Suggestions from multiple players of this game - up to date

Railways

Railways would be stationary land transport units, available through upgrades, enabling rapid movement between cities with no penalty upon a unit's movement that turn. They would resemble a line connected between two cities, with units be able to move through them to other cities. An important aspect of the railway is that it requires abundant reserves of money to create and maintain, and can only be created between cities on 100%+ income.

Statistics
Name: Railways.
Attack: 1.
Defence: 2.
ARB: 3.
HP: 7.
Range: N/A.
View: 16.
Capacity: 15 (can be improved through upgrades to 20).
Cost: 500.

I love railway , a brilliant idea.

but next time you make me read, i kill you. ;

all ideas are great , thought the SP ranking might be better if it will stay.

Написао ncmbad, 16.09.2011 at 14:47

Railways

Railways would be stationary land transport units, available through upgrades, enabling rapid movement between cities with no penalty upon a unit's movement that turn. They would resemble a line connected between two cities, with units be able to move through them to other cities. An important aspect of the railway is that it requires abundant reserves of money to create and maintain, and can only be created between cities on 100%+ income.

Statistics
Name: Railways.
Attack: 1.
Defence: 2.
ARB: 3.
HP: 7.
Range: N/A.
View: 16.
Capacity: 15 (can be improved through upgrades to 20).
Cost: 500.

How about instead of as a unit you but separate tracks and different kinds of trains to carry specific units?

Написао Garde, 16.09.2011 at 15:08

How about instead of as a unit you but separate tracks and different kinds of trains to carry specific units?

That is overcomplicating its implementation, in my honest opinion; furthermore, it adds far too many unnecessary units and resultant upgrades.

We need more modification for scenarios.

To be able to separate units names and types for each player. So each player can have different pictures, names and the admin can disable certain units for that specific player.
The ability to change the pictures of cities.
If it were possible to make it so that a country can be shared within the first turn, for instance, one player can hold the capital and a few cities while another holds a few cities.

Another customization though probably difficult is brand new unit making. (Though this may defeat the purpose of the game and its units) I have had an idea for a War of the Worlds scenario and I'd like to have a team which can build expensive but powerful Tripod units. I doubt this can be implemented but the scenario seems pointless if a tank can take one out. My main modification is the unit types for individual players. If that can be changed, games would be very different.

If we can change the units for each player, it would mean different sides can be equipped with different technologies and abilities. For instance a Spanish colonization of America would involve Spanish galleons (Destroyers) and conquistadors (Marines or Infantry) while the natives would have destroyers disabled and Native Warriors for Infantry etc.

It opens up alot of doors for authenticity.

I agree with Ironail on everything he mentioned.

But i disagree with the rank brackets and the "using only 1 strategy" suggestion. Sure, having a game type in the "advanced settings" where players can only use a chosen strategy would be great. But i think its just best to improve the the under utilized strategies like LB, MoS, Blitz, ....etc.

Ironail does make a point with GW being overpowered. But lessening its already strong tactics would just bring the strategy down. What needs to be done is the improvement of Master of Stealth, so that it can compete with guerilla warfare and add a bit of rivalry between "marine users".

In my opinion, IF is fine the way it is. Most players tend to use it in small mapped games because of Iron Fist's movement negativity. Using this strategy on larger maps is kinda useless, since great combinator is so much more efficient. So IF is fine the way it is really. If there were to be some work done on it to degrade its power, I would suggest taking off the 3HP from bombers or something like that.

A cool way to determine the ranks of the "true" top players, would be to have a system that registered all your games and the ppl's ranks that you played with and defeated. For ex: I play a game with five players. (a rank 5, 4, 7, 2 and me) Lets say i win the game i get 18 points (5+4+7+2) from that game that gets placed in a list of some sort. Just an idea I had.

I agree with ncm. The railroad idea is fantastic. it would add a great level of complexity to the game. We could even add land transports in the game. They can carry as much as 5 units. (but only militia, infantry and "marines in stealth with the transport"). They could be something like 300 cost with a bout 75% the range of air transports. Just a thought.

Написао tophat, 16.09.2011 at 18:58

I agree with ncm. The railroad idea is fantastic. it would add a great level of complexity to the game. We could even add land transports in the game. They can carry as much as 5 units. (but only militia, infantry and "marines in stealth with the transport"). They could be something like 300 cost with a bout 75% the range of air transports. Just a thought.

