Frontlines

[Gregory Rainsborough]

Will the frontlines be moved back to how it originally was, it used to be one port but is now two?

[Teutonic]

wasn't it 2 ports?

I vaguely recall it was 2 closest enemy ports and Admin bumped it up to 3.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

It just seems rather pointless at the range it is now, might as well just remove it and make it so you have to take county capital before others.

I quite like the idea of RvR being a tug of war rather than sniping important ports and decimating the playerbase in the process.

[Hethwill]

I'd say 1 region radius.

-and-

No conquering the neighbor regions without first controlling that region - capital + 2 ports.

( this allows conquer region next to a free port but to expand the clan needs to conquer another 2 ports on that region )

 

[Gregory Rainsborough]

19 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

I'd say 1 region radius.

-and-

No conquering the neighbor regions without first controlling that region - capital + 2 ports.

( this allows conquer region next to a free port but to expand the clan needs to conquer another 2 ports on that region )

 

Completely agree. If it wasn't for night timers I'd go further and make it so that ALL ports must be taken in the county before moving on.

I'm just looking at some of the silly distances that you can attack from. The Dutch on day one can flip Santa Domingo from their capital, it's a bit much. I thought the idea behind the frontlines system was to create that tug of war effect but by expanding it it really has diminished it.

Another example under the current extended system is that Vera Cruz and Campeche can be attacked from Salamanca and Belize and visa versa.

 

Edited June 1, 2019 by Gregory Rainsborough

[Archaos]

Front lines will never work properly as long as you can raise hostility from freetowns. It does not matter how far you push your borders out to create a safer area when the enemy can just set up in a freetown and launch a strike into the heart of your territory.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

I think that's mainly to accommodate the non-historic nations.

If it were reduced it would at least allow the creation of linear fronts rather than the mess that we have now.

[Teutonic]

I think a manual lattice system should be created instead of just "based on distance"

Can take from planetside for this example of a good lattice system:

 

This would create CLEAR frontlines and avenues of attack. It would also give all players a clear understanding of what may be attacked next - or where they could plant o go to get to where they want to eventually be.

[Papillon]

Looks great.  How would free ports fit into this?

[Gregory Rainsborough]

16 minutes ago, Wraith said:

I agree, it should be neighboring regions, not an arbitrary number. Front lines as a concept is great but we should be defining attackable ports based on proximity, not county capitals. We could have easily had this not by distance alone but based on a simple proximity/neighborhood triangulation. This would yield something like the following (please ignore the lack of coastline/barrier analysis, I didn't bother to include these constraints given this was just an illustration):

I really wish the dev's would think these things through before pulling the trigger on an arbitrary mechanic, and then leaving us no time to properly test them...

Aye something like that but with less avenues of attack would be fab. Bit too many (and too far) there for my liking but along the right lines.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

Something along the lines of this I think would be quite good and allow for those chokepoints between ports. Rather than jumping straight to the objective like now, you would have to have multiple engagements to reach the prize. There would be "campaigns" again as in the past before the magical tow removed it.

 

Edited June 1, 2019 by Gregory Rainsborough

[Hethwill]

1 hour ago, Archaos said:

Front lines will never work properly as long as you can raise hostility from freetowns. It does not matter how far you push your borders out to create a safer area when the enemy can just set up in a freetown and launch a strike into the heart of your territory.

Not really. If 1 region limit, then Impossible nations will have to carve their presence against all the non Impossible ones, as all have the same mechanic and can also do it. Is not exclusive to Impossible nations. What is exclusive to them is "no starting region" that is unconquerable.

So, given you know a strike from a freetown is possible, setup proper defense against it, including escorting your traders with the vital supplies for the ports.

I definitely agree with the 1 region limit, and this being said by playing in a Impossible nation.

[Licinio Chiavari]

1 hour ago, Hethwill said:

I'd say 1 region radius.

-and-

No conquering the neighbor regions without first controlling that region - capital + 2 ports.

