Battlezone 1

I had the same thing happen to me twice this weekend.
I want a general opinion from the STRATTERS about this.

Both experiences were about the same, so I will describe the common theme, and I'd like feedback/opinion.

I was in strat game(s).
Scrap was collected, things were built.

In both games, as is my routine, a STRONG defense was built around my recycler. I figure that the recycler is irreplaceable, so I'd better defend it.

Both games were on the Citadels map. There is sufficient, but not abundant, scrap. There is enough for a strong offense, and weak defense, or visa versa, but not both. In both cases I build a strong defense, and 3 tanks with SPs. In both cases my opponent showed up at the edge of my base with 10 offensive vehicles. In one case all of my scavengers were destroyed, in the other, most of them. I was clearly overwhelmed offensively, but my defenses were strong. I led my limited offense on end arounds and arrived at, in one case a TOTALLY undefended base, and in the other in a base that was minimally defended. In both cases the the opponent base was decimated. In both cases the opponent cried foul. One guy said that there wasn't a stratter worth a sh*t that would take out the enemy recycler first.

In both cases the opponent then took his offense head on into my base. One guy went over the top right down into my recycler. In both cases the base defenses held. The enemies offenses were destroyed and my recycler was left intact. At this point, with no offense, no defense, no recycler, factory or armory, the opponents quit, but not before accusing me of either being lame, or sucking.

I win some games, I lose some games. Unless there is out-and-out hacking, or violation of the rules (splinters or rec diving (hiding under a rec to get the defenses to kill it)) I always finish, win or lose, with a GG for my opponent.

In a game of strategy, when the decision is made to forgo any defense for a strong offense, why would someone complain about my strategy of eliminating the opponents unguarded resources? It seems to me that these people have set THEIR strategy and insist that I play along in such a way as to optimize THEIR success.

Am I wrong or not?

Regardless of whether or not you agree with me, thanks for your feedback.
Best,
DD40

I agree with both perspectives.

I guess its all in what you want out of the game, a "WIN", or a longer tactical/strategic game. For myself, in recent years (an influenced partly by DREDD's perspective(s)), I prefer to take the REC LAST, if or when it does get taken, "I" as the human pilot avoid participating in the offensive and leave it up to my "AI" units. While there are exceptions, given the skill level of todays "Tank Jockies", there are very few REC's that can not be taken out one way or another by a skilled "Tank Jockey".

On Citadels, if both players were to employ the same STRONG DEFENSIVE "strat", the game would become a virtual stand off, because of the LACK of any closer geysers. IMHO it is FAR more difficult to make any sort of OFFENSIVE/AGGRESSIVE attack on an opponents "BASE" (as in the CLOSE deployment of his critical units, and not to be confused with a REMOTE BASE as deployed by a CONSTRUCTOR) when your MAIN UNITS (REC, FAC, ARM, even the SPAWN POINT) are very distant. So in the case of Citadels, as you have stated scrap either adequate for EITHER a GOOD offense, or a GOOD DEFENSE, but NOT BOTH, I would view the Offensive/Attacking player the least favored even if he were the more accomplished player.

Taking the scenario you say you encountered, would you have been able to mount any sort of genuine OFFENSIVE attack on the opponents base, had he employed the same STRONG DEFENSE as you had?? I think both players would have sat around with their thumbs up their A$$'S trying for snipes or picking of stray units til the wee hours of the morning.

So, DD... I'd say in some technical sense you are right in your "strat", but the bigger part of me that is a LONG TIME BZ "VET" tends to think of someone going after the REC as the only-ish or #1 target is the act of a DESPERATE PLAYER, and in my mind is in an implicit way, saying "I LOST the game, and as a desperation attempt, I am going to attempt to get some sort of concilation or secondary "win" within the loss".

(he shrugs) I guess I didnt really answer your question directly, it almost looks like I've said there is no ABSOLUTE answer.

On Citadels, you CANNOT "attack" AND "defend" effectively simply because you cannot bring your critical units with you on an attack, there are no remote geysers, thus no option. Even if there were remote geysers, the attacking player is still at a disadvantage if he gets killed, because he is going to have a 10mile hike back to the battle, while is LAME AI units get RAPED by the "Tank Jockey".

