Rezultati pronađeni: 94
09.04.2014 u My ideas
I like it
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
05.08.2013 u Morale?
That would probably be an effective means to stop PD infantry offense spam.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
Amok said he made it to where you could put -3 range for Other units for this exact reason
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
05.08.2013 u Bank of Vectors ?
I'm sorry but could you explain what the bank of vector means?
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
17.05.2013 u Mechanized Divisions
Anybody who knows how to fight tank warfare knows that tanks support infantry. They provide heavy fire which is needed to take out fortifications, and also absorb fire for the infantry. However, infantry also supports tanks. They can take out men equipped with RPGs or anti-tank rifles, and can prevent enemy units from getting within range of throwing shit like grenades and molotov cocktails.

When in combat, infantry and tanks augment each other's effectiveness, so i'm proposing a strategy that would reflect this. When infantry are in the same stack of tanks, tanks would get +1 attack. Infantry would get +1 defense and +1 movement speed.

I just thought of this idea and I don't know what balanced nerfs would be, but it shouldn't play exactly like GC.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
No support because of the fact that it can be abused. Maybe only in the first turn you could kick, or you could kick specific players who join
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
Supporty
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
I want one of those hats that you can put cans in with straws so you can drink your milk with no hands.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
08.05.2013 u Economic sanctions
No support, it makes it seem noobish. If you've been stupid enough to allow 1 player to grow stronger than the remaining 5 players combined, that's your own damn fault. You don't need a fucking way to make it more even.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
Napisano od Guest, 15.04.2013 at 01:09

Napisano od zombiekiller, 14.04.2013 at 23:38

You keep saying that SM has massive expansion power, and it doesn't. It's good in PvP in equal footing with enough cash to sustain both armies (like when you just start off if you have plenty of cash left), but it's a slow expander.



Woah woah woah there, I agree its not as fast of an expander but it is in no mean a slow expander. I'd say its the second fastest expander! The problems with SM expand you pointed out stand but you must also weigh in with SM it is much easier to expand terrain wise. It is harder and slower for all strategies (except bltiz) to expand across seas. Even NC which is fast in the seas has to use the sea for transport. With SM is it incredibly fast and easy to expand back and forth across such places at the Mediterranean.


I'll agree with you for Seas, but SM is horrible if you're trying to get an income base by taking all cities in a country. If you just want to blitz on through and worry about economics later, then yeah, sure, it's good.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
SM cannot expand like blitz. Although the bombers have higher range, this just gives you more options (which is nice, but beside the point). In blitz and RA, it is incredibly easy to break stacks into what is needed, so that you can take several cities in a turn from one large original stack. With SM, your city taking capability is your Air Transport, and you can't split one air transport into several stacks. You can build more air transports, but they're roughly 3 times as expensive as a bomber, and each one takes away from your offensive power you could have built in that city. If you have the units, and two cities were in a straight line from each other, you could drop one militia off at a city and then move the transport with a second militia into a second city to take 2 in one turn. However, this is both time consuming (with time being a valueable asset which is not to be underestimated) and requires ideal conditions. Then afterwards you'd have to build another air transport in that city anyways to get your units out.

You keep saying that SM has massive expansion power, and it doesn't. It's good in PvP in equal footing with enough cash to sustain both armies (like when you just start off if you have plenty of cash left), but it's a slow expander.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
I like it, maybe there it could be an option, and it could even have varying degrees of Fog of War. with each one stacking on each other

1) none.

2) Basic. What we have right now.

3)Limited. Does not show any troops at all unless allied or inside view range.

4)Advanced. Does not show territory gains/losses, or population/income percentages unless in view range.

5)Total. Complete blackness unless within view range.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
06.04.2013 u Zombie Apocolypse
My Zombie Apocolypse game seems to have taken off. I'm making a second one, and I would like to know suggestions for the new one and changes I should make to the original. I'm going to keep a lot of the second one a secret until I release it though
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
Napisano od GOD 2.0, 05.04.2013 at 23:18

Napisano od zombiekiller, 05.04.2013 at 10:22

Like would this be temporary- choose military focus for like, 50% bonus reinforcements for like a, 25% income reduction? Or would it be like you get temporary extra units while your economy starts permanently tanking so that you can't keep military focus for so long before your base gives out?

