Forums End War End War General Discussion- Console Air/Force Recon Support is USA biased by game design|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
In this post I examine in detail the Air and Force Recon Support for all three factions.
The summary is as follows: 1.) The USA faction has the unfair advantage of having Air Support in all of its home territory hexes and has THREE air bases as well as decent overall Force Recon Support on USA home territory. 2.) The EF faction is most disadvantaged, with bad Air and Force Recon Support on its home territory borders with the USA and only ONE air base as well as bad Force Recon Support on its border with the USA. 3.) The RF faction is also disadvantaged, but better off than the EF faction, with bad Air Support on its home territory borders with the EF and no Force Recon Support in more than HALF its home territory which happens to border on the USA. The RF has TWO air bases and double Air Support capabilities in its Capital Moscow. This in effect means: A.) the USA can be superbly defended with Air Support on its home territory and has excellent Air/Force Recon Support invasion advantages on its borders with the EF and RF. B.) The USA Support advantage is a result of the hex capabilities of the world map, and consequently a biased advantage by game design. For those interested in the details, read the full text of this post. Territory ======= The at start number of hexes: - USA: 13; - RF: 13; - EF: 13. So every faction's at start territory seems equal. Next to that the faction unit capabilities also seem about equal for the three factions, with little difference in faction unit performance. When it comes to Air Support and Force Recon Support the balance question is a different matter. Air Support ========= It is interesting to note that the USA has THREE airbases, making sure that every invasion into ANY hex of the continental USA is greeted by USA Air Support, in effect covering all 13 USA home territory hexes. That two of these USA Air bases lie on the USA border is potentially a disadvantage. If they are lost, which is unlikely in the future with a lot of potential veteran USA players from this (the first) End War joining the next (second+) End Wars, it is a USA disadvantage because an EF/RF invader has immediate Air Support on USA home territory. The Russian Federation has TWO airbases, making sure that every incursion into Russian home territory is greeted by Russian Air Support EXCEPT for two hexes (Istra and Thessaly) on the south-western border with the EF, inviting an EF invasion there. The RF Capital Moscow has double RF Air Support, which is a significant advantage that neither the USA nor the EF possess. The European Federation on the other hand has only ONE airbase and this airbase cannot cover two hexes of north-west and south-west EF territory. This means that the USA can invade Arrabida on the south-western border of the EF and Macgillycuddy on the north-western EF border without any fear of EF Air Support. Even stranger is the fact that the designers also made sure that the EF does not have Air or Force Recon Support in central Europe (technically RF home territory though), whereas the RF has, even though the EF Air Support base and the EF Force Recon bases are closer by. All of this is rather unbalanced. One might conclude that the designers purposely gave the USA an Air Support advantage, since EVERY USA home territory hex has at least Air Support, an advantage no other faction has. On the other hand the designers gave the EF an Air Support disadvantage and - to a lesser extent - also the RF when compared to the USA. So if the USA loses one airbase on their own territory, they are still not without Air Support, because they will still have two airbases left. If the RF loses one airbase they will still have Air Support in half their home territory and especially in their Capital Moscow which has double Air Support. On the other hand if the EF loses their airbase they lose ALL Air Support in their home territory. This gives a rather big Air Support advantage to the USA and RF vis-à-vis the EF. The greatest Air Support advantage goes to the USA which can invade western EF territory without suffering any adverse EF Air Support effects while having all their own USA home territory covered by (multiple) Air Support. Force Recon ========== The USA has 10 USA hexes with Force Recon and 1 Force Recon base. Leaving 3 USA hexes without Force Recon Support (USS Reagan, Okefenokee, JFK Space Center). The USA can cover all but 3 USA home territory hexes with only 1 Force Recon base, and this base is safely located in central USA home territory. The RF has 6 RF hexes with Force Recon and 1 Force Recon base. Leaving 7 RF hexes without Force Recon Support, including the Capital Moscow. The RF can only cover less than half its territory with 1 Force Recon base, in effect leaving the complete northern part of RF home territory without Force Recon Support, inviting an USA invasion there. The RF Force Recon base lies relatively safe from EF and USA invasion in the centre of the southern part of RF home territory. The EF has 11 EF hexes with Force Recon and 2 Force Recon bases. Leaving 2 EF hexes without Force Recon support - even with 2 EF Force Recon bases! Also there is no EF Force Recon Support in central Europe (technically RF home territory)- even with 2 EF Force Recon bases very close by. On the surface the EF seems to be best off with 2 Force Recon bases, but in effect this does not hold true since one Force Recon base lies on the EF-USA border (Copenhagen) leaving it open to being lost to the USA at the outset of the conflict. Even with these 2 EF Force Recon bases there still remain 2 EF home territory border hexes without Force Recon Support (Arrabida, Macgillycuddy). Creating a defence disadvantage on the north-western EF border vis-a-vis the USA, inviting invasion there. To