World games are boring; a solution (movement range increments)

Написано Stomach Ulcers, 12.11.2011 at 13:48

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuuk

They're considering adding this, 15k people.

Why not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papeete ?
131k

Neither should be added. As long as they belong to European countries they will not get a place in the game just like French Guiana has not and should not. Obvious reason is obvious--an unfair advantage.

Написано YOBA, 12.11.2011 at 15:58

Написано Stomach Ulcers, 12.11.2011 at 13:48

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuuk

They're considering adding this, 15k people.

Why not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papeete ?
131k

Neither should be added. As long as they belong to European countries they will not get a place in the game just like French Guiana has not and should not. Obvious reason is obvious--an unfair advantage.

Ivan and Amok have stated they do not care for deep world politic's such as this. There is a high chance of a country like Greenland being added (mainly because the community asked for it...).

Написано YOBA, 12.11.2011 at 15:58

Neither should be added. As long as they belong to European countries they will not get a place in the game just like French Guiana has not and should not. Obvious reason is obvious--an unfair advantage.

Your argument is invalid, since we have splitted countries such as China, Canada, USA, Brazil, Russia and Australia]. Hawaii and Alaska, for example, have it's "own country" in AW, why these can't be too?

Написано Pinheiro, 13.11.2011 at 08:47

Написано YOBA, 12.11.2011 at 15:58

Neither should be added. As long as they belong to European countries they will not get a place in the game just like French Guiana has not and should not. Obvious reason is obvious--an unfair advantage.

Your argument is invalid, since we have split countries such as China, Canada, USA, Brazil, Russia and Australia]. Hawaii and Alaska, for example, have it's "own country" in AW, why these can't be too?

Turn, but the only "unified" country with a different capital in the game is the Netherlands whose capital is The Hague, not Amsterdam. Hawaii and Alaska are far away from the mainland which is the reason for which they have split from the USA. They don't offer huge incomes or anything. The countries you mentioned have been split mainly for manpower and economic reasons. Alaska and Hawaii were divided because they were too far away.

You'd still have to break the established rules for population per city to add the other islands. The current metric just wouldn't allow them to be added. End of. The majority anyway, some might be eligible for addition under 100 extra cities but obviously that is a premium-only setting.

Now back on topic. If you really want to add more islands, make a separate thread about it. This is all taking away from my proposal which is completely unrelated to Houdini's.

Написано YOBA, 13.11.2011 at 09:41

Now back on topic. If you really want to add more islands, make a separate thread about it. This is all taking away from my proposal which is completely unrelated to Houdini's.

This is completely related and on topic, YOBA. This thread is presenting a problem and a solution. My suggestion is aimed at the problem presented by this thread. The islands are a suggestion to counter the proposal that "world games are boring". It is on topic to discuss islands in this thread. Making another thread would be stupid, because this is the thread which the suggestion pertains to.

Написано Houdini, 13.11.2011 at 14:03

Написано YOBA, 13.11.2011 at 09:41

Now back on topic. If you really want to add more islands, make a separate thread about it. This is all taking away from my proposal which is completely unrelated to Houdini's.

This is completely related and on topic, YOBA. This thread is presenting a problem and a solution. My suggestion is aimed at the problem presented by this thread. The islands are a suggestion to counter the proposal that "world games are boring". It is on topic to discuss islands in this thread. Making another thread would be stupid, because this is the thread which the suggestion pertains to.

The name of the thread is "World games are boring; a solution (movement range increments)", meaning it is the AUTHOR'S solution he want's to talk about. Not your's. If you find your idea good, please go make a thread about it. The author would like to talk about his idea only, so please listen to him.

Написано Garde, 13.11.2011 at 14:30

The name of the thread is "World games are boring; a solution (movement range increments)", meaning it is the AUTHOR'S solution he want's to talk about. Not your's. If you find your idea good, please go make a thread about it. The author would like to talk about his idea only, so please listen to him.

The authors solution was talked about, and an alternative was suggested. It is closed minded to refuse all alternatives to a problem and not the point of an idea/suggestion forum to shut out alternatives.

Also it's a pretty dumb idea to make two threads for one problem.

