Ideas and suggestions

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.

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.

I promise to look into the Stealth issue. Two things we are already doing are stealth detection and the inability to capture cities with air units.

引句:

Enough of dubious offensive tactics, here's a dubious defensive tactic: I had 5 infantrists in Panama City, Guest14502 had 4 battle ships outside which would conquer my capital in the next round. Now what I did was building 1 air transporter (in order to take the weakest offensive unit there is) and attack the 4 battle ships. Instead of invading my capital, the armada of ships got occupied by one pesky mosquito. While this feature might be nice to avoid hit-and-run tactics, it's rather unrealistic when abused as defensive tactic. How high are the chances that it's transporters versus ships instead of ships versus city? If it's something like 50:50, I'd suggest to take the offensive/defensive values of interceptor and attacker respectively into account.

This is a very interesting idea. One of the biggest problems we have with simultaneous turns is deciding who gets to move first. At the moment it's decided by the order of your actions - the units you move early during your turn have a very high chance against enemy units moved late in the turn. However, it can be that bigger armies always have priority... Although that might make huge armies 'uncatchable'.

引句:

And stealth units should also form defensive lines.

This is not possible currently. There's no 'collision detection' between the turns - only when you're moving your units...

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.

That might be a reason, yeah. Perhaps Sky Menace is too easily available and should cost a lot more SP's than it currently does?

Also, in the last game I was playing as Naval Commander and defended my cities with battleships against a Sky Menace's stealth bombers, yet they were taken out with ease. Does the +1 defense against bombers only work against the unit bombers (excluding stealth) or against the class bombers (including stealth)?

As I see it, a successfully thwarted attempt to break through a defense line means that the defending troops take the place of the attacker. Wouldn't it make more sense if they stay in line? Especially as I just had the case that the attacker was launching the attack from behind another defense line and all of a sudden my defending troops just jumped over the line to eventually stand there from where the attack had been launched.

I was thinking about how you could include going north or south past the map in a great circle arc type move. Now, i have no idea how the programming works or what is possible, and you might have already thought of this, but i'm gonna say it anyway. maybe have an invisible longitude/latitude grid so lets say some bombers are at the north at longitude 100 W over canada could fly to the top edge and have some edge detection there like anchoring a boat on shore, and the next turn, the game could convert those coordinates to the opposite side, such at 100 E over russia, and you can move from there.

作者： Blackvan, 06.11.2010 at 14:33

I was thinking about how you could include going north or south past the map in a great circle arc type move. Now, i have no idea how the programming works or what is possible, and you might have already thought of this, but i'm gonna say it anyway. maybe have an invisible longitude/latitude grid so lets say some bombers are at the north at longitude 100 W over canada could fly to the top edge and have some edge detection there like anchoring a boat on shore, and the next turn, the game could convert those coordinates to the opposite side, such at 100 E over russia, and you can move from there.

That is a very sound idea, and if we ever get to it, that's the way it will be done.

作者： Guest, 07.11.2010 at 01:34

Will there be downloadable version to play without internet?

We're not planning it at the moment. Anyway, playing Afterwind alone is not that much fun.

作者： Guest, 07.11.2010 at 01:34

Will there be downloadable version to play without internet?

The game cannot run without a dedicated server. Only possible solution would be to include the server together with the game, which we never really planned to do. But, who knows, maybe we will, if there will be a strong demand

作者： Guest, 07.11.2010 at 06:37

Is it possible to mod the game? For example I want to cut some big countries to provinces. Each provinces has its own capital. Also I want to play WW2, WW1, even Napoleonic Wars. This game concept is awesome. Thanks to developers and hope to more.

It's not possible at the moment, but we're definitely considering additional/custom maps.

I think the kicking system needs to be changed. right now, only the admin can kick a person (for absolutely no reason). I think there should be some kind of vote system where the rest of the players should decided if a person should leave. I've been kicked twice and lost all my earned points simply because the admin wanted to leave and instead of surrendering themselves, they kick their enemies.

