PDA

View Full Version : Air/Force Recon Support is USA biased by game design



VVidar
11-10-2008, 04:29 AM
In this post I examine in detail the Air and Force Recon Support for all three factions.

The summary is as follows:

1.) The USA faction has the unfair advantage of having Air Support in all of its home territory hexes and has THREE air bases as well as decent overall Force Recon Support on USA home territory.

2.) The EF faction is most disadvantaged, with bad Air and Force Recon Support on its home territory borders with the USA and only ONE air base as well as bad Force Recon Support on its border with the USA.

3.) The RF faction is also disadvantaged, but better off than the EF faction, with bad Air Support on its home territory borders with the EF and no Force Recon Support in more than HALF its home territory which happens to border on the USA. The RF has TWO air bases and double Air Support capabilities in its Capital Moscow.

This in effect means:

A.) the USA can be superbly defended with Air Support on its home territory and has excellent Air/Force Recon Support invasion advantages on its borders with the EF and RF.

B.) The USA Support advantage is a result of the hex capabilities of the world map, and consequently a biased advantage by game design.

For those interested in the details, read the full text of this post.

Territory
=======
The at start number of hexes:
- USA: 13;
- RF: 13;
- EF: 13.

So every faction's at start territory seems equal. Next to that the faction unit capabilities also seem about equal for the three factions, with little difference in faction unit performance. When it comes to Air Support and Force Recon Support the balance question is a different matter.

Air Support
=========
It is interesting to note that the USA has THREE airbases, making sure that every invasion into ANY hex of the continental USA is greeted by USA Air Support, in effect covering all 13 USA home territory hexes.

That two of these USA Air bases lie on the USA border is potentially a disadvantage. If they are lost, which is unlikely in the future with a lot of potential veteran USA players from this (the first) End War joining the next (second+) End Wars, it is a USA disadvantage because an EF/RF invader has immediate Air Support on USA home territory.

The Russian Federation has TWO airbases, making sure that every incursion into Russian home territory is greeted by Russian Air Support EXCEPT for two hexes (Istra and Thessaly) on the south-western border with the EF, inviting an EF invasion there. The RF Capital Moscow has double RF Air Support, which is a significant advantage that neither the USA nor the EF possess.

The European Federation on the other hand has only ONE airbase and this airbase cannot cover two hexes of north-west and south-west EF territory. This means that the USA can invade Arrabida on the south-western border of the EF and Macgillycuddy on the north-western EF border without any fear of EF Air Support.

Even stranger is the fact that the designers also made sure that the EF does not have Air or Force Recon Support in central Europe (technically RF home territory though), whereas the RF has, even though the EF Air Support base and the EF Force Recon bases are closer by.

All of this is rather unbalanced. One might conclude that the designers purposely gave the USA an Air Support advantage, since EVERY USA home territory hex has at least Air Support, an advantage no other faction has. On the other hand the designers gave the EF an Air Support disadvantage and - to a lesser extent - also the RF when compared to the USA.

So if the USA loses one airbase on their own territory, they are still not without Air Support, because they will still have two airbases left. If the RF loses one airbase they will still have Air Support in half their home territory and especially in their Capital Moscow which has double Air Support.

On the other hand if the EF loses their airbase they lose ALL Air Support in their home territory. This gives a rather big Air Support advantage to the USA and RF vis--vis the EF. The greatest Air Support advantage goes to the USA which can invade western EF territory without suffering any adverse EF Air Support effects while having all their own USA home territory covered by (multiple) Air Support.

Force Recon
==========
The USA has 10 USA hexes with Force Recon and 1 Force Recon base. Leaving 3 USA hexes without Force Recon Support (USS Reagan, Okefenokee, JFK Space Center). The USA can cover all but 3 USA home territory hexes with only 1 Force Recon base, and this base is safely located in central USA home territory.

The RF has 6 RF hexes with Force Recon and 1 Force Recon base. Leaving 7 RF hexes without Force Recon Support, including the Capital Moscow. The RF can only cover less than half its territory with 1 Force Recon base, in effect leaving the complete northern part of RF home territory without Force Recon Support, inviting an USA invasion there. The RF Force Recon base lies relatively safe from EF and USA invasion in the centre of the southern part of RF home territory.

The EF has 11 EF hexes with Force Recon and 2 Force Recon bases. Leaving 2 EF hexes without Force Recon support - even with 2 EF Force Recon bases! Also there is no EF Force Recon Support in central Europe (technically RF home territory)- even with 2 EF Force Recon bases very close by.

