World games are boring; a solution (movement range increments)

My [and many others'] main problem with world games is this; it takes too long to cross the ocean. Many players are hence turned off by this annoying delay from some hardcore Asswind action.

That's understandable--it's a bloody ocean after all! But this is a serious impediment to gameplay against real players once you cleared the region you've played on and want to move to the next region.

So here is my radical proposal:

• Every unit gains +0.05 movement range per week*
  
• This does not necessarily apply to all units, maybe just transports as an example
  
• It's effects should be transparent to most players, hence the low value
  
• I encourage the possibility of testing this and seeing if a system of a set number of increments is better; by this I mean the number of these increases in range will be limited
  
• Maybe this effect should only kick in after week 10 or so, a good idea for implementing this
  
• This only happens on the Whole World map (and maybe a few others like Atlantic or whatever but no-one plays these anyway).

* This was decided upon because I will usually be prepared for an invasion of, say, Africa by week 15. +0.10 would be too significant a speed boost, do the math. The possibility of the increments being variable (e.g. decreasing over time) is also open, though that would probably warrant a slightly higher value.

What do you think? Are up for something like this? I've spent long and hard thinking about this and how it could be applied in an actual game which has led me to this well thought-out proposition. Please comment!

I'd like this.

To add a movement boost on certain areas (like over oceans) would be good, but not globally. It's part of the problem that the world isn't a cylinder but similar to a sphere.

+5 internetz for u

5/5

I always thought a good solution to the ocean would be adding island nations, there are a good amount that are not in the game that would improve intercontinental warfare.

The canary islands, Socotra, french polynesia and other small islands around oceania, the virgin islands. There are probably a lot more i'm not thinking of. But I think that just adding these islands would help more than messing with the movement range.

Honestly the atlantic is pretty quick and not that bad for fighting over. The pacific is what I think needs some islands thrown in.

How about this:

The following shaded area would be a "speed zone" in world games only

Any troops within it would move slightly faster (+1 or 2 movement speed)

This would allow for troops to move among coasts or inside countries unaffected, but otherwise have a slightly quicker game pace.

Goodnames, I take it you meant to post this image?



This proves what a brilliant visionary you are! Pacific could be expanded a bit further but thank you for adding more credibility to such an idea!

Yours didn't post either, but I assume you posted this image:

As long as the range to enter and exit this is greater by 50% more the the farthest unit range, I don't see it as a problem. And the speed increase should only be around 50%, would need testing.

Yeah adding islands would make the ocean a much better experience to cross, this proposal 0/5 cos will be glitchy (since the borders of an ocean can be screwed up, and putting it on all water will be terrible) so just add dem islands.

and like houdini said, Atlantic isn't that bad. (though you could still add the islands there)

P.S entente supporting entente all over this thread

Napisano od Fruit, 09.11.2011 at 21:44

Yeah adding islands would make the ocean a much better experience to cross, this proposal 0/5 cos will be glitchy (since the borders of an ocean can be screwed up, and putting it on all water will be terrible) so just add dem islands.

and like houdini said, Atlantic isn't that bad. (though you could still add the islands there)

P.S entente supporting entente all over this thread

While I do agree that adding the islands would be a good idea, there arent enough of them that you can even see on the map.

Napisano od Runway1R, 11.11.2011 at 07:39

Napisano od Fruit, 09.11.2011 at 21:44

Yeah adding islands would make the ocean a much better experience to cross, this proposal 0/5 cos will be glitchy (since the borders of an ocean can be screwed up, and putting it on all water will be terrible) so just add dem islands.

and like houdini said, Atlantic isn't that bad. (though you could still add the islands there)

P.S entente supporting entente all over this thread

While I do agree that adding the islands would be a good idea, there arent enough of them that you can even see on the map.

they can just do what they did with singapore lol

Napisano od Fruit, 11.11.2011 at 07:46

Napisano od Runway1R, 11.11.2011 at 07:39

Napisano od Fruit, 09.11.2011 at 21:44

Yeah adding islands would make the ocean a much better experience to cross, this proposal 0/5 cos will be glitchy (since the borders of an ocean can be screwed up, and putting it on all water will be terrible) so just add dem islands.

and like houdini said, Atlantic isn't that bad. (though you could still add the islands there)

P.S entente supporting entente all over this thread

While I do agree that adding the islands would be a good idea, there arent enough of them that you can even see on the map.

they can just do what they did with singapore lol

Singapore is also highly populated. The Federated States of Micronesia arent.

Adding islands is a simpler solution and it also bring more advantages.

