Do you like the primary frontline rule | Forums

[SOD_Money_Gang]

Thats crazy. I have won 5 straight on JFK and only loss 1 rime but we still cant take it. No wonder it takes too damn long to secure a territory. This should have some changes.

[TThomaso]

Just to let you know, sew-saw stalemates like Albyn/Reagan or Thessaly/Matera have nothing to do with the PF rule.

They result from alternating wins, usually due to support only being available to one side.

If the border is locked, well, that's because your PF was somewhere else.

The counterattack rule (again unrelated to PF) creates balance. Think of it as each faction putting up one territory as a bet, with the winner taking both.

Otherwise, the attackers have nothing to lose. If you had only attacking matches while advancing, you couldn't be stopped since you are perfectly defended and would simply attack again next time.

[Exzeebo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TThomaso:
Just to let you know, sew-saw stalemates like Albyn/Reagan or Thessaly/Matera have nothing to do with the PF rule.

They result from alternating wins, usually due to support only being available to one side.

If the border is locked, well, that's because your PF was somewhere else.

The counterattack rule (again unrelated to PF) creates balance. Think of it as each faction putting up one territory as a bet, with the winner taking both.

Otherwise, the attackers have nothing to lose. If you had only attacking matches while advancing, you couldn't be stopped since you are perfectly defended and would simply attack again next time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


TThomaso where do you get all this information?


It's like you're a mouthpiece for the Devs...in 2nd grade.


Players: "Tag! you're it!"
Devs: "Nope! I have shields!"
Players: "You can get shields??!?!"
Devs: "Yup. And now I just tagged you so you have double cooties."
Players: "Hah! I have my shields up now!"
Devs: "Too bad. These cooties go through your shields."
Players: "Fine! then my cooties go through your shields!"
Devs: "Nope. My shields are anti-cootie shields"
Players: "What?!?! Then how do I get anti-cootie shields?"
Devs: "You can't. It's my game, so you play by my rules, which I will only tell you if I feel like it. The only way for you to win is not to play my game."



The point is, the rules SUCK and their suckitude is exponentially confounded by the fact that they are completely hidden from the average person playing ToW who does not go to the forums, or a website, etc...

[Exzeebo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Shadowmerc7:
Please if you care about this problem, please read and possibly respond to this post, if you dont show that there are others who agree, nothing will be done and we will be stuck with this problem

(first of all thanks for making this thread, i was actually going to make a simialr poll tommorow lol )

its terrible, its illogical, halts the war, causes stallmates, and stops advances.

(and so begins the *constructive* ranting of me )

why I don't like it/think its bad

-to just give up a territory because we lost on an attack is dumb, i think. I can see it represesnts a counter - attack, but I think it would be better to let us fight out the counter attack ourselves. this I guess could slow the war though, so maybe that one is ok, but that is the only thing i find even slightly acceptable about how it works

- because of the front line rule, we lose battles we won jsut because we lost somewhere miles away! anyone care to explain how that makes sense at all?

here is what i think is the perect example of that. Glen Albyn attacks the USS Reagen and Rozenburg. The attack at the USS Reagen fails, the attack at Rozenburg "wins". however because we lsot on our "primary front", the Reagen. for some reason, are win at Rozenburg becomes a lose. What exactly happens? if the battle has already been faught and won, why do we not hold the territor. do our troops get up and leave after their victory in northern Europe just because their comrades lost half the globe away in North east America???? thats total bull.. it makes no sense and is unfair to the players who faught for and won in that territory (in this example Rozenburg) and this has happened multiple times, and im sure it has happened elsewere

-how the "PFL" is decided, is also ridiculous. Just because more people play in a territory does not mean that is the direction we want to advance ( though I don't see why we can't advance in multiple directions at once ) it simply means, more people played there. a BIG problem with that, is that the amount of players on each side is umbalanced. for example, we (PS3 EFEC) have been constantly getting stuck at Reagen because our frontline brings us to Glen Albyn. but surely our frontline will in this direction at least 85% of the time, because the amount of JSF players nearly doubles the amount of SGB, so more battles will be faught againts the JSF, because most people just want to have fun playing (not that anything is wrong with that lol ), but that means players will jsut play were they can get a fast match, and with the JSF having so many mroe players than the SGB, well then it is a lot easier to get matches againts them. So therefore the frontline will more often push in a direction towards the JSF.

