我被引用的發表

作者： Ivan, 08.12.2010 at 09:00

作者： TP_MLD, 08.12.2010 at 08:23

That's right. The game, as is, has a simple, clean, elegance. Perhaps the only thing it needs is more purchasable updates - but that should be it.

I don't believe the game has reached perfection just yet There's still a lot of room for improvement.

Improvements - yes. Embellishments that take away the clean simplicity (and speed!) - no.

That's right. The game, as is, has a simple, clean, elegance. Perhaps the only thing it needs is more purchasable updates - but that should be it.

作者： Amok, 06.12.2010 at 09:20

作者： TP_MLD, 06.12.2010 at 09:15

That would be me. Bug report was filed. It involved a sea transport on the beach.

Could you please explain it in a bit more detail?
What happened to the transport before it became 0? Did you simply anchor it and it became 0 on the next turn or was it something not that trivial?

I believe an attack on the transport was involved.

作者： Cpt.McBob, 04.12.2010 at 11:53

I got here from Reddit. I saw the post, read the comments and decided to see for myself...I was very doubtful that somebody pulled off a good RISK-like game online [cuz I've tried them before and didn't like them]. I tried it for myself...and well I've already spent hours playing.

I like it...my only problem is that it's missing RISK's unintended but vital [for fun] social mechanic where people ally and usually do against the biggest player. I've allied in game...and my last one was against the biggest player. But a lot of players don't want to ally they just want to kill of the smallest or newest players for some quick SP. In RISK being a big giant makes you a target...here that can happen but I dunno.

In my last 3 wins, 2 of them i joined the game with an obviously dominant player already existing.

I think the social gang-up mechanic is getting more traction as this game grows older.

I'd gladly play games together with my clansmates as allies. I'd also however love playing games where I crush them.



The 'alliance' checkbox (at game creation) can always be deselected...

作者： Ivan, 01.12.2010 at 08:20

作者： TP_MLD, 01.12.2010 at 08:12

...
2. Player-level setting: ignore militia when dragging a stack out of the city

We're already working on this.

And you've implemented this as well, now. Thanks!

作者： Ivan, 03.12.2010 at 03:22

Yes, we are aware of the problem. We're working on introducing some automation - mostly in buying units.

I'd be happy if there's a 'buy all of this type' button (next to the current + - button for each troop type), so that I can buy 7 tanks in one click instead of 7 (saving me time and RSI!).

That would be me. Bug report was filed. It involved a sea transport on the beach.

I'm a heavy tank / TS strategy user. I have a very offensive playstyle. Tanks just give you the most offensive bang for your production capacity. In cases where you wish you had more production capacity (i.e.: you have spare money lying around), tanks rock. In the endgame, they rock, and in the early game, luck and diplomacy are more important than troop optimization.

Also, I am a heavy (air) transport user. As carrier space is expensive, you want the best unit in that space. (Although a case may be made that, as air units are so expensive, you have little cash left, so should fill them with infantry. ).

IMHO, of course.

作者： Nethest, 29.11.2010 at 16:28

Are people allowed to run these huge deficits? I never tried to purchase beyond a negative balance. If this is true, then there should be a huge penalty for running a deficit. maybe a 5% loss of troops per round in each city until its neutral or a positive number.

Yes, it is a common strategy.

I'm not sure this is actually needed from a 'reality' perspective: in real life, countries run up huge deficits as well.

Then again, in real life, armies do desert for lack of pay, so something is to be said for this idea!

The game is moving, and fast. I applaud the devs.

However, I also think it is a good idea to be able to evaluate rules setting thouroughly.

I therefore suggest that certain parameters, such as city income increase rate, or say a tweak in unit cost, be exposed as game creation parameters (tweak a numeric value, select a checkbox, choose from a dropdown) instead of having global impact on everything.

Because while some may hate a rule change for the impact it has on say tank commander agression, it may be fun to have this rule active sometimes, sometimes not. And it would make the development / change cycle a bit more manageable for the devs, and give more power to the users.

As a player-level setting, or a global one? Are you implementing player-level settings at all? (No value judgement, just curious).

作者： Ivan, 01.12.2010 at 05:33

We hear you, people. Hence we decided to make some alterations: http://afterwind.com/events/news_comments.php?news_id=11 (read the 0.917 part)

That is a nice change. As dev's I would not worry about complaints too much: they'll happen and sometime you will need to make changes: but it's also a good idea to let new settings / rules 'prove' themselves.

So there's no need to 'race' to be the first to make the move within the term? There's an autoincrement on your move order, etc.?

