Ability to change your strategy mid-game

I've just start playing again since the Beta and back then i was thinking about being able to change your strategy mid-game. Though i never got around to making a post about it, so here it is :p(sorry if it has been mentioned before). Not at free will so it can be abused but about a 10-20 turn interval allowing you to switch or starting a game with a set number of times you can change. An example would be a player who likes Naval Commander but has little use for it outside sea-based custom maps, he can expand through ports but switch to a land strat to stop himself getting Blitz out of the mainland by another player or someone getting mauled with SM and switching to it himself to even the odds up.

It has been mentioned before.

It would be op, for example you can use TG, expand asap and then change your strat to PD and start spamming infs.

It has been discussed before. I think it could potentially be implemented with some sort of penalty, like in Civ when you change government and are unable to build for a turn or two.

Similarly, the penalty could be inability to build for one reinforcement series (4 turns), or perhaps render all units immobile for 2 turns. The disadvantage would have to be strong enough to deter abuse mentioned by Alex, but could add a layer of complexity to games.

No, just no, you pick strategy before starting the game and thats your strategy till the end of the game.

Napisano od Guest14502, 28.12.2012 at 21:19

It has been discussed before. I think it could potentially be implemented with some sort of penalty, like in Civ when you change government and are unable to build for a turn or two.

Similarly, the penalty could be inability to build for one reinforcement series (4 turns), or perhaps render all units immobile for 2 turns. The disadvantage would have to be strong enough to deter abuse mentioned by Alex, but could add a layer of complexity to games.

I like this idea of giving players a penalty when they change strategy BUT this should also be a premium option (exclusive weapons) if ever implemented.

Napisano od raetahcodeupon, 29.12.2012 at 05:02

No, just no, you pick strategy before starting the game and thats your strategy till the end of the game.

For europe games and similar sized maps sure I agree. For world games and similar size maps, which can be long, and the battlefield changes (e.g., land battle in europe to naval invasion of US, etc) I would like to see the ability to change with a penalty, like in Civilization.

Napisano od Guest14502, 29.12.2012 at 13:57

Napisano od raetahcodeupon, 29.12.2012 at 05:02

No, just no, you pick strategy before starting the game and thats your strategy till the end of the game.

For europe games and similar sized maps sure I agree. For world games and similar size maps, which can be long, and the battlefield changes (e.g., land battle in europe to naval invasion of US, etc) I would like to see the ability to change with a penalty, like in Civilization.

100000 cash to change strategy in the middle of the game.

Napisano od raetahcodeupon, 29.12.2012 at 14:35

Napisano od Guest14502, 29.12.2012 at 13:57

Napisano od raetahcodeupon, 29.12.2012 at 05:02

No, just no, you pick strategy before starting the game and thats your strategy till the end of the game.

For europe games and similar sized maps sure I agree. For world games and similar size maps, which can be long, and the battlefield changes (e.g., land battle in europe to naval invasion of US, etc) I would like to see the ability to change with a penalty, like in Civilization.

100000 cash to change strategy in the middle of the game.

support.

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.

I had written about this before, so I found it and im pasting it here:
I think it can be tested. And of course as an option.

Napisano od Milkyy, 02.03.2013 at 00:25

imo the problem on the default EU+ map is the balance of west vs east since west mostly plays in the west and in the east mostly Turkey and Ukraine battle out. I still believe that east is too powerless once a winner comes out from the Turkey-Ukraine battle. The reason I think so is because,

Ukraine: Money-wise releis on the remaining funds after first turns to get some income by expanding and you can get around 1.7~K. Now this starts to be enuogh to battle Turkey but once and if Ukraine wins, comparing against the winner in west, it doesnt have much power. Ukraine will take Turkey's cities and get like 2k income (or 2.2k, something like that at least) while west has all the left over cities from players to take and in a few turns it can dominate west and get 3.2k or something ( not sure cause i dont always play west and come out victor ^.^ ) Also the strategies, east's strategies are mostly picked to take on Turkey or Ukraine and not the 'western power' where you can just spam inf and Ukraines bombers cant take 'em all on.

Turkey: the same, turkey mostly rushes Kiev when it doeant have more than 1.5k income and has to expand AND defend against spam of inf coming from the west while being İMP ( or Pd, but becomes harder to take out ukraine). Taking on and beating west ( who is most likely PD) while being imp requeres a big or a segnificant difference in skill. if the skill of both players are the same, turkey will most probably lose.

Once again this is my opinion on the currrent default cw, 3v3 map EU+ . İ wanted to suggest being able to change strategy ONCE in a game on certain turns like rein turns. İ was thinking the turn before rein starting from turn 7. ( to prevent using for expantions) also all players will be notified that the player has changed strategy. İ know it might seem OP but since everyone is able to do it, the other player might also change strategy to counter but at least it will be more competitive and will spice up 3v3's since it has become repetitive..

( wrote all this from my phone, took ages xD )

I like the idea that vril suggested, a penalty of not getting reinforcement for once you change your strategy. My idea was only concerning 3v3s, but I think it could work in all types of games, and if it doesn't, you can not tick the option.

Buying single journey holiday insurance policy may buy diablo 3 Gold seem like a cheap option, but what if you're going to journey three or more times a year? Discover the possibility of getting close relatives holiday insurance policy that provides an yearly protect, instead of Cheap WOW Gold purchasing protection everytime you go on a journey. One warning, however: most insurance providers providing yearly guidelines remove hikers who increase the length of Runescape Gold their trips (the maximum length is usually up to 31 days), so if you fall under this classification, you may need to consider another protection.

This idea is retarded.