On the surface the EF seems to be best off with 2 Force Recon bases, but in effect this does not hold true since one Force Recon base lies on the EF-USA border (Copenhagen) leaving it open to being lost to the USA at the outset of the conflict. Even with these 2 EF Force Recon bases there still remain 2 EF home territory border hexes without Force Recon Support (Arrabida, Macgillycuddy). Creating a defence disadvantage on the north-western EF border vis-a-vis the USA, inviting invasion there.

To sum it up, once again the Force Recon Support advantage is with the USA with a Force Recon base safely in central USA home territory which covers all but 3 USA home territory hexes. RF is worst of, followed by the EF. Incredibly the EF cannot cover all its territory with Force Recon Support, despite having 2 EF Force Recon bases.

All this said, Force Recon Support is not insignificant, but less important and powerful than Air Support.

Conclusions
==========
In the Air Support area, the USA is best off with good all-round Air Support in all their home territory and 3 Air Support bases, giving a great advantage. They only have a slight Force Recon disadvantage on their western border with the EF, but this matters little.

The EF is worst off in the Air and Force Recon Support area, with an Air and Force Recon Support border weakness against the USA and only 1 Air Support Base.

The RF is better off than the EF. They have an Air Support disadvantage on their south-western border with the EF, which is important. They have double Air Support in their Capital Moscow however. And a Force Recon disadvantage on their north-western border with the USA, which is less important.

It seems that the developers felt the need to give the USA an all-round Air Support advantage on their home territory and at the same time give the EF a home territory Air/Force Recon Support disadvantage versus the USA and the RF a home territory Force Recon Support disadvantage versus the USA.

The only USA disadvantage is a slight Force Recon disadvantage on their south-eastern border with the EF, but this matters little.

Considering the fact that the overwhelming majority of the on-line players are USA players, followed by a smaller number of western European players and practically no eastern European (Russian) players, this USA Support advantage design decision is rather remarkable.

An advantaged faction is more likely to draw the players who always choose the winning side in a conflict. If this advantaged faction happens to also be the faction that the majority of players would have joined anyway (USA players join USA faction) than what incentive is there for players to join the EF or RF in future wars?

Most on-line players will, by default, be playing the USA, followed by the EF and probably the smallest number will be playing the RF. And with this USA Air and Force Recon Support advantage the USA will - probably - be by far the easiest faction to play and the most likely side to win.

Should this really turn out to be the case in the on-line End War, than - hopefully - the designers will either add some substantial special unit type/bonus for the disadvantaged RF and EF sides or correct the EF+RF support disadvantage. Time will tell.

More noticeable special faction unit bonuses would make the game more interesting for all factions in any event.

That the USA lost two of its airbases at the beginning of the first End War (360) is probably due to the fact that everybody is still learning the game (or maybe a case of many early teen USA players versus a few older/clever RF players) and that these two USA Air bases happen to be on the border of USA territory.

That this will occur again in the second End War is probably doubtful, but will be interesting to see.

Exzeebo
11-10-2008, 01:11 PM
Hey, we're a warlike people. Deal with it.

RyAndress
11-10-2008, 01:18 PM
Yes and if you have been playing the game the JSF has been losing the TOW now havent they http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

SkyRaptor_RUS
11-10-2008, 01:34 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gifWe should have saved our nukes in EndWar. There may be a global missile defence shield but it woun't work if Russian nuke will launch at a target located inside Russia, right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
Which means when EFEC or JSF invade us - nuke 'em!

But nooo...only fuel bombs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Zeroshot719
11-10-2008, 01:40 PM
sooo the most disadvantaged faction is winning....go team ******!

xenocidic
11-10-2008, 01:41 PM
Good intel, OP. Would be interested in seeing a dev response to this.

SkyRaptor_RUS
11-10-2008, 02:07 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gifwhat's the situation at the Frontlines? WHo's wining? Where can I see the situation report?

VVidar
11-10-2008, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Zeroshot719:
sooo the most disadvantaged faction is winning....go team ******!

Well, like I said in my earlier post, the current state of affairs in the first End War could be a case of:

"many early teen USA players versus a few older/clever RF players"

I probably should have said:

"a case of many early-teen USA players combined with a few older/clever USA players VERSUS a few older/clever RF and EF players".

The mass of early-teen USA players are probably responsable for the USA overall losing streak. A few older/clever USA players cannot compensate for this.

In any event, that the USA faction has not shined thus far in the first ToW End War surely cannot be laid at the feet of the End War designers, they have done their best to bestow the USA faction with significant territorial Support advantages.

