WarMap

[Rokkman X]

I've got a question and a related suggestion.

Are there going to be updates or anything with the WarMap (Henceforth board)?

If there are, maybe we could discuss trying out a slightly different system. More maps on the board, Moving 'capitals' or Fleets.

I had an idea a while back, the different squads and groups on the board would each represent an entity on the board, and they would be moved around like chess pieces. The attacks and defenses may be conducted normally, but adding more maps on the board couples with this may make it a little more interesting and complex, hopefully not too complex as to be counter intuitive, but having this may promote wiser usage of credits (Not just the rock paper scissors of spamming ambush, bombing raid and entrenchment.) and troop placement.
This idea may be a bit too radical, but I would like to see a bigger board at least.

If not thanks for reading!

[Mythonian]

I'm a bit confused. This is what I got:

You want squads (by which I assume you are referring to the units such as BLUE Phoenix), to be individual pieces on the warmap instead of the Brigades?

And you want more maps.


If that is what you mean, does that mean that if a battle happens, the only squads that can play are the ones who had their piece involved in that battle?
1. If yes, then that will likely never happen. We will never prevent people from playing just because their FM didn't send that piece into battle. We focus on having fun, and restricting who can play directly opposes that.
2. If no, then why do you want them to be individual pieces? I see nothing that this will change from having Brigades.


On the maps: how many are you proposing? You didn't explain anything about this, really, so I don't really see how this will improve anything beside make the wars last longer.

[Rokkman X]

Yes.
The movement system would need to be tweaked to where each unit may move independently and each week.
As an example, let us imagine for a moment that there are 4 squares representing 4 maps or spaces on our board. Numbering clockwise from top left 1 to bottom left 4. 1 and 4 are Red 2 and 3 are Blue, anything left of that is Red controlled and anything right is Blue. There will also be arbitrary squad A and B for for each team.
Red wants to attack 2 from 1 so they send RedA to 2. BlueA is occupying the zone so there is a battle at 1:1 odds.

Let us say for another example that the 2 armies are aware of which squad is which,
BlueA gets sent to attack a territory, the Reds see this and think ahead, but are not able to spare RedA, so they preemptively send RedB to assist RedC in defending the territory. A Battle is fought with 2:1 odds in Redd's favor. So the BlueA must fight RedC and B.

The way odds can work is they actually affect the outcome of the battle, as well as earning extra credits at the end. If there are 2:1 odds in favor of a team the opposing team has to kill more of the enemies forces in order to win. Having to kill twice as many enemies may be too difficult, BlueA in the previous example would have to win with a total number of kills that doubled the defending RedC and B combined. This can be scaled to acceptable levels, but I think it may help answer any balancing problems we may have in future wars.

Again, just throwing ideas out there.

[Mythonian]

It's good that you're posting ideas... but I still don't see how restricting participation helps anything.


I think it may help answer any balancing problems we may have in future wars.

You seemed to bring this up out of no where... and I have a counterexample.

Let's say Violent by Design is the only squad participating in a battle. That means the opposing squads will always, each and every game, face VbD. Not only will this cause the battles to last forever (since we cannot set up multiple games simultaneously), but it would be insanely imbalanced.

And then what about situations where there aren't any defending squads?

Or what if the only squad involved in a battle ends up not having enough people show up to the battles? Can they get substitutes from other squads? If so, what are the restrictions?



There are just so many issues with this concept that I don't think it's viable...

[Rokkman X]

Well the last war was pretty darn short. It wasn't a balance problem then, but at some times there seem to be a problem that arises that can't really be solved by saying this squad can't play or whatever. We can't do that, but if everyone has to contend with odds, (that never really applied tactically before they were just for gaining credits) it might change this up a little bit. An A team wouldn't be able to handle contending with a pairing of a B team and a C team, on it's own even though 1 on 1 they wouldn't be that big of a challenge. Command may have to call in support, or another team can attack from a different direction.

