Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Exciton8964

VOR tactic is refreshing to watch in EU/SEA clan clash

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

174
[R-R-R]
Members
975 posts
6,615 battles

So for some of you who are not aware of. There was a server clan clash battles this weekend between SEA and EU. Here is the link to the video casted by Flamu

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/180362293

 

I was quite amazed by the strategy pulled off by the SEA clan Panzer VOR.

 

EU clans come in with the popular smoke camping squad which Flamu calls it doom snail. It features IFHE cruisers(chapayev, kutuzov) constantly being smoked up and camped behind caps to put up the maximum damage pressure. They also have good AA, radar and hydro to make the smoke squad a very strong fort to break.

 

However, VOR brought in something very interesting to counter the strong smoke camping strategy by EU team.

 

Their strategy features a fast moving 3-ship flank squad(Charles Martel, Atago, Bismarck), a deep-lying snipe Amagi. Chapayev and loyang protects one flank of the Amagi while providing radar and hydro support. Kutuzov and Benson protects the other flank of the Amagi. 

 

They do not try to engage the smoke camping squad head-on and choose to give up capture points to enemy in the early game. Instead, their ships are constantly moving and setting up an enclosure over the EU team's smoke camping squad. The smoke camping squad has enormous firepower but lacks mobility. VOR exploited that weakness very well. Every game, they were able to set up a perfect enclosure formation and then rapidly kill the main enemy force. They used Bismarck which seemed to be regarded as a poor choice by EU clans. They didn't try to make their Bismarck as a brawling beast as Flamu thought. Instead, they used her as a meat shield for the Charles Martel and Atago. The tanking potential of Bismarck created a lot of space for the other two cruisers to do more damage and take better position. Bismarck is also the fastest T8 BB and has hydro. This allows their 3-ship flanking squad to run without DD smoke support.

 

Their strategy is also backed up by their Amagi's accurate shooting and clever and aggressive usage of Loyang's hydro.

 

Overall, I am really impressed by their display of strategy and personal skill. I thought smoke camping is so strong that WG had to specifically nerf it and it also made competitive WOWS too stagnant. However, VOR proved me wrong. Their dynamic flanking strategy countered the typical smoke camping strategy from EU clans and made me think WOWS has more depth than most of us can realize.

 

I am really hoping to see more from them and potentially EU counter strategy in the future as well.

 

TLDR VOR came up with dynamic gameplay to outplay EU's typical smoking camping strategy.

Edited by Exciton8964
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
432
[FAE]
Members
2,161 posts
2,639 battles

whaaad. you mean people don't just roll their faces on the keyboard and expect to win?? 

 

Congrats Asia. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
149
[90THS]
Members
226 posts
881 battles

Trust me, I had an Asia account as main account and I had fought them before.
Every game I fought against VOR is very tiresome since they play perfectly and little to none weakness to exploit (unless you eliminate all teammates before VOR get grasp in that game).

VOR vs OMC is exactly what I had to fight against them in every single matches I met. They play like fishing in random high tier gameplay on Asia server.

Usually on Asia server, if you spot division of VOR, BE, ZOO, RDT, POI, ZA on your team, 90% you will win the game effortlessly. In other way around, it is guarantee lose.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,062
[OPG]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,897 posts
10,471 battles

or it's a sign omni isn't as good as people like to give them credit for

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,976
[SYN]
Members
14,456 posts
10,465 battles

From a theoretical stand point, all the EU clans had to do was focus down one flank, because there's no way 2 to 3 ships can withstand the firepower of 7 ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,739
[INTEL]
Members
8,588 posts
25,732 battles

Sorry, not understanding why DDs can't break that fort up with torps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,340
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
5,840 posts
9,589 battles
42 minutes ago, MrDeaf said:

From a theoretical stand point, all the EU clans had to do was focus down one flank, because there's no way 2 to 3 ships can withstand the firepower of 7 ships.

Pretty much. Why wouldn't they just leave the meat shield Bismarck till last and focus the cruisers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,158 posts
6,939 battles
3 minutes ago, HazardDrake said:

Pretty much. Why wouldn't they just leave the meat shield Bismarck till last and focus the cruisers?

I didn't watch the event, but perhaps they weren't expecting them to be aggressive, and weren't prepared for it.  Perhaps they were incapable of adapting to the new situation, being use to the older slower way of playing those events.  From what it sounds like, they(EU) took the caps early, while the other side didn't and instead focused on killing the enemy,  caps are important for the late game, but that only matters if you live long enough to make the late game relevant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
414
[2CUTE]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,264 posts
3,852 battles
2 hours ago, Fog_Battleship_NCarolina said:

or it's a sign omni isn't as good as people like to give them credit for


There are some fine players in OMNI as far as I know, but they choose to roll with the meta and make a strong case with it
VOR seems to know this and chooses a more offensive strategy

 

1 hour ago, Taichunger said:

Sorry, not understanding why DDs can't break that fort up with torps.


There was mention of radar cruisers and things of that nature, essentially as soon as torps are incoming they know there's a DD nearby and they can expose you and flay you before you can react. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[R-R-R]
Members
975 posts
6,615 battles
4 hours ago, Taichunger said:

Sorry, not understanding why DDs can't break that fort up with torps.

Yes. Torping is always a counter for smoke but there is a lot of risk management there.

 

Benson torp range is 9.2km and reload is 122 sec while chapayev radar range is 11.7km and CD is 120 sec. This puts Benson in danger everytime he tried to torp. Not to mention the smoke camping squad has good hydro coverage from chapayev and loyang.  So if the smoke position is at a well thought-out location, it can be challenging to take out just by torps. 

 

I actually saw ZA tried to use fast torp reloading ship Ognevoi to break the smoke camping squad in one of the games. But Ognevoi got killed by radar during his first attempt to torp.

 

Smoke that got positioned poorly can still be very vulnerable to torp attack. If ships in smoke are facing torp coming in from multiple directions, it will get incredibly hard to dodge even with hydro detection.

Edited by Exciton8964

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[R-R-R]
Members
975 posts
6,615 battles
5 hours ago, MrDeaf said:

From a theoretical stand point, all the EU clans had to do was focus down one flank, because there's no way 2 to 3 ships can withstand the firepower of 7 ships.

That is beauty there.

 

VOR set it up so perfectly they could always form an enclosure of 6-7 ships over a 3-4 ship flank from EU teams. To do this, they exploited the relative immobile smoke-camping squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,068
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,183 posts
11,695 battles

It'll be interesting to see if the tactic catches on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×