Forged Alliance Forever

Re: strategy versus memorization/attention

2015-08-18T08:09:26+02:00

Yes, but slows unit usually need to be more "powerful"..why they are slow units..

SupCom 2 just debates that still for worth of any said is worth for any put..and at a time is still all the same really..just for the difference for more then likely of it as..
So as long as you can get say the "graphics" for the difference then what to say, Stragetigies to a place of memorisation and attention to have tactical changes??

Releases of the 90's and 80's had "slow" units..

Simplicity is what has to be an interest without a place of lose somehow, otherwise would stragety be lost and attention better gained?? Probably still more backwards but still..

Slow units are slow units..what and how they is debates rather it is for graphics or it is for graphics..
Mean, you can read a "unit" is "slow" but still..that's fine and all but still..

If you keep up with SupCom 2 say without any other say SupCom of or TA SupCom 2 will say pay its' dues..isn't basically at a time the only thing that "survives" really is the UEF ACU??

Like, what would be SupCom 3?? mean a simple answer is what??

Statistics: Posted by =M.V.K.= — 18 Aug 2015, 08:09

Re: strategy versus memorization/attention

2015-08-18T00:51:45+02:00

well, I think the solution was supposed to be supcom 2. But they went too far and it lost its epic scale.

Statistics: Posted by Zoram — 18 Aug 2015, 00:51

Re: strategy versus memorization/attention

2015-08-18T11:19:46+02:00

I have often pondered the question you pose OP...it seems in competitive SupCom there is so little margin to experiment outside of the usual build orders; if you fall behind in one little area and your opponent doesn't you have had it. If you try a strategy most of the time it falls apart and then your opponent can counter using dull yet tried and tested methods.

Essentially there are two meta strategies, gain an advantage, capitalise on it by upgrading your economy and gaining a tech advantage to crush him or once you have seized an advantage gamble everything on assassinating your enemies com. I also agree with what another poster said, the strategy really only comes in to play once you are on an equal footing with your opponent.

For instance, if you had gunships a strategic decision would be to either mass your gunships and fly an assassination mission or use pairs of gunships to hit resource structures across the map to cripple the enemy's economy. But by the time you have that option to build gunships you are already more than likely slightly ahead anyway. In most games I find my resources are so tied up just countering my opponent that if I try to invest in any other strategies I inevitably lose as soon as resources are diverted from basic land forces to fund alternative strategies.

It can be a very frustrating game, I played 3600 games overall and I am currently on a break due to getting too frustrated with being stuck at "slightly below average". I have been recently suffering withdrawal symptoms from this amazing game but my frustration runs deep from all the time I have put into trying to improve only to be kicked in the teeth by the game itself, still losing to players way less experienced than myself.

There is a lot of beauty in this game but sometimes it can be hard to capture, you have to go through the drudgery of perfecting your build orders and learning to micro pretty fast before you can access it. In a way I wonder if they had it right in Supreme Commander Vanilla, with the slow unit speeds, that seems the most reasonable way to give people more time to think about strategy, make the units slower. Especially when you have so much to manage. Apart from that I can't think of a solution.

Statistics: Posted by Flynn — 17 Aug 2015, 23:15

Re: strategy versus memorization/attention

2015-08-17T20:05:16+02:00

BattleMoose wrote:
So many people are playing Gap and Setons and the "meta" on these maps is so strong that any deviation effectively gets you ridiculed and tends to seriously compromise your team mates who are actually depending on you to follow the meta. There is actually very little room to play a properly strategic game within these constraints.

On maps like those I think you have two options:
1. Play a deviating strategy so well that it works and you crush everyone.
2. Talk to your teammates beforehand so everybody is on the same page.

For instance, if one player does t1 spam on Gap, it will be an utter fail. They will easily get trumped by the four players turtling on the other side, out-eco'd by their mirror, and basically cause their team to lose the game. But if you can get all four players to t1 spam, you will seriously surprise the other team. I did this with my clan once, and it was freakin' awesome.

Similarly, there's a Gyle cast out there somewhere where one team did all com drops on Canis 4v4... so good.

The trick with (2) is to get everyone in on it... do it yourself and you'll probably get slaughtered. That's what clans are for.

Statistics: Posted by codepants — 17 Aug 2015, 20:05

Re: strategy versus memorization/attention

2015-08-17T11:07:50+02:00

BattleMoose wrote:
While you are right, the point is not following the meta but knowing it. Once you understand how the game is likely to be played you are free to use any strategy.

I suggest you try playing Gap, being in an air slot, and not going air. And see what happens. Try a different strategy.

You can do beetle, arty, or even com drop. Or make a proxy base with sparky or engineers. I have done that many times, especially on Gap. Gap is a not the best example I think, Wonder or Setons have way more dedicated air players. Doing something original instead of the 8:00 / 9:00 ARAS build is pretty much a death sentence on Setons. But there are some options.

Strategy is not neglecting your task. Your task from air slot is to neutralize the air threat. If you can do it with a com drop or a hidden TML base, more power to you.

Statistics: Posted by Col_Walter_Kurtz — 17 Aug 2015, 11:07

Re: strategy versus memorization/attention

2015-08-15T07:13:05+02:00

While you are right, the point is not following the meta but knowing it. Once you understand how the game is likely to be played you are free to use any strategy.

I suggest you try playing Gap, being in an air slot, and not going air. And see what happens. Try a different strategy.