As for the substitutions, you kinda got me there. It's just kind of daunting to see the board as a 2 dimensional space with no tactical advantages for doing certain things right. The way the board is now, every piece is the same, there's no difference or big viable reason not to just use ambush all the time. Nothing to make you avoid fighting the biggest fish on the board to strike at the smaller ones and weaken the enemy as a whole. It's very 'Risk'y and its flaws are fairly evident IMO.

Yeah it works and yeah we'll still have fun in Halo, but making more tactful decisions in battle is something that should be perfected and rewarded.

[Mythonian]

Well the last war was pretty darn short. It wasn't a balance problem then, but at some times there seem to be a problem that arises that can't really be solved by saying this squad can't play or whatever. We can't do that, but if everyone has to contend with odds, (that never really applied tactically before they were just for gaining credits) it might change this up a little bit. An A team wouldn't be able to handle contending with a pairing of a B team and a C team, on it's own even though 1 on 1 they wouldn't be that big of a challenge. Command may have to call in support, or another team can attack from a different direction.

As for the substitutions, you kinda got me there. It's just kind of daunting to see the board as a 2 dimensional space with no tactical advantages for doing certain things right. The way the board is now, every piece is the same, there's no difference or big viable reason not to just use ambush all the time. Nothing to make you avoid fighting the biggest fish on the board to strike at the smaller ones and weaken the enemy as a whole. It's very 'Risk'y and its flaws are fairly evident IMO.

Yeah it works and yeah we'll still have fun in Halo, but making more tactful decisions in battle is something that should be perfected and rewarded.

Why wouldn't A be able to contend with B and C? Do you mean in the same game or something? If it's one game after another, they'd have little difficulty if they'd be fine in any normal game. I don't see your logic in the odds, since it still isn't affecting the games.

There are several reasons not to use ambush all the time. (1) your probably won't have the credits to do it, (2) it will use up all you have if you do manage to have enough, (3) it's easy and cheap to counter, (4) if countered, you are left exposed and out of credits to get reinforcements, (5) as long as the defending team plays smart, they should win the war easily.

Even in your proposed system, I still see nothing to make you avoid "fighting the biggest fish" or to promote striking at the smaller ones or anything. All you are doing is changing Brigades to Squads and restricting who can play in games... That doesn't make it any less viable to attack a territory or anything.

[Rokkman X]

Well if A, attacks B and C then they've got to fight them both, and win with a greater margin of kills to do so. In a battle, It's obvious that no matter how good a group of soldiers are, they can't contend with being outnumbered. This would encourage weaker squads to gang up on stronger ones. They might lose a battle or two in the process, but win the war because they were simply unable to match the team that ran the right play on the war map. If you only have a limited number of squads at your disposal you're going to have to do everything in your power as a leader to make sure each of those squads enters a fight they are capable of winning. It promotes thought more in the mind of the commander as to where from and how soon they should attack instead of just playing rock paper scissors and hoping the enemy will all for it.

Say for a moment that the entire army forms a battle group to fight to get the numbers advantage, well the other will just split up and attack everywhere the army isn't, cut off lines of supply ad attack the capital, 1 giant entity cannot win against many smaller entities.

[Mythonian]

Well if A, attacks B and C then they've got to fight them both, and win with a greater margin of kills to do so. In a battle, It's obvious that no matter how good a group of soldiers are, they can't contend with being outnumbered. This would encourage weaker squads to gang up on stronger ones. They might lose a battle or two in the process, but win the war because they were simply unable to match the team that ran the right play on the war map. If you only have a limited number of squads at your disposal you're going to have to do everything in your power as a leader to make sure each of those squads enters a fight they are capable of winning. It promotes thought more in the mind of the commander as to where from and how soon they should attack instead of just playing rock paper scissors and hoping the enemy will all for it.

