Backstabbing unit

I know this would probably be a big pain, but I'd like to see a spy unit.

The point of a spy would be that they are stealth, even to your allies, and can attack, even your allies.

I see them being more expensive, with less attack than marines, but with better range. (easier to move 1 guy then a squad of marines)

It'd make backstabbing a bigger part of the game.

And before all the whiney little bitches get up in arms.... backstabbing is a legitimate part of this game.

Spys are meant to find information, and you already have all the info you need if they're your allies. I honestly don't see the point in this unit.

Perhaps it would be better described as a "covert action unit" or "terrorist unit".

Currently many nations around the world maintain some military capability that is "deniable" for doing their dirty work with out getting brought into a war themselves. Whether it is various Middle East nations that support paramilitary organizations (Hezbollah and such) or world powers that use special forces, these units exist.

Allowing players to create and deploy a deniable military force would definitely change the flavor of the game.

These units would be expensive, strong on attack, mobile, stealthy and weak on defense against real military forces.

You can play with rare units on and if you have lucky you will find spy sattelite

i always found forrest brothers in Norway and Finland

This was not meant to be a way to spy on your allies.... but a way to kill your allies.

That would spice thing up i support.
what cock said was a backstabing unit not a spy to spy allies an army that can attack allies the moment you go on war with them if i got it right
never the less good idea but it would fill all enemy list lol.

How would this look in the attack screen? Would it say "You got attacked by an ally" or show in the battle screen that you got attacked by neutrals or what?

Written by El Cock, 06.08.2012 at 00:26

This was not meant to be a way to spy on your allies.... but a way to kill your allies.

I feel like I wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to be a douche if this was implemented....

A way to kill your allies...
I add you to my blacklist.

I think such an unit is unnecessary for the afterwind gameplay. We don't need it. This would just support the backstabber crew of Afterwind.

I think backstabbers already cause enough paranoia and conflict in Afterwind without giving them their own unit specifically designed to ruin the spirit of alliances.

Written by goodnames679, 06.08.2012 at 14:05

I think backstabbers already cause enough paranoia and conflict in Afterwind without giving them their own unit specifically designed to ruin the spirit of alliances.

^ This. It ruins the whole idea of alliances.

This is the best idea ever.
backstabbing is part of a strategy.

no offense, but
If you disagree whit this idea is because you are a ally-fag or close minded.

Written by Tundy, 06.08.2012 at 17:31

This is the best idea ever.
backstabbing is part of a strategy.

no offense, but
If you disagree whit this idea is because you are a ally-fag or close minded.

Uh, no. I'm not an ally fag or close minded, ask pretty much anyone I've played with. We just all agree that it'd really fuck up alliances.
Let me put it like this, why ally if you're just going to attack them? You might as well not ally at all.

Written by Gking19, 06.08.2012 at 18:06

Written by Tundy, 06.08.2012 at 17:31

This is the best idea ever.
backstabbing is part of a strategy.

no offense, but
If you disagree whit this idea is because you are a ally-fag or close minded.

Uh, no. I'm not an ally fag or close minded, ask pretty much anyone I've played with. We just all agree that it'd really fuck up alliances.
Let me put it like this, why ally if you're just going to attack them? You might as well not ally at all.

Because allying them can be misdirection. Hate to tell you this, but there is more strategy to this game then just taking biggest cities/capitals and sending giant stacks directly at your opponent. It would fuck up alliances... that's the point. When you have a group of 5v1, it'll be easier to talk the one of the 5 into flipping, putting the game in your favor.

Written by El Cock, 06.08.2012 at 18:29

Written by Gking19, 06.08.2012 at 18:06

Written by Tundy, 06.08.2012 at 17:31

This is the best idea ever.
backstabbing is part of a strategy.

no offense, but
If you disagree whit this idea is because you are a ally-fag or close minded.

Uh, no. I'm not an ally fag or close minded, ask pretty much anyone I've played with. We just all agree that it'd really fuck up alliances.
Let me put it like this, why ally if you're just going to attack them? You might as well not ally at all.