And would focusing on income be a permanent boost, like, making it increase at a much faster clip, or would it be like a 25-50% boost to the income immidiately and as soon as you deactivate it, it would return to normal?

I don't know either way, it sounds pretty unfair to somebody with two fronts, where the person with one front could turn on economy in all the countries in the interior of the empire, and put the countries at the front militaristic to pump extra troops out while at the same time making more money.

its more of a permanent as long as you keep the country that way plus for every 1 troop you can get the country loses a 10% income and also the other way.

the country with income bonus gets it next turn and it doesn't go up. could be unfair unless if someone were to attack the economic countries make the player lose all of his income. maybe a sneak attack


Well you could have it to where the militaristic focus drops the population, as this would also serve to lower the income, but also city output, to where eventually the militaristic focus wouldn't be worth it, and would only be good for short burts, or if you've taken land from somebody, to destroy it before they take it back.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
Napisano od GOD 2.0, 05.04.2013 at 23:18

Napisano od zombiekiller, 05.04.2013 at 10:22

Like would this be temporary- choose military focus for like, 50% bonus reinforcements for like a, 25% income reduction? Or would it be like you get temporary extra units while your economy starts permanently tanking so that you can't keep military focus for so long before your base gives out?

And would focusing on income be a permanent boost, like, making it increase at a much faster clip, or would it be like a 25-50% boost to the income immidiately and as soon as you deactivate it, it would return to normal?

I don't know either way, it sounds pretty unfair to somebody with two fronts, where the person with one front could turn on economy in all the countries in the interior of the empire, and put the countries at the front militaristic to pump extra troops out while at the same time making more money.

its more of a permanent as long as you keep the country that way plus for every 1 troop you can get the country loses a 10% income and also the other way.

the country with income bonus gets it next turn and it doesn't go up. could be unfair unless if someone were to attack the economic countries make the player lose all of his income. maybe a sneak attack


Well you could have it to where the militaristic focus drops the population, as this would also serve to lower the income, but also city output, to where eventually the militaristic focus wouldn't be worth it, and would only be good for short burts, or if you've taken land from somebody, to destroy it before they take it back.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
I'm thinking it should be the other way around. Practically a lot of people at peace are allowing the soldiers to move through on their way to another area: If you were Germany you could peace Russia so he could get to France.

The stealth units should be the ones that are excluded from the deal. Or maybe there should be something implemented into the game where if you're at peace with somebody, they can see all the units that you have in their territory.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
Like would this be temporary- choose military focus for like, 50% bonus reinforcements for like a, 25% income reduction? Or would it be like you get temporary extra units while your economy starts permanently tanking so that you can't keep military focus for so long before your base gives out?

And would focusing on income be a permanent boost, like, making it increase at a much faster clip, or would it be like a 25-50% boost to the income immidiately and as soon as you deactivate it, it would return to normal?

I don't know either way, it sounds pretty unfair to somebody with two fronts, where the person with one front could turn on economy in all the countries in the interior of the empire, and put the countries at the front militaristic to pump extra troops out while at the same time making more money.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
14.03.2013 u Changes on premium.
If you're looking to pay the bills, I've been to a few places where if you were a paid member, you had no ads, and if you were playing for free, there would be ads. This could pay for server upkeep and the like, while providing an extra incintive to go premium, where the Premium will be the source of profit.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
Napisano od Guest, 12.03.2013 at 06:43

Napisano od tophat, 11.03.2013 at 21:17

Solution: Don't ally anyone. And don't ally end. Just like the mighty TopHats.



This. Zombie in that game today I obviously didn't want to ally you, I wanted to kill you. Another huge problem AW faces today it that many people would rather ally end then see a game through. And today I was pretty much forced and pressured into allying while we were at war just because other players didn't want the game to go on for 20 more minutes. People should not be playing whole world games if they don't want to stick around for a long game. It sickens me how we were having a war but then other players would demand an ally end or would betray us just to end the game. The newer AW community needs learn to respect others during a game, that includes letting people play. And also not insulting people who refuse to do as a few others may want. I do not take kindly to being called a faggot just for not allying and I feel that you also had no reason to bring up my name specifically in this thread. I say good day to you sir!


