Viestit missä minua on lainattu

As well as me, The only color I ever play is purple (unless it's a scenario then)

Well I saw that other people had made clones of the map. Perhaps he disabled it after the clones were made?

I'm sorry if this is a noobish question, but how do I clone somebody else's custom map? I've made my own U.S. Civil War map, however, because of the map background that I used, and my slight incompetency at making straight lines, many have reccomended that I use Ezzatam's MEGA USA map as a background for my map. However, I do not want to simply make a scenario off of his map, as I would like to edit some country borders, add/delete/move cities, and redistribute the income of states to make it more period accurate. Unfortunately, when I look at his map with attempts to clone it, I am only given the options of making a map preset, and making a scenario off of it, although it does show me clones of the map that others made. Do I have to be made a collaborator for the map or something for me to be able to clone it?

I mean, it's fine that he doesn't have the value of each state basically perfect, and a little mess up here and there with a tiny misplacement of cities is fine too, but I mean, he put Richmond basically as a port city, when it's a fairly far inland city. I do think he did a great service, but I feel that with the work of several players who actually DO know the USA fairly well, we could improve it to make it accurate.

Kirjoittanut nonames, 07.10.2012 at 04:52

Kirjoittanut learster, 06.10.2012 at 09:41

Imperialist is more of a strat for poor countries. Try Sky Menace with South Korea.

not really, try getting all of europe with imperialist, then spam 100's of bombers at asia, you will always have tons and tons of money, auto producing bombers in the entire of the middle east as well as the balkands will out-spam asia SM for sure.

also i would prefer IMP korea over SM korea, IMP has much less upkeep for militia and also your bombers so you can end up spamming more bombers, and if you can hold india lol gg.

Not really. an SM bomber has -30 cost anyways, so a bomber made with SM costs as much as a bomber made with Imp. Also the imp. gives a negative bonus to bomber attack, and SM gives a +2 bonus, which leads to two armies of bombers, one at 5 attack and one at 8, that cost the same. You must also take into account the fact that the air units also move faster, and that the air transports are MUCH cheaper under the SM strategy than compared to IMP. Granted, you'll have more income due to the home countries' militia/infantry not costing as much, but as far as auto-producing bombers are concerned, SM beats Imp. any day.

(I know this is necrothread but since it's up here i'm going to post what I do anyways) I always put my first militia just at the top point of the North pointing side of the star that is a capital city. When doing it this way, it is very difficult to mess up the rest of the wall, as it's difficult to get the second militia to wall with the first at any spot other than the perfect spot. It's also nice to have an exact refference point instead of estimating each time.

I feel that if somebody backstabs you, simply put them on your enemies list and move on. I normally have good reasons for ending alliances, but I do enjoy my freedom to end them, as if this were implemented the ally could be a complete dick and lead to you being penalized for their awful behavior. Also I use backstabbing as a way to get rid of people from my enemies list (I figure it makes them pissed enough that I consider ourselves even) and I wouldn't want to be penalized for getting back at an enemy.

So as a rank 8, I quickly learned in this game that backstabbing is bad, m'kay. However, I hear several different definitions of backstabbing, and I would like to know from those on the forums when it is actually okay to un-ally them without backstabbing, and if it's even possible to 'backstab' somebody you're at peace with, and if so what the criteria are.

I personally consider it backstabbing when your ally is in a war and you turn on them, and I personally feel it is acceptable to un-ally somebody under the following conditions-

- They do something to you to betray you, by giving away troop info, donating cash to your enemy, or taking empty cities that you made clear for them not to take.
-the ally is a complete dead weight.

Opinions?

Support

I know, I know, asking for something to be a standard unit is both not normally considered by the admins, AND pretty much obsolete with AtWar being launched soon which includes custom units. However, I feel that Fighters could play a significant role in what would be standard games after the integration.

If you don't know, fighters are currently a rare air unit that has average attack and defense, and decent range, but has a +6 (I think it's +6, don't quote me on this) attack and defense bonus against bombers (and stealth? it's been a while since I've gotten any). Implementing fighters as a buy-able unit for normal games would add a different element to air battles, as currently there is a bread-and-butter sky unit, the bomber, and a much more expensive stealth bomber. Bombers under most strategies have 6 attack and 6 defense, and with Sky Menace, have 8 attack while still having 5 defense, while also having incredible range and the ability to go over water, at the cost of 160 normally and 130 under Sky Menace. I'm not exactly asking for a nerf on bombers, or on sky menace, but I think that adding the fighter, which would be given low attack against most units, while having decent defense at a reasonable cost, would be able to slaughter bombers and stealth bombers, which would require either a fighter escort for an air stack, or to go full steam ahead with the hopes of not getting shot out of the sky. This would be similar to tank stacks during ground warfare, in that either infantry can be put in the stack to increase chances of survival in the event of turnblocking, or the tank stacks going unprotected and hoping for the best.

