Treatise: Strategy Changes

I enjoy playing a strategy where it feels unique. It needs to feel different from the rest. This is why I support changes that increase the contrast of strategies from one another.

While laochra was still a mod, we had debates on strategy improvements in a special mod forum. (The content which will not be shared ) He was a man who would recommend changes that tweak strategies to make them more equal with one another. To me, this creates a more bland taste, because even though the strategies may be balanced and fair, they would be boring. I guess more fun for the "competitive" scene (Small map/ low turn players).

I believe in changing the strategy to create more contrast, to bring more excitement. I want to make playing a strategy feel exciting and OP! If all strategies are OP, then none can be OP. A perfect imbalance you could say. Wasn't that RA suggestion fun to play?

I am against most nerfs, such as nerfing GW. That RA should have been nerfed with it def imo, and kept everything else. That would forced RA to be OP only in tank attacks.

I want you to upvote this if you are in favor of more contrast, more dynamic gameplay. Let's not play the entire game in a similar style.

For those of you who are against it, do not be worry, do not be scared. The strategies you know and love will stay the way you love. We are just going to make the poor strategies, the weak strategies, the unpopular strategies, great again!

#MakeStrategiesGreatAgain!!

UPDATE (As of 02.20.17):

Relentless Attack:
Tanks: +1 Attack, -1 Defense, -10 Cost
Militia: +1 Attack, -2 Defense
Infantry: +1 Attack, -1 Defense, -10 Cost
Marines: -30 Cost, -2 Def

Iron Fist:
Militia: +1 Mov, -10 Cost

G/C:
Tanks: -10 Cost
Infantry: -10 Cost

Hybrid Warfare:
Marines: -10 Cost, +3 Defense in cities
Air Tran: -1 Cap

Naval Commander:
Destroyer: -1 Cap
Transport: +2 Mov, -2 Def, -2 HP
Infantry: -1 Attack

Lucky Bastard:
-10 Cost to All units

Overall (Parts from Mod Forum):
+2 range to anti-air.
-30 cost to helicopters (This would fix DS)

Easy.Fix RA and fix DS militia def.Also make HW usefull.

Napísal Guest, 15.02.2017 at 04:28

I read a lot of it and I do think it would be good... But I cannot support because it will really change the game a lot and you have no idea how annoying competitive players are now, they only enjoy playing the same boring shit over and over again... it will completely kill off the last remaining competitive players I think. My opinion is never important anyway but i thought id share cause why not.

Dont worry everyone does it these days.

Napísal Guest, 15.02.2017 at 04:28

I read a lot of it and I do think it would be good... But I cannot support because it will really change the game a lot and you have no idea how annoying competitive players are now, they only enjoy playing the same boring shit over and over again... it will completely kill off the last remaining competitive players I think. My opinion is never important anyway but i thought id share cause why not.

Usually I find it's the players who've been around longer don't care about what they play so much, while the newer competitive players do.

Admins should test them for a month -every change proposal- and find balance but when we dont have active admins everything remains shit as it is.

Cituj:

Admins should test them for a month -every change proposal- and find balance but when we don't have active admins everything remains shit as it is.

Mods can do it too, but sadly Mods are more concerned with implementing what they believe should be done about strategies without consulting the community. Their defence is that the community is too cancerous and the replies suck and the threads are full of useless content.

They have a point.

However, instead of twiddling their thumbs and decisions on these things being taken by a small community of select players and mostly absent Admins (do Ivan & Amok even discuss this stuff or just implement it?), a number of measures can be taken:

1. There are always valid points within the crap. Look for it. If you want to save this game, effort is required.

2. Supporters are there for a reason. Ask them. Keep a 3 tier system. Mods & Admins discuss it, pass it down to Supporters, they discuss it and pass it back up with recommendations possibly within a set time limit. Mods either implement those, or not, after which it's announced to the community to gauge their reaction. Depending on that, it either gets passed up to Ivan for implementation (or his veto), or tweaked, or cancelled. The Democratic style of system. It works. Use it. It's not like the community is big enough for the Mod-Supporter discussions to get bogged down for weeks. A time limit for Supporters would prevent filibustering, for lack of a better term.
Tier 1: Mods & Admins
Tier 2: Supporters
Tier 3: The Community
Or to cut down the bureaucracy, have the Tier 1 as Mods, Admins & Supporters, with the Tier 2 being the Community.

