![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
The round start time is now limited to 30s max, thanks to some random bug introduced midway through c4. We do a restart 60 to make up for it and give everyone a clear indication that live is soon to follow. Not ideal at all, but there you go.
Moderator: Executive
I disagree with lowering the army count. It was difficult enough to keep territories at strength with 3 armies with a majority of our territories having only 1 or 2 armies left to defend them. Fewer max armies on a territory further exasperates one team quickly taking even more territories if they are playing undefeated. As it stands the most an army can hope to capture in a battle day is 3 to 5 territories. If you reduce the number of divisions on a territory that number would go up as the average number of rounds played on a Saturday is around 12 rounds. Also, reducing the max defend able / attack numbers kills Blitzkrieg maneuvering. As it is now if you go undefeated and still have 3 armies after a successful attack only 2 can move forward to blitzkrieg with.Necromancer wrote:
- +1 for demavand, horrible. glad i didn't get to play it this campaign.
- number of divisions per territory lowered, but not enough territories were added to balance it.
less division --> more maps per battle day --> more territories can be caught every battle day. C4 was 3-4 territories a day, C5 was 4-5 territories a day. statistically the campaigns shortens.
I disagree, Black Ops should directly impact the campaign map. Its been pointed out in the past that when Tuesday battles do not matter people do not show up to play. Some people can only show up on Tuesday battles and it is our duty to make their time contribution important to the campaign. Other wise why not just go pubbing.[*]BO shouldn't directly impact the RISK map. The changes purposed to the BO were made to get more participants, but as seen this campaign the attendance of BOs didn't increase at all. people don't show up because they can't, not because they don't want to or because they think BOs are meaningless. I think its unfair one side looses just because their players are unable to get to BO due to work/RL. statistically it also decreases the time of the campaign as the side that wins more battle days would probably win more BOs, which only helps the strong side win faster.
Fog of war is a nightmare to administer for those updating the campaign map since you now have to maintain 3 separate versions of the map (one for each army and one for the TA's). It is cool from the standpoint that we will get to play random maps, but it kind of detracts from actual strategy when you are attacking blindly.[*]I'd like to see the fog of war back. not as intensely as before, but would be nice to have fully revealed territories if its next to you, and partially blackened territories on the back territories. with surveillance perks that reveal those territories at the cost of RISK cards /missions / market credits / whatever system is used.
for those thinking about earlier campaigns and fog of war, note with next-territory line of sight after draft about 90% of the map will be fully revealed. its not as restricting as before.
wouldn't work well with fog of war and again a real pain in the a$$ to keep track of for the TA's[*]to further increase the number of strategies available on the RISK map, it would be nice to be able to put dummy divisions to confuse the opponent. it would look like a real unit until its attacked, in which case it cease to exist (for example 2 dummy divisions to each side, as they blow-up, they are refunded to their army and start from the HQ).
additional perks, that at some cost, would hide a territory during an attack or defend turn. hiding the amount of units on the territory prior to attack or defense add complexity to the map, which right now is pretty straight forward and movements/attacks are easily predictable. deception and uncertainty are integral parts of any war.
[*]WCP balance - as territories worth 3, capitals 2 and theaters 3, with so many territories and capitals and the low reward for theaters i think theaters do not play any part in planning the next attack. the reward is negligible.[/list]
I meant the # of armies was lowered from C4 -> C5, and that allowed more maps to be captured and a shorter campaign.Ghoul wrote: I disagree with lowering the army count.
at the end of C4 we crossed the 28vs28 line on EUBOs, this time we hardly ever made it to 20vs20.Ghoul wrote: Its been pointed out in the past that when Tuesday battles do not matter people do not show up to play.
first of all you don't need 3 maps. you have 1 fully revealed "TA" map, and after the moves are done just delete/restrict areas out of it and give it to one army, go back to the "TA" map, restrict other areas and give it to the 2nd army. it adds a bit of work, but deleting stuff in photoshop is much faster.Ghoul wrote: Fog of war is a nightmare to administer for those updating the campaign map since you now have to maintain 3 separate versions of the map (one for each army and one for the TA's). It is cool from the standpoint that we will get to play random maps, but it kind of detracts from actual strategy when you are attacking blindly.
there is a possibility that I have a bad taste left in my mouth because of what happened in bf2c8, so my opinion might be skewed. also bf3c4 was easily 2 months shorter than bf2c8 even if it was the 3rd longest campaign we've done here (oct 2012-feb 2013 vs. feb-aug 2007...which is much shorter imo), and although I didn't play I didn't see any major complaints popping up in public forums. bf2c8 was marred with its problems on top of IIRC the attacking team winning every week, so it was basically just stagnant and army morale was a constant roller coaster. The tides never turned, complaints kept popping up, etc.StarfisherEcho wrote:Matsif, a timed campaign is something we're looking at. Fyi, C4 was the third longest campaign in GC history, not much shorter than c8 in bf2. So people do have an idea of what they're asking for here.
1) the fog of war i suggested, and dummy divisions are not something to relay on anyway (the opponent should be able to reveal covered territories as well as dummy divisions). they add uncertainty to both sides. one side plays with the dummy divisions trying to fool the other side, while the other might already figured out where is the dummy division and just acts like it doesn't know.Ishimel wrote:and it only takes one loose lipped noob to slip up and tell the other army and just ruin it all.
Please do not put on a time limit we will probably not need a time limit anyway. I have done the math and here is what the rest of the year will look like with the Release of BF4.StarfisherEcho wrote:The problem I have with time limits is that while they can serve to end a stalemate campaign (and make it easier for people to commit), they can also be major morale killers. An army that might fight on in an unbounded campaign under the theory that they can get better and win eventually will give up in a timed campaign once it becomes clear there's not enough time to stage a comeback. That can happen quite quickly, morale being the fickle thing that it is.