COMBAT - General Discussion

[datCookie]

Before I start I'd like to note that this is not a topic of discussion regarding which is better; combat vs AZ. Both have their own appeals to people, which I can respect. This thread is merely about the discussion of combat as a game mode including its pros and cons, using AZ as a comparison.


Firstly, I'd like to start with the pros of combat as a game mode, from my perspective of course:

- Random-paced gameplay: This means that combat has the ability to be both fast and slow-paced, with various strategies existing for both speeds. How so? Players have the option to push their opponent as far back as they can and as aggressively as they can, with the intention of achieving a decisive victory. At the same time, players can play a little slower, safer and utilise the entire arsenal that each faction has, whilst doing their best to limit unit losses.

- Wide unit variety: Now I'm not suggesting that players don't have a wide unit variety available to them in AZ, but rather that the more popular (and effective) strategies used when playing AZ only use a small handful of troops. I can understand this as there are several unit types for most factions (other than Germany) that are next to useless, or have such a small window of effectiveness that it isn't worth bringing them out. Combat, coupled with the slower-paced play allows for the use of almost every unit available, which can be a lot of fun at time.

These are probably the best ones I can think of off the top of my head and really help make combat what it is.


Cons:

- Map imbalancing: I know this is the same for AZ, with certain maps being completely imbalanced with any faction, which makes for a not so fun time for anyone at the disadvantage. Unfair hill advantages, more cover provided, etc.

- Unit/Faction imbalance: It is widely known amongst combat players that there are a fair few unit/faction imbalances, especially with Germany. These issues have been raised many times. However, it is also known that the developers unfortunately only balance for AZ.



Now I've noticed in previous threads that some people believe AZ to be MORE competitive than Combat. I will agree with this, but ONLY because I realise and understand that this game is essentially molded around AZ, not any other game mode (in the competitive sense). AZ has more focus on a lot of different things, which makes it far better for competitive play.

However, I do strongly feel that Combat (as a gamemode itself) is just as competitve as AZ are. Why is this? There are many other strategy games out there that are competitive in nature, yet play similarly to combat; slower, with more emphasis on what is going on. I'm not saying AZ doesn't do this, just that Combat as a gamemode does as well.


Some people believe that Combat promotes camping and as a result, leads to a pretty boring game. Camping in combat is a legitimate strategy and has been proven to be an effective means of winning. Now I'm not talking about turtling here. For those of you who don't know what turtling is, let me tell you.

Turtling is when a player (or players) sit in their spawn and essentially bunker up with sandbags, tank barricades, AT guns sitting behind, etc etc. These people don't move out of their spawn and think that they will hold with their turtled base. I'd like to note that this particular strategy has not yet proven to work, ever. This comes from my experience of beating people who have done this, quite easily.

No. Camping is when a player, or players, camp around the map and wait for their opponent to come to them. Some people, myself included, will camp troops in a certain area on the map and use artillery to bomb enemy locations from afar and then push while they are weaker. This IS a legitimate strategy and has been done many times.

I myself like to jockey with my opponent for position. I tend to camp, scout to see what he has and then push accordingly in order to get the position I want. I will use artillery if I have to, or excessive infantry with tank support if I think it will work.


The only problem that Combat has which prevents it from being properly competitive is the lack of attention it gets from the developers. With the right attention, balancing, etc, combat could be just as competitive :)


I'd love to hear other people's opinions on Combat as a gamemode, coupled with their experiences on AZ as well.


NOTE: I HAVEN'T INCLUDED EVERYTHING IN THIS. I WOULD HAPPILY PROVIDE MY OPINION ON OTHER COMBAT RELATED TOPICS.

[ewt.strat29]

COMBAT Exploits and ♥♥♥♥ in combat that does not work.. just mechanics.. not even talking about balance yet
world kill your own units denying enemy kills
engine flaming doesnt work
cant grenade engine tanks..
radio op useless
cant really shoot at tanks rear..
Total war style mechanics where you can camp if you want..
Timings of units are all wrong .


Timings -
Basically yes.. DMS balances everything including TIMERS.. for assault zones.. Timings is actually the hardest thing in assault zones to get and pick up.. it is what seperates the best from the good. Combat removes this elelement entirely which for me makes the mode a bit boring....

Ive had enough with you combat ppl talking balance when DMS doesn't even care and especailly you insulting alot of people in your latest thread.-
two words for you. - lets fight. In your mode. your settings whatever your sandbox mode wants to bring..

