我被引用的發表

Looks interesting, but it seems like you could just spam infs and play like PD. Given that infs (with upgrade) cost 60 for 7 defence, and anti-airs have 14 defence against bombers for 110, it doesn't seem like anti-airs would be all that useful or much more cost effective than infs, even against bombers. Also, you can use infs for attacking, something AAs can't do.

Lastly, if you decrease the cost of tanks, even decreasing the attack this actually makes them more cost effective than infs, meaning the most cost effective play would be to spam tanks to attack, infs to defend, and bombers to defend from afar, something I don't think you intended.

Switch up some values to make your main units more useful than the normal units; otherwise, we'll all just play it like normal. I won't post an alternative because I don't know what you're going for.

Yep. Link to BB Netanyahu's topic is here: http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=7105

Topic locked, if anyone wants to continue the discussion, we can go there.

Or, of course, we could add strategies that affect city income, population, reinfs, etc. I think a whole new system just for these elements would be a little too much. Perhaps a strat with extra reinfs or population growth, at the cost of reduced income? Or the opposite, more income but -1 reinfs for cities with 2+.

Naturally, you have to be careful with modifying income and such, as having a different starting cash can completely change the balance.

Due to computer issues (i.e. my main computer not being able to install Silverlight) I won't be able to be on 24/7. Primal, Utah, and ezzatam, if you post a time, I'll be there on a different computer. I'm available 9 PM-5 AM EST on weekdays, and 3-7 PM and 9 PM-Anytime this Saturday. And 24/7 on Sunday.

I had the exact same initial reaction as Arbitrator: more cost effective than GW and Imp in both attack and defence, while the nerfs don't cancel out the strengths. Assuming no upgrades here, HW marines get 5 attack for 50 cost, while GW marines have 7 attack for 80 cost. Also, adding cost to infantry makes them no less cost effective; with or without HW, infantry are still 10 cost for 1 defence, the only difference here being you can buy more defence. Near GW-tier militia doesn't make things any better.

I'll stop bashing now. Here are my suggestions based on cost effectiveness and balance:
60 cost for marines (you don't want them better than GW and MoS)
+50 cost for transports (20 is nothing), +100 cost for air transports
-1 attack for infantry (I feel this strategy would be far too strong with infantry as a main unit)

Let me know what you guys think.

This is so accurate it's scary. I love how zizou is androgynous. Like a true god. And TopTraps's gender. And the irony of hdrakon/learster.

@avatar: Also, Brit+Turk=Palestinian. Palestinian+Palestinian=Israeli . Israeli+German=Macedonian. Macedonian+Srbijan=...back to Turk.

Alright, I guess I'll share my story. My real mother is Gardevoir, who was raped in a world game by... someone on the right side of the tree. So I was sent to an adoption center and adopted by Spart. For the record, I am not married to Primal. He was drunk, and I was on mineral water. Kinda awkward...

Because I was sick for 2 weeks and didn't have the time to go online to prod people into playing their matches. :/

If the problem is colours, you could always have light green, grey, dark green, white (or really light grey), gold, that disgusting darker yellow, some other shade of blue, a darker purple, etc etc.

But anyway, I support increasing max to 30, and making 25 players also possible. It would definitely help some scenarios bounded by the player limit.

In the units menu, make the air units only buildable in your 'airport' cities.

Lol at no one understanding cherse. I for one agree with the original post; it doesn't make sense that we should be nerfing the main unit in comparison to other strategies. The bomber category is Air: Main Attack; there's no reason it should be a defencive unit. Perhaps in place of the bomber def nerf, SM would nerf infantry defence?

Hdrakon1 strong - hdrakon
Describes hdrakon being strong.

tenis practice - Pera
A poor excuse to leave the game.

xaxax good jokes - avatar
Sarcastically points out how ridiculous someone's statement is.

In the following image I was able to attack an individual unit of someone's wall. Minor glitch, shouldn't do much.



I wasn't able to replicate this anywhere else, not even on other segments of the wall.

Erm... really? If this is just for trolling purposes then there's no point...

Announcement


LDK has elected to resign from the team for personal reasons until further notice. We regret his decision and wish him well in the future. Safari will take his position as Vice President. The timetable will be modified accordingly. LDK, if you want to post below confirming this, that'd be great.

I agree as well. Negative defence bonus isn't necessarily equal to attack bonus, as it's proportions instead of addition and subtraction. Now I could probably get around this with proportions, but it would make things a lot easier for us to just have attack bonuses.

Also what cherse said.

作者： Amok, 08.01.2013 at 08:00

Or you could simply set the role to something like Ground: Other, then it won't be affected by the different strategies.

All units are affected by Blitz, IF, and Imp, as they should be. As the original post said, Wall is an Other unit that is now mobile with Blitz.

Good ideas, good ideas. My thoughts:

Blitzkrieg: Interesting idea, but it might be a little difficult to program. I can't think of an alternative though.

Iron Fist: Support. No idea why this didn't happen.

