A million times this!!!

People are so focused on KDR that they don't realize that the real game is about dominating objectives not clones. Once we have to pay 120mill isk for the MCCs we lose in PC it will change the fundamentals of the game.

Basically, you can take advantage of an objective in only 2 ways:

They could have a full squad or more at that objective defending it. You are successful if you can force them to expend clones vs. your losses at around > 2.5:1 K/D rate vs. the assaulting squad.

Once we have PvE people will start realising this. I do it on occassion. Would love for more people to as well.

This IS a real difficult thing for new players to get though.

They spend a few weeks figuring out fitting and the gun game. Then there is getting the feel/understanding of maps and map flow. Only then can they get to the point where they can see when and what needs to be attacked.

I'd say there's actually three basic ways to take strategic advantage of objectives in Skirmish, with of course advanced forms of these basic methods.

Staging - Using objective spawn points and installations to stage attacks on other objectives.
Baiting - Using the objective to manipulate the enemy.
Defending - Using the objective as a protected point to slow the enemy down.

Staging could be said to be the purely offensive method, with defending being the obviously defensive method, and baiting being the versatile method.

Yeah I like using nomenclature like this to classify strategies. I think 'baiting' needs more clarity because it can be pretty broad.

I think a really specific form of 'baiting' could be called 'siegeing' Where you basically turn a defense against an enemy. The point isn't to capture the objective, but force them to either give it up, or just farm kills from their commitment to defend. Its much easier to siege open points rather than closed points. You can tell a committed defense by the amount of equipment, logis, and heavies present.

I still like the 'baiting' term and it could fall under the tactic of giving up a point to draw out a larger squad in order to orbital all of them in order to enable a stronger counter-attack.

How else would you play buffer tanked Caldari if its not guerrilla? It's like, game design or something.

But blueberries are dumb.

?

Caldari are actually prone to siege warfare. Long range, good mobility, solid DPS, but suck at CQC. Also fits with their "essence," seeing how the Caldari government doesn't like using more resources than they need to, thus they would more than likely try to make their enemies run outta resources first.

Minmatar are the ones who would be better off using guerilla warfare. Fastest racial suits, cheap and low fitting-cost gear, capable of dual-tanking, and are the best at hacking. They get in and get out real fast if they need to and can do it better than most. Far as lore wise, they would be best for it too and I'm more than sure their history has shown that they prefer Guerilla Warfare the most as well.

I know a lot of people don't like getting stomped in direct fights in Public Contracts. It's often that you're faced with a team that is hard to attack consistently and directly and on some occasions it seems hopeless to actually get into a major conflict with them. So I'm wondering why many players never go to Guerilla Warfare. I see others do it but they're few and between and when I do it, I'm usually alone.

It's one of the easiest ways to turn the game around or win it if you're going against a team that shows to be too much to directly handle.

Consider how America lost the Vietnam War despite it's forces and strength. Mobility and maneuverability will get you a long ways. Hiding and spawning and taking the least defended objective and then using it as bait so that you may take one of the more heavily fortified objectives.

I believe we're so focused on killing that we don't consider other options. I mean even the majority of our scouts, the intel-based role, are only lightweight slayers.

You can't change blueberries but you can get a squad and actually compete despite the odds. I've done it alone and came close to winning, now imagine doing it with an organized squad.

Guerilla Warfare

Guerilla like really, boyo guerilla warfare is something more than dampeners and scout suit with shoty or be a lonely wolf isnt guerilla warfare atal.

?

Caldari are actually prone to siege warfare. Long range, good mobility, solid DPS, but suck at CQC. Also fits with their "essence," seeing how the Caldari government doesn't like using more resources than they need to, thus they would more than likely try to make their enemies run outta resources first.

Minmatar are the ones who would be better off using guerilla warfare. Fastest racial suits, cheap and low fitting-cost gear, capable of dual-tanking, and are the best at hacking. They get in and get out real fast if they need to and can do it better than most. Far as lore wise, they would be best for it too and I'm more than sure their history has shown that they prefer Guerilla Warfare the most as well.

You can teach em tactics all day, but if a person doesn't have the will to win, they will always suffer ultimate defeat.

And that's what saddens me the most :/. I've seen some amazing stuff go down that only happened because of crazy willpower.

I know a lot of people don't like getting stomped in direct fights in Public Contracts. It's often that you're faced with a team that is hard to attack consistently and directly and on some occasions it seems hopeless to actually get into a major conflict with them. So I'm wondering why many players never go to Guerilla Warfare. I see others do it but they're few and between and when I do it, I'm usually alone.

It's one of the easiest ways to turn the game around or win it if you're going against a team that shows to be too much to directly handle.

