Εγκατάσταση Steam
Σύνδεση
|
Γλώσσα
简体中文 (Απλοποιημένα κινεζικά)
繁體中文 (Παραδοσιακά κινεζικά)
日本語 (Ιαπωνικά)
한국어 (Κορεατικά)
ไทย (Ταϊλανδικά)
Български (Βουλγαρικά)
Čeština (Τσεχικά)
Dansk (Δανικά)
Deutsch (Γερμανικά)
English (Αγγλικά)
Español – España (Ισπανικά – Ισπανία)
Español – Latinoamérica (Ισπανικά – Λατινική Αμερική)
Français (Γαλλικά)
Italiano (Ιταλικά)
Bahasa Indonesia (Ινδονησιακά)
Magyar (Ουγγρικά)
Nederlands (Ολλανδικά)
Norsk (Νορβηγικά)
Polski (Πολωνικά)
Português (Πορτογαλικά – Πορτογαλία)
Português – Brasil (Πορτογαλικά – Βραζιλία)
Română (Ρουμανικά)
Русский (Ρωσικά)
Suomi (Φινλανδικά)
Svenska (Σουηδικά)
Türkçe (Τουρκικά)
Tiếng Việt (Βιετναμικά)
Українська (Ουκρανικά)
Αναφορά προβλήματος μετάφρασης
Κανόνες συζητήσεων και οδηγίες
Αναφορά ανάρτησης
Particularly the older large/medium map layers (except for talil and skorpo) that are well balanced for both inf and armor play. Provides the best foundation for not only teamwork, but also a balanced competitive game. The fight is focused to two points at a time, unlike AAS where people fight over unplayable caps, and both sides are symmetric and have opportunities to attack and defend unlike Invasion.
Also unlike invasion, you have to coordinate to balance both offense and defense which adds a whole new dimension to the challenge of organizing a team. Plus with everyone using squadlanes people arent off in the middle of nowhere without a clue driving for 10 mins to get to objective. Its focused, but isnt definite, the perfect balance.
If AAS was like the squadlanes meta and didnt give every point away but only gave where the general area the midpoint will be to focus the match into a certain part of the map it would be the ultimate gamemode.
Invasion is too asymmetric to me. It can be fun messing around as insurgents every now and again, but generally I want a more balanced competition.
Each entire team focuses all its efforts on either defense or offense and works as one team for success. This allows for far greater depth in strategy and teamwork to take place where a team can afford to have more squads dedicated to more functions such as superfobs/mortars/tows/scouting/supply lines/etc. Squad's full potential is allowed to be brought to bear in Invasion unlike in any other mode.
RAAS/AAS is mostly decided by the team's ability to split into defense and offense and shift accordingly. Two things happen- either one entire team plays offense and rolls or gets rolled or both teams evenly split and instead of 50v50 battles in invasion you get 2x 25v25 battles over 2 different objectives.
Beyond that it's just HAB spam+ cap momentum. Superfobs/mortars/tows/supply lines are rarely as critical. The tactics/strategies that win RAAS/AAS are not enjoyable or authentic forms of teamwork/strategy. There is almost never a sense of a front line and forces tend to be scattered as a result.
Invasion also is a much more authentic way of depicting how a battles and wars would play out. Two armies going at it with equal strength is rare and foolish. Armies don't simultaneously split into attacking and defending- they become weaker at both as a result. They more often either do one or the either depending on their relative advantage.
A defending force may send scouts and skirmishers to attrit the attacking force before a battle, but their goal isn't to seize territory or an objective. And an attacking force may have a security element to defend command posts and support elements from skirmishers, but not to hold objectives against an army.
RAAS on the otherhand is the least authentic game mode in gaming. Literally. Team death match is closer to how a real battle would be fought than RAAS. No army fights over random objectives. That's insane.
Really? I think I played it once in my many of hours of playing. Maybe I should try it out.
I see the argument. However having to balance limited resources between multiple objectives based on emergent situations simulates a full on war. Realism aside, Squad is a video game, and for me having to balance two objectives really adds to the RTS aspect of the game.
Gross oversimplification, that's like me saying that invasion is nothing more than throwing blueberry waves at a cap until you can proxy the defense hab.
That's why its great. You create your own front lines in the process of attacking or defending. Its realistic in the sense that battles take place over POIs that hold strategic value rather than in advancing lines like WW1. You can utilize things, such as the enemy overextending itself, becoming too scattered, or becoming to static and compressed on point and not attacking. On the opposite hand you have to remain aware of these weaknesses in yourself and compensate.
I mean, it is a video game. I find value in the competition and "sport" of Squad rather than any immersion, or milsim value. Squad provided a realistic platform for emergent competitive gameplay. It makes the deciding factor of matches more focused on the skill of the opposing teams rather than the design of the layer, and does more to highlight that skill.
Again, its a video game. Its not entirely random either. Like I said, to me its the perfect balance between certainty and uncertainty. Invasion isn't any different than RAAS for the attackers either.