What if (at the start of a round) I make an order and cancel it, and then make a new order. Is this new order:

1. Order #1 (possible)
2. Order #2 (likely)
3. Order #3 (very unlikely)

?

Tx

作者： Guest14502, 28.11.2010 at 14:45

I second that, latest icons are awesome

Thirded!

I think I saw someone mention a carry limit for subs, but when I checked (perhaps too hastily), my subs didn't seem to have a carrying capacity (I may be wrong).

I'd love for subs to have a (small) carrying capacity (marines only).

I'd also love a stealthy air carrier, but that may be game-breaking. It could be hugely expensive, of course.

作者： Blah64, 26.11.2010 at 09:23

This will help with short turn games. I've noticed that when playing on the whole world with 3 minute turns, into turns into an RTS when empires collide. Whoever can get more clicks/minute wins.

Just yesterday I was playing a game where when I was fighting someone, I was winning the war mostly because I could get out more units and get them where they needed to be than he could within the 3 minutes each turn,

Yes. To also reduce the click-fest, two more suggestions:

1. Player-level setting: do not gain auto-militia on captured city
2. Player-level setting: ignore militia when dragging a stack out of the city

作者： Blah64, 30.11.2010 at 01:44

作者： Dogbrothers, 29.11.2010 at 23:34

1) Random Start -- Very simple, instead of allowing players to choose their starting country, it is random.

This could be balanced by having the game choose multiple countries up to a certain $ cap. for example if the cap were 10,000, player A gets one country worth 10,000 while player B gets two countries, each worth 5000. The randomizer choses and re-choses with these constraints until its is as close as possible to the cap.

I like this idea, it sounds like it would make some fun games.

I suggest the randomizer, if implemented, looks for neighbouring countries.

Prediction: it will still be a furious land grab. :) Still, probably a good change.

If I take a city on foreign soil, and only on a later turn take the capital, I presume the increase rate will be 20% from that point?

Tx.

Is the upgrade list purposely hidden?

Free militia doesn't seem to work out all that well in play. I keep looking for a way to kill them off so they don't suck up all my money.

I meant - tanks on board an air unit is 'transported' as well?

Same thing for air units, supposedly?

What happens if a mixed stack of sea and airtransports, with load, supported by bombers and stealths, is attacked by another mixed stack? Which troop types can / cannot interact?

If I have a bunch of troops on an (air/sea) transport, and I move it into a city, presumably those troops will still attack?

Sometimes you want to 'pin' a stack. You move first, hoping you can lockdown that other stack. Only to find that sometimes, the stack moves before you, sometimes, you move first. How is this determined?

'Transported troops will no longer participate in battles.' What does this mean exactly?

See last post: somehow the awards also stay on bronze? I think that some of my "destroy units" achievements have been met for silver. Could it be possible te see in the details of the achievements how far you are? Would be nice.

作者： Ivan, 15.11.2010 at 10:42

作者： TP_MLD, 15.11.2010 at 09:22

It would be an improvement if bombers cannot take cities. The same for submarines, transports (air/ground) unless filled, battleships. In that case the above problem will not arise. The only only plausible stealth strategy would be stealth bombers to clear the city followed by marines.

Coming up in the next update (at least for planes). Stealhs being overpowered has been fixed a while ago.

And when you're at it. Changing the standard defense of units will make people build different units for different purposes. Tank defense is cities is terrible as well as defense of submarines (once notices), transports and bombers. Only infantry and militia should have reasonable defense values i think.

作者： Blah64, 06.11.2010 at 01:42

作者： Promonex, 05.11.2010 at 16:33

After kicking out three players in the first 10 rounds, I'd like to stress this point again. Started in Turkey with 50k cash, built 20 stealth bombers and took the first opponent out in the second round. Now if you think that stealth bombers are not imbalanced, how about this idea: make it visible which upgrades the other players have unlocked. Don't necessarily show which strategy they are using, a simple list of upgrades should reveal all the possibilities, so that one knows what one can expect and adapt to it accordingly.

Normal Stealth fighters aren't too overpowered I think. They are really expensive, don't have the range of bombers but only have the power of bombers.

It's when you use Sky Menace that Stealth bombers become super weapons. I've had a situation where 60 Stealth took out 150 infantry in an attack on a city. And being so much cheaper than normal, they are easy to get out. Then being stealth, it's easy to move them into position to attack.

While I have Sky Menace, I don't see any reason to use any other unit type.

It would be an improvement if bombers cannot take cities. The same for submarines, transports (air/ground) unless filled, battleships. In that case the above problem will not arise. The only only plausible stealth strategy would be stealth bombers to clear the city followed by marines.

Agree on that point. I ran a few chats through translate and it is not all so nice...