Even with Revisions to Cross sea invasion, which i agree does need to be looked at seriously,the new commonwealth is still going to be the faction at the biggest disadvantage. Yes, as you pointed out the only land boarder the NC has is with the Americans but any Serious Russian invasion, If they don't already have a foothold in american from day one, is going to be committed to crossing the Bering straits which unless the devs force a detour will effectively mean the NC would be 1 or maybe 2 russain victories away from being picked apart by both the US and Russia, though being as it would be the NC's biggest territory i suppose it balances itself out. Britain and Ireland on the other hand could probably only get away with 4 maps at most and The English channel can hardly be classed as a sea so for the Europeans it's very much a case of hop skiping and jumping to uniting all of Western Europe under their flag , unless they made Britain's maps an up hill sturggle, like what they did with Regan (literaly) and we all know how that turned out as the 30 odd threads of disgruntled EF players testifies.

TBH adding the New commonwealth as a faction probably is dooable, but i'd much prefer they focused on making Endwar, at the very least, more like the game that was promised to us the first time around than devoting time to shoe horning in a poorly thought out 4th faction. those 120 million that play games will buy the game if it's worth good, not for the nations that are playable.

I only want the NC in the game if it could be implemented effectively. I'm just tossing around ideas as to how i think that could be managed.

If they can't find a way, i'd at least want some story about what the hell its getting up to while the rest of the world is having one big ****fight.

Thanks for input Templar11709 even if most of it was negative and abit offensive in places.

You said I copied someone reguarding the Natal post which is wrong I make ideas not copy them.

As for the Air defence units I chose existing tech which best matched the faction in question.
If we only went on what nations had the russians wouldnt be worth playing. In my opinion it's very well balanced. you said something about Russians prefering explosive point defence weapons which I'm going to look into to.

The naval support: Again I chose the tech to best suit the faction. where the tech came from is not inportant as Endwar strikes a balance between realistic and unrealistic I'm sure you noticed this as well?

New Engineer secondary attacks would replace the exsisting secondary attack and not affect anything else so your comment on that is unfounded.

can't be bothered to responed to the rest.

quote:

Originally posted by BenitoFinito:
Thanks for input Templar11709 even if most of it was negative and abit offensive in places.

You said I copied someone reguarding the Natal post which is wrong I make ideas not copy them.

As for the Air defence units I chose existing tech which best matched the faction in question.
If we only went on what nations had the russians wouldnt be worth playing. In my opinion it's very well balanced. you said something about Russians prefering explosive point defence weapons which I'm going to look into to.

The naval support: Again I chose the tech to best suit the faction. where the tech came from is not inportant as Endwar strikes a balance between realistic and unrealistic I'm sure you noticed this as well?

New Engineer secondary attacks would replace the exsisting secondary attack and not affect anything else so your comment on that is unfounded.

can't be bothered to responed to the rest.

The Natal comment was complete stupidity on my part because i didn't realise it was your post that i thought you copied, sorry about that.

For the Air Defense topic i don't think you can give tech to a faction that another faction already has it, why would a faction go from using a laser based point defense system to a Metal Storm system which only has the advantage of ROF and having larger magazines over current systems. At the very least both factions should be using it. Here's the actual American version



For navel strike that's what I'm trying to tell you. In EndWar the JSF unique tech is Railguns, the "Rods from God" is one and so are some of their transport and artillery primary weapons upgrades.
The EFEC should have something based on Microwave or something to do with Electromagnetic pulses, not a Railgun. Hell the video you linked to proves my point because the Americans already have developed it.

In my mind as long as a faction doesn't have a working prototype of a tech then it's up for grabs but if they already have a working prototype and more importantly are planning on using it as the standard weapon then you have to give it to them or come up with a plausible reason they wouldn't, which should be pretty damn hard for weapons in the proven prototype stage

My comment on Engineers secondarys is very much founded seeing as there is no reason a mortar would ever be able to match artillery for range, when mortars ever approach the range artillery can reach then artillery would have also improved making it impossible for them ever to be the same.

and why would you have one man give up his MG or his rocket launcher for a grenade launcher, to me a MG or rocket launcher is more powerful and useful then a grenade launcher so i really don't see why a Engineer would take it.

quote:

Originally posted by BenitoFinito:
CHINESE FACTION IDEAS (If Endwar 2 has one)


ARTILLERY: The Chinese artillery could fire rockets instead of shells. This would make it unique.