sum it up, once again the Force Recon Support advantage is with the USA with a Force Recon base safely in central USA home territory which covers all but 3 USA home territory hexes. RF is worst of, followed by the EF. Incredibly the EF cannot cover all its territory with Force Recon Support, despite having 2 EF Force Recon bases. All this said, Force Recon Support is not insignificant, but less important and powerful than Air Support. Conclusions ========== In the Air Support area, the USA is best off with good all-round Air Support in all their home territory and 3 Air Support bases, giving a great advantage. They only have a slight Force Recon disadvantage on their western border with the EF, but this matters little. The EF is worst off in the Air and Force Recon Support area, with an Air and Force Recon Support border weakness against the USA and only 1 Air Support Base. The RF is better off than the EF. They have an Air Support disadvantage on their south-western border with the EF, which is important. They have double Air Support in their Capital Moscow however. And a Force Recon disadvantage on their north-western border with the USA, which is less important. It seems that the developers felt the need to give the USA an all-round Air Support advantage on their home territory and at the same time give the EF a home territory Air/Force Recon Support disadvantage versus the USA and the RF a home territory Force Recon Support disadvantage versus the USA. The only USA disadvantage is a slight Force Recon disadvantage on their south-eastern border with the EF, but this matters little. Considering the fact that the overwhelming majority of the on-line players are USA players, followed by a smaller number of western European players and practically no eastern European (Russian) players, this USA Support advantage design decision is rather remarkable. An advantaged faction is more likely to draw the players who always choose the winning side in a conflict. If this advantaged faction happens to also be the faction that the majority of players would have joined anyway (USA players join USA faction) than what incentive is there for players to join the EF or RF in future wars? Most on-line players will, by default, be playing the USA, followed by the EF and probably the smallest number will be playing the RF. And with this USA Air and Force Recon Support advantage the USA will - probably - be by far the easiest faction to play and the most likely side to win. Should this really turn out to be the case in the on-line End War, than - hopefully - the designers will either add some substantial special unit type/bonus for the disadvantaged RF and EF sides or correct the EF+RF support disadvantage. Time will tell. More noticeable special faction unit bonuses would make the game more interesting for all factions in any event. That the USA lost two of its airbases at the beginning of the first End War (360) is probably due to the fact that everybody is still learning the game (or maybe a case of many early teen USA players versus a few older/clever RF players) and that these two USA Air bases happen to be on the border of USA territory. That this will occur again in the second End War is probably doubtful, but will be interesting to see. This message has been edited. Last edited by: VVidar, |
|||
|
Hey, we're a warlike people. Deal with it.
|
||||
|
Yes and if you have been playing the game the JSF has been losing the TOW now havent they
 Who was worse, Hitler 11 Million(6 Million Jews, 5 Million other ethnic groups) or Stalin 25-65 Million(Of his own people...) "Intelligence is to be Superior, but Intelligence on the Battlefield is to be Alive." -RyAndress Proud Field Marshal Of All Factions |
||||
|
 |
 We should have saved our nukes in EndWar. There may be a global missile defence shield but it woun't work if Russian nuke will launch at a target located inside Russia, right?  Which means when EFEC or JSF invade us - nuke 'em! But nooo...only fuel bombs   For Mother Russia! |
|||
|
sooo the most disadvantaged faction is winning....go team retard!
|
||||
|
|
|
Good intel, OP. Would be interested in seeing a dev response to this.
___________________________ confessions of an xbox 360 gamerdad - http://xenocidic.com EndWar Gameplay FAQ Current TOW Status & Timeline (360) War 2: RSGB 56th Airborne "Effective Intimidation" War 1: EFEC Battlegroup 28 (Assault) "Bravery & Disclipline" "Good game" after every game...anything less... would be uncivilized.  |
|||
|
|
|
 what's the situation at the Frontlines? WHo's wining? Where can I see the situation report? For Mother Russia! |
|||
|
Well, like I said in my earlier post, the current state of affairs in the first End War could be a case of: "many early teen USA players versus a few older/clever RF players" I probably should have said: "a case of many early-teen USA players combined with a few older/clever USA players VERSUS a few older/clever RF and EF players". The mass of early-teen USA players are probably responsable for the USA overall losing streak. A few older/clever USA players cannot compensate for this. In any event, that the USA faction has not shined thus far in the first ToW End War surely cannot be laid at the feet of the End War designers, they have done their best to bestow the USA faction with significant territorial Support advantages. The rest is up to the players of the faction, or maybe a few future USA biased patches by the designers.  |
||||
|
Thanks. I would like to see a dev. response as well, but alas they seldom respond to a user/player post. Very few developers do. |
||||
|
 |
I wouldn't call it biased by game design persay, as much as just bias by realistic map and choice of areas. ON a side note that very benefit can also be there downfall, if they lose a few of the fringe territories that removes air support for them and gives it to the attacker almost the entire map of US.