LOL, I played Sho on Corner Pocket once, owned the whole map, and game, had him cornered, it was virtual GAME OVER and he sniped one of my several remaining LIVES in the last depsperation of saving hi LAST LIFE and GAME. Before I could get back to the point of the battle, he single handedly wiped out every thing I had, with MY TANK, gained all the scrap that was now NEAR to him, and he won the game. In that case it shows the power of the SNIPE, but it also shows the VULNERABLE postion an ATTACKER is in, solely because of the REMOTE SPAWN (uncontrolled by the player).

For me personally, I think Citadels is best played as a BATTLE for the scrap, and its all acted out in the middle of the map, and opponents BASE never comes into play until the game is effectively over anyway.

I remember YEARS ago, playing someone on that map, and they wanted "BUILD TIME", and we flew past each other several times like we were enroute to a picnic... I'll never understand how BUILD TIME ever came to be... (smiling) maybe cause of me, and how AGGRESSIVE I am to start a game!

Might be interesting to see other opinions... interesting question...

TheWall

Wall,
I see your point, and you are correct, if nobody is willing to attack, the game is dead. When I play citadels, I make sure I have ~30 scrap when I'm done building my base. This dictates the number of offensive units I can build, and how much I can trick them out (2 SPs vs 1 additional AT, etc.). If there is no sign of the opponent, I take my constructor and what offense I have and head for the flat spot near (~650 meters) the opponent base. Sometimes I encounter him on the way, and this can be trouble if he has more offense than me. If I can get there intact, I immediately build 1 or 2 solars and 3 towers, then a silo. During this time, the opponent can usually be counted on to come down to harrass or attack me. New scrap now comes into play, and this is where, with a resounding attack by the opponent, I can have the forward base eliminated, virtually ending my chance for victory. If, on the other hand, I can get some scrap, I can build a hangar and supply. If I get that far, I can usually count on winning. All the while, my recycler is FULLY DEFENDED. At this point, with additional scrap I will build some Howies, and (although it takes them a while to get there) bring them into play. This is a good tactic, because it can FORCE an otherwise intransigent opponent to come out of his base. This is STRATEGY!

I play many opponents that use similar tactics against me. This is a GOOD strat. Building an offense of 11 vehicles, fully tricked out, and rushing (not the bad, early game kind) the opponents base, is not really a strat in my mind and begs the response of a base annihilation. A one side strategy lends itself to a one sided respones.

I cannot force the opponent to properly defend his base. If he fails to, it seems that he's chosen his strength (and his weakness). He wants all the offense he can muster, this give him an advantage, but he want me to allow this advantage with no downside, with no cost. Doesn't it seem that he should either leave some of it behind to defend his resources, or suffer the consequences?

I'm not talking about an over the top, rec diving stunt. I'm talking about walking in the front door and wiping out a base without ever being fired upon. Actually, my 3 tanks take the REC, I take the factory and armory. The opponent still has his offense, and usually his constructor. Now, he has to think hard before he commits tanks to charge into a forest of gun towers, knowing they cannot be replaced!

Regardless, I respect your opinion...thanks,
DD40

Hey all
Hope it will change but I haven't the time to play these days.

I have known your game since the beginning DD, and that was not the problem vs the guy that didn't like you taking out his unprotected productionunits.
Your strategy worked these 2 games, his did not. A bit sad to put all the work and time into a game, hoping for a good time, and then get spoiled it all in the end by an opponent that forgot to protect his productionunits, as if it was a rule to not touch them.

Some have addopted Dredds idea to spare the recycler to the end of game. Its just an idea, a different way of play the game, not the best or most honorable way.

The player that quick builds a strong attackforce dominates usualy the large area between the bases/productionunits. One tip to Dredds fans; use radar, nav, miners, the productionunits mobility. If you don't want to use time on that either, just call your games "save rec for last". Simple?

Hope everyone does well

Jon

Well, my two cents worth.

Everyone has a descision to make when stratting, if the scrap is limited. If you choose to be entirely offensive, then you gamble that you can break the enemies defenses, or best his offenses with what you have chosen to build. It is a gamble and if you fail, you deserve to lose to a player who prepared better.

If you build mostly defensive, and the other player did too, then eventually you and your small offensive force will have to try to draw your opponent outside of his base to engage in a battle that starts turning the tide of the scrap possession to you and away from him.

Every strat game starts with a choice, mostly defensive, mostly offensive, half and half? This descision is based on terrain and scrap availability, for the most part, and prior knowledge of your opponent. I played Jon Blund once with a very defensive strategy, and I made it to his base to find it totally ubdefended.