....

Also i like HatTops real solution idea


No, the problem was when you said you would ally me, then attacked me that turn so that I wouldn't be defending myself for a turn. I don't want to get into this right now, I used it as an example, not the reason for suggesting this. Sometimes when two people are at war, they want to ally is what the meaning behind this is.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
There are some aspects to certain elements of diplomacy that i'm sure everybody finds annoying, and I propose changes to these.

Having to stop fighting for one turn when trying to end a war. Now when you're in a war, but are ready to ally end, you have to tell your opponent to stop for a turn to send the ally request. Seems simple enough. However, idiots do exist, and miscommunication is rampant in this game. If one person doesn't get the memo, and keeps attacking, they can realize the next turn and stop attacking, while the person they attacked attacks them. This process can repeat for several turns until somebody realizes what the fuck they're doing and stops it. This is also annoying if you're fighting somebody and they agree to ally-end, but you really don't trust them farther than you can throw them, and suspect that it's a ploy to get you to lower your guard for one precious turn. Both of these have happened to me several times in my career (cred to Terminal, as we spent 10 turns today trying to ally each other during a war)
Solution: If you send an ally request or peace request to somebody who attacks you, or whom you attack, the other player must accept, however, you must also re-accept the request, so that both players will be on the same terms if one player did a sneak attack on the other before that turn.


Not being able to look around at the map/player statistics when somebody sends you an ally request: I don't know if anybody else is as plagued by this as I am, but when somebody sends me an ally request, I can't move my screen around the map to see how that person is doing in their area, I can't look at the players to see unit count, and I can't look at diplomacy to see if that 'ally' would be able to help me in what I anticipate would be my future wars. Since I can't see this, sometimes I mistakenly ally people who end up to be liabilities rather than assets, or don't ally key players because I could not look at the map to see that the person was a superpower. I don't care if you call me shallow, but I don't ally people for shits and giggles, or so that I won't have to fight in my starting area, I ally to gain a partner in my plot to dominate the world. The less allies that my ally has, the better for me, as they can actually help me out against other players, and the more land/units they have, the better for me, as there's less likelyhood for them to be killed. If the reason we can't move is because you don't want us to attack those who sent the ally requests while they're waiting, then it can be made that you can't move your units while looking at the ally/peace requests sent to you, but you can look around the map, and at player statistics.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
While you do have a very long and well-thought out argument (I'll really give you that), you seem to be underplaying how much of a disadvantage having a main unit that can't take cities is.

For one, the air transport lowers a bomber stack's range by 2, so it's not AS bad as you think it is unless you have pure bombers going out to attack something.

At a cost of 350 (minimum cost, this is with the -200 from SM and -50 as an SP upgrade) the air transport is incredibly expensive. While 350 may not in reality seem like very much, it is coupled with a main offensive unit that is 130, and is practically the only way to take a city with a bomber stack unless you happen to have an infantry close to the city you're going after. So, the only way to take a city is to have that expensive unit flying around, and at turn one it means that you're going to have to buy one of them per city you expect to take. If you want a good opening, you're typically going to have to buy around 3-4 of them, which is over 1k down the drain JUST to get to the cities. Buying the offensive units to TAKE the cities is going to cost extra, and at an early level this digs into funds extremely quickly and only leaves certain countries open to even be feasible for an SM starting spot.

