我被引用的發表

Zombie, it's not that hard to take over the world with just 3 or 4 air transports total, filled with infantry. Just put the trans near a city, unload 1 inf, rinse and repeat. I do agree with your point that SM isn't just bomb spamming though.

For the same reason, Mr 7, buffing the air trans is unlikely to work. If air transes were buffed such that they'd attack and defend first, the easy way to get around that is to unload units next to cities and never actually attack with it. And to get around the defencive problem, just load a bunch of infantry to protect the trans (which should already be on there to take cities).

On your AA point, it's clear you've thought out the Math, but unfortunately, 28 offence doesn't work like you may think it does. Fact is, when you pack that much offence into a single unit, it will behave extremely unpredictably due to the 7 HP. Consider what would happen if the AA happened to roll less than a 7 (the bomber stays alive), and the bomber on offence rolls a 7 or 8. The AA would be practically useless. I've done some tests on way overbuffed attack/defence, and it's just too unpredictable to be feasible. It may look great on paper, but it's very different in practice.

Rather than trying to buff the AA to oblivion, I think it'd be simpler to just decrease the cost by 10 or 20. You said you wanted cost effectiveness, so the easiest solution is to decrease cost.

PS: AAs are not transportable as far as I know. I'm not sure if they can create walls, either.

EDIT: As to your claims of SM's extreme strength, it's not as strong as you think it is. It's way OP against tank strats, other SMs, and any expensive strats, but to major producers like PD, IF, or Imp, it will fall to gigantic infantry stacks. An SM will rarely be able to use all of his reinfs due to the cost of bombers and air transes, while an infantry spamming strat owning just half a continent can spam over 50 infs every 4 turns, for a couple thousand bucks. This means that if an inf spammer expands early and quickly, it can slowly overpower SM just by defending where necessary and attacking when the SM goes bankrupt.

At the moment, the data is sorted by country name in alphabetical order. Is there any way we can sort by other things (population, income, etc)?

Also, great job, ezzatam. I can see this being quite useful in the future.

I suggested spherical before, it's impossible. A square map is easy if you just uncheck the horizontal loop.

Still supported. Nothing needs to be changed as far as I can see.

,

Does anyone really care what their post count is? Also, you are participating

And Talos makes his return. Another great work.

We've needed an Avatar map for a while (never watched the show but it's got a great world map).

You sure about using a Civ5 scenario as your AW background though? Any way you could get/make a realistic version of the map on the Internet? (ie Middle Earth and others)

Really nice thread, good thought put into this. I'd put it into the Ideas forum and try to get it actually implemented into the game.

Since most of these terms aren't widely used (yet!) it wouldn't make sense to sticky it unless it's put into the game, or until you can make it common AW language. Good luck doing so!

Although a good name actually knowing AW's past, some people may not understand 'Serbian Classic'. Maybe a name referencing the Beta days? Or just Classic Afterwind or something.

I remember Amok saying they'll make it when you're extremely close. Just keep inching toward it, lol.

That would actually be pretty cool. I'll think of more possible ways to mess around with it.

Support.

Haha, sorry but no. My soul stealing is far superior.

Look at this to see my (greater) soul count. Clicking the link in the above post will actually make him steal your soul.

I stole Soul's soul. Along with half the admins and mods. Imma take over AW's souls!

Support because I've had this happen to me, lol.

Sorry, but this is basically a GW with militia having 9 defence, and no marine cost boost. I don't really see a point in the idea of it, but if you can convince me otherwise...

Why did you send a PM and then post it here anyway...?

Guys, the English only rule is not an opinion of the mods, it's just something mods have to enforce. I'm sure if EVERYONE in your game spoke Turkish, there'd be no problem; why would Pinheiro even go into the game? But the very fact that he went and saw you all speaking Turkish means someone reported it and was completely out of the loop. Note that the English rule applies to all public chats.

I'm sure in the future there will be different rules regarding languages, but for now, all you can do is continue to follow the current rules.

Topic locked, if you want to continue an argument with Pinheiro, don't make it public.

My suggestion (and VAG's addition) seems to be the most supported among the original poster and the rest. Here it is again.

• Neutral reinforcements are calculated after the battle phase. This means that if Slovenia has 1 militia and you attack it, if you take it, nothing happens. If you don't, there's a chance that Slovenia will have 2 militia after your turn starts.
  
• No neutral reinfs before week 1, so 1st turn expansions aren't screwed up. Only after week 1's battle phase.
  
• The likelihood of neutral reinfs is higher every 4 weeks. So Paris is more likely to reinforce after the battle phases of week 4, 8, etc. This makes these weeks even more vital to take as much as possible before both the neutrals and your fellow players reinforce.
  
• Cities with infantry will only reinforce with militia, as an extra infantry makes a much larger difference to the players.

The third one is optional if it would be a little weird to code. So admins, any chance of this being implemented?

Actually, I just realised, there's no possible way for helicopters to not get bonuses against infs, as the supposed attack boost is actually a defence nerf for infantry against helis. Unless Amok implements a attack bonus/nerf, you can't remove the defencive nerf in other players against your helis.

I'd just decrease heli attack by 1.

And yes, I can't wait either. High time for a new strat to mix things up.