To decide that you can leave your base undefended and make the other player hold to a standard of taking rec last, is just trying to justify your poor defensive strategy and lure the opponent into an offensive only game, which honestly suits a stronger DMer than a stratter. Anyone who thinks his opponents should play this way should agree to this before the game, so you can plan accordingly. Otherwise you are little more than a whiner and a poor sport when your strategy doesn't work.

Qa'plagh, Kahless

Just picking out some things...

"sufficient, but not abundant, scrap/There is enough for a strong offense, and weak defense,
or visa versa, but not both"
"Both games were on the Citadels map"
"my scavengers were destroyed"
"In both cases the opponent cried foul"
"One guy went over the top right down into my recycler"
"One guy said that there wasn't a stratter worth a sh*t that would take out the enemy recycler first"
"the opponents quit"

Strategy... Bz doesn't seem to be well setup for strategy games.

I believe people tend to play strat like a DM, sense first attacks rarely succeed, why would a strater throw over 1/3 of his scrap away in the first attack?? Maybe because they know its going to be a short game... or maybe it's a distraction so the player can get to the recycler and take it out single
handed, declare a win and quit the game.

Really... if all we are going to do is kill off scavys and go after the recycler and quit after complaining... that’s not a strat at all.

Due to the way Bz strat is setup, i can't see this behavior ever changing.

Most maps don't have much scrap available as noted below, Citadels has the 3rd highest scrap available.

Battle By The Sea 420 scrap 3 players 140 each
Big Venus Map 500 scrap 2 players 250 each
Blast Chamber 520 scrap 4 players 130 each
Canyon Madness 560 scrap 4 players 140 each
Citadels 440 scrap 2 players 220 each
Corner Pocket 400 scrap 2 players 200 each
Ice Ice Baby 480 scrap 3 players 160 each
Moon 360 scrap 3 players 120 each
Par 3 380 scrap 3 players 126.66 each
Paranoia 560 scrap 4 players 140 each
Purgatory 300 scrap 2 players 150 each
The Compass 480 scrap 2 players 240 each
Theater o' Pain 400 scrap 4 players 100 each
Z Neo-Halofexx 420 scrap 4 players 105 each
Z Snowed In 314 scrap 2 players 157 each

Yea DX, there's mostly not enough scrap to start with for both strong defense and offense. The idea behind it is fighting for it. And in multiplayer the scrapamount increases as units get distroyed. A challenge also to ballance between offensive/defensive units, get the best out of every little piece. Also, the more scrap/units, the more lag.
I believe it's perfectly ballanced. But as a newbie there was always too little.
The better you get, the less scrap you need.

The language you picked out typicaly discribes the average player that still underestimates the work and time great players have put into the game. I was some of a complainer myself once, saw hacks, flaws and lamers everywhere. A part of the growing proces I guess

Now recalling some of the OLD Paranoia games of DD40 and Dotham, what DD states here is exactly the same strat/tactic they employed in those games...

HOLE UP, wait until you are sure your defenses wont hold up anymore, then sneak off for a one tank (human pilot) assault on one of the opponents REC's. In the case of both Paranoia and Citadels, the ONLY option of being able to make anything resembling good offensive is by building REMOTE BASE, BOTH of those maps preclude bringing the critical units anywheres near the battle point. On Paranoia, as I recall... If I were able to get back and ASSIST my DEFENSES from one of your BACKDOOR attempts, you were ALWAYS riding the surrounding hills, where miners couldnt mine and the DEFENSE hopelessly trying to track the movements of a HUMAN PILOT, while you strafed the stationary REC.

The human pilot can EASILY defeat defenses that AI units could never dream of, by cleverly hiding in seams of the defense(s), working the outter fringes, out pacing the tracking capabilities of AI units, traveling terrain that AI units otherwise cannot and defenses cannot be built to counter, etc.

Contrary to what I think I see being represented here, I don't see an OFFENSE, based solely from a REMOTE BASE (no critical units in close deploy) as being the more advantageous role to take. I would much rather be CAMPED out in my base, with my REC (etc) in my back pocket, and 200 spent in DEFENSE, and fight off an attack from an opponent with "200" scrap worth of OFFENSIVE units and the required supporting infrastrcture (REMOTE BASE). NO ONE has EVER been able to DEFEAT me @ my SPAWN area, camped on my CRITICAL UNITS and *NOT* have their CRITCAL UNITS deployed (remotely) WITH the attack. Then SAILING OFF with a couple of backup units in tow, as A/THEE HUMAN PILOT is all but a GUARANTEED PLOY/TACTIC/"strat" to be able to easily defeat any defense that would have to stand ALONE to defeat a HUMAN PILOT with all of less than 100 scrap.

