Get Premium to hide all ads
Posts: 54   Visited by: 192 users

Original post

Posted by BASED Ironail, 22.06.2011 - 12:23
Hey everyone. After discussing it with CacaoCow, I'm just suggesting that (but I don't know how hard it would be to program) it be impossible to turnblock on week 1.

Turnblocking is very cool. I use it a lot, and it adds a whole new dimension to the game: you have to protect your main stacks from it by using defence-lines and such, and it requires some skill to counter.

But on week 1, if you're in a 1-city country, there's literally nothing you can do about it, bar moving every unit out of your city first and hoping you get 50% lucky. It also means you have slightly less range. This is wrong, I feel, especially since the games where you'll get turnblocked first turn are games which are on small maps and are very dependent on the outcome of the first few turns. Effectively, it makes small countries a much weaker choice, because even if you manage to send a bomber to the bigger country's capital, his other cities can send bombers to yours.

Some might say "start far away from him then" but this only applies if you get 2nd pick. In addition, (now I'm narrowing it down to Europe, 5K), one of the best choices against PD Greece or PD Ukraine is Austria. A small country within range of Ukraine and Greece's cities.


This is why I'm asking Ivan/Amok to consider making week 1 moves "unblockable". I don't know if this is possible, but it would help make some games less... random, and not representative of skill.



(just before the haters start saying I'm butthurt, this discussion arose after I beat Cacao when he essentially failed to turnblock me in first turn in Vienna with a bomber, since I moved all my troops out before doing my moves).
29.06.2011 - 16:35
^Wow, sorry for that huge stroke of ineptitude.

Still, your correction just made me realize the chance would be even lower than 6.25.



If there is only 1 stack involved, there is a 50 chance of getting all stacks held back.

If there are 2 stacks involved, there is a 12.5 chance of getting all stacks held back.

If there are 3 stacks involved, there is a 2.08 chance of getting all stacks held back.

If there are 4 stacks involved, it is only a 0.26 chance. This means that if you run this 400 times, all the stacks will get held back only once, more or less.


The more stacks there are, the harder it is for the opponent to block ALL of your movements. The reason for this is that for all movements to be blocked, you must move in the same exact order that he attacked. If there are a shitload of stacks, there is more opportunity for that order to be messed up, thus guaranteeing you that at least a FEW stacks will move.

Splitting stacks also makes them much easier to kill.
----
lol. NO!
Loading...
Loading...
29.06.2011 - 18:25
Yeah, were saying 2 different things though, I am saying there is a 50 percent chance half my stacks will be stopped, because he is using 4 units and I am using 4 stacks, so chances are 2 of his moves will go through over mine as we will move our stacks in different order.

ie he moves in order 1 2 3 4 i move mine in order 8 7 6 5 hes 1 and 2 will go though over my 5 and 6, my 8 and 7 will go through over his 3 and 4.



Also i'm not concerned with all my units being blocked, do the calculations you will see the likely hood that he blocks half my units is MUCH higher than 6

50 chance on his first unit that he moves he will block one of my stacks, his next unit has a 2 in 3 of automatically blocking my units ( picking a unit i move 3rd or 4th will give him an automatic block)

and the 3rd is if he this the unit i move 2nd as well he gets 50 50 vs that, but he could also have a 25 chance of picking the unit I move first in which he will lose, but then he would have automatically have won on the first move he made as it was vs my non-first move.

Lol this is getting ridiculous, but you see how it is much better odds than you think? because his 2nd move will beat my 3 and 4th automatically, and have 50 50 vs my second, his 3rd will have 50 50 vs my 3rd, beat my 4th and lose vs my 1 and 2nd.

in the end i have a gut feeling that the chances he blocks half my units are around 50 , but could be wrong.
Loading...
Loading...
30.06.2011 - 03:23
 Amok (Admin)
Lots of good ideas here. As it's been said many times before, the simultaneous moves settling algorithm in AW is pretty complicated, and it's really hard to add any additional logic to it. The problem is, to actually know that the unit is where it is, you have to settle all of its actions first. And to settle all of its actions, you need to settle all of the potential enemy units actions, because they may turnblock that first unit. The same goes for the enemy units, because they have their own enemies which may also turnblock them in turn. It's a kind of a mindfuck when you think about it.
One day I might have the courage to change this algorithm, or figure out the easier way to add logic to it. Until then, unfortunately, it's like this.
Loading...
Loading...
30.06.2011 - 10:08
Cacow-flavored
Account deleted
Written by Vespre, 29.06.2011 at 15:18

Defence lines can only work on land. Over water, there are problems.