Say for a moment that the entire army forms a battle group to fight to get the numbers advantage, well the other will just split up and attack everywhere the army isn't, cut off lines of supply ad attack the capital, 1 giant entity cannot win against many smaller entities.

What? Seriously?

They have to win with a large margin for it to count as a win? So, let's say we said they need to get at least 50 more kills than the other team, but they win with 49 more. Does it count as a loss? That's be crazy! No one in a situation like that would be happy. It would be a totally undeserved victory by the other squad.

And then what about situations where there aren't any defending squads? Do we not play a battle that night or something??



I understand that you want to add more strategy to it, but you're doing it completely wrong. You cannot sacrifice fun to add a little strategy. That doesn't work.

[MedeDust]

This system is a good idea but full of flaws, I'm working on an idea that will hopefully be tested during the Beta War.

[Rokkman X]

Yes, but it needs to be tweaked so it isn't something game breaking like 50 kills. Even the worst games aren't near that. (Are they?) But it would address the skill gap between players. 'A' teams can't just go around raping everything because odds against them don't mean shit. The commander has to think and decide where each team will go and with whom, and the team leaders have to ensure the survivability of their squad. In addition, handicaps are used in many games, people use, understand and accept them. This would be no different.

I know it has flaws, but maybe after a bit of work we can get the bugs out of it and have the system work well.
As it is, I know this will probably never see the light of day.

On to something more plausible in the near future. More maps and a moving Capital ship. If there are more maps the war would last longer. This may not be necessary because I doubt either side will get swept this coming war, so it may not be needed. As for a Capital ship, this can present a few new interesting board tactics and strategies.

[Maxdoggy]

Rokkman, I don't even understand what you are trying to say.

In the final two wars on Reach, I was the Battle Strategy guy for BLUE. I strategically out-maneuvered REDD week after week, but our teams weren't winning games so REDD was able to keep using their vCash to buy ambush. If we had won more games in those wars, my superior strategy would have propelled BLUE to victory.

The system was a bit faulty back then, but the only imbalance was with skill. I don't see a need to radically change everything in what appears to me to be a counter-intuitive way.

[SuRroundeD By 1]

Here, I'll throw in my two cents.

If we split up the squads, and each was a separate piece or 'frigate' like in the past, all I'm saying is that I better be playing every weekend like the other squads. If the Resistance didn't play one weekend because our piece wasn't moved to engage the enemy, I would be pissed. I think this goes for most of every one here too. That's why it's better that we all fight as one entity, although technically we have an 'entity' for every territory we own.

And, if that is how it works (meaning all squads move and find a battle), wouldn't that make it just a bit more difficult for our War Director to get things set up? Keeping track of two maps and who's playing on them is one thing, what about six? Too much in my opinion.

And now I'm going to reiterate Myths point. What if one squad, say VbD, come in contact with a much less skilled squad for a battle, and there is no way the less skilled squad can get backup? VbD will obviously wipe the floor with them for every game they play, and no one can do anything about it . . . I'm almost positive that players from the less skilled team would begin to quit, and eventually, any squad paired up with VbD (squads without a chance) wouldn't even show up to battles regardless. And we shouldn't change the rules just because one team is very good. While we are a war-sim, Forerunner Conflict still heavily implies competitive game play into its matches. Having a different amount of kills needed to win the game than the other team, or anything along those lines. doesn't really fit the fair, competitive play we've been shooting for.

To be honest bud, I don't think this idea would be very fun. I like the way the battles have been fought previously.

[KazuhLLL]

Well, I don't know about the big changes that you're trying to put out there, but I do agree with the idea that squares of the map should have some incentives. Maybe we could have it so that winning on bigger maps would have a bigger payout credit-wise?