Because allying them can be misdirection. Hate to tell you this, but there is more strategy to this game then just taking biggest cities/capitals and sending giant stacks directly at your opponent. It would fuck up alliances... that's the point. When you have a group of 5v1, it'll be easier to talk the one of the 5 into flipping, putting the game in your favor.

Giving players both incentive and extremely easy capabilities to break their allies, the ones who have been helping them the whole time, just seems like adding too much temptation to something that not many players actually want to happen often (Generally only high ranks, in my experience, tend to break alliances just for SP currently, because they feel they can and should win everything)

Written by goodnames679, 06.08.2012 at 18:51

Written by El Cock, 06.08.2012 at 18:29

Written by Gking19, 06.08.2012 at 18:06

Written by Tundy, 06.08.2012 at 17:31

This is the best idea ever.
backstabbing is part of a strategy.

no offense, but
If you disagree whit this idea is because you are a ally-fag or close minded.

Uh, no. I'm not an ally fag or close minded, ask pretty much anyone I've played with. We just all agree that it'd really fuck up alliances.
Let me put it like this, why ally if you're just going to attack them? You might as well not ally at all.

Because allying them can be misdirection. Hate to tell you this, but there is more strategy to this game then just taking biggest cities/capitals and sending giant stacks directly at your opponent. It would fuck up alliances... that's the point. When you have a group of 5v1, it'll be easier to talk the one of the 5 into flipping, putting the game in your favor.

Giving players both incentive and extremely easy capabilities to break their allies, the ones who have been helping them the whole time, just seems like adding too much temptation to something that not many players actually want to happen often (Generally only high ranks, in my experience, tend to break alliances just for SP currently, because they feel they can and should win everything)

lol. in first place, why you trust in a random players?
since turn blocking is gone, this game is just about spaming troops and expanding faster than your enemy....
at least we need to improve the diplomacy

I'd support the idea, only if they made this "unit" something that you can choose in game options, whether you want them to be included or not. I'm not a backstabber, i hate doing that. But at least that gives a brief view of those that you cannot trust in this game. Plus an option not to play with backstabbers if you don't want to.

How any can support this idea, you are ultra stupid, this completly ruins the game play and the sense of alliances.

Written by raetahcodeupon, 07.08.2012 at 11:23

How any can support this idea, you are ultra stupid, this completly ruins the game play and the sense of alliances.

i notice that you are a ally-fag
thats why you are scare of this idea....
why a friend is going to backstab you?
if you dont want to get a backstab, then, dont ally with randoms....



you add every person that backstabs to your "black list" because you ally with almost everyone in the game....
in afterwind you have just 4 factors to get a backstab:

1.- you are in his enemy list
2.- ally-fag
3.- empty cities and capital
4.- noob and easy to defeat

Written by Tundy, 07.08.2012 at 12:19

Written by raetahcodeupon, 07.08.2012 at 11:23

How any can support this idea, you are ultra stupid, this completly ruins the game play and the sense of alliances.

i notice that you are a ally-fag
thats why you are scare of this idea....
why a friend is going to backstab you?
if you dont want to get a backstab, then, dont ally with randoms....



you add every person that backstabs to your "black list" because you ally with almost everyone in the game....
in afterwind you have just 4 factors to get a backstab:

1.- you are in his enemy list
2.- ally-fag
3.- empty cities and capital
4.- noob and easy to defeat

No. If you see me playing, i choose one ally or two and i help they to the very end.
I only broke alliance with people a few times for a necessary reason.
you played with me only 1 game if i dont remember bad.

The objective is world domination.

Allies help at first but then they just get in the way...


It seems to me that diplomacy is intended to be a part of this game. There are a few things that can be done to make it a more important part of the game.

The "back stabber" unit would be one that is stealthy to even your allies. This is not a bad idea.