1. Bringing a stack of destroyers solely for the purpose of defence lining is not only an economic hassle, but will slow you down distance wise.

2. It's not even possible to ensure that the stack goes untouched, since air transports can't hold destroyers. All they have to do is hold back the destroyer stack, or attack the defense lines, and they are free to turn block the shit out of you.


Do you even read my posts? I explained a way to protect units over water, without splitting and without destroyers.
Keep crying.
Loading...
Loading...
30.06.2011 - 14:50
^Nope, didn't read your posts.

Not that it makes a difference, you'd have to move 7 bombers per turn into a perfect circle just to be safe from turnblocks.

I'm not really crying, this is just a matter of common sense. I've gone back to stealth as a main strategy, so this doesn't really affect me.

How about implementing a counter of some sort? units that get blocked have a lower chance of being blocked later. After it doesn't get blocked, the counter resets. Seems like the best compromise, so that turnblockers still have their awesome complex strategy, but the game still remains fair. Might be near impossible to implement though.

IE:

my stack gets blocked, now it has a 75 chance of not being blocked.

If it gets blocked again, it has an 87.5 chance of not being blocked.

and so on and so forth
----
lol. NO!
Loading...
Loading...
01.07.2011 - 12:16
Cacow-flavored
Account deleted
Written by Vespre, 30.06.2011 at 14:50

IE:

my stack gets blocked, now it has a 75 chance of not being blocked.

If it gets blocked again, it has an 87.5 chance of not being blocked.

and so on and so forth


Seems interesting.
Loading...
Loading...
30.07.2011 - 01:50
 Rand
Written by Guest, 30.06.2011 at 10:08

Written by Vespre, 29.06.2011 at 15:18

Defence lines can only work on land. Over water, there are problems.

1. Bringing a stack of destroyers solely for the purpose of defence lining is not only an economic hassle, but will slow you down distance wise.

2. It's not even possible to ensure that the stack goes untouched, since air transports can't hold destroyers. All they have to do is hold back the destroyer stack, or attack the defense lines, and they are free to turn block the shit out of you.


Do you even read my posts? I explained a way to protect units over water, without splitting and without destroyers.
Keep crying.




How would you protect a city like, say Portugal's Capital, without destroyers from all side so bombers can't destroy you. I'm struggling to find an economic way that you could Implement by turn 4 (Earlier would be preferred in case of Ireland rape) in a 3k or 5k game.
Loading...
Loading...
01.08.2011 - 06:21
I'll write a tutorial one day to show how to make land defence-lines around any city.
Yes, even Dakar.
----
Hello, I listen to Shakira and Rihanna and I support the multiculturalisation of Europe : )
Loading...
Loading...
04.08.2011 - 18:34
I suppose you could create a game option where you can't attack another players cities on the first turn of the game.
Loading...
Loading...
15.08.2011 - 16:42
Written by Amok, 30.06.2011 at 03:23

Lots of good ideas here. As it's been said many times before, the simultaneous moves settling algorithm in AW is pretty complicated, and it's really hard to add any additional logic to it. The problem is, to actually know that the unit is where it is, you have to settle all of its actions first. And to settle all of its actions, you need to settle all of the potential enemy units actions, because they may turnblock that first unit. The same goes for the enemy units, because they have their own enemies which may also turnblock them in turn. It's a kind of a mindfuck when you think about it.
One day I might have the courage to change this algorithm, or figure out the easier way to add logic to it. Until then, unfortunately, it's like this.


You maybe can solve it this (easy)way: When 2 players are in peace, it's not possible to attack on cities. You can use this for programming something to stop turnblocking in week 0.
For example: In week 0 everyone starts in peace and wartime will start in turn 1; You can also add this as a gameoption, so that it can be disabled.

I realy like this idea, blocking in week 0 has nothing todo with skill, but only luck. For the rest, turnblocking is a part of the game and it should not be removed. It's about the quality playing not the quantity of units. If you have a big stack made for an attack, just make sure they can't be blocked.

