Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Gregory Rainsborough

Frontlines

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 )

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Gregory Rainsborough
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:
odtUDw6.jpg

 

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.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 note only the most basic of coastline/barrier and distance based constraints analysis, I didn't bother to include these constraints given this was just an illustration):

9ed03004eba1d8be685e116a9c674776.jpg

At larger scale:

248f0e479172a2566d7ebcf7c8e78bca.png

In any case, I think free ports should not allow attacks to be staged out of them, and that "impossible" nations be given a single starting port in the Gulf. 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... 

Edited by Wraith
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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):

dc25cea81f08dea46640361d8eb2b676.jpg

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

KZNiiKc.jpg

Edited by Gregory Rainsborough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

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.

 

KZNiiKc.jpg

I can see that... (see my edited version above) but in general I'd rather see a few more rather than too few avenues of conquest... Mostly because if you limit the number of battles that can be generated then you limit the amount of RvR content that can be had for players. Now, for conquest and port flipping battles I'd get behind a much more limited, constrained lattice like yours, as long as raids get implemented along a more expansive set of port linkages like mine.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the impossible nations should be removed, but if they aren't then they should be given a single starting port. And if that's not going to happen, then they should only get to attack out of a free town until they own a port... If they want to let all their ports go Neutral then they can then stage out of a free port again.  Archaos is right, free towns should be fine for staging raids out of but not for establishing port-flipping battles.

Not for anyone.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

That's Shroud Cay. One single starting port.

Or did I miss anything ?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Fight to the death to get out of Bahamas! :D

Truly hardcore then

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

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hethwill said:

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

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

I wrote exactly what I intended to say. The fact that you didn't comprehend it isn't my problem. And I clearly stated that any nation can do that, and I think it is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...