Are Front lines really viable?

[Angus MacDuff]

Is a Front Line system something that would work in NA?  IMHO, even though it is unrealistic in naval warfare, it could add some fun strategic depth.  But only with some additions.  As we have seen in recent threads, there are areas for improvement.  IMO, the following items must be added.  Hostility cannot be dropped from Free ports.  Because of this, the so-called impossible nations need to have capitols (the gulf and panama need love).  And as we have just covered...the clan who initiates hostility must become the port owner.  I'm sure there are more areas in need of refinement.  For me, without a front line system that works, there is little point in the Port Investment scheme.  Should this idea be tossed out?

[Aquillas]

Other solutions are existing:

Hostility can raise only for the nation which took the hostility mission.

The defending nation can reduce hostility by killing attackers in their hostility missions.

Other nations cannot impact hostility by joining the mission, whatever the side they chose. 

[Angus MacDuff]

Other than the single timer issue, what I said in the OP would cover that.  The single timer thing has pros and cons.  There would be security behind that one port for the care bears and that is a fair sized population.  Could be a hard nut to crack though.

[Angus MacDuff]

Just now, Callaghan92 said:

little point in the port investments? Have you even looked at it?

 

Some of the bonuses the investments give, especially in shipbuilding are huge!

That's true.  What I meant when I said that is; because your port can be attacked by any nation from a free port, making an investment would be wasted, as you will certainly lose it.  If you can succeed in keeping the port until it can be fortified and defended, then yes, the advantages are huge.

[Isaac J Smith]

IMO this is how Frontlines should work. I don't claim to be an expert, and these opinions are my own:

1) The 2 ports IMMEDIATELY adjacent to your port can be attacked regardless of county ownership (based on distance - same landmass takes priority). For example, Russia owns St Nic. They can attack Les Gonaives without having Port au Prince. From here they then take Saint Marc, and then they have a "frontline" base to hit Port au Prince from.

2) Nearest enemy port not on the same landmass and within X range (I would say no further than the gap between St Nic and Puerto Es) can be attacked regardless of county ownership.

3) The nearest county ports which can be attacked should be based on a fixed plan, not range. This may also mean some ports can attack 3 whilst others only 2. For example, it makes no sense that Remedios can hit Trinidad. If this was army action, sure. But as it is naval action and it would require sailing around half of Cuba this is not realistic. EG: From Les Cayes, you can hit Port au Prince, Santo Domingo, and Pedro Cay. Remedios would be able to hit Islamorada, Nuevitas, and Morgans Bluff

4) If you can attack from a capital, they can likewise attack you. There should not be situations where for example GB can attack Cap Francais from Santiago, but Russian cannot attack Santiago from Cap Francais.

5) County ports should be only able to grab hostility for the capital linked ports, as well as the ports immediately adjacent (for example, using les cayes above, Navasse should be able to hit PaP, Santo, Pedro, as well tiburon and Jeremie. In addition if you can grab a hostility for an adjacent port, that port MUST be able to likewise grab one for your port.

6) Bahamas should be a free-for-all zone WITHOUT frontlines. As this is designed more for fast-pace small ship action, the RvR mechanics should reflect this.

7) Free ports should not be able to launch hostilities once you have a port on the map - Allows for actual frontlines to be established and grown.

8 ) Hardcore nations (No capital) should be able to choose their starting freeport and select hostility for at most 3 ports. This will allow them to get set up in an initial area (especially as they will be the only ones able to do this), but not take every single port near every free town.

9) Hostility points should ONLY be able to be accumulated by the participating nation. Allied nations could still help in missions (protect from people jumping in, etc.), but none of their points would be counted. Prevents alts creating PBs by requiring the Alt to actually do all of the hostility bar, whilst still allowing smaller nations to work together (would just take longer).

 

What does this do?

a) Nations that wish to grow the frontline quickly can hit county capitals so they can then hit all the minor ports after it is captured. If they wish to expand slower, they can do it one port at a time by taking the adjacent minor ports.

b) Reciprocity is available: for example, if GB were to launch hostilities from capital A to capital B, capital B should ALWAYS have the ability to also attack back at capital A. If GB launches hostilities from a county of capital A, capital A should still be vulnerable from the location they are attacking.

c) Landmasses mean something - for example, if you were to capture the entire gulf of mexico, why should someone be able to attack your port from over land in florida? It doesn't make sense for a "naval" game as they would be intercepted partway

d) Defined national fronts, whilst providing unique gameplay for the hardcore nations. For example, if Poland wanted to disrupt GB in Bluefields, they could close all their ports and then grab hostility orders from Great Corn. Unlike the established capital factions, the hardcore nations have the flexibility to close a front and open up a break in any nation's front using free ports. This could be used strategically as a war may be going nowhere; however, as nations are less likely to put timers on inner ports they could break through and have a land grab.

 

[OjK]

I already proposed the solution with implementation of "Invasion" missions.

Other than that, I'd rather say Capital Port lock (especially with the timer!) is big enough to make another extra restrictions bad. In my opinion, we should be allowed to attack anything we want.

You can find it in quite long post over here:

 

Would love to hear what are devs opinion on three topics I raised there.

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

Frontlines are usefull in a sense that it concentrate defensive efforts in fewer ports, allowing an easier planning of where to dock defensive pb fleet while overextanding create a potential  logistical weakness . 

