With all due respect, I'll have to disagree with the following: Sure, it makes sense from a military sense, but does it still make sense if we're being outplayed at our own game? Does it still make sense to resort to more force if whoever is currently in charge of defense is losing the battle on a tactical level? I don't think so, and a blanket statement like this can validate unnecessary escalations of force in almost any situation where we're faced with losing in the slightest. An enemy force taking objectives does not always translate into them having a stronger loadout than ours, it can just as well translate in a temporary lapse in our defender's strength, which can easily be picked up again without bigger guns, or even a fundamental flaw in how the defense is being handled, and the enemy capitalizing on that. It does not always advocate more force. If this was a RL situation, I would more than agree with you, but the simple fact remains that it's not a RL situation, and everyone is here to compete on what should be a level playing field. (Obviously it's not a level playing field, but we shouldn't be purposefully slanting it in our favor just because they're outperforming us. Keep in mind I'm arguing with a respectable combat zone in mind, not when the enemy is using spamtastic bullshit weaponry, and I believe Mark is arguing from the same perspective.) I feel we're starting to venture into discussion of opinions and personal experiences here; Some people play to win, and others play to have fun, and consider winning a bonus. Neither is better than the other per-se, because the latter can very easily be just as skilled and driven as the former, but they walk away with a different experience. When we start discussing which of the two is better, we're venturing in very dangerous territory, discussion-wise. You're saying you wouldn't be interested in combat if you lost every time, and that, from my perspective, is understandable.(I'm fiercely competitive in almost everything I do, ask Sam.) But there are people who feel differently, and who will gladly concede a fight, if it results in higher spirits all around. Both have their merits. Almost everything you say above are your personal opinions on the subject. Your position obviously gives more weight to your opinions, as you are in a position to enforce them. But that doesn't mean that everyone will agree with them, and if a "Go big or go home" mindset were to become enforced, people that prefer a more laid-back approach will start to leave, or try to avoid drawing attention. Key here would be staying on the middle ground, and leaving it at that. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but trying to put them up for discussion is the worst thing to do here. I'm pretty sure Ordo already is on the middle ground, rewarding those that press themselves to perform to their limits and beyond more than those that do not. And in response to the last line, I feel that there isn't so much a misunderstanding, but a disagreement of opinions. And while I also play to win, I disagree with whipping out bigger guns when you can't beat your enemy on otherwise equal ground, unless everything else is in order and it really is the only resort we have to balance out the playing field. Keywords being "balance out". I've spent way too much time on this, time to get back to work.
