new paradigm leader wrote:Ahh military base tactics. i find the idea of a single "centre of gravity" illogical as to lean on one base is to commit tactical suicide, especially when a larger enemy appears. no its far better to have one main base with several well hidden armed to the teeth factory outposts. or two or three main bases in order to allow for the possibility of one of them being eradicated. i found out the hard way what happens when you go up against an enemy who is agressive (francesco) well i lost i attempted to reboot in a hidden locale but my inherent lack of resources was my ultimate undoing as i was unable to build defences so i was a sitting duck for the search parties. ah i regret my short sightedness at that point. reminiscence over sorry about that maybe you and i could have a multiplayer game upon completion of this mod.
I agree with a good deal of that .
In WZ much of the Base as Center of Ops has to with the amount of oil and where it placed relative to Base HQ. On just that factor alone I've lost count of how many variations I've gone through. Currently the immediate start Base Center has 4. At the very outer perimeters there are 4 more but they are divided into 3 different vectors and elevations. Then of course the rest of the map has oil dispersed throughout with a focal concentration in the "Center Citadel".
"Team War" style maps are an obvious approach to making your Main HQ Base an absolute Center of Gravity for everything you do and that is one way to tip the scales of game play to predominantly "twitch" which I personally don't find of enduring interest though I certainly do not begrudge others that form of enjoying the game. Live and let live - it is a game after all and not some life and death struggle in RL..
An aggressive mobility appeals to me but I do not care for it if it devolves into a single monolithic "twitch" movement like Tower Rush or some such. While those tacs are legit merely based on the fact you can execute 'em to win a game it still does not change their boredom factor once the novelty wears-off and their narrow scope of engaging your attention becomes passe in light of much game play that is not possible to experience within such a matrix and thus remains dormant in the game itself as unrealized potential..
So.... for me, at least, I want aggressive mobility to have a variety of effective possible roll-outs (as opposed to 1 over-arching twitch from the get-go) and I include in that (as you mentioned) the ability to simultaneously shift your center of gravity as needed (even Become Prey A.I. can do this in "War School".... that is, BP can shift it's Center of Gravity as needed, at the first indication of "trouble" to it's force concentration.).
At the same time, if you choose to defend a position outside your original Start Base and are smart in your set-up and have courage to do it in the first place it shouldn't be a pure waste of effort such that if you lose it after a struggle... well then it is still worth regaining that lost position.. This last comes down to key oil placements outside your immediate Base Center of Ops.
When all is said, I much prefer an ebb-flow contest where the tipping point to victory is in the balance for a good spell, way over a quick steam-roll even if I am the one doing the quick steam-roll
, and also where I have opportunities to employ a variety of offensive tactics while making a host of defensive stands that are of value to the strategic cause even as a tactical "loss". Design that "shoe-horns" me from the out-set to a narrow scope, monolithic response is bland at best to my ways of enjoying the game. That, in a nutshell, amounts to the fundamental guiding principles in the whole of what I'm after in the game play.
Ironically, when I'm done with "WS", whatever the outcome, I will be inclined to step away for a long spell on all WZ fronts of activity. But we'll see when that time comes what path I actually follow.
Regards, whip
.