( this allows conquer region next to a free port but to expand the clan needs to conquer another 2 ports on that region )

 

I'd repeat that it's counterintuitive and favours too much bigger groups (nation/clan) in front of others.
Frontlines should be town based (range of 2 ports) and not capitol.

County capitol couquerable after controlling at least 2 (3?) county ports.

Reworking (toward previous balance) port BR and having capitols with higher BR (and higher development points) would lead to smaller clans able to capture and defend smaller ports and it'll slowdown empires having to capture the region before than the main target: the capitol.

[Hethwill]

2 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

I'd repeat that it's counterintuitive and favours too much bigger groups (nation/clan) in front of others.

You can't limit any other player from playing with their communities in whatever game. Get over it.

2 extra ports + the capital means you have to control the majority of a region ports ( 3 ports out of 5, average )before you are even allowed to generate hostility to the neighbor regions.

 

[Archaos]

2 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Not really. If 1 region limit, then Impossible nations will have to carve their presence against all the non Impossible ones, as all have the same mechanic and can also do it. Is not exclusive to Impossible nations. What is exclusive to them is "no starting region" that is unconquerable.

So, given you know a strike from a freetown is possible, setup proper defense against it, including escorting your traders with the vital supplies for the ports.

I definitely agree with the 1 region limit, and this being said by playing in a Impossible nation.

My comment had nothing to do with the so called impossible nations, but the fact that any region linked to a freetown will always be a front line and there is nothing the defender can do about it as you cannot push that front line back.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

The problem I would foresee happening is that people could hide behind timers, in which case, maybe you can only put timers on if you control the capital.

[Hethwill]

That is correct Archaos. All you can do is conquer it and deny it.

Now that we know it, we should prepare for it.

War is coming.

[Hethwill]

Just now, Wraith said:

I think the impossible nations should be removed, but if they aren't then they should be given a single starting port. 

That's Shroud Cay. One single starting port.

Or did I miss anything ?

[Gregory Rainsborough]

Fight to the death to get out of Bahamas!

Truly hardcore then

[Hethwill]

3 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Fight to the death to get out of Bahamas!

Truly hardcore then

I see nothing wrong with that. Is not that anyone HAS to choose Impossible  

 

1 minute ago, Wraith said:

You missed the fact that they and anyone else can attack out of any freeport.

You clearly stated "starting port". I'm not inside your brain to read what you didn't write.

Plus ANY nation can do that with the free ports. ALL nations.

[Archaos]

7 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

That is correct Archaos. All you can do is conquer it and deny it.

Now that we know it, we should prepare for it.

War is coming.

The issue is you cannot conquer a free town so you have a permanent front line around free ports, which basically negates the whole point of having front lines when they cannot shift in certain areas.

[Archaos]

Maybe they should remove the ability to take hostility missions from free towns.

To cater for the "so called" impossible nations they should only be allowed to take hostility from a free town if their nation holds no other ports, so once they capture a port, that port becomes their capital and hostility missions from free towns are locked to them unless they lose all their ports.

This way free ports can still be used for hunters and raiders but not for RvR, so we can have proper front lines.

[Hethwill]

I am all for that. How will Impossible nations do it then ? I mean, conquest ?

Think before you write. Mechanics must fit all nations.

At the worst you'd make the only free town with Hostility to be Shroud Cay. And personally i'm fine with that.

I'd also remove tows for frontlines to work  

[Hethwill]

18 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Late, game is going to be released in 10 days.

Get over it then.

Thanks for the reminder.

[Archaos]

1 minute ago, Hethwill said:

I am all for that. How will Impossible nations do it then ? I mean, conquest ?

Think before you write. Mechanics must fit all nations.

At the worst you'd make the only free town with Hostility to be Shroud Cay. And personally i'm fine with that.

I'd also remove tows for frontlines to work  

I did think before I wrote, please read and understand fully what I said before replying.

If a nation has no ports they can take hostility in a free town, but once they have captured a port further hostility from free towns is locked. 

So "impossible" nations must decide where they want to capture first and start their expansion from that port. This way you get proper front lines and "impossible" nations can be pushed back and restricted by front lines the same as any other nation.