Anjian, on 14 January 2015 - 03:00 AM, said:
And you consider the current zerg rush, "tactics"? The moment when the answer is simple and obvious --- destroy the targets at all cost--- there isn't tactics but coordinated rushes. The current design smacks of good intentions are the road to the hell instead.
Destruction of the enemy is as fundamental a military objective. That the defenders are going to camp in the most fortified area, well, that is pretty much what defense is and what they are expected to do. The attacker needs to figure this one out as they have done since time immemorial. The defensive infrastructure (turrets and all) can be tweaked, lighter or heavier.
If the defender comes up with a wall of assaults and heavies early in the game, so can the attacker. Once those walls are equally expended, this will end up with skirmishes throughout the map. Do note when half of the defense is expended, and the battle has turned into faster and lighter mechs, targeting the main objective is now game.
How battles in history has always went, its always never going straight directly to the objective of conquest first. But rather to establish control, you need sizable whittling down of the defenders first, so that their threat is neutralized before their front is penetrated.
If players have fun with their murderballs, then let them have fun with their murderballs. Players do want games where they are going to kill each other a lot.
The main difference of destruction of fixed targets versus the partial destruction of the defending team is that first, what they have in common are the initial targets. But very different targets. The first has its targets, a fixed, immobile, unthinking target that cannot fight back. The second has targets that are something mobile, something thinking and something that fights back, which is another mech.
This shows me you don't understand tactics.
Concept
Military tactics are both a science and an art. They answer the questions of how best to deploy and employ forces on a small scale.[2]
Some practices have not changed since the dawn of warfare: ambushes, seeking and turning flanks, maintaining reconnaissance, creating and using obstacles and defences, etc. Using ground to best advantage has not changed much either. Heights, rivers, swamps, passes, choke points, and natural cover, can all be used in multiple ways. Before the nineteenth century, many military tactics were confined to battlefield concerns: how to maneuver units during combat in open terrain. Nowadays, specialized tactics exist for many situations, for example for securing a room in a building.
What changes constantly is the technological dimension, as well as the sociology of combatants. One might wish to reflect on the technological and societal differences that produced such varying types of soldier or warrior: Greek Hoplite, Roman Legionary, Medieval Knight, Turk-Mongol Horse Archer, Chinese Crossbowman, British Redcoat, or an Air Cavalry trooper. Each – constrained by his weaponry, logistics and social conditioning – would use a battlefield differently, but would usually seek the same outcomes from their use of tactics. In many respects the First World War changed the use of tactics as advances in technology rendered prior tactics useless.[3]
ergo The Zerg rush Which likely have a place. Since we do not have proper artillery or air support in MW:O and the fact that this is a timed fight with an objective to destroy and casualties are not a factor(We don't lose anything after the battle). Rushing is a perfectly acceptable tactic.
Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 January 2015 - 09:03 AM.
0
