33 replies to this topic

[Hellen Wheels]

I've seen a lot of thoughts and ideas posted lately about individual likes and dislikes with the role playing and experience paths the developers have revealed so far. I'd like to start a discussion in general about how you think the role playing and experience paths might affect the overall strategy and tactics we'll see used in the game. More particularly, I'd like to see a discussion about what you think will be successful S&T on the battlefield.

I think it goes without saying that the better coordinated teams will rule the battlefield. The teams that know the maps by heart and know the best defensive points, the choke points, the best flanking points, etc., on every map, will have an advantage--if they can communicate and coordinate their actions. Knowing the map doesn't convey any advantage unless a team can communicate and coordinate their knowledge with actions on that map.

Beyond knowing the map, the best teams will be able to coordinate map knowledge with firepower. My bailiwick is: CONCENTRATE FIREPOWER on the opposing team's weakest link (in an assault situation.) In a defensive situation, a good team will need to establish and maintain a solid defensive field of fire.

To me, the weakest teams / matches will devolve into 1v1 shootouts (x12), "Last Man Standing" style. The best matches will be between two teams who have mastered the map, mastered their communication, and mastered the coordination of firepower.

My ideal match would be to drop into a city firefight with a scout, identify a concentration of defensive positions, and relay to the Commander: "BRING THE RAIN" (followed by an assault lance to clean up.)

Thoughts? Ideas?

=H=

[Opus]

Shoot & Kill, or Die?

[Opus]

Hellen Wheels, on 04 February 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

I've seen a lot of thoughts and ideas posted lately about individual likes and dislikes with the role playing and experience paths the developers have revealed so far. I'd like to start a discussion in general about how you think the role playing and experience paths might affect the overall strategy and tactics we'll see used in the game. More particularly, I'd like to see a discussion about what you think will be successful S&T on the battlefield.

I think it goes without saying that the better coordinated teams will rule the battlefield. The teams that know the maps by heart and know the best defensive points, the choke points, the best flanking points, etc., on every map, will have an advantage--if they can communicate and coordinate their actions. Knowing the map doesn't convey any advantage unless a team can communicate and coordinate their knowledge with actions on that map.

Beyond knowing the map, the best teams will be able to coordinate map knowledge with firepower. My bailiwick is: CONCENTRATE FIREPOWER on the opposing team's weakest link (in an assault situation.) In a defensive situation, a good team will need to establish and maintain a solid defensive field of fire.

To me, the weakest teams / matches will devolve into 1v1 shootouts (x12), "Last Man Standing" style. The best matches will be between two teams who have mastered the map, mastered their communication, and mastered the coordination of firepower.

My ideal match would be to drop into a city firefight with a scout, identify a concentration of defensive positions, and relay to the Commander: "BRING THE RAIN" (followed by an assault lance to clean up.)

Thoughts? Ideas?

=H=

Ok really...

Combined tactics are as of yet unknown, I would hope, that its a step up from MW4 & MW:LL
Or all these corps that are forming up will be useless

But as the game gets financial successful for piranha, I am sure we will see more, and more abilities, skills, and more elaborate story-line creations....

[Elizander]

Commander acts as fire support, two Attackers push forward and defend the commander if necessary, scout lights up targets and Commander calls in bombardment whenever it ends up as a stalemate in at a chokepoint.

That would be an ideal setup based on the roles. Scout empowers the Commander and the Commander utilizes Scout to deal massive damage. Kill the Scout and the Commander goes blind and will have to rely on information from the Attackers. The Attackers will move based on info from the Scout and could end up getting shot by artillery if they charge in blind.

In urban conditions, I'm guessing a Scout with jumpjets (or a medium) can dash and jump around corners and buildings to get some rear shots at bigger mechs or they can get blindsided in a bad spot by a powered down heavy waiting to ambush.

A group with good teamwork will want to all have LRMS for coordinated IDF and long range bombardment if they have an excellent Scout.

Those are just a few of the things that could happen based on my imagination.

