An alternative to "Frontal" wars - Enhanced Game Map

[Cjpedrido]

With the current terrain/map system each map is divided into 3 equal & balanced sides.  This creates in essence "front" wars leaving the remaining bases in each Country relatively unscathed and perhaps unused for all intensive purposes.  This is more evident on the larger maps.

My suggestion is use the same maps but alternate all bases on the map between Rooks, Knights & Bishops.  This will maintain the same equal & balanced sides and suddenly create may more wars versus the current "frontal" system.

Cost is minimal since you are just assigning a base a different Country value.

Current Country Example: A1, A2 & A3, etc. = Rooks.
Proposed Example:  A1 Rooks, A2 Knights & A3 Bishops, etc.  Do this for each Country.  All bases.  Mix them all up.

Do this for the entire map.  Same game rules apply to win 80-20-20.

These new maps can be used in addition to the existing & placed in the random map pool.  It simply adds more diversity.

vSKYDIVE
Devils=v=Brigade

[100Coogn]

+1
Sounds like it would be fun.  There'd be battles all over the place.

Coogan

[Lusche]

Would be utterly horrible for gameplay.
Instead of watching a 'front' for surprise raids, the enemy can literally appear anywhere at any given time. On a huge map, you'd have 60 or more bases to watch. A defender's nightmare and an organised attacker's (yes, I refer to certain squads) dream.

If there was to be any change, it should go exactly in the opposite direction - more clearly defined fronts!

[Hap]

There'd be battles all over the place.

I'm for battles.  I'm against take-off; tower.  Rinse and repeat for 2 hours.

Bad I idea I say. 

"Battle" presupposes purpose and plan.

[guncrasher]

after a few hours of all 3 countries taking undefended bases, the maps will look the way they look now.  it has been proposed before.


semp

[Dover]

after a few hours of all 3 countries taking undefended bases, the maps will look the way they look now.  it has been proposed before.


semp

i have to agree it would be a intense first day of fighting but there would sooner or later become defined areas they may not look like they do now but you would get them

[10thmd]

It would be a horde taking in defended bases as fast as they can -100000000000000000000

[Noir]

-1 for the same reasons than lusche

[Tank-Ace]

-1.


More strategic gameplay options, less base capturing.

[Hazard69]

-1. Too much room for stealing bases. If this was ever implemented, the result would be even less fighting not more. People would just move to another location until someone showed up to defend.

Infact what Id like to see is a reversal of that idea. Id like to see a sort of 'no mans' land in between bases to give a more clear indication of a front.

For e.g. A base is surrounded by 4 others. If 2 of those are owned by 1 country and 2 by another, that base ought to be considered a 'frontline' base. Its not yet fully equipped/occupied/manned or has been suffering casualties from enemy engagements etc. etc.

This base would be made 'easier' for the taking. Lets say it takes 75% town dsestroyed and 10 troops to capture.

If 3 of the other bases are owned by a single country, then the fourth can be assumed to be fully owned (supplied/equipped/manned w/e.) by that country too. To capture such a base would require more effort (e.g. 100% town destroyed and 20 troops to capture or alternately make town building twice as tough or some such).

This would give a sort of dynamic yet well defined frontline, while making stealing undefended bases marginally harder.

[coombz]

unused for all intensive purposes. 

what?

[bustr]

Why not a map with 3 (4 sector by 4 sector) ponds connected by rivers in a triangle with a medium mountain range running through the middel of each sector into the back feild with 25 airfeilds and 15 GV bases per country with a mountain next to each base.

Then call it "BacktoAWRR".

Worked for almost 10 years. I met 999000 and Leviathon there.