(p.s. love the new additions in .87)

作者： Blackvan, 08.11.2010 at 22:58

I think the kicking system needs to be changed. right now, only the admin can kick a person (for absolutely no reason). I think there should be some kind of vote system where the rest of the players should decided if a person should leave. I've been kicked twice and lost all my earned points simply because the admin wanted to leave and instead of surrendering themselves, they kick their enemies.

Yes, we've been thinking along the same lines and it will most definitely be implemented soon.

When you are typing a chat message while the round ends (and battle overview phase kicks in) it's very likely that you "type through" that overview and close it without seeing it. I think text entry in the chatbox should be independent from the rest of the game?

作者： Ivan, 09.11.2010 at 03:05

作者： Blackvan, 08.11.2010 at 22:58

I think the kicking system needs to be changed. right now, only the admin can kick a person (for absolutely no reason). I think there should be some kind of vote system where the rest of the players should decided if a person should leave. I've been kicked twice and lost all my earned points simply because the admin wanted to leave and instead of surrendering themselves, they kick their enemies.

Yes, we've been thinking along the same lines and it will most definitely be implemented soon.

Was just in a game, with some guest account. I take out all his cities and china, earning close to 900 sp. then as I go in for the kill, he kicks me... this is an exploit and should be fixed immediately... or at least make it so you dont lose all your friggin sp u just spent the last 2 hours earning. thanks

作者： Okmera, 11.11.2010 at 11:46

When you are typing a chat message while the round ends (and battle overview phase kicks in) it's very likely that you "type through" that overview and close it without seeing it. I think text entry in the chatbox should be independent from the rest of the game?

this sometimes also results in skipping your turn somehow (instead of the button saying start turn, it says end turn and you dont have any options to build or move)

1. Maybe a way to turn off global chat (at least while in game)

2. A changelog to see whats new/fixed in each update. I know the news section does the big ones (.87), but not all (.875).

3. Maybe nitpicking, but should a transport be able to hold 10 tanks or 10 infantry? Tanks are much bigger. Someone with air transports can spam 100s of tanks really far across the map with this strategy and it is a little unbalanced. Maybe reduce the number of tanks each transport can hold to 2?

作者： Guest14502, 14.11.2010 at 11:47

1. Maybe a way to turn off global chat (at least while in game)

2. A changelog to see whats new/fixed in each update. I know the news section does the big ones (.87), but not all (.875).

3. Maybe nitpicking, but should a transport be able to hold 10 tanks or 10 infantry? Tanks are much bigger. Someone with air transports can spam 100s of tanks really far across the map with this strategy and it is a little unbalanced. Maybe reduce the number of tanks each transport can hold to 2?

1. Already very much possible. In the channel selection box uncheck the channels you don't want to receive.

2. We will try to keep a better record in the future. Keep forgetting to write everything down

3. You're assuming that Tanks and Infantry contain the same amount of personnel - in this case Tanks indeed would require a lot more Transports. However, for the sake of simplicity we count all land units as equal when it comes to transportation. Also, limiting the capacity of Air Transports will limit their usefulness - it would be much easier to just build bombers.

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.

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.

I'm glad to hear that in the future bombers won't be able to take cities -- it can really mess up a game when you're winning but then the enemy jumps over all your defenses with a 12-bomber stack and starts conquering everything.

The only suggestion I have other than that would be a means to deal with simultaneous movement. I think that it would make sense for smaller groups to move first, and that the larger the army is, the shorter the distance it can move at all. At this point, I've only seen people moving around large stacks of troops rather than groups of smaller units linked together, and if big groups moved last and couldn't move quite so far, people would be more inclined to micro a bit and use smaller groups rather than doomsday stacks. I think it would also draw combat out of cities a bit if implemented correctly.