How is that an insult? It's a fact. It is literally the least authentic game mode. Are you somehow insulted by that?
What resources? RAAS is just spamming HABs. I've won matches of RAAS where we won just with the first 3 truck loads of supplies. Never done that in invasion.
Except it's not. I can tell you how critical it is to have effective supply lines, mortars, repair stations, tows, scouts, superfobs, defense in depth, etc in invasion. That simply isn't the case with RAAS. I've played commander 100+ times on both invasion and RAAS. From experience winning each, RAAS is the simpler game mode that requires only designating defense and attack squads.
I think you're misunderstanding this. RAAS inherently dissolves any real existing frontline whether you try to make it yourself or not. Each objective is won by volume of bodies and the pace/contest of objectives prevents effective defenses from being established. Defenses can't be formed and there aren't enough players at each objective to form an actual front.
Squad aspires to be an authentic game. Therefore a critique of characteristics that are not authentic is more valid than "sport". As the game has no aspirations to be a sport.
as somebody who squad leads 90% of the time RAAS is the way to go.
Frontlines exist in real war, especially modern war. If AAS/RAAS lacks frontlines, then it's not a simulation of real war. You don't have random guys running around all over the place, dancing around one another and trying to avoid combat.
Frontlines are more likely in invasion. RAAS/AAS matches are full of double neutrals, backcaps, random flanks, hab spam, chunks of the team getting left behind and assaulting an objective that can no longer be captured, etc.
As to your "it's more realistic and not like WW1" comment, a certain modern day war literally proves that wrong. War is a tug of war where one side is defending and the other is attacking. You don't have two armies scattered all over the place and each force's soldiers dancing around each other. This is especially true considering the emergence of drones and sattelites. Armies aren't going to cluelessly dance around one another and capture opposing objectives, getting a "double neutral."
Its of course tactical, but its kind of a smash and grab gameplay and when you really have to fight something already went wrong, that should not be the case.
I neither enjoy steamrolling or being steamrolled (each is kinda boring), but in RAAS it can happen quite easily one team is just a tiny bit faster here and there and its all about reaching the next objective faster.
One suggestion i read here some time ago was to simplify and streamline RAAS: Only three objectives, one for each team on their own mainbase side that is unknown to the enemy until the third (center) objective (which becomes known after each team finishes the first cap) is captured.
It would shift focus from almost soley being faster / arriving quicker in relevant positions to having to actually overcome almost the whole enemy team in a large scale engagement.
Damn yall are hostile, its just a gamemode
Regardless I'm not trying to lItErAlLy PrOvE people wrong, I'm just stating why I enjoy a gamemode. Neither are truly realistic, and arguing about realism is pretty stupid because neither are milsim gamemodes. RAAS is quite literally reverse tug of war, if thats what you're looking for, give RAAS a fair shake. If you don't like it, more power to you, there's plenty of 24/7 Invasion servers.
I think they could do something like hell let loose. Split the map into grids, and then destroy all HABs and spawn points once a region is lost by a team.
Youre right, there should be no respawning, no habs, no radios, magically digging emplacements out of sticks isnt realistic either. In fact none of it should be simulated at all. We should all just go enlist because realism. If you dont like pitting your own skill against others on a level playing field why even play a multiplayer game? You could get far more immersion out of a singleplayer game like arma.
Buddy, you got whooshed so hard. The point was that both gamemodes share the same strategies for the most part. I was saying that saying invasion is simple is just about as stupid as saying RAAS was simple. Everything you described is literally no different in RAAS, except you have the added challenge of having to defend at the same time.
A big issue with steamrolling is people swapping teams to play on a team they know will win, its an issue regardless of gamemode. There needs to be some sort of team balance. Im not sure how it could be implemented easily without breaking core stuff in the process though. OWI hasnt had a good track record the past year in regards to not breaking the game every update.
One thing people can do to help alleviate the issue is to just stick with the team you joined in on unless youre specifically joining the server to meet someone. Also provides more challenge facing stacked teams.
One thing they could do to not only make it easier for new SL's but to also focus the gamemode better is just implement squadlanes into the game. Give a big red circle on the map denoting where the midpoints for the lane will be that way you dont have clueless sl's driving down to industrial/gas station when the point is going NW to dairy/fruit farm on goro for instance.
I hear that again and again, but i honestly don't understand how it can be perceived as more difficult..., you have the web-grid and have to hold it and designate areas to concentrate forces to gain ground, ideally cutting off the enemy from the anchor hex while preventing the enemy to do the same.
In RAAS especially newer players are often confused what to do and where to go in the opening stage, often leading to Squads being far out of position and useless for a significant portion of the round, in TC its much simpler or not ?
While i of course played RAAS more than any other mode (as everyone) i actually think Invasion and TC are both superior and make for more interesting gameplay, especially invasion forces more coordination between Squads instead of single Squads being able to just be decisive with "smash and grab" actions and tactics that try to avoid as much combat as possible.