Naval Commander: Definite support, this crossed my mind one or two times. Perhaps to counter the transport capacity, you could nerf bombers and air transports? Range, cost, or attack for bombers.

Lucky Bastard: I kinda do have to say "OGMDSMF OP" on your suggestion. I'm not going to run another analysis on it, I just want to say that adding just 10 crits to an infantry increases its defence to 8.4. Adding 12, with lucky infs, and the existing 5, will push it past the defence of both a PD and a IF infantry. Crits were nerfed for a reason. All I have to say is that making crits too high makes it too predictable, removing the 'lucky aspect'. I'd be willing to change to 8-10 extra crits for all units, or higher if we can find another nerf.

Desert Storm: Mfw this still isn't added. Someone could seriously just go in the map editor and do it himself, haha. Support.

You forgot to remove the 3 commander upgrades. There are no longer any upgrades for units not in the default game.

作者： tophat, 10.01.2013 at 19:51

Meh. ive probably made over 500 games by myself for training.

the most important and only meaningful stat is PVP battle win percentage.

Battles won and lost are skewed majorly by wall breaking. The more walls you make, the more battles you win, and the more walls you break, the more you lose. It's a question of playstyle, so I don't really buy into battles won/lost.

This is really cool, Columna. What I find very interesting is the games accounted for, which basically tells you how often the player had to leave for... tenis practice. zizou seems to have most of his games there, while TopHats... doesn't. learster only has his incredibly high statistics because he leaves quite a few games.

I think you should also include turns played as Arbitrator did in that one topic.

I completely forgot about what VAGINEER pointed out. I support that, and edited it into my post.

I heavily recommend this clan. It absolutely changed my life. You see, there I was, screwing around with Blitz on a Europe map, when the hand of the great LaBandaRoja reached down and touched my soul, bringing me into the ranks of the great Syndicate. I just joined 2 months ago as you can see on the clan page, and those 2 months have been the best of my humble existence. Spart and his Officers have trained me rigorously but eventually it paid off, and I am the finished product; I am no longer disgusting lemon juice, I am Lemonade with the extra sugar in the form of training and ice in the form of punishments and the hot sun coming from zizou and the money coming from whoever is willing to buy me.

So yeah. Join Syndicate. Contact me as well if you'd like to join

Talked to ezzatam, he and I haven't seen Primal and utahrapter on at the same time much. ezz and I are usually on at the same time. So utah, Primal, want to play our match this weekend?

Was so close to having every prediction correct. hdrakon strikes again.

作者： Cherse, 08.01.2013 at 14:35

yes good point.... how about rare unit pics?

Take a screenshot of the rare units, upload individual pics onto computer, upload back into AW. Problem solved.

Here are some wall exploits now possible with the new walling mechanics introduced with the Merge. The main point is that: if units are in a place in which they can wall, they will wall.

1)



In the first image someone had WFed me with 2 units. I attacked his WF units with bombers without moving my walling units. When the next turn started and his units were gone, I walled anyway. This was not possible in Afterwind.

2)



I love using this, and never thought of reporting it until a rank 4 made me realise that drowning infantries on water to make walls is not logical and is a bit of an exploit. As you can see, I just abandon an infantry one by one in the water, and before the battle phase, it does not show them as walled, as I didn't move them into a defence line. However, when the turn started, they were in a wall anyway. Again, this was not possible in Afterwind.

3)



This one actually was possible in Afterwind; you actually have to move units into a walling position. In the first image, I had 2 transports with 15 infs. I move one transport with 14 infs ahead so the boats wall, then merge the two boats, drowning the infantry, but leaving it walled with the transport. Walling an infantry to a transport is also not logical. Then you rinse and repeat, and as you can see, by the start of a turn, I have walled on water.

Allow me to say this one last time before these bugs are fixed:

I agree with your complaints, but I think your solution would make things too predictable. Perhaps a compromise:

• 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. I'm not sure this is possible, but I think this would solve most of your issues.
  
• 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.
  
• EDIT: Cities with infantry will only reinforce with militia, as an extra infantry makes a much larger difference to the players.
  

What do you think, Tops?

作者： Cherse, 07.01.2013 at 18:23

Elite Combat, or some better name

+1 att and def to all units, +30 cost to all.

This is basically a much more extreme Lucky Bastard. Remember my analysis thread, increasing crits is basically increasing att and def.

Avatar pwned TopHats. For the record, he responded to the questions before people posted in last week's article with the answers.

Great article V-dog! 4A! For Amok: Do you have an ultimate goal for AW?

I used this as an example in another thread, but in EC's Ancient World, there is a unit called Wall that is immobile. However, with Blitzkrieg, you're able to move it around a sizable distance. I think we should be able to add negative stats for range at least, so we can create units like Coastal Battery (-4 range, high def against ships) that are still immobile with Blitzkrieg.

Or, of course, you could modify Blitzkrieg so it doesn't improve range if range=0.