Написано Garde, 13.11.2011 at 14:30

Написано Houdini, 13.11.2011 at 14:03

Написано YOBA, 13.11.2011 at 09:41

Now back on topic. If you really want to add more islands, make a separate thread about it. This is all taking away from my proposal which is completely unrelated to Houdini's.

This is completely related and on topic, YOBA. This thread is presenting a problem and a solution. My suggestion is aimed at the problem presented by this thread. The islands are a suggestion to counter the proposal that "world games are boring". It is on topic to discuss islands in this thread. Making another thread would be stupid, because this is the thread which the suggestion pertains to.

The name of the thread is "World games are boring; a solution (movement range increments)", meaning it is the AUTHOR'S solution he want's to talk about. Not your's. If you find your idea good, please go make a thread about it. The author would like to talk about his idea only, so please listen to him.

Wrong. A suggestion thread gathers ideas on one topic and attempts to improve it -- after all, we ARE talking about the authors suggestion, but we're improving it. Also, the name of the title is "World games are boring; a solution (movement range increments)," so improving movement range is to be discussed here. You're not making any sense at all.


Also, adding islands IS a solution to this problem. It adds more 'checkpoints' in oceans, which is the main problem with world games. I don't see how Houdini's suggestion is unrelated at all really, you guys are just acting really shallow.

Написано YOBA, 12.11.2011 at 15:51

It beats me why Ivan would use the Falklands, particularly as they're an overstretched British territory (wouldn't work well, would give an unfair advantage to UK in world games). Also, we've had this conversation before.

As for the ones you listed, you again ignored my post Pinheiro; what we're looking for is population in the capitals, not the entire islands' population. Your statement is made void by this fact.

The Falkland Islands should be Argentine, not British

Написано LaBandaRoja, 31.01.2012 at 13:23

Написано YOBA, 12.11.2011 at 15:51

It beats me why Ivan would use the Falklands, particularly as they're an overstretched British territory (wouldn't work well, would give an unfair advantage to UK in world games). Also, we've had this conversation before.

As for the ones you listed, you again ignored my post Pinheiro; what we're looking for is population in the capitals, not the entire islands' population. Your statement is made void by this fact.

The Falkland Islands should be Argentine, not British

I wouldn't agree, but whatever, I won't get in a flame war over this.

Nevertheless, thanks for the bump! And now that Amok has returned, perhaps he can consider this. He could work out the details himself (e.g. the time when movement range begins increasing), he's made a damn fine game already and I'm confident he can do this too.

Написано LaBandaRoja, 31.01.2012 at 13:23

Написано YOBA, 12.11.2011 at 15:51

It beats me why Ivan would use the Falklands, particularly as they're an overstretched British territory (wouldn't work well, would give an unfair advantage to UK in world games). Also, we've had this conversation before.

As for the ones you listed, you again ignored my post Pinheiro; what we're looking for is population in the capitals, not the entire islands' population. Your statement is made void by this fact.

The Falkland Islands should be Argentine, not British

One of the reasons I decided not to add them in the recent update. Having enough fun with Kosovo, thank you very much.

Написано YOBA, 31.01.2012 at 13:31

And now that Amok has returned, perhaps he can consider this. He could work out the details himself (e.g. the time when movement range begins increasing), he's made a damn fine game already and I'm confident he can do this too.

I really hope not. The new islands and cities were added, intercontinental warfare is great and lots of fun as is.World games are my favorite thing to do in afterwind. I play so many world games that crossing the Pacific isn't even slow to me any more and the Atlantic feels fast in comparison.

I see the length of the ocean as serving a distinct strategic purpose in AW world games and shouldn't be shortened for "convenience". This would make intercontinental warfare much less strategic.The buffer time the ocean gives forces the player to plan out a long-term offense. In the time it takes to cross either ocean your opponent will also be sending units that may meet midway and battle before you even reach the other continent. Maybe even be stacking a counterattack force or a defense force so your once powerful stack is now insufficient to take their weakest coastal nation.

By shortening the distance of the ocean with a speed increase you take out a big strategic portion of world games. Turning World games into bigger Eurasia games essentially . It would make it too easy and in my opinion, kill all the fun.

