quote:

Originally posted by dislyxec:

To see what I mean, enumerate the possibilities: attacker territory Z attacks defender territories A, B, and C. Let's assume A is the PF (in a more concrete example, just assign A = whichever territory is the PF).
Let +A denote attacker victory, -A denote defender victory. There are 8 possibilities of the outcomes of the three contested maps in the current PF :

Lets assume the territories being fought over are being "gained" by a win there.

+A +B +C (attacker gains 3 defenders gains back 0)
+A +B -C (attacker gains 2 defender gains back 1)
+A -B +C (attacker gains 2 defender gains back 1)
+A -B -C (attacker gains 1 defender gains back 2)
-A +B +C (attacker gains 0 defender gains back 3 gains 1)
-A +B -C (attacker gains 0 defender gains back 3 gains 1)
-A -B +C (attacker gains 0 defender gains back 3 gains 1)
-A -B -C (attacker gains 0 defender gains back 3 gains 1)

In 5 out of 8 scenarios, got the better of it, and gained a lot more than the attacker could in 4 of those 5.

In my proposed solution:
+A +B +C (attacker gains 3 defender gains back 0)
+A +B -C (attacker gains 2 defender gains back 1)
+A -B +C (attacker gains 2 defender gains back 1)
+A -B -C (attacker gains 1 defender gains back 2)
-A +B +C (attacker gains 2 defender gains back 1)
-A +B -C (attacker gains 1 defender gains back 2)
-A -B +C (attacker gains 1 defender gains back 2)
-A -B -C (attacker gains 0 defender gains back 3 gains 1)

In 4 out of 8 scenarios, attacker got the better of it.

PF is necessary to make a multiple front battle fair to both attacker/defender, but it needs to be improved by making it controllable by only the attacking faction which territory will be PF.

*Corrected in red*

I know how the PF rule works...

I don't think you realize how the PF rule is causing problems though...

With the current system TOW can get stuck. The defender can just play 1 map over and over and none of the others, because thats the only map they have airstrikes in. That some how allows them to win all the territories?!?!

Like when EFEC used to be in the US how somehow JSF(or did SPZ own it at the time) winning at Shenandoah Valley would completely remove EFEC from the US in one turn. That doesn't seem fair.

quote:

Lets assume the territories being fought over are being "gained" by a win there.

But in the example I provided, Defender already owns the territories A B and C. Defender started with A B and C. It's the defender's territory to lose. The defender's betting three territories with only one territory to gain. Just by agreeing to play the game, the defender is ante-ing three times as many territories as the attacker.

Your proposal is similar to a game where there are three coin flips where the defender has to bet 1 dollar for each coin flip (3 dollars total) and attacker bets 1 dollar total to play the game. Each coin flip that's heads, the defender gets a dollar. If all three coins are heads, the defender gets all the money.
Now, there's 4 total dollars at risk here, but the defender brought 3 of them to play. In your scenario, if the defender wins two coin flips out of three, yes defender "gains back" 2 dollars, but I assure you anybody who would want to be the defender in this game would go broke very quickly.

quote:

With the current system TOW can get stuck. The defender can just play 1 map over and over and none of the others, because thats the only map they have airstrikes in. That some how allows them to win all the territories?!?!

Yes, the problem with PF as implemented is that the defender has as much influence over PF as the attacker because you need equal numbers on both sides to play a game, which is why I proposed that the PF should be determined by alternate means, where only the attacker gets influence on deciding where the PF is.

quote:

Originally posted by dislyxec:

quote:

Lets assume the territories being fought over are being "gained" by a win there.

But in the example I provided, Defender already owns the territories A B and C. Defender started with A B and C. It's the defender's territory to lose. The defender's betting three territories with only one territory to gain. Just by agreeing to play the game, the defender is ante-ing three times as many territories as the attacker.