3. How hard is it to start up a poll for ranks 6-7+ (to prevent alts) with people not allowed to reply, or alternatively, forego the poll at the beginning, and warn at the start of the post that only serious posts will be tolerated, flames, insults etc will not be, and anyone violating these rules will be banned from the subforum/entire AW forums entirely for so-and-so time, and their post deleted (I believe Moderators are there for a reason, no?). A similar thing can be done for the poll.

Napísal Cthulhu, 15.02.2017 at 04:16

While laochra was still a mod, we had debates on strategy improvements in a special mod forum. (The content which will not be shared ) He was a man who would recommend changes that tweak strategies to make them more equal with one another. To me, this creates a more bland taste, because even though the strategies may be balanced and fair, they would be boring. I guess more fun for the "competitive" scene (Small map/ low turn players).

I believe in changing the strategy to create more contrast, to bring more excitement.

Let me say that I pretty much agree with the biggest part of your post. We want the strategies to be unique, diverse. Clearly contrasted one from another. I also believe that some kind of perfect imbalance is the way to go.

But I believe the whole paragraph feels different from the rest. You've took another player idea which affect the whole perception of what you said. You've added the "Fun" factor and linked it to the rest of the ideas in the topic. Particularly I believe that this comment requires an explanation:

Napísal Cthulhu, 15.02.2017 at 04:16

because even though the strategies may be balanced and fair, they would be boring.

I must ask:

Are you implying that the strategies should receive endless tweaks just for the sake of "fun"?

Are you implying that, even the non-controversial strategies which have long deemed as unique, balanced, clearly contrasted from the rest, should'be tweaked for the sake of fun?

Because I'd rather a "bored" but balanced strategy, rather than a "fun" but unbalanced strategy. I understand that the "fun" can be purely subjective, where there's some sort of objectivity in the "balance".

If you need some examples. I, and I believe not just me, consider certain strategies to have been not only balanced, but also unique and clearly contrasted from the rest. I'm gonna name you six of them which are: SM, IMP, IF, NC, MoS, and GC.

Some people don't consider SM to be fun to play. In words of learster:

Cituj:

Sky Menace is pretty much for autists who like to stack up things high and then move them from A to B like the fist of god. There is no finesse about it

Now imagine that this was the perception of many players, perhaps the majority of the players. Imagine this was also your perception. Would you say that SM needs to be changed, simply because some players doesn't enjoy playing it?

My answer is a clear NO. Regardless of this, you're well aware that IMP received a militia boost, NC received a destroyer capacity boost, and SM and NC were recently tweaked. Strategies which were long deemed as balanced and unique in their way, were tweaked, to my understanding, to fit certain player's criteria.

From theses particular changes, perhaps the worst one was the NC tweak. Because even though the capacity boost could'be considered "fun", clearly innovating and added even more contrast between NC and other strategies, it broke the balance of a bunch of custom maps and scenarios that relies in naval warfare but not allowing any form of landing. The boost may be "fun" elsewhere, but if you're a Map Maker or a scenario player, the answer would'be pretty much a clear NO.

It is NOT fun to log in and find that your whole map messed up for a change which other players considered to be "fun".

I recall what I said in the "Nerf GW" thread. Ivan did good acknowledging Amok's view of not messing around with the strategies. I believe there's always a risk involved in the changes. It is certainly not something to be taken lightly.

