WolfaneJoin Date: 2011-03-08
Post Count: 7490 |
Our idea of warfare has morphed over time, but that it to be expected.
____________
To get to the point. The issue of war today, can be mainly linked to the way for which we go about clan warfare in general.
A war between two clans is expected to be a means to test the strength of each against each other, and the stronger clan will win. However the means we go about this often leads to controversy.
The main concern is, bases. If one side's base is easier to win at, by layout or other factors, then that isn't exactly an accurate representation between the two clans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Solution
____________
[A] When I look at the word war, I think of a battlefield. Not a fortress. The simple solution to the controversy of equalized bases, are warzones. These are generally places without large walls and campable chokepoints, even numbers are forced or suggested in some manner, and where the defenders have an equal opportunity to win the battle by holding the objective(s) as the raiders do. The layout does not have to be entirely symmetrical, but it must provide an equal amount of benefits to both sides.
This is a style that cannot be complained about or reasonably argued. If pulled off correctly, then the only thing the other side can complain about are your men being more skilled.
[B] An entirely new means of hosting the clan world. By this, I mean RoVerse as a prime example. Without revealing too much detail, the concept provides an actual physical battlefield for the clans participating to operate within. All sides are provided with equal opportunities, and the only tricks you can play have to do with strategy and cunning with battlefield maneuvering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
____________
To make things MUCH more simple. We could simply fight wars on battlefields, or otherwise innovate an entirely new way of going about clans. In non-wartime, challenging forts can be provided for the sake of competition and fun. But challenging forts generally do not properly present the extent of skill on either side participating.
|
|
WolfaneJoin Date: 2011-03-08
Post Count: 7490 |
TL;DR
Makes more sense to fight wars with warzones rather than bases, or make an entirely new system.
|
|
|
|
"Makes more sense to fight wars with warzones rather than bases, or make an entirely new system."
It's fine as it is we just need more responsible and honest leaders |
|
Draco57Join Date: 2011-06-13
Post Count: 6998 |
Nice thread |
|
|
I was talking about warzones last night on a different post
I really like the idea of having a warzone where two groups can meet so stuff is fair and balanced on both sides
|
|
Moose_GodJoin Date: 2013-06-05
Post Count: 10238 |
TFC fought UAR in warzones, went smoothly (well, they cried and made flame but since we all had admin and base gave official wins they couldnt really argue)
We try to do it with every war we fight but most are refuse, we only force it through if the fort is really unfair
|
|
|
Actually, challenging forts DO show the skill of clans.
Raiding a challenging base is hard
Defending a challenging base is ALSO hard because your clan is outnumberes by A LOT.
bases are usually challenging because of the people defending the base.
Put FEAR up to defend a 15v15 kaznan, labs, or any base you think is unfair.
If the base LITERALLY defends for them, and the reason you lost is because of something they get at the base, then it is unfair.
If you CANNOT win at the base with anyone defending, it is unfair. But it's not unfair if a competent team of defenders hold off while being outnumbered by a lot.
Having the numbers advantage alone is an advantage.
And if the defense team slips up ONCE while you have that advantage, you win. That's why numbers is the best advantage and will counter any base you think is "unfair".
It's more of an advantage than anything a base can give. |
|
WolfaneJoin Date: 2011-03-08
Post Count: 7490 |
@GeneralKarn
The issue usually sprouts when either side refuses to budge in a certain way. When they have something about their base or the other person's base they refuse to compromise with, and it usually ends up being shipped off to C&G. Where the assumptions and speculations become fact.
That's because it's really a difficult subject to decide if two forts are equally challenging, especially when the dynamic of those bases could be completely different from each other. It's an easier thing to decipher with warzones, since the general way of how they are set up is generally the same.
|
|
WolfaneJoin Date: 2011-03-08
Post Count: 7490 |
@Isolaytor
Even if your idea of a fair base persists, it doesn't address the issue of there being a war where one base is considerably easier to win at than the other clan's base. That scenario wouldn't result in an accurate representation of the two clans against each other in retrospect, after it's all over.
Now a war with equally stacked bases... That could be interesting. But like I said it doesn't change the fact that it's a very complicated subject to be able to decide if two bases are equally challenging.
|
|
|
But that doesn't change the fact that challenging bases with good defenders prove skill no matter what, "fair bases" are literally just sitting on a terminal for 20 minutes, it literally gets boring.
A base that's challenging with good defenders doesn't mean it's unfair it just means they are good at defending the base.
|
|
WolfaneJoin Date: 2011-03-08
Post Count: 7490 |
I hardly understand the point you're trying to make, Nick. At least how it relates in correlation to the point I am making.
No matter what the circumstance is, if your base is set up in a way where it is easier to defend than the other person's base it means you are being given a free advantage. Which would make the result of the ensuing war an inaccurate representation of the strength of the two clans on their own.
|
|
|
It's never easy to defend if you're outnumbered.
It might be easier to defend only for people who are REALLY good.
WIJ's indigo for example.
Can't win there if good people are there. |
|
|
"warzones. These are generally places without large walls"
We'll see about that
|
|
WolfaneJoin Date: 2011-03-08
Post Count: 7490 |
Alright devin999127.
You provided the example of if regular FEAR were defending Labs, saying it would be fair because you're able to beat them. But that isn't exactly the scenario you're being faced with in higher clans innit?
I'd say that if regular FEAR were defending Labs, and regular FEAR were also raiding. The defending team would dominate in 90% of the scenarios.
The same is the case with elites versus elites.
|
|
|
If the group has good members then that is because the group trains their men well and is a good group it is not their fault.
That just proves that half the reason you lose at these forts is because of who defends it not because of the fort. |
|
|
And wolfane, not if the raiding team was competent and had a good raid leader.
In any raid you should have competent raid leaders. |
|
|
I wouldn't need my elites to beat a bunch of FEAR defending labs for example.
I wouldn't need elited to beat FEAR at a 15v15 Kaznan. |
|
WolfaneJoin Date: 2011-03-08
Post Count: 7490 |
But you would need them to beat VAK or FoA.
|
|
|
But that's because they're skilled.
You can't help that.
And if it were normal VAK and FoA members, you don't need elites to beat them. |
|
WolfaneJoin Date: 2011-03-08
Post Count: 7490 |
I disagree, you would need elites to beat them if they were defending what you call 'challenging' forts.
That's the point I am making here, it's going over your head.
Unless you're trying to say that regular VOID members are much better than regular VAK or FoA, which I highly doubt. But S O O N right?
|
|
|
We beat your regular VAKS while they defended labs with our regular members flawlessly.
Even VAK almost won a raid at labs with our normal members defending, but lost at the last second because you let a V O I D member slip through. |
|
|
You don't need your elites to beat normal members at challenging forts because your advantage (numbers) outweigh every other advantage that anyone else can get.
I explained that. |
|
GbronzedJoin Date: 2011-12-11
Post Count: 23885 |
Posting so i can read later. |
|
WolfaneJoin Date: 2011-03-08
Post Count: 7490 |
Right. Numbers alone compensate for height advantage, considerable spawn time advantage, and a destructable objective that leads right in front of the defender spawn...
Also I don't recall that scenario ever happening at Labs.
|
|