I do agree there are good points in combat.. but i won't bother anymore since those combat guys are being wankers..
yes once combat gets attention it will possibly be competitive. Either way.. I would love to again see the best combat player even get close tow inning in a combat game vs a decent assultzones player.. not even a very good one.. maybe top 50 player..sure..
FIGHT!!!!

[datCookie]

Originally posted by strat29:

I do agree there are good points in combat.. but i won't bother anymore since those combat guys are being wankers..
yes once combat gets attention it will possibly be competitive. Either way.. I would love to again see the best combat player even get close tow inning in a combat game vs a decent assultzones player.. not even a very good one.. maybe top 50 player..sure..
FIGHT!!!!

Don't worry about what those guys have said. They aren't a good representative of what Combat should be.

Originally posted by strat29:

Exploits and ♥♥♥♥ in combat that does not work.. just mechanics.. not even talking about balance.
world kill your own units denying enemy kills
engine flaming doesnt work
cant grenade engine tanks..
radio op useless
cant really shoot at tanks rear..
Total war style mechanics where you can camp if you want..

Thats the mcahnics..

Basically yes.. DMS balances everything including TIMERS.. for assault zones.. Timings is actually the hardest thing in assault zones to get and pick up.. it is what seperates the best from lower tier. Combat removes this elelement entirely which for me makes the mode a bit boring....

This, in my opinion, is a serious issue that needs addressing. Especially since Combat is such a popular gamemode. I honestly think people would love combat more if it was given more attention and certain things were fixed that made it boring.

Originally posted by strat29:

Ive had enough with you combat ppl talking balance when DMS doesn't even care and especailly you insulting alot of people in your latest thread.-
two words for you. - lets fight. In your mode. your settings whatever your sandbox mode wants to bring..

I'm not a part of that supposed combat group. They are idiots who deserve no attention. So please, don't assume I am one of the crowd.

[ewt.strat29]

oh sorry mate, wasn't reffering to you specifically.

I've always tried to give combat the light and day to try advise what are the issues.. same with assault zones. Agree , combat is popular.. and should be addressed. (not for those guys though)

[General Dogsbody]

I have read this thread with interest, having also read the inflammatory post by Darbyjack. I have to admit I am a AZ fan who also plays the occasional Frontline game as well, why...because they have purpose and objectives which is precisely what warefare is all about...Physical Objectives. This does not mean that Combat Mode has no purpose..it must have as it has a reasonable following, but at the moment not for me....However I think that DMS should put a little effort in giving you guys the attention and balance to this game mode you so crave and maybe then it may attract a larger following....

Shoving it down the throats of players of other game modes, slagging them with expletives as was done in the other post is not the way. Your way is best, coercion and/or education by democratic process :) Good Luck.

[Simers]

Combat could be a fun sandbox mode if per say it could be a 1v1v1 and you played only specific units at time, like light tankvstankvstank duels, surivor gets points, than medium tankvstankvstank, than sniper vs sniper vs sniper etc... I'd think that would be a cool "combat" mode. It would reward the player that has better skills in literally tank combat, or infantry combat.

Since there is an overall score and no objective or incentive to push it ceases to be an actual mode I will play. Because of world kills, engine burning, self destructing, exploit crap of combat, it truly is not a balanced nor competitive mode with the only objective of k/d imbalanced score ratio. If you play to win and are competitive by nature, than combat is not the mode for you.

Camping in combat = turtling in AZ whilst not helping your team with a screenshot in my content with a title of "typical combat player" - Someone who wishes to preserve their k/d ratio and does not give a ♥♥♥♥ about sacrificing for a win.

Pushing opponent to spawn in combat = aggressive AZ player who out micro's & outplays his opponent in every way and dominates the map so much so that the opponent is at his spawn, yet loses by score because he engine kills multiple tanks with at nades, instead of shooting them with bigger tank. gg

A combat player in AZ is someone who buys 1 assault squad and than 10 minutes later brings out a heavy tank. In combat the score would be likely tied or very close, in AZ this player is definitely losing, prob at spawn.

An AZ player in combat is someone who pushes out 4 infantry squads plus a light tank and pushes enemy back, yet loses half of his infantry but kills the heavy/medium tank with his lighter tank yet somehow he is losing because of engine burnt world kill.


Combat is the only mode that does not take into account micro cost. Most combat players probably don't even have the slightest idea of what that even means, point proven.

[Captain Butthurt]

I'm a pro-combat player as well, even have my own thread with those issues mentioned above listed, so I understand you pretty well. And, of course, I do not like the fact that smb discredited our ( combat players) name by starting a flame war.

