Better Turnblock

Written by Guest, 31.03.2013 at 20:54

Instead of unit amount could it instead go by attack/defense stats?

This sounds like a good idea to me. Could solve the problems with interception too.

Support!

Written by Guest, 31.03.2013 at 20:54

Instead of unit amount could it instead go by attack/defense stats? For instance 5 destroyers 45/35 should have a very high chance of turn blocking 6 bombers 36/36.

Support will help solve the current turn blocking problems. But what about critical how does this play here? I mean like critical is 1 extra attack by a certain unit. Wouldn't it tip some in favor or turn blocking the other?

Critical is the chance of adding the attack to the damage.

i.e:

Tank has 5% chance of adding 7 damage (its attack damage) to the roll (so with a crit successful it would be a damage from 8 to 14).

Support

That sounds like an excellent idea. I support this. I would go even a step more and factor in stealth units some how. It is much easier for stealth units to harass and slow enemy forces if they have the element of surprise. Not quite sure how that would work though. Maybe if the unit is in stealth and tries to TB an enemy army It gives it X% extra to TB that unit. Naturally once a stealth unit is dectected that Bonus would go away. Just something to think about.

I support this idea. We could give some units a better chance of turnblocking then others (like your example: Destroyer has a higher chance to block bombers or transporters then a infantry does).

But then again: If i attack a city: I don't always want to turnblock. I rather have the units moved out of the city, so i can take it more easely from the opponent. So maybe it would be cool if we also had units with far less chance of turnblocking.

I think this would be better than the current tb system, because with this one tb is a risk if i have a choice to tb a transport or defend a city id go for the city cuz tb is chance, but tb can become a very powerful tactic if predictable, but i agree there still should be a luck factor

Wouldn't this unbalance the game a bit? If I understand the idea well, high attack units would now be better at turnblocking than low attack units. In effect, tanks, marines etc. receive a boost to their turnblock ability whereas infantry & militia would be nerfed. On the other hand, tanks would be easier to turnblock and infantry, harder...

IDK, maybe you could argue that it would balance out for infantry and tanks. But seems to me that marines would now be better as they are not usually TBed (unless detected) and would now be much better at turnblocking.

Written by Xenosapien, 03.10.2013 at 19:01

Urrr, it doesn't already work on attack/defence?

No. It works by number of units and order in which the move was made. Not sure where the post that explains this is though... Here's the explanation (from this post):
64)What Is Tb?
tb - Turn-Blocking - The action of prioritizing your moves so that your first move is aimed at stopping an opponent's stack from moving."Primal can you tb Berlin?" Note, the chance of turn-blocking is determined by the difference in the amount of units between you and your opponent. Chance % = your units count / opponent units count. So, for example, 3 vs 10 will have a 30% chance to turn-block, 5 vs 10 - 50%, and so on. Max chance is fixed at 50%.

Written by Guest, 03.10.2013 at 16:18

I see your point and I think that would add even more strategy to the game! Now people have much more of a reason to try to detect stealth units so they can TB them and take them out. This encourages noobs to actually build walls and sentry planes. It also encourages much smarter unit unit management's.

Ex.: player spamming tanks, even if you have "better units, such as marines, since they have more tanks its way to hard to TB them to take advantage of there lower df. So in the current system you have to worry much less about low defense units being TB and defending as long as you Spam more of them your opponent.

Don't get me wrong, I'd actually like that since I like playing with marines . But it would be a major change that might change the balance of many units and strats. For example, PD would now be very bad at turn blocking. Or stealth bombers would now be much better TBing units, militia, much worse.

On the whole, I think it would make offensive units more powerful. After all, the heightened TB resistance of defensive units is not that valuable since offensive units are generally the prime targets for TBing. On the other hand, offensive units would now be much more useful in defense (to TB enemy stacks). Like I said, I'm not sure, but I think this suggestion equates to a defensive unit nerf and an offensive unit boost.

It would definitely be interesting to try this out though.

Well how about this. With the current TB system there is a 50% max if you have half the units. BUT mostly for the sake of interception why not give some units a higher and some a lower chance of a turnblock to be added onto that 50% (assumeing they have half the units.) Example: Sea transports (even carrying 15 units) should be easily intercepted and killed by a single sub or destroyer.

Another idea is that tanks with high mobility should TB a stack of say infantry easier as tanks have more mobility. TankvTank TB should be how it is now 50%. give infantry a low chance to TB other units as they are dfence units. Stealth units in stealth should get a % bonus aswell. Another example 10 tanks are comeing at you. You send 5 marines to TB it. As is you get 50% chance to TB but if in stealth the marines should get a maybe 10-20% chance to TB those tanks. Naturally marines when not in stealth don't get this bonus.

As for air units bombers have higher mobility give them an extra 10% chance standard becuase of that. So for this example lets say you have 3 bombers trying to TB 10 tanks. Normally that would be 30% but with this it would be 40% and the same would apply for the other units. This way you could use less units to TB a stack or send half for best chance.

Maybe this isn't a good idea but I don't like the TB system, or atleast the interception part of it. Maybe this can't be implimented but I think it would be nice.

Yes, TB should work with range and attack/defense.

Support <3

Critical chance won't work always and turnblock doesn't work on transports so good because it should be that when transport is destroyed that all units aboard sink and die,but i found out that if you don't move transport attacking unit will 1 destroy all units then transport and it's very annoying.

I personally think TB should be in direct proportion with attack/defensive stats. I see TB as forcing a wall on a location. It's like instead of taking a city, taking a stack. TB in my opinion should allow the attacking units to use their attack data against that stacks defensive stats. the programming should see the instance of you are hitting a stack with x defense with y attack. your odds of TB should be equal to y/x, anything from 0% to 100%.