The rest is up to the players of the faction, or maybe a few future USA biased patches by the designers.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VVidar
11-10-2008, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by xenocidic:
Good intel, OP. Would be interested in seeing a dev response to this.

Thanks. I would like to see a dev. response as well, but alas they seldom respond to a user/player post. Very few developers do.

Azyriel
11-10-2008, 03:21 PM
I wouldn't call it biased by game design persay, as much as just bias by realistic map and choice of areas. ON a side note that very benefit can also be there downfall, if they lose a few of the fringe territories that removes air support for them and gives it to the attacker almost the entire map of US.

AwYea
11-10-2008, 03:23 PM
Well on the flip side of this, if I'm reading the Tow Map correctly, the US really gets penalized early on if they lose any one of them bases. The US also has to go father into Europe or Russia before gaining any air or force Recon support.

For example, if the US was to come in at Copenhagen, Glen Abby or Arrabida in Europe look how far they got to go before they get any air or force recon support.

If they come in at Rondane or Carpathia in Russia they're only 1 move away from Air or force recon support and 3 moves away if they come in at Fort Levski.

The way I look at it it going to be impossible for the US to come in from Europe, and the only real chance they got to cross the ocean and stay there is coming through Russia at Rondane or Carpathia.

NOTE: I'm just going of the X in the middle of a territory that denotes it as a base. Now if some of these territories that aren't marked give support then I'm wrong. I still don't know what the building icon means because it comes up in territories that aren't marked as the capital.

TheBoss_153
11-10-2008, 03:25 PM
Well the US Airforce is and will be superior than most other nations even in end war but the Air support and Force recon is not that effective seen Grissom Airbase can be invaded easily by RF and Fort Campbell as well.By Territory DC is the Easiest capital to get to i believe Moscow is harder for EF players. I believe that Force Recon and Air support is based on actual bases on the Russian and US fronts.

VVidar
11-10-2008, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Azyriel:
I wouldn't call it biased by game design persay, as much as just bias by realistic map and choice of areas. ON a side note that very benefit can also be there downfall, if they lose a few of the fringe territories that removes air support for them and gives it to the attacker almost the entire map of US.

Thanks for the reply, you have some valid remarks.

Having said that, to me however the Game Map is part of the overall on-line Game design.

As far as Map realism goes:

- The shortest route from Germany to Moscow is a straight line. The EF must advance towards Moscow by advancing through southern and south-eastern Europe!? A long-range detour through the rough mountains of the Alps and Carpathians is not a realistic military route when compared with the shorter direct route through the comparatively flat and open terrain of Poland and White Russia.

- One Air base for the whole of central and western Europe? What is there a shortage of concrete for runways? Where did the huge British and French Air bases go for instance?

- Italy is part of Russia, now how realistic is that? Italy incidentally has some large airbases as well.

- No Russian Force Recon in more than half of Russian territoy? Is there a shortage of building materials for Army barracks in half the country?

- The USA can still have Air Support in at least a third of its home territory, even after losing two air bases! While the other factions will definitely be out of business after losing two home territory airbases (the EF after losing one). Any decent USA defense of its home territory combined with the multiple Air Support advantage ought to be able to Air Support spam kill any RF/EF invaders. A lot of defeats by early-teen/green USA players can offset the USA map support advantage however. This seems to be happening.

VVidar
11-10-2008, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by SkyRaptor_RUS:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gifwhat's the situation at the Frontlines? WHo's wining? Where can I see the situation report?

The only situation report I know of can be found at:

http://endwargame.uk.ubi.com/tow.php

You can select the PC/Xbox 360/PS3 End War ToW state of affairs.

Azyriel
11-10-2008, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by VVidar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Azyriel:
I wouldn't call it biased by game design persay, as much as just bias by realistic map and choice of areas. ON a side note that very benefit can also be there downfall, if they lose a few of the fringe territories that removes air support for them and gives it to the attacker almost the entire map of US.

Thanks for the reply, you have some valid remarks.

Having said that, to me however the Game Map is part of the overall on-line Game design.

As far as Map realism goes:

- The shortest route from Germany to Moscow is a straight line. The EF must advance towards Moscow by advancing through southern and south-eastern Europe!? A long-range detour through the rough mountains of the Alps and Carpathians is not a realistic military route when compared with the shorter direct route through the comparitively flat and open terrain of Poland and White Russia.

- One Air base for the whole of central and western Europe? What is there a shortage of concrete for runways? Where did the huge British and French Air bases go for instance?