As I stated before, in a GENERIC SENSE, there is no real answer.... However, I will offer this... DD40, just once try to mount a legitmate offensive campaign against somone (average to above average player). See what it REALLY TAKES to be successful in an effort like that with THIS GAME, and ALL it inhernet FLAWS. As you said yourself, your game has always been spent dominantly on DEFENSE. In otherwords, you build a DEFENSE that takes nothing shy of an ALL OUT offense to ATTEMPT to beat, then once you are sure you have the opponent engaging your DEFENSE, *YOU* as the HUMAN PILOT (as an offensive unit, able to defeat most defenses) take it upon YOURSELF to exploit the token defense if any your opponent left behind trailing too far behind to be able to ASSIST in the maverick/cowboy assualt.

TELL YA WHAT, set a date and time for a Citadels game, I will apply all my effort to DEFENSE, and I will CAMP, and WAIT til a very hot place freezes. The*BEST* you will get will be a "STALEMATE" where we agree that after 12 or more hours of you not being able to break me down, that we prefer to QUIT. I haven't HOLE'd up for over 7 years, could be a nice change of pace....

TheWall

Hi Wall. I have struggled with DD and Dothham as well. I remember many great games vs them. They developed a hard to beat teamstrat. Their game was wellknown, we joined and lost quite a few.

I see your point Wall. I also remember the class difference between DD40 and you. You have that extra ordinary talent DD40 never may get close to, even if he plays 5 games a day the next 5 years.

I believe DD40 respects your game and even could dream of one day reach your level. Until then he still needs to play and learn, and maybe likes to win a few in the meantime.

I still thank Shogun for showing respect for my effort, even when my game was poor.

The gamerules and general standards should be a compromise between what great players can do, and what average players still need to learn.

Jon

Way way back in the early days I played strat with one of the original bz programmers.
It was Canyon Madness, Sync off, and Ken or whoever it was would build a base and allow others to try and take it. I don't recall the base ever falling during the time he played. Hell you never knew what tank he was in half the time. Was he good? HE WAS GOD!! He played great defense, and trash talk had little effect. He took time to answer questions and make suggestions. The creator was damn good.

GEORGE would use scouts like hunting dogs, and you'd not know if he was with them or behind them or what. My first reaction was to FLEE and find a hole to hide in. Like I was going to find a safe hiding spot (DOH). I think Georges BZ client had some kind of terminator setup on it, when asked if there were any official trainers it was denied.

IF YOU'RE OUT THERE KEN.. WALL and THESE OTHER GUYS NEED SOME LESSONS!


THANKS FOR CREATING A GREAT GAME!!

btw- the only acceptable strategy is one where you win.

-build it, and they will come-

JonBlund,

Actually your wrong about some things, first and foremost, Strategy is about planning and directing military movements and operations.

Its not or shouldn't be about fighting for scrap, that’s one thing that turns it toward DM fighting instead of a true Strategy.

Technically, if you build every thing on one race, in this case I’ll use the NSDF for example, it takes 413 scrap to build everything. When all of the units are destroyed and gathered you receive 364 scrap back. If you recycle stuff you'll get even less back. If you don't recycle anything and you exclude the armory then your raise the scrap by only 48.

Also, the amount of scrap on a map in NO way increases lag, scrap and unit poly count and scrap object flags are not sent over the net.

If you really believed the game is perfectly balanced, then why say "there's mostly not enough scrap", you'll notice i never said that.

True Strategy isn't about scrap gathering.

cmdr wayne,

Ya, I would like to see that... any base can be taken out, maybe his opponents had poor strategies huh!

I don't call being able to take out any base units single handed "damn good" and the game has many flaws that I wont waste time going into.

TheWall,

You made some very good points.

DX, I respectfully disagree about one point. Stategy includes struggling for the scrap, or else we should simply just put it all inside the base and let each guy have 10 minutes to use it all up.

Strategy games include many elements, which can be boken down into..
1)Overall strategy, planning
2)Base building and defense
3)Offensive fleet management
4)Scrap recovery and management
5)Deathmatch abilities
6)Sniping abilities

The great ones are good in all areas. One player comes to mind. Judge Dredd is dangerous as a sniper and DMer, and understands strategy. His uptake on destroying recyclers last is simply something he evolved into to keep strat from boring him. He tried playing single players, the two against, etc... Another stratter is DD40. He is both a good DMer and sniper, though he rarely enters either genre game unless it is to solicit a strat game from someone.