The strategies needs to be balanced, but they should be polished up to their final form. I will fully support initiatives of adding more strategies to keep the game enjoyable and fun. I believe we can still make some unique strategies around the unit's stats as all the current strategies are.

And even if we fully exhaust this option, we'd still got to see strategies that goes around the mechanics (priority, wall length, income gained, reinf gained, etc) rather than the units itself.

And if we ever get to go around the above option, we still could add strategies which adds an special type of unit. I could keep going, but I believe there's an endless potential of adding new strategies to the game.

Sum up:

If you do this then I will support you:

Napísal Cthulhu, 15.02.2017 at 04:16

We are just going to make the poor strategies, the weak strategies, the unpopular strategies, great again!

But if you ever mess with a strategy because you consider it "bored" to play, then I will have no other choice but to go against you.

Napísal Darth., 15.02.2017 at 06:40

3. How hard is it to start up a poll for ranks 6-7+ (to prevent alts) with people not allowed to reply

This is a great idea. In places such as Pokemon Showdown they require you to have certain COIL (a measurement) in order to vote whenever they're banlisting certain pokemon from the meta.

We could do the same with ELO to add certain value to the poll.

Napísal clovis1122, 15.02.2017 at 09:15

We could do the same with ELO to add certain value to the poll.

I am afraid that this suggestion would cause all casual players to be ignored, because casual duels don't work properly

This is such a demagogue thread and total shameless upvote farm. If you want to know the true meaning of "stale and bland" keep everything the same for the next 5 years. I could literally take this post and changing only a few words use it to convince people as to why we should change the strats. The whole point of balancing was to give everything a niche and a purpose. If you truly believe that the changes are "making us all play the game in a similar style" then you've no understanding of what we were doing.

Napísal Cthulhu, 15.02.2017 at 04:16

If all strategies are OP, then none can be OP.

u wot m8?

Fix ds and ill step back and leave the strats as they are forevermore.

Either make customizable strategies or leave things as they are

Eventhough I am opinionated that I think that you barely play AW anymore and thats why I find it weird that you come with a thread like this however I do support the points you make. Strategies are named strategies for a reason, basing every strategytweak on 1 playfield (competitive/3v3/duel/cw's) is wrong and plain boring.

If you are going to make the unpopular en weak strategies great again, I hope you mean this together and well discussed with the people who actually play these strategies (the community), because if we are getting strategytweaks pushed through our throats while we dont want them, it leads, once again, no where.

Eventhough people slander Laochra for ''ruining'' this game with all the strategy changes, atleast he did something to change it, most people (including myself) only comment and think things go by themself.

So how about make a topic-forum which only contains strategybased threads. #GottaStartSomeWhere

Who care... give me none strat i kill u all

Napísal Don, 15.02.2017 at 12:11

Who care... give me none strat i kill u all

we got a badass over here

Support

ITT: I don't really care what happens but I just want my strat to work!

But fo real tho, buff HW into op-ness, thanks

Forgetting for a moment that Afterwind as a functioning game has been broken and unplayable for many years now, the strategy system in this game is one facet of gameplay that either needs to be removed in totality or retooled to work in a viable fashion. At the moment each strategy works as a situational boost with many of them largely being mundane (think Naval Commander).

I proposed this many years ago, and I will again: Strategies need to be balanced with even starts and flexible situational usage(s). Strategies need to function like Classes/Heroes do in other games. Strategies need to be available to every player from the start. I won't deny that my knowledge of how strategies have progressed since roughly 2013 is lacking, but I will say that fundamentally the system this game functions under gameplay-wise is one that revolves around farming massive amounts of SP before you can even taste the meta. And once you get to the meta, you're facing 10-20 players who have autistically played this game in the AtWar form for over half a decade.