The "Peace" thread also discusses ideas that would help make Diplomacy more a part of this game.
http://www.afterwind.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=4822

Back stabbing is a part of most multiplayer world domination games that I am aware of. It is a reasonable and expected part of play. In fact in a 2+v1, getting the 2+ to split is a reasonable tactic for the 1.

Give diplomacy a bigger role in this game and it will only make it better.

I can see why people are mad, but I also see how interesting this could turn out to be.

Here's a bunch of random stuff I made up on the spot. Seems like it'd be fun. The making of "Anonymous Forces" haha.

Special Forces(or other name): Decent attack stats(say, 6), mobility(7), less defence(3), basically a marine but not seen by your ally. Also the cost should be ramped up over a marine, so 200(+40 over marines) each. Cannot go through any walls but your own(so can't go through allied walls). Would be useful to snipe generals.

Think of this: These Special Forces attack a city, and if they win, make the city turn into a visibly "neutral" country that anyone can attack, but the player who just took it has control over the spawn inside it. And, until the player spawns a regular unit inside the country(infantry, bombers, etc.), it would stay "neutral" but under your control unless someone takes it from you. So what if you only spawned more Special Forces in the city, and just attacked another city? Then you would have two visibly "neutral" countries under your command, and your ally would be pretty mad. Also confused about who did it. (if they had more allies)

The city stays visibly neutral until you either put one of your "regular" units inside of it, or spawned regular units inside it.

Then if you saw two players, one who controls Europe, the other Asia, allied in Eurasia, and you are America alone. What if you sent Special Forces to skip over west Europe, to attack eastern Europe. Wouldn't Europe be automatically suspicious of Asia? Because Asia would not be able to prove it wasn't him, this would seriously test their alliance, and trust. Maybe their alliance would crumble and they would start hostilities toward each other.


Anyway, the whole diplomacy system would have to be adjusted for this to work, but it would add another style of play to the system.

I've thought about this quite a bit. When I first saw, I thought "OH HELL NO." But with what Desu is saying, it'd be a really interesting addition to the game. Loving how this thread has derailed into a conversation about backstabbing. Look guys, if your ally is way stronger than you are, he can just backstab you upfront and kill you with marines. If you're stronger than he is, you shouldn't have a problem. If he's an ally spammer... why'd you ally him in the first place? This is not an incentive to backstab, as the title suggests, but rather a whole new aspect to diplomacy.

What I'm trying to say, is how exactly would this support backstabbing? If you want to kill your ally, just do it. If you want to do it stealthily, spam marines. In fact, I think it'd be much more effective to create paranoia and skewer two allies' relationships, rather than to completely annihilate a player. It would be awesome to use for when you're getting 2v1d too, just learster them with these spies/special forces, then divide and conquer.

No, I don't backstab ever. No, I don't spam allies. No, I don't like backstabbers or ally spammers. But yes, I give full support to this (especially Desu's) idea. Mods, please consider Desu's post, it's a really cool idea.

Written by Desu, 08.08.2012 at 08:36

...

Then if you saw two players, one who controls Europe, the other Asia, allied in Eurasia, and you are America alone. What if you sent Special Forces to skip over west Europe, to attack eastern Europe. Wouldn't Europe be automatically suspicious of Asia? Because Asia would not be able to prove it wasn't him, this would seriously test their alliance, and trust. Maybe their alliance would crumble and they would start hostilities toward each other.


Anyway, the whole diplomacy system would have to be adjusted for this to work, but it would add another style of play to the system.

Exactly what I am thinking Desu.

Right now the game pretty quickly becomes a math puzzle with odds of combat success, unit values and economics. The only real variable in this is the interaction with the other player(s). The more freedom of action given to player v player encounters, the more challenging the game.

I especially like the units you describe but you left out one little thing I want to add to these Anonymous Special Forces.

I want them to be able to attack my own units.

Insanity you say? Perhaps but what better pretext for attacking a peaceful neighbor or ally than Anonymous Special Forces attacking you from their turf?

