First at all, I'll add images with examples of the issues I mention here when opportunities arises.
Second, in this topic I'll make the comparative between Legacy map and Frontline map where the former is better than the later, with the goal the GO and devs makes the proper corrrections over the beta version. Because of that, this topic will be heavily edited as I'll add the aforementioned images.
1. As you can see, I can outfocus the map in Legacy almost totally, that allows comfort to the user when he needs to manages troops in the extremes of the map. In Frontline, that's not longer possible and that comfort disappear (we need to zoom in to do the same management)
2. Do I need to move troops to a point outside of the screen? Legacy allows me to do that with no problem. Frontline, instead, not. For that, I need to select the troops and click on "move" option. Even then, the displacement isn't automatic as in Legacy, but I need to keep pressing the click to move the map for moving the troops outside the screen. In other ways, devs made complicated a simple feature.
3. This is, possibly, the greatest criticism many users has made about the new map when compared with the old one: in Legacy, you get a complete accountability of your army composition in a determinated place (infantry, cavalry, tanks, heavy tanks, artillery, armored cars, etc) without even select that army. Frontline, instead, just shows you the 3D unit who give the name to that army (that only suggest that army have, at least, one of those units. Still, I think that 3D unit is a good addition) and a shallow, even lazy, accountability of the army composition (while Legacy shows you have 28 infantries and 8 cavalries, Frontline just says you have 36 "human units"; while Legacy tell you have 5 artilleries, 5 light tanks, 2 heavy tanks and 8 armored cars, Frontline just tell you have 20 "mechanized units") that compelled the user to click on that army to receive a more detalled composition, that wasn't needed in Legacy.
4. The same images also shows another problem: the actual location of the armies in the map. Legacy is very clear signaling the army is IN the city; Frontline suggest you the army is OUT of the city. That's something totally and unneedly misleading for the user.
5. Continuing with the misleadings, in these images we can see Legacy shows us the exact location of the troops moving. Frontline, on the other side, want to indicate us the same things with white lines almost totally indistinguishable with some colors in the map (unlike Legacy, who give us that indication with well-defined black lines) and, as you can see with the arty, totally unneeded when that arty can be put on the road to show us its actual position. So, if you combine points 3, 4 and 5, the conclusion is that Frontline map gives the user unreliable information about the military situation.
6. There is also complains not only about the 3D units being gigantic when compared with the cities (in contrast with Legacy, where the size units are reasonable) but with the infantry being the most gigantic of all units (including cavalry or tanks). Of course, that disproportionated size takes realism away from the game.
I think Frontline, since the purely graphic design view, is, undoubtedly, a great improvement compared with Legacy (despite the fact the improves on graphics also means more lags in the game) and I congratulate the devs for that improvement. However, the critical issues related here (plus the excellent review made by Sandeep32) have the community concerned about the viability of the new map to attract new and old players. Fortunately, Frontline is still beta version, so the devs can takes notes about these issues and resolve the current problems that impairs Frontline to be the great map that it can come to be.
Greetings.
Furry1Oh 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.
Obtuse? I'm not the one who's recurring to images with cats to avoid replying about the issue of trade of armaments AND soldiers and how unrealistic is that...
well to fisnih that: look at Halliburn, Blackwaters, Accademy
Same for condotierre and mercenaries in years
they do not have alliance to anything but money
it does not matter if you are french or Russian
you are paid- you fight
if you pay for years like Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan , then troops fight there for decades till they are dead
DemonaireObtuse? I'm not the one who's recurring to images with cats to avoid replying about the issue of trade of armaments AND soldiers and how unrealistic is that...
Cat soldiers are no more fantastic than these invisible magical soldiers you seem to imagine accompanying the mech items in this game. IF we're realistic, could not the magical soldiers you're "seeing" go home and more magical soldiers from the receiving country take over from them?
I guess we can ban trading infs, but all other units should be tradable
simple bolean ( is inf or not) will do 
Demonaire happy with his arguments while we have what we need to stop cheaters
Golden Buddhawell to fisnih that: look at Halliburn, Blackwaters, Accademy
Same for condotierre and mercenaries in years
they do not have alliance to anything but money
it does not matter if you are french or Russian
you are paid- you fight
if you pay for years like Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan , then troops fight there for decades till they are dead
Even mercenaries are gone once a war is over. That didn't happen with troops trade: once traded, those troops were yours forever.
You continue quoting a lot of examples that doesn't really fit with the concept used for troops trading. The closer thing for that are soldiers serving for more than one army or serving for a foreign army (Adolf Hitler, Lauri Törni, Alpo Martinnen). What's more, the closest thing are the Foreign Legions (French, Spanish, etc.) but, again, recruits didn't arrive by government orders nor have their nationality stripped (although some countries did establish that rule) nor had any problem to retire from those armies once their service was made.
Golden BuddhaI guess we can ban trading infs, but all other units should be tradable
simple bolean ( is inf or not) will do
Demonaire happy with his arguments while we have what we need to stop cheaters
No, because, as I explained Furry (explanation he couldn't understand), you not only trade armaments: you also trade the operators.
And coming back to the mechanical issues (the ones matters more here whatsoever), I repeat what I said before: features aren't made for the ones who break the rules, but the ones who follow them, and there is no way to avoid the cheaters also use troops trade. And about that, I could argue those cheaters made a better work using that troops trade than you, considering devs prefered to ban that trade instead of using it to fight against cheaters.