The Stats-

Obviously an Air unit
Attack- 3. (5 with Sky Menace, with a +9 attack bonus against bombers and stealth bombers, and a +3/4 bonus against fighters to make fighter fights even under the same strat)
Defence- I think 6 or 7 would be fair. (+6 against bombers and stealth bombers)
Hitpoints- 7
ARB/Critical strike-whatever a standard unit's is
Movement range- 2 more than a bomber's range (would also be 2 more than your own bombers range while using Sky Menace)
Cost- anywhere between 180 and 200 normally would be fine, with a 30 drop when using Sky Menace

Incase there is any confusing remaining (yeah I typed this up late at night), fighters would be used almost as a direct counter to bombers and stealth bombers since anti-aircraft are pretty inviable as a counter except to prevent bombers from taking a city. They would be weak offensively against ground troops, but would still have decent defense to prevent the stacks from getting annihilated by tanks before they engage the bombers. When used on your own bomber stacks, they would give extra protection against other bombers, and ensure that your bomber stack isn't annihilated by other fighters, and depending on the defense value given, could also protect your bombers against all other attacks, although not at such a high rate as against bombers.

So what do you guys think? Do you think this would be an OP unit? A too-weak unit only good for taking out bombers? Not needed? or just right?

I'll give you the background-

I was playing a world game, and was in South Korea. I allyed Japan ( I won't use any names) earlier, but due to him being a COMPLETE dead weight, I unallyed him after I had taken all of China and he just had Taiwan. The turn I unallied him, my cap was open because I transported my infantry out to make an important attack on beijing, and I didn't have the reinforcements to put infantry back in, but it was walled so I figured it was okay, and I had killed the other people in China so there was nobody to attack me anyways. The next turn, I find out that Japan took Seoul. Since we were at peace, there was no notification that I was going to die, so I figured when I warred him I'd have 2 turns to take it back, and even if it included that turn as him having my cap I could still take it back the turn that I declared war on him since the game rules specified 2 turns before elimination. I prepared my forces (which outnumbered his by a factor of more than 5) and declared war on him that turn, prepared to take Tokyo and Seoul in the same turn. The next turn however, there was a notice that Japan had taken my capital (which I figured), but it said that I was eliminated THAT turn, just one turn after he had taken my capital, even though he had taken it through his alliance, and we were at peace when he had it.

What makes me pissed the most is that I had done extremely well in the first 10 turns, I killed two Chinas, Indonesia, and scared India away, yet this level 0 took my cap while he was allied with me, and killed me without holding my cap the required amount of turns, with me having no chance of fighting back.

On a related note, I have observed a bug similar to this before: If during a capture the entire country game, two allies take different amounts of a seperate player's capital, and then the ally that didn't take the cap empties their cities so that the ally who did take the cap takes them, the player is eliminated immidiately, regardless of how many turns you are supposed to hold the country. (I accidentally did this a few days ago, but it wasn't as bad because he had lost almost all of his cities anyways, it just sped the ending up)

Could somebody please address both of these bugs? If used like in the first example, they can completely bullshit somebody out of a victory without the victim having a fighting chance.

What Color(s) do you guys normally pick if you have the option? Is there one you always pick? Do you just accept the one that the game gives you? ETC.

Personally I normally switch between red and purple. However this isn't exactly a 50/50 split, or whatever I'm feeling for that game. For "Home Games" (games that I start myself), I always use red, and for "Away Games" (obviously games that I DON'T start myself), I use the color purple (if it's still an option or I have any choice in the matter when I join).

Support.

Maybe a system could be implemented to where if you give say, 10k to your ally, the game logs the next 10k cash spent by said ally. The game will then give the funder a certain percentage of the SP that those units earn, but due to the massive amounts of combinations, this could be difficult (send 1 funded unit into battle along with 99 non-funded units and it will be hard to track how much SP that unit earned)

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 22.10.2012 at 19:26

>custom scenarios have this implemented.
go and play custom scenarios.