- Italy is part of Russia, now how realistic is that? Italy incidentally has some large airbases as well.

- No Russian Force Recon in more than half of Russian territoy? Is there a shortage of building materials for Army barracks in half the country?

- The USA can still have Air Support in at least a third of its home territory, even after losing two air bases! While the other factions will definitely be out of business after losing two home territory airbases (the EF after losing one). Any decent USA defense of its home territory combined with the multiple Air Support advantage ought to be able to Air Support spam kill any RF/EF invaders. A lot of defeats by early-teen/green USA players can offset the USA map support advantage however. This seems to be happening. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, Italy isn't part of Russia, it looks like that but its actually Greece. I will point out that clever use of electro warfare can negate air support as well. Yes, it can be difficult to deal with and i do kind of agree but so far i don't find it to much of a hassle that i think any fixes need to put into place as of right now.

VVidar
11-10-2008, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by AwYea:
Well on the flip side of this, if I'm reading the Tow Map correctly, the US really gets penalized early on if they lose any one of them bases.

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">All USA home territory entry hexes have USA Air Support through three USA Air bases. Neither the RF (Thessaly and Istra) nor the EF (Arrabida) have this advantage. If the USA border has Air Support and they lose two border Air bases, well its a case of USA faction players not properly using their Gamemap design advantage. Each base extends Air Support in every adjacent hex in a two-hex radius. So the loss of one Air base is no disaster, even the loss of two bases does not lead to a total loss of USA Air Support.</span>

The US also has to go father into Europe or Russia before gaining any air or force Recon support.

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">There is a Force Recon base in Copenhagen, that is right on the border with the USA, on the Game map that is.</span>

For example, if the US was to come in at Copenhagen, Glen Abby or Arrabida in Europe look how far they got to go before they get any air or force recon support.

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">The USA can have Force Recon support the moment they capture Copenhagen on the border and then profit from it in a two-hex radius. Copenhagen has both Air and Force Recon support, making it a tough entry point, but also the best choice and the logical point of main effort. From Copenhagen it is only two hexes to the EF's ONLY Air base. So it is only three hexes from USA territory to the EF's only airbase. Once the USA has that EF airbase, there isn't any EF Air Support left anywhere in the whole EF and Paris is right next to it. Glen Albyn has EF Air support, making it a more difficult USA entry point, it does not have EF Force Recon support and offers the shortest route to Paris. Macgillycuddy has no EF support at all, making it an easy target after Glen Albyn. Arrabida is by far the easiest USA entry point, since it has not EF Air support. From there is is three hexes to Paris and the EF's only air base. So Arrabida seems a nice diversionary front with the main effort at Copenhagen to first capture Ramstein and then Paris.

For the EF on the other hand the two northern routes to Washington are covered by two USA air bases. So this means EF Air Support disadvantage all the way to Washington. The southern EF route is longer than the northern route and also covered by two USA air bases. Even after capturing three hexes and one USA air base the EF will still be facing USA Air Support. So for the EF it is a Air Support slugging match either way.</span>

If they come in at Rondane or Carpathia in Russia they're only 1 move away from Air or force recon support and 3 moves away if they come in at Fort Levski.

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">All USA invasion areas into RF territory are covered by RF Air Support, making a bridgehead more difficult than in the EF. Against the EF however, the RF does not have Air Support on its borders, inviting an EF invasion in the south-west of the RF.

If the USA invades the RF from the north it can have Air Support in two hexes, effectively giving them air superiority in whole northern Russia. The RF has no Force Recon Support at all in northern Russia! It then is only one more hex to Moscow, with USA Air Support.

If the USA invades the RF from the south in Carpathia it can have Air Support in two hexes, giving them air superiority in practically all of southern Russia. It then is two hexes to Moscow. So the northern Rondane route is the logical point of main effort and the Carpathians a good diversionary area, to be attacked in reverse order by the USA.</span>

The way I look at it it going to be impossible for the US to come in from Europe, and the only real chance they got to cross the ocean and stay there is coming through Russia at Rondane or Carpathia.

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Like I said above capturing Arrabida in the EF should be easy for the USA. When you got the EF attention diverted there, all good USA players should switch to the Copenhagen-Ramstein-Paris route. Probably making the EF the easiest to defeat, subject of course to the skilll of the faction players. The RF will probably be fighting the EF in the Istra/Thessaly area because the RF does not have Air Support there, inviting an EF invasion.

