gassault

Map 130 Vote

Map 130   45 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want the Map 130 plan

    • Yes sounds great and lots of fun
      32
    • No sounds terrible and i'm scared of change
      13

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

32 posts in this topic

I don't know if this would be good as far as permanent change, but I definitely vote for more fun map action

and if this would do that, then I have no problem voting it in for this next intermission and maybe a campaign

or two -- if it proves to actually be more fun, then of course, my vote would be permanent.

 

Great idea, BTW, gassault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys can vote all you want, but only 2 votes matter:  The vote of the allied side, and the vote of the Axis side.

I think the current proposal (as it stands now) favors the allied side. Because the Axis would need to over-extend their lines to make the Zees "div vs div" battle happen at setup (at least with the current starting lines as they exist today).

More work needs to be done with this concept before we move forward with it.  -At least this is my personal opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both sides, the players need to vote on the principle idea if they want it or not. Both cincs are on board for the principle. The details of the deployment will need agreeing to. Giving up  Antwerp has been thought of but the deployment will take care of most potential issues, and should require as little policing as possible and no rat intervention at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, krazydog said:

I think the current proposal (as it stands now) favors the allied side. Because the Axis would need to over-extend their lines to make the Zees "div vs div" battle happen at setup (at least with the current starting lines as they exist today).

More work needs to be done with this concept before we move forward with it.  -At least this is my personal opinion.

Yes, i agree.

As the game is now, the Allies have all brigades on the mainland from the start. Thats a clear Advantage.

What if only the French army have all her divisions in France without the brits? Or maybe with only 1 brit Division? That would be more realistc ...and then the French would have the same overstretched frontline the Axis Forces are facing at the start of a campaign. So the tactical movement of the divisions have to be planned much much more careful. Tactics would Change completely this way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistic but not practical, let's not look for ways of crippling 1 side or the other, allied no longer start with air in vliss and it is the axis on a normal deployment who get the shorter line, as proved they can spare an entire div to go via Etain to montfaucon regularly, where as we have to ignore south of sedan \ montmedy apart from using navy as cover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, and I'm scared of change? Awfully condescending, don't you think?

 

For this reason I'm out.

 

One day HC will be neutered properly from ruining gameplay for the PB and on that day I'll dance with Matamor on the graves of the brigades.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This poll and the wording used is less than professional.  Even if I thought this would work, which I am not convinced, I would have voted no.  How about we act like mature people representing the highest level of player involvement and create a worthy poll since this decision effects the entire playerbase's gaming experience.

 

There is literally no way to ensure all the requirements of an agreement would be met to ensure this worked.  If it isn't hard coded into the game there is no way to ensure moves/actions outside the spirit of the agreement aren't made and therefore it is likely to fail as past experience has showed us.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

take the poll comments as a joke just a simple yes or no to the principle that you are or are not interested in the idea

its not biased and its not intended to be condescending

We all want fun and we all need more players logging in, this concept could increase both even just slightly, just trying to help everyone by using my current state as allied cinc to do all i can to help the game out

Its not fun for either side at moment to have the population swing 1 way then the other, no fun being overwhelmed by numbers or to cap empty towns

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gassault said:

take the poll comments as a joke just a simple yes or no to the principle that you are or are not interested in the idea

its not biased and its not intended to be condescending

We all want fun and we all need more players logging in, this concept could increase both even just slightly, just trying to help everyone by using my current state as allied cinc to do all i can to help the game out

Its not fun for either side at moment to have the population swing 1 way then the other, no fun being overwhelmed by numbers or to cap empty towns

 

Yet you posted them the way you did didn't you Gassault?  

I'm with Slovski.  How about we have a professionally done poll by someone who is not biased in favor what he wants done and not deliberately condescending to anyone who disagrees with him?

Also, make sure its not overrun by Allied votes in favor.  The Axis player base gets a vote as well.

VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its an open vote for ALL players on both sides here not just 1 side, i've already spoken to Leanderj last week before even putting it on the forums

anyone can put the poll up but all players need to choose

I had originally had just yes or no in there but it looked a bit boring so i put some humor in there, shoot me for not being professional in a forum for a game ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gassault we have had discussion on this topic in axis secure forums.

Nothing is set in stone here..  There are axis players who have concerns about over-extending our lines at the campaign startup, and many have doubts about the ability of HC to enforce HC agreements.

Having " fun" in this game means diffetent things to diffetent people :  for some people fun is killing enemies and having good stats,  for others its trying something new - like what you are talking about, for others having "fun" is a strategic thing - its about winning maps.

I like your idea of trying something new, but not at the expense of putting the axis at a disadvantage at setup, and risk losing the entire campaign.

So we will see what is decided.  It will be up to HC, but I am pretty sure nothing will happen too soon here until all the details are hammered out first.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nope nothing set in stone at all it is just a concept idea which I shared with Allied HC, the rats and Axis CINC

but yes BOTH sides would need to agree on the deployment and and on any "agreements" required to not cut north of Antwerp or Give up Antwerp or no air in Antwerp

playing around with the deployments to see what would work without crippling either side with as little as possible as to policing and no rat intervention other than a little media spin and possible wbs

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gassault I like the fact that you are propsing new things to try to create fun for both sides.  Don't get me wrong here - i agree with you "in principle" and support the idea generally.