I completely agree with sandtime. Some of the suggestions Hugosch made would seriously screw up the game, but I agree would be kinda fun in a more casual type game. So I'd just make it an option to allow governments.

Given that we have a choice in the matter, I support.

On the subject of not being able to read what he's sending you, I suggest changing it to:

Ally request from xxx
Peace request from xxx
Declaration of war from xxx
Challenge to a duel from xxx (or is there a pop up window already for duels? I don't duel enough to know)

Because you should probably be able to recognise someone by the first part of their name.

Also, I support. Agreed with Martin that 'vassal' would make more sense.

Lol avatar. Totally agreed, haha.

Fair enough then.

Guys, if we want the admins to implement, we'll need a lot of support! Post your thoughts, even if you have nothing to add.

作者： avatar, 02.10.2012 at 07:24

"I've been in the Bible every day since I've been the president." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Nov. 12, 2008

"I'm coming as the president of a friend, and I'm coming as a sportsman." --George W. Bush, on his trip to the Olympics in China, Washington, D.C., July 30, 2008

"One of the things important about history is to remember the true history." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 6, 2008

"So long as I'm the president, my measure of success is victory -- and success." --George W. Bush, on Iraq, Washington, D.C., April 17, 2008

"Removing Saddam Hussein was the right decision early in my presidency, it is the right decision now, and it will be the right decision ever." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 12, 2008

"There is no doubt in my mind when history was written, the final page will say: Victory was achieved by the United States of America for the good of the world." --George W. Bush, addressing U.S. troops at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, Jan. 12, 2008

"I can press when there needs to be pressed; I can hold hands when there needs to be -- hold hands." --George W. Bush, on how he can contribute to the Middle East peace process, Washington, D.C., Jan. 4, 2008

Agreed.

My favourite quote's in my sig, and it's not going anywhere.

"My goal is simple. It is complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all." -Stephen Hawking

"I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing." -Socrates

"A newspaper editor's job is to separate the wheat from the chaff- and print the chaff." -Adlai Stevenson

"The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic." -Joseph Stalin

"You would sail a ship against the winds and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I have no time for such nonsense." -Napoleon Bonaparte, on Robert Fulton's steamship

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Benjamin Franklin

"The sign of an intelligent people is their ability to control their emotions by the application of reason." -Marya Mannes

"The great masses of the people … will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one." -Adolf Hitler

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -J. Robert Oppenheimer, quoting the Bhagavad Gita after the first nuclear bomb test.

"It's much easier to get what you want with a kind word and a gun, than with just a kind word." -Al Capone

This would be pretty funny, lol.

It's not Imp, we don't want everything to be cheap. I think we should keep the tank as it is in Arb's suggestion- a strong and moderately expensive attack unit.

@sandtime- You have to remember, that a tank with 110 cost and 7 attack isn't as cost effective as the normal tank, meaning it's basically as useless as the normal tank. Increasing attack and cost (to an extent) keeps the tank as a usable unit.

On the topic of balance, seeing as all the land units are now more or equally cost effective, nerfing bombers won't do all that much, and with the cheap trans upgrade, air transports are still affordable. Perhaps to keep the player more stuck to land, decrease capacity of air transports by 1, and transports by 3?

I fully support the new idea, as every unit now has its use in a way.

I wonder what they'd put as the mini-description of the strat.

To clarify, when I said first turn WFs, I meant first turn WFs in people's countries, which used to be impossible with just one unit. I agree that it's fine in other countries.

Bumping because everyone seems to be asking this and no one seems to know. For all we know commanders could be completely useless anyway.

Indeed. Got anything else to say, you guys can take it to private or to a more appropriate discussion, rather than derailing your own topic.

As the question seems to be answered, I'll go ahead and lock with the next off topic post.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe first turn WFs were originally not allowed, as first turn peace was broken after the game created the walls. It calculated your walls as if you're at peace, and then breaks peace with all walls intact (as two guys at peace can't WF). Now, however, peace is broken before the walls, so you're already atWar by the time the walls are created, making first turn WFs totally possible.

I'd support going back to the old system, if possible.

Mfw never saw Amok's post. Wasn't commenting on Arb because the admins hadn't responded with a 'maybe' yet, but apparently they did.

Thinking in terms of cost effectiveness, the militia buff looks fair, as it remains the most efficient method of attack at short range. The infantry buff also looks fair; same cost effectiveness as before. The tank buff/nerf also retains the cost effectiveness of the original tank (along with the unpredictability of high attack). And marines have the same cost effectiveness as GW.

But now that I think about it, forgive me for asking, but what is the point of this strat? With the exception of marines, every unit is just as cost effective as before. The marine cost effectiveness, however, nullifies tanks, while the inf buff gives an efficient alternative to GW militia. So wouldn't you just play it like a GW with usable infantry? I see no reason to compare it to GC, as tanks are still kinda useless for attacking in comparison, unless you need an extra oomph.

I won't jump the gun and say it's OP, as I really have no idea if it is (and more nerfs can lower the OPness), but I'm not sure if I see the point in a strat that really changes nothing but marines and militia range, which is basically GW without the nerfs on ground units.

I'm open to the principle of it, just not the Math behind the current suggestion. Modify the cost effectiveness of units just to make things interesting, and I think it'd be a pretty cool strat. I can't really offer a suggestion on it as I'm not sure how you want things tweaked.