Qa'plagh, Kahless

Without recourses there's nothing to plan, to move, direct or operate. War is about choking off the enemies recourses. If you don't, the enemy is going to use it against you.

I have no clue what data is sent to my opponent or not, you're the expert there Dx. But if stuff gets unstable on my screen because of too many units on the map this will influence the game on my opponents screen as well. Easy to check if you got two computers. Don't even need internet to create lag (ships moving back and forward in a split of a second). Finally the game will crash if too many units.

I can't get how you counted out the scrap. Most units/buildings give more scrap when destroyed, than they cost to build in multiplayer (scrapcount).

I did not say that "not enough scrap" is bad for strategy, or that you said that. But my opinion is that it's good. If you need more scrap go fight your opponent, and the game is on.

About gamerules: I do not believe I would have had so much fun and been able to play that many different players/personalities without use of gamerules. Any games that are played without rules? I have played enough "no rules" games. They tend to end up "on foot" after 3-4 minutes.

Commander Wayne: Man you would need 3 holes to hide in when playing The Wall. Some of the programmers must have been great stratters, no doubt. They must have loved that they were creating. Thank you too btw for some great stratmaps you made long ago.

And DD40, you're an exelent and tough player. Honnorable and always clear about the gamerules. The topictitle shows interest for dialogue with your opponents. Common ground so the game can be played at all.

I disagree with SCRAP collection not being a/the strategy. But then again, it might be players by the likes of me that has created the BUILD TIME rules. If scrap collection was not a STRAT, why have SILOS that can be placed at various locations? Why not just start all players with 200-300 scrap?

I think the initial SCRAP COLLECTION with complete and total impunity is an abortion of the game. If you are going to have an initial BUILD TIME, why not also work out some sort of in game rule about no fighting over any scrap? If a unit dies on "YOUR" section of the map, its yours, SIMPLE.

(Shaking head) NOW I remember the BUILD TIME rules in the DD40/Dotham Paranoia games. They would EXPLOIT the rule, knowing they could go anywhere with total impunity, and placed silos near the opponents spawn areas. I guess enough years had passed that I forgot those games, the build time, the build time exploits, the HOLE UP ploy (even to the extent that they got called on it, and was told there would be no attack on their defense, that THEY had to amount SOMETHING resembling an offense, they blast stray silo's, come totally ill equiped for anything resembling a genuine offensive attack, get their due spanking, then state they had made their effort, and it was now the opponents turn).

DD........ you didn't call these Citadel games BUILD TIME games, did you? I'm betting so... I don't think you have ever played a game without it (shaking head) So, lets talk about this "Why should I play to YOUR strength" stuff NOW.... "Scrap was gathered, things were built..." OH BOY... Shoulda known something was amiss when the topic wasnt something more like.... "Is getting my A$$ spanked 3 times before I can even get scrap collected or my GOOD defense built a strat game?"

NO REC Rushing, NO Splintering Bases, and NO REC Diving are all the ANTI-CHEESE Rules needed... Being outperformed in the onset of the game is not CHEESEY.

DD40, you should try what I call an "AI ONLY" game, where the HUMAN PILOT does not get involved at all, does not fire a round of any type, plasma, snipe, tank, nothing... Start in a RAM, if you lose it, get in a scav. THAT puts the initial scrap collection on even ground, it takes the MASTER DM'r (even sniper) out of the game. This would also eliminate this WHINE about the HUMAN PILOT cheesing a REC... if an AI squad takes it out, such is THE GAME. (FYI, "AI" = Artificial Intelligence). I've played a dozen or so of those games over the years, and I think one can make the argument that THAT sort of a game is a TRUE "STRAT" game (as it takes *ALL* the "DM" out of it completely). AI's can't REC DIVE, AI's can't genuinely *RUSH*, and AI's even have a hard time splintering a base to death like a HUMAN PILOT can....

TheWall

(EDITED) We need some sort of phantom command vessle. Unlimited HULL, no guns/ammo, RED and STEALTH enabled, so it can't be detected... an in game, FPS, command BUBBLE.

Kahless, anytime you have to focus on scrap gathering it takes away from the strat elements of the game. Notice that in Bz2 the scrap gathering focus changed to, no silos and scrap pools, they put the game on the right path for strategy.

I never saw General Tom Franks calling China to see if they sent the steel for the tanks he needed.

TheWall, i think thats a great idea and hope to play that way sometime.