My third point is also that air transports are practically the only way to take a city. While it sounds like i'm being redundant, I do have a different point. I stated earlier that a good SM opening is 3 or 4 cities, which means you have to buy 3 or 4 air transports. The next turn, you'll have 3 or 4 air transports, so you can also take 4 cities, provided you have the bombers for it. At this point, you won't have money for more air transports, so you have to do what you can with what you have. As the turns drag on around 3-7, taking 4 cities (max) per turn is getting pretty tiresome. You either have to devote your entire stack to take a city with 1 or 2 militia, or don't take it at all. There are much more important choices that need to be made in this regard when it comes to SM, as you want to take the largest cities first, but you also want to get a country bonus for that little extra boost of income. You can't just buy an air transport and bombers to take that tiny little city, it'l cost a fortune, where normally you could buy a tank or two, or even divert two tanks from one of your larger stacks and take two cities with one original stack. This also becomes a huge problem when attacking somebody. SM may seem like its large range makes it extremely useful while attacking, the range is making up for the fact that you can only take one city per stack. For instance, if you were attacking Ukraine, with normal units (marines, tanks, even infantry) you could take the cap of Kiev, but also several of the outlying cities if you have a stack large enough. With SM, only taking Kiev is possible unless you're insane and brought two air transports with you, which may be a viable strategy once to break up a stack you predict having to be broken up, but if used repeatedly would quickly bankrupt you. While this may not seem important, your opponent could place 50 tanks in one of the cities, knowing that you can only take one city. Take out the tanks, or take the cap and risk having your bomber stack destroyed the next turn? (in this case, I'd take out the tanks, but if it were a more reasonable amount of tanks that would be a tough choice) With tanks, you could send 8 tanks to Kiev to take the cap and send the rest to the reinforced city and win both battles. I also would like to point out that you can't 'swarm' with bombers, as you can with so many other strategies, for the same reason as I've been going on about. If you see massive walls of tanks coming at you, it's going to be hard to defend everywhere, but if you see a huge bomber stack coming, you can tell where it's going and prepare that one spot against the bomber wave.

My final reason is going back to the cost of the air transports, costing anywhere between 35-60 per turn to keep them in the air. This requires people using SM to think several turns ahead of where each stack is going (obviously this is normally required of any strategy, but it's needed on a larger level in this case) because if the logistics are bad, and air transport could end up taking a city where it would take several turns to get back into action to take another neutral (or hostile player) city. If done with normal units, it's not a large drain, and getting those few back to where they needed to be won't be a big deal, but it is if you have to get back an air transport AND the bombers back. It also requires a larger amount of skill to play the strategy and isn't 'mindless bomber spamming at the enemy' like so many think it is. Where's the single best place to attack, that will be both hard for the enemy to reinforce, good to take, and also practical to take.






I'm not trying to say SM's the hardest strategy out there and should never be used. It's a great strategy and the incredible range of your stacks makes it amazing if you aren't a retard and know how to properly attack with air stacks. However, it comes at the price of it being costly, with a much slower opening than many comperable strategies, and has more skill requirements than the average strat. Also your 'balances' are way too OP in the first place, 25 is ridiculous, they could make a fortress with that in Europe if America was sending bombers, and having to buy a new air transport for each attack is bullshit.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
While I agree with the latejoiners, it could be good for scenarios if somebody "trolls" the game by leaving on turn 1 and there's a spectator to take the spot.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
24.02.2013 u Capture bonus
Napisano od raetahcodeupon, 21.02.2013 at 09:27

Napisano od Gen. Wolfshield, 20.02.2013 at 21:47

Actually, this makes a lot of sense.Support
though maybe it'll be better if you only get a percentage of their money. wouldn't be fair for everyone else if just conquer the richest player in game.

No this not makes sense, if im going to lose i burn all my cash.


How are you going to burn your cash if I have your capital? You have nobody in your cap left to enforce your will. And don't "burn it right before I take your cap" because then you'd have no money as I'm killing you for you to take your cap back.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
This would be extremely confusing, imagine a WWII game.

"Hey I need cash"
"Who are you?"
"Who are YOU?"
"Guise I need cash"
"I need cash"
"who the hell needs cash?"
"hey, I need cash too"
"Germany you suck"
"WHO SAID I SUCK!?!?!"
"Am I ever going to get cash?"
"guys we need to focus on strategy"
"no, we're talking about cash right now"
"Germany, attack Moscow with me"
"With who?"
"Who is this?"
"What's going on?"

etc...
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
06.02.2013 u The Apocalypse
stahpoT
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
I'm not entirely sure, but I think he means the fact that ships can take cities.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
Napisano od Roncho, 03.02.2013 at 03:16

I don't like collateral system. For example infantry has low collateral (0 if I don't remember wrong) but sometimes when you're taking city lots of ppl dies but sometimes they don't die. Even with nukes in maps/scenarios, in ezzatam's mega world nukes has 100 collateral but still %5-%10 of population dies.City gives lots of casualties only in extreme battles, like ww1 scenario-paris.


