Hello EndWar Community,

It does seem there is a lot of discussion regarding the Primary Frontline Rules within EndWar. While it was made to give people a moving front to defend and attack, some of you are unhappy with how it works.

If you have any suggestions on ways to improve/modify the Primary Frontline Rule, please post here so we can get some feedback. It will be hard to find something that suits everyone but changes for the better are always good.

Keep things on topic and as constructive as possible please.

ya here's a suggestion. DELETE IT.
If you attack something and win, you get the spot, if you defend and win, you keep the spot. Not difficult at all.
If 2 spots are attacking eachother, add up the total wins from both, whoever has more, wins.

We need an indicator telling us which battle is the current PF for each faction. That way we can direct our forices towards or away from it.

As a whole, the PF causes a stalemate that is hard to move around. We all want quicker games. The ToW is dragging on. The EFEC has never really made it into NA this war and no one has been able to get a foothold in Europe. So, we are playing the same maps daily. Since we either have support and the enemy doesn't or vice versa, it makes for horribly unbalanced matches every day. So, make it so that we can move easily, open up more battles and make it a quicker war.

Thanks for being open to suggestions.

I personally, think it makes sense in theory, when a territory is engaged in multiple battles, you need to decide which one sets precedent. If the territory attacks two guys but loses on defence, should the attacks win but the territory get lost? The map would probably dissolve into a mess of territories with no real battle lines, god knows how the software would deal with it.

I see two solutions, the first is the PF rule (or what I tend to refer to as the Most Significant Front (MSF) Rule as a distinction between it and where faction fronts end up) which says the battle fought most takes precedent and so overrides contradicting results from other battles. Obviously however, it seems to be less sound in gameplay terms.

Another is to remove the PF rule and also the ability for territories to be engaged in multiple battles. One fight, one result, one clear change of battle lines. (You could probably allow raids in addition to another fight though, but it would still fail if the territory changed hands, even if its attack succeeds) Would heavily restrict the battles available unless a much larger percentage of available fronts remained open each turn.

On the other hand, this could allow fine tuning on the number of fronts available for each faction each turn. Also with more variety in the areas you engage across the map. The downside I see is that despite being able to engage on more fronts, if you want to progress in one spot, you only ever get one choice of map which could be a bit boring, especially if it just goes back and forth.

Hopefully we can get some decent comments going on the rule or suggested alternatives. With any luck people have more to say than to just spam 'PF Rule sucks' because, you know, they've made that obvious.

.... Are you SERIOUS! TOW is still in cease fire for over 12hrs now and instead of fixing this issue, you guys move to another... Unbelievable

Just remove the part where it negates other wins and I think everyone will be happy, it would be a great temporary fix while a way to prevent stalemates from the see saws is worked on.

To counter: Like I say, taking out the PF requires one on one engagements only if I'm understand what that entials correctly.

That'll make sew-saws WORSE, since you can't win on an alternate front to negate a sew-saw battle you've been having. Instead you're stuck on that same battle, constantly.

It could get very-very-sew-saw-ish.

Mmm.

one of 3 things

1)take away the counter, it makes no sense anyways. a JSF successful defense of reagan shouldn't mean automatic counter attack giving the JSF glen albyn. this would stop the negating other battles due to losing attacking territory bs.

2) go with the flow. if a faction is successfully attacks a territory they should continue attacking adjacent territories next turn until their attacks fail, at which point the defending faction can launch it's own attacks. no more random front closures.

3) in event of a stalemate, something like 4 turns of back and forth on the same maps, another front is opened. PS3 example, EFEC and JSF were battling over USS reagan and glen albyn for 15 turns while southern europe was occupied by the JSF. instead of getting locked onto the same stationary front, open up a new one against that faction. if there are no other connecting territories, i understand, but if there a 2 or 3 other places to attack, let us fight there.

And since I'm assuming the dev's will pretend to read this thread... can we have a few conquest maps again? Assault after assault after assault gets old. How is it decided as to which type of map we play anyway?

Oh and turn the ToW Server back on... that would be nice as well.

