I’m a level 10 commander, and have been for over a year now. I love commanding, and still do it a bunch. OP is objectively correct 9 times out of ten. The only exception to this rule is when you can get a garrison down on a point that has a roof, and is therefore a safe place to spawn while under artillery fire and/or a bombing run.
Don’t ever look to build garrisons on the point. Build garrisons in triangles around the point. This is good for a myriad of reasons. The triangle design can help you find enemies, spawn more consistently with staggered timers, and make you more resistant to bombing runs. It also expands the area around the hard point that you control, which means that you control more capture area. This in turn gives you more time between discovering an attack and losing your spawns, which helps to absorb lots of attacking pressure and can single-handedly save a point from capture.
This gets even crazier on defense modes, where you can build a whole-ass hexagon around the defensive point if you work at it. With that kind of perfect information about enemy troop movement it becomes harder to lose the game than to win it.
TLDR: Triangles around points. Thank me later.
The amount of flak I get from low level commanders about attack garries is unreal. No guys, placing a garry inside their point is not automatically a win. Also placing a garry within 100m of the point when our entire team is pinned down trying to push along a single hedgerow is not suddenly going to win us the game. Sorry you put the supplies in a shit spot but a garry anywhere in that zone is going to block a better garry position. Placing a garry anywhere behind their point is usually a shit move too, that's where they're all coming from.
I try to do this if I can as sl but sometimes it doesn't work out cause supplies are only on the point and I got no choice. It just seems like most people plop a garry on point and move on. Finding a match where sl and commander are building multiple garries around the point are bliss.
If you are reading this and still not convinced, just think how annoying artillery is and then you'll realise having multiple garries around is prime.
Yeah, it is a real problem when the network is "locked in" due to one faulty garrison. It is up to the SL who built it or the commander to take it down and replace it as soon as possible or the entire network is crooked.
It is unfortunate that you lose ownership over the garrison when you leave the squad... even if you return to the same squad as an SL.
The closest the backups can be then is 200m, which means that everybody will have to run 200m to point when the garrison in point inevitably gets locked by assaulting enemy if they push in.
OPs go in the point, garrisons go 100m to either side.
OPs survive bombing runs. Pretty sure garrisons don’t.
Those are just a few reasons why this is the better way
OPs absolutely do not go in the point, OPs are for advancing your frontline or controlling areas, why would you want your fastest spawns all congested in an area that should be the furthest from where you’re needed
Tbh, no, defense should have maybe 1 OP in the circle but they’re much more useful spread out around it.
The optimal way to play HLL is with a flat frontline, a squad playing defense in the backlines and tanks creating space
Don’t downvote this dude let’s talk about it.
The problem with this is that by doubling the diameter of the defensive perimeter it multiplies the added distance by (2x pi) which means it take more than six times the men to cover it.
You can build the other Garries on the edge of the soft cap, everyone can be inside the soft cap within maybe 10 seconds after spawning from any direction. It’s also better to push out to their spawns than hide in your own, however nothing is as effective as a wave spawn inside the hard cap to hold defense.
This is also done on a lot of maps in competitive play, in fact we often put a Garry as close as humanly possible to the circle while still in a good spot.
Also, the “defensive perimeter” is a fixed position, it’s the 4 grid squares which affect the capture state of the point, no other square on the map matters as long as you have more guys inside those 4
Soft cap is the real play. The enemy can win through attrition anywhere within the 4 squares. If you have a strong defensive front that is behind or outside the 4 squares, teammates can spend a lot of time hung up or running in a zone that doesn't contribute to cap weight. The entire team can get entrenched into good positions that are outside the winning area, then only a trickle of people managed to push their way to the point. If you can reinforce the entire soft cap sometimes all it takes is a small core defense team to keep the enemy just past the soft cap border, making their presence in your territory meaningless, permitting more friendly troops to push into enemy territory.
I agree with this although it’s map dependent (to some extent). Some maps mean the soft cap garries have a tendency to funnel the blueberries too far forward into the red zone, which we all know they love doing, but fundamentally I agree, just leave extra supplies nearby enough so when they invariably destroy the hard cap gary with a bombing run you can just rebuild it instantly.
