It is known that people prefer to "add" features to a problem in order to solve it, and rarely do we realize that sometimes taking away stuff is the better option at times. I think I see the same thing with Captain Mode's addition of capture points. Personally, I think it would be better if we took out the capture points. Just hear me out, guys.
In my experience, holding onto a control point strategically favors those who comes out ahead first and condemns those who were defeated in the first clashes - especially since there are no reinforcements to reinvigorate a counter-attack, as is common military sense when you fail to hold or take an objective. The entire battle all depends on the results of the first clash.
If the enemy establishes itself on the control point first, then they can effectively come out ahead and sort of wait you out. Clashes can be very quick and timing for morale drain is iffy as you're pressured to keep pushing. Being forced to attack at a disadvantage is definitely frustrating. In a tactical sense, reinforcements are supposed to be necessary in this scenario. In a strategic sense, you have limited options other than throwing yourself on the enemy and try to outplay them in terms of individual skill(which is unlikely in the first place seeing as you lost the first clash).
When the control points change, only then can you maybe sort of recover but it's still a long shot, because most likely: the winner of the first clash has more troops and could afford to go on the offensive. The loser of the first clash just slowly gets strangled.
In my opinion, it is ironic because control points reduce strategic & tactical creativity and or flexibility. So, can we imagine what would happen if we removed them?
1) On the issue or non-issue of campers.
Yes, people may wait it out... But what are the chances everyone is totally happy with drawing it out every round and never approaches each other the entire time? There will always be demands for action on the vast majority of players' minds. If one side decides to camp it out, then yes - that could be frustrating - if you're playing to their tune. New counter-tactics and metas could evolve naturally for all we know. Attacking in this era has never been a blitz most of the time and slow methodical approaches with shields and confident support from cavalry or archers was a given for an attack to succeed. It's complex, yes but captain mode, like commander battle, has always been about coordinating with your team. It's a gamemode where a team with more human players could be defeated piecemeal by a coordinated army blob of compensated extra units by the fewer humans on the other team.
Now if both sides do want to camp it out. Then yes... We'll see who breaks first. Of course, there will always be jarring issues with every gamemode that leads to toxicity. People are people after all. But I think the benefits of giving people strategic freedom by changing the focus on them finding ways to kill their enemy than to rush to an objective and basing it around that is worth it.
2) Draws will be more frequent.
It is generally seen in Commander Battle that a draw is a "save" for the losing side and a "waste" for the winning side. Slurs are hurled at people who are seen as not aggressive enough if they have the advantage and if they're too aggressive and keep wasting men for the disadvantaged. Worst case, they're voted off the game. But a lot of the times though, people have fun and are like "Aw dang that was close.xD".
A draw is not so bad when looking at it from a strategic level. If I'm losing and we reach a draw, I have ANOTHER chance to LEARN from my mistakes. I was losing but the enemy could not apply the coup de grace. Their surprise combination is now made apparent to me and my team will now take the lessons to heart... Hopefully anyway. For the winning side, a draw is a wasted opportunity and tactical re-evaluation needs to be taken into account on what went wrong.
3) "Holding units" will have less value. More aggressive units will be the meta.
If they're not forced to stand and take fire, I think people will use them more creatively because they're no longer bound to die on a hill.
---
TL;DR: Remove the control points to liberate the player's strategic and tactical decision making in Captain Mode.
---
Although I agree alternative ideas in order to add strategic depth are also fine with me:
1) Periodic reinforcements system
2) Control Points(flags) aren't so iffy
3) Modified Morale rates
4) Increase time
Who knows, maybe a combination of all of the above. It's just that I don't feel as smart in Captain Mode than I do in Commander Battle.
In my experience, holding onto a control point strategically favors those who comes out ahead first and condemns those who were defeated in the first clashes - especially since there are no reinforcements to reinvigorate a counter-attack, as is common military sense when you fail to hold or take an objective. The entire battle all depends on the results of the first clash.
If the enemy establishes itself on the control point first, then they can effectively come out ahead and sort of wait you out. Clashes can be very quick and timing for morale drain is iffy as you're pressured to keep pushing. Being forced to attack at a disadvantage is definitely frustrating. In a tactical sense, reinforcements are supposed to be necessary in this scenario. In a strategic sense, you have limited options other than throwing yourself on the enemy and try to outplay them in terms of individual skill(which is unlikely in the first place seeing as you lost the first clash).
When the control points change, only then can you maybe sort of recover but it's still a long shot, because most likely: the winner of the first clash has more troops and could afford to go on the offensive. The loser of the first clash just slowly gets strangled.
In my opinion, it is ironic because control points reduce strategic & tactical creativity and or flexibility. So, can we imagine what would happen if we removed them?
1) On the issue or non-issue of campers.
Yes, people may wait it out... But what are the chances everyone is totally happy with drawing it out every round and never approaches each other the entire time? There will always be demands for action on the vast majority of players' minds. If one side decides to camp it out, then yes - that could be frustrating - if you're playing to their tune. New counter-tactics and metas could evolve naturally for all we know. Attacking in this era has never been a blitz most of the time and slow methodical approaches with shields and confident support from cavalry or archers was a given for an attack to succeed. It's complex, yes but captain mode, like commander battle, has always been about coordinating with your team. It's a gamemode where a team with more human players could be defeated piecemeal by a coordinated army blob of compensated extra units by the fewer humans on the other team.
Now if both sides do want to camp it out. Then yes... We'll see who breaks first. Of course, there will always be jarring issues with every gamemode that leads to toxicity. People are people after all. But I think the benefits of giving people strategic freedom by changing the focus on them finding ways to kill their enemy than to rush to an objective and basing it around that is worth it.
2) Draws will be more frequent.
It is generally seen in Commander Battle that a draw is a "save" for the losing side and a "waste" for the winning side. Slurs are hurled at people who are seen as not aggressive enough if they have the advantage and if they're too aggressive and keep wasting men for the disadvantaged. Worst case, they're voted off the game. But a lot of the times though, people have fun and are like "Aw dang that was close.xD".
A draw is not so bad when looking at it from a strategic level. If I'm losing and we reach a draw, I have ANOTHER chance to LEARN from my mistakes. I was losing but the enemy could not apply the coup de grace. Their surprise combination is now made apparent to me and my team will now take the lessons to heart... Hopefully anyway. For the winning side, a draw is a wasted opportunity and tactical re-evaluation needs to be taken into account on what went wrong.
3) "Holding units" will have less value. More aggressive units will be the meta.
If they're not forced to stand and take fire, I think people will use them more creatively because they're no longer bound to die on a hill.
---
TL;DR: Remove the control points to liberate the player's strategic and tactical decision making in Captain Mode.
---
Although I agree alternative ideas in order to add strategic depth are also fine with me:
1) Periodic reinforcements system
2) Control Points(flags) aren't so iffy
3) Modified Morale rates
4) Increase time
Who knows, maybe a combination of all of the above. It's just that I don't feel as smart in Captain Mode than I do in Commander Battle.