I believe the devs have also refused many a missed opportunity to improve this game's otherwise stale doomstack-oriented/empty-spread style gameplay. Remember Flower Power? Turnblocking? Penta-walls? Shit got nerfed because a vocal minority of high-ranking shitters refused to embrace new tactics and ways to play the damn game. If I'm wrong at all, explain to me why the game's userbase has been stagnant since I left years ago? Since SRB went on to do better things? Fucking hell, every single great friend I made on here now plays EUIV or Starcraft II to get their RTS fill nowadays. AtWar refused to change and the devs listened to the wrong people. Now here we are again discussing strategy changes when instead we should be discussing a proper retooling to the entire game, the broken mess it is. Not to mention that this game has a much more enjoyable meta-game, in the form of shitposting on these forums. More dedicated players have been actively shitposting here than have continuously been playing this game outright since 2012 and maybe even prior in some player's cases. That's a pretty bad thing, considering we're not an imageboard but rather an ancillary user forum to an otherwise mediocre browser RTS.

TL;DR: Don't buff/nerf strategies, retool them in an enjoyable manner that creates balanced competitive viability.

Or we add more stretegies to remove useless ones like ra...we get a bunch of supporters of the game put them in a some map then test the stretegies the best go on the worst go down...

Napísal Darkmace, 15.02.2017 at 14:37

I really hope this isn't a Lao - RA moment (again, I love this meme) where you force a change through without the consideration of how it will play out in all map settings and geographical options (World Map, EU, Africa, etc).

Except thats not what happened. Do you actually believe i don't take these things into consideration or are you just joining that group of morons who claim i judge the strategy meta purely off of eu 10k. What actually happened is that lao recognises that ra and ds occupy the same niche but what with with ra being the beginners strat and literally the easiest in the game, making it powerful will discourage low ranks from trying other strategies. However people are constantly demanding it be boosted so poor lao has to try and please them without ruining the meta. Nobody has managed to find a solution and the current incarnation of ra is better than what tophats left us with. Also the current form of ra was cthulhus idea.

Relentless Attack is relentless attack, not tankspam so i don't understand why people mix those two (yes it was Tank General, but not anymore)

+1 attack for for all units except support one(awacs, recon)
-1 defence for all units except support(awacs, recon)

Not sure about special units (special ground defence, special air attack etc), but point is simple for RA.

Napísal Waffel, 15.02.2017 at 11:56

Eventhough I am opinionated that I think that you barely play AW anymore and thats why I find it weird that you come with a thread like this however I do support the points you make. Strategies are named strategies for a reason, basing every strategytweak on 1 playfield (competitive/3v3/duel/cw's) is wrong and plain boring.

If you are going to make the unpopular en weak strategies great again, I hope you mean this together and well discussed with the people who actually play these strategies (the community), because if we are getting strategytweaks pushed through our throats while we dont want them, it leads, once again, no where.

Eventhough people slander Laochra for ''ruining'' this game with all the strategy changes, atleast he did something to change it, most people (including myself) only comment and think things go by themself.

So how about make a topic-forum which only contains strategybased threads. #GottaStartSomeWhere

Your the hero atwar needs, but could never deserve you beautiful fucking potato.

Nowadays comments in these kind of topics remind me of a good old saying: "Opinions are like assholes,everyone has one!".

Napísal Xenosapien, 15.02.2017 at 04:38

Napísal Guest, 15.02.2017 at 04:28

I read a lot of it and I do think it would be good... But I cannot support because it will really change the game a lot and you have no idea how annoying competitive players are now, they only enjoy playing the same boring shit over and over again... it will completely kill off the last remaining competitive players I think. My opinion is never important anyway but i thought id share cause why not.

Usually I find it's the players who've been around longer don't care about what they play so much, while the newer competitive players do.

true4me... being an old player but new in bla. but yeah its true.

Napísal Darkmace, 15.02.2017 at 16:15

Napísal Permamuted, 15.02.2017 at 15:53

Couple of things:
not sure why my comment is gone, I may have clicked delete when I went to edit it a while ago.
- Why do you take/end up getting credit for the alteration of RA if it was Cthulhu's idea? (not trying to sound condescending)

- I think RA and DS serve a slightly different purpose since RA can counter RA, while DS isn't built well to counter DS. For that reason I think they are different, along with the fact RA has less mobility and counters more than DS does (pro/con).

