Conquest division must be re work and i will show you why..
- Thread starter ziomax90
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
you trying to find excuse to make that result reall too but its a NO, no because there was no bridge ecc. it was a field battle of conquer a positiion , and i didnt fail becuase at the end i controll most of the map and i had destroy the entire french army and this is a win. than if the conquest mode is made with some wrong mechanis.. this is why i did post this thread.
If you wanted a mode that rewards you for kills, then destruction.
It doesn't matter in conquest what your kills are, but the amount of points that was gained from whoever held the most land during the duration of however minutes you played.
It's like teams being rewarded a win cause they scored a consolation goal while being 7-0 down to make a 7-1, the fact is that you took too long to get the points.
Again, you can post your replay if you feel we are wrong
You were down for almost the entire game, get a decent score in the end and expect to be handed a win?
I love how you show this tab but not the tab showing what the conquest score was. Also, what version of POTATO did you use for this?
Good grief, all that salt can not be healthy.
Here watch this replay:
The allies definitely won this one, but conquest keep saying the germans won!
.png){kind=avatar}
This discussion goes anywhere because both sides are partly right.
Ziomax defends that because at the end, he got all the map, then he won and gamemode rules should be changed. Other side say Gamemode rules points over the complete match and then score is OK and he played bad.
The feeling of Ziomax90 is understandable, but I can't agree. I mean, yes, you feel victorious, but rules are rules. If points sum based the entire game, and 75% of the game you were bypassed by opponent, then opponent has more score than you, as easy as thath. in others games not related with strategy works the same. A king of the hill, for example, you get points each second you control the zone, if opponent is controlling the zone all the match, it doesn't matter at the end you are constantly killing your opponent and controlling the latest zone completely. This kind of modes, rewards an overall performance over the complete game, not just if you play better (or much better) at the end.
Then, yes, based on you conquest all the map at the end, you are the winner, but based on game rules (and this is important) not, and based on game rules, doesn't matter the fact you got al the map, you didn't played correctly, again, based on the rules.
I understand Ziomax90 but can't agree with him.
Ziomax defends that because at the end, he got all the map, then he won and gamemode rules should be changed. Other side say Gamemode rules points over the complete match and then score is OK and he played bad.
The feeling of Ziomax90 is understandable, but I can't agree. I mean, yes, you feel victorious, but rules are rules. If points sum based the entire game, and 75% of the game you were bypassed by opponent, then opponent has more score than you, as easy as thath. in others games not related with strategy works the same. A king of the hill, for example, you get points each second you control the zone, if opponent is controlling the zone all the match, it doesn't matter at the end you are constantly killing your opponent and controlling the latest zone completely. This kind of modes, rewards an overall performance over the complete game, not just if you play better (or much better) at the end.
Then, yes, based on you conquest all the map at the end, you are the winner, but based on game rules (and this is important) not, and based on game rules, doesn't matter the fact you got al the map, you didn't played correctly, again, based on the rules.
I understand Ziomax90 but can't agree with him.
? what version of potato? well fade2grey you are not funny -_- im not german either but i think you talking disrespectful.
I also would apreciate to have more focus on late game map control. Mainly because I agree, that it feels wrong, if you win a game although you are completly wipped out at the end. In the Beta there were already some suggestions how to change this. E.g. giving the victory points different multipliers (A: x0.5 / B: x1 / C: x2) or giving more points for very high map control. In the beta this was mainly motivated by phase A allied decks being too strong.
After release this is different: The overall balance seems to be quite good. Changing the victory condition would be a massive balance change. It would heavily nerf phase A centric decks and in general favour the Axis. So you would need much effort for rebalancing.
Nevertheless I would like such a change (maybe for the next part of the series. I still have dreams). It would still encourage you to push in A, to conquer important strategic positions or to disturb the enemys build up. But you will not get points for just overextending your lines and being crushed afterwards.
Regarding the OP: As long as the game rules are as they are now, you need to arange with it. It does not help to complain about things like realism, which are very different in everybodys eye. I am quite sure, that your openent would have played differently or would have choosen a different deck, if the goal of the game would have been to have max. map control at the end or to have a good K/D rartio. You just can play a destruction match for comparison. There you will see, that most people play much more defensivly.