[Philipe von Rohrs]

It's unfortunate to say it, but you're probably right about teams mastering the maps and terrain. But it could work out that those teams may get so entrenched in their own little corners that they limit their abilities when they decide to move out to other areas, they'll be tge obes at the wrong end of that stick.

I'm kinda hoping that keeping mobile and flexible is going to be the best way to build up the most experience and goodies.

I also think there are going to be a good many assault and heavy groups out there that may rely on their superior firepower.

But, so long as the tactics reflect those needed in tabletop BT then well rounded forces shoukd precail...

Just my two pence ;-)

[mouzerius]

i simply say "KILL THE MEAT, SAVE THE METAL"

[Rabbit Blacksun]

Sea Wolves are looking at doing things a bit differently then usual. We are actually looking at doing what our parent clan is known for which is more hit an run/ambush/concentration of fire power, but utilizing primarily fast mechs we are looking at several to take down one in a quick clean method, with fire support bringing "the rain" as hellen said.

Tactically this should negate out some of the "I dont know this map" problems, by utilizing a recon lance to scout ahead locate and report back what they see, this should allow for some flexibility on the map, as well as making maximum use of the scouts abilities and roles, with mediums bringing up the second line to add a harrying tactic to the heavier assault and heavy chassis, add in the long range support it should provide enough damage that by the time they reach either the command lance or the objective they should be damaged enough that our front line mechs can take them out with reletively few hits.

Obviously this will take alot of practice and alot of work to actually get down to the point where we can pull it off, but thats what the game is about team work and having fun

[Tryg]

Strategy and Tactics are difficult to speculate on regarding what will or won't work, after all, three major factors have direct influance on what works and what doesn't. Players involved, Terrain, and objective. Without those, piecing out what tactics might win the day becomes difficult.

We could of course speculate, say if your objective is to prevent enemy forces from crossing a choke-point, lining it with heavy and assault class mechs would be a good standoff point. But if you don't know the players involved... a scout backed by some catapults could really drop some hurt onto that defensive line. So do you set them wide and risk a break-through? Or do you hold em close and hope the enemy isn't smart enough to soften you up before the charge?

I think one of the things role warfare will allow for in this game (Finally) is a breakdown of 'perfect' strategies and tactics. I don't think we'll see so many "Do this to win" capabilities. Sure, for some maps and some objectives there might be, however what works in one situation, won't work in all situations. So you might find one that seems to work well...until it doesn't.

And of course, there's always the old saying in warfare: No plan survives contact with the enemy.

[Maximilian Thorn]

I think PUGS may find themselves at the short end of the stick with this...

A fully-formed Merc Corp unit/lance/company would definitely have an advantage over an unprepared PUG. This includes a Merc Corp unit that doesn't have enough of its own members, and must rely on PUG members to fill the ranks (who may not know the Merc Corp unit's team tactics).

I still plan on starting the game as a Lone Wolf player....we shall have to see how it all turns out.

[Harrow]

I hope they are able to make maps dynamic so we never know what we're going to see until we're in.

[Kale Cytair]

If we are actually going to get three-lance battles, I can forsee some very interesting engagements going on.

Personally, I'm a fan of a recon lance, a medium/heavy lance and a command/heavy lance operating in concert.

The recon lance (alpha), consisting of fast mechs with kit for mutual support, ie one or two with AOE EW capability and possibly a faster (than normal) medium mech for an extra punch if they get into a hairy situation. Those recon mechs are set up to call for fire support from the command/heavy lance while a medium/heavy lance acts as the main engagement element.

The medium/heavy lance (beta) can be either or; even a mix of the two with three heavies and a medium for back-shot protection or three mediums and a heavy for extra firepower.

Finally, the command lance (gamma) would be a heavy-end heavy lance designed primarily for ranged combat with an assault-class or two to act as a reserve and be the final push if the beta lance runs into something it can't handle or if some extra firepower is needed to break through a final defensive position.

[Tryg]

It is typically safe to say that except in rare occassions, PUGs will almost always be on the losing side when facing a coordinated team. In most modern games, playing as a team can work to defeat random all-stars trying to do the job themselves. Even a team of modestly skilled players can defeat an expert when that expert is relying on players who may not be inclined to feed him the victory, who aren't paying attention to his plight, or who are hoping that he'll just carry the day enough that they can mop up after.