It seems the map design encourages an USA invasion of the EF in Arrabida and an EF invasion of the RF in Istra/Thessaly. The USA territory is well defended by multiple air bases so for the RF and EF it is a slugging match towards Washington either way.</span>

NOTE: I'm just going of the X in the middle of a territory that denotes it as a base. Now if some of these territories that aren't marked give support then I'm wrong. I still don't know what the building icon means because it comes up in territories that aren't marked as the capital.

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">When you click on a hex at:

http://endwargame.uk.ubi.com/tow.php

you get the detail map in the left-hand corner. Next to the detail map you see the Support Icons. When you click on those, the map jumps to the area from where the support originates. As far as I understand the building icon is actually the capital icon. This capital icon is displayed in any hexes that are within two hexes of a capital and therefore shows which hexes give access to that capital.</span>

northern sun
11-10-2008, 04:58 PM
Europe grew tired of being stereotyped as cowards and decided to kick butt without using any support.

VVidar
11-10-2008, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Azyriel:
Actually, Italy isn't part of Russia, it looks like that but its actually Greece. I will point out that clever use of electro warfare can negate air support as well. Yes, it can be difficult to deal with and i do kind of agree but so far i don't find it to much of a hassle that i think any fixes need to put into place as of right now.

Granted, Thessaly is a part of Greece. I stand corrected on that point.

I assumed that the Thessaly hex includes both Italy and Greece, based on the world map positioning of the hex. But I might be wrong to have assumed that. Even so, Greece is also not part of Russia, but I understand the designers need to take some creative liberties. But the realism thing is negated by such creativity however.

That you are able to negate the effects of rolling enemy Air Support attacks makes you a good player one might say. But how many of the run-of-the-mill players can also do that? The number of wins-to-losses of all the players of a faction decides the effect of Air Support spamming advantages. At the moment (turn 7) it looks like the bulk of the EF players seem to be getting the hang of fighting against enemy Air Support.

VVidar
11-10-2008, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Northern_Sun:
Europe grew tired of being stereotyped as cowards and decided to kick butt without using any support.

Based on the turn 6 and 7 results, this is surely the case!

Azyriel
11-10-2008, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by VVidar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Azyriel:
Actually, Italy isn't part of Russia, it looks like that but its actually Greece. I will point out that clever use of electro warfare can negate air support as well. Yes, it can be difficult to deal with and i do kind of agree but so far i don't find it to much of a hassle that i think any fixes need to put into place as of right now.

Granted, Thessaly is a part of Greece. I stand corrected on that point.

I assumed that the Thessaly hex includes both Italy and Greece, based on the world map positioning of the hex. But I might be wrong to have assumed that. Even so, Greece is also not part of Russia, but I understand the designers need to take some creative liberties. But the realism thing is negated by such creativity however.

That you are able to negate the effects of rolling enemy Air Support attacks makes you a good player one might say. But how many of the run-of-the-mill players can also do that? The number of wins-to-losses of all the players of a faction decides the effect of Air Support spamming advantages. At the moment (turn 7) it looks like the bulk of the EF players seem to be getting the hang of fighting against enemy Air Support. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>True that Greece isn't part of Russia but they are Orthodox as are the Russians so if anything they have more in common then they would with the Europeans.

VVidar
11-10-2008, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by TheBoss_153:
Well the US Airforce is and will be superior than most other nations even in end war but the Air support and Force recon is not that effective seen Grissom Airbase can be invaded easily by RF and Fort Campbell as well.By Territory DC is the Easiest capital to get to i believe Moscow is harder for EF players. I believe that Force Recon and Air support is based on actual bases on the Russian and US fronts.

Thanks for the reply, you make some interesting points.

End War is a game and does not take the current armies into account, for any faction. All the game factions are fiction by today's standards.

For a game however, a certain balance is needed. That does not mean that all faction should have the same advantages, faction specific advantages are ok by me if they are compensated.

Giving one game faction special map and Support advantages which the other factions do not enjoy makes a game unbalanced. That's the point.

It is interestig to note that the GDP of the four largest middle and western European nations dwarf the USA GDP and that the current EU has about 450 million people, about 200 million more than the USA. The combined military potential of the nations which form the current EU dwarf the USA military potential, but the current EU is not organized along the lines of the fictional EF that appears in the game. So any discussion along the lines of real world matters, does not pertain to the fictional game. Because we are talking about a game here.

