Critical issues about the Frontline Map when compared with Legacy.

Golden Buddha

I say they should bring it back so honest and hardworking players have a chance to defend against multis, friendpacks , sitters and cheaters

without that we lack important tool to fight back against all people breaking TOS and Rules.

and we all know how effective tools team have to protect us

I say yes to trading 10% units within coalition

Despite the fact multies, friendpacks, sitters and cheaters does exist, a feature can't be created for fight against those players, since bona-fide presumption is all users play here in fair and square fashion and, thus, features are created for those users. Also, you told that as if those players would never use troops trade for your own purposes.

If you want to fight back as a group, then look for good companions and coordinate with them, instead of appealing to a cheese for that. Troops trade is just laziness acolyted.

And I pass from mentioning the unrealistic approach of that feature.

Greetings.

Demonaire

And I pass from mentioning the unrealistic approach of that feature.

Greetings.

Actually, not only is it totally realistic. (Countries have been trading armaments for centuries. Even going back to the time of Rome using mercenaries to defend the Empire) but it's a very worthwhile part of the overall game. As for the argument that a defeated country would not give men and material to another country? Let's see, how about Polish, Czech, French, and other defeated countries in WW II fighting on behalf of Britain (If it wasn't for Polish fighter pilots, the battle of Britain would have been a whole different story)

I'll even go a step further and propose we need to have a way to capture enemy mechanical forces OTHER than capturing them building in factories. Please also don't try to say it never happened because a lot of British guns and material ended up being painted in Wehrmacht colours after Dunkirk.

Furry1

Yes? I don't remember a situation in history where one high command told a whole brigade/division: "Hey, you know we're allies with France, right? Well, we decided to transfer you to the french army and, hence, you had been stripped from your american citizenship forever by the government. You're french soldiers now. and don't forget to say 'Vive la liberte!' when all of you present yourself to General Föch"

In your example, Polish, Czech and French soldiers never left to be polish, czech and french. They fought for Britain but never abandoned their nationalities for that. Troops trade do that: strips troops nationality to fight under a new banner (unrealistic AF) Instead, putting troops alongside your allies to fight together fits better with your vision about Battle of Britain. And you can design a Commander in your coallition for him to give orders to all troops (it will depend of teamwork, and that's way much better than transfer troops for no reason because people finds too much for their ego the fact of somebody giving them orders about their own troops)

And your "step further" is something I see with better light, but the problem remains: you don't capture the cannon, the tank, the bomber or the battleship alone. you also capture the troops who manage them. But that's more realistic, certainly: countries forcing other nationalities to fight under your cause... but, again, that coerced troops have far less motives to renounce their nationalities.

P.D: I remembered Adolf Hitler while writting those words, but even his enlistment to German Imperial Army wasn't a request or a offering from Austria-Hungary. That wasn't even legal... and he was only one man...

we are talking about equipment mostly Demonaire

tanks,arts,cars,ships,planes,balloons and horses

they do not have nationality

but I heard about belgish Armored Car brigade move to eastern front I think in 1915

and russian troops being in verdun under allied command

not saying about Salonica Army

and hmm germans directing armies of joint central powers in Romania and in the eastern fronts?

germans sending officers to Syria to support ottomans

germans giving two cruisers with crews to ottoman fleet to shell russians in the black sea in 1915

chinese work corp in the western front

hell germans were selling optics to british for rubber and oil

that war was not black and white like second world war

and so on

and so on

Golden Buddha

we are talking about equipment mostly Demonaire

tanks,arts,cars,ships,planes,balloons and horses

they do not have nationality

but I heard about belgish Armored Car brigade move to eastern front I think in 1915

and russian troops being in verdun under allied command

not saying about Salonica Army

and hmm germans directing armies of joint central powers in Romania and in the eastern fronts?

germans sending officers to Syria to support ottomans

germans giving two cruisers with crews to ottoman fleet to shell russians in the black sea in 1915

chinese work corp in the western front

hell germans were selling optics to british for rubber and oil

that war was not black and white like second world war

and so on

and so on

But the tanks, arts, cars, ships, planes, ballons and horses doesn't manage themselves, they need troops to operate them.

