Constructive Feedback Pug Leading T1

[dansari]

Me too! Interested to see how the BOs get tweaked in T1 and how that transitions into mid tier.

[Musax]

I prefer a system that gives small groups a chance VS huge zergs (because the huge zergs are forced to split) even if that means that zone-locks are rare

But don't you think that this system encourages the zerg as well? If you read what Wam said, when one side spreads over the BOs (one wb or couple of groups on each), what discourages the other side to also split up? No order warband wants to fight us (Phalanx) one on one (I would give an exception to LNM, Invasion and probably dwarfs), so they always bring 2-3 warbands, because they know their chances improve drastically. And of course this goes for every warband that is split up from the main force. If you bring more numbers it's gg. I'm still waiting for this system to be implemented into middle tier, so maybe then I will debolster. But I really wonder what it will be like in T4.

I am assuming you mean encourages in this sentence "what discourages the other side to also split up?"? Otherwise i am quite unsure what you mean. Asuming that i have to say: as long as they are the defending side and winning their fights...nothing. They can zerg to stop a lock from happening. But they risk a zone lock as soon as they lose a fight.


Example:

Spoiler:

Phalanx-WB is the only destroforce available. Order has 4warbands, one at each BO and is about to lock. Phalanx roflstomps onto one BO, slaying the warband easily and stopping the zonelock. Phalanx now owns this BO. Order now knows, phalanx is at that BO and zergs the BO with 3warbands, splitting up the 4th warband to cover the other 3BOs. Phalanx loses the fight, and before they regroup back onto a BO, order locks the zone because they have all BO's locked down for the moment.
As long as Phalanx does not split, Order should be able to follow you around with 3WBs while the 4th WB has one group on every BO. Whichever BO phalanx goes the order is there with 1grp (stationary) +3WBs roaming/following the Phalanx-WB.


In this scenario Order can lock the zone, if they coordinate and phalanx doesn't split. Phalanx-WBs only real option to stop the lock, would be to split up themselves, fake an attack at A and take the BO at B. Ofcourse order can counter that again by adapting their strategies to have 1grp at every BO and 6grps searching for phalanx-half A and 6grps for phalanx-half B

This sounds a bit rediculous at first...why do 4WBs have to coordinate so hard to lock the zone when only one enemy WB is online? Well...because the predicament of the example was that Order needs 3WBs to defeat Phalanx-WB...so when looking at strength instead of char-numbers destro is only 25% weaker than order (order strength of 4WB-strengthunits VS destro strength of 3WB strengthunits).



If we look at the same example but assume equal strength WBs on both sides (order still 4WB VS destro 1):

Spoiler:

Order has 1WB at each BO. Destro WB attacks one BO. If they lose the fight: Zone locks...nothing wrong there imo.
If destro wins the fight Order has to coordinate (like it should be...numbers don't give autolock unless one side can put more at each BO than the other side has in total...in which case i can live with not being able to do something against the lock).
Because the destro WB is "only" a standard WB, as strong as any order WB it is very easy for order to lock the zone, if the destro-WB just camps at an BO. Zerg over them while leaving small def at other BOs. So destro has to split up. etc...

All this is also just a basic look at the things. The more one side starts to coordinate not only tactics but also strategies the bigger advantage they get and the better they can stop a lock as defender, or take the zone as attackers.
-scouts for enemy warband movements get much more important
-roaming attacksquads that faststrike BOs where the enemy only left a few people (that has to be scoutet too...)
-scouts then encourage the enemy WBs to take longer ways around/through PvE to suddenly appear and surprise the enemy
-faking movements to BO A, but then moving to another when you think you have fooled the enemy scouts etc.






Sorry for the wall of text i got a bit carried away...and this is also ofcourse a very theoretical scenario and might not work at all and be picked up by the community totally differently, but it SOUNDS like a good idea, encouraging deeper tactical maneuvers and countering of these

[Grolar]

The OP is exactly what I also think is wrong and right with the new system. Small scale maps its perfect, but when you scale up the battlefield it becomes tiresome and drags out the fights to where they lose their purpose.