more territories

[Necromancer]

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

[Calloutman]

Aftermath is coming out with four extra maps in a couple of weeks, that adds an extra 16 possible maps with the inclusion of the 32p and infantry versions. Most likely we wont use all of them, but even so, it's a significant influx. With an extra 10-16 territories it could be worth cutting down the max divisions attacking to 3.

We could also bring back some of the maps we cut out this campaign due to them being biased... Metro anyone? Even though this sounds like a terrible idea, the fact that there would be a maximum of 3 defenders/attackers makes it a bit more palatable.

[styphon]

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

You can blitz with 1 division onto a territory that's defended by one. It's not designed to be used all the time.

I too would like to see a max of 3 attackers / defenders, with the exception of HQs. I'd still like to see 4 defenders on HQ maps. I think they should be harder to attack. It would deter an attack unless you're absolutely sure you can take it or really need to stop the enemy from being able to reinforce from there, and also give a great sense of pride to the army when you manage to take it.

But having a max of three would really kill off the blitz rule. Unless you won and all three survived you're not likely to blitz onwards.

[Necromancer]

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 pretty deep, but supposed to be "wow, we did better then expected on this attack, and they have little defense on the next territory, lets attack deeper here instead of our planned attack on the other side".
capturing just one more territory does make use of the rule, since you move the divisions by one more territory then they are allowed to move, but its not really a blitz. blitz suppose to break the front line and move to the flank (first attacked territory is not a flank, and second one is also part of a "safety zone", taking a third territory is a surprise. and again, this big advance is countered by the fact you don't attack somewhere else.

[styphon]

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 pretty deep, but supposed to be "wow, we did better then expected on this attack, and they have little defense on the next territory, lets attack deeper here instead of our planned attack on the other side".
capturing just one more territory does make use of the rule, since you move the divisions by one more territory then they are allowed to move, but its not really a blitz. blitz suppose to break the front line and move to the flank (first attacked territory is not a flank, and second one is also part of a "safety zone", taking a third territory is a surprise. and again, this big advance is countered by the fact you don't attack somewhere else.

Well if you loose half of your divisions in each attack then after the first attack you only have two left, meaning you can only blitz with one. You're right, blitz is about "wow, we did better than expected on this attack, and they have little defence on the next territory." However you need to do exceptionally well, not just averagely well. I'd call loosing half your divisions average. If you don't loose any divisions, or maybe just 1, then you can make it all the way 3 or even 4 territories deep with a blitz.

[Necromancer]

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 fortified.

[styphon]

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 fortified.

No, because if we reduced the max number per territory we'd also reduce the total number correspondingly to keep that balanced.

[Necromancer]

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.

[styphon]

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.

Yes, you're right it would. Each decision is going to have some knock on effects on the campaign. Perhaps there are other ways to extend it.

[Cheesy]

We can also just make each round much shorter. Right now we play at 175% tickets and then we're surprised that we're spending forever on a map.

If you made the ratio 100%, then 7 rounds would take as much time as 4 rounds do now. There would be less tactical adjustment within each map, but more chances for each army to adjust its overall strategy between rounds.

I know it sounds crazy but think about it. In BF2, we played every map with 300 tickets and max 5 attackers/defenders.

[Necromancer]

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 mean to change something that might have big impact on what we already come to.
adding territories while lowering the amount of divisions, and balancing with overall amount of divisions doesn't change anything in terms of WCP, longer/shorter campaigns (i think the actually should be abit longer, but im not sure, just a feeling), or types of maps. it only changes the amount of rounds and maps played every battleday. more different maps, less time for every map.
the only "bad" thing is that worst case scenario you be playing the same map on two different territories on the same battleday, and well, its the same as playing one territory now. and as i said, that shouldn't be the average statistic.

if we already opened it, theres nothing wrong with trying something that will change the game even more, but then throwing ideas isn't enough, we need to actually agree on a course and start heading there, or we'll be discussing theoretically until the end of the current campaign and it won't be ready even after 10 more campaigns.

[styphon]

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 mean to change something that might have big impact on what we already come to.
adding territories while lowering the amount of divisions, and balancing with overall amount of divisions doesn't change anything in terms of WCP, longer/shorter campaigns (i think the actually should be abit longer, but im not sure, just a feeling), or types of maps. it only changes the amount of rounds and maps played every battleday. more different maps, less time for every map.
the only "bad" thing is that worst case scenario you be playing the same map on two different territories on the same battleday, and well, its the same as playing one territory now. and as i said, that shouldn't be the average statistic.

if we already opened it, theres nothing wrong with trying something that will change the game even more, but then throwing ideas isn't enough, we need to actually agree on a course and start heading there, or we'll be discussing theoretically until the end of the current campaign and it won't be ready even after 10 more campaigns.

We tried that in C2 and quite frankly it didn't feel any different than when there was half the territories and only one version of the map in play. It doesn't work as you think it does and until we have a bigger map pool isn't a viable option IMO.

[Fanne]

the only "bad" thing is that worst case scenario you be playing the same map on two different territories on the same battleday, and well, its the same as playing one territory now. and as i said, that shouldn't be the average statistic.

Well, give each territory a reserve map. IF a map shows for the second time on a Battleday you have to play the reserve one.
Only prob can be the map pool, to find a map as a rserve that meets the setting from the orginal one. It can add strategy as well, look at reserve maps and dicide what territory you'll attack first.

[Cheesy]

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.

Sort of. Yes, the map opening matters more because you have less time to make a come back. But it also matters less, because you will get more rounds. One bad opening doesn't screw you as much.

[Necromancer]

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.