Although part of it is outdated (this thread got necrobumped), the home defense is still a valid idea. It's currently impossible to set it that some units preform better when in certain cities.

I agree. I don't like the basis of the idea really. It's already made that better upgrades tend to have exponentially higher SP costs, and it takes a lot more SP to rank up the higher level you are. I don't see why the higher ranks should get less SP for going against less skilled oponents. Us getting more SP doesn't really hurt them except in the example pointed out above, and then it would hurt the higher ranks, forcing them to a much higher standard. And if this were applied to the main part of the game, I could create an alternate level 0 account, and get into a 50 turn World Game with a level 10, and absolutely own them in the end by having much more SP than them.

So I was in a world game, and there's this one guy in there (can't remember name, didn't take screenshots) who was cussing out Nike for being a 'hiderfag'. I asked him what he meant and he said "you were in the fucking game with him, you should know" (refferring to a UN game). Unfortunately, I hadn't been on Afterwind in over a week, and this particular world game was the first game I played. At my insistance that I was not aware of what Nike did, this gentleman told me that I was Nike's ally, and I was almost as bad as him, that I was going on his enemies list, and he told everybody in the game to go after me to make sure that "it" wouldn't happen again. So I politely told the fine scholar of a man that he was, that I had no idea what "it" is. He then, in the most polite manner I think he could muster, told me to "Go fuck yourself, you already did it, so I shouldn't explain it to you!". When I informed the man that I, infact, had not been on in over a week, he still said that I was in the game, which had ended apparently 15 minutes prior to the start of the world game, and basically denied any possible suggestion that I wasn't in the game. So I then gave all my money to Nike and left the game (unrelated reason, I had to eat dinner)

That one was just annoying, but another time I was in a Europe+ Middle East game, and had basically completely won the game with 2 allies. The only non-ally left was Russia, who was being beaten back by Austria and I (I was Sweden). At this time, the Middle East declared war on me, unprovokedly, even though he was my ally. I tried to fight him back but it was hopeless. When I asked him why he was doing it, he told me that about 2 months ago I insulted Mexico (which I never have) and that I should die for it. My ally took one of my cities in Sweden (it was take entire country) which I rejoiced at, but after the Middle East asked for him to leave it, he did it without questioning and I died the next turn.

That's just two games though. I'll have many chances to torture them in the future.

Kirjoittanut Cthulhu, 24.10.2012 at 01:14

When you progress in ranks, it less politics and more skills. When you reach the high ranks you don't need anyone.

The point is:

Your actions don't just affect your current game, but also the next game. You lost that game, you just have to realize that, and instead of fighting for dear life, embrace death and move on to the next game. Sure you can continue fighting, but generally, the alpha dog will not ally the underdog.

This is exactly right. When I was lower ranked, I would ally anybody who was a THREAT. Now that I'm a rank 7, I can win a 20 player world game without allying anybody (and normally get over 3k SP for doing so) if I play it just about perfectly.

But back to the point at hand, if you had China, England, and Spain with you, you shouldn't have tried to ally Russia. Well, maybe you should have, but even if you do ally him, don't then tell your other allies Russia's troop movement.
1) this is betraying your ally. If they find out about it, they'll probably disown you and disembowel you.
2) this tells the person that you're helping that, while you like that specific player enough to help them, that you aren't fit to be an ally yourself because you're already betraying one of your allies, so why should you be trusted?
3) If it becomes open that you were betraying Russia, all other allies may become scared of you. How do they know you're only betraying Russia?
4) I know you're a noob, but don't ever pick Iceland. SOMETIMES it can turn out well (as sometimes you can take out America while they're spread thin), but most of the time you'll be weak, with little economy and basically no reinforcements. And if you're in America, your capital will be somewhere that is difficult for you to defend (which is ok I suppose for annihilation games)
5) People have these things called enemy lists. If they think that you can't be trusted, they may put you on it and in any future games they will aggressivlely go after you. It's not fun being on somebody's enemy list, trust me, half the time they don't tell you, and they betray you themselves when you have your troops somewhere else so you can't fight back.

Credit to myself, Tunder, Cpt. Magic, and I think one other person (sorry I can't remember who it was)

So a few of us were talking on Global last night saying that naval units should be able to carry air units. At first, I stated that this was a silly idea, since aircraft don't need to be carried. first it was pointed out to me that the transports could be given a larger movement speed than the aircraft, which would make a legitimate reason to use them. Also as we later got into a discussion about a nuclear war map, somebody pointed out that there could be nukes that could be put onto submarines specifically made to carry nukes, which would be able to be able to get closer to the target without the missile being seen, and then launch them so close to the enemy that they have no time to react.

