View Full Version : Would the ToW be better if...
11-25-2008, 04:57 AM
...it had some sort of feedback as to what will happen if any particular territory is won or lost?
For example, it would be nice to know that if we win on territory A it may possibly open the path to territory B, or if we lose we will be defending territory C.
Maybe then people can start to shape the conflict in some vaguely predictacble way rather than fighting maps only to find the results isn't what they thought.
I realise the turn results are more complicated than a win or a loss on any particular territory. In fact it maybe be as bad as a cubed table of all open maps... In the above example, the outcome may also be affected if another faction takes or loses territory D. But without a total understanding of the rules of the ToW I can't suggest how this information could be presented concisely.
Or it could be slightly simplified to just represent the local effects of a territory, ignoring all external influences. This could be represented by arrows on the ToW map showing advance and retreat for win or lose respectively, when you have selected that territory.
But I think the overall strategic level feedback might make people feel like they're contributing more to a combined effort than just playing some random maps and having the turn update maybe give them some more random maps to play...
11-25-2008, 06:18 AM
Well, the best anyone of us could do is a write up like this....
The JSF are attacking two locations. Both attacks spring from Okeefenokee. Mawell Airbase and Arrabida. If the JSF wins in Maxwell, they will regain air support in (Ft. Campbell, JFK, Okee, Pimlico, Chattanooga and Pascagoula. A victory in Arrabida will secure a defensive line from incursion into the American Homeland from western Europe as well as put the JSF 3 steps away from the EFEC capital.
Russian has attacked Pimlico from Shenandoah. Which does pretty much nothing for them except possibly grab one more territory to move towards their goal or 30 teritories for a win. The move risks the loss of the attacking territory Shenandoah which is currently the only uncontested route to the attack on Washington DC. The attack on DC is a vastly quicker route to victory that the accumulation of 30 territories. Meaning the attack on Shenandoah was a folly and a must win for the Spetznatz. Russia also attacked Three Mile Island, which has moderate strategic advantage. It puts them in route to ReaganSeaBase which would give Russia air support in an attack on DC. The attack puts Springfield at risk in the case of a loss and would allow the EFEC to get dangerously close to Ft. Grissom, the source of air supremacy in (Three Mile, Shenandoah, Springfield, Ft. Campbell and Chattanooga. Russia is also conducting a raid on Reagan which, if successful, would eliminate Air support to the EFEC in Three mile Island, Springfield and Washington DC.
The EFEC are launching a 3 territory attack from Maxwell Airbase. Now the rules of ToW are a little unclear as to what happens when an attacker wins 2 out of 3 battles from one territory on one turn. Some say if they will not lose that spot. others say they will. Developers have refused to answer the question.
So, we can only speculate. That Maxwell is at risk for them but they can gain significant space against the JSF forces. If they win all three the JSF will be reduced to their capital. unless the Russian attack into Pamlico is repulsed. Also with 3 wins EFEC would move to 25 territories out of the 30 needed to win the first ToW. With an additional win at Three Mile Island they could move to 26 territories on this move.
11-25-2008, 07:02 AM
Maybe an option to turn on arrows to see "what if" scenarios?
Even if it was web based only, it would atleast give us a way to look at which battles are important. Use the current TOW site, and allow me to see what would happen if this territory was won. That way, things like the copenhagen/springfield messes can be avoided.
11-25-2008, 07:10 AM
it would be cool if the top commanders from each faction could vote on the overall battle plan... would kinda be complicated to implement though.
11-25-2008, 01:02 PM
I think there should be a poll every night at the same time where everyone votes on what they want to attack the next turn. It should say like "if we win on reagan today then we can attack "X" tomorrow" and then people vote on the scenarios they want. It would make the game much more strategic and make it actually feel like we are controlling the flow of battle rather than just random battles being opened every turn.
11-26-2008, 01:58 PM
There only problem with that is lets say that the EFEC wanted to attack a JSF owned territory and I saw that in the polls, then all I would is not play that map. You can't get a win if you can't get a game in. Now I know that everybody won't do that but will will happen is you will have for example (and these are not real numbers just to make an example out of) 20 EFECs trying to play a map while the 5 JSFs who don't get it (+5 or so for the noob curve) playing there also. If you think wait times are bad now try doing that.
11-26-2008, 02:35 PM
you could make it so that we can't see the polls. Just like how we can't see in the game who is winning a territory