Написано Houdini, 31.01.2012 at 15:38

Написано YOBA, 31.01.2012 at 13:31

And now that Amok has returned, perhaps he can consider this. He could work out the details himself (e.g. the time when movement range begins increasing), he's made a damn fine game already and I'm confident he can do this too.

I really hope not. The new islands and cities were added, intercontinental warfare is great and lots of fun as is.World games are my favorite thing to do in afterwind. I play so many world games that crossing the Pacific isn't even slow to me any more and the Atlantic feels fast in comparison.

I see the length of the ocean as serving a distinct strategic purpose in AW world games and shouldn't be shortened for "convenience". This would make intercontinental warfare much less strategic.The buffer time the ocean gives forces the player to plan out a long-term offense. In the time it takes to cross either ocean your opponent will also be sending units that may meet midway and battle before you even reach the other continent. Maybe even be stacking a counterattack force or a defense force so your once powerful stack is now insufficient to take their weakest coastal nation.

By shortening the distance of the ocean with a speed increase you take out a big strategic portion of world games. Turning World games into bigger Eurasia games essentially . It would make it too easy and in my opinion, kill all the fun.

Firstly, you keep using the term "strategy" incorrectly, neither in the AW nor the warfare theory context. Read up on your Clausewitz, bitch.

To address your point: this is not exclusively for oceans, though it would be nice for them too. For instance, ath least 2 players usually spawn in Europe and the Far East. They tend to have finished with each other by turn 11 and are ready to "rapidly" expand outwards.

The problem is that Afterwind is not meant to be played like an MMORPG. This feels like grinding. Of course, it is part of the overall strategy (warfare term) to defeat the enemy though it feel long and unecessary. If these increments applied to all players and were carefully tweaked, the game would remain exciting. I've seen many players leave when the Europe-Asia war begins or America begins taking over Africa after defeating the Northern/Southern portion, for instance, because the game stops being as thrilling and nerve-racking as it usually is.

It's worse when you're not conquering neutrals, of course, but micromanaging troops to a ridiculous levels. This especially goes for Master of Stealth which needs annoyingly high levels of micromanagement to pull off a successful attack on an unsuspecting enemy situated on the next continent. It's probably even more frustrating for the attacker than the defender, until they finally attack and reap the rewards (or fail hilariously).

We can have more action this way. As an unintended but fairly positive side effect, players will be less motivated to conquer useless neutrals for SP due to their strategy (warfare, again) and will need to play more games, therefore playing Afterwind for a longer period of time.

Написано YOBA, 31.01.2012 at 16:04

Firstly, you keep using the term "strategy" incorrectly, neither in the AW nor the warfare theory context. Read up on your Clausewitz, bitch.

From wikipedia: Strategy, a word of military origin, refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.

From the dictionary:
1.Also, strategics. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.

4.a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.

1. In military usage, a distinction is made between strategy and tactics. Strategy is the utilization, during both peace and war, of all of a nation's forces, through large-scale, long-range planning and development, to ensure security or victory. Tactics deals with the use and deployment of troops in actual combat.

Not really, I'm using it in reference to having to plan out long term(read: over 10 weeks) intercontinental invasions and overcoming enemy defense over a long period of time. This usage is in line with every definition of strategy I could find on hand. So fuck off.

Написано YOBA, 31.01.2012 at 16:04

To address your point: this is not exclusively for oceans, though it would be nice for them too.

The problem is that Afterwind is not meant to be played like an MMORPG. This feels like grinding. Of course, it is part of the overall strategy (warfare term) to defeat the enemy though it feel long and unecessary. If these increments applied to all players and were carefully tweaked, the game would remain exciting. I've seen many players leave when the Europe-Asia war begins or America begins taking over Africa after defeating the Northern/Southern portion, for instance, because the game stops being as thrilling and nerve-racking as it usually is.

We can have more action this way. As an unintended but fairly positive side effect, players will be less motivated to conquer useless neutrals for SP due to their strategy (warfare, again) and will need to play more games, therefore playing Afterwind for a longer period of time.

