I've been doing quite well recently, but on small maps I'm never quite sure how to handle the F.N.U. As the PL it's easy, you can make aggressive moves early on, and if you play right, you determine the flow of gameplay. Like in chess, you need to hold the initiative.

But as the F.N.U. it isn't easy to take back. First, you can't take a tank frontline in case you're facing an PL frontline, so you take LAVs and Mortars... but then you're slow and struggle to react to the PL moves.

How should you handle this sort of thing on maps like Antarcticus whereby the early PL transports can really catch you unprepared?

One thing I've wondered that confuses me greatly is why deployment happens in the dark for both sides.

Since FNU is disadvantaged on small maps, wouldn't it make more sense for FNU to deploy AFTER PL (instead of simultaneous) - so that FNU's deployment can react.

This still gives PL the 1st turn advantage, but at least FNU would be less in the dark.

On a big map, I don't think it would change much of anything, so I don't think it's a scary or unbalancing change.

Being able to see the other guy's deployment would be an even bigger advantage than going first.

The PL advantage is apparent, but as has been pointed out in other threads, SA placement can often be a factor that can put you at a worse disadvantage than moving second.

But as that is not the issue here, I'll refrain from that argument and answer the issue at hand. How do you contain the damage of the PL's first move?

First off, you must take great care in choosing which allies to disclose. The main goal is to have as small as borders as possible so that you can cover them better. Generally this means choosing neighboring allies if at all possible. In this case you know you don't need to cover certain borders.

Once you've chosen your initial allies, cover your borders with LAVs. Don't partially cover them unless you have terrain that inhibits transports, as even a small hole can destroy you if the enemy can sneak a transport past in the first turn. If I have a bad SA layout, I sometimes purchase all LAVs, attempting to cover as many borders as possible.

Once your borders are covered, if you still have cash, choose a front you might like to attack, then add appropriate units to support this front.

If you have your borders covered, and the PL discloses transports and tanks next door, you actually have the advantage! His tanks can do 2 damage a piece, but in the end a bunch of LAVs with mortar backups can handle tanks with ease, inflicting a lot more monetary damage than receiving.

Sure, by playing defensively like this, you may feel like you are not in control, but try it out. You may find that you have less instances where you completely lose control in the first round. If the PL can't invade your territories immediately, then the advantage is over, and the FNU and PL are on equal footing.

That's the theory I hold to and I've seen it used, but the problem I see is that if the PL start with tanks and transports, and you start with LAVs and Mortars, if the PL and you do not border then the PL has surely already won? They stomp into a territory with tanks and take it in two turns, while you move, very slowly, into a territory with LAVs and it willtake you a good three turns to get onto an aggressive footing, never mind take the territory.

What can be done about that?

In the case where he's charging with tanks into a neutral territory you need to deploy your LAVs in hard to reach areas to slow his attack. Direct combat against tanks with gorillas will just allow them to die faster. Also, sometimes I'll use some of my gorillas to take out their transport if at all possible, leaving the other tanks stranded, and use my last gorilla unit(s) to hide somewhere far away.

As far as your slowness, you definately need to start getting your slow units in transports as soon as possible if your enemy has put gorillas in the nether regions when you invade with LAVs and Mortars.

Yes, it will be slower taking than with tanks, but you are not as much at risk of a later disclosure... If your enemy invades a secret ally with tanks, a disclosure at that point may put them at a very disadvantageous position... the tanks mobility can be cut off while they are forced to fight more cost effective units. Oppositely, disclosing against a line of LAVs and Mortars is suicide unless you have a huge numerical advantage... They will continue to have more units coming in every turn as they slowly wipe out your units.

One more comment. As FNU, if you play defensively, your first disclosures will be slow lines, at the same time alleviating the risk of a bad front. This does not hold you to be defensive with your SAs though. After the first round, you can be very aggressive with your remaining disclosures, forcing the enemy on the defensive.

I'll have to play some more FNU. I feel quite confident with the PL, I understand how they work and with the early transports you can rework a frontline with ease. The FNU takes a little more... thought.

Always fun

Playing FNU is good on the ego: If you win, you overcame great odds! If you lose, you can blame the PL advantage

Artanis,

Maybe I was not clear - maybe I was.

I have no issue with disclosure in parallel, just separating it from deployment.

Yes, it gives the FNU the advantage of laying down a defensive/attack border along a PL border if they have happened to disclose next to each other.

But it takes away the problem that FNU usually deploys LAV along many borders 'just in case'.