Indeed, like you remark, two of the three USA air bases do lie on the US border, but still each air base has a two hex range making sure that the loss of one base does not lead to the loss of Air Support in the USA, especially around Washington. That means that any invasion route into Washington is always covered by multiple USA air bases. Moreover, it is improbable that all three air bases will be captured since the route to these is not always opened to the EF/RF based on the turn of events until turn 7. For instance, the EF may not attack Maxwell air base, but suffers from USA Air Support from it.

I agree with you remark that the EF has a detour route to Moscow and has to fight against RF Air Support all the way.

As far as bases are concerned, you are right, several Game Map bases based on real world bases. There are several large strategical NATO bases however that exist today in Europe that are not incorporated on the map, so the real world connection is rather thin. The same holds true for the RF and the USA.

Tampa_Bay_Bucs
11-10-2008, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by VVidar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Azyriel:
I wouldn't call it biased by game design persay, as much as just bias by realistic map and choice of areas. ON a side note that very benefit can also be there downfall, if they lose a few of the fringe territories that removes air support for them and gives it to the attacker almost the entire map of US.



Thanks for the reply, you have some valid remarks.

Having said that, to me however the Game Map is part of the overall on-line Game design.

As far as Map realism goes:

- The shortest route from Germany to Moscow is a straight line. The EF must advance towards Moscow by advancing through southern and south-eastern Europe!? A long-range detour through the rough mountains of the Alps and Carpathians is not a realistic military route when compared with the shorter direct route through the comparatively flat and open terrain of Poland and White Russia.

- One Air base for the whole of central and western Europe? What is there a shortage of concrete for runways? Where did the huge British and French Air bases go for instance?

- Italy is part of Russia, now how realistic is that? Italy incidentally has some large airbases as well.

- No Russian Force Recon in more than half of Russian territoy? Is there a shortage of building materials for Army barracks in half the country?

- The USA can still have Air Support in at least a third of its home territory, even after losing two air bases! While the other factions will definitely be out of business after losing two home territory airbases (the EF after losing one). Any decent USA defense of its home territory combined with the multiple Air Support advantage ought to be able to Air Support spam kill any RF/EF invaders. A lot of defeats by early-teen/green USA players can offset the USA map support advantage however. This seems to be happening. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey thanks for that link that view is pretty good I did not know about that map.

VVidar
11-10-2008, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Azyriel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VVidar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Azyriel:
Actually, Italy isn't part of Russia, it looks like that but its actually Greece. I will point out that clever use of electro warfare can negate air support as well. Yes, it can be difficult to deal with and i do kind of agree but so far i don't find it to much of a hassle that i think any fixes need to put into place as of right now.

Granted, Thessaly is a part of Greece. I stand corrected on that point.

I assumed that the Thessaly hex includes both Italy and Greece, based on the world map positioning of the hex. But I might be wrong to have assumed that. Even so, Greece is also not part of Russia, but I understand the designers need to take some creative liberties. But the realism thing is negated by such creativity however.

That you are able to negate the effects of rolling enemy Air Support attacks makes you a good player one might say. But how many of the run-of-the-mill players can also do that? The number of wins-to-losses of all the players of a faction decides the effect of Air Support spamming advantages. At the moment (turn 7) it looks like the bulk of the EF players seem to be getting the hang of fighting against enemy Air Support. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>True that Greece isn't part of Russia but they are Orthodox as are the Russians so if anything they have more in common then they would with the Europeans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are joking I hope? Having been to Greece a number of times myself I can say that Greece has about as much in common with Russia as Portugal with Sweden. Greece is firmly integrated into the EU, both economically and culturally. Their is no special Greek bond with Slavic Russia I can assure you, Greek Orthodox or otherwise. And Russia isn't the Greek Orthodox state anymore it was at the time of the Romanov's.

The anti-Christian message of the politicians, media and educational system in all of Europe has, since the 1960's, effectively neutered the majority of the European peoples when it comes to Christian religion. As a result religion does not stir the European masses anymore, neither in Russia nor in Greece. European churches of all confessions are increasingly empty and even converted to other purposes.

I say this only to remark the current state of affairs, not to enter into any religious meritorious discussion.

Moreover, the Greeks, Russians, Italians, French, Germans etc. etc. are all Europeans! Russia has been and is part of Europe since the beginning of time. The name Europa has been given to the continent by the Greeks, who from then on considered themselves Europeans. Greece has been at the very hart of the concept of Europe since the beginning of time.

All Europeans share a common heritage, history as well as Greek state, law, philosophy, medicine and mathematical principles. They have also had a common future, for better or for worse. The Russians are just as much European as the Irish or the Icelanders.

