Well, 360 JSF got screw jobbed by the TOW yet again.

We defended the conquest of Maxwell Airbase so we should have taken back Okefenokee and cut off EFEC from Pamlico.

But no. Instead of getting Okefenokee and Pamlico back, the EFEC get to keep Okefenokee, Pamlico and get to raid Maxwell and Ft. Campbell and get to fight for not one, but two of our territories.

Please, someone explain this to me. Explain why when JSF loses on Rondane, the Russians get to come all the way across the Atlantic and take over Grissom Airbase without fighting for it, but we dont get jack sh1t for defending a critical location like Maxwell?

This is getting stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by BadKarma1303:
Well, 360 JSF got screw jobbed by the TOW yet again.

We defended the conquest of Maxwell Airbase so we should have taken back Okefenokee and cut off EFEC from Pamlico.

But no. Instead of getting Okefenokee and Pamlico back, the EFEC get to keep Okefenokee, Pamlico and get to raid Maxwell and Ft. Campbell and get to fight for not one, but two of our territories.

Please, someone explain this to me. Explain why when JSF loses on Rondane, the Russians get to come all the way across the Atlantic and take over Grissom Airbase without fighting for it, but we dont get jack sh1t for defending a critical location like Maxwell?

This is getting stupid.

I agree 100% we should have most of our contient back today but no they try to say this is not rigged my ***.

quote:

Originally posted by mkimkilop:

quote:

Originally posted by BadKarma1303:
Well, 360 JSF got screw jobbed by the TOW yet again.

We defended the conquest of Maxwell Airbase so we should have taken back Okefenokee and cut off EFEC from Pamlico.

But no. Instead of getting Okefenokee and Pamlico back, the EFEC get to keep Okefenokee, Pamlico and get to raid Maxwell and Ft. Campbell and get to fight for not one, but two of our territories.

Please, someone explain this to me. Explain why when JSF loses on Rondane, the Russians get to come all the way across the Atlantic and take over Grissom Airbase without fighting for it, but we dont get jack sh1t for defending a critical location like Maxwell?

This is getting stupid.

I agree 100% we should have most of our contient back today but no they try to say this is not rigged my ***.

Its actually quite simple. We played 3 maps, Oke, Pamlico and Maxwell. And we won 2 of them, thus we have the majority. If you attacked 3 territories from 1, then won 2 like us, but then lost them all like you are suggesting should have happened, you would be complaining that you don't get to keep your wins.

Seriously, think about what you are saying before you complain. It seems some people are never satisfied and always think something is "unfair". Im not saying there aren't any ToW oddities, but cmon, this is obvious

Joining the rant.

So what crazy made up explanation will we get this time. I am sure it has something to do with that "primary frontline." This TOW concept needs massive amounts of work if it keep producing situations like this...


Skywalker many of us did think about this and the simple matter is, if you lose an attack you lose the ground you launched your attack from. How many times have we lost Grissom air base because of this. Just because you won 2 out of 3 battles shouldn't mean you get to hold onto the place you attacked from. In war if you stretch your front to thin and allow the enemy behind your lines, it doesn't matter if you won else where. The enemy is sitting on your supply lines and you are cut off. I don't want to hear about how this game isn't really war, we all know that but it is supposed to be a simulation of one.

It is starting to become very clear that TOW needs to be worked on still.

quote:

Most importantly, there is a "Primary Frontline Rule" that dictates which territory you move into on the next turn. Basically, each faction will have one Primary Frontline Territory. This is dictated by the number of players playing on a single territory. The territory with the most players at the end of a turn will be considered the Primary Frontline for that faction.

A win or loss on a Primary Frontline Territory is vital. If you have three territories available and lose on your Primary Frontline Territory but win on the other two, those other two territories will still be counted as loses. However, if you win on your Primary Frontline you'll still want to win on the other two territories so that you can secure them. Winning on the Primary Frontline does not turn loses on the other territories into wins. This is done to limit splintering of battlefronts and so that factions can "push" in a specific direction.

Don't flame me but I think this is why you did not gain Okefenokee(and no I do not agree with the system):

Turn 3 the most JSF players were playing Okef. so it became the primary frontline. But it was in euro hands so one of the territories attacking it or being attacked by it had to become your primary front line battle. There were two and it appears that pamlico became the primary frontline. Which technically means that the battle in Maxwell was made null because you lost your primary frontline at pamlico. Technically according to these rules you should of lost maxwell as well because it was supposed to make that battle a loss, as well as the one on grissom, but both of those registered as wins. That is a inconsistency with this explanation the devs have laid out.

Had the game recognized the battle at maxwell to be the primary front line then you would of gotton the territories. But for whatever reason it did not, this dev statement does not cover that.

The same thing happened on ps3 tow actually:

Thessaly turn 34 had most spz players on it. FT levski which is now being attacked from thessaly became the primary frontline, SPz is also being attacked from thessaly in vlore, they win vlore but loose ft lewski. Vlore battle should of cut jsf off from thessaly and ft levski but since it was not primary front line they did not.

This whole primary front concept is just plain stupid then because no one knows what battle is the primary front. If Pamlico was the primary front and winning there would have cut off the EFEC if they won at Maxwell, doesn't anyone think that piece of important information would be useful to the players. Of course not, instead we must now wander around fighting battles that hopefully are the primary front that turn.

quote:

Originally posted by fuzz40:
This whole primary front concept is just plain stupid then because no one knows what battle is the primary front. If Pamlico was the primary front and winning there would have cut off the EFEC if they won at Maxwell, doesn't anyone think that piece of important information would be useful to the players. Of course not, instead we must now wander around fighting battles that hopefully are the primary front that turn.

Yes, the primary battle needs to be noted in game and these rules expanded upon and placed in a introduction to ToW like explanation.

