Wednesday, September 10, 2014

MS Chantilly-Paris Layout

Unless the center is being pushed aggressively this layout will play like two separate fields with the majority of the action being vertical confrontations up and down the wires. There are a few crossfield shots but the likelihood is one wire or the other will be blown when teams reach the fifties and beyond. Strong center play will mitigate that to one degree or another if it creates early mismatches. Despite initial appearances it should be easier to dominate the snake wire. The layout is capable of both 20 second points and 2 or 3 minute points. The more evenly matched teams are skill-wise the more tactical superiority will determine outcomes. Passive, defense-oriented teams will struggle mightily unless their technical skills are superior to their opponents.
Let's take a quick look at some of the reasons why. Most teams will meet with limited success laning OTB so both wires are makeable. A few useable lanes exist but expose the shooter to counter-lanes. The quicker teams shouldn't have too much difficulty making a wire the majority of the time.
Even when teams make a wire OTB the dominate feature of this layout is the gatekeeper aspect of the four insert Temples. Each one serves as the primary access point to a wire and the primary means of denying access to the wire. (The pink arrows indicate the direct confrontation created at these gaps feeding the wires.) Much of the early action and focus will revolve around these Temples and much of that action will be direct gunfighting. The only other primary option to control the wires comes from the (orange) CKs. Their placement (and size) limit both their effectiveness and defensibility--they will be hard to live in once opponents are on the wire(s). The result is contain or control from the interior of the field is at a heavy disadvantage further pressing the Temples into direct confrontations or else give up access to the wires.
Once on the wires most of the available shots are on the same wire (or that half of the layout) until the fifty--or beyond--is reached making the standard of play battle to reach a wire, battle that wire to get upfield, eliminate your wire to get positional opportunities to finish off your remaining opponents.
Breaking up the wire-centric focus are the upfield options in the center of the layout. While the M is playable I've focused on the props marked in green to represent center play objectives. The goal is to disrupt your opponent's breakout and rapidly attack one or more of their primary positions or early transitions in order to gain a quick body count advantage. Thereafter the center of the field can be used to deny counter-movements and pin the remaining opponents in place. The MT is better suited to the task as it is more defensible and has better lines-of-sight than the Can.
Players on the wires have limited ability to contain or control other wire props. For example Snake 1 cannot stop his mirror from bumping to Snake 2 so for players on the wires the game becomes a race to the 50 and against opponents on their same wire. (The d-corners can contest wire movement, unlike the snake corners.)
Finally the snake wire is more easily dominated because it is more difficult to contain and/or control movement on that wire. Center (green) positions have some options as do the (orange) cakes but all are limited. And the corner TCKs are not in position to deny movement up the wire but are able to aggressively attack the insert (gatekeeper) Temple making gap contain very difficult. While the snake appears more open and exposed it should be easier to push bodies up that wire.
This is the kind of layout that could easily engender upsets.

From 1 - 10 on some varying factors. 
Plays Fast. (promotes quick points) Fun to Play. (players enjoy it) Easy to Ref. (clear and open lines-of-sight) Balanced. (allows teams to play their way) Spectator Friendly. (solid action and exciting play for the knowledgeable fan)

Plays Fast: 7 (Win the gunfights, win the war. Still kind of a crapshoot.)
Fun to Play: 6 (If you've always wanted to be a front here's your chance)
Easy to Ref: 5 (Center of the field action could be tough to control)
Balanced: 3 (Defense? We don't need no stinkin' defense)
Spectator Friendly: 6 (Boring timid teams make for boring timid paintball)


Pete said...

Could you elaborate on saying it is both very bad for defense and saying it could be boring because timid teams will be timid? I may be misunderstanding something but if defense is nigh impossible won't timid teams get run down?

Baca Loco said...

Depends on the opponent. In match-ups where both teams prefer a defensive set-up neither will work too hard to break the impasse and the result is boring paintball. Any time only one team is defensive-minded unless their gun skills are much better than their opponent they will be in serious trouble on this layout.
The larger point was no layout can compel players or teams to play a certain way. It can only reward or punish some choices.

Anonymous said...

These analysis posts are some of my favourites. Thanks for doing these. Cheers.

Pete said...

Thank you for clarifying.

Anonymous said...

Played it. Very much right about two separate fields. It will go very fast. Corners can be made very hard to live in. Snake can be fast and furious with some sweet Highway moves and gun battles as well. Bunkers are just perfectly positioned to potentially make the webcast suck difficult.