I've heard a lot of equipment be dismissed for being 'win-more', the idea being that they can only prove their use after the battle is decided. They might increase the damage done to the enemy or decrease that done to friendly forces, but only after the 'real' battle where victory wasn't clear yet had concluded.My question is thus; how do you decide what win-more equipment is worth procuring? Obviously you want some so that if you do win you can capitalize on it fully.
>>64407786>I've heard a lot of equipment be dismissed for being 'win-more',I don't believe you.
>>64407812I may be misremembering the exact way it was written, it could be 'win more' without the hyphen. The exact thought that prompted this thread was an article about the Apache and helicopter gunships in general, calling them 'win more' equipment. I am trying and failing to find it.
>>64407830apaches launched the very first strike in Desert Storm and are crucial elements of anti-tank elastic defense
>>64407786win-more is a concept from game design, not from realityin real life, pursuing the enemy when they are already beaten is very much a crucial part of the battle, because unlike in card games, the enemy does not simply give up and leave the table when their life points hit zerothey can regroup and strike back, so being able to turn an enemy retreat into a full on rout can turn a winning battle into a won waron the flipside, preventing the enemy from "winning more" on a losing battle means a chance to preserve your strength and fight a different battle on your own terms
>>64407830>The exact thought that prompted this thread was an article about the Apache and helicopter gunships in general,the apache is the opposite of that conceptthe ability to move quickly and bring a lot of firepower means that apaches are often called in to stem a losing battle
I think 'exploitation' might be a more widely used term.
>>64407867>>64407837Apache is two concepts rolled in one.Guns and rocket and associated with them things are win more.Hellfires can have use.
>>64407837Ngl that breaks my heart that I will never be an Apache pilot tearing apart Ruskie armored columns, only to fly back, drink, and play some games with buds.Fuck being diabetic and dumb bro. I hate this fucking life.Pic is Marcus Fenix from Gears of War moonjawing or whatever in a comic.
>>64407863Doing double damage or force player to discard cards if your attacker is not blocked has massieve value in MTG, your are mistaken
>>64407786>equipment be dismissed for being 'win-more'"Win more" equipment means that it provides additional advantage to make the fight even more unfair. This is important to win faster and save friendly lives.Russia doesn't have any win-more and are stuck at parity with Ukraine. I'm sure you want to follow their example and win-less at a glacial pace.
>>64408029>>64407863"Win more" came first from MTG slang.Twoo core concepts of the MTG:1. Tempo advantage aka "win faster"2. Card advantage aka wining battle when preserving your strength.None of these are "win more". Its "just win". Via tempo or attrition.Your are both hilariously wrong.Typical "win more" MTG card is some very expensive creature that can be only deployed at stage you can win already with other means.
>>64407889WOTC has published several articles that talked about "win more" cards and how they are usually kind of useless compared to either creating hand or board advantage
Go away nerds. Overmatch/Supremacy is the way to victory.Card games are sporting and fair. Armed conflict is not fair and doesn't follow a turn order.
>>64408040unlike in MTG, the "board" state carries over from battle to battle in real lifeso putting more effort into a winning board state is often a much more valid tactic than it is in MTG, if you can totally destroy an enemy force then it makes winning the next battle easier
>>64408053This>>64407786If cruise missiles didn't exist then non-stealth bombers like the B-52 would be a win-more weapon. They don't give you any new capability that multiroles don't already provide, but can deliver absolute tons upon tons of bombs on an enemy with no air defence left. I remember a story of an entire dug in armored brigade getting wiped out by a single B-52 loaded up with CBU-105s
>>64407786I got kind of mad when I thought I saw that it wasn't one continuous boom-sausage chain, but then I saw how it was done
>>64408146You really think someone who advocates using explosives to dispose of corpses would get something so simple wrong?
>>64408068In MTG board" state carries over from battle to battle, match is rarely decided within one attack. So exchange rates and attrition is one of the cornerstones of the strategy, see card advantage.Do you know what is better than spell that kills enemy unit? Spell that kills two enemy units! Or better kills all enemy units!Win more? Nope. This is one of the most iconic MTG cards, its default benchmark for you strategy, Can your plan battle plan survive meeting this reality check?Overkill?>*raugh in North Korean*
>>64407812It came up in the battleship thread last week. The idea was that if you've made the seas safe enough to get your battleship into bombardment range against a Chinese beach, you already won the war at sea; but having the BB doesn't contribute to winning the war at sea.
>>64408146
>>64409256thats still not the same concept as "win more" because levelling enemy defensive positions on the ground helps ground troopsnaval gunfire was a critical element of the success at normandy, since they could fire a much heavier mass than any ground based battery
>>64409203>In MTG board" state carries over from battle to battlein MTG, each match starts from scratch, with 20 life, 7 cards, and zero board statewinning more without changing the board advantage is needless overkillin real life, causing way more damage than is strictly needed to win can affect outcomes beyond this individual battleit would be like if the enemy started the next game with just 6 cards in his hand instead of 7 because you overkilled them
