How is the new battle system working for you?

The new reinforcements ratios are better.We now run out of money, first step to a well balanced game.

I've done some intensives tests and math about destroyed/lost units when fighting.

Without any strategy, you loose between 70% (tanks, battleships with good rolls) and 150%(infantry with bad rolls) of the units you are attacking.
There seems to be a 10% to 20% gain when stacking.

The mid ratio is around 110% (attacking 10 units you'll loose 11, all type of units included)

With some strategies up (mainly adding hp), things seems a little better and more balanced.

I'm still defending a little bonus for stacking..........I'm sure it could lead to a good balance, and a more dynamic game.

Last thing : Bab can give awesome results on some fights, really impressive !

Keep up the good work !

We'll introduce the revised unit stats later today. There are some drastic changes, that would hopefully help us archieve a better balance, although this will only be proven after the real test run.

I preferred the old combat system... Now it seems like the type of unit doesn't matter at all, as long as you can make a huge stack of it it will slaughter most things. 200 infantry is really damn hard to break, you seem to need the same number of tanks to break the defence and tanks cost 3 times more.

I have lost too many times to a big stack of infantry. Infantry is too cheap for its effectiveness in combat, it's too well-rounded. 60 credits (30 with imperialist) for a 5/6 unit is too low. It's been made even worse thanks to the recent update, with +1 attack, equalized HP and an even higher boost in stacks. It's the same with bomber stacks when the person has enough money to fund all the bombers.

Tested infantry a lot, and infantry need some adjustments. Perhaps +10 price, or one less attack ......

I think infantry should be the same stats it's at now (maybe +1 defence -1 attack), but with 100 cost (70 with imperial).

Infantriy is awfully unbalanced at the moment. Just played with PD myself, a strategy I usually don't like and you can just roll over your enemy due to the immense size of stacks you can build while boosting your def at the same time. The only thing feasible to stop infantry is even more infantry. And thanks to this the game has lost its tactical depth.

If you really insist on stack bonus, how about coupling it with the value of the units?

Skrevet av LiodaGobert, 28.02.2011 at 04:15

Tested infantry a lot, and infantry need some adjustments. Perhaps +10 price, or one less attack ......

+10 (or slightly more) to the price, yes. They are dirt cheap and if you play PD you end up with hoardes of cash even if you max out the reinforcements every time.

Added 10 to the price, removed +1 range from PD, let's see how it will play now.

Removing the +1 range is a good idea.

Let's test this now.

- 1 range just makes the strategy less fun. It's not too strong because the infantry get's anywhere too fast, but because you're not limited by money. +10 cost and -1 range won't change much about that.

Edit: you have to look at the root of the problem. And that's not, that the infantry is too cheap. It always was. But when did that become a problem? When the reinforcements increased.
When playing perfect defence, you always could use all reinforcements every 4 weeks and still have plenty of money. The other strategies could keep up with perfect defence, but still had no money left after they bought all the units they could.
Now that the reinforcements were increased, it's still the same for infantry, because with PD they are insanely cheap. But the other strategies, whos units cost alot more, now struggle to buy all reinforcements, because they still have the same amount of money to use for more reinforcements.
So that's why I don't see any need to decrease the range by 1, as it was already fine before the update. But I'd either increase the cost of infantry by a greater amount than 10, or decrease the cost of all the other units. The latter is a greater change, but sounds more appealing to me.

Just reduce the attack. People are still using PD to flatten you with infantry. That shouldn't be the purpose of a defensive unit in the first place. And as proposed already: make the stack bonus less efficient for cheap units and more efficient for high-cost units.

I'm not sure the reduced attack for infantry is mandatory. (for simulation purpose, all armies in the world are 60 to 70 % made with infantry)

The stack bonus could be btw.(simulation wise, there are less advantages and it's harder to keep lots of men in the same place)

I'm sincerely worried about the progress of Afterwind, let me explain my objections.

