I like the game. I enjoy how tactical it can be and how satisfying it is when you get things right.

However, the victory condition has got to be the least well thought through aspect of the entire game. I just played a ranked game where I dominated the map and gained at least 5000 command points more than the opponent.

However, I still lost the game since by the time it got to the stalemate portion where I had 80% of the map under my control, the score was at about 1000 each. Since I could, I fielded some expensive units which were unfortunately lost, handing the victory to the opponent.

Now, I understand that what I did was not the right thing to do to win the game - I should have just rushed in an endless stream of T62s or something. However, the point is that the 'expensive' units were a small investment compared to my income (Total of 12 points per 3 sec compared to his 1), and to me, losing them was not a big deal. However, apparently it was game-ending (even though I had a 2000+point army still up).

Why should the game reward losing the least units, and not map control? As a proportion of my total game income, I probably 'lost' less than 25%, but my opponent lost maybe 80%+. The victory condition does not reflect this even slightly, when it absolutely should. Company of Heroes had it right with the victory points entirely separate from your unit points.

Anyway, I'm out of here - this aspect of the game is too frustrating for me and I shan't be playing again until its fixed (so perhaps never).

Cheerio.

Well, it is sad for you to leave the game because of that. Especially since they are developping new conditions.

There is a "time" victory condition. in "time" games, if you control most of the map, you will in the end able to wipe the opponent, wining even if you lost more points.

Well... Cya then.

Edit: I love this victory condition. Sometimes the games are a git too fast because of it, but they make more sense than wiping out the enemy in most RTS.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel

Could you use a title less offensive? That the victory conditions aren't optimal was discussed many times on the forum without being aggressive.

LMAO I just whopped your ass in a ranked match and you go make a thread about it? Your tactics sucked, not the game, get over it

_________________

hahahaha


he mad

internet cold warriors online is serious stuff

this is why i love this game. you can rush (be offensive) or camp (stay defensive), both is legitimate and can bring you the victory as long as you gather more points than the opponent.

mindlessly rushing in your units and losing them is no excuse for whining about the victory conditions in this game. infact, you have to plan both a good offensive and defense in order to be victorious. you cant just send in an infantry squad into a forest full of flamethrowers and expect to win even if you have total map control.

here's one of my matches showcasing that mindless attacking isnt always the best option (demonstrated by the enemy team)

_________________

EUGEN i want this^ in the game. please think about adding tactical nuke artillery as new units in wargame european escalation....kkthxbai

I really like the victory conditions so far. Its really fitting to the game and how you have to play in order to be succesful. Its different from all the other RTS games out there where map control is the only thing that matters.
With these conditions both map control and unit preservation matter.

And ofcourse since more gamemodes are indeed coming you will be able to mix it up soon enough.

Yes, I do love the current victory condition because it throws the "spam endless units at your opponent and win a Pyrrhic victory" mechanic that dominates so many RTS out the window.

WEE's mechanic says: Men are not disposable, and you'll be penalized for each one you lose.

Which is a darn good lesson for the internetz these days.

Why can't you just look at the game's originality in this issue and adapt? I know we've had 30+ years of games which were all about "killemall + take all territory = win", but isn't it nice to try something different for a change? This is something fresh and forces you to take a new look at how you play the game, and as such it's actually welcome IMO. Well that's the good part.

I think Eugen should have added a different victory condition from the beginning, because this throws off a few new players. It's a bit of a surprise due to the long tradition preceding the game that has gone otherwise. And there's the issue whether defensive play is rewarded too much. They have been working on the issue for a little while though, and have been promising a patch to address the issue some time later.

You should also realize that you win if you kill off all enemy command vehicles. There's few things quite as fun in this game as going against an opponent that's turtling like hell, defeats all your advances and has a 1000+ point lead on you, and just keeps raining arty on your forces. Then their last command vehicle pops. GG

_________________

Fix decks and save minor nations - viewtopic.php?f=91&t=28335

Well the final score was like 1500-1350 and the final unit killed was a T-80. The victory condition does not make you conserve your units, it only forces you to use none but the cheapest units even if you can afford easily the most expensive, since the penalty for losing them is so great even if there a fewer 'men' lost. For example, losing the T-80U was the same as the loss of 8 T62s; you can't say that this promotes unit conservation.

I had bought 20 (!) arty pieces and could probably have just finished the game by blasting away with those, but decided it would be more sportsmanlike to actually attack. I still had all 4 command vehicles at the end of the game.

And I would only want to play ranked games, I know about the time objective, as well as whatever else they might be bringing in, but it won't change the way the ranked games are played. The units lost condition doesn't even make sense, since surely in a real battle there would be some objective as opposed to just 'don't let everyone die' - losing a unit should only make it more difficult to achieve your objective, not be the objective itself.

Whatever, if it gets changed I would like to keep playing the game, but the inane victory condition has been the cause of too much frustration for it to be worth it.