- so, to my understanding the "PFR" is here to keep factions puching in one direction, but why is that even necesarry??? what would be so bad about pushing in multiple directions? Infact, I think having attacks made in different directions would help! If we moved in more than one direction, the war could actually go somehwere, and end at about 25 turns like it is supposed to instead of go to 50turns with no end still in sight (cough PS3 cough)

- because of the way the "PFR" works, it causes massive stalemates ( for one, Glen Albyn - Reagen, but i know there is more, I hear the SGB and JSF complaining about one often too, Thessialy - Matra or something i think, point is, there is more than jsut one ) a perfect example of this has happened in the past few turns on the PS3. we (PS3 EFEC) took control of Rozenburg. From there, we attacked Wilstermarsch, Ramstein, and Glen Albyn. but after that our advance was essentially haulted!! why? just because mroe players played at Glen Albyn. so why we were stalemated at GLen Albyn- Reagen for multiple turns, we did nothing with our east Europe wins. we jsut sat there in Wilstermarsch for multiple turns in a row and let the Russians attack it turn after turn untill they finally took it. thats total bull, we should have been able to keep attack, maybe getting the nearby places like copenhagen. but instead we just sat there and let the russians keep attacking untill they finally took it


NOW, to solve these problems, you could do a number of things.

for one, you could jsut get rid of this system entirely, create a new one.

you could keep it, But at least make it make sense!!!!!! do not let the results of some battles effect the results of others, it makes no sense for us to not gain a territory we won jsut because we lost many miles away. so at least stop that from happening!!

let our attacks move in multiple directions! it would prevent stalemates, and speed up the war!!! if we advanced in multiple directions, maybe we could get somewhere instead of getting stuck at stalemates like Glen Albyn - Reagen for 30 turns!!!

I hope to god that a developer reads this... or at least someone, this problem needs to be addressed and fixed, the way the system works now makes no sense and jsut hurts the game, thank you to anyone who has read this and i hope many others agree so that we may fix this problem </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well put.



I second this motion.

[Io_Dragone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TThomaso:

The counterattack rule (again unrelated to PF) creates balance. Think of it as each faction putting up one territory as a bet, with the winner taking both.

Otherwise, the attackers have nothing to lose. If you had only attacking matches while advancing, you couldn't be stopped since you are perfectly defended and would simply attack again next time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I hardly see it creating balance. Using my previous example, is it balanced for the JSF to lose Grissom AFB without a fight, and thus their air support in the north US, because they failed to make a beachhead at Rondane (where they already face an uphill battle)? Instead, why not let THE PLAYERS fight the counterattack, instead of automatically awarding the territory to the defenders? The former attackers would then go on the defensive. So its the same thing as before, its just letting us fight it out. Its not that the attackers "don't have anything to lose".

[mrnazraq]

To prevent see-sawing, maybe they should put a rule in place that if 2 territories are fought over for more than 3 turns in a row, the ToW will choose a different territory to attack.

SGB and EFEC have been fighting over Thessaly / Matera basically since the beginning of the war. If I were a general and the front kept see-sawing like that, I'd try to push a different area. I've notice that the SGB have NEVER tried to push through Poland / Germany, and always try to go through Greece / Italy. Why? If it doesn't work, do something else! Do some raids or something to get rid of their support, and THEN attack...

Also, I noticed there are a lot of territories that are basically just carbon copies of each other. Maybe they can actually do some geographical research and figure out what those places actually look like and build a map from that? Wouldn't take too long...

