20 replies to this topic

[Christof Romulus]

Now that skirmish has come out there seems to be a very popular tactic that fails 100% of the time that players, for some reason, keep adopting. It's called "The Alamo Defense".

How do you know your team is adopting this award winning strategy? At the beginning of the match, all 3 lances start moving toward the same place. Then after the team coalesces they don't move - like a school of fish inside a barrel.

Then the enemy team arrives from multiple positions and starts firing in at the "Fish-in-a-barrel" formation and wipes them out 12 to 0, or 12 to 2.

So, why does it happen, and why doesn't it work?

Inexperienced players adopt the Alamo defense because of the thought that there's strength in numbers. People will often call out "Stick together" before the match begins - and thus begins the problem. Everyone groups up, so they have all the weapons available, so why doesn't it work?

Simple. In any game where there is terrain involved, there is a finite (that means limited) number of firing positions. What that means is if you have a hill, only so many mechs can effectively use that hill for cover while returning fire. When you have ONE hill that can service at most 3 mechs, that means it doesn't matter how many mechs are behind the hill - ONLY THREE are effectively there (EVEN IF THE WHOLE SCHOOL OF FISH IS THERE).

The team that comes from MULTIPLE ANGLES brings a greater percentage of their firepower to bear simultaneously. This means that the team that is surrounding the Alamo will have 10 of their 12 players shooting at THREE of the 12 players in the Alamo. THIS IS WHY YOU GET WIPED OUT EVERY TIME YOU CLUSTER.

So with this in mind, please stop defending the Alamo. Keep moving, stay in groups no larger than 5, and focus fire. If everyone on your team is moving toward the exact same place on the map, call it out. Who knows, maybe SOMEONE can learn from General Custer's mistake.

[SpartanFiredog317]

Its not the 'stick together' that is killing the unimaginative... it is the refusal to MOVE.... the biggest culprit is the scrappable volcano in Terra Therma... Your whole team 8/12 being assaults marches toward Mount Doom.... only to hunker down like scared hobbits when the first rounds start flying.

I hate and love it at the same time.... this game is living proof of the 'assault through' principle. I.E. when taking fire... you assault towards the enemy returning fire and if possible using manuever elements to flank the enemy.

More important than 'sticking together' is MOVING ... blows my mind when I see these matches where all of one teams assault mechs die in one spot.... usually doing diddly squat in damage.

OH and don't get me started about the Scrapping Scrappers that turn Assault mechs into LRMroy spamming monstrosities of stupidity...

[luxebo]

If you're gonna defend at all, make sure to find a spot to actually defend, not just out in the open where everyone can shoot at you.

[Threat Doc]

I JUST had a game like that, and it was intolerable waiting, so I typed out, "Are you going to play with it, or screw it?", and I charged into the Caldera. I was followed, got the hell beat out of me, and then I went to cap. I know, it's cheesy, but hey we won, and only lost 7 of our guys in the process, hehe.

[Latorque]

Skirmish didn't change much in that regard as far as i can see. There was always a massive tendency to bottleneck at critical places; sometimes even without the need for a physical bottleneck (i.e. Terra Therma Central Arena). Caustic Valley has seen some extremely moronic matches with my team refusing to put their head over the ridge after already giving the central plateau to the enemy thanks to aimlessly stumbling around the plains like a drunken sailor for too long.

This wouldn't be a problem in itself; since most maps actually offer flanking opportunities (the Caustic Valley plateau becomes a death trap if you're surrounded); but loads of players just won't move their pretty mobile gun platform. They could as well leave the engine in the mechlab and torso twist using a mobile diesel generator....

I always wonder if those guys aren't getting bored standing around and getting shot in their rosy-cheeked bottoms.

[Abivard]

At the Alamo 189 Texans held off over 1800 Mexicans for 13 days.

All 189 Texans died, they took over 600 Mexicans with them.

This was in 1836.

George Armstrong Custard was born in 1839 in Ohio, he died in Montana in 1876 after splitting his command several times, he encountered the main enemy body, which was concentrated and massacred his command.

[Gladewolf]

The OP does make some good tactical points, despite the TOTAL failure with historic analogy. The truth though, is that both massed and split tactics are valid....HOW they are applied is what makes the difference between success and failure, and I think the OP does make a good case for a scenario in which you would not necessarily "stick together"

[Lupin]

Sadly a lot of new player treat this game like a shot-em up, so walk slowly toward the enemy.
But looks like skirmish has moved this type of player away from Assault or Conquest, where players might use tactics to win.
So I see this as a good thing.

Famous last words:
General John Sedgwick (1813-1864) "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance."

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Christof Romulus, on 14 January 2014 - 06:16 PM, said:

Now that skirmish has come out there seems to be a very popular tactic that fails 100% of the time that players, for some reason, keep adopting. It's called "The Alamo Defense".