With implementation of the new battle mechanics, Afterwind has turned into a click-and-play game, pure arcade as mentioned before - the player owning more land wins...he always does! There is no more space for different unit types and strategies, they're all similar to each other. Whether you're using bombers or infantries, marines or militias, the stylistic characteristics have been strikingly reduced. Beside other problems that lead to the impossibility of all focused playing styles, especially a defence-based strategy seems to be tremendously weak now - always compared to the old battle mechanics - what intensifies the problem that there is no way to fight a decent player who owns more land than you do, what privileges the more aggressive, expansive players and therefore also puts inexperienced players at a major disadvantage.
The only remaining type of luck is the worst because most arbitrary one, namely country selection and movement order. Everything else is calculable in detail, you can just ignore the luck factor at all when planning your moves, relevant randomness and therefore associated suspense just doesn't exist anymore, nobody will ever have to adjust his strategy because a fight of him or his opponent ended with a different result than expected - either it works or it doesn't, there is no more space to react by using varying tactics and giving proof of your flexibility.
What was the problem with the old concept? What are the advantages compared to the old battle mechanics? Why did we change it? I agree to the problem that it was too likely that a few units killed superior forces, but does that really justify all those disadvantages? I'm sure we would find other solutions for that issue...
I've already discussed with many people ingame and it seems like I'm not the only one having those concerns, a few friends of mine even abandoned Afterwind because of that. I also think that the player amount didn't grow as fast as before or even decreased after implementing the new battle mechanics, is that possible? Especially the amount of low-ranked players seems to be lower than before, correct me if I'm wrong...

Oh, and i strongly support the proposal to base the stack bonus on the overall attack- respectively defence-values instead of the pure unit amount if it's really based on them - how does the stack bonus work in detail?

Skrevet av HeyI, 17.03.2011 at 22:33

I'm sincerely worried about the progress of Afterwind, let me explain my objections.

With implementation of the new battle mechanics, Afterwind has turned into a click-and-play game, pure arcade as mentioned before - the player owning more land wins...he always does! There is no more space for different unit types and strategies, they're all similar to each other. Whether you're using bombers or infantries, marines or militias, the stylistic characteristics have been strikingly reduced. Beside other problems that lead to the impossibility of all focused playing styles, especially a defence-based strategy seems to be tremendously weak now - always compared to the old battle mechanics - what intensifies the problem that there is no way to fight a decent player who owns more land than you do, what privileges the more aggressive, expansive players and therefore also puts inexperienced players at a major disadvantage.
The only remaining type of luck is the worst because most arbitrary one, namely country selection and movement order. Everything else is calculable in detail, you can just ignore the luck factor at all when planning your moves, relevant randomness and therefore associated suspense just doesn't exist anymore, nobody will ever have to adjust his strategy because a fight of him or his opponent ended with a different result than expected - either it works or it doesn't, there is no more space to react by using varying tactics and giving proof of your flexibility.
What was the problem with the old concept? What are the advantages compared to the old battle mechanics? Why did we change it? I agree to the problem that it was too likely that a few units killed superior forces, but does that really justify all those disadvantages? I'm sure we would find other solutions for that issue...
I've already discussed with many people ingame and it seems like I'm not the only one having those concerns, a few friends of mine even abandoned Afterwind because of that. I also think that the player amount didn't grow as fast as before or even decreased after implementing the new battle mechanics, is that possible? Especially the amount of low-ranked players seems to be lower than before, correct me if I'm wrong...

Oh, and i strongly support the proposal to base the stack bonus on the overall attack- respectively defence-values instead of the pure unit amount if it's really based on them - how does the stack bonus work in detail?

Agreed.

About units and luck : With all the last tweaks that have been done to balance the units, I didn't really see where the old luck factor is missing, but in the arb %.


About strategies : The balance isn't off, I think Amok and Ivan have to choose between one way or the other, aka strategy using only the choosen units (bombers for SM,Marines for MoS, Ships for NC....) or strategy only giving a little cost advantage on a certain type of units.

For balance purpose we (the mods) asked Ivan and Amok to choose the second, but things could change.


About tactics, economy, simplicity : I don't really see your point here.Could you give some more precise example about the old system ?
In the old system I've played a bunch of games against Learster, and we already ended with the "who moves first" and "who got the more reinforcements and money" things.

I don't see what is wrong if "there is no way to fight a decent player who owns more land than you do" as it was already the case in the old system.


There is no sarcasm in my reply HeyI, I'll be happy if you could give some focused shemes.

The tweak that hasn't been done is about %Arb, we are discussing about it (mainly for the LB strategy balance), but I'm sure that tweaking this strategy will give us ideas to apply to other units.

Skrevet av Garde, 17.03.2011 at 22:56

Skrevet av HeyI, 17.03.2011 at 22:33

[words]

Agreed.

Thirded, I wasn't sure how to put this into words, but HeyI does a good job. It really feels like the main difference in units nowadays is aesthetics, instead if the previous differences that made the tactics one would use with each unit vary widely. Is this just because all the units have the same amount of HP now? Would tweaking the HP of certain units up or down by 1 be enough to restore uniqueness?

