Free-to-play based on teamplay and tactics.

well, i myself think that a glitch is something the creators didn't mean for you to do. a lot of "openings" have transparent entities to stop you from going in there. if you somehow do manage to get across, or able to get into a wall or above/under the map, thats glitching. the fact the wi...

thats stupid. mobile AA kills gunship when it flies over the base, there is absolutely nothing to do about it. Jav/stinger miss MAVs big, slow and clumsy chopper rendered almost useless since last patch. there is still nothing that can shoot down a jet and the list goes on... but what do they do to ...

I think the team controlling the center will leave the other team little chance regaining control.
best get those 3 win rounds right as it rolls out when everyone just running around and no one figured out the good spots and map strategies yet.

playing every round less time * more rounds = playing less rounds * more time every round
we'll be in the same problem = playing the same map for about 2 hours.

then the map opening will have even more wight on the course of the round. as you wrote, you'll have less time for a comeback. board strat is as important as actual game start, i think game strat is even more important cus we actually play BF3 and not RISK. when i started the discussion i didn't mea...

i that case campaigns will be much shorter, since it will take less time to fight for every territory --> more territory changes per battleday and more advance every battleday.

back to subject - simply lowering the amount of divisions allowed on every territory will negativity effect board strategy. since you will have alot of divisions with little were to place them, you will loose the "short blanket" principle, every territory, even deep ones will be fully fort...

i guess i interpret blitz other then you do. i think blitz should give you the ability to cap 3 territories in a linear movement, giving the 1st one is defended by 4, the second by 2 and the third territory by 1 division, estimating you loose half of the divisions on every attack. yes, it goes prett...

no wonder why you don't see it happen. you can't really blitz can you?!

that will lead to situation where the "bigger" PMC won't be able to defend all the territories, while the smaller one will. (from a RISK point of view. on battleday 1 division can hold 4 round of attack, but its not probable). so it will result in a standstill or almost standstill. everyti...

the HQ is placed on a biased map. --> HQ might be in a bad spot which will lead to a short campaign.
or the HQ will not be set on biased map, it will be easy to capture --> same result.
it might also turn out as several versions of the same map next to each other.

actually it shouldn't change the amount of time of the campaign. it might even make it longer...

well, first of all i guess having alot more territories makes every territory less significant, and then you can add some of the maps we don't use somewhere mid-land. HQ cannot be set there. even if you can't take metro from an army controlling it, you can take all the territories around it and move...

the reason i brought it up is to actually have a discussion now, and if you like it, start preparing. because between campaigns there isn't alot of time. we can discuss it now, think of drawbacks, throw ideas, prepare the map, write the rules, and make it ready for the next campaign. i also took int...

i thought maybe the campaign map should have more territories. enlarging the campaign map (so we can see what we are doing) and then splitting most of the territories in half or more. to keep the board balanced, increasing the number of divisions, but allowing less divisions per territory, three or ...