Conquest team non-trench FoW games are boring

[OliverFA]

Was checking my games and I just realized I was killed in turn 1 of a team non-trench FoW game because everybody on the other team stacked on a single player. Surprisingly, the feeling I get is not one of being unfair, but more the feeling of being boring.

Very usually, team games become something like "Let's focus on player X and kill him" and/or "let's stack on player Y so he can blitz everyone else" with IMHO is plain boring. FoW and non-trench multiply that effect making it even worst. I mean... where is the strategy on this? Yes, I recognize that's a clever move that needs a smart player (and three "yes" players) to be successful, and a move that deserves to be recognized, but that's not strategic at all. And yes, I think that a team must follow the best way to win, so I am not complaining about people doing that, I am complaining about a system that turns this way into the best way possible.

EDIT: Fixed the title, as this is about Conquest maps.

[Crazyirishman]

It really depends on the map, in non-trench settings, conquest maps tend to become as stack-fest while games on larger or complex maps involve accounting for multiple bonus, reducing deploys, and making the best possible fort during early rounds. Trench with complex maps tends to encourage more of an expansionist mindset before going about eliminating others and winning the game.

In fact, trench could make games on certain maps more boring, because it would eliminate the options to backdoor break bonuses and trying to get to somebody/ a objective 2 or more regions away. It all really depends on the circumstances.

[betiko]

Yup, team trench can be boring as hell and last forever. And if one of your guys is being targeted in a regular team game well adjust your strat accordingly.
And as crazy irishman says, the stack on one player strat works mostly/only on conquest maps.

[Arama86n]

Are you talking about a conquest map?
Try larger or more complex maps. And in your case, stay well clear of Conquest maps if you feel this way.

Although focusing on a certain opponent from the get go is a very legitimate tactic in many cases, it does not have to be the case. It's all about game selection. In many games blindly going for the kill from the get go would ensure the loss of the game.

Like in so many discussions it all comes down to generalizing... what you describe is common under certain circumstances, and idiotic under other circumstances.
Circumstances = map, settings, drop etc

[macbone]

I'm confused, Oliver. You say that eliminating a player and winning the game is bad strategy?

OK, let me explain how this works.

My team looks at the board. I ask them, "OK, guys, what do you see? Should we work for a bonus? What bonus(es) does Team 2 threaten? Can we get any eliminations? Which of us is vulnerable to an elimination?"

Then, they start to look at this. We toss around ideas:

"Maybe Chico should take Bonus X. Watch out for Moe in Bonus Y."
"Hey, we can see all of Shep."
"Yeah, we can!"
"OK, I'll hit him at Country Z this turn. Oh, and I can hit him at Country AAA on my turn."
"Let's load Harpo at City J."

I hate the games where everybody does their own thing without any kind of communication or gameplan. Sometimes that gameplan means we all load up one player to take a bonus. Sometimes that means hitting another player hard to take her out. (That's a permanent -3 to the other team, by the way.)

I'd argue the exact opposite of what you're saying. The ability to coordinate attacks and work together to take out a player is an example of fine teamwork, not the absence of it. It's all about combined firepower, man, coordinated strikes. It's incredibly satisfying to take out a player on Round 1. In most games that I've seen that happen, the team that gets that early elimination wins the game (although not always by any means).

[OliverFA]

Yes, I forgot to say that this applies mainly to conquest maps. Sorry for forgetting that detail.

[OliverFA]

I'm confused, Oliver. You say that eliminating a player and winning the game is bad strategy?

OK, let me explain how this works.

No. Not at all. If by "strategy" you mean "The best possible way of action to gain the combination of map and settings" that's a very good if not the best strategy.

What I am saying is that a map+settings that encourage that way of action are not strategic at all. It is more like "optimal way of action" that is learned in mathematics and computing for solving some problems, but not a real strategy. Why not a real strategy? Because it's always the same. The map+settings have a way of action that is clearly better than all the other ways of action and you either follow that course or die. So I am critizicing the map+setting, not the players who understand the best way to win under those boring conditions.

And why boring? Well, because as I said it's always the same. Stack, wait, attack, win (or lose while you were trying to win that way), repeat, again the same and the same... It can be quick in the sense that games are short, but it's boring because you are always doing the same.

[loutil]

Excuse my ignorance...what is a conquest map?

[Dukasaur]

Excuse my ignorance...what is a conquest map?

Maps that are mostly neutrals and the starting points for players are fixed.

Boring on any setting, as far as I'm concerned.

[BigBallinStalin]

Agreed. They usually are won by stacking one teammate and then deciding on when the chances are good enough (60%? 52%? etc.).

They're boring maps; too dependent on luck--when faced with teams that (a) know what's going on, but (b) choose the 55% chance or the 60% chance, etc. Too luck-dependent for me.

[macbone]

You guys need to play more Feudal Epic, then. You don't win that one by stacking, Trench or non-Trench. Well, it is a valid strategy, but there are better ways to play that map.

Oliver, I hear what you're saying. In fact, one thing I really don't like is that the elimination strategy works so well. Some maps have very interesting gameplay, but the focus is too much on elimination to get into the neat settings, like Cuban Missile Crisis. Perhaps a Cuban Missile Crisis pro will use the technology bits in the upper right, but I haven't touched them yet.

All Your Base is better. I'm no good at that map, but you have to work the tech bonuses to win, at least on 1v1 or 2-team settings.