Tactics

I have a few questions reqarding tactics in wvw  It makes little sense to me to constantly attack the defenders strong point, especially if you have not cutt off their supply lines. Throwing bodies at a numerically superior force is not good tactics.  Last week Fog used what I would call and excellent move by splitting forces and distracting their main force, then attacking the back gate. We overwhelmed their forces and ended up with the bal/globe or whatever it is calledl. 

Tonight the red team used a force of 3 or 4 golems to quickly overwhelm our gates and take the garrsion. They now have the orb. this was sound tactics, against npc defenders.

We need to develop strategic ways of attacking well defended fortresses.  We cannot have everyone surge forward to attack an inner gate without protecting the outer gates.  This allows them to close the gates behind us, trapping our forces between them.  Just as we do to them! Do we not know our own tactics.   They already have the advantage with the defending force of npcs.  If we do not protec the ground we have taken we will only fail repeatedly. 

This is dishearting to many.  It is not cheap to repair.  I do not expect anyone to pay for my repairs that is my responsibility, but I also do not want to be a simple meat shield, or target for other team to use as they may.

Are there plans to develp squads for specific purposes?  Leaders should utilize their resources, protect the flanks, and our rear. Then focus the remainder of the forces on the task at hand. A reserve force can be used, as we did last week to secure the back entrance while they focused on the front.

I would be interested in hearing from others and perhaps we can develop workable tactics to minimize deaths, and maximize the fun for all.

Kaytlyn

(former SSGT USMC)

If you're looking for volunteers, I'd be more than happy to group as a smaller force of 10 or so players looking to break away from the larger force to help defend, take camps, and assist our main force where needed. Trinity night is coming on Thursday. Last day before reset. I play a roaming thief and tend to try and scout and assist where needed anyway. Edit: Sorry, I didn't really answer your topic there. When it comes to tactics, when taking the Water keep, you can treb the outer walls relatively safely from our Garrison (on our own borderlands). The point is for a few to keep constant pressure on that keep, while the larger force is off doing other things. If you can disrupt the supply to that keep long enough, you'll eventually bleed it dry, making it much easier to take later.

» Edited on: 2012-09-24 22:42:59

Kaytlin, I read your post not as a general discussion of WvW tactics but rather as a specific criticism of Spartan's tactics. I'm sure you didn't mean it to sound Blades In but it reads a bit that way to me. Our leaders are 'elected' by our fellow guildies, by participating in the events they lead and by giving them Tokens of Valor. Spartan has gotten a lot of both -- he is effective and has received a lot of praise. In a guild this large, however, it's guaranteed that we won't all have the same playstyles. If you don't like the event, it's ok - you have options! You can attend one led by someone else or lead your own. As you progress to leading big raids you might develop a new appreciation for how incredibly difficult it is to coax a large group of people to listen and move in a coordinated fashion, despite the distraction of a dozen armchairs quarterbacks, and two skilled and motivated opponents trying there darndest to wipe us off the map. ;) BTW one of my most memorable GW2 moments so far was a keep siege led by Spartan that seemed hopeless and we won it anyway after 90 minutes. It was epic!

» Edited on: 2012-09-24 23:52:00

I had at blast at the WvW event earlier today. The only flaw was that everyone on the map seemed to gravitate to us, which was nice for pushing through towers, camps, and enemy zergs with ease, but it left no one on defense. Everyone wanted to follow the blue dot! Essentially, the only problem was that we didn't have more leaders like Spartan to lead an attack on another front, or to stay back and defend what we've conquered. We just need more than one force on the map, and I think that problem will be solved with the upcoming Trinity Night. I'm looking forward to it, to say the least. :)