I have a complaint/question.
In the 360 war, Okefenokee is held by the Russians.
When Europe attacked it, Europe was repelled.
One problem... Instead of simply having the battle moving to Europe from across the sea from Okefenokee, the Russians SOMEHOW "won" Arribida, the first front in Europe on the southern part of the war.
Some one, please tell me how that is possible in one turn? We were attacking, lost, then somehow lost again on our own land in the same turn. There was no offensive in Arribida.
Upon reading some of the conversation in here, I understand how this may happen on other fronts, but this was a 1-1 territory battle. there are no adjacent territories to fight over when you don't even have a foothold across the sea, so nothing should have been negated.
How did we lose an attack AND a territory with these lines clearly stated?

quote:

Originally posted by Babbalui:
I have a complaint/question.
In the 360 war, Okefenokee is held by the Russians.
When Europe attacked it, Europe was repelled.
One problem... Instead of simply having the battle moving to Europe from across the sea from Okefenokee, the Russians SOMEHOW "won" Arribida, the first front in Europe on the southern part of the war.
Some one, please tell me how that is possible in one turn? We were attacking, lost, then somehow lost again on our own land in the same turn. There was no offensive in Arribida.
Upon reading some of the conversation in here, I understand how this may happen on other fronts, but this was a 1-1 territory battle. there are no adjacent territories to fight over when you don't even have a foothold across the sea, so nothing should have been negated.
How did we lose an attack AND a territory with these lines clearly stated?

If you attack from a territory and lose. You lose the territory u attack from. I personally like this part, because it helps to speed things up.

yeah, it also renders thousands of other battles pointless. the counter attack rule is horrible.

That's a ridiculous feature! Attack and defense are completely different, so why should a defender get another territory for free without having to actually work for it? That's one of the dumbest things I have ever seen on a game.

UBI. We need to speed this war up a bit. Its even getting boring for the hardcore who plays this everday. Take the PF out. Even though it bailed us SGB out for the past week.

quote:

Originally posted by Babbalui:
That's a ridiculous feature! Attack and defense are completely different, so why should a defender get another territory for free without having to actually work for it? That's one of the dumbest things I have ever seen on a game.

What really killing this game is all the bad players on each faction. Which negate all the good things us good players do. This game needs a better system. Like the one b 4721 suggested. That way it gives us hardcore more sway in how things turn out.

What if every so often (a certain amount of turns maybe?) all of the players for each faction were prompted to vote for a map area/region or 2-3 territories to fight on? After the vote each faction would be able to try to advance in that direction.

A faction would also be able to defend any of their areas that the other factions have voted to try to advance on. However if they won a defense on one of their territories they wouldn't receive the attacking area since they didn't vote for that area/territory.

Edit side note: I'm not sure what exactly should/could happen if two or all factions voted for the same areas/territories, this post is for when factions all vote for other areas...

This would all help to coordinate things and add an element of general faction strategy. People could vote for the maps that they want to play on as well. It would eliminate see-sawish action unless factions kept voting in the same ways. I'm not sure if it would necessarily speed up wars but I think with these changes people wouldn't mind if a war took longer...

I just kill hostiles. Seperate your units during Defcon 1. Your opponent will use a WMD on the are with the most units around it. I lost at Moscow in the solo campaign because I had all my units together in the same place so they launched a WMD at my units. All I had is artillery. It died because of enemy engineers and riflmen. That was an assault battle.

JSF 8th Assault
Into the Fight
PSN: cpyang

1. Voting system

Setup a in game voting system and present 2 or 3 options.

a. Players get to choose a front line.
b. Players get to choose a secondary line. This will allow for flanking or alternate routes and should help alleviate the colliding front lines.

As it is now we have no control over where are next territory should be. We have several connected territories but we don't have the option to attack any of them.

2. Setup a in game communication

a. Bulletin board
b. Message board
c. Chat rooms (password protected)

We need some way to communicate to other players.

3. Leadership

With the above communication in place we can elect "Leaders". Who will be voted in by the players.

The leaders can post on the bulletin board of where they want us to attack. Then the players can vote on the area.

I actually prefered the chromehounds way of playing. Wins = points added while losses = points lost. Team with the most points wins that territory. Simple.

quote:

Originally posted by playaplayer.:

quote:

Originally posted by Babbalui:
That's a ridiculous feature! Attack and defense are completely different, so why should a defender get another territory for free without having to actually work for it? That's one of the dumbest things I have ever seen on a game.

What really killing this game is all the bad players on each faction. Which negate all the good things us good players do. This game needs a better system. Like the one b 4721 suggested. That way it gives us hardcore more sway in how things turn out.

There is no point in having all the Good players using B_4721 system if the PF rule means that most of the battles wont matter anyways.