGTH                                                                   MONGOL STRENGTH

1274: 2,000-6,000[1]
1281: 40,000 (?) 
Reinforcements by Rokuhara Tandai : 60,000 (not yet arrived)
1274: a force of Mongol, Chinese and Koreansoldiers, numbering 23,000–39,700[2]
with 600–800 ships (300 large vessels and 400–500 smaller craft)
1281: two forces of Mongol, Chinese and Korean soldiers, numbering 100,000 and 40,000
with 3,500 and 900 ships (respectively)
Casualties and losses
1274/1281: Minimal[citation needed]

1274: 13,500[3]–22,500[citation needed]
1281: 100,000[4]–130,500[citation needed]

20,000–30,000 captured[5]

The propotion was from 3 to a 1 or worse. Yes, as I said the terrain factor and environmental help in tactics of guerrillas that are used by enemies in smaller numbers. You know full well that the Americans were desperate on confront the vietcongs in the dense forests due guerrilla tactic and this motivate United States of America to use stupid methods like chemical weapons condemned by their own people. "We did not lose the war because of the vietcongs..." JOKE.

Edited by hamon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History is filled with examples of variously outnumbered forces winning battles and proceeding to win entire wars. Not all of them were clever one-time only tactics or unique circumstances; Alexander the Great is a very good example.

However, the real world offers a sufficiently complex combat environment from which creativity can fully express its potential. If a game system has only provision for attrition-based play, that's all you're going to get, and victory goes to the side with the abstractly greater combat power. To give a Risk example; that game doesn't have the players pile all their armies into single giant piles and roll dice until one player is out. You have to choose where and when you roll those dice, the wheres and whens aren't always equal,  and your opponents get to choose, too.

Imo, Crowfall has some of that, but not enough yet.

Edited by Ardrea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ardrea said:

History is filled with examples of variously outnumbered forces winning battles and proceeding to win entire wars. Not all of them were clever one-time only tactics or unique circumstances; Alexander the Great is a very good example.

However, the real world offers a sufficiently complex combat environment from which creativity can fully express its potential. If a game system has only provision for attrition-based play, that's all you're going to get, and victory goes to the side with the abstractly greater combat power. To give a Risk example; that game doesn't have the players pile all their armies into single giant piles and roll dice until one player is out. You have to choose where and when you roll those dice, the wheres and whens aren't always equal,  and your opponents get to choose, too.

Imo, Crowfall has some of that, but not enough yet.

 

Exactly: Crowfall does not allow guerrilla tactics and therefore is incomplete. There are many methods for a small force to be extremely effective against a large army in IRL, but in CF they would be too complex to implement. DEVs may try to create unrealistic bonuses in capture points to creat a false balance in total score, but they will have no effect on the actual gaming experience and will be only abstract bonuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hamon said:

 

Exactly: Crowfall does not allow guerrilla tactics and therefore is incomplete.

Not true at all. Guerilla tactics can and do work in Crowfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jah said:

Não é verdade em tudo. As táticas de guerrilha podem e funcionam em Crowfall.

 

Is there a night attack while the enemy sleeps? fires in enemy supplies? scorched earth to avoid the enemy recovery? combat in dense forests? disguise in allied troops to surprise attack? Advertising to lower enemy morale?

Edited by hamon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jah said:

Not true at all. Guerilla tactics can and do work in Crowfall.

I agree. I would (and have) put my "what's missing" money on higher level operational and strategic effects and interactions, mainly on a spatial basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hamon said:

 

Is there a night attack while the enemy sleeps? fires in enemy supplies? scorched earth to avoid the enemy recovery? combat in dense forests? disguise in allied troops to surprise attack? Advertising to lower enemy morale?

Are you kidding? Yes, to all of those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jah said:

Are you kidding? Yes, to all of those things.

 

I'm not talking about just strategic positioning, I'm talking about guerrilla techniques.

CF characters sleeps? Are supplies in warehouse that are permanently destroyed? Are there plantations that can be destroyed to prevent the enemy from feeding and starving? Is there vegetation that allows you to attack the enemy and flee? Mortal traps to kill enemies? Can we poison the water of the enemy? Are there uniforms for you to go on the enemy base and disguise yourself  to sabotage? Is there any way to make the enemy feel afraid with warnings not to invade the territory (skulls or impaled corpses)?

Edited by hamon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hamon said:

 

I'm not talking about just strategic positioning, I'm talking about guerrilla techniques.

CF characters sleeps? Are supplies in warehouse that are permanently destroyed? Are there plantations that can be destroyed to prevent the enemy from feeding and starving? Is there vegetation that allows you to attack the enemy and flee? Mortal traps to kill enemies? Are there uniforms for you to go on the enemy base and disguise yourself  to sabotage? Is there any way to make the enemy feel afraid with warnings not to invade the territory (skulls or impaled corpses)?

Most of those things either already exist, will exist, or can be approximated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jtoddcoleman & @thomasblair

Appreciate your changes that you are making to capture points to make things more competitive and alleviate the current state.

Fort Windows/Sieges


I noticed on your recent Q&A with @ZYBAK you mentioned possible fort siege times to help focus pvp attention.

Just to throw an idea into the ring, I would recommend basically 3 active forts per hour. See my MS paint skillz below.

unknown.png

 

As you can see its an easy pattern to follow with the current set up we have.

Forts would then only be capture-able during their "green" hour and could even flip multiple times up until the last second.

Outpost Capturing / "Cockroaching"
Beyond the possibility of fort windows, I really think you need to vastly lower either the points of outposts or the amount on the map.

I understand the need to provide solo-player activities to contribute to winning a campaign, but currently all this does is provide a way for factions to win while completely avoiding conflict. Points should be derived from hard earned conflict, not just who can no life capture outposts the most while people aren't around. I do not believe your "bonus capture points" mechanic adequately addresses this. A faction still has to constantly go back and capture outposts unless the bonus = the same as if holding it the entire time, which then would make holding it almost pointless.

Possible Options:

  • Same Amount of Outposts but worth 1/2, 1/3, or 1/4 points.
  • 1/2, 1/3, or 1/4 the Amount of Outposts

Beyond this, outposts need some strategic reason to hold them. I am missing the old 100m ranges because right now people only take it to edge up on points.
 

Possible Options:

  • Increase Range on Guards
  • Outpost provides nearby players shadow sight (100m?)
  • Faction needs to hold X amount of outposts in order to spawn on map(I know you mentioned this in the recent Q&A about limiting spawning on a map without a fort)

 


In any case, I appreciate that you are trying to make these campaigns more enjoyable, competitive, and engaging through out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point system just isn't right, we should be fighting over land and resources. what if there were a lot more zones and in the centre there was the main keep ( think kings landing and the iron throne), to be able to take the keep you'll need to own 2 of the 3 lands surrounding it plus all the lands that head towards your beachhead/temple, sort of like connect four the board game. If your line is broken you'll need to re join them. The outer zones are the lower resource zones and as you get into the middle the resources get better and better. Basically this idea just came out of nowhere so don't really know how to capture a land piece but you get the sort of idea. Points really mean nothing and guilds are already faction hoping to the winning factions and this will always continue, we need a system that feels that no one is really winning until the final minutes of the game. even an underdog faction could cause a last minute upset using land as the goal, break the chain and its a draw!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...