No the comment was not meant as a criticism of Spartan's tactics. It was meant as a general comment on tactics as a whole in wvw. Spartan did a good job, I have no complaints against his leadership. I just think that we have so much talent out there that we can work more as a team and develop support teams. I want us to succeed as a group. If you look at this post as a specific complaint against one individual then I failed in my purpose. Trying to lead a large group in such endeavors is not easy. Not all of us are "experienced gamers", some of us want to contribute something more than just running at a gate and dying! By developing sound, fundamental tactics we will be much more successful as a guild. In other MMO's that I have played in that demanded coordination of forces we would set up seperate channels to allow these support groups to coordinate their efforts. For example in the case of large raids we would have groups set up to "off tank" or "heal the main tank" or whatever. The point is that we are a very large guild. We have the resources to develop these sub-units. For example: engineers to create the seige engines, support teams to protect these engines against attack. Teams to protect the supply routes etc. Aoe teams to take down archers, or whatever. Perhaps that is not the way to approach these types of wvw events. Maybe a mass attack is the tactic we should use. I don't know. That is why I created this thread, to hear ideas from others, so we can work together.

» Edited on: 2012-09-25 00:56:55

Sounds like we're talking about the Dagger groups that we'll be seeing more of as more folks step up to lead them. The small strike groups that hit the weak points =D

I would be willing to follow along with a dagger group if I would be useful. I'm not sure what sort of spec would be ideal for that though. Right now I am specced as a grenadier engineer. I can do a lot of damage to defenders on walls typically and then switch to bombs when we charge enemies as I try to lay down as much confusion and pain there as I can. Not sure if that build is good for dagger groups though. I typically get the short end of the stick when going one-on-one against other players in WvW unless we are in the water and then they get a grenade party. If the enemy leaves me alone in the back I can lay down some decent damage on them. I also don't mind staying and defending towers or the garrison if we need that. I have also been known to run supplies back and forth to patch walls and gates and help build defense siege.

It seems to me that controlling supply is incredibly important. Without supply you can't build siege or repair things. If we could take and hold supply camps we would completely starve the opposing sides while providing us with all the siege equipment we could ever want to then take and hold other objectives. Unfortunately that requires manpower. The other night with Breakclaw we had enough people to take a camp, but we could only hold it for a short time before it would be taken right back. I think we were doing a great job at hassling the other sides but we just didn't have enough people to control the supply completely. I did notice that the one time we held it the longest was when we had two or three pieces of siege equipment. So maybe we simply need make more money so we can afford more siege equipment and make sure we use up the supply to place all the siege we can at supply camps to hold them?

Part of the problem with experimenting with different tactics is the limitation on groups. If we could have, say, 10 man groups then we could easily employ more complex tactics. Because you could have one sergeant taking the lead and capping enemy supply. It would also be easier to redirect people in battle. Since we do not have that option, I think we should start making getting a party mean more in these WvW events. The leader should say 'I need two parties to take X' two party leaders volunteer, go forth and make it so. The full burden of micromanaging the rather hectic battles should not fall on just one person. Another example would be, say, setting up trebs and hitting the northern wall of a location, with a small defensive force in place, and ram zerging the opposite gate a little ways into the bombardment. Sweep in to where people would be falling back, and fight them from their own walls, or simply rush to a side gate and ram zerg that sucker too. We also need to setup at least a couple arrow carts when we are on inners. we got shutdown by superior AOE this last time. Finally, raidcall. We need to keep the channel clear of idle chatter for the event. We also need to not have people arguing with leadership when they are making a call. If you disagree, make note of it, and discuss it after the fact. If you think that something else needs to be done, volunteer to lead a couple parties to go do it. Do NOT argue with leadership in the middle of a siege, or a raid. It distracts them from making the calls they need to make, frustrates those of us looking for those calls, and is a bit demoralizing in the first place. I am willing to step up our organization and lead small tactical groups. We have some limitations to how we can do this, lets agree on a method of employing something to make our forces a bit more agile.