So, the belgians in those armored cars never stopped being belgians.

The russians in Verdun never stopped being russians

The Salonica Army never stopped being british.

The german generals directing Central Powers in Romania or Syria never stopped being germans.

The crews inside the cruisers given to the ottoman fleet neither (in fact, they still served german orders)

The chinese in western front never stopped being chinese.

Lawrence of Arabia could be called in that way, but he never stopped being english...

And so on

And so on...

what matter is- under whose orders you fight as he is directing you.

We do not care who were slaves on rows during the battle of Salamis 480 BC

we say Greeks won a great victory while many of rowers were slaves from different countries

When Hannibal went to Italy we called his troops- Carthaginians

when Roman legions of 4th and 5th were full of barbarians we still called them Roman Army

when East India Company was conquering India we did not call them EIC troops or Sikhs, we called them English Army.

I guess I age enough arguments to win that discussion

Demonaire

Yes? I don't remember a situation in history where one high command told a whole brigade/division: "Hey, you know we're allies with France, right? Well, we decided to transfer you to the french army and, hence, you had been stripped from your american citizenship forever by the government. You're french soldiers now. and don't forget to say 'Vive la liberte!' when all of you present yourself to General Föch"

Firstly, I think you're trying to split hairs to defend your argument, however, it has NOTHING to do with transferring men over to become another country's men. The Polish never gave up their nationality however they WERE under the command of British AND Canadian officers and were given an RAF Squadron number.

Now as Golden Buddha is pointing our, armaments or tech. MANY countries built units specifically for OTHER countries, for example, Chinese soldiers in WW II were wearing German helmets and carrying MP-38 and MP-40s along with Mauser rifles not to mention the bigger weaponry. Oh, and in case you want to say that they never exchanged used tech. Two things come to mind, 3 Diesel subs were purchased by Canada from Britain. according to you, the British sailors would have had to accompany the subs....err...I don't think so. Australia recently sold some used F-18s and I'm PRETTY sure they didn't include the pilots who flew them.

if in medieval times knight without a land was sent by his senior to become vassal of another senior- he did not change nationality but was under another senior

Furry1

Firstly, I think you're trying to split hairs to defend your argument, however, it has NOTHING to do with transferring men over to become another country's men. The Polish never gave up their nationality however they WERE under the command of British AND Canadian officers and were given an RAF Squadron number.

I beg to differ: it has ALL to do with transfering men over to become another country's men, because that's the essence of troops trade feature, since S1914 assign you a country with troops that, with that option, you can gift to another country which can take them forever. Poles still are Poles, no matter if they're under command of British and Canadian officers, and that situation is already covered with the coallition feature. And since those poles weren't stripped from their nationality to fight alongside the british (among other examples) as it's troops trade suggest in the match context, troops trade feature is hopelessly unrealistic.

...according to you, the British sailors would have had to accompany the subs....err...I don't think so. Australia recently sold some used F-18s and I'm PRETTY sure they didn't include the pilots who flew them.

A great, faithful description of the troops trade feature. Effectively, troops trade make it seems like you don't only sell the subs: you sell the sailors too (as if they were slaves)

Greetings.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying, so, fine, let's limit the "armies trade to mech ONLY, no infantry or cavalry allowed to be traded to another player."

Furry1

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying, so, fine, let's limit the "armies trade to mech ONLY, no infantry or cavalry allowed to be traded to another player."

No, it would be "armies given until war is over. When over, armies goes back to their country of origin" and/or "one infantry unit converted in and out per mech unit traded"

Not like I agree with that, of course (S1914 with no troops trade is better game than before), but if we want to be fair...

Demonaire

No, it would be "armies given until war is over. When over, armies goes back to their country of origin" and/or "one infantry unit converted in and out per mech unit traded"

Not like I agree with that, of course (S1914 with no troops trade is better game than before), but if we want to be fair...

Okay, let's try this by the numbers.