So your problem isn't even the oceans. It's that you're too impatient to play through a full game of afterwind. That's even worse than I had originally thought. The game gets even better as the low ranked players who leave get out within the first couple turns, not more boring. If you get bored after the first couple turns that's your problem, not the movement range's fault.

Players don't solely leave game's because they're bored the game isnt moving fast enough. Usually when you see America reaching Africa, Europe leaves because it lost the game not because it's bored. If they leave when the Asia-Europe war starts, they also most likely lost by failing to unify Europe or Asia against the other. The examples you gave here directly line up with the ideology of noobs who ragequit once the superpower of the game doesn't accept their alliance spam. I do not see how referencing people leaving a game helps your argument at all. I have legitimately never seen someone in a good position get up and leave a game saying they're bored. People only get bored when they know they've lost, no one gets bored of winning.

Again, by speeding up movement and making the game faster and more convenient you're taking away from the tactical advantage of having time to plan out strategic offensives or build your empire up. As well as taking away from the games identity as a strategic war game. Warfare games aren't meant to be quick and easy. By speeding up the movement and making the game go faster you're essentially cutting the game down making it less than it already is. Speeding up the movement would discourage development, or as you called "conquering useless neutrals", by allowing attacking players to rush even faster than before giving defending players even less time to build up. Without an empire to back the player's offenses up with, the game turns into a one-shot hit or miss kind of thing.

Yes you would achieve more games played by doing this easily. But, the games would be severely shallow in depth, less strategic and less fun overall compared to the way the game is currently set up. Also I do not believe you're correct in saying that this would lead to people playing afterwind for a longer amount of time. The games would be significantly shortened but increased in frequency. This would not equate to playing afterwind for a longer amount of time, but instead would just balance out at the same amount of time played in shorter intervals.

Overall I think this idea takes away from the game more than it gives.Which is why I stand by the point that I believe this is a terrible idea and should not be implemented.

Написано YOBA, 31.01.2012 at 13:31

Написано LaBandaRoja, 31.01.2012 at 13:23

Написано YOBA, 12.11.2011 at 15:51

It beats me why Ivan would use the Falklands, particularly as they're an overstretched British territory (wouldn't work well, would give an unfair advantage to UK in world games). Also, we've had this conversation before.

As for the ones you listed, you again ignored my post Pinheiro; what we're looking for is population in the capitals, not the entire islands' population. Your statement is made void by this fact.

The Falkland Islands should be Argentine, not British

I wouldn't agree, but whatever, I won't get in a flame war over this.

Nevertheless, thanks for the bump! And now that Amok has returned, perhaps he can consider this. He could work out the details himself (e.g. the time when movement range begins increasing), he's made a damn fine game already and I'm confident he can do this too.

Technically, they are British, since they conquered them (from Argentina) and they are more involved in world politics, but they are also, within the 200 m boundary to international waters from the Argentine coast, and international law says that all islands within that belong to the coastal nation

Написано Ivan, 31.01.2012 at 14:54

Написано LaBandaRoja, 31.01.2012 at 13:23

Написано YOBA, 12.11.2011 at 15:51

It beats me why Ivan would use the Falklands, particularly as they're an overstretched British territory (wouldn't work well, would give an unfair advantage to UK in world games). Also, we've had this conversation before.

As for the ones you listed, you again ignored my post Pinheiro; what we're looking for is population in the capitals, not the entire islands' population. Your statement is made void by this fact.

The Falkland Islands should be Argentine, not British

One of the reasons I decided not to add them in the recent update. Having enough fun with Kosovo, thank you very much.

Haha, the Falkland Islands are definitely in a similar situation as Kosovo

Falkland Islands: just make a new country. The world of Afterwind != the Earth, as it's post apocalyptic. Besides, with all the war going on, why wouldn't militia try to take over the island?

I'm also in favor of new islands in the pacific. It would also make the pacific map more interesting. And perhaps it could be tweaked for gameplay purposes, offering higher reinforcements than it usually would.

My face through this whole thing was just....... and and and and and and and and thats it. Just cuz its too far away it can be its own country like USA's Alaska and Hawaii.

I dont know if this has been pointed out yet...but turns in the game are measured in weeks. You're telling me it takes 10 weeks for a bomber to cross the Pacific Ocean?