1- in a real world offensive against dug-in enemy, commanders favor a 2 to 1 advantage. Why? The static, defensible location offers advantages which need to be overcome, including the enemy's ability to engage with minimal movement to contact.
CW does not allow for this; giving the defenders the defenses, but insisting on even numbers. I understand that PGI has resisted differing team sizes, but something must be done to counter the defenders' advantage or CW will remain catastrophically one-sided.
2- On the topic of one-sided... In the real world, the attacker does have some advantages: He has the operational initiative. He may choose the time and place of the engagement, delaying or blitzing as his strategy dictates. He may disregard targets entirely, shifting to other points of attack or bypassing hardened targets in favor of others. All of this initiative is denied in CW, shifting more of the advantages to the defender and funneling the attacker into very narrow corridors at a precisely known time on delimited angles of attack. Something must be done to counter the defenders' advantage or CW will remain catastrophically one-sided.
3- Here is where I may be hampered by my faction (Marik). But, from my standpoint, the IS can only defend against the Clan invasions, while against any other enemy, I have the choice of "attack" into enemy territory or "defend" our own. The force that only plays defense loses. Even if the enemy only achieves gains 1% of the time, he will constantly, inexorably grind forward until you lose IF you have no chance for counter-gains of you own. Has the deck been stacked to ensure a cannon outcome? This needs to be addressed if so. I, and many others, value the chance to change the outcome and effect the unfolding story. I am NOT interested in rote repetition of an outcome written by some game designers in a now-defunct company from 25 tears ago.
Edited by Wendigo Vendetta, 15 December 2014 - 09:26 AM.