TANKS: Could have a turret with to small guns as oppose to the single gun adopted by other factions

AIR DEFENCE UNIT: Emits high frequency sound waves to destroy incoming projectiles. (if they include this type of unit)

Not sure what other types of units should be like and not sure what the WMD could be. (Some guy on facebook suggested a tectonic weapon of some sort)

Any help with this is welcome.

It would be hard to balance rockets because of "Shields", rockets wouldn't be able to keep up the ROF necessary to bring shields down if they do damage in the same neighborhood as the other factions so they would need to do significantly more damage in a shorter space of time but that would make it unfair to other factions if Chinese ones could just hammer a units shields down significantly down in one salvo.

I should mention by the way that China is not a possible faction due to it being developed by Ubi Shanghai.

Hello again Templar11709

Your just a thorn in my side arnt you lol

quote:

Originally posted by BenitoFinito:
Hello again Templar11709

Your just a thorn in my side arnt you lol

I try

I didn't know there was rules on how to add weapons to Endwar. Well the copyrights could be a problem.

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

no, that was me.

...And me.

quote:

Originally posted by BenitoFinito:
NEW ENGINEER SECONDARY ATTACKS

MORTARS

One man per squad is equipped with a mortar.
When the secondery attack is triggered the mortor equipped Engineers setup their mortars and fire.
Mortars are alot like artillery in that they don't need line of sight to attack their targets.
They have the same range as artillery.
Mortars can not attack Gunships.

GRENADE LAUNCHERS

One man per squad is equipped with a Grenade Launcher.
Grenade Launchers have greater affect on Infantry units.
This attack requires line of sight.
Grenade Launchers have to used at close range (200 metres or less)

NEW ENGINEER ABILITY

The abilitie to destroy bridges and bulidings (This would replace your minefield ability)

Mortars: They were originally in the game and were taken out by the devs because they were apparently way to unbalanced so i doubt they will make a return in any future versions, but you never know. If you dont believe me, you can see it in some of the older concept art, and its mentioned in an old interview.

GL: Riflemen already have an under slung GL so i dont see the point in giving another GL ability to the Engineers as it would likely be done in the same way the Minigun one was in terms of you having to 'activate' the ability. It just seems kind of redundant to me.

Demolition of buildings/ Bridges: Kind of like C4? which was also suppose to be in the game... you can see this in some of the original videos and they talk about all its potential in the early interviews. But it got lost apparently somewhere along the way for god knows what reason. I think this should be in the next game for sure.

quote:

NEW DEEP STRIKE ABILITIES

Deep Strike Riflemen directly on to the roofs of certain buildings to access cover more easier. This would aid stealth to some degree also.

You should be able to reroute a Deep Strike in transit in case of error or change of circumstances.

Am i imagining things when i say that you could do this in the closed beta? Cause i think i remember re-directing my deep striking units but it being cut DURING the closed beta with all the updates... But i could be imagining this Regardless, i think this feature should be in the game as helicopters can change where they were going to land if things are to 'hot' in the LZ or for whatever reason.

quote:

Lets just remake the game as it stands.

And make it BASED on the book so were not stuck to it's story so much.

People keep banging on about a New Commonwealth Faction but I think the ideas stupid. The Chinese are the only realitic new faction worth having.

Lets just make the UK a full member of the European Federation and forget the whole Commonwealth thing.