I see a lot of good comments in here, and I think that Zoktavir really hit on what I noticed last night. Based on the Raidcall channel, we had about 80 people from guild either in WvW or trying to get in. I also noticed that we had close to 20 pugs following us around. This only left 30 people on the rest of the map. Now I agree with something that Spartan said last night about these leftover pugs being able to fortify and defend the towers that we captured. Unfortunately, them being capable of this and actually doing it are two different things. We really can't rely on pugs to follow or even understand what we're doing. And based on my WvW experiences, very few of them even try. I like the idea of dagger groups running around and harassing enemy points or capturing undefended points. But I agree with Kaytlin that we have so many people, we can do many things at once. And I think that if we really want to dominate the map, we're going to have to shoulder some of the responsibility of repairing/upgrading, fortifying, running supplies, etc.

The comment about controlling supply from Kalizaar is a good one, but it's definitely intentionally more difficult to hold supply depots. Usually there are multiple ways into a supply depot, and siege weapons can be overrun pretty easily. You kind of need to pick and choose which supply depots are most important based on your current larger objective, and focus on holding those. I think it would be next to impossible to attempt to hold all or even the majority of the supply depots on a map for any length of time. Edit: Oh one other thing on this topic - the commander icon is always going to be a zerg magnet. People that aren't sure what to do, are always going to be drawn to it, and that's fine. That's the way it should be. But I think that puts the burden on the rest of us in guild who have maybe gotten more familiar with WvW to take the lead on forming these smaller groups. Spartan, Fog etc. will have their hands already full with the giant number of followers who are inevitably drawn to the icon.

» Edited on: 2012-09-25 09:59:24

You're right about the commander icon. Knowing that it's a zerg magnet we might want to consider making sure the commander is more stationary at a "main" objective while we send smaller groups to do other tasks. Every time the commander moves there's a chance to lose a group of Pugs that are lost in attacking stragglers, mindlessly attacking doors, etc. A commander with a mass of pugs is more likely to draw the attention and resources of the opposing sides giving our dagger groups a better opportunity to cause mayhem. I think as we all get more used to how WvW works that it'll become easier and easier for us to divide into groups to perform multiple tasks. It's probably safe to say that many of us are still learning how many people are "required" to efficiently perform different activities. We'll also begin to get more people willing to take charge of small groups. I know at the moment I'm not comfortable taking charge of a large group, but as I get more familiar with how everything works I could see myself peeling off with a group to do what needs to be done. I'm sure I'm not alone. :)

If you look at most of the teams that do well they have several things going on , !. they have more people in the lakes actualy helping , I see lots of people on our server talking about farming mats in the WvW zone , plus they have more playing at off hours 2. you need the zerg to always be advancing to keep the other side of def, having the zerg backtrack to recap a supply depot etc is a waste o resources ie people . # you need either for us to set it up or try and get the smaller guilds to set them up but you need skrimsh groups . 4. you need smaller groups of 8 to 10 patroloing , 1 group roaming our backlines , killing their shrimsh groups and keeping our supply lines open , recaping camps , sentry etc . 5. then you need another group 8 to 10 playing hide and seek hit and run tactics behind their lines , killing stragglers trying to get to their zerg, playing cat and mouse caping supply camps, sentrty, caravans etc then slipping away . then hiding and recaping after they retake it then slipping away again etc avoi don`t fight if you can`t win , the goal isn`t to hold the supply in their backlines but to disrupt them . The other side will have to divert troops to recap their stuff , weaking their main force , if you cut off their supply or disrupt it they can`t attack or defend well, but you need to control yours at the same time thus you need more then 1 skrimsh group . While the zerg keeps the main force busy the skrimsher groups are the key to winning the match as the control of supply is key . A small group using guerilla tactic can keep a larger force tied up chasing supply camp recaps thus helping our main zerg actualy be effective .

Before we work on running, lets learn how to walk. I get what you all are saying but we need to remember that this game is only a month old. People are still learning. I know we want to be big bad and mean but the fact of the matter is this core group is over 35. Some of us take a little more time to learn before we can wrap our minds around this. Right now in my world i'm having a harder time getting people to group up, or navigate, or supply up than i am having time to worry about tactics. Lets focus on getting people on the same page first.

