Quote:
Originally Posted by Keroko
Let's try a game anallogy, we'll use C&C 3.
I had built an Ion Cannon withs sufficient defenses to fend off minor assaults. My oponent decided that my Ion Cannon was the biggest threat to his base, as I could target and destroy about 60% of his base, rendering the rest neutrall, and threw everything he had against my Ion Cannon. Now, while he was doing that, I did not sit there and take the punishment. Oh no, I send a nice squad of tanks into his now relatively unprotected base, landing a few more troops for good meassure, and trashed it while he was focussing on my Ion Cannon.
My opponent did what you are suggesting now, throwing focuss towards the biggest visible threat. In the end, he lost. Had he send a smaller force, but left more to defend, he could have succeeded in both taking out my Ion Cannon and fending off my assault.
Now replace the Ion Cannon with the Cradle. It's the biggest visible threat, but does that mean we should let all other things be?
|
Your analogy is faulty:
1) The operational goal is entirely different. In C&C, the only operational objective is to keep the base.
2) I presume that while he lost, at least he took out your Ion Cannon. Have you considered that maybe if he tried to "play it safer" he might have lost the base
and failed to knock out your ion cannon. How this is a superior ending is beyond me.
To refine your analogy. Your opponent has say 10 bases instead of one. The Ion Cannon can threaten
all his bases simultaneously, while the remainder of your forces can threaten only one base. Assume that you lose in C&C if you lose that Ion Cannon, while he loses only if he loses all ten bases. Does that affect your calculation?