Your proposal is similar to a game where there are three coin flips where the defender has to bet 1 dollar for each coin flip (3 dollars total) and attacker bets 1 dollar total to play the game. Each coin flip that's heads, the defender gets a dollar. If all three coins are heads, the defender gets all the money.
Now, there's 4 total dollars at risk here, but the defender brought 3 of them to play. In your scenario, if the defender wins two coin flips out of three, yes defender "gains back" 2 dollars, but I assure you anybody who would want to be the defender in this game would go broke very quickly.

I added the word "gained" instead of won, because they would gain the territory even though they didn't win there. It was to avoid confusion. I guess my attempt to make it easier to understand was over analyzed.

But that analogy is not acurate. If you added in that if The defender wins the first coin flip they win all the money... if they don't they only get money for each coin flip... that would be closer but not right.

I understand completely what you are saying but I don't think you do, nor do you understand why I am suggesting this. There is no faction that is on the defensive the entire game! Each faction has a frontline. The way it is the game gets "stuck" and no one advances... It's posted all over the forum. My suggestion would speed up the TOW make it more fast pasted and more fun with fresh maps.

BTW the current rules make no sense as it is, when you think about it. It makes no sense that someone could defend say France for example from an attack from Germany by only sending troops to defend Italy. You give up some territories so you can win others *Not using this as part of my argument just stating the stupidity*

quote:

Originally posted by Artacool:

Your proposal is similar to a game where there are three coin flips where the defender has to bet 1 dollar for each coin flip (3 dollars total) and attacker bets 1 dollar total to play the game. Each coin flip that's heads, the defender gets a dollar. If all three coins are
But that analogy is not acurate. If you added in that if The defender wins the first coin flip they win all the money... if they don't they only get money for each coin flip... that would be closer but not right.

What you described is how it's currently implemented. If defender wins first coin, they get all 4 dollars (all 3 defending territories, plus the attacking territory)

quote:

There is no faction that is on the defensive the entire game! Each faction has a frontline. The way it is the game gets "stuck" and no one advances... It's posted all over the forum. My suggestion would speed up the TOW make it more fast pasted and more fun with fresh maps.

Yes, it would speed up TOW by allowing any successful attack to run rampant through defenders. I.e. If you can get just one well-connected territory on somebody else's continent, they'll never be able to kick you back out.

quote:

BTW the current rules make no sense as it is, when you think about it. It makes no sense that someone could defend say France for example from an attack from Germany by only sending troops to defend Italy. You give up some territories so you can win others *Not using this as part of my argument just stating the stupidity*

It's a game. You need some concessions to reality to make a game fun.
One way to interpret the reality is that Germany sent the majority of their army to attack Italy, and only a small part of their army to attack France. By defending Italy, you're able to push back into Germany, and cut off their supplies to France, thus pinching the small army that was victorious in France. *I know it's reaching a bit, but it's a game, not reality*

Think of it this way, your PF is the main push of your army, meaning the most of its resources are being committed to this single engagement. Now since we fight battles simultaneously, in game time, it may not seem this way, but your faction is putting a lot of ammo, fuel, personnel, and material behind this one push.

Now like in all wars, multiple pushes are made across different fronts, and some small victories are won, but if that major push is lost by your faction, there then becomes a huge disadvantage for a very apparent and very obvious counter attacks. And since the majority of material was lost in your major push, the chances at defending against such a counter attack is slimmed by a lot. All the PF does is just eliminate the "counter attack" stage and you just lose the initiative in any attacks your forces made.

So as stated above, it would make alot of sense if you win on a non-PF but still lose it cause you lost your main push.

I believe the system is good where it is at, except I would have to agree to there being some sort of notifier of which territory is the current PF for each faction.

quote:

Originally posted by Artacool:
*Not using this as part of my argument just stating the stupidity*

I didn't say we should look a real life, like I said. I put that just as a tid bit... just read my entire post before you decide what to post. Its obvious you either don't read my whole post or don't understan it, and already know what your going to post before you completely read mine. Please continue this bickering in a PM if you must. You've missed the point of the entire topic. Which is to post possible solution no bash each one.

quote:

Originally posted by Artacool:

quote:

Originally posted by dislyxec:

To see what I mean, enumerate the possibilities: attacker territory Z attacks defender territories A, B, and C. Let's assume A is the PF (in a more concrete example, just assign A = whichever territory is the PF).
Let +A denote attacker victory, -A denote defender victory. There are 8 possibilities of the outcomes of the three contested maps in the current PF :

Lets assume the territories being fought over are being "gained" by a win there.