- is it worth making a strategy useless if its too strong? (as in the case of ra, I think the argument it has use has been defeated over and over by many people)

- many suggestions have been posted to improve RA, but overlooked. one of them that makes most sense is why not treat is like PD??
-1 defense for infantry and +1 attack for tanks, with -1 range for tanks, and give the +10 militia cost.. I don't see how that could be OP... the range would hinder it in many ways.

I thought that too before, but 9 attack is just too op, and if you keep it expensive it can't be used well anyway. A way to make it more like a pd counterpart could be too make the mil a more vital part of the strat, decreasing cost and increasing attack + range maybe. The tank range would have to be nerfed as just this might be a bit op, as well as removing the bomber and destroyer cost+ranges.

Napísal Xenosapien, 16.02.2017 at 03:45

Napísal Darkmace, 15.02.2017 at 16:15

Napísal Permamuted, 15.02.2017 at 15:53

Couple of things:
not sure why my comment is gone, I may have clicked delete when I went to edit it a while ago.
- Why do you take/end up getting credit for the alteration of RA if it was Cthulhu's idea? (not trying to sound condescending)

- I think RA and DS serve a slightly different purpose since RA can counter RA, while DS isn't built well to counter DS. For that reason I think they are different, along with the fact RA has less mobility and counters more than DS does (pro/con).

- is it worth making a strategy useless if its too strong? (as in the case of ra, I think the argument it has use has been defeated over and over by many people)

- many suggestions have been posted to improve RA, but overlooked. one of them that makes most sense is why not treat is like PD??
-1 defense for infantry and +1 attack for tanks, with -1 range for tanks, and give the +10 militia cost.. I don't see how that could be OP... the range would hinder it in many ways.

I thought that too before, but 9 attack is just too op, and if you keep it expensive it can't be used well anyway. A way to make it more like a pd counterpart could be too make the mil a more vital part of the strat, decreasing cost and increasing attack + range maybe. The tank range would have to be nerfed as just this might be a bit op, as well as removing the bomber and destroyer cost+ranges.

no thats bad suggestion.I dont get why 7def inf isnt considered op yet 9att tank is....

Napísal Darkmace, 16.02.2017 at 05:56

Napísal Skanderbeg, 15.02.2017 at 16:44

Relentless Attack is relentless attack, not tankspam so i don't understand why people mix those two (yes it was Tank General, but not anymore)

+1 attack for for all units except support one(awacs, recon)
-1 defence for all units except support(awacs, recon)

Not sure about special units (special ground defence, special air attack etc), but point is simple for RA.

These might be the suggestions Lao was referring to, imo you just made a better offensive LB. This is also what Chuthlu was referring to making strategies similar. Alsosaying Ra isn't tank spam is like saying Pd shouldn't be inf spam.

Keep in mind I thought the same thing before, but overtime realised how unbalanced that would be.

RA is tank spam? I would never produce tanks, but infantry. 5 attack and 5 defence, so why buy tanks? Makes no sense to me.

If i picked Tank General strategy, then i would produce tanks.

Napísal Cthulhu, 15.02.2017 at 04:16

I enjoy playing a strategy where it feels unique. It needs to feel different from the rest. This is why I support changes that increase the contrast of strategies from one another.

While laochra was still a mod, we had debates on strategy improvements in a special mod forum. (The content which will not be shared ) He was a man who would recommend changes that tweak strategies to make them more equal with one another. To me, this creates a more bland taste, because even though the strategies may be balanced and fair, they would be boring. I guess more fun for the "competitive" scene (Small map/ low turn players).

I believe in changing the strategy to create more contrast, to bring more excitement. I want to make playing a strategy feel exciting and OP! If all strategies are OP, then none can be OP. A perfect imbalance you could say. Wasn't that RA suggestion fun to play?