Really annoyed, I could of won a big SP game in a turn, what pissed me of is the game only tells you it will end after the next turn.

If only i had 2 turns advance notice I could of won and sent my units the distance to take the country to win.
But NO its only one turn notic thanks alot!

Dame its 4am and i have work in 3 hours. this game is addictive, need sleep.

作者： Crazy Ivan, 15.11.2010 at 22:29

Really annoyed, I could of won a big SP game in a turn, what pissed me of is the game only tells you it will end after the next turn.

If only i had 2 turns advance notice I could of won and sent my units the distance to take the country to win.
But NO its only one turn notic thanks alot!

Dame its 4am and i have work in 3 hours. this game is addictive, need sleep.

... always check the game setting in the top right...

作者： Crazy Ivan, 15.11.2010 at 22:29

Really annoyed, I could of won a big SP game in a turn, what pissed me of is the game only tells you it will end after the next turn.

If only i had 2 turns advance notice I could of won and sent my units the distance to take the country to win.
But NO its only one turn notic thanks alot!

Dame its 4am and i have work in 3 hours. this game is addictive, need sleep.

I guess we should display another notice, perhaps 5 turns ahead.

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.

I think you should add more defensive units like sam sites. There should also be artillery to attack at from afar.

作者： 247defed, 25.11.2010 at 11:17

I think you should add more defensive units like sam sites. There should also be artillery to attack at from afar.

More units are most definitely coming in the future. Both anti-aircraft and artillery are planned.

I know that the main priority for this game is to be playable online, and it is very adept in that regard. But I can't help but feel the need to have computer opponents to play against- training, if you will. A world map with a simple country-select & computer opponent (including difficulty settings) feature would really be nice.
Also, the unit imbalances are slightly over the top.
I had over 25 Tanks and 30 infantry. I attack a city with no more than 10 units, I believe they were militia and infantry, and lost all of my own. A bit of a disappointment, is a bit of an understatement.
Nonetheless, this still shows itself to be something different & entertaining in the strategy genre that I would love to see furthered.:thumbup:

作者： DeanArcher, 13.12.2010 at 00:43

I know that the main priority for this game is to be playable online, and it is very adept in that regard. But I can't help but feel the need to have computer opponents to play against- training, if you will. A world map with a simple country-select & computer opponent (including difficulty settings) feature would really be nice.
Also, the unit imbalances are slightly over the top.
I had over 25 Tanks and 30 infantry. I attack a city with no more than 10 units, I believe they were militia and infantry, and lost all of my own. A bit of a disappointment, is a bit of an understatement.
Nonetheless, this still shows itself to be something different & entertaining in the strategy genre that I would love to see furthered.:thumbup:

The imbalance you describe is clearly a bug - this definitely shouldn't happen. We're still tweaking the balance, and sometimes weird things like this pop up - for which we apologize.

We also have AI planned, but it's rather low-priority at the moment.

Transports and Air transports ARE WAY OVERPRICED!! a bomber full of bombs is the same cost as 1/4 of a air transport? Also if you add the cost of the troops you plan on transporting it makes bombers WAY WAY to cheep or transports WAY WAY to expensive to acive the same result. ALSO: makeing it easyer to move troops by air would increase defensize stratagys for the game.
And see transports again to expensive. But if you acount for the amount of units that a see trans can move its much more ballanced then the air unit even though in real life the Sea transport is much more costly to build then 1 bowing 747

also is AW a reprezentation of 1 platoon or Battalion or ARMY? what is the Unit size? maybe you could put that under discription to add flavor to the game.

Lastly Need a way to end turn when someone becomes disconected or leaves during a 10min time stratagy game. like a tic box that makes turn auto end in X second after all but last player has finished turn.

Bring html5

作者： e Mare, 03.06.2015 at 01:44

作者： Nations, 03.06.2015 at 01:42

Bring html5

They said it's going to be available before the support for Silverlight ends in September, this year.

in beggining they said june lol :3