A standard unit land transport could be useful, and would most likely have decent attack, a similarity shared with submarines.

Infantry Fighting Vehicle/IFV/Armoured Car/Armed Car

Attack: 4.
Defence: 2.
ARB: 3.
HP: 7.
Range: 9.
View: 16.
Cost: 300.
Capacity: 5 (only militia, infantry and marines).

ncm.'s Proposals

Alliances

A three-tier system could be introduced, consisting of;

Superalliance - Enables players to place units in each other's cities, build defence lines with one another (i.e. player 1's unit forms line with player's 2 unit) while taking 3 turns of demotion to Non-Aggression and then Peace before outright war can be declared. An attack against one member of the Pact is an attack against all, meaning all players in the Pact enter hostilities with a player who is at war with one member; however, the Peace and Non-Aggression features are not affected under this principle, meaning player 1 can be in Peace with player 3 but player 2 can still be invading 3. Units could also be transferred between players using the current system alliance/peace is offered. After clicking a box in 'Diplomacy' marked, say, 'Transfer Unit', the player highlights and clicks the unit to be transferred. This offers potential both for better co-operation and strategy but also immense backstabbing by players who want to kill people they're in Peace/Non-Aggression with but don't want the predictability of the current set-up (i.e. 'Player 1 has ended the Alliance with you! Quick, stack defence!').
Alliance (Non-Aggression?) - The current Alliance feature.
Peace (Armistice/Ceasefire?) - The current Peace feature.

Infantry Fighting Vehicle/IFV/Armoured Car/Armed Car

IFVs will fill the need both for a land transport while also providing a relatively cost-effective alternative to air transports that suffer from lesser range. The vehicles have half-decent attack statistics due to the mounting of turrets, machine guns or RCWS common in reality upon them.

Statistics

Attack: 4.
Defence: 2.
ARB: 3.
HP: 7.
Range: 9.
View: 16.
Cost: 300.
Capacity: 5 (only militia, infantry and marines).

Railways

Railways would be stationary land transport units, available through upgrades, enabling rapid movement between cities with no penalty upon a unit's movement that turn. They would resemble a line connected between two cities, with units be able to move through them to other cities. An important aspect of the railway is that it requires abundant reserves of money to create and maintain, and can only be created between cities on 100%+ income.

Railways open up massive possibilities for more fluid, quick games on large maps with sparsely-scattered cities (i.e. South America), they will open up a new dimension particularly in small-map games such as Europe where players must focus on preventing an opponent's construction of railways and destroying these railways once they're built. Defence lines around railways will likely become common, and it is probable railways will be a key feature if implemented; for example, in a Europe+ game, troops from Kazan could potentially arrive in Berlin in one turn.

It may be necessary to tweak the abilities of railways to present a balanced unit. A situation in which Kazan-Berlin in one turn is possible gives an incredible advantage to the player controlling this rail network. Units should perhaps be limited in the amount of times they can travel to cities in one turn, perhaps through enforcing some sort of moderate movement penalty. Alternatively, railways, like defence lines, may only be able to be built over certain distances, so creating complex rail networks (i.e. Kazan-Voronezh-Moscow-Gomel-Liev-Warsaw-Berlin) would become a common feature. Of course, it is unlikely all the cities involved in these networks, at least on small maps, will have 100%+ income.

Opponents would have to destroy railways and consistently bomb cities that are nearing 100%+ income. Alongside cargo ships, railways could add a much more economical aspect to gameplay where identifying an opponent's major 100%+ income cities before railways are built is key; these cities would likely become railway hubs, and hence defending them would be of central importance.

Statistics
Attack: 1.
Defence: 2.
ARB: 3.
HP: 7.
Range: N/A.
View: 16.
Capacity: 15 (can be improved through upgrades to 20).
Cost: 500.

Aircraft Carrier

The unit would have exceptionally low defence and attack by itself, and could carry 20 units. It's primary purpose would be to provide a naval transport with a submarine's movement, meaning conventional units can be deployed rapidly elsewhere. The units carried should not affect the carrier's ATT/DEF, making destroyer defence lines potentially necessary and adding a new dimension to naval warfare. However, carriers would be incredibly expensive (1000-2000, I'm thinking), reflecting two facts; first, only militaries with sufficient budgets operate carriers, and secondly, that carriers are only constructed when it is part of a state's strategic interests. Due to their cost, only players who absolutely need them will build carriers. Carriers would be available through upgrades.