"BASED" gives the option to change whatever you like. And I don't mean to drastic changes.

k i swear i read someone else's response to this which mimics what im about to say...(I think it was N3V's but it doesnt seem to be in this thread so im really confused...)
Anyways, did we read the same EW book? As you know the book was based upon the NCW, which you are saying to take away, but at the same time you are saying that the next game should be based upon the book... It took place in Canada, which is apart of the NCW... Also why dont you want a NCW faction? They are the one faction that should be fighting that isnt... As Canada, and the UK specifically would be greatly effected by a War in Europe and the US and would basically be obliged(sp?) to help their allies (The US for Canada and the rest of the EU for the UK as the UK is apart of the EU) so not having either of those to countries involved in the war makes no sense what so ever... And yes China is another faction that would likely join the war, but as ive said many times, likely with Russia and not as a completely new faction. As China and Russia have very strong ties, and Russia supplies China with a lot of their Military Technology... so having them as enemies would make no sense.

Sorry if it seems like im ragging on you (as everyone seems to be) but its my opinion... A lot of people have also commented on my opinions on the Support Options and the Tech behind the AA vehicles you purposed.

quote:

Originally posted by superkrait:
I only want the NC in the game if it could be implemented effectively. I'm just tossing around ideas as to how i think that could be managed.

If they can't find a way, i'd at least want some story about what the hell its getting up to while the rest of the world is having one big ****fight.

Yup, the story was terrible. They should just forget everything in the book and the pervious game and start again from scratch. as for the rest of the world, let'hope the in game news channels coverage of event's doesn't stop just outside their national borders.

quote:

Originally posted by Inquisitor_Zeal:

Sorry if it seems like im ragging on you (as everyone seems to be) but its my opinion... A lot of people have also commented on my opinions on the Support Options and the Tech behind the AA vehicles you purposed.

I'v had worst ragging than that and I don't mind constuctive ragging lol. Thanks for posting. I'm editing the post about engineers and admiting defeat on the GL issue.

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

How about Transports having an amphibious capability Or even a whole new unit type "Amphibious Transports"

They could do this by having less armour so their not so heavy. This would mean their more easier to destroy but could move round the map faster.

I'v noticed on some maps that new paths would be possible if a transport was amphibious. (Wilstermarsch and the JFK Space Centre are good examples)

I'v saw amphibious transports on youtube so they definitely exsist not sure what countries have them tho.


Maybe it could be a perk for just one of the factions?

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

Get rid of Capitals in Endwar?

I say get rid of capitals all together.
This is because in the modern era of warfare cities are not really that inportant. Stalingrad for instance cost Hitler his Russian invasion he spent to much time and effort attacking cities when he should have pushed east.
If you lose to much of your country your country can no longer operate.

It's a waste of maps as you can't use them more than once like alot of the other maps.

Could have them as a form of DLC but personally I say get rid of them conpletely.

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

And if you lose your Government, then your Country will basically also fall... minus uprising and resistance forces. But for the most part your country will fall apart... So saying that Capitals arent that important is kind of sad. Also most wars are taking place in cities/ urbanized areas so saying that in the modern era of warfare cities are not important is just wrong.

As for amphibious vehicles, yes there are many vehicles which are amphibious, but i think that they would only be useful if a lot of the maps had water on them. Not many in the current game do so... so you really dont need any amphibious vehicles.

Edit: Also please stop posting after yourself... there is an EDIT button to add things to your posts. Its different if someone posts after something you wrote, but when no one has commented since you wrote something, just edit your old post... it comes across as either bumping your thread up or that you are trying to get your post count up by double or triple posting (or more)... and both of which are not really encouraged here

quote:

Originally posted by BenitoFinito:
This is because in the modern era of warfare cities are not really that inportant. Stalingrad for instance which cost Hitler his Russian conquest.

Yes, cities aren't important. They only cost Hitler his invasion of Russia

quote:

Originally posted by BenitoFinito:
Get rid of Capitals in Endwar?

I say get rid of capitals all together.
This is because in the modern era of warfare cities are not really that inportant. Stalingrad for instance which cost Hitler his Russian conquest.
If you lose to much of your country your country can no longer operate.

It's a waste of maps.

Could have them as a form of DLC but personally I say get rid of them conpletely.

my my my, you are an idiot

what?

why in the WORLD would you want to ignore all cities? thats just plain STUPID! you want to leave the large centers of population alone to fend for themselves?