more territories

[Necromancer]

a very nice post by Coloneluber had brought me back to this discussion about the campaign map (Gladius can't see it as its in the Star forums, TAs can)

first thing, is again about the not so advantageous blitz - even if you do not loose even once, you can only blitz up to 4 territories (which is a lot, i agree, i'd think a typical blitz on the current map should end on the 3rd territory) - but, every blitzed territory will have only 1 division defending it, and apart from the first territory captured, they cannot be reinforced by the current rules (attacking divisions are not allowed to move).
so there is no point blitzing deep, even if you win, you wont be able to hold it next week.
that has to be addressed in some way in order to see more blitzes and more dynamic and aggressive strategies.

secondly, how come a cut of territory, or a surrounded territory is as hard to take as a front-line assault or a connected territory?
if a surrounded territory (at least 3 different sides) or a cut-off territory would be easier to take, that actually makes sense in taking the surrounding territories and only then attacking that territory.

i think "killing" (or not allowing to participate in a defensive battle) a division is unfair, since every round gives you the opportunity to play better, and burns the battleday time.
the other tweak id suggest is reversing the positions of the attacker and defender on that map.
if the attacker is attacking a cut-off territory, then the attacker may play from the defender position.
for a surrounded territory, the attacker must attack from at least 2 opposite directions for this rule to apply (moving divisions from at least 2 opposite territories)
*and one exception - HQs cannot be "cut off" or surrounded.
this will add more complexity to the campaign map and strategies.

[Hitman47]

It's cut off, meaning you can't send additional divs on it. You can keep attacking it until you get it. To me that is pretty fair.

Rules are what they are, we all know them, they are publicly visible, so we all accept them and try to use them as best as we can. I understand that this is a place where ideas are put up for discussion, I just wanna make a point in saying, let's not reinvent everything for each campaign. Change keeps things interesting, sometimes it fixes something, but it can also break something which we can't foresee. By keeping a consistency in the rulebook we can have straight answers for most of issues that arise, because they have been solved before and we won't have to question rules and make huge TA+HC discussions on every tiny thing again. But if you change stuff for next campaign, then everything will be new again, and the circle repeats itself.

[Necromancer]

It's cut off, meaning you can't send additional divs on it. You can keep attacking it until you get it. To me that is pretty fair.

attacking a biased map like alborz w/vehicles doesn't improve your odds if its cut off or not.

and i don't suggest throwing the entire rule book out of the window and drawing everything from scrap, but rather changing specific rules in order to hopefully make it a little bit more interesting and less obvious then it is now.
if you don't try - you'll never know.