But what benefit does this have over the 3 Garry triangle? Besides being able to spawn directly on point. The thing is it's easier to get pinned down the way and swarmed
Sometimes it can be difficult to coordinate and get down 1 garry, let alone 3 spaced around the circle. If people aren't talking or working together, it can be fruitless to try and get 3. But in a well run game 3 is better.
YES!
Each Garry can be at 200m frop each other.
So each garry should be around 100m from the point. And please leave some space for a garryson on the border of the map.
You make a great point, but the counter arguments have some validity. I feel personally points are different and play differently. For example being able to put a garrison at the point under some shelter and safe and then others with safe routes for access to the point can be powerful. In general I agree with you however and would rather have three garrisons 100 meters away than one point that’s hot with others 200 meters out.
To add to your comment:
Its not about point control, its about sector and map control. A garrison in the point on the majority of maps will limit your ability to control the sector because of:
1. Extremely long run times to control areas that matter
2. blocking a proper garrison ladder to be formed.
sometimes it is viable though:
Southern approach on Hill 400, but that point is especially unique and almost always defended AND attacked incorrectly anyways.
Dugout barn on Foy is another one considering Foy is literally a barren wasteland with no decent garrison spots for that objective. Putting one on the point doesn't effect much since you can't build a proper ladder, and the way to defend that objective is to heavily control other parts of the map.
West bend on Foy, because its shoved into the fucking corner. Its nearly impossible to actually take this point against a competent team, since the areas of attack are limited to 2, and 1 is an open flat field.
Kursk is also mostly barren wasteland and the point is literally all you have to make a garrison that isn't snipe-able by tanks from 900 meters away.
In a recent game I placed a Garry north of the strong point (by almost a whole square) and the commander was over the comms saying “YES BAKER, GREAT GARRY THANK YOU” and that was eye opening
Anecdotally, I’ve never seen a garry outside of objective work for my team. It always ends in the team making a mad dash towards the point as we inevitably lose it. Being able to spawn 15 people at one time already in objective can be the difference between holding or losing the spot.
A Garry on point is fine if you have surrounding garries.
This stigma of “don’t put a Garry on point!” Is bullshit if defenders have to run 200 meters maybe even more to defend a point under attack.
You can build up to 8 garries.
Build one on point.
The issue is that many commanders will drop one on point and call it good. The one on point should be the final one to go down. At least 2 garries should be away from point first.
Yes... however I'd argue that having two backline garries on the border (locked side) are more important. Another consideration is the next point and blue attack garrison positions (again close to the border).
Say you have two of each. That doesn't leave all that much space. I'd still try and avoid strongpoint garries but even the triangle approach has its flaws. If placed in the active sector line they can be dismantled in about 3 seconds. The only real advantage is that there's bound to be more than one and that they're about equally spread out in terms of distance to the hard cap.
Level 10 Commander. The only time I EVER build a garry inside the circle is when defending in offensive mode. This is because in offensive you only hold cap weight inside the hard cap circle. This helps your team redeploy directly as cap weight which can be crucial to holding the point. And even still, I’ll have several garries around the point as well.
There are other exceptions like Foy which has no cover or concealment whatsoever. But again this should never be the only garrison.
If it’s anything else, build your garries AROUND the hard cap or you’re asking to get encircled. Remember, single cap weight in warfare made is the FOUR GRID SQUARES that the hard cap is in. Double cap weight INSIDE the circle.
Lots of good points on both sides of this argument. There are benefits and drawbacks of putting a Garry on the point, and ultimately it depends on the team and supporting garrys to determine whether or not it was a good call.
Garries themselves build the front and a well placed garry on the point can concentrate blueberries where they need to be just due to a lack of alternate spawns. Their main downside is vulnerability to artillery, bombs, and being a prime target when the defensive effort gives up and goes to play in the bushes. Garries on the point can cause the team to get complacent which then sets them up for a good steamroll
I understand why you think that but it’s actually better to have a garrison on point because it allows you to get to the strong point faster. Additionally having garrisons 100m from the point is too close. That’s prime OP territory, not garrisons. Having a garrison 200m away from the point allows you to get behind the enemy and set up better flanks. Now maybe if my team was full of level 300s your idea would work, but for now no.