[I WUB PUGS]

They should've just opened up every possible front instead of this ridiculous rule.

More battles fought for a win/loss instead of worrying about what's going on on the primary font.

More battles equals more fluidity to the war.

[Templar11709]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KILLA2993:
They should've just opened up every possible front instead of this ridiculous rule.

More battles fought for a win/loss instead of worrying about what's going on on the primary font.

More battles equals more fluidity to the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

People are already complaining about the lack of matches and you want to go and open a whole heap of other maps, all your posts that I've seen today just makes me think you don't bother thinking before you post or that your the type who loves to whinge.

[Templar11709]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Io_Dragone:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TThomaso:

The counterattack rule (again unrelated to PF) creates balance. Think of it as each faction putting up one territory as a bet, with the winner taking both.

Otherwise, the attackers have nothing to lose. If you had only attacking matches while advancing, you couldn't be stopped since you are perfectly defended and would simply attack again next time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I hardly see it creating balance. Using my previous example, is it balanced for the JSF to lose Grissom AFB without a fight, and thus their air support in the north US, because they failed to make a beachhead at Rondane (where they already face an uphill battle)? Instead, why not let THE PLAYERS fight the counterattack, instead of automatically awarding the territory to the defenders? The former attackers would then go on the defensive. So its the same thing as before, its just letting us fight it out. Its not that the attackers "don't have anything to lose". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has been brought up so many times it's not funny and the people who post about it always fail to take into account how much the ToW would slow down compared to now.

Also your idea of the Attackers have something to lose because the enemy gets to counter-attack idea is pretty damn stupid.

There's a big difference between losing and the possibility of losing, when the defenders lose they have a territory taken away and with the current system the attackers get the same penalty,however you want to make defenders who win settle for the possibility of the attackers losing a territory. Risk/Reward for that is a little skewed.

[Io_Dragone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Templar11709:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Io_Dragone:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TThomaso:

The counterattack rule (again unrelated to PF) creates balance. Think of it as each faction putting up one territory as a bet, with the winner taking both.

Otherwise, the attackers have nothing to lose. If you had only attacking matches while advancing, you couldn't be stopped since you are perfectly defended and would simply attack again next time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I hardly see it creating balance. Using my previous example, is it balanced for the JSF to lose Grissom AFB without a fight, and thus their air support in the north US, because they failed to make a beachhead at Rondane (where they already face an uphill battle)? Instead, why not let THE PLAYERS fight the counterattack, instead of automatically awarding the territory to the defenders? The former attackers would then go on the defensive. So its the same thing as before, its just letting us fight it out. Its not that the attackers "don't have anything to lose". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has been brought up so many times it's not funny and the people who post about it always fail to take into account how much the ToW would slow down compared to now.

Also your idea of the Attackers have something to lose because the enemy gets to counter-attack idea is pretty damn stupid.

There's a big difference between losing and the possibility of losing, when the defenders lose they have a territory taken away and with the current system the attackers get the same penalty,however you want to make defenders who win settle for the possibility of the attackers losing a territory. Risk/Reward for that is a little skewed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fail to see how the "risk/reward" for that is skewed. I hate to break it to you, but the defenders are DEFENDING for a reason... they're fighting for whats already theirs. If the defenders win, they get to counterattack. Basically its whats happening now, except we, the players, will be the ones actually fighting the counterattack. Not really very stupid at all- imagine, actually letting us players do the fighting! It certainly makes alot more sense than the "oh crap our attack failed, lets evacuate our staging area!" that the current system implies.

I also think you exaggerate how much changing that rule would slow down the ToW. And so what if it slows the game down a little bit? We're fighting WWIII here. Maybe you would like for each war to be over in a week or two, but I certainly don't.

edit- Also, how does fighting to open up a beachhead in enemy territory (which is difficult at best for a faction), losing, and in turn getting an airbase or army base taken away automatically factor into your "risk/reward" idea?