Objave u kojima sam citiran

Battlefield is fun, but sometimes I like playing a game where the 12 year olds i'm playing against have awful aim so that I win incredibly easily.

Napisano od Goblin, 01.02.2013 at 12:00

I don't see any benefit what so ever for the "minor ally". This would only benefit the master high rank.

Also vassal and protectorat are countries with almost no rights ....they can't engage in diplomacy with other countries, declare war ...all of that is in the hands of the country that rule over them.

So i dont understand why would any one want to be a little puppet.

Because if there's one huge country and one tiny country, but they both want to end the game as quickly as possible, the large country doesn't want to ally the tiny country because then their SP earned will be lowered. The tiny nation would LIKE to be a normal ally, but would accept that they would get steamrolled, so choose to be a Vassal just so they keep the SP that they won in game, and have it counted as a win. It's more for ending a game than during a game I think.

Napisano od tophat, 31.01.2013 at 18:22

Napisano od zombiekiller, 30.01.2013 at 22:11

Why not just make it 50 with intervals of 5 possible between 20 and 50? That way everybody can be happy.

that means they need 50 colors. that don't resemble. Think before commenting please.

25 would be the absolute max.

invent more colors retard. Go into the infrared and ultraviolet ranges and shit like that.

But seriously, there are a lot of colors. Crayola has those 200 some boxes of crayons, just take colors out of that. It isn't my job to find more colors, but there are more colors that are easily differentiable from each other than just 5 more than we have.

I still feel that this could be OP, as you could nerf your own units that you never use (for me I would take away everything from Anti-Aircraft, Destroyers, Stealth, and Subs, and put them all into my bombers/air transport.) This would be incredibly OP, as I would be taking my Sky Menace up a notch while not having the weaker tanks and such that you normally get with SM.

Napisano od themartinmcfly, 31.01.2013 at 15:49

Love it, can even call it Vassal .

Although the problem with not being able to read what someone is offering you (it is covered by the yes/no button) could be highly annoying. Especially if everyone decides to ally end and a smart arse sends you minor ally requests.

Agreed, this needs to be fixed soon.

Support.

Why not just make it 50 with intervals of 5 possible between 20 and 50? That way everybody can be happy.

I support, although I am worried if it will add too much complexity to the game.

Maybe there could be a militaristic government where cities had increased production, but grew at a slower rate (as if the government were drafting more people for the military than normal, so the population slowed as a result)

Maybe there could be some sort of genocidal government where cities taken took much higher collateral, and i'm not sure if I should add in a nerf, as taking destroyed cities may be a curse in itself.

Maybe even a government based on trade, where you would gain 5% of each of your allies' profit, and 2% of the profit of anybody you are at peace with. The drawback could be that ending a peace treaty would cause a slowing of your economy in every city, and ending an alliance would cause a larger decrease, where ending the subsequent peace treaty would cause an even further decrease. Having allies die would cause a similar effect, so it would require players to be more conscious of who they ally, while providing a benefit from those who you do ally.

One last one I can think of is a communist government. Every time you completely take a country, the values of every country you have is averaged, and the resulting country has the same income as all of your other countries. For example, you start off with one country that has 100 income, and you take a country that has 50 income. The value of both of your countries would be averaged (75) and distributed to both countries. This would permanently adjust the income, so if somebody took the country that WAS 100 income, they would be taking a country worth 75 income (at least, at 100% income). Since your countries are already all the same, losing a country will not effect the income of each of your countries. Since your countries are all the same, it makes it simple, yet ineffective to attack in areas. There is no weak point of the nation, as attacking anywhere will lead to the same effect. This is both a blessing and a curse, as there is nowhere that is critical to keep defended, yet, everywhere must be defended equally. This would be more useful in attacking rich nations, for if you took the USA: Atlantic with an average of 200 income per country, that land would lower to slightly higher than 200 income, and if taken back by the defender, would be land that is worth much less. However, if you take South Sudan, and had an average income of 200, and then South Sudan were taken back, your foe would be given land that is worth much more, and your enemy could build upon this.

Support.

