[Suggestion] Improvements for the Meta Game (Real Suggestions Inside!)

Warhammer and Battleground Europe are also endless wars but they actually have a point and objective. Warhammer its assault the enemy factions capital city and actually I think Battleground Europe the objective is assaulting capital cities, London and Berlin.

Im sorry but games with no point just bore me.

I like this idea. It would help focus battles.

Neutral none conquerable hexes to break up total hex connections:
I like the first idea (Neutral Hexes). The siege thing, ehhhh.
Btw meta is a bit higher level than this. You are still on the tactical level. Meta as put forward by Vets is Strategic level.
Anyway, that doesnt mean I think the idea is dumb or anything just clarifying.

I think this idea you have could use a sort of "algorithm" where the neutral spaces, that cant be capture and break up hex connection, would change over time. Story wise you could just say its some kind of weather interference with the control system or whatever, but this way the dynamics of each map would change all the time without being an idea against the Strategic lattice line with Sanc idea between islands and you would need to adapt instead of just using the same old tactic to win on each island.

Some times these hexes where connected so you could go strait to the next Outpost. Other times the Outposts where not connected because of neutral hexes, aka zero influence, so you would need to conquer other places first. Streamlining the combat to a lesser and always changing extent.

I like it.

To be clear, and I might not have done a good enough job on this, the idea is that every Continent have these neutral hexes thus changing up the overall strategies and flow of each continent. While there is a tactical level to this, from a squad leader perspective. There's also a larger strategic perspective because it changes the way each empire can conquer the map. I think "meta game" fits the description but there's been some debate on what that really means.

I like the idea of dynamic hexes, the battlefield shifting and changing in ways that people can't control. They can only adapt. Hopefully in game weather will play a role in that. But shifting neutral hexes might work as well. That might be very hard to balance though.

Call me crazy but I think there needs to be LESS bases. Less bases stresses more importance on individual captures, and that means instead of many fragmented skirmishes you will get more concentrated assaults that would be more true to the planetside theme.

I think the large bases are fine, but there are way too many small bases with little to no value unless a motorcade happens to roll by them.

Last but not least certain geographical landmarks should be contested. That way instead of every fight happening at a base where the layout is predictable, You Have a varied field where the importance of armor or air is stressed.

I wouldn't agree that there needs to be less bases. I think the small bases are sometimes the best fights.

I do agree that the geography should come into play. That's one of the points of neutral territory. We put neutral hexes on, mostly, natural barriers like mountains, hills, rivers and alike. The point is to sort of encourage fighting in certain areas. Bridges for example should have some meaning. So should the hills and mountains around them.

I enjoy fighting out in the terrain, I think most people do. Let me know if I'm wrong there.

Those that support this:

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...ity-design-meeting-with-soe-developers.80250/

Goodluck

o7

FYI.

WWII analogy:
Tactical level = The tank battle of Kursk or the siege of Stalingrad.
Strategic level = The whole East front.