Nowadays more than a few European leading minds toy with the idea of an Eurasion state, which not only contains all of Europe, which naturally includes European Russia, but also the Asian part of the Russian Federation, hence the term Eurasia.

Azyriel
11-10-2008, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by VVidar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Azyriel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VVidar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Azyriel:
Actually, Italy isn't part of Russia, it looks like that but its actually Greece. I will point out that clever use of electro warfare can negate air support as well. Yes, it can be difficult to deal with and i do kind of agree but so far i don't find it to much of a hassle that i think any fixes need to put into place as of right now.

Granted, Thessaly is a part of Greece. I stand corrected on that point.

I assumed that the Thessaly hex includes both Italy and Greece, based on the world map positioning of the hex. But I might be wrong to have assumed that. Even so, Greece is also not part of Russia, but I understand the designers need to take some creative liberties. But the realism thing is negated by such creativity however.

That you are able to negate the effects of rolling enemy Air Support attacks makes you a good player one might say. But how many of the run-of-the-mill players can also do that? The number of wins-to-losses of all the players of a faction decides the effect of Air Support spamming advantages. At the moment (turn 7) it looks like the bulk of the EF players seem to be getting the hang of fighting against enemy Air Support. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>True that Greece isn't part of Russia but they are Orthodox as are the Russians so if anything they have more in common then they would with the Europeans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are joking I hope? Having been to Greece a number of times myself I can say that Greece has about as much in common with Russia as Portugal with Sweden. Greece is firmly integrated into the EU, both economically and culturally. Their is no special Greek bond with Slavic Russia I can assure you, Greek Orthodox or otherwise. And Russia isn't the Greek Orthodox state anymore it was at the time of the Romanov's.

The anti-Christian message of the politicians, media and educational system in all of Europe has, since the 1960's, effectively neutered the majority of the European peoples when it comes to Christian religion. As a result religion does not stir the European masses anymore, neither in Russia nor in Greece. European churches of all confessions are increasingly empty and even converted to other purposes.

I say this only to remark the current state of affairs, not to enter into any religious meritorious discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'd like to point out i am NOT saying Greece and Russia are 100% the same or even all terribly that much, however the religion is in fact pretty similar. To think i said otherwise is crazy talk. Also, look into orthodox they are almost entirely the same except for the language they use. Also, of note is the fact that Greece although part of the EU doesn't mean much especially consider in the game its mostly western countries that joined the EFEC.

Oh and BTW Greece remains amongst the highest percentage of belief in god in Europe.

ClancyWar111
11-10-2008, 06:57 PM
The conclusion is longer than the actual discusion.

Anyway. Isnt the US supposed to be very air-support friendly at the cost of having medium speed and medium power upgrades.

The RF is very powerful, slow, and has medium air capabilities.

And finally, the EF is fast, with medium power and is good with electronic warfare.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I probobly am).

(I also think that being on Europe has one major problem: You cant understand a word general Auridou Bummugybloopy says in the pre and post action screens.)

VVidar
11-10-2008, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by Azyriel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VVidar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Azyriel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VVidar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Azyriel:
Actually, Italy isn't part of Russia, it looks like that but its actually Greece. I will point out that clever use of electro warfare can negate air support as well. Yes, it can be difficult to deal with and i do kind of agree but so far i don't find it to much of a hassle that i think any fixes need to put into place as of right now.

Granted, Thessaly is a part of Greece. I stand corrected on that point.

I assumed that the Thessaly hex includes both Italy and Greece, based on the world map positioning of the hex. But I might be wrong to have assumed that. Even so, Greece is also not part of Russia, but I understand the designers need to take some creative liberties. But the realism thing is negated by such creativity however.

That you are able to negate the effects of rolling enemy Air Support attacks makes you a good player one might say. But how many of the run-of-the-mill players can also do that? The number of wins-to-losses of all the players of a faction decides the effect of Air Support spamming advantages. At the moment (turn 7) it looks like the bulk of the EF players seem to be getting the hang of fighting against enemy Air Support. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>True that Greece isn't part of Russia but they are Orthodox as are the Russians so if anything they have more in common then they would with the Europeans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are joking I hope? Having been to Greece a number of times myself I can say that Greece has about as much in common with Russia as Portugal with Sweden. Greece is firmly integrated into the EU, both economically and culturally. Their is no special Greek bond with Slavic Russia I can assure you, Greek Orthodox or otherwise. And Russia isn't the Greek Orthodox state anymore it was at the time of the Romanov's.

