Warfare & Tactics

I'd love to be able to differentiate galmil and minniemil color codes on overview and local. Entirely because I'm lazy.

Other than that, I'd keep things the way they are. Creates opportunites to go mess with the other warzone, or mess with people that come to mess with your warzone.

Ah wait a minute! If it means that you can o-plex in any other militia's systems, than yeah I totally agree. Even more opportunities to mess with people! Sorry I wasn't paying attention. Told you I'm lazy.

Never followed the fanfest thing. Interesting idea, my first reaction was one of terror. But then I'm in the Minmatar Militia and we have had quite a cosy time over the last couple of years. However, things could do with a shake up, the Militias have become lethargic and lazy.

I assume this means that both warzones would be combined into one big warzone with any of the factions able to flip any system. That does hold some appeal to me, but I think it needs some radical changes to FW for it to work. Most notable on Station Lockouts. This mechanic has become quite hated by most militia pilots and has led to the current Fortress system situation, where everyone balls up in just a couple of systems and leave the rest to the whims of the farmers. Secondary bases have become a thing of the past and most fights now occur within a couple of jumps of the fortress systems.

The problem with regard to this proposal is that if most of the Minmatar militia are currently balled up in the Fortress system of Huola, it is going to be very difficult and an unwelcome chore to flip systems 30 or 40 jumps away. To be possible, station lockout has to be removed, so that people can set up secondary bases around the extended warzone, without risk that they are going to lose access to those assets when they need them.

I haven't really got a concrete proposal as to how that should be done. I wouldn't like to see a return to the old system where anyone could just dock in any station. But possibly a situation where the NPC militia stations eg TLF, 24th Imperial Crusade etc. would always lock out enemy Militias, while always allowing their own Militia pilots to dock (allow neutrals cause neutral JF and hauler pilots need access). Meanwhile, only regular NPC corp stations would be the ones affected by station lock out. This of course would require the seeding of more Militia stations across other regions of the warzone, so that there was always a friendly (permanent) militia station within 5 or so jumps of any part of the warzone. I say this with gritted teeth as my own corp is based in a 24th Imperial Crusade station and will be forced out by this proposal.

The only problem with this is that in the Gallente/Caldari side, Gallente have chosen to target State Protectorate systems for the explicit purpose of denying mission stations and have made those systems our homes.

Also, total war as envisioned isn't going to happen. It is too much work for CCP to allow any faction to capture any system and be a true 4-way. The best we would get would be to decouple the 2 warzones (ie no cross plexing and no notion of allied militia).

Total war; because creating alliances should be player content driven, not NPC.

I don't like the total war solution. It would break the bonds of too many families of Federation citizens of Minmatar origin. The grandparents will support the Minmatar while their grandchildren will support the Federation. Don't do this to these people CCP! Have a heart!

I heard it as more along the lines of splitting the alliances - i.e. Gallente and Minmatar would no longer be allied. Impacts that were raised were preventing cross-plexing and awoxing due to shared "alliance" without standings loss. Wasn't anything mentioned about a 4-way war or allowing folks to capture systems anywhere and everywhere.

yeah thought it was pretty clear it was just no more cross plexing and showing as allies on overview.

Honestly, if CCP is going to put this much work into FW they should just delete the Minmatar/Gallente and Amarr/Caldari alliance and then add pirate factions to the mix. That would be more fun and pull more people into FW (hopefully).

i really like it and its very intuitive. The only problem i see right away is that militias will snipe systems. Just wait till someone else makes it vulnerable then overrun them at the ihub to conquer it. I think the last rule needs some work but i like it overall.

i would change it up like that:
- systems can be contested by any faction
- if you o-plex a system which is already contested by a different faction, you in fact d-plex it till its stable
- if its stable, further o-plexing will contest it for your faction (icon on the contesting bar changes)
- only the faction which has made it vulnerable can shoot the ihub (you have to work for it)

(other rules stay the same)

example:
- gal system is contested 10% by cal (little cal icon shows it next to the contesting bar)
- amar would like to take the system
- amar now has to o-plex till its stable (rats will shoot amar) effectively helping gal
- and keep pushing once it stable to contest it for amar till its vulnerable (creates two enemies, gal+cal)
(- any other faction plexing in this system would decontest it again till its stable)

this has the advantage that taking systems which are not in your warzone would be extra difficult since you effectively have to fight two parties which are interested in the system. And you can't snipe ihubs so you have to work for the system.