Greetings.
tbh I always saw infantry trade more as trade of small arms and equipment, during my RP's
NarmerTheLiontbh I always saw infantry trade more as trade of small arms and equipment, during my RP's
Which is ironic, since that trade save you from paying 20 tons of grain by the upkeep per unit.
I mean, since when is a cannon feeded with bread?
DemonaireWhich is ironic, since that trade save you from paying 20 tons of grain by the upkeep per unit.
I mean, since when is a cannon feeded with bread?
I guess someone has to fire that cannon
DemonaireWhich is ironic, since that trade save you from paying 20 tons of grain by the upkeep per unit.
I mean, since when is a cannon feeded with bread?
Well I fire the soldier that used to use those small arms offcourse 
. Why would I keep around a unarmed soldier?
NarmerTheLionWell I fire the soldier that used to use those small arms offcourse
The question is: you can't fire him, you ought to transfer him. Which, at its turn, returns us back to the problem of transfering soldiers' nationality as if it's nothing.
Had the artillery costs only the 5 oil as upkeep, you would have to be right.
DemonaireThe question is: you can't fire him, you ought to transfer him. Which, at its turn, returns us back to the problem of transfering soldiers' nationality as if it's nothing.
Had the artillery costs only the 5 oil as upkeep, you would have to be right.
you could also say the upkeep is the upkeep to keep then clean, store them , storage employees? I still think of trading units as trading the arms they used. Storing weapons isn't free either just like storing any other goods. In the industry knowns as storage risks and storage costs.
DemonaireWhich is ironic, since that trade save you from paying 20 tons of grain by the upkeep per unit.
I mean, since when is a cannon feeded with bread?
Okay, this has got to be one of the silliest arguments justifying the removal of trading units.
Let's propose an arms trade step by step, shall we?
In a match, German Empire would like to buy 10 Artillery units from America (doesn't matter which one, choose one)
America agrees and the trade is agreed 20,000 Silver for 10 Artillery units.
The moment the trade is done, here is what has happened.
German Empire has sent over men to receive the artillery units and German Empire is now paying 200 units (you are assuming tons) of grain per day along with 50 units of Oil per day.
The moment the transaction is completed the imaginary, invisible American men attached to the artillery pieces are relieved of their duties in helping transfer the hardware and go home to be replaced by imaginary, invisible German men.
Ergo, the need for German empire to NOW pay 200 units of grain per day for the artillery units. America NO LONGER is paying 200 units of grain or 50 units of oil for upkeep of 10 artillery pieces they have sold.
there is simple way to test those things
start an event in which players can play chosen map with unit trade
count how quickly this map will fill comparing to maps without unit trade
it is not players who do not want unit trade, but bytro
Golden Buddhathere is simple way to test those things
start an event in which players can play chosen map with unit trade
count how quickly this map will fill comparing to maps without unit trade
it is not players who do not want unit trade, but bytro
Bytro wants it but can't handle the tickets and cheaters who use it. In my time I've seen a lot of features go because they were abused...
that is a problem with cheaters, multis, friendpacks ,wolfpacks,sitters and account-pushing
not with a feature itself. tbh that feature was the only means to fight all above but now is gone and we are on mercy of groups from above. unless someone will spawn you golden army from a good hearth.
ie decision to release all exploits was a very good one as for 10 years noone could handle them properly while the cheaters were free to use them without any responsibility. Now, when everyone is abel to sue them and community learns them - people are more capable of fighting cheaters on their own.
It would be the same with sharing troops as this gives common users edge in fighting cheaters.
Same comes to sitters- users need means to fight them as I havent seen single sitter banned despite I have reported over 30. System similar to other games , where people are not limited by personal activity, should be introduced too.
It's an continious battle with no right or wrong. So we're bount to opinions. and inthe end the opinion of bytro is the one that leads. same reason why pictures in newspapers were removed, why the new games don't have custom flags, ... Endless battle
well
if they cannot defend me against cheaters I would at least expect them to give me some tools to defend myself, not to leave me defenseless.
Demonaire1. As you can see, I can outfocus the map in Legacy almost totally, that allows comfort to the user when he needs to manages troops in the extremes of the map. In Frontline, that's not longer possible and that comfort disappear (we need to zoom in to do the same management
This, by the way, is still a bummer and a half for pete's sake.
Also quite funny how those early screenshots actually containt features that were helpful and then removed, like the white line connecting the sprites to the actual ingame location and sprites at least trying to get out of the way of one another, albeit neither of these implementations are especially breathtaking. It's still just baffling that they were both just pulled while all of the actual feedback here remained untouched.
The white lines connecting the sprite to the actual position are still in the game. Same as the mechanic that visually pushes army images away from eachother, also still in the game (of course not possible anymore at some point when you have 20 armies in the same spot). I can see both of them in effect in my games.
When I look at those early screenshots the map nowadays looks much more pleasing imo, back then it looked more straining to the eye (too shiny oceans for example), and map icons / army labels were of less quality.
True, I guess the while lines are still there but they very often run right on the paths underneath so they sort of fade a little and they still connect the most irrelevant aspect of the unit icon to the location though, which I have stated my issues with. It's the thing I try to glance past as I'm reading a unit icon.
The mechanic that moves unit sprites away from one another I cannot see at all anymore though, regardless of the number of sprites. In my own thread I have an example of just three individual stacks overlapping each other in such a way that only one of them has a readable unit tag at all.
I agree on the colors and general graphics though. As far as I recall, the reduced graphics mode was introduced later, which in my opinion looks much more readable and pleasing at least as far as the backdrop, the map itself is concerned.