Also:

Napisano od Ivan, 27.09.2011 at 12:45

Napisano od ABox, 26.09.2011 at 22:52

I. Basic Terrain Stuff-
Alright, I get kind of the fact that it's too hard to code, but you can work on it continously. Anyways, so, I can cross the Andes to Peru in a week? To make the game a bit more moldable and expandable, I suggest basic terrain features. At least put a movement cost. I would appreciate a defense system, but please. Terrain features also open up a lot of new updates...

Adding terrain is next to impossible, and frankly we don't think it's worth the effort.

Well sorry MATE but the world of Afterwind is not only based on the Earth, the playing field IS the Earth. You can't just add islands that don't exist in the real world. That would indeed be a good solution but it is just not realistic. So no.

Let's all get back on topic.

Napisano od Fruit, 09.11.2011 at 21:44

this proposal 0/5 cos will be glitchy (since the borders of an ocean can be screwed up, and putting it on all water will be terrible)

Fruit, they may be screwed up but this can be fixed after extensive testing. I did note that its effects should be transparent to the player, i.e. if this were to be implemented you wouldn't need to dig up this forum topic to see this is actually happening.

If each turn is represented by a week, why does it take 15 weeks for a plane to cross the ocean?

Napisano od YOBA, 11.11.2011 at 16:16

Well sorry MATE but the world of Afterwind is not only based on the Earth, the playing field IS the Earth. You can't just add islands that don't exist in the real world. That would indeed be a good solution but it is just not realistic. So no.

Sorry mate, the places I listed actually exist. There are a lot of islands that exist in the real world that do not exist in afterwind. Check a map sometime.

Also this is on topic, it's making a better suggestion to fix the problem presented by the thread. Because the one you made is a bad idea.

Napisano od YOBA, 11.11.2011 at 16:16

Well sorry MATE but the world of Afterwind is not only based on the Earth, the playing field IS the Earth. You can't just add islands that don't exist in the real world. That would indeed be a good solution but it is just not realistic. So no.

There are plenty of islands that really exist and aren't available on the actual Afterwind map, do some research and you will find it out.

Napisano od YOBA, 11.11.2011 at 16:16

Let's all get back on topic.

I'm sorry, but I see no reason to keep on talking about a solution that won't be implemented. Did you read Ivan's quote I posted earlier?

Napisano od YOBA, 11.11.2011 at 16:16

Well sorry MATE but the world of Afterwind is not only based on the Earth, the playing field IS the Earth. You can't just add islands that don't exist in the real world. That would indeed be a good solution but it is just not realistic. So no.

xaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxa

Napisano od Pinheiro, 12.11.2011 at 10:40

Napisano od YOBA, 11.11.2011 at 16:16

Well sorry MATE but the world of Afterwind is not only based on the Earth, the playing field IS the Earth. You can't just add islands that don't exist in the real world. That would indeed be a good solution but it is just not realistic. So no.

There are plenty of islands that really exist and aren't available on the actual Afterwind map, do some research and you will find it out.

Napisano od YOBA, 11.11.2011 at 16:16

Let's all get back on topic.

I'm sorry, but I see no reason to keep on talking about a solution that won't be implemented. Did you read Ivan's quote I posted earlier?

That quote is old, things change. Maybe he would want to now, maybe he wouldn't. You can't tell somebody to stop talking about an idea of theirs by bringing up a prehistoric quote.
On topic, there are a lot of islands in the PA, but many seem worthless to add, seeing as they would be 1-city islands, and most people would skip over them. If they added Micronesia and gave it a decent capitol with more than 2, then that could change a little. Maybe add midway to Hawaii or something as well.

Napisano od Garde, 12.11.2011 at 11:50

That quote is old, things change. Maybe he would want to now, maybe he wouldn't. You can't tell somebody to stop talking about an idea of theirs by bringing up a prehistoric quote.
On topic, there are a lot of islands in the PA, but many seem worthless to add, seeing as they would be 1-city islands, and most people would skip over them. If they added Micronesia and gave it a decent capitol with more than 2, then that could change a little. Maybe add midway to Hawaii or something as well.

>prehistoric
>not even 2 months ago

Presumably, Ivan's opinion is going to be the same until it is indicated it is not as there is no clear evidence provided that his opinion has changed.

Napisano od ncmbad, 12.11.2011 at 12:05

Napisano od Garde, 12.11.2011 at 11:50

That quote is old, things change. Maybe he would want to now, maybe he wouldn't. You can't tell somebody to stop talking about an idea of theirs by bringing up a prehistoric quote.
On topic, there are a lot of islands in the PA, but many seem worthless to add, seeing as they would be 1-city islands, and most people would skip over them. If they added Micronesia and gave it a decent capitol with more than 2, then that could change a little. Maybe add midway to Hawaii or something as well.