In my opinion, I think TB should only be an available option on the first 5 (throwing out a number here) moves of a players turn. I absolutely think controlling where units are located is a vital part of the game, but i am sick and tired of TBs that happen since i put a unit that was in a wall on a trans, and all the troops in the trans don't make it to the location.

All bubbles with troop numbers (inside a city and outside cities) should be viable TB locations, and i think you TB that turn's locations, not the next turn's locations. Dropping units out of a stack is enough punishment, removing range on a stack is overkill. Currently, TB is too much of a luck draw, and not an out-thinking mechanism. I'm all for being outplayed, but currently it is me being out lucked.
Please rip my comments up, i want to see holes in my thoughts.
-Freeland

Written by Freeland, 25.01.2014 at 23:24

I personally think TB should be in direct proportion with attack/defensive stats. I see TB as forcing a wall on a location. It's like instead of taking a city, taking a stack. TB in my opinion should allow the attacking units to use their attack data against that stacks defensive stats. the programming should see the instance of you are hitting a stack with x defense with y attack. your odds of TB should be equal to y/x, anything from 0% to 100%.

In my opinion, I think TB should only be an available option on the first 5 (throwing out a number here) moves of a players turn. I absolutely think controlling where units are located is a vital part of the game, but i am sick and tired of TBs that happen since i put a unit that was in a wall on a trans, and all the troops in the trans don't make it to the location.

All bubbles with troop numbers (inside a city and outside cities) should be viable TB locations, and i think you TB that turn's locations, not the next turn's locations. Dropping units out of a stack is enough punishment, removing range on a stack is overkill. Currently, TB is too much of a luck draw, and not an out-thinking mechanism. I'm all for being outplayed, but currently it is me being out lucked.
Please rip my comments up, i want to see holes in my thoughts.
-Freeland

TB isn't supposed to be an out-thinking mechanism.
It's very simple,
You want to stop someone from making a move that is essential to them getting closer to beating you,
so you turnblock.

There's not supposed to be some complicated thought process behind this. I'd rather not have TB at all than to just limit it's possibilities.

Turnblocking is one of the few equalizers in the game, very simple to learn. You shouldn't limit the amount of time one can use it.

I agree with what you said about the whole trans being TB'd because of 1 unit from a wall thing. However, to my understanding, this is a glitch and not an actual facet of the game.

That being said, there is no viable solution in regards to changing the mechanics of TB (besides ofc totally excluding it).

As for luck and being outplayed... This is AtWar. The fact of the matter is, you won't ever simply be out played. Every battle you have is determined by a roll. Sometimes superior force loses to a lower force just because of rolls and a few extra upgrades making the lower force have a stronger chance of success.
On that basis, strategy on AtWar is chance based ('luck' as you put it). This will never change unless there is a way that this game includes other factors such food, water, transportation methods (real factors in life that affect the outcome of a battle) etc.
All we can do is work within the game's parameters of chance to push the odds better in our favor. I am fine with this, and if I were you I wouldn't try to change it.

Written by Hugosch, 05.04.2013 at 02:41

I support this idea. We could give some units a better chance of turnblocking then others (like your example: Destroyer has a higher chance to block bombers or transporters then a infantry does).

But then again: If i attack a city: I don't always want to turnblock. I rather have the units moved out of the city, so i can take it more easely from the opponent. So maybe it would be cool if we also had units with far less chance of turnblocking.

I Do that sometimes,

Written by Grimm, 25.07.2013 at 17:12

Wouldn't this unbalance the game a bit? If I understand the idea well, high attack units would now be better at turnblocking than low attack units. In effect, tanks, marines etc. receive a boost to their turnblock ability whereas infantry & militia would be nerfed. On the other hand, tanks would be easier to turnblock and infantry, harder...

IDK, maybe you could argue that it would balance out for infantry and tanks. But seems to me that marines would now be better as they are not usually TBed (unless detected) and would now be much better at turnblocking.

SM uKraine Strong

Written by Guest, 22.04.2013 at 08:21

I just want to put a stop to 1 inf tb-ing 60 unit stack

Hmm yea i support.Even 1 infantry can TB 17 units.

Written by Permamuted, 17.08.2014 at 15:08

Am i the only person who doesnt have any issues with the current tb system?

Written by Guest, 20.08.2014 at 21:57

Written by Permamuted, 17.08.2014 at 15:08

Am i the only person who doesnt have any issues with the current tb system?

Why not give units an intercept value? Like intercept and intercept defense, if you have more intercept points then they have intercept defense you can TB block them, if you have left they preform their move first

Im not a great fan of tb anyway.. maybe getting rid of it ...

Support.

This would make pd more powerful since it has the highest stats on its main units(diregarding NC destroyers and antiair). It would be the hardest and most costly to tb.

Written by EpicRice, 22.08.2014 at 16:54

Why not give units an intercept value? Like intercept and intercept defense, if you have more intercept points then they have intercept defense you can TB block them, if you have left they preform their move first

I support this suggestion. Create a new statistic for units, "interception" and "maneuver," which affect how likely a unit is to turn-block other units, and avoid turn-block from other units respectively.

Should not be too hard to do, or so I think.

Written by Permamuted, 27.02.2015 at 11:27

This would make pd more powerful since it has the highest stats on its main units(diregarding NC destroyers and antiair). It would be the hardest and most costly to tb.

agreed,pd doesn't need any more buff it is op in it's current state and needs to be nerfed