This custom map process is very difficult at first. It took me about two hours just to realize that I had to zoom in to be able to connect the land for it to save. So could somebody (doesn't even have to be a mod) add a tutorial to making it somewhere (either in-game or here in the forums) that describes in more depth what each tool does and how to use them. I'm sure there would be more people than just me who would be grateful.

Kirjoittanut Goblin, 30.09.2012 at 14:21

I dont think peace option should even exist (except in first turn). Offering peace is like saying: later in the game if i am stronger then i will attack you but, if i am weaker i will beg you to accept alliance.

you do realize that peace is a 2 way street don't you? Except for low ranks that are pretty naive in the way of diplomacy, I think that most people understand that peace either ends in a backstab or an alliance, most of the time it's going to be the backstab. So if they understand what's going on, I think of peace as more of a "We need to take this guy out, as he's going to kill both of us, so let's not attack each other until we kill him, and then we go back to killing each other" sort of deal. I don't ever use peace as a long time deal unless I'm giving somebody the assurance that i'm not going to attack them, but let somebody else kill them instead, or if i'm considering an alliance with the person.

It's also useful as a stepping-stone diplomatic tool. Some people won't immidiately accept alliance requests, but are fine with peace requests, and having peace with somebody is going to give you a better shot of getting the alliance.

Would it be possible to give certain units to one player, and different units to a different player? (as a basic example, humans vs. zombies, the zombie players would have only zombie units and the human player would have only human units)

and also, would it be possible to change the standard fact that units take 10% of their initial purchase price in upkeep every turn? It would be cool to add in some units that had no upkeep at all, and some with higher upkeep than normal.

By the way, thanks for being so helpful to the players on here, you've answered a lot of my questions and given me several ideas for the maps that i'm going to make.

It's a well known fact that certain countries have better trained/eqquiped troops, and that most countries preform better in a war if it takes place in their territory, rather than fighting overseas.

So what i'm proposing is that, in scenarios, we have the option to buff player's unit's atk/def and also be able to have an additional atk/def boost if they're fighting a battle on their home territory (the land they started with at the beginning of the scenario)

For Example- Scenario involves China and the United States going to war. U.S. units have a base 10% atk/def better than the Chinese units, so the United States wins in the Pacific and goes to attack Shanghai. However, the Chinese have a 50% atk/def bonus when on their own land, making Shanghai almost impossible to acquire with an equal amount of forces.

Therefore, the United States must attack China's land gains in Indonesia and Thailand, where the home territory bonus does not apply to build up more units to eventually overwhelm the Chinese. The buffs will add to each other, not multiply, if a buffed unit is in home territory and nerfs can be given to units instead of buffs

I don't think this will add too much complication to the game. It will only be able to be applied in scenarios, where it will be optional to add, and it will be similar to strategys.
It may not be possible for the game engine to tell if a unit is actually in a specific country if it's not in the city, so the home territory bonus may only be applicable to cities.

What are your thoughts?

It says that the alpha is available to the limited public, does this mean people with premium, or is it even more select than that?

506.21 Sp/hour. (SM) take that Tophats.

Well i'm not saying it would be a multi-duel, although that would be pretty cool... I'm saying you pay a certain amount to enter the game, and you're only given it back if you don't quit. Losing/Winning grants you the SP back. (and surrendering probably will count as losing unless the person does it on the first turn)

Well the thing is, I think it should be applied to all non-beginner games. It's annoying to start a game/scenario, and on turn 1, half the people randomly leave, as if they joined the game just so they could leave.

Due to massive amounts of quitters, there should be a SP charge to enter a game. The SP should be something reasonable that won't be a killer if somebody quits, but enough to dissuade them from doing so. This SP will be reimbursed if somebody surrenders/loses/wins, so if the person doesn't accumulate the SP before the game ends, then they won't lose SP even if they didn't quit. The SP will be charged as soon as the game officially starts, so people can feel free to leave until then. Also it won't be applied to anybody under level 2, as they can't afford to lose the SP, and should be given time to build up a larger SP base.

I figure anywhere between 50 and 200 SP is a fair cost if the person plans on abandoning.

Thoughts?

I know it's cliche, but i'm going to try to make a great Civil War map.