+A +B +C (attacker gains 3 defenders gains back 0)
+A +B -C (attacker gains 2 defender gains back 1)
+A -B +C (attacker gains 2 defender gains back 1)
+A -B -C (attacker gains 1 defender gains back 2)
-A +B +C (attacker gains 0 defender gains back 3 gains 1)
-A +B -C (attacker gains 0 defender gains back 3 gains 1)
-A -B +C (attacker gains 0 defender gains back 3 gains 1)
-A -B -C (attacker gains 0 defender gains back 3 gains 1)

In 5 out of 8 scenarios, got the better of it, and gained a lot more than the attacker could in 4 of those 5.

In my proposed solution:
+A +B +C (attacker gains 3 defender gains back 0)
+A +B -C (attacker gains 2 defender gains back 1)
+A -B +C (attacker gains 2 defender gains back 1)
+A -B -C (attacker gains 1 defender gains back 2)
-A +B +C (attacker gains 2 defender gains back 1)
-A +B -C (attacker gains 1 defender gains back 2)
-A -B +C (attacker gains 1 defender gains back 2)
-A -B -C (attacker gains 0 defender gains back 3 gains 1)

In 4 out of 8 scenarios, attacker got the better of it.

PF is necessary to make a multiple front battle fair to both attacker/defender, but it needs to be improved by making it controllable by only the attacking faction which territory will be PF.

*Corrected in red*

I know how the PF rule works...

I don't think you realize how the PF rule is causing problems though...

With the current system TOW can get stuck. The defender can just play 1 map over and over and none of the others, because thats the only map they have airstrikes in. That some how allows them to win all the territories?!?!

Like when EFEC used to be in the US how somehow JSF(or did SPZ own it at the time) winning at Shenandoah Valley would completely remove EFEC from the US in one turn. That doesn't seem fair.

By taking the position that the defender "gains back" a territory by repelling an attack you are setting up the premise that the defender automatically loses their territory simply because they are attacked. That is a huge concession and puts defending territory at a huge disadvantage.


You need to readjust your premise.

quote:

Originally posted by dislyxec:
Possible solutions to determining which territory is PF:
1. Have the attacking team explicitly vote where it wants its PF to be. Each player gets one vote each day.
2. Have the attacking team vote by choosing which map to play, where it wants its PF to be. Example: Suppose I'm JSF and the PF could be Scania or Rovaniemi, each game where I choose 1v1 or 2v2 or 4v4 in Scania, I cast one vote for Scania. Anytime I quickmatch into Scania, no vote is cast. Defender gets no vote (SPZ can choose Scania or quickmatch into it to make the match to have a game, but it doesn't matter for determining JSF's PF)
3. Have only the rank 6s and above count for determining PF (to prevent noobs who don't know or don't care about PF from influencing it)
4. Randomly determine the PF ahead of time and make it well known, clearly denoted on the map.


I personally would recommend choosing option 2 and option 3 combined.

Whatever you do to modify the rules: MAKE THE RULES CRYSTAL CLEAR!!!

Another suggestion: list the current # of votes somewhere. If that's too much, at least make the territory with the most votes (mostlikely to become PF) known.

Brilliant.

In real life, just because you capture a teritory, that doesn't mean the whole front line advances. The game would be much more interesting if each teritory was counted as a seperate win or loss from the front line. For example: (Turn 43) The long disputed teritories of Grissom and Rondane. If the JSF are fighting for Rondane, Scania and Rovaniemi. Those three battles should be counted as seperate victories with limited affect on each other. If the JSF were to capture Rovaniemi, but fail to capture Rondane; then The JSF should be surrounded and cut off at Rovaniemi, but they would have the use of that bases resources. This should be fixed to add more strategy and real world thinking into the game.

With Respect,
Rittmeister86

yes just delete it, it took 6 hours from me yesterday as i fought for chattanooga even though we didnt win it because of shenendoah, so remove it, its retarted and i dont even see the real world implications, i think if you attack territory x from their territory y and fail, all that happens is the next turn the defender of territory x should be attacking territory y.

quote:

Originally posted by Raide:
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.

Personally, I dont think it's such a horrible but not in current situation. The biggest problems people have with it is that it causes stalemates and such and leads to people playing the same maps turn after turn after turn. If you make it so all border territories can be attacked, you can use the primary front rule to deal with disputes in certain territories. It would give access to more maps and people wouldn't mind a stalemate so much, plus with more maps, it's much less likely for a stalemate situation to arise.

Or maybe you could add in the possibility of the frontline actually being EXACTLY between both territories so some matches on the front are fought on each map Thank you.

once again this rule made us lose chattanooga even though we were winning it cause more people fought it shenendoah. what is stupid is that obviously if were winning one place and losing another, people will want to fight in the losing one to attempt to make it a win, because they know if they lose, at least they arent going to make us lose the territory, which might happen if they lose on the one were winning.

quote:

Originally posted by ltdanusafx2:what is stupid is that obviously if were winning one place and losing another, people will want to fight in the losing one to attempt to make it a win, because they know if they lose, at least they arent going to make us lose the territory, which might happen if they lose on the one were winning.

This is another reason why I like this rule. People used to complain about factions not playing a map because they had the lead... Well, with the PF rule if you stop playing, it very well may end up not being your PF so you can lose it anyway.

If your faction is winning a map and it is the one you think should be the PF if you play and lose your game doesn't count, but if you win, you just helped it become the PF. The PF rule gives you a reason to play a map that you are already winning.


I hate to always sound like a cheerleader but the need for the rule makes sense to me. There are certainly improvements that can be made (as always), but I think it is good start when it works right.

Another solution for determining PF is by making it cost money to vote.

Everybody can spend 1 Million credits for an extra vote without playing a game. This 1 Million credits can be spent as many times as you have enough money.

This makes rank 12s vital to determining PF, giving them something to burn their 50M cash on. Usually 2-3 wins will give a rank 12 enough credits to buy another vote. The high cost will deter lower ranks from affecting the vote, and give the rank 12s added ability of affecting the war and incentive for playing. With this, the high ranking players will be able to counteract the effect of quickstart noobs.

(note: this is not buying wins. It is only buying votes for being able to influence where the PF is for your faction)

For example, turn 46 EFEC lost Shenandoah and won Chattanooga. Shenandoah was PF because almost 8300 games were played. Chattanooga only had 5650. I'm sure all the EFEC commanders that care about ToW were trying to get Chattanooga be the PF. With being able to buy votes they'd need to scrape together money to buy 2650 votes to turn the table. That's 53 players with 50M each to burn, which is certainly possible, especially if commanders saved up their cash to burn on critical turns. On turn 47 for instance, EFEC's only front is Pamlico and so nobody would need to spend cash on a vote.

(I'm SPZ by the way, but I feel the pain of EFEC commanders because I've been screwed by the PF before too)

quote:

Originally posted by atltrancid:

quote:

Originally posted by ltdanusafx2:what is stupid is that obviously if were winning one place and losing another, people will want to fight in the losing one to attempt to make it a win, because they know if they lose, at least they arent going to make us lose the territory, which might happen if they lose on the one were winning.

This is another reason why I like this rule. People used to complain about factions not playing a map because they had the lead... Well, with the PF rule if you stop playing, it very well may end up not being your PF so you can lose it anyway.

If your faction is winning a map and it is the one you think should be the PF if you play and lose your game doesn't count, but if you win, you just helped it become the PF. The PF rule gives you a reason to play a map that you are already winning.


I hate to always sound like a cheerleader but the need for the rule makes sense to me. There are certainly improvements that can be made (as always), but I think it is good start when it works right.

but the problem is people dont know about the PF rule, i didnt know about it until the 11th turn i played on because thats when the EFEC got screwed over in Chattanooga and Shenendoah

Please can someone give a potted simple answer on how the PF rule works rather than point to the inflated rambling answer please so i can get annoyed about it all as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Rittmeister86:
In real life, just because you capture a teritory, that doesn't mean the whole front line advances...If the JSF were to capture Rovaniemi, but fail to capture Rondane; then The JSF should be surrounded and cut off at Rovaniemi, but they would have the use of that bases resources.

i like this idea, but i'd like to add that since the units are cut off from reinforcements, they shouldn't be able to attack from the tile - just defend it. let them use the base's resources within its sphere of influence, but they can't mount an attack from that tile until they re-advance thru rondane.

i think that would add a greater element of strategy to the game (consider that JSF would then have air strike support when trying to recapture rondane instead of the other way around), allow more battles to open up (i think we can all agree that the stand-offs are getting a little hard to stomach) & give commanders the opportunity to decide where their units are best utilized - protecting the homefront (& regaining tiles there), or pushing thru the PF.

quote:

Originally posted by dislyxec:
Another solution for determining PF is by making it cost money to vote.

Everybody can spend 1 Million credits for an extra vote without playing a game. This 1 Million credits can be spent as many times as you have enough money.

This makes rank 12s vital to determining PF, giving them something to burn their 50M cash on. Usually 2-3 wins will give a rank 12 enough credits to buy another vote. The high cost will deter lower ranks from affecting the vote, and give the rank 12s added ability of affecting the war and incentive for playing...

this is an interesting concept. the only trouble i see is that if you have to fight 3 battles on shenandoah (to use your example) to vote 1 time on chattanoga, i can't see how it would make a difference.

obviously, you don't have to just play shenandoah, but sometimes you can only get a game on one tile. JSF seems extremely disciplined at keeping their commanders on one tile per turn (or is this "the turk" pushing players into matches on the PF? if so, i think that needs to be addressed before a voting system has any hope of working).

quote:

Originally posted by mac-phisto:
this is an interesting concept. the only trouble i see is that if you have to fight 3 battles on shenandoah (to use your example) to vote 1 time on chattanoga, i can't see how it would make a difference.

obviously, you don't have to just play shenandoah, but sometimes you can only get a game on one tile. JSF seems extremely disciplined at keeping their commanders on one tile per turn (or is this "the turk" pushing players into matches on the PF? if so, i think that needs to be addressed before a voting system has any hope of working).

The point is so that the people who are already *only* playing Chattanooga would be able to supplement their playing with voting in the hopes that they can sway the PF over to Chattanooga. The people *only* playing Chattanooga are the ones that care to move the PF over there in the hopes of progressing territorially. These are the people that implore over and over on these boards "DON'T PLAY SHENANDOAH".
The people playing Shenandoah don't know or don't care about the PF rule or have the mistaken belief that they can undo the effect of noobs by winning more than the noobs lose.

quote:

Originally posted by dislyxec:
The people playing Shenandoah don't know or don't care about the PF rule or have the mistaken belief that they can undo the effect of noobs by winning more than the noobs lose.

ok, i get it. but you should know as a SPZ commander that sometimes you just can't get a match on the tile you want. i don't think it's so much n00bs as people that just want to play instead of waiting an hour between matches.


SPZ commander, 8th mechanized
"for the motherland!"

quote:

Originally posted by mac-phisto:
ok, i get it. but you should know as a SPZ commander that sometimes you just can't get a match on the tile you want. i don't think it's so much n00bs as people that just want to play instead of waiting an hour between matches.

Right, I see your point. Yes, that's still an ongoing problem.
The other solutions I proposed earlier in the thread are probably better mitigations, but you could still combine those ideas with the buying of votes too.

Yeah, I'm SPZ, but I've stopped playing during the weekdays and the wait times don't seem very long on the weekends when I do play.