BTW: Sry for my late post, i didn't read this topic until now .
----
Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence.
Loading...
Loading...
15.08.2011 - 17:14
No, only turnblocking should be banished, rushing is a legit option which is left out by all your suggestions.
Loading...
Loading...
15.08.2011 - 17:42
I dunno, rushing is pretty lame as a whole, even if legit.
----
Hello, I listen to Shakira and Rihanna and I support the multiculturalisation of Europe : )
Loading...
Loading...
16.08.2011 - 04:56
SuperiorCowz
Account deleted
Written by Aristosseur, 15.08.2011 at 17:14

No, only turnblocking should be banished, rushing is a legit option which is left out by all your suggestions.


Disagree. Also rushing should be banished. Otherwise it would all depend on the 50% chance that you block all your enemies actions, like common blocking. If you have a bigger country, your enemy is already done then.
Loading...
Loading...
20.08.2011 - 19:33
Maybe add an game option like "start at peace". It would prevent first turn blocks, and also let your intentions be known as to who you're attacking.

However that sort of goes against the whole "premise" of the game, that it's countries scrambling for resources and are willing to do everything in thier power to win.
Loading...
Loading...
21.08.2011 - 02:09
>Starting at peace
And what if you play team game or CW?
Loading...
Loading...
21.08.2011 - 10:36
Written by Ska-boo, 21.08.2011 at 02:09

>Starting at peace
And what if you play team game or CW?

You also start in peace in week 0; so attacking the cities of opponents isn't possible. War starts @ week1
----
Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence.
Loading...
Loading...
21.08.2011 - 12:21
This would make fights for neutral cities quite awkward
----
Written by Amok, 31.08.2012 at 03:10
Fruit's theory is correct
Written by tophat, 30.08.2012 at 21:04
Fruit is right

Loading...
Loading...
21.08.2011 - 12:34
Well, the option of having "peace" is a good one for those players wanting long games. Hug has a point we could just have say x turns of peace and than war after the x turn!!! I am not too sure that everyone will like the option though. As is getting players in games can be an effort at times. Some players leave as they only play certain maps. Most players like war from the start... perhaps the new players will like peace of a few turns. The developers can test the option by first introducing it to beginner's games and observing the response.


As for the original topic of ending turn blocks for the first turn.... I think it's a great suggestion by Cow and Ironail!
Loading...
Loading...
22.08.2011 - 15:54
I don't really like the whole idea of turn-blocking (not just first turn tb), to be honest, i use it, and i use it a lot and it helps more than it's bad for me.
I would like if i have (for example) 10 tanks, and someone attacks them with 1 bomber that 9 tanks that managed to survive still do their action. Or, that they can get turn-blocked but only if more than 30% or 50% of my troops had been destroyed. It's a little silly, IMHO, that 1 bomber can block 50 tanks.
Loading...
Loading...
23.08.2011 - 03:00
It's not that silly. All the bomber would need to do is take out a crucial bridge or tunnel; and that would delay the tanks for a few days, potentially. In the case of tanks being air-transported, all the bomber would need to do is damage the airstrip or communication systems.

Turnblocking is valid. Turnblocking in the 1st turn sucks. Although the community has sort of regulated itself by now, agreeing before the game starts to have no 1st turn turnblocks. Still, Amok should look into it.
----
Hello, I listen to Shakira and Rihanna and I support the multiculturalisation of Europe : )
Loading...
Loading...
23.08.2011 - 03:59
Well, tanks certainly in real life wouldn't go out without some anti-air troops (which don't exist in this game [except that useless shit]). This is game, not real life, although it's based on real life.
Loading...
Loading...
23.08.2011 - 09:35
So essentially, you've undermined your whole argument by saying that since it's a game and not real life, we shouldn't take anything for granted?

Nice strawman.
----
Hello, I listen to Shakira and Rihanna and I support the multiculturalisation of Europe : )
Loading...
Loading...
23.08.2011 - 12:25
You were talking how bombers would destroy roads, tunnels and bridges. Basically you were saying that since bomber can destroy roads, tanks can't move so turnblocking is logical. The game is not micro managemental (at this point), there are no roads, or tunnels or bridges so your argument isn't valid. You can't justify some part of the game you like with hypothetical real life situation.
Loading...
Loading...
23.08.2011 - 14:42
Cow
Account deleted
Sry Caulerpa, but Ironail is 100% right.
Loading...
Loading...
  • 1
  • 2
atWar

About Us
Contact

Privacy | Terms of service | Banners | Partners

Copyright © 2022 atWar. All rights reserved.

Join us on

Spread the word