I was thinking 1 loss, 2 draw, 4 win. Smaller factions get bonus points on wins only (afaik that's how it was) so it's 5 for the mediums, 6 for the tiny factions.
I would really love the following: 1. Multiple small neutral locations as was suggested by others. This opens up other areas of interest and story. "The fight for the pass to location X", "Defense of Supply route X", "Attack on Mineshaft B" 2. Make NA-2 lists open to all factions, while also being their own faction for JSA. Mercenaries, are Mercenaries. They will fight for anyone willing to pay and EVERYONE is willing to pay.
I for one would enjoy the board set up for the nearby salt marsh, sand dunes and swamp of Borth, there you are that's four possible locations in Aberystwth all different environmental biomes
A couple of predefined major and minor objectives per faction would be nice, even if some were secret to the faction forum/high command. Haqq had an issue that after defending our stuff there wasn't an incentive to attack, which I think contributed to why "save nomads" was our only large foray into another zone. For example: Haqq Islam: Primary Objectives: Defend Duban Ensure the Nomads maintain control over the Arachne node. Secondary Objectives: [SECRET] Break the Neseum Monopoly (be in fourth place or better at a PanOc-23 location) [PUBLIC] Secure Land Rights (Have an agreement with all factions holding a kurage station area at the end of the campaign [PUBLIC] International Law (Be in third place or better at Aplekton, do not take Aplekton)
To add some more into the Neutral locations. It would be nice if such locations started with a point cost (like when locations were opened during flamestrike with Combined Army points already in place); just to make sure not one faction could claim it from day one, and to let all know the initial level of commintment of troops to a certain location.
I would like to see a major overhaul on the whole campaign. The whole, "lets go full assault on that factions base and take it over", seems a bit excessive for small skirmish units. Instead I would suggest something with the before mentioned "neutral zones". Lets say we have a campaign on Svalarheima. This would be filled with PanO bases, maybe an attacker, apart from the obvious (CA), lets say Yu Jing get a foothold somewhere. You can't attack the bases, but you can attack supply lines, outposts, strategic points etc. When gaining control of a supply line, ressources will stop going into the base it is supplying, making the base deteriorate, leaving them to be taken over by other factions So there'll be 2-3 main factions that have control of bases at the start. The other factions will find allies among the 3, help them out defending zones or have a hidden agenda of seizing the area for their own needs. ------------------------- I highly second the idea of Mercs being Mercs, so they could help whatever faction they wanted (paid the most). ------------------------- This could also be implemented in a fun way. Every faction has a starting capital (credits) that they can hire mercs with. For example, here's 100.000 credits, attack A. Supply lines, outposts, etc. generate credits for the faction that is in possesion. The credits could then be used to buy Merc services, add XP bonuses, point scoring bonuses, etc. Of course, this type of campaign would not have a faction winning, more of a story driven campaign, decided by the fate of the factions. Everyone can have their own Agendas. CA wants to infiltrate Faction A or B, Aleph wants to take control of Arachnet, PanO fighting for sovereignty, etc.
The CA having a disadvantage because it's impossible to translate any of the local signage seems appropriate.
In that case pretty much EVERYONE would have the same disadvantage though. And the long names would be distracting. "I mean, look at this, eighty miles north of here, there's a place called Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, fifty-seven letters!" Angus complained. The Fusilier from Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu, New Zealand, decided to remain quiet.
You're saying that if the criteria are revealed people will post loads of fake reports? Isn't that already happening? If there are reports which are thought to be legit but are rated to low/don't have enough "pieces of flair" on them that are being discarded, that makes CB/BoW come off as extremely self-important and disrespectful to the playerbase. Well, that's a bummer. If by "attack on the integrity of the campaign" you mean "posting lots of falsified batreps" that sucks, but that's different from "doesn't want to faff about with self-indulgent RP on the warconsole site."
What it comes down to in basic terms is the benefits of any changes have to clearly outweigh the cost, and revealing exact criteria would open the system up to manipulation and falsification far more than it is now without any real benefits. . Two separate issues, the first one is cheating, the second one is non participation. We'll have to leave the cheating on the side for now, but the 'not faffing about' seems a bit like wanting to be able to be lauded as the winner without actually having to put in any effort, and unless you're Brock Lesnar that doesn't happen in the real world. (okay wrestling ain't the best example of the real world...)
I'm a fan of workrate, not endless promos by people who are bad at them. Playing games and reporting them is the former, writing overwrought batreps is the latter.
To me it's more like putting on a 10-15 min match every night, doing the house shows etc vs a 10 minute match once every 4 months... If you just want to submit results then there's already a system for that available with ITS.
The game is Infinity. Insisting on batreps and staged photos, and not saying what the cutoff is for your score to be counted, comes off like Jennifer Aniston's character from Office Space's boss. And it's not a good look.
Come at my meta bros, got some reet valleys lads here Rescue is out though, the local tarts tend to leave snail trails on bar stools.
You've still got a bee in your bonnet about this haven't you? You've been told countless times by a myriad of people why the bear minimum guidelines haven't been revealed. Gaming the system is enough of a problem as it is without giving cheaters another avenue to post false reports. You can either accept it and move on with your life or you can continue to gripe about it. Right now to use your own analogy, you're Milton and this is your Red Stapler.
BoW was aways clear to me that that was not enough to guarantee your game was counted. @deep-green-x so that makes BoW Lundberg? I mean you're not convincing me that I'm wrong.