I am against most nerfs, such as nerfing GW. That RA should have been nerfed with it def imo, and kept everything else. That would forced RA to be OP only in tank attacks.

I want you to upvote this if you are in favor of more contrast, more dynamic gameplay. Let's not play the entire game in a similar style.

For those of you who are against it, do not be worry, do not be scared. The strategies you know and love will stay the way you love. We are just going to make the poor strategies, the weak strategies, the unpopular strategies, great again!

#MakeStrategiesGreatAgain!!

i support, but i think we should have option in game to change starting strategy lets say every 50 or 100turns

To those that fear it will mess up scenario balances, for a long time, we played the game in the same manner, we have played a game of attrition. I say it is time we think about adding more complexities, more variation. You mapmakers are dedicated and smart individual, and I do not doubt your skills to re-balance any changes. I believe in your abilities to keep your scenario and maps interesting in the face of changes.

I present the community with my ideas:

Relentless Attack:
Tanks: +1 Attack, -1 Defense, -10 Cost
Militia: +1 Attack, -2 Defense
Infantry: +1 Attack, -1 Defense, -10 Cost
Marines: -30 Cost, -2 Def

Iron Fist:
Militia: +1 Mov, -10 Cost

G/C:
Tanks: -10 Cost
Infantry: -10 Cost

Hybrid Warfare:
Marines: -10 Cost, +3 Defense in cities
Air Tran: -1 Cap

Naval Commander:
Destroyer: -1 Cap
Transport: +2 Mov, -2 Def, -2 HP
Infantry: -1 Attack

Lucky Bastard:
-10 Cost to All units

Overall (Parts from Mod Forum):
+2 range to anti-air.
-30 cost to helicopters (This would fix DS)

I do not have time to address everyone individually, but do note I am reading every post and taking into account what people are saying!

Napísal Cthulhu, 17.02.2017 at 00:52

To those that fear it will mess up scenario balances, for a long time, we played the game in the same manner, we have played a game of attrition. I say it is time we think about adding more complexities, more variation. You mapmakers are dedicated and smart individual, and I do not doubt your skills to re-balance any changes. I believe in your abilities to keep your scenario and maps interesting in the face of changes.

I present the community with my ideas:

Relentless Attack:
Tanks: +1 Attack, -1 Defense, -10 Cost
Militia: +1 Attack, -2 Defense
Infantry: +1 Attack, -1 Defense, -10 Cost
Marines: -30 Cost, -2 Def

Iron Fist:
Militia: +1 Mov, -10 Cost

G/C:
Tanks: -10 Cost
Infantry: -10 Cost

Hybrid Warfare:
Marines: -10 Cost, +3 Defense in cities
Air Tran: -1 Cap

Naval Commander:
Destroyer: -1 Cap
Transport: +2 Mov, -2 Def, -2 HP
Infantry: -1 Attack

Lucky Bastard:
-10 Cost to All units

Overall (Parts from Mod Forum):
+2 range to anti-air.
-30 cost to helicopters (This would fix DS)

I do not have time to address everyone individually, but do note I am reading every post and taking into account what people are saying!

I bet you were drunk when u made this post !
-10 cost to gc units you are making a super unbeatable ukr there same with +3hwmili def i think hw mili defend pretty well
-1 to nc infs has no sense cause they are weak already
Lb -10 cost to all units =thats party everyone will play lb instead of pd
AND RIP imp
Guys think about competitive maps not everyone playing rp

I don't wanna sound like a meaning policeman, but treatise is usually a complex work on a given subject, its a bit far-fetched to give this name to a 15 lines post on a forum. (evnthough it sounds so op...)
It doesen't matter much if you add +2 to anti-air as they are expensive units and many times inefficient, +2 won't help much. -30 to helis, 100x per heli? I hope this is a joke... and overall these looks like empowering bonuses, not balancing, this is what I feel about them...