It could be something along the lines of:

credits = amount of credits earned (as determined by map odds)
modifier = 1+.5[(number of players per team-4)/4]
modcred = credits*modifier
4v4 maps have credit modifier of 1 (receive 100% of credits)
5v5 maps have a 1.125 credit modifier (receive 112.5% of credits)
6v6 maps have a 1.25 credit modifier (receive 125% of credits)
8v8 maps have a 1.5 credit modifier (receive 150% of credits)


As a balance to this system, maybe ambush would scale depending on map size? (Small teams easier to insert behind enemy lines, large teams are more difficult/expensive)
Well, I don't know about the big changes that you're trying to put out there, but I do agree with the idea that squares of the map should have some incentives. Maybe we could have it so that winning on bigger maps would have a bigger payout credit-wise?

As a balance to this system, maybe ambush would scale depending on map size? (Small teams easier to insert behind enemy lines, large teams are more difficult/expensive)

ambush = standard ambush price
modifier = (number of players on map)/6
modamb = credits*modifier
4v4 maps have a 2/3 ambush modifier (66.7% of price)
5v5 maps have a 5/6 ambush modifier (83.3% of price)
6v6 maps have an ambush modifier of 1 (100% of price)
8v8 maps have an 4/3 ambush modifier (133.3% of price)


Using ambushes as a way to counterbalance a credit-modifier system, if would give an incentive to 4v4 maps as well as give a downside to 8v8 maps. (I omitted 7v7 maps because as far as I know we don't play on any)

[silversleek]

Yes, but it needs to be tweaked so it isn't something game breaking like 50 kills. Even the worst games aren't near that. (Are they?)

some of the worst games i've been in have had like, a 75-100 kill gap. Thank god those are so rare it's barely worth mentioning.


i think it it was a mix vs vbd...

[Rokkman X]

Here, I'll throw in my two cents.

If we split up the squads, and each was a separate piece or 'frigate' like in the past, all I'm saying is that I better be playing every weekend like the other squads. If the Resistance didn't play one weekend because our piece wasn't moved to engage the enemy, I would be pissed. I think this goes for most of every one here too. That's why it's better that we all fight as one entity, although technically we have an 'entity' for every territory we own.

And, if that is how it works (meaning all squads move and find a battle), wouldn't that make it just a bit more difficult for our War Director to get things set up? Keeping track of two maps and who's playing on them is one thing, what about six? Too much in my opinion.

And now I'm going to reiterate Myths point. What if one squad, say VbD, come in contact with a much less skilled squad for a battle, and there is no way the less skilled squad can get backup? VbD will obviously wipe the floor with them for every game they play, and no one can do anything about it . . . I'm almost positive that players from the less skilled team would begin to quit, and eventually, any squad paired up with VbD (squads without a chance) wouldn't even show up to battles regardless. And we shouldn't change the rules just because one team is very good. While we are a war-sim, Forerunner Conflict still heavily implies competitive game play into its matches. Having a different amount of kills needed to win the game than the other team, or anything along those lines. doesn't really fit the fair, competitive play we've been shooting for.

To be honest bud, I don't think this idea would be very fun. I like the way the battles have been fought previously.

Well, then we would need a way to make it so that all of the squads are very likely to participate in combat every week. (Other than the fact that if they didn't participate, it would be an extreme oversight by their CO as they're basically not doing anything.) Maybe they've got 2 separate pieces on our board. It would be a bit weird because they can't really be in 2 places at once. Or maybe there's some other way to solve it.

Overall I'm not saying that having squads that are really good is a problem and that they need to be weakened. No. The fact remains that on the board as it is (as I understand it) 1 battalion can go up against 100 (exaggeration, the point remains) and still win with no disadvantages at all. With this system, one faction in theory can have a 'god' squad and win even if the opposing faction has an unlimited number of slightly less skilled squads. When in a situation with any amount of Battle field tactics this would be the worst possible decision to make. The one would get slaughtered every single time, no questions asked. That, my friends, is what I think needs to be fixed, before there is a problem like it. (Yes war directors would stop this from happening. I know, but the exploit is still there.)