The anti-Christian message of the politicians, media and educational system in all of Europe has, since the 1960's, effectively neutered the majority of the European peoples when it comes to Christian religion. As a result religion does not stir the European masses anymore, neither in Russia nor in Greece. European churches of all confessions are increasingly empty and even converted to other purposes.

I say this only to remark the current state of affairs, not to enter into any religious meritorious discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'd like to point out i am NOT saying Greece and Russia are 100% the same or even all terribly that much, however the religion is in fact pretty similar. To think i said otherwise is crazy talk. Also, look into orthodox they are almost entirely the same except for the language they use. Also, of note is the fact that Greece although part of the EU doesn't mean much especially consider in the game its mostly western countries that joined the EFEC.

Oh and BTW Greece remains amongst the highest percentage of belief in god in Europe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no need to mince words, we are not at war. But an exchange of ideas and knowledge is interesting. In that light, I added the following comment to my original post:

Yes, granted, there are still many Church goers in both Greece and Russia. But numbers are steadfastily declining every year with no end in sight in this trend, and the Christian population keeps dwindling.

Their is no special Greek bond with Slavic Russia I can assure you, Greek Orthodox or otherwise. And Russia isn't the Greek Orthodox state anymore it was at the time of the Romanov's. Eighty years of Communism has changed that and created a Russia with the fastest dwindling largely non-Christian European population, which is no achievement to be sure.

Moreover, the Greeks, Russians, Italians, French, Germans etc. etc. are all Europeans! Russia has been and is part of Europe since the beginning of time. The name Europa has been given to the continent by the Greeks, who from then on considered themselves Europeans. Greece has been at the very hart of the concept of Europe since the beginning of time.

All Europeans share a common heritage, history as well as ancient Greek state, law, philosophy, medicine and mathematical principles. They have also had a common future, for better or for worse. The Russians are just as much Europeans as the Irish or the Icelanders. Even though they have no special bond with the Greeks.

Nowadays more than a few European leading minds toy with the idea of an Eurasion state, which not only contains all of Europe, which naturally includes European Russia, but also the Asian part of the Russian Federation, hence the term Eurasia. That would make an interesting faction in End War!

Greeks do not see the Slavs are their friends, but see the Slavs on their border as invaders who captured part of ancient Greece. Current Macedonia is seen by Greeks as an insult and a Slav state, sponsored by Slavic Russia, who according to Greeks has no more right to the name of Macedonia than do the Eskimo's. This does not mean that Greeks see Russia as an enemy.

There is no love lost between the Greeks and the Slavs on their northern border. In my visits to Greece I was surprised by how the Greeks feel about their neighbours, which is deeply routed in history. Ancient Greek lands have been stolen by their northern and eastern neighbours, to this day. The only friends they perceive to have are the larger countries in western Europe.

The Asiatic occupation of mainland Greece is perceived to have been broken by help from western Europe, not by Slavic Russia. So there are stronger ties with western Europe than with the Balkans and Russia.

So it makes more sense to include Greece in the EF than the RF.

All in all interesting, but we are straying from the post-topic!

VVidar
11-10-2008, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by ClancyWar111:
The conclusion is longer than the actual discusion.

Anyway. Isnt the US supposed to be very air-support friendly at the cost of having medium speed and medium power upgrades.

The RF is very powerful, slow, and has medium air capabilities.

And finally, the EF is fast, with medium power and is good with electronic warfare.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I probobly am).

(I also think that being on Europe has one major problem: You cant understand a word general Auridou Bummugybloopy says in the pre and post action screens.)

lol, I think that not being able to understand General Auridou-what's-his-face is THE most important EF problem, if not of all time!

To be honest, I don't know if you are wrong or right. I have missed any Ubisoft info that the USA faction has the best Air Support.

According to Ubisoft:

RF: The Spetsnaz tend to focus on heavy weapons and heavy armor, and often ingeniously modify standard-issue equipment to suit their needs, resulting in vehicles bristling with bolted-on weaponry the original designer never dreamed of including.

EF: Calm and precise, these highly-trained and experienced soldiers are especially skilled in urban warfare. They excel in electronic warfare as well as advanced directed energy weapons technology, and have the fastest battlefield vehicles. The Enforcer Corps also have access to the world's best "less than lethal" weaponry.

USA: Epitomizing the saying, "high speed, low drag", these elite soldiers excel in precision firepower and can rapidly deploy anywhere in the world. Moreover, their stealth technology and the accuracy of their weapons are second-to-none.

xenocidic
11-11-2008, 09:48 AM
Well, it looks like even with this severe disadvantage, EFEC will push forward, undiscouraged.