I want to add one more thing - currently in combat you have no reliable way of getting rid of useless equipment without losing points\lots of micro.
There is always a point in every combat game when that 222 or Luchs becomes ''obsolete'' and basically provide free points to your enemy the second they are caught in the open. All you can do with them is :

1) Go rampage with it, trying to score as much points as possible before it inevitebly dies.
2) Initiate self-destruction ( you WILL lose your points for that - it counts as friendly fire )
3) Try to world- or engine-kill it (unreliable and can still count as friendly fire, like if your engine grenade will register as hitting hull)
4) Hide it ( and have a portion of your CP tied up)

That's pretty much it. Those options are either unreliable or gamey, and don't fit into combat theme, where you usually try to care about your units.

Clumsy way of sovling it migh be making self-destruction not counting as FF, but this can be exploited ( just self-destruct your tracked heavy tank that is about to die)

Optimally I would like to see some sort of ''decomission'' button, what would take away your vehicle while letting you keep your crew with its experience.

[Simers]

just self destruct and run your crew away ^

[Captain Butthurt]

Originally posted by Simers:

just self destruct and run your crew away ^

It will cost you Combat score (as if you AT grenaded it).

[Jack]

222s can still be useful late game. Doing sneaky attacks or towing equipment.

[ewt.strat29]

ahhh i've explained how to world kill in about 100 combat threads in the past. You can world kill by placing a dynamite on the gorund near a unit...( not plant it.. just drop it fron inventory to leave it on the ground) then throw a grenade on the floor next to it.. The wrold kills it not you.. and no point slost and the enemy gains no points.

Ofcourse you dont grenade your own vehicles. It is game changing in heavy tank scenaros denying kill.s As you said it can be exploited... there i have given you another reason to exploit :)

[datCookie]

Originally posted by Simers:

Combat could be a fun sandbox mode if per say it could be a 1v1v1 and you played only specific units at time, like light tankvstankvstank duels, surivor gets points, than medium tankvstankvstank, than sniper vs sniper vs sniper etc... I'd think that would be a cool "combat" mode. It would reward the player that has better skills in literally tank combat, or infantry combat.

It wouldn't be a bad idea. However I personally feel that what makes Combat good is the use of a variety of units together. Duels sound cool though, I will admit.

Originally posted by Simers:

Since there is an overall score and no objective or incentive to push it ceases to be an actual mode I will play. Because of world kills, engine burning, self destructing, exploit crap of combat, it truly is not a balanced nor competitive mode with the only objective of k/d imbalanced score ratio. If you play to win and are competitive by nature, than combat is not the mode for you.

Such exploits, amongst others, should be fixed. It is a problem that they exist at this point. I've had games that I should have won because I destroyed tanks that would have given me serious points, but they were only world kills because the engine caught fire. Frustrating. Simple fixes in my opinion.

Originally posted by Simers:

Camping in combat = turtling in AZ whilst not helping your team with a screenshot in my content with a title of "typical combat player" - Someone who wishes to preserve their k/d ratio and does not give a ♥♥♥♥ about sacrificing for a win.

Pushing opponent to spawn in combat = aggressive AZ player who out micro's & outplays his opponent in every way and dominates the map so much so that the opponent is at his spawn, yet loses by score because he engine kills multiple tanks with at nades, instead of shooting them with bigger tank. gg

I believe that camping is possible in AZ. I could camp multiple points instead of pushing their spawn for no reason. Turtling would be (at the most) sitting at ONE point and leaving the rest. Otherwise you'd be stuck in your spawn turtling for no reason.

Pushing in combat doesn't necessarily mean that you are the equivalent of an AZ player. You push for the same reasons, positional control. However in Combat you are able to push in many different ways instead of just infantry.

Originally posted by Simers:

A combat player in AZ is someone who buys 1 assault squad and than 10 minutes later brings out a heavy tank. In combat the score would be likely tied or very close, in AZ this player is definitely losing, prob at spawn.

An AZ player in combat is someone who pushes out 4 infantry squads plus a light tank and pushes enemy back, yet loses half of his infantry but kills the heavy/medium tank with his lighter tank yet somehow he is losing because of engine burnt world kill.


Combat is the only mode that does not take into account micro cost. Most combat players probably don't even have the slightest idea of what that even means, point proven.