I have seen several WvW 101 classes going on and I think that is an excellent way of getting more of our numbers on board with WvW and also taking part and helping the family events go smoother. The other night I had the honor of picking up the reins and getting my normal group augmented by the remainder of the 101 class and we were able to retake a tower and our garrison. I think encouraging our PvE brothers and sisters to check WvW out couldn't hurt, just make sure you point them in the right direction. My Babysteps as a Commander - Dagger Groups - They are critical. If the family is not hosting an event and there is only a hand full of GSCH members on, team up and become the dagger. If we have the numbers on, 9/10 it is vital to have a dagger group run separate from the main body force. Specifics: On our home map (SoR) if we own garrison then we are already holding the keys to the keep (Ascension/Dreaming Bay). Preferably 2 trebs can be placed in the garrison to be used against the keeps wall. For the assault to be fruitful the supply camps north and south of the keep have to be controlled or severly disrupted to prevent the enemy keep from getting supply. This is where the dagger comes in. Killing all doyaks and capping those supply points. The trebs at garrison are vulnerable via the use of a ballista directly below them. Once the enemy is discovered attempting to assault the trebs the dagger group can be recalled to quickly dispatch the enemies counter seige. Notes: Using a dagger group to this effect acts as a force multiplier on assisting the destruction of the keeps outer walls, disrupting and starving the keep of supply and a protection force to keep our trebs alive. - Taking Back The Garrison - I have done this off peak hours and with minimal support (9 other Gaiscioch and random pugs). The effectiveness of this type of assault, from what I have seen, comes down to how effectively siege is used. To effectivly and in my oppinion most efficiently (in regaurd to manpower) take back garrison, the north east side tower is the key (I belive this tactic can also be used from the north west tower as well but I am only speaking from experience from utilizing the north east tower). To establish our foothold on the tower we beefed up the defences, as this was the only site on the map we owned we had to lock it down. Ballista, catta, and arrow carts we dropped thru out to counter any assault. Next we constructed two trebs to assault the garrisons outer walls. As soon as the walls were breached we gained ground half way from tower to garrison to lay down a catta and two arrow carts. This ensured us a 'beach head' on assaulting the garrison and prevented the enemy from pushing back on us. As soon as we gained ground to the garrisin court yard (inbetween the inner and outer wall) we dropped counter seige on the outter walls ramparts. I have found that dropping ballistas work wonders on enemy arrow carts and cattas do an excelent job of disrupting enemy movement and seem to cause a little more panic. I don't know how effective dropping siege on the outter wall will be when large organised groups are running around but this served us well for having few numbers. - Water Warfare - When ever I am running a group I try to vulunteer a couple of engineers to cap the water points. The engineers grenades in water are absolutely leathal. I play as an engi myself and have successfully taken on 3 invaders solo many many times by use of grenades. Those are some of the main things that I have noticed so far. For some, I am sure this is already common knowlege but hopefully this will help out.

Hey Everyone, Breakclaw here again, I wanted to throw up another little tid'bit I learned about the orb last night also wanted to necro this thread back to life :) - Orb Napping (Northern most location on map) - I was running a medium sized outfit late last night and we saw some funky things going on with the orb. We had our hands on the orb and we brought it back to our keep but the pillar to place the orb was down and did not get fixed (never reset or never got an option to manually fix pillar) within the 15mins we kept possession. Soon as the orb timer was down naturally it disappeared and spawned on the northern most orb home on the map. What follows is a specific tactic to nab the orb in quick time and attempt to bring it back into our keep. Specifics: We ran this maneuver twice this same night and although we did get stopped eventually I have noticed that this is a very aggressive tactic that the enemy was not anticipating. On approach to the northern most orb home we did not engage anything. We did not betray our position to the map especially when I considered the opposition would already be anticipating a move against the vulnerable orb. Coming thru the undoored archway on the north eastern approach we literally hugged the walls and wrapped ourselves up to the top most platform where the orb is kept. From there assaulted the defenders that were mounting and snatched the orb. Secondary Action: Although the movement explained above is clever and does work on surprising the enemy, what follows is the biggest 'take-away' about napping the orb. To make the orb vulnerable the only NPC that has to be downed is the 'Orb Guardian' NPC. As soon as he is downed then the orb is raedy for the taking. Just something I wanted to throw up on the forums for all to see since I have yet to run across any official literature about the WvW game mechanics. See yall on the field :)