The devs also need to explain the criteria for deciding which battle is the front line when their are multiple candidates for it, like in the two scenarios above.

Here's what I don't get-they obviously knew how their game worked before we picked it up, so why wasn't any of this (let alone some really important stuff) in the game manuel...?

Well I scoured through the xml feeds and I am fairly certain there is no indicator of what the primary front line it...going to bed now might mess with it tomorrow.

quote:

Originally posted by QuidProKuo:
Most importantly, there is a "Primary Frontline Rule" that dictates which territory you move into on the next turn. Basically, each faction will have one Primary Frontline Territory. This is dictated by the number of players playing on a single territory. The territory with the most players at the end of a turn will be considered the Primary Frontline for that faction.

The primary frontline is a fluid concept and it may change a lot over the course of a turn. But it is not solidified until the end of the turn. But you can probably wage a fairly safe bet that if you only have one map with off-map support, that will be your primary frontline...

I just palyed about 8 games this morning... and NONE of them counted!!!

There was no dashboarding, the games all lasted longer than 3 mins, and I got my creds and exp. But, I didn't get anything on my record and proably nothing in ToW mode.

I have a question about the primary frontline rule. Because there is such a large inbalance of the player to faction ratio (last time I checked it was JSF-45%, EFEC-28%, SPZ-27%) JSF can't possibly control where their primary frontlines are because even if we organize (as you suggested) and we have more people looking for matches on one map instead of another, the number of games played on a map is more directly determined by the number of opposing players that are willing to play that map which results in the other factions determining our primary frontlines.

quote:

Originally posted by IllusiveViper:
I have a question about the primary frontline rule. Because there is such a large inbalance of the player to faction ratio (last time I checked it was JSF-45%, EFEC-28%, SPZ-27%) JSF can't possibly control where their primary frontlines are because even if we organize (as you suggested) and we have more people looking for matches on one map instead of another, the number of games played on a map is more directly determined by the number of opposing players that are willing to play that map which results in the other factions determining our primary frontlines.

It also works in reverse you know, so it will be the most patient faction who will gain control.

quote:

Originally posted by IllusiveViper:
I have a question about the primary frontline rule. Because there is such a large inbalance of the player to faction ratio (last time I checked it was JSF-45%, EFEC-28%, SPZ-27%) JSF can't possibly control where their primary frontlines are because even if we organize (as you suggested) and we have more people looking for matches on one map instead of another, the number of games played on a map is more directly determined by the number of opposing players that are willing to play that map which results in the other factions determining our primary frontlines.

Maps where one side have it extremely easy...reagan...will also detract from where the front line should be because tons of people are going to try to play there for easy wins.

quote:

Originally posted by Templar11709:

quote:

Originally posted by IllusiveViper:
I have a question about the primary frontline rule. Because there is such a large inbalance of the player to faction ratio (last time I checked it was JSF-45%, EFEC-28%, SPZ-27%) JSF can't possibly control where their primary frontlines are because even if we organize (as you suggested) and we have more people looking for matches on one map instead of another, the number of games played on a map is more directly determined by the number of opposing players that are willing to play that map which results in the other factions determining our primary frontlines.

It also works in reverse you know, so it will be the most patient faction who will gain control.

In theory yes, but because there are so many more players on JSF, wait times for matches are much higher so JSF players will end up going and playing whatever map they can get a game on. Also it is much more difficult to organize 45% of the community than it is to organize 27% or 28% of the community.

On the topic of the Frontline thing what about territories we own that we can't use. Like that base we have in northern Europe. Will we ever be able to use it?

I just have ONE simple question. How is the EFEC able to attack Ft Campbell from Pamilco? There are no lines directly connecting the two territories. Come on now Ubisoft. If you're going to do that kind of stuff then I have a crazy idea for you. OPEN THE FREAKING EASTERN FRONT!. Seriously now, once again all the battles are being fought in U.S., while the only other battle is this stupid back and forth between Matera and Thessaly. I see a lot of stupid stuff going on with the ToW system now, but this is my ultimate pet peeve. Maybe the ToW system can't support that many battles, but then maybe the EFEC shouldn't get to attack FOUR of our territories in one turn.

quote:

Originally posted by BP_Charlie:

quote:

Originally posted by QuidProKuo:
Most importantly, there is a "Primary Frontline Rule" that dictates which territory you move into on the next turn. Basically, each faction will have one Primary Frontline Territory. This is dictated by the number of players playing on a single territory. The territory with the most players at the end of a turn will be considered the Primary Frontline for that faction.

The primary frontline is a fluid concept and it may change a lot over the course of a turn. But it is not solidified until the end of the turn. But you can probably wage a fairly safe bet that if you only have one map with off-map support, that will be your primary frontline...

Doesnt help we dont know what the frontline is anymore. Instead of wasting our time on Pamlico with 2000 some people we only had 900 people play on Maxwell, which would have given us the cutoff. BUT since everything is in percent now we have no idea what is the frontline that day!!

quote:

Originally posted by Molach71:
I just have ONE simple question. How is the EFEC able to attack Ft Campbell from Pamilco? There are no lines directly connecting the two territories. Come on now Ubisoft. If you're going to do that kind of stuff then I have a crazy idea for you. OPEN THE FREAKING EASTERN FRONT!. Seriously now, once again all the battles are being fought in U.S., while the only other battle is this stupid back and forth between Matera and Thessaly. I see a lot of stupid stuff going on with the ToW system now, but this is my ultimate pet peeve. Maybe the ToW system can't support that many battles, but then maybe the EFEC shouldn't get to attack FOUR of our territories in one turn.

yea... its a raid. They can skip territories to do so. Shady how they got it, but whatever.