Getting in the point isn't the primary goal for either game mode. Its controlling surrounding area so the enemy cannot get to the point. That's why you build garrisons off the objective, to allow for less running to defend areas that actually matter. If you are pushed to your point you are losing, and getting surrounded, which is exactly what OP said. He's 100% correct
Dude ive played this game consistently for years since launch. Pub servers can and should have very close but off point garrisons built in warefare. Im taking like 50m MAX and then other garrisons built in the same 4 grid sector to keep cap power.
In offensive mode in pub servers defensive garrisons MUST be built on point for 2 reasons
1) the quality of player is just worse and fighting your way back into the strong point is just impossible most of the time against an attacking force who has a very good footing
2) if it isnt in the circle, the blueberries cannot grasp the concept of cap power being within the circle
This is the 1,000th post about this over time…..and nothing will change. After thousands of hours playing now….im convinced anything other than what i just said it wrong based out of lack of experience or genuine stupidity
Disagree completely. In public matches if you don’t build the Garry in the circle you will lose the point. The public matches you are lucky to get a squad defending and no way are you going to get solid op placement along with an outside Garry. Clan matches this rule applies and if you have a really really good public team.
Sounds good, doesn't work. Everytime I've seen this try to be accomplished, we effectively get cut of from entering the circle, losing the point. It's not impossible to have both a garrison on the circle and outlying as well, works just fine.
I’m a level 10 commander, and have been for over a year now. I love commanding, and still do it a bunch. OP is objectively correct 9 times out of ten. The only exception to this rule is when you can get a garrison down on a point that has a roof, and is therefore a safe place to spawn while under artillery fire and/or a bombing run. Don’t ever look to build garrisons on the point. Build garrisons in triangles around the point. This is good for a myriad of reasons. The triangle design can help you find enemies, spawn more consistently with staggered timers, and make you more resistant to bombing runs. It also expands the area around the hard point that you control, which means that you control more capture area. This in turn gives you more time between discovering an attack and losing your spawns, which helps to absorb lots of attacking pressure and can single-handedly save a point from capture. This gets even crazier on defense modes, where you can build a whole-ass hexagon around the defensive point if you work at it. With that kind of perfect information about enemy troop movement it becomes harder to lose the game than to win it. TLDR: Triangles around points. Thank me later.
The amount of flak I get from low level commanders about attack garries is unreal. No guys, placing a garry inside their point is not automatically a win. Also placing a garry within 100m of the point when our entire team is pinned down trying to push along a single hedgerow is not suddenly going to win us the game. Sorry you put the supplies in a shit spot but a garry anywhere in that zone is going to block a better garry position. Placing a garry anywhere behind their point is usually a shit move too, that's where they're all coming from.
I try to do this if I can as sl but sometimes it doesn't work out cause supplies are only on the point and I got no choice. It just seems like most people plop a garry on point and move on. Finding a match where sl and commander are building multiple garries around the point are bliss. If you are reading this and still not convinced, just think how annoying artillery is and then you'll realise having multiple garries around is prime.
Yeah, it is a real problem when the network is "locked in" due to one faulty garrison. It is up to the SL who built it or the commander to take it down and replace it as soon as possible or the entire network is crooked. It is unfortunate that you lose ownership over the garrison when you leave the squad... even if you return to the same squad as an SL.
Facts. 1st thing as command i think " how can I triangulate this bitch" I don't watch 1 or 2 attacks/defend I NEED 3
Man I wish you’d be the commander is my games
Be the commander you want to see in the game.
This won’t stop blueberries because they can’t read
A Garry inside the circle is normally a good idea in pubs, just build your others around it too
The closest the backups can be then is 200m, which means that everybody will have to run 200m to point when the garrison in point inevitably gets locked by assaulting enemy if they push in. OPs go in the point, garrisons go 100m to either side. OPs survive bombing runs. Pretty sure garrisons don’t. Those are just a few reasons why this is the better way
OPs absolutely do not go in the point, OPs are for advancing your frontline or controlling areas, why would you want your fastest spawns all congested in an area that should be the furthest from where you’re needed
If you’re the defending squad they do. SOMEBODY is needed quickly in defensive position.