Napisano od Fruit, 20.01.2013 at 23:25

Hi I want the most realistic game possible and I don't care about gameplay or balancing
-zombiekiller706

It would only be in custom games anyways. I want to make the custom maps feature more and more custom until I feel that I have everything that I could possibly want out of a map creator. Then I'll let somebody else do the bitching.

Also this could add in more balance, and would create a different dynamic of gameplay, depending on how people use it.

I was playing a game of Imperial Era today, and as I always do, I checked the units to see where I should go, and what Strategy I should use. Since I saw that there were Air units , I used Sky Menace and picked Russia. Although I was a bit confused, I understood that there are a ton of imperial games, and I thought I remembered one having air units. However, when I got in game, the units were not offered, and when I checked the units list again, it was said that I had not unlocked them yet. Although this isn't the largest bug, I think that every game that was created prior to AtWar, that had unit retrictions, shows the units that they have restricted, without them actually being available. If something could be done about this, I'm sure it would end a lot of confusion.

As we are all aware, cities/countries grow by a certain percentage in both population and income per turn. In a controlled environment (where the cities aren't being bombed), this rate is consistent with every country/city. However, realistically, this is not the case. Some areas grow faster than others naturally, and when making a custom map I want to be able to express this.

I propose that we can add multipliers to each city/country in both population and in income. It would normally be able to be given to countries, but if you wanted to be more specific, you could give a specific city in that country a seperate value, where the city's value would be used and the country's value ignored for that particular case. (E.G. Great Lakes is growing at 150% the normal rate, but Detroit is at 50% the normal rate. Every city but Detroit in Great Lakes would grow at 150%, and Detroit would grow at 50%, kinda how auto-produce is now). Values could be negative, which would make the city lose population and income every turn. The Income growth and population growth can also be given independent of each other.

I also propose being able to increase/decrease the pop/income cap. This could be given on a case by case basis per country, or given to every country as a map multiplier.

Thanks for reading my suggestion to make our custom maps more custom, good day.

Support if it can implement

I support the use once, and I support the killing entire population thing, although I think that it should be a value you can add in that kills a certain percentage of the population. Most people would obviously place this at 100%, but for some units other than nukes (Long range missile for example) you may only want to kill 2% of the defenders. the percentages would stack with each unit that is using this that is added into the stack. For example, 5 long range missiles at 2% each would kill 10% of the defenders if all used on one city.

As for the fallout, it would be more realistic but I don't know, seems kinda OP.

Why would you want 50 players? Unless you were to create a map larger than the current maximums (unless they increased the maximums?) that would be such a moshpit it wouldn't be funny. Well maybe it would be.

I support, sometimes to pick the best starting country, you get put in a place with a hard to defend cap (such as coastal caps and caps with less than 3 units in them)

Napisano od Amok, 08.01.2013 at 08:00

Or you could simply set the role to something like Ground: Other, then it won't be affected by the different strategies.

are other units not effected by ANY strategies? I thought they were only exempt from specific strategies (GC, SM, GW, etc.) but were still effected by broader strategies (Imp, blitz, IF, etc.)

Napisano od VRIL, 29.12.2012 at 13:29

The system is fine. One unit more or less doesnt make a big difference. It has been a part of AW forever and everyone is well adapted to it.
But the main reason why I would keep it as it is is because it encourages players to expand on all neutrals as early as possible.

1 unit can make a huge difference if you're so used to a strategy that you know how many units you NEED to take a city, and the maximum that you should send to be on the safe side but not overkill. This is crucial in early turns because you have to ration your reinforcements, and so you send what you need to each city considering the amount that each city has. If you were starting in Spain, and you sent enough units to just barely take Paris, London, and Rome, but London and Paris both get an extra infantry, which would lead to you taking neither city, you're fucked.

Napisano od ezzatam, 09.01.2013 at 10:37

Napisano od zombiekiller, 06.01.2013 at 22:33

I don't see how this prevents farming? I remember when I asked for the ability to make custom units, everybody yelled at me that it would be abused and get farmed. I remember when I asked to be able to make your own maps, everybody yelled at me that it would be abused and get farmed.

I support, just this morning I was having issues where everywhere started with 0 units because I had specific infantry and militia for each scenario side.