On the other hand I expect, that you could have pushed more in early game to get more points (although I do not know without a replay). But the price would have been higher losses.
tl;dr: Changing the victory conditions would be cool. But will be quite difficult, because it is currently an essential part of the asymetrical balance.
After release this is different: The overall balance seems to be quite good. Changing the victory condition would be a massive balance change. It would heavily nerf phase A centric decks and in general favour the Axis. So you would need much effort for rebalancing.
Nevertheless I would like such a change (maybe for the next part of the series. I still have dreams). It would still encourage you to push in A, to conquer important strategic positions or to disturb the enemys build up. But you will not get points for just overextending your lines and being crushed afterwards.
Regarding the OP: As long as the game rules are as they are now, you need to arange with it. It does not help to complain about things like realism, which are very different in everybodys eye. I am quite sure, that your openent would have played differently or would have choosen a different deck, if the goal of the game would have been to have max. map control at the end or to have a good K/D rartio. You just can play a destruction match for comparison. There you will see, that most people play much more defensivly.
On the other hand I expect, that you could have pushed more in early game to get more points (although I do not know without a replay). But the price would have been higher losses.
tl;dr: Changing the victory conditions would be cool. But will be quite difficult, because it is currently an essential part of the asymetrical balance.
no thanks , nothing wrong playing ally division of course but i playing german division for me feels more a challange to win, i see ally division is more easy, i see new people with 20 game played playing 101 airbone or 3 canadian infatry already have 70% win .
anyway im not either the kind of player that get on the op side just to win.
and im not saying the french division is super op, but with this kind of system in conquest in 1vs1 i think they have more advantage.
lol, you play too passively and axis is easier to play in general though better i'm not quite sure about
if you not quite sure about what you say it? i think axis is somehow harder because
1: some important units cost much more and if you dont play them cautiously you loose really a lot of points.
2: for new players axis harder also because lack in power phase A, i was about to mention expect about the 3.paratroopers but they get very few income in phase A either compare to ally airbone. inded some panzer division dont even get a tank in phase A. some will say yes of course but you compensate with the 222 and blabla, yes of course if you get luck and count on some enemy mistake you can always do good.
3: 101 flamethrower squads spam , on maps with a lot of forest and covers like building , its really a problem, only division that can deal with it at start is the 116 with the 251/16 flame. some axis get squad with flame on phase B and only count 5 man (ally 11 mans).
in con i think axis have superior heavy tanks but can be really effective only in open ground and with heavy support from anti air and arty recon and inf.
i could go on and on with what i think and saw in the game but this was only to answer your point of view that is just superficial.
ROFL. Man i had to laugh at this comment. Whenever i make a custom game, the first people to join quickly move down to the German team. You cannot sit here and tell me playing German feels more of a "challange" b/c from my experience axis can click+Q to victory in phase C, while if i take my eye off my tanks for 1 second they will die.
1. Then surround them with inf and recon/support units while you move up and you will not have to be so cautious.
2.Axis are not harder in phase A. Hell i can argue some divisions equal allies in phase A.
3. Contain the 101st in towns and forest and push elsewhere, so the ground is in your favor. You are under the impression that every single part of a map that is fought over should be balanced. Some parts have strengths other parts do not. Why do you think the Germans bypass the maginot line during WW2?
you can laugh how much you want Legiox , the point is that your point is out of mind : "if i take my eye off my tanks for 1 second they will die" ... haha this discussion is pointless , first this is the same for everytank , and only a Whining person can come out with such excuses.
Axis are harder in phase A and this is know fact so we dont know what you talking about? and dont come tell me about 3 paratrpoper division it is, first because its not that op in phase due to low income compare to ally division and further more because if its ok in phase A its the only or very few axis division really competitive in early stage of the game, and still weaker compare to ally also becuase its not spamming flathrower around the city and forest.
if you really feel late game axis armor is just as hard to control as last game allied armor, then you haven't been playing allied much.