1. Does Russia, China, the USA, and Great Britain manufacture Armaments?

2. Do those armaments include tanks, planes, ships, artillery, and more?

3. Do they sell or trade some of those armaments to other countries? (I'll give you a hint here, the F-35 multi-role fighter is currently being sold to various countries)

4. Do those same countries, along with others not mentioned, also trade USED armaments to other countries?

Ergo, why do you think it's so strange to trade armaments in a war game between countries?

it is enough to check how ak-47, Mi-24 Hind and T-72 are sold all over the world.

and ye they have manuals and trainers showing how to use them in a price

Furry1

Okay, let's try this by the numbers.

1. Does Russia, China, the USA, and Great Britain manufacture Armaments?

2. Do those armaments include tanks, planes, ships, artillery, and more?

3. Do they sell or trade some of those armaments to other countries? (I'll give you a hint here, the F-35 multi-role fighter is currently being sold to various countries)

4. Do those same countries, along with others not mentioned, also trade USED armaments to other countries?

Ergo, why do you think it's so strange to trade armaments in a war game between countries?

Because, as I said before, the feature disabled not only trade armaments, but also the troops who manage them.

If you don't want to see this as relevant, it's okay (after all, even devs also said realism is less important than playability), but from the realistic grounds, armaments were never sold with the operators in them, thus, rendering the feature non-realistic.

Okay, so you're saying the troops operating the vehicles are from the original country. But see, that's where we differ. Although I play the games as various different countries, I replace ALL the troops with men from my own country, Canada. I also change the flag to one that represents Canada. OH, and before you argue that with me, not only do I replace the regular men and women, I also put two Generals in charge who aren't even human. May I introduce General Basil Catticus and General Jasper D. Kat.

Furry1

Okay, so you're saying the troops operating the vehicles are from the original country. But see, that's where we differ. Although I play the games as various different countries, I replace ALL the troops with men from my own country, Canada. I also change the flag to one that represents Canada. OH, and before you argue that with me, not only do I replace the regular men and women, I also put two Generals in charge who aren't even human. May I introduce General Basil Catticus and General Jasper D. Kat.

Great, now show me, in the matches you played here, how were those replacements registered.

Oh, right.. you can't. You only had show me how you ran out of arguments.

Nice cats, anyway.

Greetings.

may times in history winners took armament of defeated ones

like in Dunkirk

like in Singapore

like in 242 BC when carthage gave up fleet to romans

like in 202 when carthage gave elephants to romans

Seleucus received 500 war elephants from Chandragupta Maurya to brak them in royal elephants stables near Antiochia

Egypt gave elephants and some phalangities to Pyrrhus for his campaing in Italy

Romans gave 100 roman riders as a gift to Lugians around 2nd century

and so on

like always

they removed trading units because of the exploit it allowed

Golden Buddha

may times in history winners took armament of defeated ones

like in Dunkirk

like in Singapore

like in 242 BC when carthage gave up fleet to romans

like in 202 when carthage gave elephants to romans

Seleucus received 500 war elephants from Chandragupta Maurya to brak them in royal elephants stables near Antiochia

Egypt gave elephants and some phalangities to Pyrrhus for his campaing in Italy

Romans gave 100 roman riders as a gift to Lugians around 2nd century

and so on

like always

they removed trading units because of the exploit it allowed

Well, we are clear here that mechanical issues are more important than historical ones.

But, again, in the historical ones, you are still to show me a moment where soldiers were stripped from their nationality for another to fight a war, or armament sold to other countries including their operators.

Greetinfs.

those 100 riders given to lugians- they never came back to roman empire . they were a gift.

500 indian elephants with whole crew around them- they never saw india again

troops given by ptolemaic egypt to Pyrrhus - they fought for Pyrrhus since then till the death

sense on nationality is a abstract made up by Napoleon to control masses. americans use it to in the war of independence even though there was nothing like Americans....just random guys from 12 random countries miixed with slaves indians and emigrants.

Demonaire

Great, now show me, in the matches you played here, how were those replacements registered.

Oh, right.. you can't. You only had show me how you ran out of arguments.

Nice cats, anyway.

Greetings.

Oh I have far more arguments to justify the historical accuracy of countries trading armaments but the difficulty is that you are being willfully obtuse and therefore there is no argument.