In small maps the size of your force footprint often decides the issue. Let’s take a theoretical small map with an equal number of tanks (10) beginning from each side with about the same mix of tank strengths. Let’s say they have 5 reinforcements for each tank making for a total in game amount of 60 possible. Let’s say that the German side is made up of non-robust players who are more concerned about losing a tank or getting a dent in it than they are about capturing ground. These guys may be this way because they believe they are actors in a battle reenactment, sort of a stage play – they think they are simulating realism. Now let’s say the Russians are a wild bunch (which surprisingly they tend to be in actual games) who are very robust, aggressive, and who are mainly concerned with taking ground because they believe they are in a GAME.
Now let’s say that the German team on average scores 2 tank kills per panzer tank life span, and let’s say that the Russians are only half as effective with 1 tank kill per Rusky tank life span. Let’s further say that the effect of this is that a lot of Germans will husband their wounded tanks, even if a bird taking a dump on them would blow their wounded tank sky high. And let’s say that the Ruskies want to get rid of their wounded tanks as fast as possible so that they can have a nice new shiny tank right out of the factory. I have actually seen this scenario happening. And don’t forget I am only talking about a small map like Arad, or other such stock maps.
Let’s now say that the effect of our scenario is that the Russians end up putting a constant pressure toward advancing and gaining ground – while the Germans tend to hang back – often never crossing the first river banks (as in Arad) even as Russian tanks tend to keep occupying South Field. And let’s say that through the game the Germans only use about 25 tanks worth of their total because they husband their wounded tanks, while the Russians run through all 60. What effect do these two sizes of armor footprints have? The Russians, who can kill on average just one tank each before dying, will mathematically take out 60 German tanks. The Germans who wallow around in smoking-wounded tanks, rather than use up more reinforcements, will only take out 50 tanks. Thus 25 German tanks hit by 60 Russian tank kills = 0 German tanks on the field. 60 Russian tanks hit by 50 German tank kills = 10 Russian tanks on the field. But in actual practice both sides can have the same number of successful tank kills, meaning that the aggressive side ends up with even more tank kills! So that if the average is 1.5 tank kills per tank life, the Russians (in our model) can take out 90 tanks, and the Germans with 25 effective tanks on the field can take out only 37 tanks.
If this seems fake to you – I have actually seen this scenario play out – the careful team will be seen spending most of their time near the edge of their side of the map, with big gaps where they have almost NO TANKS ON THE BATTLE FIELD. While the aggressive side will look like a ‘constant conveyor belt’ rapidly feeding tanks into the map always pushing the envelope of their zone of control over all the map objectives.
[FONT="]The tanks cost you NOTHING (they are just pixels and logic zones) except perhaps PERSONAL score points. But heck those can be rigged. [/FONT][FONT="] Carefully losing a battle is brain-dead. [/FONT][FONT="]The point of the game is not saving your tank. The point is capturing ground in a limited amount of TIME. More times than I can count I have heard careful tankers slowing plotting their next kill in their smoking tank, while most of the objectives are being savagely taken by the enemy who is rushing at break neck speed in a real BLITZKRIEG. Remember that word????? LIGHTNING WARFARE? Panzers in lighting attacks? Ring any bells? If you lose a game and you have not used up your reinforcements something was wrong with you. That German Frau you think is waiting for you back in Berlin – she’s just your imagination. It’s ok to die in Red Orc. Be bold. Think break through. Think Lighting warfare.[/FONT]
Now let’s say that the German team on average scores 2 tank kills per panzer tank life span, and let’s say that the Russians are only half as effective with 1 tank kill per Rusky tank life span. Let’s further say that the effect of this is that a lot of Germans will husband their wounded tanks, even if a bird taking a dump on them would blow their wounded tank sky high. And let’s say that the Ruskies want to get rid of their wounded tanks as fast as possible so that they can have a nice new shiny tank right out of the factory. I have actually seen this scenario happening. And don’t forget I am only talking about a small map like Arad, or other such stock maps.
Let’s now say that the effect of our scenario is that the Russians end up putting a constant pressure toward advancing and gaining ground – while the Germans tend to hang back – often never crossing the first river banks (as in Arad) even as Russian tanks tend to keep occupying South Field. And let’s say that through the game the Germans only use about 25 tanks worth of their total because they husband their wounded tanks, while the Russians run through all 60. What effect do these two sizes of armor footprints have? The Russians, who can kill on average just one tank each before dying, will mathematically take out 60 German tanks. The Germans who wallow around in smoking-wounded tanks, rather than use up more reinforcements, will only take out 50 tanks. Thus 25 German tanks hit by 60 Russian tank kills = 0 German tanks on the field. 60 Russian tanks hit by 50 German tank kills = 10 Russian tanks on the field. But in actual practice both sides can have the same number of successful tank kills, meaning that the aggressive side ends up with even more tank kills! So that if the average is 1.5 tank kills per tank life, the Russians (in our model) can take out 90 tanks, and the Germans with 25 effective tanks on the field can take out only 37 tanks.
If this seems fake to you – I have actually seen this scenario play out – the careful team will be seen spending most of their time near the edge of their side of the map, with big gaps where they have almost NO TANKS ON THE BATTLE FIELD. While the aggressive side will look like a ‘constant conveyor belt’ rapidly feeding tanks into the map always pushing the envelope of their zone of control over all the map objectives.
[FONT="]The tanks cost you NOTHING (they are just pixels and logic zones) except perhaps PERSONAL score points. But heck those can be rigged. [/FONT][FONT="] Carefully losing a battle is brain-dead. [/FONT][FONT="]The point of the game is not saving your tank. The point is capturing ground in a limited amount of TIME. More times than I can count I have heard careful tankers slowing plotting their next kill in their smoking tank, while most of the objectives are being savagely taken by the enemy who is rushing at break neck speed in a real BLITZKRIEG. Remember that word????? LIGHTNING WARFARE? Panzers in lighting attacks? Ring any bells? If you lose a game and you have not used up your reinforcements something was wrong with you. That German Frau you think is waiting for you back in Berlin – she’s just your imagination. It’s ok to die in Red Orc. Be bold. Think break through. Think Lighting warfare.[/FONT]
Last edited: