quote:

Originally posted by ltdanusafx2:

but the problem is people dont know about the PF rule,

You are 100% correct on that regard. Nobody knew about the rule until halfway through War 1. And now we know - but it still isn't explained very well. I think I underdstand it - for the most part. The nuances and special situations are still just outside my grasp. They need to do more IN GAME to highlight how it is working. I'm sure the amount of people reading the forum is low percentage. I don't think anybody could understand how it works without coming to the forum.

The bottom line is something has to be done quickly or this game is going to dissapear. The PF is causing the game to stall out wiht stalemates and not move anywhere. At this point, we are almost three months into the release of the game and not one ToW has ended without Ubisoft's ending the game. 50 turns into the second try for the Xbox360 is horse crap. This game needs to be fixed within the next 2 weeks or there will not be enough people left to carry it any further.

Do something. Just try remoing it and let's go!!

quote:

Originally posted by LacisGhost:
The bottom line is something has to be done quickly or this game is going to dissapear. The PF is causing the game to stall out wiht stalemates and not move anywhere. At this point, we are almost three months into the release of the game and not one ToW has ended without Ubisoft's ending the game. 50 turns into the second try for the Xbox360 is horse crap. This game needs to be fixed within the next 2 weeks or there will not be enough people left to carry it any further.

Do something. Just try remoing it and let's go!!

AMEN

If when attacking on the primary front to multiple tiles, you win on one, but lose the primary, you should keep the one that you won if it is connected to another territory that you own, for example. If the Euros attack from pamlico to chatanooga and shenandoah and lose shenandoah, but win chatanooga, they should keep chatanooga if they also hold the territory that connects to it from the south. If at some point, they would be cut of from this point, then the faction who took it would also recieve chatanooga.

How about adding two primary front lines?

check idea voting in what to fix at Tów

we need more colliding front lines thats all... more battles will sovle all this BS

whenever ubisoft stop setting on their hands on this issuse

So Europe won at maxwell through hard work and much blood. Yet the territory is fully jsf.

Are they fixing this garbage or what?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dynas2001,

I believe why they cant change it to an you win the territory and take it over is if they get to far and open up too many spaces their will be too many fronts to fight on for all factions diluting the situation. Keep it small keep it smple and try to keep it fair. Everyone just needs it explained to them. POST THE RULES!!!

Well if I had a pretty good understanding of warfare, and I think I do, my suggestions are as follows:

First of all, does anyone see or have a problem with being able to attack from every map that borders another faction (These would be conquest)? If you were to ask how and who gets to choose where to attack at the beginning of a war and set things in motion; I would reply: On the day after a war ends (the day the DEVs reset everything), any and all players from each faction would be directed to a site to vote for their top faction attack points. Ex: As a JSF commander, I might vote to attack Arribida, Copenhagen, Carpathia, ect. This would negate the typical "see-saws" of Grissom/Rondane and Reagen/Glen Ablyn. When the votes are tallied, (Each faction's votes would be know only to that faction.) attacks would take place on every map that IS NOT consistent with the opposite factions votes. Ex. If the JSF voted to attack Arribida, that vote could be negated by the EU voting to attack Okefenokee (The map JSF would attack Arribida from). This negates "classing front lines" and allows the commanders who play the damn game to attack where they will.

Second, since the TOW is set up with no "neutral" maps, (where neither faction is attacking nor defending) where two factions could "meet" to duke it out for the advance of their attack, I see only two logical explanations and needs for "clashing front lines."
1.) EX. A Russian map is to be attacked by both the JSF and the EU. Hence both factions want to attack the same map, on the same turn. This would create a "clashing front line" (Consequently being an Assault aka Battle) where the Russians would stand by until a victor is produced and would then defend (Conquest) that same map the next turn against said victor.
2.)As was stated elsewhere in this thread, a faction should continually move their front line forward with each successful attack (Conquest) until stopped by a successful defense, where a counter-attack from the defending faction would follow. If a counter attack was successful and cut off a faction's "supply chain," the stranded faction would have 1 turn to defend its positions and re-connect to one of its supply chains. Ex. The infamous Battle of the Bulge. If the faction was unsuccessful in linking up, the "cut-off" maps would be forfeited to the faction who cut them off. Future or not, every invasion needs an intact route of supply.

Third, a patch for naval support needs to be added. Few can be expected to attack an opposite continent with only EW at their disposal, against force recon and air support and actually succeed, no matter of rank. The naval support should be available to any faction ATTACKING a coastal map, should have 3 purchasable levels in the barracks, deployed at a cost of 4 CP plus 1 per upgraded level. It shouldn't be as accurate as an air strike but should simulate a large artillery barrage with "splash" damage. This would heavily assist in negating the "see-saw" effect and give a little help to a faction adventurous enough to leave its own continent.


I find these suggestions to push the game towards better simulating a real war. Pre-war voting simulates a meeting of the "Joint Staffs," while attacking every possible map and defending everywhere necessary simulates following orders from the higher ups. Naval support and supply lines adds yet another measure of realism and strategy to the game.

On a side note, could something be done to equalize the tally on maps being boycotted by a faction for one reason or another? Ex. JSF refusing to fight at Rondane while the Russians have air support. I was thinking something along the lines of a 5% lose penalty for every hour that a faction does not meet a minimum number of players trying to fight on that specific map. Ex. If I wait in the same game lobby for an hour without finding someone to play against, my faction should be rewarded for attempting to play there. Where as if the opposing faction refuses to play there by majority they should not be allowed to win there or at the very least be penalized for their refusal.
Far too often I find that a few lucky wins against an experienced comrade of mine cost my faction a map, in either defense or offense (sometimes both.)