[Archipel]

3 hours ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Is a Front Line system something that would work in NA?  IMHO, even though it is unrealistic in naval warfare, it could add some fun strategic depth.  But only with some additions.  As we have seen in recent threads, there are areas for improvement.  IMO, the following items must be added.  Hostility cannot be dropped from Free ports.  Because of this, the so-called impossible nations need to have capitols (the gulf and panama need love).  And as we have just covered...the clan who initiates hostility must become the port owner.  I'm sure there are more areas in need of refinement.  For me, without a front line system that works, there is little point in the Port Investment scheme.  Should this idea be tossed out?

IMHO the so called "Frontline system" as is implemented right now, only could work if costs of investments were 10% or less of what they actually are

[Audacious]

@admin  do you plan to add frontlines to world map? 

[RedNeckMilkMan]

The "Only able to attack capitals" mechanic is backwards. You should have to take the smaller ports before you take the capital. This eliminates one timer locking down 5 ports. You should also be able to take hostility missions from any friendly port, not just capital. Front lines are a cool idea but when some cities have 5-6 region buffers and others can be attacked constantly, it doesn't really work.

[Bull Hull]

6 hours ago, Intrepido said:

Well, so far we have:

 

-Most of the map conquered by 2 nations.

-One big exploit unresolved.

-Entire regions locked by one single timer.

-Weird jumps among ports.

One big exploit unresolved?  Well that is certainly a nice way to put it.  How about some blunt honesty by saying that the developers are flat out tolerating CHEATING.  The developers should have put a quick end to that CHEATING within 24 hours, yet after several days they are still tolerating the CHEATING.  This level of incompetence is. . .

[Farrago]

1 hour ago, RedNeckMilkMan said:

The "Only able to attack capitals" mechanic is backwards. You should have to take the smaller ports before you take the capital. This eliminates one timer locking down 5 ports. You should also be able to take hostility missions from any friendly port, not just capital. Front lines are a cool idea but when some cities have 5-6 region buffers and others can be attacked constantly, it doesn't really work.

I agree.

I think you should be able to take a hostility mission from any owned port for any neighboring county port. Perhaps though, you should not be able to skip a capital. That is, in order to move beyond that neighboring county, you have to secure the capital.

[Bull Hull]

9 hours ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Is a Front Line system something that would work in NA?  IMHO, even though it is unrealistic in naval warfare, it could add some fun strategic depth.  But only with some additions.  As we have seen in recent threads, there are areas for improvement.  IMO, the following items must be added.  Hostility cannot be dropped from Free ports.  Because of this, the so-called impossible nations need to have capitols (the gulf and panama need love).  And as we have just covered...the clan who initiates hostility must become the port owner.  I'm sure there are more areas in need of refinement.  For me, without a front line system that works, there is little point in the Port Investment scheme.  Should this idea be tossed out?

A Front Line system in naval warfare is unrealistic?  Nonsense - as in of course it is realistic because that is an effective way to simulate the nearly impossible logistics of securing and supplying a port on a long term basis solely from sea while that port is under siege from land forces and possibly under blockade from sea.  What is unrealistic is trying to ignore the realities of how land war operations would, could, and did influence operations at sea and what would, could, and did happen with key strategic ports.  Just because the game doesn't include land warfare that doesn't mean the game should totally ignore simulating how land wars and sea wars are interdependent and mutually supportive.

Granted, the issue is could be significantly different for islands, especially small islands.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Bull Hull
spelling

[Bull Hull]

2 minutes ago, Spikes said:

Nah, it isn't cheating. Cheating would be utilizing measures unavailable to anyone else in the game. Anyone with an alt can utilize the exploit. I do think something should be done about it, but not cheating. 

 

I like the idea of frontlines, but it's going to severely limit RVR. It would be interesting to still be able to attack county capitals behind the lines, but at a much bigger difficulty. For example, each "layer" you go back, the required hostility points to set the PB doubles. So if you're attacking a county capital 3 counties away from your closest port, you'd effectively have to grind 60K BR worth of hostility missions. Instead, you'll just see PBs for the same ports over and over with no variety.

Of course it is cheating.  Per the new rules/mechanics doing hostility missions and a PB at a county port before/without first taking the capital for that county is supposed to be IMPOSSIBLE.  Thus, VCO CHEATED by taking advantage of the coding loophole by doing a PB at a port where it is supposed to be IMPOSSIBLE to do a PB. By keeping that port VCO is CHEATING (i.e. taking an unfair advantage to selfishly benefit themselves to the exclusion of all other players) pure and simple. There is no other rational way to put it.

Exposing the exploit was the right thing to do because that is the entire point of testing the game.  So doing the hostility missions to expose the loophole/exploit to show that was possible, setting the PB to expose the loophole/exploit to show that was possible, was the right thing to do because that is good testing.  Bravo Zulu to VCO for finding and exposing that flaw in the coding.  But actually DOING the PB to take and keep a PB when doing that was/is supposed to be IMPOSSIBLE is cheating.  Cheating like that is dishonorable and pathetic.  That the developers STILL tolerate that cheating is incompetent.

[RedNeckMilkMan]

Jesus dude it's a port not a dead baby. You know you could like grind hostility and take it back. 

[Barbancourt]

If there are no dead babies then you did not sack the town properly, noob