Consider how America lost the Vietnam War despite it's forces and strength. Mobility and maneuverability will get you a long ways. Hiding and spawning and taking the least defended objective and then using it as bait so that you may take one of the more heavily fortified objectives.

I believe we're so focused on killing that we don't consider other options. I mean even the majority of our scouts, the intel-based role, are only lightweight slayers.

You can't change blueberries but you can get a squad and actually compete despite the odds. I've done it alone and came close to winning, now imagine doing it with an organized squad.

Guerilla Warfare

"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

Because in a skirmish match you need to actually take and hold the objectives?
I mean really how is that not obvious, guerrilla tactics fall apart in an objective based game mode and they wont work in ambush due to tank spam

Because in a skirmish match you need to actually take and hold the objectives?
I mean really how is that not obvious, guerrilla tactics fall apart in an objective based game mode and they wont work in ambush due to tank spam

Methinks you don 't know what your saying with guerilla warfare.

Vietnam example doesn't really work because DUST doesn't simulate real conflict. Real conflict has other less concrete objectives like "secure this area", "make this population bend to our will", "deny enemy resources and resupply", etc.

In Dust you have set conflict points in the objectives, and the only way to win is to either kill all the enemy, (direct conflict) or capture and hold the objectives, which due to the fundamentals of gameplay forces you to fight SOMEONE head on at some point.

Its not Vietnam, where you could threaten locals families to antagonize the opposing force, or harass their supply lines and cut down on their morale, or pick off isolated patrols, or set traps, or simply run away to fight another day.

In DUST you can't do that. There is no reward for running away. You can't force assymetric engagements with timers and lobby sizes. Theres no civilian aspect. You can't "set a trap" and wear an enemy down so much they quit in 10 minutes. And if you do, they simply respawn and attack you directly.

In a game with little long term consequence to death, no economy, no persistent world, fair sides (roughly) its impossible to use guerilla tactics as they are truly used. You can use flanking tactics and feints, but thats not guerilla warfare.

Guerilla warfare only truly works in real life when death IS final, and using time and exhaustion and confusion as your ally you can wear down an invading force. There is no confusion in DUST. There is no such thing as civilians you can blend in with. You can't hide and kill only one or two people a match.

Simply put, the best, and the ONLY way to win a DUST match is to be better at facing your enemy and killing them head on. To be able to flank and use terrain advantages and local number superiority to overwhelm. In real life, the easiest way to keep yourself alive is often to run away. In DUST, the best way to stay alive is to outkill the opponent.

I agree that on a micro scale, you can use deception to gain a tactical advantage. But guerilla tactics is using indirect methods of making war, or to force open conflict to be so biased in your favor that you will invariably win... And through these methods you achieve a strategic goal.

/armchair general

._. You're missing the point here. I'll try bringing in an example and then explaining it even more.

-

It's a 4 point map.

We're two minutes in and Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie have been taken while the party is over at Delta as the enemy uses siege tactics(i.e. farming) to pad their KD.

Your squad of three, squad two, decides that "Hey, it's pointless to defend this, it's being used to farm. We still have time to change this game around."

Squad two suicide and you all reemerge at the friendly spawn point. They leave in a group and go around the commotion over at Delta, giving themselves enough space to effectively avoid being spotted.

Eventually they make it towards Alpha which is the second furthest point from Delta. Quickly scanning the area, your squad finds out that it's clear of hostiles. Without hesitation, you guys hack the objective. You begin to talk as the objective is contested over.

"We should sit here and defend," one of your squadmate says. Your other squadmate speaks up, "No. We need to at least take Charlie and then push to Bravo."

You all agree under the pressure that the enemy realizes that Alpha has been hacked and will be mobilizing to the area pronto. Two of your squadmates go to Charlie while they leave you with Bravo.

You're almost to Bravo and you realize that Charlie's been hacked by your squadmates. You throw down some uplinks and proceed to sneak into Bravo. You realize that Bravo's crawling with red and begin questioning your actions until you see that Delta's blinking in your TacNet UI.

You started up a chance to win but now you gotta take it on home. Your teammates can take advantage and spawn in at the newly hacked objectives and help you or maybe you'll have to do it with only your squad.

---

It's not about running around and just hacking for the sake of hacking. It's about trying to spread their team, trying to slow down MCC destruction, trying to gain some footing, and a lot more. If the enemy team can't keep up with you, your chances of winning will go on up.

I've seen this tactic work wonders from both sides. Being both the "rebel" and the "imperialist." It actually pisses me off at times because it seems like even though when we always win our direct conflicts, they seem to be one step ahead of us taking another point.