If you keep the militia the same for all the countries then everywhere would start with just those and not 0 units

I know that, I'm just saying it's frustrating because I had to make a uniform unit that was available in every country, although I wanted every scenario side to have completely unique units.

Napisano od Tundy, 08.01.2013 at 20:13

Napisano od zombiekiller, 06.01.2013 at 22:33

Napisano od Tundy, 27.12.2012 at 20:50

To prevent farming. end.
i do not support this idea.

I don't see how this prevents farming? I remember when I asked for the ability to make custom units, everybody yelled at me that it would be abused and get farmed. I remember when I asked to be able to make your own maps, everybody yelled at me that it would be abused and get farmed.

I support, just this morning I was having issues where everywhere started with 0 units because I had specific infantry and militia for each scenario side.

is call events dude.
you should add events.

[if this idea is ever implemented, i want a option to disable it, since i don't like it]

I was going to do that, but do you realize how long it would have taken me to put the correct amount of each scenario side's special units in every city on the map? Also that many units would have made my huge map lagg more than it already does.

No Support. You're kinda taking a risk by deciding which strategy to pick when entering a new game. "Should I pick MoS, there's a low rank over there who probably can't wall, or maybe PD, that guy over there looks tough, but if I can manage to ally them both I should pick RA to expand faster in other areas, but if I have to go over an ocean I want SM for speed, or maybe I should go blitz, take all the land, and ally up."

There's pros and cons of each strat, some are good for early in the game, and some are better later on in the game. For example, my favorite strat, SM, is slow starting, although it can reach far, because of the huge costs assossciated, but is really good later in the game for its high speed and ability to go over water to attack. IF sucks at expanding due to the low unit speed, but makes your units sturdier later in the game, good for trench warfare.

What I'm trying to say here, is that the ability to change strats is cheap, as you can expand quickly and then switch to a more resilient strat when you encounter resistance, or if you're stupid with your money, can just switch to Imp. and carry on.

Napisano od Tundy, 27.12.2012 at 20:50

To prevent farming. end.
i do not support this idea.

I don't see how this prevents farming? I remember when I asked for the ability to make custom units, everybody yelled at me that it would be abused and get farmed. I remember when I asked to be able to make your own maps, everybody yelled at me that it would be abused and get farmed.

I support, just this morning I was having issues where everywhere started with 0 units because I had specific infantry and militia for each scenario side.

Napisano od Ivan, 07.02.2011 at 15:35

Napisano od Hawk, 04.02.2011 at 23:20

How do you guys determine the income of specific cities (where do you get GDP values from, and what type of GDP is it)?

GDP values are mostly from Wikipedia. We used the 'nominal' GDP.

Oh I never know there actually was a formula for determining an income for the countries, I thought you gave countries values kinda relative to their GDP, but also added balance in to make the difference not debilitating. Cool.

Would the fact that players could stuff one unexpensive country with expensive units, and then dump the country be exploiting this, or would this be considered an alright move to lower upkeep?

I doubt many people without OCD will roleplay to the point of wanting to make countries neutral, however, I could see it make an appearance in UN games where there's a higher than normal amount of players at peace with each other, where only players with an alliance or players at war can take each other's land.

I support, although other than sending units to die to reduce upkeep, there won't be much point in it.

Maybe there could also be a function to give it to another player, such as if the land was bought or rightfully owned but was in somebody elses hands, they could give the land to their rightful owner (with both players consent, of course) to speed many things up.

Support. You should pick the best target for the nukes rather than attacking one stack after another.

I read the first few paragraphs... and then I saw how much you just posted.

You're going to kill somebody's brain pulling a stunt like that mister.

Support. I made a similar suggestion like this a while back, to where you could change the defense bonus in the countries you start out with for a scenario. That way, if you expand, an enemy's going to focus more on taking away the land you've gained rather than attacking your homeland since it's going to be more fiercly defended.

My name is Megan.

JK it's Adam.

I mean if the low levels want to duel a higher level, let them duel a higher level.

Screw being PC, I can wish congratulations to one group without being discriminatory. Merry Christmas to all.

Also I think yellow better belongs to Mauzer Panteri, he's the only person who's color I know by heart besides mine.