3 things and Endwar would be great.
1. air strikes, force recon, and ew able to be used everywhere whether your near a base or not. If you are near a base maybe it should be stronger???
2. have this thing where every couple turns some surprise thing happens where farther back in enemy lines there is some mission where like a stealth squad has gotten through... whatever you can make up a story.
3. Battlefield commanders.
Either pick people randomly or choose the best from each side. Let them choose certain things set up certain objectives and other things you can do.
With this TOW could be the best.
Thanks for being so open to suggestion.

quote:

Originally posted by supermigetj95:
3 things and Endwar would be great.
1. air strikes, force recon, and ew able to be used everywhere whether your near a base or not. If you are near a base maybe it should be stronger???
2. have this thing where every couple turns some surprise thing happens where farther back in enemy lines there is some mission where like a stealth squad has gotten through... whatever you can make up a story.
3. Battlefield commanders.
Either pick people randomly or choose the best from each side. Let them choose certain things set up certain objectives and other things you can do.
With this TOW could be the best.
Thanks for being so open to suggestion.

You think airstrikes and force recon should be available everywhere? You are crazy, offmap supports are used too much and too often as it is. For the most part, offmap supports are what causes the "ping-pong" effect. Second, Your little surprises you want, They are called RAIDs. And third, you really want one guy in charge of your faction? Yes, there needs to be more direct input from the players and less from the developers, but it needs to be from everyone playing, and not just a few.

a) There are rarely attackers and defenders in wars (except for a beseiged town or overseas invasions). Both sides are attacking to gain the same territory or push back the enemy. I think that it makes sense to gain the "attackers" territory in MOST instances.

b) Air support should be available everywhere. Force recon- no.

c) There is always a primary front in a war. You cannot push out equally in all directions. I'm not sure how to fix the current problem, or even if it needs to be fixed, but there should be a primary front of some sort. Maybe there should be a threshold to gain a territory (say 33% or more of the total battles world-wide), so that a territory couldn't be taken if there were lots of open battle area but only a few battles in a particular area.

Having played end war for a while, as most people who are reading this will have, I think a few changes to the primary frontline rule could be made. But I will look at the main change to be made and see if anything can be done about it as ToW will be a lot more fluid.

Instead of an attacker losing a territory if the attack is a failure, the defender should lauch an attack on the territory which they were attacked from. This may still lead to the ping pong effect, therefore if this "counter attack" fails, a new primary front is opened.

This should also solve the issue of a win on one or more terriories being ruled out by a loss on one territory i.e. if JFK, Maxwell and Pamlico are attacked form Offekenokee, and Maxwell and JFK are won and Palico is lost then the territory they are attacked from is not lost, hence allowing JFK and Maxwell to be taken.

The new primary front that is opened should be on a territory with the most available supports. This should lure people into playing the maps as in most cases they will have some sort of support to go up against a defender with.

Another change should be in the matchmaking system. Example:- select find a match i.e. 1v1 2v2 4v4 or any match, you are then taking to a lobby where players will join each other. A map is then picked out of the available matches by the server and played on.
This would rule out "support campers" as all players are forced to play any map that is picked.

On "Primary Front" topic directly:

I don't think there should be a "primary front" set by any computer, developers, "select group," or whatever. The primary front should be the one with the most player action from the people of the faction in question(or INaction in some cases -waiting for a game should count toward this).

More importantly though, losing the primary front SHOULDN'T prevent your other victories from counting. If you attack and win a territory, it's yours.

If you defend and the opponents have only one territory to attack from, you capture that territory. If they have multiple attacking territories, the attacked territory should be an attacker in the next turn. You go on the offensive, but because they're attacking from multiple locations, no territory gain.

If a territory is captured, but isolated in the same turn, the isolated territory should ALWAYS attack the territory from which it had been attacked, and reverted to its previous owner's control if no supply line is established (either by this victory or capture of another territory adjacent). Or control of the only faction with supply lines to it if it's been isolated from its previous owner as well.

Each side should have at least one battle as attacker, and at least one as defender each turn. Preferably with 3 or 4 battlefields available each turn. The obvious exception being when a faction only has their Capital left.

On a less-direct note mentioned in the thread:

On the suggestion for supports being available eveywhere, how about, NO. That would negate the whole point of bases. But how about giving the ability to extend your support ranges with multiple uplinks.

If you're 2 spaces away from an airbase, you need 2 Airstrike upgrades to get lvl1 airstrikes, and 3 (maybe 4? Suggestions?) to get lvl2, but only allow lvl3 airstrikes on maps with direct support.

Maybe, just MAYBE, you could extend that and with 3 uplinks, you could get lvl1 airstrikes at 3 spaces away.

And a similar system for Force Recon. Maybe make that only available at lvl1 outside normal range though, and 3 upgrades needed at 2 spaces, 5 at 3. Or 2 and 3 (or 4), like the suggestion for airstrikes, but at higher CP cost than usual, and with a tighter limit to how many you can call. Prompt arrival of large regular army forces when you're far from their base would be unlikely.

And to anyone who says that the off-map supports are overused, they're an integral part of the game, and the main wildcard in the combat chain (infantry are kind-of, and WMDs are VERY conditional and limited).

Also, to those saying supports cause ping-ponging, that's BECAUSE they're often available to one side and not the other. This would improve the situation. How do you not see that?