Collateral depends on both how many defenders in a city are killed and the collateral damage of your attacking units (and maybe the defending units, I'm not sure). If you take an empty city with a nuke and a militia you won't do any collateral, but if you attack a city that's defended by 100 infantry with 100 marines, you'll deal a lot of collateral, even though both units have 0 collateral. So i'm not exactly sure how that works, collateral may be added onto base collateral that is done by every units or something like that.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
03.02.2013 u Beating SM?
As a SM player myself, several of those methods bug me, but the only one that really shuts me down is PD. Using SM, you get a bomber with 8 attack for 130, and with PD you get an Infantry with 7 defense for 60 (50 with upgrade). Theoretically, the bomber would have to be taking out roughly two and a half infantry per bomber for that bomber to be cost effective, but it's not. Take advantage of this and make your opponent pay for every city they take. IF the SM player has the income to produce more bombers than you can get infantry to an area, build infantry anyways.

However, and this is of importantace, find a way to predict where the SM player is going to attack. As a Sky Menace expert, I find the best part about the strategy isn't the powerful bombers with moderate defense compared to tanks, but it's the fact that I can basically attack anywhere I want to. A SM stack has 15 range on it, while tanks have 7, and a PD infantry stack has 5 (6 with movement upgrade). They can attack any unwalled city that is in range, and can even go across water. The more experienced SM players with appear as if they're very random, attacking places that seem like they wouldn't be the optimum place to strike. The agile bombers can easily go around large infantry stacks and attack undefended cities, but with more skill, the player has to anticipate which city will be undefended. Over time, if several bomber stacks are successful, they can inflict massive collateral damage on areas, which will damage your income and reinforcements to the point where it becomes incredibly difficult to get your infantry to the area that's being attacked, and the other player can then start to wipe the stacks out, take the area, and move closer to your capital and repeat a similar process until you've been bombed to death. Note that this is not dealing with Europe games, as this eventuality normally happens between a Europe player and an Asia player fighting in the Middle East where reinforcements are very high and both sides have lots of money.

Tips to counter this- 1) don't leave cities unguarded if they're close to where the action is going on. An empty city is a beacon for an SM player to take. 2) predict where your opponent is going to strike. This can be difficult, but if you have a 100 stack of PD infantry in one city, and 7 militia in another city, the SM player is going for the easy target. You can use this to your advantage and put your infantry stacks where you think you're going to be attacked. If you have trouble with this step, trying putting decent amounts of infantry in any important city, which will whittle away the bomber stacks as they attack. When the amount of bombers has been reduced to be managable, you can resume your previous attack strategy. 3) there is no law that says your cities have to be attacked. They can be gone around, and the bomber stack can attack somewhere else, so don't start building the trenches before your opponent gets so into the fight that they don't think to attack somewhere else.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
02.02.2013 u Your Favourite Quotes
"Sir, we're surrounded" "Good, now we can't miss"- Chestie Puller.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
Even though Collateral damage has been implemented, I am dissapointed that no real playstyle change has occured as a result. Therefore, I'm suggesting a strategy focused around collateral.

I'm thinking +3 collateral for every unit, plus one attack for bombers, and -3 critical.

The reason I'm not putting much of a nerf on the strategy is that because of the collateral, anybody using this is going to be taking partially destroyed cities. This will slow down their own expansion, and the only benifit other than the collateral is going to be the +1 attack to bombers.

I'm thinking this strategy could be more useful in team games and scenarios, where one player has the opportunity to not be on a front, and can send in units to attack the enemy without any large threat on the home front. The drawback will be if the player's homefront becomes the battlefront, so whenever they recover a taken city, they'll be doing massive damage to their own cities.

Thoughts?
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
atWar

About Us
Contact

Privatnost | Uslovi korištenja | Baneri | Partners

Copyright © 2024 atWar. All rights reserved.

Pridružite nam se

Proširi riječ