Statistics
Att 1.
Def 2.
ARB 3.
HP 7.
Range 10-15.
Capacity 15 units.
Cost 1000-2000.

Написао ncmbad, 16.09.2011 at 19:19

Написао tophat, 16.09.2011 at 18:58

I agree with ncm. The railroad idea is fantastic. it would add a great level of complexity to the game. We could even add land transports in the game. They can carry as much as 5 units. (but only militia, infantry and "marines in stealth with the transport"). They could be something like 300 cost with a bout 75% the range of air transports. Just a thought.

A standard unit land transport could be useful, and would most likely have decent attack, a similarity shared with submarines.

Infantry Fighting Vehicle/IFV/Armoured Car/Armed Car

Attack: 4.
Defence: 2.
ARB: 3.
HP: 7.
Range: 9.
View: 16.
Cost: 300.
Capacity: 5 (only militia, infantry and marines).

Написао Guest14502, 22.12.2010 at 19:46

What do people think about adding a Armored Personnel Carrier unit (to transport infantry)...

Написао Amok, 23.12.2010 at 01:31

I think this will add some unnecessary complications to the game. Why not just assume that there's already APC's in the infantry stack?

http://afterwind.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=97

RIP APC idea

Написао Guest14502, 16.09.2011 at 21:25

Написао Amok, 23.12.2010 at 01:31

I think this will add some unnecessary complications to the game. Why not just assume that there's already APC's in the infantry stack?

http://afterwind.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=97

RIP APC idea

There are no APCs listed as being included with infantry, hence there is no reason to assume there are APCs included with infantry. These 'unnecessary complications' chiefly occur through the addition of a new unit.

Aircraft Carriers would be kind of useless.
Transports have the function of carrying troops, and planes can fly on their own.
APCs are also useless. Transport is provided already.
Railways however...
They look OK. You're increasing the movement of land units, which is nice, especially when you're in Russia or another large place.

Elo rating system
- player-rankings based on SP doesn't show a players skill, the following suggestions would also increase the competition in this game and be another step to make Afterwind the leading strategy-browser-game
-> implement a ladder ranking with brackets
-> point-system similar to ELO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system)
-> brackets could be: rated 1vs1, rated team-games: 2vs2, 3vs3
-> players would have to stay in their team, if the leave it to join another they loose their rank


pls add this, would add a whole new *refreshing* dimension to the game
the game's updates have been coming slowly, and something like this would prob make up for them

Since Cow left, someone should re-open this topic.

Also, it would be really cool if we could see all our duels (as someone already suggested).

Написао Guest, 11.09.2011 at 11:12

strategy-ranks
- it's always difficult to balance strategies or classes, but overpowered strategies force people to only use these, becoming one-dimensional players
-> add "ranks" for strategies: you have to get a specific rank in the 1vs1 bracket by only using a single strategy, if done, the strategy gets a rank up

Wouldnt this only serve to make them more one-dimensional?

Написао Runway1R, 02.11.2011 at 17:33

Написао Guest, 11.09.2011 at 11:12

strategy-ranks
- it's always difficult to balance strategies or classes, but overpowered strategies force people to only use these, becoming one-dimensional players
-> add "ranks" for strategies: you have to get a specific rank in the 1vs1 bracket by only using a single strategy, if done, the strategy gets a rank up

Wouldnt this only serve to make them more one-dimensional?

No, because the leading thought is to give the player a incentive to try out other strategies.
However, Ivan told us that he and Amok don't have enough time to add all of those upgrades, the one you quoted is some of the least important things to add, more even like an upgrade for the (nonexistent) 1vs1 rankings.
It's probably easier just to fix the strategies whenever it's needed.

I think it would help if we could change strategies while in game but still have a catch like you can only do it 5 times per game. That and abandoned games don't cost 1 loss only 0. So basicly no losses.

"LilD" best rapper on AW

Написао Deray YG, 04.11.2011 at 11:44

I think it would help if we could change strategies while in game but still have a catch like you can only do it 5 times per game. That and abandoned games don't cost 1 loss only 0. So basicly no losses.

"LilD" best rapper on AW

Change strategies while in game? For what?