Not historical you say?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident

Let the Diplomatic Wars begin!!!

Written by Desu, 08.08.2012 at 08:36

I can see why people are mad, but I also see how interesting this could turn out to be.

Here's a bunch of random stuff I made up on the spot. Seems like it'd be fun. The making of "Anonymous Forces" haha.

Special Forces(or other name): Decent attack stats(say, 6), mobility(7), less defence(3), basically a marine but not seen by your ally. Also the cost should be ramped up over a marine, so 200(+40 over marines) each. Cannot go through any walls but your own(so can't go through allied walls). Would be useful to snipe generals.

Think of this: These Special Forces attack a city, and if they win, make the city turn into a visibly "neutral" country that anyone can attack, but the player who just took it has control over the spawn inside it. And, until the player spawns a regular unit inside the country(infantry, bombers, etc.), it would stay "neutral" but under your control unless someone takes it from you. So what if you only spawned more Special Forces in the city, and just attacked another city? Then you would have two visibly "neutral" countries under your command, and your ally would be pretty mad. Also confused about who did it. (if they had more allies)

The city stays visibly neutral until you either put one of your "regular" units inside of it, or spawned regular units inside it.

Then if you saw two players, one who controls Europe, the other Asia, allied in Eurasia, and you are America alone. What if you sent Special Forces to skip over west Europe, to attack eastern Europe. Wouldn't Europe be automatically suspicious of Asia? Because Asia would not be able to prove it wasn't him, this would seriously test their alliance, and trust. Maybe their alliance would crumble and they would start hostilities toward each other.


Anyway, the whole diplomacy system would have to be adjusted for this to work, but it would add another style of play to the system.

When you put it that way, it does sound pretty cool.

Easiest way I can figure to be able to do this.... make small stacks <5 of marines stealth to allies. player can attack ally cities, but not occupy. if attack goes take city to 0, city respawns neutral units to standard amount (e.g. Chicago = 8) leftover units remain in stealth (unless in detection range. country becomes neutral, no ability to respawn in cities. You could effectively kill your ally by taking all countries near his cap.

Written by Mathdino, 08.08.2012 at 09:27

What I'm trying to say, is how exactly would this support backstabbing? If you want to kill your ally, just do it.

Giving someone the units that could easily do such a task would be an irresistable temptation for many players. It's like placing a hungry kid inside a candy shop rather than outside of it: If he's outside he may just avoid it and keep going, but if it's right there in his grasp, there's almost no chance of him skipping it.


All I'm saying is, I enjoy being able to select one good ally in most games and succeed without much issue: It works well, and even with our current protective systems the allies still have to be wary of one another in most cases. If my allies were all handed the capabilities to dominate me with absolutely no reasoning behind it other than "I WANT MORE SP!!!!!111!!!one!!!1" without me ever knowing of such, that would completely eliminate how basically every single game works, and almost NO games would ever end in more than one victor. I like how the current system gives players the incentive of "don't fuck with your allies, because they'll know and you WILL get a decent fight from them before you can kill them", so that games can actually end in a nice amount of alliance ends. Handing players the capability to be dicks and make sure that it actually becomes a rarity to even win in most cases, that doesn't seem like it would keep me enticed or happy with the game.

The only reasonable alternative I can offer to this would be something like this:

When we can create our own units in custom maps, make an option for "can attack allies" that comes up for the users creating the scenario to decide when they want to use it. Keep it out of standard games altogether, then, as it's adding unnecessary complications to what's supposed to be outwitting your opponents, not your friends.

Written by goodnames679, 08.08.2012 at 16:12

The only reasonable alternative I can offer to this would be something like this:

When we can create our own units in custom maps, make an option for "can attack allies" that comes up for the users creating the scenario to decide when they want to use it. Keep it out of standard games altogether, then, as it's adding unnecessary complications to what's supposed to be outwitting your opponents, not your friends.

I'm ok with this option. Simple, easy to code, easy option to de-select