Ranked: Crash Zone Alpha map.

[The_Angry_Admiral]

 

Now your results may vary but I find almost each and every time we don't do this we lose. The two I have circled are caps A and B while the other is C. I find whenever we move as a group to A and B we find maybe three ships at B which we usually take out rather quickly. What we do then is take caps A and B while the reds take C. This automatically gives us a cap advantage and in order for the reds to come and take the caps, which they have to at this point, they have to come at us as with less ships which means if we station ships at those islands and wait for them to come we mow them down easily. My teams usually win each and every time we do this. What I can't understand are the people who want to divide up the group and half go C while the other go A and B. Doesn't it make more sense to fight for the two caps that are close together and easier to defend? 

 

Am I wrong in thinking this even though it works?

[lameoll]

yes and no. Tactics wise its wrong because if those 2 ships at And B actually had a working brain then they would start kiting u and stay alive and then u would have a hard time advancing as the enemy gets the C cap and can just split up and go support the 2 kiting and some can encircle u further into your own spawn.

 

and Sure u would have 2 caps for a while. But as you slowly get surrounded you wont manage to hold them.

 

The only reason this tactic works is because most of the player base has no map awareness. 

[The_Angry_Admiral]

2 minutes ago, lameoll said:

yes and no. Tactics wise its wrong because if those 2 ships at And B actually had a working brain then they would start kiting u and stay alive and then u would have a hard time advancing as the enemy gets the C cap and can just split up and go support the 2 kiting and some can encircle u further into your own spawn.

 

and Sure u would have 2 caps for a while. But as you slowly get surrounded you wont manage to hold them.

 

The only reason this tactic works is because most of the player base has no map awareness. 

It has worked four me each time when the reds split up and we don't. They will usually send three ships to cap B while the others take C which gives us the advantage in numbers. It may take a little while but the reds on C are not going to leave that cap until it has been taken and then have to make it to us in time to help their mates while we are shooting away. What happens for us is the team at B are dealt with by the time the rest of C arrive in which time we see them coming and just shoot as they approach. Unless the B team happens to be nothing but Godicums how are they supposed to win against us unless our team have zero brains?

[lameoll]

you dont have to be unicum to understand to not fight a battle u cant win and retreat and wait for reinforcements.

 

Or to understand there is NO enemy at one side of the map and u can just let 1 dd Take c and then instantly position yourself to help your outnumbered team at the other cap.

 

Sadly most players dont understand and just keep sailing into your spawn  after they cap C.

Or the 2 defending the other side die way too fast to make a dent .

 

what you are doing is gambling the enemy team has no descent players and Hoping yours does.

sure it might work 4 times in a row It also might backfire 4 times in a row 

 

[GarrusBrutus]

59 minutes ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

It has worked four me each time when the reds split up and we don't.

Then you had omega potatoes as opponents, at which point any tactic would have worked honestly.

When you send everyone of your team to one side of the map, you run the risk of losing significant map control and getting crossfired. It may seem to work at first because you gain the upperhand with double caps, but as long as you dont outright kill the few enemies on that cap, its gonna bite you in the 4ss later in the match when the reinforments from the other side arrive at your broadside.

But yeah its ranked, so most people have the tactical wit of a potato.

[The_Angry_Admiral]

Just had a game here where we won but we didn't all go to the A and B caps and we won, mainly because the other team did not play well. 

 

I did notice when a red is spotted going to C like what happened with the Alaska in the replay it exposed him while I was sitting in the B cap. 

 

It just looks a bit like C can be a bit of a risk.

 

20220526_114549_PFSB599-Black-Jean-Bart_52_Britain.wowsreplay

[The_Angry_Admiral]

23 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Then you had omega potatoes as opponents, at which point any tactic would have worked honestly.

When you send everyone of your team to one side of the map, you run the risk of losing significant map control and getting crossfired. It may seem to work at first because you gain the upperhand with double caps, but as long as you dont outright kill the few enemies on that cap, its gonna bite you in the 4ss later in the match when the reinforments from the other side arrive at your broadside.

But yeah its ranked, so most people have the tactical wit of a potato.

Hmmmmm I see where you are coming from but I'm just wondering where would the cross fire come from?

 

 

Just above is what our tactics would be but let's say all six went up against three red that were taking B and we killed them. Lets say we lost one ship which would mean our 5 against their three. Now we would be currently winning on kills and caps which would force the reds to essentially charge us with three ships.

 

I'm just not seeing how we would lose unless we just all went AFK.

[JohnMac79]

6 minutes ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

Hmmmmm I see where you are coming from but I'm just wondering where would the cross fire come from?

 

The red arrow.

 

[GarrusBrutus]

8 minutes ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

Now we would be currently winning on kills and caps which would force the reds to essentially charge us with three ships.

In theory, you couldnt lose this. But i think everyone has experienced this on numerous occasions, especially in ranked, where your team lost after gaining an almost unthrowable advantage.

It all comes down to players being bad and not knowing how to capitalise on the advantage.

How big is the chance of your teammates just patiently waiting at A/B cap for the enemies to push into them and how big is the chance of them keep pushing forward to "kill the enemies faster".....

10 minutes ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

I'm just not seeing how we would lose unless we just all went AFK.

A lot of times this would actually be the better thing for your teammates to do, but alas. Soooooo many times ive seen teams throwing matches in ranked. Especially when i killed their DD, capped the contested cap and spotted the enemy fleet. GG reds, we have shiplead, pointlead and caplead. No way we lose this right....? RIGHT.....? 