But the devil is in the details..

for example,  you said the allies will agree  to not "cut" the Axis up North .  Great, but what does that mean?  Does it mean the allies can cap anything North of the Antwerp-Geel riverline so long as they leave one town at the edge of the map Axis and connected to the Zees?  

 You can appreciate the problem the Axis would have in that case- we have a full division in the Zees isolated from the rest of the Axis line, while the Allies enjoy shorter inerior supply line connections to the Zees.

For the whole Zees land division battle to work and be fair - the whole question of what hapoens in the Antwerp area needs to be agreed first and in much more detail.

It seems to me that its not enough to promise not to cut the Axis up North.  Everything North of the Geel riverline line would  need to be noman's land -  what about Kalmthout? What about Breda? Grobbendonk?  Etc...

the division we (the Axis) normally use to cover this Northern Region would be siiting in the Zees.

axis would be forced to shift more divisions from the center of the Map (Ciney-NamurTienan) atea to cover breakouts through Antwerp.  You can see the issues here for Axis side if we are forced to park an enire Division in the Zees at setup. We will suffer supply issues on the main battleline.

And what about flag rotation between the Zees and the main frontline while this all goes on??? Again the allies would have an advantage with the existing startup lines because they would have shorter interior supply lines to the Zees.

So again, in conclusion,  i like you idea of trying something new Gassault.  But the devil is in the details.  And so lets not rush into your proposal.  I will support your idea if we can figure out a way not to overextend the axis side's frontline at setup.

sorry for my lengthy post - but I was trying to be constructive here :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main focus for attacks from both sides should be the zees, i can guarantee that from the allied side, until the zees are capped nothing else really matters but yes its the details and mainly the deployment which will prevent 99% of the issues

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, imo, for what it is worth.

Not going to work unless Antwerp is given to axis, this would allow them the safety of no N cut and lines to move along.

It is a good idea, but the map layout (not to mention AF and port layout) puts the axis side at a severe disadvantage. However, with Antwerp axis (and give them the AF with supply) and Vliss remains with no air - it could work.  This puts the air much more balanced and gives axis a closer port.

Zee battles always get boring very fast, as it is impossible to get FRUs across the islands, even with army flags involved.  Requiring AOs to the Zees (sadly) would make for an empty map I'm afraid quickly.  You're relying mostly on para to capture a spawn.  You would have to always have a 2nd AO on the mainland somewhere to keep action going.  A couple aircraft can shut down all FRUs (via freighter) permanently, easily.  Hmm, just got to thinking, what if no air was allowed in Antwerp, Vliss or Knokke?  That would make air for both sides far less dominant and give navies a chance?  Or, just allow para in Knokke and Antwerp?  Also, the number of DDs would need to be reduced.

Finally, one other idea might be; rats can easily disable a town - why don't we disable every town along the S flank in for 5 (or 3) towns?  If we gray out every S town (5 deep), this will shorten the map.  BEST of all, requires no agreements as rats can disable towns ensuring HC can't move S.  It still won't help the Zee situation really, but it would change the map some.  Even just removing 1 or 2 towns along the S flank might mix it up enough to be interesting?  Another possibility, at the start of a map, each CinC is allowed to chose 1 enemy town that is grayed out.  So, GHC might pick Antwerp - thus removing Antwerp from the map for that war, while AHC might remove Wellin, Hass, or Liege etc.  This would absolutely change the map and provide for some variability and would work with town supply or TOE.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say, bus0... 

 

Here's a poll for you:

Would you like to see the Matty reworked so that HEAT rounds penetrate more effectively at less than 1000M?

 

( ) Yes, I'm not afraid to see the Matty scrutinized, it's progress and lots of fun!

( ) No, that sounds terrible; I'm afraid of change. Leave it the way it is.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they flipped the map once didn't they.... axis on the west, allied from the east...or is my foggy brain even more foggy and I am imagining things in that "fog"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted NO, however clever question writing as I almost answered yes, since I am not scared of change.

wish choices were, A. yes, B. No

A. Yes sounds great and lots of fun

B. No sounds terrible and i'm scared of change

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2016 at 8:28 AM, gassault said:

Realistic but not practical, let's not look for ways of crippling 1 side or the other, allied no longer start with air in vliss and it is the axis on a normal deployment who get the shorter line, as proved they can spare an entire div to go via Etain to montfaucon regularly, where as we have to ignore south of sedan \ montmedy apart from using navy as cover

Now I would actually love to see the entire North of Antwerp cut out for one map ... so that both sides would have enough to cover the deep south and not need to ignore south of Sedan which is awesome areas ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, elfin said:

I think they flipped the map once didn't they.... axis on the west, allied from the east...or is my foggy brain even more foggy and I am imagining things in that "fog"?

Jup... they did

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.