- - - Updated - - -

Having the odds give out more cash would only serve to have the winning team get more money. Thus being able to do more by following an example of attacking a strategically disadvantageous position, but still winning. It promotes bad leadership decisions.

@Max
The system as it is now is only faulty when there is a skill gap. If it were luck based, as this seems to be designed, it would be more fair and balanced, but then we would probably not be playing Halo then, we would be rolling dice.

[bazongaman502]

you cant restrict people from playing... we keep telling our members they will play every sunday if they can make it... If we take our words away from that, you will see a serious drop in participation.

Good idea, and i do like it, but there is no way this will work without any affect on anybody

i have to say no

[bazongaman502]

@Max
The system as it is now is only faulty when there is a skill gap. If it were luck based, as this seems to be designed, it would be more fair and balanced, but then we would probably not be playing Halo then, we would be rolling dice.

To fix the skill gap it is up to the FM/HC/Officers of each army. That is one point of the job. You cant expect people to jump on board with this because of an army issue.

There is a big skill gap, but look at who BLUE just got... Myth, Metkil, Mede, ect. When halo 4 comes out, you will find more... thats the point of recruiting.

Yes, REDD may still hold the advantage, but anyone can be beat. (I know i keep mentioning them) When Zulu was a power force in REDD back at the start of the Reach Wars, Dark Rain was created in BLUE. On week 2 of its exsistance, they beat Zulu... the members of that group where basically new recruits that joined the week before Dark Rain was created.

In order to fix the skill gap, you need to recruit and improve as a team and not as an individual like most think they will need to. Most people when they see Guzzie on the other team, they basically say "We Lost" (i admit, iv done that). But he is 1 person surrounded with skilled players. VbD can be beat (BLUE nearly did it last war), Resistance can be beat (BLUE did beat them), Blue Phenoix can be beat, Blue Barets can be beat, etc. Its about the leadership and knowing how to improve all together rather then by themselfs. Most of these "God Squads" are just a bunch of guys that play together every-single-day and know how to work together... you cant just throw a squad together and expect them to beat a team full of close friends.

The skill gap needs to be fixed within the army, not outside of it... and if it is needed for an outside source of that army (REDD helps BLUE, BLUE helps REDD) we need to help each other... but not have it where it prevents certin groups from playing each week.

[Rokkman X]

Why would any number of squads not be in a fight somewhere? If their mere presence is helping tip the scales in their army's favor, why would they not be fighting? That would be absurd.

How about random draws determine where a garrison is on each controlled map and those garrisons represent a squad, but it can't move. Or maybe they can be switched, but a garrison must be maintained on every map on the board at all times. Then in addition, a squad also has 'away teams' or 'drop points' that represent capable transport to their attack destination. That way each team is attacking each time and may need to defend as well. This brings up another consideration as well, this team is always tasked with the defense of this point, they would know and be more efficient at playing this particular map.

[SuRroundeD By 1]

Well, then we would need a way to make it so that all of the squads are very likely to participate in combat every week. (Other than the fact that if they didn't participate, it would be an extreme oversight by their CO as they're basically not doing anything.) Maybe they've got 2 separate pieces on our board. It would be a bit weird because they can't really be in 2 places at once. Or maybe there's some other way to solve it.

Overall I'm not saying that having squads that are really good is a problem and that they need to be weakened. No. The fact remains that on the board as it is (as I understand it) 1 battalion can go up against 100 (exaggeration, the point remains) and still win with no disadvantages at all. With this system, one faction in theory can have a 'god' squad and win even if the opposing faction has an unlimited number of slightly less skilled squads. When in a situation with any amount of Battle field tactics this would be the worst possible decision to make. The one would get slaughtered every single time, no questions asked. That, my friends, is what I think needs to be fixed, before there is a problem like it. (Yes war directors would stop this from happening. I know, but the exploit is still there.)