Of course, there is the occassion when a PUG actually communicates and can be nearly as effective as a well-built team, but these instances are not the norm. PUGs typically will do well only when faced in matches by other PUGs. And again, not saying this as a sweeping all-encompassing statement, but a generic observation made over long-time play in assorted PUG situations, but typically PUGs do poorly thanks to a lack of communication or understanding of that communication. I'm sure most of us have played in games where players failed to communicate something important (enemy slipping around behind our position) or on the flip side, communicate so much that you're spending more time trying to sort out which communications are important to you then you are holding down your particular objective.

[Philipe von Rohrs]

That would be the best "leveller".

[statler]

squad option 1: everybody in the group has 'close danger' or whatever the local non LOS radar spec was called so they dont need to worry about scouts, as many increased damage specs and decreased IDF damage specs as possible, and maybe one or two with a UAV/sat spec to so they can rotate pinging the whole battlefield, and everybody in the heard will swarm to the most active locations. This mech set up and squad set up would be an easy standard for PUGs also.

squad option 2: 1-2 fast mechs with NARCs and strike/IDF options, and 10-11 large command mechs with as many strike/IDF bombing options as possible, as many LRMs as possible, and as much speed and as little armor as possible on a large mech to stay out of the action, and a couple of the large mechs equiped with UAV/sat specs to help direct all the fire when the lighter command "scouts" dont produce. maybe 1-2 80 ton ppc/gauss monsters to clean up, if they can wait and not get themselves killed before things are favorable.

Edited by statler, 04 February 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[Ranek Blackstone]

Mission types won't always be deathmatch. Some will be assualt/defend, others may be escort. Others still may be capture and hold.

Also, we're looking at 3 lances per team, so possible roles are more widely spread. 1 or 2 scouts, 1-2 commanders, and then a map/mission dictated assortment of assualters/defenders. Urban enviroments will be fairly common from what I've read, so just hoping to fill your lance with LRM 'mechs might not be the brightest ideas.

[Hellen Wheels]

Interesting ideas. Here is my idea of an order of battle for an assault group:

TOP: Commander + XO (XO is a Defender / Alternate CO)

Lance 1:
Scout
Assault
Assault

Lance 2:
Assault
Defense / Assault(Rover)
Defense / Assault (Rover)
Assault

Lance 3:
Scout
Assault
Assault

[Win44]

Ranek Blackstone, on 04 February 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

Mission types won't always be deathmatch. Some will be assualt/defend, others may be escort. Others still may be capture and hold.

This I think could be one of the most significant things for this discussion. That and whether or not there will be respawn.

I am looking forward to objective based gameplay, because then the possibilities will hopefully be endless. I for one would love to bring two lances of fast moving firepower and a lance of Assault and then coordinate a pin and swing maneuver to cap objectives while the enemy forces are pinned in place.

Edited by Win44, 04 February 2012 - 01:59 PM.

[Hellen Wheels]

Win44, on 04 February 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

This I think could be one of the most significant things for this discussion. That and whether or not there will be respawn.

I am looking forward to objective based gameplay, because then the possibilities will hopefully be endless. I for one would love to bring two lances of fast moving firepower and a lance of Assault and then coordinate a pin and swing maneuver to cap objectives while the enemy forces are pinned in place.

I agree whole heartedly, we may have only six maps, but with variable map objectives, the possibilities are indeed endless.

Looking forward to it.

=H=

[Opus]

Respawn?

Seriously......?

it's never been in any of the MW's, all the way back to Crescent Hawks; You die, you get to start all over again.

I wouldn't play if there was a respawn, that's Robotech/Gsuit/Disney Snyt

[Hellen Wheels]

Opus, on 04 February 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

Respawn?

Seriously......?

it's never been in any of the MW's, .....

Respawned all the time in NetMech.

Some matches lasted from nightfall onworld to watching the sun rise.

That would be something environmental I'd like to see in MWO....

when battles last so long, the moons come out.

=H=