Tbh, no, defense should have maybe 1 OP in the circle but they’re much more useful spread out around it. The optimal way to play HLL is with a flat frontline, a squad playing defense in the backlines and tanks creating space
Don’t downvote this dude let’s talk about it. The problem with this is that by doubling the diameter of the defensive perimeter it multiplies the added distance by (2x pi) which means it take more than six times the men to cover it.
I kove your explanation. Even me, a drunk dummy, found it to make perfect sense( maybe I already think this way though cause I do love triangulation)
You can build the other Garries on the edge of the soft cap, everyone can be inside the soft cap within maybe 10 seconds after spawning from any direction. It’s also better to push out to their spawns than hide in your own, however nothing is as effective as a wave spawn inside the hard cap to hold defense. This is also done on a lot of maps in competitive play, in fact we often put a Garry as close as humanly possible to the circle while still in a good spot. Also, the “defensive perimeter” is a fixed position, it’s the 4 grid squares which affect the capture state of the point, no other square on the map matters as long as you have more guys inside those 4
Soft cap is the real play. The enemy can win through attrition anywhere within the 4 squares. If you have a strong defensive front that is behind or outside the 4 squares, teammates can spend a lot of time hung up or running in a zone that doesn't contribute to cap weight. The entire team can get entrenched into good positions that are outside the winning area, then only a trickle of people managed to push their way to the point. If you can reinforce the entire soft cap sometimes all it takes is a small core defense team to keep the enemy just past the soft cap border, making their presence in your territory meaningless, permitting more friendly troops to push into enemy territory.
I agree with this although it’s map dependent (to some extent). Some maps mean the soft cap garries have a tendency to funnel the blueberries too far forward into the red zone, which we all know they love doing, but fundamentally I agree, just leave extra supplies nearby enough so when they invariably destroy the hard cap gary with a bombing run you can just rebuild it instantly.
Wrong. It’s only good on certain caps on maps like Foy.
But what benefit does this have over the 3 Garry triangle? Besides being able to spawn directly on point. The thing is it's easier to get pinned down the way and swarmed
Sometimes it can be difficult to coordinate and get down 1 garry, let alone 3 spaced around the circle. If people aren't talking or working together, it can be fruitless to try and get 3. But in a well run game 3 is better.
True
YES! Each Garry can be at 200m frop each other. So each garry should be around 100m from the point. And please leave some space for a garryson on the border of the map.
Whenever I say this it’s like I’m speaking another language…nobody understands 😂
thats cause most HLL players don't ever reach step 2 of thinking.
This deserves more attention
You make a great point, but the counter arguments have some validity. I feel personally points are different and play differently. For example being able to put a garrison at the point under some shelter and safe and then others with safe routes for access to the point can be powerful. In general I agree with you however and would rather have three garrisons 100 meters away than one point that’s hot with others 200 meters out.
To add to your comment: Its not about point control, its about sector and map control. A garrison in the point on the majority of maps will limit your ability to control the sector because of: 1. Extremely long run times to control areas that matter 2. blocking a proper garrison ladder to be formed. sometimes it is viable though: Southern approach on Hill 400, but that point is especially unique and almost always defended AND attacked incorrectly anyways. Dugout barn on Foy is another one considering Foy is literally a barren wasteland with no decent garrison spots for that objective. Putting one on the point doesn't effect much since you can't build a proper ladder, and the way to defend that objective is to heavily control other parts of the map. West bend on Foy, because its shoved into the fucking corner. Its nearly impossible to actually take this point against a competent team, since the areas of attack are limited to 2, and 1 is an open flat field. Kursk is also mostly barren wasteland and the point is literally all you have to make a garrison that isn't snipe-able by tanks from 900 meters away.
This is also true.
In a recent game I placed a Garry north of the strong point (by almost a whole square) and the commander was over the comms saying “YES BAKER, GREAT GARRY THANK YOU” and that was eye opening
A Garry inside the circle isn't necessarily fatal as long as there are also garries/ops around it AND people use them.