First of all, I would like to testify that Breakclaw did a great job yesterday at the off-peak WvWvW, and I believe his insights are very good. Second, I surely agree with Fogh. We need to be patient. We all know we have a lot to learn and develop about our tactics, in terms of flexibility, effectiveness and precision. But we are all still learning the rules here, and each one of us has a different learning curve. Some are more apt for complex tactics, while others may still feel a little uncomfortable with the more complex aspects of WvWvW (and I confess I include myself among these). That takes us to my third and, I think, more important point: maybe we should focus some more energy in developing chains of command in our WvWvW efforts. In my past leading experiences (nothing compared to some of our more experienced leaders here), I had a hard time (most of the time) keeping track of the responsiveness of my team to my commands, and it was quite impossible for me to know how many people who would be better at this or that job we had. But maybe if we had chains of command, we could not only ease the commander, but act much more effectively. What do I mean is pretty simple. WvWvW naturally groups us in 5 people groups. So this could be the base unit, led by a Sergeant. 2 to 4 of these groups would make up a task force good enough to take supply camps and even hold upgraded towers against minor attacks. So maybe we might have some kind of officer responsible to command 2 to 4 groups, giving the orders directly to the Sergeants (who would be in charge of making sure his 5 person group would be doing what it should be doing). Above that, we might still have 1 or more posts of command responsible for larger groups, and they would be taking orders directly from the Commander. The commander would be responsible for the overall tactical view of the battleground, and his main function would be to order his officers to take this or that objective, secure this or that supply area (camps and roads), and so on. Each officer would have a certain flexibility on how to execute his orders, sending as many 5 person groups as he deems necessary. In their turns, Sergeants would have the field responsibility to make their groups execute their orders as best as they can. These 5 person groups could be general all purpose groups, or even more specialized ones, like "engineering and siege units", specialized in dealing with sieges, or "rogue groups", specialized in quick tactical movement and objective taking. Due to the small size, each sergeant would know pretty well their groups capabilities, and would be able to keep an eye on each of his soldiers, making sure they are being as effective as then can. For their part, the officers responsible for deciding which of his groups to send for each task would be relieved from the task of watching closely every soldier and making sure they were doing what they should, and the Commander would be free to focus on strategical decisions, not having to worry about which groups to send, and would be informed by his officers on the advances of the tactical groups. In bigger sieges, this chain of command would make easier not only to hit different gates at the same time, but to have specialized groups taking care of specialized areas of the siege (building and operating siege engines, infantry vanguard, guarding the rearguard, tactical management of the enemy siege engines i.e. elementalists and mesmers doing what elementalists and mesmers do in a siege). Chains of command would enable quick changes of objectives too, as a change in the battlefield could be answered with an order to certain groups to stop what they are doing and moving to a new objective. Since you already have the units sorted out, they would be much more responsive than a instant mob formed after a "please, some people go to Godsword and take it back"). All the commander has to do is tell one of his officers to send two groups to retake Godsword (in the former example), and the officer would decide which groups, and elect one of the sergeants of the two groups to lead the movement. This is not simple, and I know this is already what we have with Trinity and other Gaiscioch tactics. My point is only that maybe if we stressed the chain of command format a little more, we would have more flexibility and effectiveness, and people would have a closer leader to refer to when in doubt, not overburdening the Commander with the task of taking care of each squad member's needs and questions. I'm sorry for the rather long idea dubbed simple. I think most of us are familiar with the concept already, but I think it should be explained like I did so to make clear why I think this might be a way to improve our results and make commanding easier. If there is interest, we might move this to a new topic. And excuse me if I'm "raining on the sea", as we say in Brazil when someone says something that was needless to say.

» Edited on: 2012-09-30 17:07:28