How do you know your team is adopting this award winning strategy? At the beginning of the match, all 3 lances start moving toward the same place. Then after the team coalesces they don't move - like a school of fish inside a barrel.

Then the enemy team arrives from multiple positions and starts firing in at the "Fish-in-a-barrel" formation and wipes them out 12 to 0, or 12 to 2.

You must be playing a different game than me. In skirmish the alamo defense works 95% of the time. This usually involves a team (centered around an assault lance), that moves into a highly defendable position, such as a cave, tunnel, or equally isolated area. This protects them from LRM fire and forces their opponent to file through choke points and into 4v1 kill zones. In most cases the only really good counter is to hope that some of their team becomes impatient enough to charge out allowing your team to gain a small numeric advantage and thereby win the match after 15 minutes.

[Sephlock]

Generally I see people group up while moving towards the enemy, then attack all at once, Napoleonic War style (accounting for terrain).



The team that does this PWNNNNNNS whereas the team that has groups run off on their own gets pwnt, because there is no coordination whatsoever, so while IN THEORY a lone lance should be able to sneak up behind the enemy and blast them in the back, what actually happens is they start shooting, then the ENTIRE ENEMY TEAM turns around and blasts them to pieces, unmolested by the other two lances, who are busy cowering behind cover.

Then it's 12 or 11 vs 8.

Bad times.

Abivard, on 15 January 2014 - 05:31 AM, said:

At the Alamo 189 Texans held off over 1800 Mexicans for 13 days.

All 189 Texans died, they took over 600 Mexicans with them.

This was in 1836.

George Armstrong Custard was born in 1839 in Ohio, he died in Montana in 1876 after splitting his command several times, he encountered the main enemy body, which was concentrated and massacred his command.

Also he left several gattling guns behind.

Edited by Sephlock, 15 January 2014 - 01:36 PM.

[GRiPSViGiL]

Ya grouping up and not moving is definitely not a good way to go.

It is frustrating when you get a split enemy to fight yet the team doesn't push towards one group or the other even when told. the blob sticking together is still the best strategy but it involves pushing and staying moving taking advantage of your greater numbers.

It is only out of sheer timidity that a split force doesn't get beat.

Edited by GRiPSViGiL, 15 January 2014 - 08:23 PM.

[Mudhutwarrior]

You cannot have valid tactics with a typed chat. Maybe the most basic of plans but no timely movement. What do you expect when you have teams with comms that can change direction in seconds against a team saddled with a keyboard that you have to stop to type into?

Round and round we go with this when the solution is obvious and ignored.

If you want better matches then ask for the tools to make it happen.

My second point is in Gameplay the LRM thread I mentioned tactics and gave links so people could learn. It was ignored. We are a TV, twitter society and if isn't easy it ain't gonna happen. Hoping when ingame voip comes we can change some bad behaviors. There will always be puds who cant learn anything but many will learn by example making the gameplay so much better.

[Gladewolf]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 15 January 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

You must be playing a different game than me. In skirmish the alamo defense works 95% of the time. This usually involves a team (centered around an assault lance), that moves into a highly defendable position, such as a cave, tunnel, or equally isolated area. This protects them from LRM fire and forces their opponent to file through choke points and into 4v1 kill zones. In most cases the only really good counter is to hope that some of their team becomes impatient enough to charge out allowing your team to gain a small numeric advantage and thereby win the match after 15 minutes.

ick...yeah, I've seen this sort of tactic in 12v12...incredibly effective...and...boring, and why I won't do 12v12 in Skirmish mode...we should have other ways of making you move. Tactics that cede 95 pct of the map like this should be penalized...as they make no sense....if we WERE there to take your planet...why wouldn't we just march past and leave you in your...highly defensible cave? Heh, we need a few more game modes. The counter for this should be, call civil engineering, collapse tunnels, move on.

[Mawai]

Group up and stay moving ... then when your 12 runs into the 5 that are flanking as the OP suggests you can rip them up and move on to the rest.

There is some truth to the idea that sitting around in a big group will get you killed ... but it isn't the whole story. The problem isn't "The Alamo" but the inherent lack of communication, coordination and focused fire. If you sit in one spot and allow the opponents to get into good overwatch positions you are likely toast. On the other hand, if you can engage the opponents as they try to do this you will be in a much better position.

Anyway, I guess my point is the following ... if you are a single mech that stops to engage an opponent then you are usually an easy target and often die quickly ... the same goes for groups ... if you stop and allow yourself to be surrounded then you are again a sitting target and may die quickly. On the other hand, if you have two moving groups that encounter each other then the larger one will usually win ... so the idea of roving lances will likely lose if the other team is in a larger moving group,

Food for thought anyway ...


P.S. I also agree with the previous poster ... there are some very defensible positions where 12 folks can have fairly open fields of fire with narrow approaches (under tower in HPG, end of tunnel on forest colony ... etc) ... where the defender has an advantage in a static setup ... it is costly to dig these folks out. However, setting up in these locations often involves a much higher level of communication and coordination than most PUG groups.