Statistics: Posted by BattleMoose — 15 Aug 2015, 07:13

Re: strategy versus memorization/attention

2015-08-14T16:24:23+02:00

Let's not forget that BO meta is not the only thing we are talking about. Say we are discussing a map like Regor VI where at some point you want to cart some engineers to the mountain mexes and/or use a distance build for a factory on the ledge. When do you do that safely? Should you ignore the mountain mexes and use the apm saved to pressure other areas of the map? It's all up in the air and the decision- and strategy-making is far beyond those thoughts.

There are literally DOZENS decisions you could make for Regor VI once you get past the initial BO and expansion. A fight for the middle mass is fairly common these days but you can do things like send an engineer to the enemy's side transport and tank wreck while grabbing your own to offset that claim.

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 14 Aug 2015, 16:24

Re: strategy versus memorization/attention

2015-08-14T15:11:04+02:00

Yeah once u have meta you know how not to get ur ass handed to u with opening strat

Statistics: Posted by nine2 — 14 Aug 2015, 15:11

Re: strategy versus memorization/attention

2015-08-14T14:34:09+02:00

BattleMoose wrote:
So many people are playing Gap and Setons and the "meta" on these maps is so strong that any deviation effectively gets you ridiculed and tends to seriously compromise your team mates who are actually depending on you to follow the meta. There is actually very little room to play a properly strategic game within these constraints.

If you want a more strategic game, head over to ladder, where you have the freedom to explore any strategy that you can imagine. There is just so much that can be done and so many options that you can choose.

I always find it very strange, that in a competitive game where you are trying to kill each other, that there is an effective agreement on how to play certain maps! An example is Roanoke, where you just land on the 2 large islands closest to you because, that's the meta. Instead, land slightly larger forces on the Enemies expand islands and win those! Do that properly and you are up 2 expands and he has none.

While you are right, the point is not following the meta but knowing it. Once you understand how the game is likely to be played you are free to use any strategy.

Statistics: Posted by Col_Walter_Kurtz — 14 Aug 2015, 14:34

Re: strategy versus memorization/attention

2015-08-13T04:41:25+02:00

So many people are playing Gap and Setons and the "meta" on these maps is so strong that any deviation effectively gets you ridiculed and tends to seriously compromise your team mates who are actually depending on you to follow the meta. There is actually very little room to play a properly strategic game within these constraints.

If you want a more strategic game, head over to ladder, where you have the freedom to explore any strategy that you can imagine. There is just so much that can be done and so many options that you can choose.

I always find it very strange, that in a competitive game where you are trying to kill each other, that there is an effective agreement on how to play certain maps! An example is Roanoke, where you just land on the 2 large islands closest to you because, that's the meta. Instead, land slightly larger forces on the Enemies expand islands and win those! Do that properly and you are up 2 expands and he has none.

Statistics: Posted by BattleMoose — 13 Aug 2015, 04:41

Re: strategy versus memorization/attention

2015-08-12T21:22:24+02:00

The biggest challenge for new players in Forged Alliance / Supp Comm is that the standard "meta" themselves are complicated and take a great deal of effort and time to master.

Once someone gets a basic understanding of the "meta" they can then branch out with new ideas, experiment, and begin to use strategy. For example, should you send your comm to the hydro immediately in Open Palms or have him sit back and build a land & air fact. Should you have an engineer assist or branch out and expand quickly? Do you want to use a bomber or just create interceptors to stop air forces?

The decision- and strategy-making comes with time. If you put in the effort and test different ideas it will come to light that the game is FLOURISHING with strategic thought that rivals any other aspect.

My response in meme form:

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 12 Aug 2015, 21:22

Re: strategy versus memorization/attention

2015-08-12T20:22:05+02:00

Well, if as much time was put into making a supcom ai as went into making chess ai then I'm sure none of us would get a look in.

Statistics: Posted by JaggedAppliance — 12 Aug 2015, 20:22

Re: strategy versus memorization/attention

2015-08-12T18:44:24+02:00

If supcom was a checklist, non-cheating computer players could beat you hands down. Because computers can do checklists perfectly, and humans cannot.

Chess is a checklist game. That's why computers can't be beat, or can at least tie the best human players.

As some other folks have indicated, it can be useful to keep checklists. The best players, IMO, know what "the checklists" are, but only because that allows them to better counter people who employ checklists.

Having a strong build order? Good.

Using the same build order every time? Probably super predictable and therefore counterable.

If you feel like you are playing a checklist, chances are you are not in control of the game -- you are always slightly behind your opponent and building counters to whatever they are building. If you are in control of the game, you decide what happens next. Air? Land? Navy? Guncom? Ecowhoring? Those are not checklists. They are choices made by whoever has the power to make them. The trick is being the person in control.

Statistics: Posted by codepants — 12 Aug 2015, 18:44

Re: strategy versus memorization/attention

2015-08-12T11:54:21+02:00

Supcom is all about long term memory. All the good ideas you have you will not get to try for the next 100 games, until you get the right situation. (unless you play setons, then you just have to win the random bs lottery and get a noob across from you)

Statistics: Posted by SeraphimLeftNut — 12 Aug 2015, 11:54

Re: strategy versus memorization/attention

2015-08-07T01:17:06+02:00

ZLO_RD wrote:
I used to train myself to limit my APM to 30-40 and pay more attansion to desigion making

i think this stands out ... i am starting to do this now. just because I am sweet at clickfest doesn't mean its a good idea.

Statistics: Posted by nine2 — 07 Aug 2015, 01:17