The PL still gets the first volley of fire, and that's quite a benefit.

Maybe I'm just not seeing something.

Ok, gotcha. It sounded like you wanted PL to place troops in the dark then let FNU see them before deploying, which, it would seem, is not the case. Having both sides see the borders before deploying troops sounds interesting...I'm not experienced enough to know if it would work out, though.

Incredible idea! I don't think I've heard anyone mention this idea... you can see where the enemy discloses, but then you choose how to place units! I like it! I hope the Devs are listening. They're always there, watching, waiting, plotting, planning, scribbling todo notes...

Just thinking more about it, how it may be difficult to implement. It would require changing the structure of the phases, which is a very deeply rooted concept, so probably would require code upheavels to allow for it.

Here's a way to implement it more simply... instead of having players start their initial disclosure phases by placing units, add the disclosure funds to the city's funds instead. That way the next turn would be like a normal turn, with no units to move or fire, so it would automatically jump to the revenue phase, where the players can use their disclosure funds.

This approach would limit the changes needed to just the initial disclosure phase.

Putting the disclose money in the treasury is a major change to game mechanics, and so is a much less trivial change than separating parts of the turn sequence. I don't think the team of experienced programmers are going to have any trouble with it if they decide it is neccessary.

Maelstrom's suggestion is probably the best if they wish to continue the direction of not forcing people to upgrade.

With his suggestion, people using the old client would be at the 'disadvantage' of having to spend their money, while people using the new client would get the new versatility.

Of course, this boldly assumes that the old client would not freak out about that money not being spent - but I hazard a guess that it would handle it ok.

You could separate the turn sequence and still not force an upgrade by simply making the change available only to NewClient vs. NewClient games.

Putting the secret army in the treasury would still not help the FNU, as the PL will have the opportunity to invade their country before they get to spend their first revenue.

Result: PL gets Revenue money + Indemnity money + Secret Army money!

The problem for the FNU, as I see it, is that not only do the PL get the first turn, they also get to buy troops and disclose even more troops, before the FNU have had a turn... this means that by the time it's the FNU go, on a small map, it's damned hard to make any headway unless the enemy SA's are placed in just the right way.

Maybe I'm coming into this late or maybe from a third person perspective...

Isn't the point of the game that FNU is going against the odds to begin with.. I mean the FNU is holding there countries together by a string and the PL has been secretly cutting deals and popping up out of nowhere all over the global FNU community... according to the game history, only recently has FNU decided to take the same steps as PL to try and counter act what was secretly going on.

To me its obvious that the FNU player has the deck stacked against them initially, but the challenge of the game (and the excitement in my opinion) is the fact that FNU can look at those odds and fight back not only the initial advancing sweep of PL but also repel the invasion and press their own forces right into the heart of PL countries... Its not easy, by any means unless the SA layout is greatly in FNU's favor, but then again why would I want to play an easy game... Where's the fun or challenge in that?

Regardless of which side you play, to me the secret to victory in any situation is forcing the opposing force to change plans midstream... an example of this would be where the PL has invaded a neutral country that is near an undisclosed FNU SA. Place the guerilla forces of the invaded country scattered both away and near the undisclosed SA. As the PL forces divide to conquer the resistance, Spring the SA disclosure and place some fast units right on the joining border. The next turn not only does PL not get any revenue for the invaded country but they can't get reinforcements into position quickly enough to stop the counterstrike.. and as an added bonus, FNU doesn't have to worry about guerrillas of PL for this easily aquired country. In other words, let PL do the dirty work for FNU and then all FNU forces have to do is mop up operations.

There are other possible things to do as either FNU or PL that will equal the end results of victory. Basically with the units being equal (strength/damage/cost) for both sides, the only thing preventing victory is a poor map layout for SA and player skill level. If SA is layout great, then the skill needed to win isn't as demanding. On the other hand if the SA layout is very Poor, then great skill is needed to compensate.

If I were to change anything, it would be the initial layouts being better distributed, rather than one army having 3 or more joining SA and the other army having scattered SA with virtually none joining initially.

With that being said, the only thing preventing victory would be lack of player skill. And that ends my soap box lecture.. sorry for the lenghtiness.

story != gameplay

However, I agree with some of your points.

Story and gameplay may be separate, but if you can integrate the storyline into the gameplay, say with some cutscenes, then you significantly enhance the gameplay experience.

Sure, but the story should not be the reason behind gameplay decisons. It should back them up, or changed to accomodate them, but you certainly should change working mechanics to better fit the (in this case flimsy) plot.