I think it is wrong to generalise in saying that a combat player playing AZ would play AZ the same way they play combat. A decent player would know the difference between the two and adjust accordingly. It makes no sense for a player to play AZ exactly the same way they do Combat. Heck, when I play AZ I play nothing like I do in Combat :P

An AZ player attempting to push with what you have mentioned would probably get halted in their tracks, against a decent combat player. Combat is all about anticipating what your enemy is going to throw at you and planning accordingly. A lot of the times I would have an AA gun and a medium-heavy AT gun with infantry cover and that will stop most pushes (unless using arty).

I know what micro itself means. Although I've never heard the term "micro cost". I'd be grateful if you could explain for me please :)


I'd like to thank all you guys for providing your opinions and for keep this thread civil.

[Simers]

good points datcookie... we will agree to disagree :)

[datCookie]

Originally posted by Simers:

good points datcookie... we will agree to disagree :)

Sure :)


Another problem I have noticed, community wise, is that some people on both sides of the coin completely disregard the applications of the opposite game mode.

On one hand, you've got people (like those in the previous combat thread) that think AZ is just for noobs and such. On the other, you've got people who think that Combat is just for noobs. These people completely disregard anything else.

I'm not going to name anyone, as obvious as these people are. But instead of trying to bash on the other gamemode, we should be trying to improve them.


Me personally. I'd LOVE to see Combat improved in such a way that allows it to be used in competitive play.

[Simers]

agree ^

[handzy]

In my many hours in combat, I actually played combat for probably the first 200 hours of my Assault Squad life before finding the ANZAC_MOW community and fell in love with Assault Zones.

This doesn't mean that I hated combat, nor is it a bad game mode to say the least. It is a good game mode for what I believe it's main objective is, to be more of a sandbox type of game mode. But on this point I don't believe it is best for competitve style of gameplay as, well the devs have said they don't balance for combat they balance for Assault Zones.

But moving on from this the main reason why I probably don't play combat is due to most, not all don't shoot me down, most games end up in a arty spam or bank for heavy tank game. Which leads to uninteresting and really awful gameplay. YES I UNDERSTAND that the 'better' combat players don't play like this, I'm not saying you do, or was I ever, this is just how the MAJORITY of Combat games are played, in my experience. I like combat for the openess and no direct objectives it is truly a do what you want type game mode, but it really is the same as Assault Zones, and vice versa, in a sense you are playing for territory in a way, it's just that the game mode doesn't specify where you need to fight for, the game mode naturally creates these areas as players fight over different positions, which is really interesting and leads to variation.
But there are too many holes in the combat system for my liking, especially the radio op not getting points for kills, like c'mon you should be rewarded for tracking a tank then benig able to get within 60m without being blown to bits! Another is the world kill feature which denies your opponent points, and is pretty much cheating, and once you work that out you really don't have to worry about losing points for your heavy tanks!

On the flip side the reason why I enjoy AZ more as it encourages players to do things. Yes you can bank for a 222 from the start in AZ if you wish, and do exactly the same in Combat. But early on in AZ you are going to learn this is a bad idea and start to use infantry and slowly progress your game knowledge. It gives you an objective, some direction to push you in, and it teaches you how to fight over seperate ares of the map at once and really gets you involved in micro management of infantry. The AZ meta has moved away slightly from an 'OMG ITS JUST ASSAULT SQUAD SPAM' which you may of previously thought, and with the buffs on the mg and elite soldiers it really has changed up the gameplay, as intended, and to good effect!

AZ games are usually more fast paced and action packed, where Combat games can involve a good deal of camping and waiting, which is fine if you like that by all means go ahead and play it! I play combat from time to time because its good to change it up every now and again, sometimes you'd rather a slow paced than quick intense action!

But I think what seperates Combat lovers from Assault Zones lovers is well obviously what they play more, but also maybe what they played first? It was hard for me to transition to AZ oh so long ago, but I did and found it was better, I'm not saying that you will, and I'm definitely no condeming Combat as a bad game mode, is just a different one! If you play AZ first you are going to play fast paced games sooner rather than later, and if you keep playing, switching to combat may seem slow and boring. Likewise i you like the slower approach of combat, switching to AZ might overwhelm you very quickly when you come up against someone decent!

In my honest opinion though I just feel like in public games where its middle experience or newer type players, combat games are very predictable in the hey you get the Calliope and I'll get the pershing kind of sense. Where as Assault Zones games offer a hell of a lot more variety in these type of games, in my opinion.

This is obviously all just my opinion.

PS - my opinion. =)
PPS - I have played much Combat. =)
PPPS - I hope there's no arrogance in there! =D