- - - Updated - - -

Having the odds give out more cash would only serve to have the winning team get more money. Thus being able to do more by following an example of attacking a strategically disadvantageous position, but still winning. It promotes bad leadership decisions.

@Max
The system as it is now is only faulty when there is a skill gap. If it were luck based, as this seems to be designed, it would be more fair and balanced, but then we would probably not be playing Halo then, we would be rolling dice.

Well, the reason that one battalion can go up against five and crush them (you already discussed it at Max), is because the community still strives to be skill based. Personally, I'm not the most skilled player out there, any one will tell you, Fuzzy's better than me (although I think I'm catching up on him), Guzzies better than me, AfterShocK, etc. Again, personally, I'm always striving to get better and better and better, I don't believe that there is a wall that people get stuck at when it comes to video games, I think skill can be learned, it just takes time and practice.

Now the reason I just ranted a little about skill, is because that if Forerunner Conflict's combat were anything but (mostly) skill based I probably wouldn't be as excited to play. In my opinion, the skilled army should win, whether its individual skill that takes it or the way an army that works perfectly together that takes it, the most skilled army should win. Some people might call me a hypocrite, since I've never actually lost a war during my stay at Forerunner Conflict, but my point still stands. When we hit Halo 4, if Blue is the better prepared and more skilled Army, they should start winning games. It's all about getting better, and FC is definitely a place to get that done. I would be extremely disappointed if we stopped doing our traditional wars and started playing in a way that was more realistic, but less skill based.

So, in my opinion, even if the odds were 1:100, if the army with the 1 is the better army, they should win.

EDIT: Well . . . maybe the other army could get a few advantages when they greatly outnumber the other army. Maybe a few automatic wins? As long as it isn't impossible to still win the map. There should be pro's for outmaneuvering or being the army that has a better strategist. If what Max says is true and he did out do us every battle night in terms of strategy, that maybe Blue should have had some more advantages during the last war, but they shouldn't be huge ones imo.

[Rokkman X]

They wouldn't be the better army if they were sent in with those odds. Therefore they should not win. They may be more skilled but this is a level playing field with uneven playing field mechanics. One side should get actual advantages if the circumstances are just so, conversely the advantages should be taken away if careful consideration is taken to prevent such losses.
The way it is now, the battles are dice rolls on a risk board. If the skill gap is anything but minimal across the board there will be balance issues that arise.

Although I do agree that skill can be acquired. (Knowledge+Practice=Skill .)

[SuRroundeD By 1]

They wouldn't be the better army if they were sent in with those odds. Therefore they should not win. They may be more skilled but this is a level playing field with uneven playing field mechanics. One side should get actual advantages if the circumstances are just so, conversely the advantages should be taken away if careful consideration is taken to prevent such losses.
The way it is now, the battles are dice rolls on a risk board. If the skill gap is anything but minimal across the board there will be balance issues that arise.

Although I do agree that skill can be acquired. (Knowledge+Practice=Skill .)

If our wars were realistic you would be right; however, the way they are now and the way I prefer them to be, is completely skill based and not too effected by outside factors. Haha, I don't think I've ever played with you, but I'm the guy who complains and shouts when I miss out on a kill because of bloom (and it used to happen very often pre-TU). My point is, if we lose, it should be our fault, not because of an outside factor or because of something out of our control. A battle in FC (imo) should not be decided by numbers, but by skill, even though that's unrealistic.

Point is, you're right and your system works if you're trying to be realistic, but I don't think that is what this community should be about. This system doesn't work very well if we're trying to continue to stay competitive based.

[Rokkman X]

The community is a "War Simulation", we all play the part of soldiers in a theater of war (Kind of like reenactments). The best individual soldier or team doesn't always win. That's just the way it goes. Generals have oversights and missteps and it affects the outcome of battles and the morale of the troops. Battles should be decided by all of the factors being considered. If you want an MLG experience you may be in the wrong place.