 

[Andrewbassg]

There is no tactic which you could reliably use. Wedgie made sure that the mode is as retarded as it can be. With 6v6 they given up on any pretense that people could play for the win, ditto the maps, and the inclusion of the inbread class.

It is a complete and utter sh#tshow , intended to make long standing and serious players to give up on this mode. 

[_Kokushibo_]

4 hours ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

Am I wrong in thinking this even though it works?

It's about the map control and crossfires. Unfortunately one needs to know and understand how to use any of these, which is usually not the case in Bronze (the place where I dwell).

[lup3s]

2 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

With 6v6 they given up on any pretense that people could play for the win

 

Why though ? Less enemies to kill and less teammates to carry.

[Andrewbassg]

1 minute ago, lup3s said:

 

Why though ? Less enemies to kill and less teammates to carry.

Nah comrade......you know better than this. So..... nice try, but nope, try again.

[lup3s]

11 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Nah comrade......you know better than this. So..... nice try, but nope, try again.

 

Then why does smaller teams mean that people can't play for the win ?

[Andrewbassg]

7 minutes ago, lup3s said:

 

Then why does smaller teams mean that people can't play for the win ?

Because, like I said in the other thread, a loss of a ship  (whether actual or just being AFK) is much more felt. Also you have no control over team composition as classes

Otherwise  one surely can try, but it is just pure luck if you get usable teammates or not. In 7v7 it was a greater possibility to actually carry people , not so much in this current setup. And Cv's were banned from 7v7 CB's yet here they are.

[lup3s]

12 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Because, like I said in the other thread, a loss of a ship  (whether actual or just being AFK) is much more felt. Also you have no control over team composition as classes

Otherwise  one surely can try, but it is just pure luck if you get usable teammates or not. In 7v7 it was a greater possibility to actually carry people , not so much in this current setup. And Cv's were banned from 7v7 CB's yet here they are.

 

So you think that, if you get the same poor team in 5v5 or 7v7, you have more chance of winning / carrying the latter ?

[Andrewbassg]

1 minute ago, lup3s said:

 

So you think that, if you get the same poor team in 5v5 or 7v7, you have more chance of winning / carrying the latter ?

Yo....the base conditions were altered in this season so yes, absolutely.

[lup3s]

12 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Yo....the base conditions were altered in this season so yes, absolutely.

 

5v5 -> less enemies for you to sink or to worry about

7v7 -> more enemies for you to sink or to worry about

 

which one is easier and relies less on teammates ?

 

[Andrewbassg]

4 minutes ago, lup3s said:

 

5v5 -> less enemies for you to sink or to worry about

7v7 -> more enemies for you to sink or to worry about

 

which one is easier and relies less on teammates ?

 

Unless it is 1v1 you have to "rely" on your teammates. If nothing else, to provide targets/tank. So... what is your point? Otherwise... it depends on other conditions, like maps.

[lup3s]

3 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Unless it is 1v1 you have to "rely" on your teammates. If nothing else, to provide targets/tank. So... what is your point? Otherwise... it depends on other conditions, like maps.

 

My point is that in 5v5 it's easier to carry potatoes.

[Andrewbassg]

10 minutes ago, lup3s said:

 

My point is that in 5v5 it's easier to carry potatoes.

Nope. If the team have split up and the two potatoes have died losing the cap how dat squares out  with carrying? Like I said we talk about the whole season's flaws. No amount of mental exercise will change 1+1=2

[lup3s]

10 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Nope. If the team have split up and the two potatoes have died losing the cap how dat squares out  with carrying? Like I said we talk about the whole season's flaws.

 

If the 2 potatoes die in 5v5, there are still "only" 5 enemies.

If the 2 potatoes die in 7v7, there are still 7 enemies - and last time I checked 7 is still more than 5.

 

Losing 2 ships without trading will be tough to turn around in either situation, but i think it's easier in the former one since there are less enemies to deal with / worry about.

 

 

:edit:

 

I can understand there are flaws with Ranked, but i don't think the smaller teams is one of them, nor is the new "saving star" mechanic.

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, lup3s said:

 

If the 2 potatoes die in 5v5, there are still "only" 5 enemies.

If the 2 potatoes die in 7v7, there are still 7 enemies - and last time I checked 7 is still more than 5.

 

Losing 2 ships without trading will be tough to turn around in either situation, but i think it's easier in the former one since there are less enemies to deal with / worry about.

 

 

:edit:

 

I can understand there are flaws with Ranked, but i don't think the smaller teams is one of them, nor is the new "saving star" mechanic.

Absolutely is. You look at this problem like a doctor who treat one symptom at a time when you have to look at the bigger picture. Which is wrong. The more players you have the more time you have and the loss of a potato is proportionally less impactful. Yo....

[lup3s]

17 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Absolutely is. You look at this problem like a doctor who treat one symptom at a time when you have to look at the bigger picture. Which is wrong. The more players you have the more time you have and the loss of a potato is proportionally less impactful. Yo....

 

So Randoms 12v12 should be even easier then ?

[Andrewbassg]

22 minutes ago, lup3s said:

 

So Randoms 12v12 should be even easier then ?

Lols.......You mean 9v9 "brawls"?? The other reetardness ?? You keep trying to bring it down to simple numbers when you full well know that's not the case. Either try for real or don't.

Also remind me what is the format for CB battles?.  Yo no sh#t.....