Also, on the other hand, some folks set up on the approaches to Terra Therna crater or similar areas that are mostly indefensible ... and generally a bad idea ... in those cases it is better to keep moving.

Edited by Mawai, 16 January 2014 - 07:37 AM.

[Mawai]

Gladewolf, on 15 January 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

The OP does make some good tactical points, despite the TOTAL failure with historic analogy. The truth though, is that both massed and split tactics are valid....HOW they are applied is what makes the difference between success and failure, and I think the OP does make a good case for a scenario in which you would not necessarily "stick together"

Unfortunately, with the limited communications tools and coordination currently available in most PUG matches ... your side stands a much better chance of winning when moving as a 12 man group than when split ... so although there are lots of situations where operating independently in smaller coordinated groups can be much more effective ... like 2 lances attacking the opposing force from different directions AT THE SAME TIME ... the general lack of such coordination makes 12 man groups operating in the same area more effective for most PUG matches.

[Gladewolf]

Mawai, on 16 January 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

Unfortunately, with the limited communications tools and coordination currently available in most PUG matches ... your side stands a much better chance of winning when moving as a 12 man group than when split ... so although there are lots of situations where operating independently in smaller coordinated groups can be much more effective ... like 2 lances attacking the opposing force from different directions AT THE SAME TIME ... the general lack of such coordination makes 12 man groups operating in the same area more effective for most PUG matches.

I can agree with that in general terms(that it is more difficult to coordinate), but it is usually also the massed force that also goes on the offensive, that wins....12 mechs can't cower behind 2 rocks no matter how hard they try....and 12 mechs standing in a valley (this can be seen a lot in Alpine) have absolutely no defense from fire, sometimes raw piloting and aiming skills do overcome these obstacles...but there is a definite difference between getting together for protection in a reasonable fashion and ignoring your surroundings to merge your lances as fast as possible.

[Abivard]

Fish in a barrel;

That is the term we are looking for.
When they all mass in some hollow or confined area, with hills or high points all around them, that is a recipe for defeat.

One arty strike is able to hit all 12 mechs, this should never be possible. don't scatter and don't huddle together like you are cold,

[Soulscour]

I completely disagree that attacking from multiple sides is a good tactic. Usually if a team is defending the Alamo they will just turn on one of those sides, completely outnumber and destroy it, then turn around and finish whats left of the enemy team. Being close by is a good tactic. Close enough for air strikes is bad.

Edited by Soulscour, 18 January 2014 - 11:07 PM.

[Hexenhammer]

10 seconds into a match you get that sinking feeling because you know what's about to happen.

Your team just stands there waiting for someone to do something.
Then some acts like they know what to do everyone follows.
Then the team engages the enemy and they stop moving
No one is applies pressure to the enemy.

And whether the enemy means to or not they move like a well oiled machine, crushing everything that stands in their way.


Yeah. I hate that feeling

[Doctor Proctor]

SpartanFiredog317, on 14 January 2014 - 09:17 PM, said:

Its not the 'stick together' that is killing the unimaginative... it is the refusal to MOVE.... the biggest culprit is the scrappable volcano in Terra Therma... Your whole team 8/12 being assaults marches toward Mount Doom.... only to hunker down like scared hobbits when the first rounds start flying.

I hate and love it at the same time.... this game is living proof of the 'assault through' principle. I.E. when taking fire... you assault towards the enemy returning fire and if possible using manuever elements to flank the enemy.

More important than 'sticking together' is MOVING ... blows my mind when I see these matches where all of one teams assault mechs die in one spot.... usually doing diddly squat in damage.

OH and don't get me started about the Scrapping Scrappers that turn Assault mechs into LRMroy spamming monstrosities of stupidity...

Pretty much this. Assault mechs have more armor and firepower than every other mech class, yet soooooo many players treat them like they're made of porcelain and hang back behind the main group. Assaults, as their name suggests, should usually be the spear point of your assault on the enemy. They are the vanguard that will absorb enemy fire and return copious amounts of their own fire in an effort to get the enemy to flinch and collapse their line. The faster Heavies and Mediums supporting the Assault mechs can then close around and envelop the enemy using their superior speed and agility. This is a tactic going back to the Greeks and Romans that is highly effective, though it has been subverted as well (such as when Hannibal actually put his heavy troops on the flanks and surrounded his enemy with a smaller force in the Battle of Cannae).

As SpartanFiredog317 said, it is the movement that is important. Almost any historical battle, save those that involve the defense of a static structure (ie- The Alamo) will involve dynamic movement on the part of both armies as they jockey for position. While MWO does have points that must be defended, they're not "static structures" in the sense of a building or garrison that can house the mechs, but instead are merely smaller battle areas that must be protected. As such, the "hold the line" tactic has virtually no place in MWO and is difficult to pull off.