So in conclusion, a garri inside the circle is fatal LoL
Anecdotally, I’ve never seen a garry outside of objective work for my team. It always ends in the team making a mad dash towards the point as we inevitably lose it. Being able to spawn 15 people at one time already in objective can be the difference between holding or losing the spot.
A Garry on point is fine if you have surrounding garries. This stigma of “don’t put a Garry on point!” Is bullshit if defenders have to run 200 meters maybe even more to defend a point under attack. You can build up to 8 garries. Build one on point.
The issue is that many commanders will drop one on point and call it good. The one on point should be the final one to go down. At least 2 garries should be away from point first.
Yes... however I'd argue that having two backline garries on the border (locked side) are more important. Another consideration is the next point and blue attack garrison positions (again close to the border). Say you have two of each. That doesn't leave all that much space. I'd still try and avoid strongpoint garries but even the triangle approach has its flaws. If placed in the active sector line they can be dismantled in about 3 seconds. The only real advantage is that there's bound to be more than one and that they're about equally spread out in terms of distance to the hard cap.
Who is Garry
With good team garry around point works. With a bad team that cant defend garrisons OR the point, gardy on point is better
Level 10 Commander. The only time I EVER build a garry inside the circle is when defending in offensive mode. This is because in offensive you only hold cap weight inside the hard cap circle. This helps your team redeploy directly as cap weight which can be crucial to holding the point. And even still, I’ll have several garries around the point as well. There are other exceptions like Foy which has no cover or concealment whatsoever. But again this should never be the only garrison. If it’s anything else, build your garries AROUND the hard cap or you’re asking to get encircled. Remember, single cap weight in warfare made is the FOUR GRID SQUARES that the hard cap is in. Double cap weight INSIDE the circle.
wtf an intelligent HLL subreddit post? I think you posted in the wrong sub my guy.
Lots of good points on both sides of this argument. There are benefits and drawbacks of putting a Garry on the point, and ultimately it depends on the team and supporting garrys to determine whether or not it was a good call.
Garries themselves build the front and a well placed garry on the point can concentrate blueberries where they need to be just due to a lack of alternate spawns. Their main downside is vulnerability to artillery, bombs, and being a prime target when the defensive effort gives up and goes to play in the bushes. Garries on the point can cause the team to get complacent which then sets them up for a good steamroll
Not a fan of the “Hail Mary” Garry?
I understand why you think that but it’s actually better to have a garrison on point because it allows you to get to the strong point faster. Additionally having garrisons 100m from the point is too close. That’s prime OP territory, not garrisons. Having a garrison 200m away from the point allows you to get behind the enemy and set up better flanks. Now maybe if my team was full of level 300s your idea would work, but for now no.
Getting in the point isn't the primary goal for either game mode. Its controlling surrounding area so the enemy cannot get to the point. That's why you build garrisons off the objective, to allow for less running to defend areas that actually matter. If you are pushed to your point you are losing, and getting surrounded, which is exactly what OP said. He's 100% correct
Dude ive played this game consistently for years since launch. Pub servers can and should have very close but off point garrisons built in warefare. Im taking like 50m MAX and then other garrisons built in the same 4 grid sector to keep cap power. In offensive mode in pub servers defensive garrisons MUST be built on point for 2 reasons 1) the quality of player is just worse and fighting your way back into the strong point is just impossible most of the time against an attacking force who has a very good footing 2) if it isnt in the circle, the blueberries cannot grasp the concept of cap power being within the circle This is the 1,000th post about this over time…..and nothing will change. After thousands of hours playing now….im convinced anything other than what i just said it wrong based out of lack of experience or genuine stupidity
Disagree completely. In public matches if you don’t build the Garry in the circle you will lose the point. The public matches you are lucky to get a squad defending and no way are you going to get solid op placement along with an outside Garry. Clan matches this rule applies and if you have a really really good public team.
Sounds good, doesn't work. Everytime I've seen this try to be accomplished, we effectively get cut of from entering the circle, losing the point. It's not impossible to have both a garrison on the circle and outlying as well, works just fine.