------------ PSN: Azyriel Recruiting Officer for Spetsgruppa "Vympel" 13th Airborne "You Should Be Running Now"  |
|||
|
Well on the flip side of this, if I'm reading the Tow Map correctly, the US really gets penalized early on if they lose any one of them bases. The US also has to go father into Europe or Russia before gaining any air or force Recon support.
For example, if the US was to come in at Copenhagen, Glen Abby or Arrabida in Europe look how far they got to go before they get any air or force recon support. If they come in at Rondane or Carpathia in Russia they're only 1 move away from Air or force recon support and 3 moves away if they come in at Fort Levski. The way I look at it it going to be impossible for the US to come in from Europe, and the only real chance they got to cross the ocean and stay there is coming through Russia at Rondane or Carpathia. NOTE: I'm just going of the X in the middle of a territory that denotes it as a base. Now if some of these territories that aren't marked give support then I'm wrong. I still don't know what the building icon means because it comes up in territories that aren't marked as the capital. |
||||
|
Well the US Airforce is and will be superior than most other nations even in end war but the Air support and Force recon is not that effective seen Grissom Airbase can be invaded easily by RF and Fort Campbell as well.By Territory DC is the Easiest capital to get to i believe Moscow is harder for EF players. I believe that Force Recon and Air support is based on actual bases on the Russian and US fronts.
|
||||
|
Thanks for the reply, you have some valid remarks. Having said that, to me however the Game Map is part of the overall on-line Game design. As far as Map realism goes: - The shortest route from Germany to Moscow is a straight line. The EF must advance towards Moscow by advancing through southern and south-eastern Europe!? A long-range detour through the rough mountains of the Alps and Carpathians is not a realistic military route when compared with the shorter direct route through the comparatively flat and open terrain of Poland and White Russia. - One Air base for the whole of central and western Europe? What is there a shortage of concrete for runways? Where did the huge British and French Air bases go for instance? - Italy is part of Russia, now how realistic is that? Italy incidentally has some large airbases as well. - No Russian Force Recon in more than half of Russian territoy? Is there a shortage of building materials for Army barracks in half the country? - The USA can still have Air Support in at least a third of its home territory, even after losing two air bases! While the other factions will definitely be out of business after losing two home territory airbases (the EF after losing one). Any decent USA defense of its home territory combined with the multiple Air Support advantage ought to be able to Air Support spam kill any RF/EF invaders. A lot of defeats by early-teen/green USA players can offset the USA map support advantage however. This seems to be happening. This message has been edited. Last edited by: VVidar, |
||||
|
The only situation report I know of can be found at: http://endwargame.uk.ubi.com/tow.php You can select the PC/Xbox 360/PS3 End War ToW state of affairs. |
||||
|
|
|
Actually, Italy isn't part of Russia, it looks like that but its actually Greece. I will point out that clever use of electro warfare can negate air support as well. Yes, it can be difficult to deal with and i do kind of agree but so far i don't find it to much of a hassle that i think any fixes need to put into place as of right now. ------------ PSN: Azyriel Recruiting Officer for Spetsgruppa "Vympel" 13th Airborne "You Should Be Running Now" |
|||
|
|
||||
|
 |
Europe grew tired of being stereotyped as cowards and decided to kick butt without using any support.
 |
|||
|
Granted, Thessaly is a part of Greece. I stand corrected on that point. I assumed that the Thessaly hex includes both Italy and Greece, based on the world map positioning of the hex. But I might be wrong to have assumed that. Even so, Greece is also not part of Russia, but I understand the designers need to take some creative liberties. But the realism thing is negated by such creativity however. That you are able to negate the effects of rolling enemy Air Support attacks makes you a good player one might say. But how many of the run-of-the-mill players can also do that? The number of wins-to-losses of all the players of a faction decides the effect of Air Support spamming advantages. At the moment (turn 7) it looks like the bulk of the EF players seem to be getting the hang of fighting against enemy Air Support. |
||||
|
Based on the turn 6 and 7 results, this is surely the case! |
||||
|
|
|
True that Greece isn't part of Russia but they are Orthodox as are the Russians so if anything they have more in common then they would with the Europeans. ------------ PSN: Azyriel Recruiting Officer for Spetsgruppa "Vympel" 13th Airborne "You Should Be Running Now" |
|||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Forums End War End War General Discussion- Console Air/Force Recon Support is USA biased by game design