Skrevet av HeyI, 17.03.2011 at 22:33

I'm sincerely worried about the progress of Afterwind, let me explain my objections.

With implementation of the new battle mechanics, Afterwind has turned into a click-and-play game, pure arcade as mentioned before - the player owning more land wins...he always does! There is no more space for different unit types and strategies, they're all similar to each other. Whether you're using bombers or infantries, marines or militias, the stylistic characteristics have been strikingly reduced. Beside other problems that lead to the impossibility of all focused playing styles, especially a defence-based strategy seems to be tremendously weak now - always compared to the old battle mechanics - what intensifies the problem that there is no way to fight a decent player who owns more land than you do, what privileges the more aggressive, expansive players and therefore also puts inexperienced players at a major disadvantage.
The only remaining type of luck is the worst because most arbitrary one, namely country selection and movement order. Everything else is calculable in detail, you can just ignore the luck factor at all when planning your moves, relevant randomness and therefore associated suspense just doesn't exist anymore, nobody will ever have to adjust his strategy because a fight of him or his opponent ended with a different result than expected - either it works or it doesn't, there is no more space to react by using varying tactics and giving proof of your flexibility.
What was the problem with the old concept? What are the advantages compared to the old battle mechanics? Why did we change it? I agree to the problem that it was too likely that a few units killed superior forces, but does that really justify all those disadvantages? I'm sure we would find other solutions for that issue...
I've already discussed with many people ingame and it seems like I'm not the only one having those concerns, a few friends of mine even abandoned Afterwind because of that. I also think that the player amount didn't grow as fast as before or even decreased after implementing the new battle mechanics, is that possible? Especially the amount of low-ranked players seems to be lower than before, correct me if I'm wrong...

Oh, and i strongly support the proposal to base the stack bonus on the overall attack- respectively defence-values instead of the pure unit amount if it's really based on them - how does the stack bonus work in detail?

Well we had a much longer discussion about this HeyI but in the end I think the current system works as a good base IF the cards feature lets us produce/get special units. As things are now things might be over balanced and balnd. Although I'm really not sure about that and I think it is for reasons like HP and movement not so much recent changes to balance.

I also think people are always unhappy after a change no matter what. I also this the topic REALLY needs a new thread just for this discussion.

I just think I should say ive played/enjoyed the game alot less since the new system was put in. Every game has it's catch that appeals to a certain crowd. The old system was great for this kinda game, although the new system is oky in my book, I honestly enjoyed the old system alot more. I used to play for hours, now, it's minutes.

Infentry should NOT cost more becasue this takes places like africa,south america and tinny countrys out of the game giving the guy with the most money a bigger advantage. Infentry should be adjusted into the unit there designed to be and alow them to work in that way.

here are a few
1)raize the defence up +1to +4
2)give them an added bonus when in a city thats higher then the curent bonus
3)Lower there Hit points to reflect how there weeker then other units

Infentry should have LOW hp but the Same as melitia because HP= Health in almost every game on the planet,Use DEF to represnt there differet equipment.

INFO:
Inf VS TANK: on defence-they split up and hide,have better vission, can here the tank comming, prepair a defence,have mines, anti tank rockets,hand granade vs Tanks big gun and smaller anti-infentry gun(mechine gun or whatever the unit is using to get infentry) and heavy armour to render most othe inf. wepons useless.

Tank is good for killing tank and Mec. units but infentry are hard for them without useing the trusty Michine gun(tanks still have them) also hard to hit because they hide from tanks as they would against morters or any artilery piece. Also tanks can't go where infentry go like up cliffs or over revines,rooftops, there still limited by there movement alowing infentry terrain advantage.
In the open infentry lie flat, depoy anti tank type wepons and since the tipical infentry unit is about 50-60 men were the tipical tank unit is about 10-20 tanks there almost even but tanks have mobility armour and range advantages.

Today Tanks are generaly used like mobile artilery VS infentry being tanks are expensive and there range lets them mess up Humvee or transports pinning inf. down. When they do move forward they usualy hide suporting infentry behind them to
give them cover and gain a better field of view alowing better offencive ability. Remeber infentry walking,riding on or behind the tank have guns to kill the pined down infentry there attacking and the tank adds to there mobility as well.