Написао Guest, 04.11.2011 at 11:50

Написао Deray YG, 04.11.2011 at 11:44

I think it would help if we could change strategies while in game but still have a catch like you can only do it 5 times per game. That and abandoned games don't cost 1 loss only 0. So basicly no losses.

"LilD" best rapper on AW

Change strategies while in game? For what?

For when you mess up and pick the wrong strategy or when you forget to change it.

Написао Deray YG, 04.11.2011 at 12:19

Написао Guest, 04.11.2011 at 11:50

Написао Deray YG, 04.11.2011 at 11:44

I think it would help if we could change strategies while in game but still have a catch like you can only do it 5 times per game. That and abandoned games don't cost 1 loss only 0. So basicly no losses.

"LilD" best rapper on AW

Change strategies while in game? For what?

For when you mess up and pick the wrong strategy or when you forget to change it.

Happened to me once since i started to play this game. In the first line a problem of new players.

Написао Deray YG, 04.11.2011 at 11:44

I think it would help if we could change strategies while in game.

Very easily abused. I imagine every single player picking Blitzkrieg in world games, expanding as much as they can and then changing it to Iron Fist or PD when they reach their enemies countries.

And thats why there needs to be a catch

Написао Deray YG, 04.11.2011 at 12:47

And thats why there needs to be a catch

Catch: You can only change it within the first 2 turns.

Написао Runway1R, 04.11.2011 at 14:08

Написао Deray YG, 04.11.2011 at 12:47

And thats why there needs to be a catch

Catch: You can only change it within the first 2 turns.

Still not necessary. Developers shouldn't waste time for such things, just check your strategy before you pick a country.

I think SM became kind of a faceroll strategy in Europe since the wall glitch was fixed. What are your thoughts?

SM is fine really, also SM always loses 3 way battles.

Why does SM always lose 3 way battles?? Bombers have 8 attack and 6 defense

Написао tophat, 05.11.2011 at 17:27

Why does SM always lose 3 way battles?? Bombers have 8 attack and 6 defense

Because infantry dies first and bombers can't cap cities.

This:
"strategy-ranks
-> add "ranks" for strategies: you have to get a specific rank in the 1vs1 bracket by only using a single strategy, if done, the strategy gets a rank up"

I think this isn't important if these things get fixed:

"strategy balancing
- this strategies are still not balanced
- GW is a little bit too strong
- Lucky Bastard (LB) is the worst strategy and inferior in every case
games with equal conditions for every participant
-> add the possibility to create games where every player has the same strategy and without upgrades
-> this option should be the standard in the ranked 1vs1 games, as a result the games will be more skill-based and the ranking more meaningful
ELO system"

With elo, same conditions and more balanced strategies this would just complicate things too much, in my opinion.

Написао Aristosseur, 05.11.2011 at 17:37

Написао tophat, 05.11.2011 at 17:27

Why does SM always lose 3 way battles?? Bombers have 8 attack and 6 defense

Because infantry dies first and bombers can't cap cities.

well, thats why u make a stack with at least one militia.

I have a few, for the site:

>Icons:
Have a pre-made list of icons to stick on a forum thread (where you would see a lock or a sticky tick)
maybe a flask for projects, an arena for tourney's, a newspaper for news posts etc.

>Folders:
Be able to make folder's in clan forums, simple as that. (I think these actually aren't possible if I remember correctly, but just thought I would bring it up again.)

>Rename clan ranks/make more/icons:
Being able to rename your leader and officer would be great! I'd also like to see something where you can add ranks like "Initiate" "Sergeant" with different colors / icons etc. It would also be cool to be able to put a symbol next to your name in the clan forums like the admins and mods have.

>Graphs:
Maybe being able to make a graph would be nice- I would suggest pie/line graphs. Could be used to compare strats after each nerf or player's online average etc.

>Profile pictures using .gif and .png:
I know, we use .jpg because of bandwidth, but maybe once more bandwidth is available we can include moving gif pics and everyrone's favorite non-blur/pixelated .png pics.

>Clan+:
Could be a bought feature, but i would LOVE to see clan pages rethought, maybe have custom background's, font, colors, and have a wiki-style info box? Maybe we should require each clan to have a flag, coat of arms and motto? Sounds great to me!

>Legends:
Maybe a page for Afterwind's most valuable player's of all time? I think it would be a good way to honor them, especially people like baal. Hue :3

-Possibly more to come-