[SuRroundeD By 1]

The community is a "War Simulation", we all play the part of soldiers in a theater of war (Kind of like reenactments). The best individual soldier or team doesn't always win. That's just the way it goes. Generals have oversights and missteps and it affects the outcome of battles and the morale of the troops. Battles should be decided by all of the factors being considered. If you want an MLG experience you may be in the wrong place.

This is the way FC has been since I joined. I'm also pretty sure that this is the way the community has been since its upbringing. I'm going to leave it at that.

[VerbotenDonkey]

We'll be trying to bring more War-Simulation in the future. :) Keep your heads up, and always keep suggesting. It's VERY appreciated.

[GhostHammer]

I'll say it once, and if you don't absorb it the first time, go back to school and learn to read...

FC is about Fun. It is competitive ONLY at a fun level. It is a War-Sim. This means it is Simulating a War realistically as we can without there being imbalances in actual gameplay. This is not MLG, this is not a hardcore competitive community.

Take if from your War Director, that will NEVER change. Get used to it.

[SuRroundeD By 1]

I'll say it once, and if you don't absorb it the first time, go back to school and learn to read...

FC is about Fun. It is competitive ONLY at a fun level. It is a War-Sim. This means it is Simulating a War realistically as we can without there being imbalances in actual gameplay. This is not MLG, this is not a hardcore competitive community.

Take if from your War Director, that will NEVER change. Get used to it.

Pretty sure that was directed towards me, so I'll explain.

I'm sure there are players who are laughing at me. I'm not a greatly advanced player, I like to think I'm good, but I'm nowhere near MLG. I like competitive game play, not because I'm a hardcore, MLG pro (hell, my favorite weapon in all the Halo's is the Assault Rifle, arguably the most non competitive, non MLG weapon in the entire series), but because I hate losing when it's not my fault, and competitive play usually ensures that I lose or win because I am either not as good or better than the other players.

I never said that FC should be MLG, I believe I stated somewhere in there that I thought FC should stay the same way it is now and has been. It's fun at its current level, and whether or not you believe it, it is competitive, and strives to be at some level . . . which is obvious when you look at maps forged by our own teams for the wars. Maps are usually symmetrical, and balanced (except for a few but I wont get into those) they are built with competitiveness in mind.

My main point with all of this is, I want to win a battle if we beat the other team fair and square, if we lose, I want it to be because they out maneuvered or out skilled me and my team. Believe it or not, some of my favorite games are my close losses to VbD. My team would lose because VbD was obviously a more skilled group than us, but the games were close, we would come within just a few points and that feeling of being 'right' there is amazing. But if we won, because they only won by 12-15 instead of 25-50, I'd feel cheated along with them.

While I feel like strategy used aside from the direct battles (moving around the warmap to take certain territories, buying perks to use against the other army or strengthen your position, etc) is important and should have small advantages, I don't think the advantage should be so large that it makes it too hard for one team to win, whether the odds are 1:100 or 1:5, I don't think that should effect the ability to win in game. If anything, I think we should go back to the previous system, where certain odds gave one army an automatic victory or two (I can't remember how many victories went for certain odds), because even if one army has a few victories in the bag, the rest of the games solely depend on each armies ability to fight on that map. The points to win and nothing in game should be adjusted.

I realize I'm not a large figure in this community, I realize I'm not the War Director (although if you were talking to me you didn't have to slam me bro . . . I never yelled at anyone or stepped on your puppy), but I'm saying that in my opinion that FC should stay the way it has been, and not significantly change to add a point of realism. A little bit is fine but there is a line that I believe shouldn't be crossed.

If I wanted to play realistically I would join the LARP (which I think looks interesting) but when it comes to battles, I completely and utterly believe that they should remain at a competitive edge. Although, I don't want to get chewed out again . . . so I'll take my leave with that and shut up.

[Mythonian]

Pretty sure that was directed towards me
I think it was directed at the entire thread instead of a specific person.