>prehistoric
>not even 2 months ago

Presumably, Ivan's opinion is going to be the same until it is indicated it is not as there is no clear evidence provided that his opinion has changed.

I must be mistaken, the quote I thought of was made around March. Apologies, but the post still stands.

Napisano od Garde, 12.11.2011 at 12:11

Napisano od ncmbad, 12.11.2011 at 12:05

Presumably, Ivan's opinion is going to be the same until it is indicated it is not as there is no clear evidence provided that his opinion has changed.

I must be mistaken, the quote I thought of was made around March. Apologies, but the post still stands.

Presumably, Ivan's opinion is going to be the same until it is indicated it is not as there is no clear evidence provided that his opinion has changed.

Napisano od ncmbad, 12.11.2011 at 12:12

Napisano od Garde, 12.11.2011 at 12:11

Napisano od ncmbad, 12.11.2011 at 12:05

Presumably, Ivan's opinion is going to be the same until it is indicated it is not as there is no clear evidence provided that his opinion has changed.

I must be mistaken, the quote I thought of was made around March. Apologies, but the post still stands.

Presumably, Ivan's opinion is going to be the same until it is indicated it is not as there is no clear evidence provided that his opinion has changed.

You speak rudely, please stop. And who knows if his opinion has or not- I don't ever presume anything so I cannot really comment on your non-needed bold. Let's go back OT, shall we?

Napisano od Garde, 12.11.2011 at 12:25

You speak rudely, please stop. And who knows if his opinion has or not- I don't ever presume anything so I cannot really comment on your non-needed bold. Let's go back OT, shall we?

He expresses in the relevent text that he believes adding terrain is not worth the effort - hence, it is indicated that it is not worth the effort in his opinion, rather than being worth the effort in others opinion. Hence, he has an opinion that has no evidence suggesting it has changed. Ivan therefore believes, based on our current information, that adding terrain is not worth the effort.

You're all wrong about the islands in the Pacific. I hate to even have to argue this with you imbeciles who needs to get their facts right. I've checked out a few of the countries and they all seem to have very small capitals and tiny populations. If I recall correctly (from an older thread), the smallest capital in the game had about 0.1 million inhabitants.

Not a single capital of any country in the Pacific (excluding ones like the Philippines, autists) I checked exceeds a population of 50,000 except Honiara of the Solomon Islands (78k). Therefore, they cannot be included in Afterwind.

By the way Pinheiro, Ivan only mentioned adding terrain in his post. ABox did indeed mention movement cost in his, but Ivan only replied to his point of adding more terrain. Henceforth your quotation is invalid for the purposes of this discussion.

Napisano od YOBA, 12.11.2011 at 12:44

I hate to even have to argue this with you imbeciles

Such trolling.

Anyway, there's no reason a new precedent cannot be created by adding Honiara or other cities as there currently exists no formal rule stating a country capital cannot be less than 100k inhabitants.

Napisano od YOBA, 12.11.2011 at 12:44

By the way Pinheiro, Ivan only mentioned adding terrain in his post. ABox did indeed mention movement cost in his, but Ivan only replied to his point of adding more terrain. Henceforth your quotation is invalid for the purposes of this discussion.

Read the quote again and you will realize that they were talking about different movement ranges in especific parts of the map, which is pretty much the same we are discussing here.

Another quote I want to remember, from the same thread I took the other one (that happened 1 month ago, I wouldn't call it pre-historical).

Napisano od Ivan, 20.09.2011 at 15:12

Napisano od Garde, 20.09.2011 at 14:25

Just read the other post- sounds amazing Ivan
May I ask just this last thing, a lot of talk has been done about the Arctic on the forums between players and so on- will there be enough cities added up there to make it a "warzone" like the rest of the map per se? or did you mean something like the Falklands or Azores?

I doubt we'll touch anything in the arctic/antarctic regions (apart from Greenland, perhaps). These regions seriously lack populated areas. So yeah, more like Falklands and Azores.

Azores has an estimated populations of 245k, while Falkland Islands has a population close to 3k.

Now, a few Pacific Islands:
Nauru - 9k
Line Islands - 9k
Tuvalu - 11k
Wallis and Futuna - 15k
Marshall Islands - 70k
Tonga - 104k
Papeete - 131k
Samoa - 180k
Vanuatu - 230k
New Caledonia - 256k
French Polynesia - 267k
Solomon Islands - 525k

It beats me why Ivan would use the Falklands, particularly as they're an overstretched British territory (wouldn't work well, would give an unfair advantage to UK in world games). Also, we've had this conversation before.

As for the ones you listed, you again ignored my post Pinheiro; what we're looking for is population in the capitals, not the entire islands' population. Your statement is made void by this fact.