Lets Define Camping

So I was wondering what do you all consider camping?

I think camping is when someone sits in or around their deployment zone, especially with artillery (hemorrhoid!) or stakes, and makes no attempt to move out.

Although there is some debate on this, I don't think capturing a landmass and sitting on it is camping, for instance, capturing the hill in Prussian hills, then not coming down wouldn't be camping in my book. Just good strategy, why throw away a strong position you fought to acquire? Your opponent had time and opportunity to take it also.

thoughts and ideas welcome!

General definition of camping (will add, and update regularly, once people have added opinions): Sitting/not leaving deployment zone during a match, except on maps such as Waterloo Austerlitz, and borodinio.

Camping was the act of finding an easily defendable position in a FPS, often a roof with a ladder one could claymore, and conducting one's entire operation from there. EG in BF2 squad leaders could camp on top of a building and spawn in new soldiers infinitely until he and his squad were eliminated by a well placed nade.

In TW games the term is often used is Red Line Camping. in RTW and MTW2 all games were conducted on flat, maps which was considered more fair and balanced, so the only place people could camp was the Red Line's corner. while extremely unfair and dishonourable the players who did it were usually too bad to defend their reinforcable position properly and always lost. they simply forgot that G/G cataphracts can charge into hoplites from the front and win.

However in games with hills parking your army on top of a hill was not considered a bad thing(unless you lost while doing it, meaning you suck ass). it was simply using the terrain to your advantage. i dont see why it should apply to ntw or etw.
In the Napoleonic era ranged fighting had a much more important role so taking advantage of the terrain would be a good thing to do. whether hemorrhoids 19 art thing is considered fair is a different question but in all fairness i think people rage more about the army than the hill he put it on.

I think your definition is pretty much the same as my own.

A hard core camper will not move even to assist an ally who is being doubled-up upon, he will just watch & then blame his ally for being a N0ob especially if said ally had dared to advance or attack.

He will usually rage quit shorlty after his artillery is taken out too.

My definition of "camping" is the implementation of proven Napoleonic defensive tactics in order to defeat your opponent. "Camping" pretty much always results in victory when employed properly, however, allowing your teammates to be destroyed while you "camp" almost never results in victory.

i think it is just not moving, or staying within your zone of deployment and assuming a defensive position. i.e. you have not had to work to gain the position you have at the moment.if you capture the hill in prussian hills, then fair play, you are more than entitled to stay there, as the other person had equal opportunity to manouevre himself there too.i dont think artillery has to play a part in it, you can camp with a strong skirmish force, though this often will venture into kiting, another tactic.and on that point, im not sure whether camping is counts as a tactic-very little skill is involved in creating an effective formation.

anyone who doesnt attack in my book is a camper. to win by been aggressive is alot more gratifying than winning by sitting on top of a hill. we all like to use terrain to our advantage and i have run up hills after getting a bloody nose and turned the battle around by doing so but not been aggressive and attacking is camping.

aggression is different to attacking surely?just because someone is not aggressive dont mean they wont attack you right?

if ur attacking ur been aggresive. i cant see how u can be aggressive by not attacking..

my definition of camping is if you start the game on top of a easily defensible position, fortify it and do nothing but bombard your opponent with fixed artilery.

if you've had to fight or rush your troops to earn a defensible position, then you completely deserve it.

Well, as a flatland/no art-player, i would define a camper as someone who doesnt move out of his deployment zone. But playing on flatland and dont move means to give away possibilities- so its just not clever.

Originally Posted by jok3r

A hard core camper will not move even to assist an ally who is being doubled-up upon, he will just watch & then blame his ally for being a N0ob especially if said ally had dared to advance or attack.

He will usually rage quit shorlty after his artillery is taken out too.

Camping.

Originally Posted by underworld965

Although there is some debate on this, I don't think capturing a landmass and sitting on it is camping, for instance, capturing the hill in Prussian hills, then not coming down wouldn't be camping in my book. Just good strategy, why throw away a strong position you fought to acquire? Your opponent had time and opportunity to take it also.

No camping.

Camping results in my book always in a disadvantage.

Camping in my opinion is when someone stays on the waterloo ridge. Austerlitz is pretty much unfair even if the guy on the hill moves down because if both armies moove forward at the same pace, they end up meeting like half way down the slope and the attackers are already very tired.

Austerlitz is a bit of an exception.its more like a siege battle the way the map and deployment zones were designed.having said that, you have to move quickly, especially if your opponent has artillery

On maps such as Waterloo, Austerlitz, and to a certain extent Borodino, it is mutually expected that alliance two will camp. On these three maps in particular it does not bother me if players camp, if I am playing either of these maps I do so because I want a challenge as an attacker.

What does annoy me though is when players camp in their deployment zone on symmetrical maps like Italian Grasslands and Homestead. I play these maps for variation, it is disappointing to players camp their deployment zone on the flat part of the map, I didn't join the game to play a clone of Grassy Flatlands, I joined so that I may experience variation in tactics caused by obstructing land formations.

whats fun is being on the defending side of borodino, then quickly launching an attack on your opponent who normally has 2-5 units of art.

attacking a camper is extremely satisfying if you do it right

sitting in forset is the worst kind of camping u can bearly froce some1 to get out of a forset even art bearly doesnt anything to em

Give them the bayonet! maxfaren, the bayonet!



Dosn't sitting around and waiting for your opponent to stop camping make you a camper as well?

yeah the bayonet does work very well if ur opponent puts lights in the forests problem is when he also has a bunch of foot guards in aswell. and that would be counter camping but when it comes to that things get real bad and both players get annoyed if some1 camps in a good defencive positions and u attack him and if u win u come out feeling good camper bad if u attack and loose u come out annoyed camper feels good so conclusion always better to attack people will be generaly feeling better that way making ntw MP a better place.
Oh and also there is the fourth option both players atack and counter attack each other and than u can get a graet game with no1 being annoyed and both players coming out with a sense they have played a good game.

I have 1 rules in total war, (well 2 really). Attack!, and when you start losing or things arn't going good.... Attack harder!

Not moving even though your opponent has superior firepower at that point of time. Nothing to do with deployment zones. If you have the range and the firepower to bring
your opponent to you then its a legit tactic.