So how to ballance the game? I say make infentry better at defence, lower HP and make tanks weeker at taking on infentry when not acomponyed by infentry. so lowering the def. score of the defenders when tanks+infentry are attacking only infentry and take away some of there bonus.
Another thing to consider is that if the defender also has tanks reinstate the bonus because those tanks are going to nock out alot more tanks when acompanyed by infentry.
But you should also make it so ANY INFENTRY ATTACKED BY TANKS CANT MOVE!
Tanks have a hard time conqureing citys without infentry due to there limited view range and high visability to the infentry.

Tank is great for distroying a building or big target But remember 1 guy running from rooftop to rooftop with a Bazooka will kill alot of tanks and the rubble the tank creates just adds more stuff for the inf. to hide behind.

I already feel that infentry are about right... as they are now... many people feel that they are overpowered so increasing their defense would only increase the problem. I feel the game is pretty close to being complete if we start messing with hp then were looking at making others higher and then having to change prices of the units because tanks plains and ships will be way overpowered. Your talking about changing there system and then having them trying to find a hole new way to balance units.. were talking tanks being 10 hp and now costing 300 plains having 12 costing 450 and ships will have 15 hp and be like 750.... and once all the changes are done the game will play about the same..

Yea well then dont complain when new people play a few games then quit because they dont have enuff time and infentry defend like crap.

Skrevet av UrlanderPendragon, 20.03.2011 at 02:08

Yea well then dont complain when new people play a few games then quit because they dont have enuff time and infentry defend like crap.

I never had problems defending lately. I think the game is good now.
I don't see any reason to change anymore unit stats. I hope most people feel the same way, because I'm afraid another wave of stat tweaking might unbalance it again.

Skrevet av Clovek30, 20.03.2011 at 08:50

Skrevet av UrlanderPendragon, 20.03.2011 at 02:08

Yea well then dont complain when new people play a few games then quit because they dont have enuff time and infentry defend like crap.

I never had problems defending lately. I think the game is good now.
I don't see any reason to change anymore unit stats. I hope most people feel the same way, because I'm afraid another wave of stat tweaking might unbalance it again.

I believe what he means is newbies are quitting because the game is becoming more and more freindly to higher ranked/expierienced players, and it makes it harder for them to get used to it.

Skrevet av Clovek30, 20.03.2011 at 08:50

I never had problems defending lately. I think the game is good now.
I don't see any reason to change anymore unit stats. I hope most people feel the same way, because I'm afraid another wave of stat tweaking might unbalance it again.

There won't be any major tweaks from now on.

Skrevet av Garde, 20.03.2011 at 10:21

I believe what he means is newbies are quitting because the game is becoming more and more freindly to higher ranked/expierienced players, and it makes it harder for them to get used to it.

How is it becoming any friendlier for experienced players and not for newbies?

Skrevet av Garde, 20.03.2011 at 10:21

I believe what he means is newbies are quitting because the game is becoming more and more freindly to higher ranked/expierienced players, and it makes it harder for them to get used to it.

I think that it's like that for all games, you have to get used to it, also higher ranked/experienced players know the good starting countries, what to do on first turn, etc...It's like that in any game though, you have to play a few games to get used to it before you see an improvement.

Sitat:

I think that it's like that for all games, you have to get used to it, also higher ranked/experienced players know the good starting countries, what to do on first turn, etc...It's like that in any game though, you have to play a few games to get used to it before you see an improvement.

Not quite. When I first started playing, it was easy to learn the mechanics/gameplay, because their wasn't a vast majority of high ranking players. But this isn't realy a problem considering Ivan stated that once the game is out of beta and has a promo campaign, all new users will be forced into the begginers lobby.

I started playing this recently, so I don't really know how the old system worked. My opinion is that PD is a bit overpowered, but there are ways other than land control to beat it. Example: one guy controls most of russia, with base in st. petersburg, playing PD with about 20 infantry on the stack. Another guys starts in Serbia, then uses guerilla warfare to make about 60 marines and blitzes the first guy to win the game. That shows that PD isn't completely invincible, even with land advantage.

Yes thats what i mean. Your world conflicts are much harder then the conflicts here. Infentry are your Last cheep defence for holding your capital. Thats Y i feel they need to be tweeked not to make them unbeatable but to make shure even a small country can last a round or 2 aganst a decent player. In the long run the attacker wins 90% of conflicts thats realworld. But they dont win with just 1 attack.

I would be surprised if PD is still over powerd it had a large nerf to it recently....

The old battle system was MUCH better.