Frontlines are Broken

[HachiRoku]

2 hours ago, huliotkd said:

you are talking about Raid, not frontlines...frontlines is slow and definitive, raid is fast but doesn't change owners of ports

I think I know what I am talking about. When I say Frontlines I mean Frontlines 

[Sir Texas Sir]

2 hours ago, toblerone said:

yWhat breaks the system is in my opinion the possibility for "normal" nations to start conquest also from free towns. This gives a huge advantage to the most populated normal nation, which - being already the most populated - should not have another advantage.

If this feature has been included to allow "impossible" nations to start conquest, then Devs could :

1) forbid to "normal" nations the possibility to start conquest also from free ports

and/or

2) give each "impossible" nation one or two free ports where they can start from, in the sense that once Prussia, in example, started their conquest from, let's say la mona and la navasse and took the capital of the near regions, they cannot use any other other free ports to start new conquests.

Sorry every one should have the same options.  You picked the impossible (hint the name) nation which is suppose to be hard core compared to any normal.  So you shouldn't get any special treatment.  The whole key of those nations is that normal nations can port them and drive them back to free towns if they so choice.   How about this....remove the nations that shouldn't be in the game as they never had a navy presence there in the first place?  I think that is a better thing than trying to forbid nations that actually belong in the game.

You want national options you play one of the normal nations....

[p i t]

18 hours ago, Capitalism said:

Sure, give us raids, that's not a new request. But attack lines should be determined by voronoi distances between ports. Any port should be able to attack any neighboring port as determined by a simple half distance algorithm. Not something as ridiculously arbitrary as a hard coded number.

It would really give a regional look to the map. Good idea, risk did it successfully...

 

[toblerone]

1 hour ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Sorry every one should have the same options.  You picked the impossible (hint the name) nation which is suppose to be hard core compared to any normal.  So you shouldn't get any special treatment.  The whole key of those nations is that normal nations can port them and drive them back to free towns if they so choice.   How about this....remove the nations that shouldn't be in the game as they never had a navy presence there in the first place?  I think that is a better thing than trying to forbid nations that actually belong in the game.

You want national options you play one of the normal nations....

Sometimes I think you just start polemics because it seems you like it. You start by making a lof of unproven assumptions, then you draw - based on such assumptions - your conclusions about what a poster could be willing and - finally - answer based on your conclusions based on your assumption.

So let's put things where they actually are:

First, I'm part of a "normal" nation. so your basic assumption (I am talking in the interest of my faction) is wrong.

Second: just take a look at the map and you will just realize that warfront system made (and will make) GB taking twice the ports than the second nation, so do you realize now where is the problem in letting normal nations start conquest also from far away free ports instead of letting them expand just from their starting zone? 

Third: if you reduce the possibility for normal nations to expand, you have to reduce also the possibility to expand of impossible nations. Hence the proposal of a reduction to just two free ports the possibility for each impossible nation to start expansion.

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by toblerone

[Tiedemann]

It think it should be reduce it back to only the two closest county capitals and then make some more "jump ports" like Marsh Harbour where it is needed.