Until its one of those days when you get jumped by entire enemy team so you think “well if entire enemy team is on me and my entire team is over at A we must prolly have that point captured” and you look over and see theyre all camping BEHIND A with A not being captured, or worse, being captured by enemy.
4 Likes
Yep. There is way too many scenarios that could eventually leads to unexpected winning or losing, if both teams has equal amount of players left then the odds are uncertain. Sometimes we though we are losing, but then someone killed a few of their key players then their team collapses quickly even when they are initially winning the ticket war lol
2 Likes
If you really think about this though, what would be your strategy for the team? Let’s say you get to make the strategic plan for the entire team, and everyone will follow it.
Personally, I think the green team’s opening in your drawing is not necessarily at a disadvantage. You focus on one cap, overwhelm the enemy there while sustaining a disproportionally smaller loss, then pivot to the other caps. At the same time, it can make sense to send a smaller force to the other caps at the start of the match to scout.
This would basically be the WWII naval doctrine of “stick together”.
I think that strategy can absolutely work if the whole team is coordinated. Concentrating force to create local superiority is a perfectly valid military principle, and if you can wipe out the enemy at A quickly with relatively few losses, then pivot to B and C before they can react, that is probably the strongest possible opening.
My concern is over-concentration. In War Thunder, only so many tanks can actually use the same firing lanes at once, so after a certain point, adding more tanks to A gives diminishing returns. Meanwhile, the enemy gets B and C for free, gains more freedom of movement, and can start attacking your main force from multiple directions.
If I could command the whole team, I probably wouldn’t split the force evenly across all three caps either. I’d put the main effort on one important cap, maybe 50–60% of the team, send smaller forces to contest/scout the other two, and keep a mobile reserve ready to reinforce whichever side needs it.
So I agree with the principle of “stick together,” but I’d interpret it as concentrate enough to achieve local superiority, not concentrate so much that you surrender the rest of the map.
The naval analogy is interesting, but ground battles are a little different because terrain, firing lanes and capture points put a much harder limit on how much concentrated firepower you can actually use at once.