Turn-blocking Update: Constructive criticism

No update bashing. Just constructive criticism.
1. Post your suggestions
2. Pray for real improvements

I start:
Make TBs determined by time moved (not turn order) so skill is involved more than luck.
Currently it makes no sense to have 50% blocking a stack. Why would anyone donate
50% to the enemy? Only in some cases with low defensive units involved it makes sense to attck
the stack.

I also support time based TB

I support turn based TB. I do not see how it was broken in the first place.
I support flowering. And wall glitching was unreliable anyway.

Kirjoittanut VRIL, 25.04.2012 at 08:28

Make TBs determined by time moved (not turn order) so skill is involved more than luck.
Currently it makes no sense to have 50% blocking a stack. Why would anyone donate
50% to the enemy? Only in some cases with low defensive units involved it makes sense to attck
the stack.

The whole point is that turnblocking is an abuse of the game mechanics, and was never intended to exist by the developers. It was an oversight on their part. So you either fight or you don't. You are not meant to 'donate' 50% of your units, you're meant to attack. Turnblocking is not meant to exist at all. I'm not sure if I agree with this view of turnblocking or not, but that's the fact, that turnblocking was never meant to exist at all.

Kirjoittanut YOBA, 25.04.2012 at 09:00

Kirjoittanut VRIL, 25.04.2012 at 08:28

Make TBs determined by time moved (not turn order) so skill is involved more than luck.
Currently it makes no sense to have 50% blocking a stack. Why would anyone donate
50% to the enemy? Only in some cases with low defensive units involved it makes sense to attck
the stack.

The whole point is that turnblocking is an abuse of the game mechanics, and was never intended to exist by the developers. It was an oversight on their part. So you either fight or you don't. You are not meant to 'donate' 50% of your units, you're meant to attack. Turnblocking is not meant to exist at all. I'm not sure if I agree with this view of turnblocking or not, but that's the fact, that turnblocking was never meant to exist at all.

This doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Since it's a positive side-effect of game-mechanics it should stay.

1. This game isn't supposed to be 100% realistic.
2. An unit in Afterwind isn't supposed to be a single unit, but a small group of units.
3. Only because something doesn't work in reality this doesn't mean it shouldn't work here as long as it guarantee's a nicier gameplay. In the real world america would fuck every other country, in Afterwind America can be beaten, this game shall bring fun rather than being 100% realistic.

Kirjoittanut McBamBam, 25.04.2012 at 09:33

As far as gameplay goes... I spend about 30 seconds actually putting my moves in... I spend the remaining time ensuring turnblocking, flowering, walling my citys etc...

Is this what people call high level skill and complexity? If so... that's rather disappointing.

This.

Kirjoittanut Hugosch, 25.04.2012 at 09:40

Kirjoittanut McBamBam, 25.04.2012 at 09:33

As far as gameplay goes... I spend about 30 seconds actually putting my moves in... I spend the remaining time ensuring turnblocking, flowering, walling my citys etc...

Is this what people call high level skill and complexity? If so... that's rather disappointing.

This.

You still owe me an example of how this update forces me to be less predictable. Looking forward to read it.

Kirjoittanut Hugosch, 25.04.2012 at 09:40

Kirjoittanut McBamBam, 25.04.2012 at 09:33

As far as gameplay goes... I spend about 30 seconds actually putting my moves in... I spend the remaining time ensuring turnblocking, flowering, walling my citys etc...

Is this what people call high level skill and complexity? If so... that's rather disappointing.

This.

Hugo, I don't think that blatant spamming is very skillful. This game is rather direct - build units and attack your enemy. Having turnblock and flowering gave it more depth.

I don't usually keep playing games for more than a month, but AW was different - there was a learning curve, an interesting one, and that was what kept me hooked in this game. Now the game skill ceiling has just crashed, the gameplay was lobotomized and it's all about unit spamming now. I do not like it and I did not see any problems with the previous system. I rarely used the wall glitch mechanic and used a 4-unit flower mostly to prevent wallfucking.

I really would like Amok to reconsider this update as he has just removed one interesting aspect of gameplay - and having games be hard to master is what keeps players in.

@Cow: Read PM

@Pulse: You are talking about its only autoproduction without movements. The walls are not removed entirely, you can still wall up yourself and the enemy. Also, having needed 50% of the units will need more learning skill then just '1unit blocks all'. At this moment, players are only busy with blocking everything that they can, this isn't skill is it? Its just a move you will learn very soon in this game.

I hope that this update will stay up for a while. Maybe i will even change my mind after a few days. But it looks like other players already have judged it, before they even played 1 game with it.

Kirjoittanut Hugosch, 25.04.2012 at 10:05

@Cow: Read PM

@Pulse: You are talking about its only autoproduction without movements. The walls are not removed entirely, you can still wall up yourself and the enemy. Also, having needed 50% of the units will need more learning skill then just '1unit blocks all'. At this moment, players are only busy with blocking everything that they can, this isn't skill is it? Its just a move you will learn very soon in this game.

I hope that this update will stay up for a while. Maybe i will even change my mind after a few days. But it looks like other players already have judged it, before they even played 1 game with it.

No, you don't block what you can, Hugo. You prioritize what you'll block. That's how it worked, you know that. Now you spam what you can and hope for the best.

I just played a game and, while it's easier to wall your enemy now, it's harder for him to stop my 200 bombers stack.

Hugo, in an era where wallfucking is prevalent (and incredibly easy to do) D Lines do not offer security. They're a one off protection, a condom if you will. Use once, throw away because as soon as the D-line is broken a city is exposed and can remain exposed for the rest of a game. A 4 unit wall provided far more security for more troops invested.

As for flowering and walling and turnblocking not being skillful you tell me which of these requires more skill than the other:

Scenario A)
Take as many cities and gain as much money as possible so I can take my enemies cities. I need to keep my units together so they're not blocked then eventually I'll be able to get there if I can outproduce him.

Scenario B)
Take as many cities and gain as much money as possible so I can take my enemies cities. To get there I'll need to protect my stack from blocks whilst also trying to block his movement as best I can. He's using movable D-lines to protect his stack from blocks so I'd be better off predicting his movement and trying to fuck his walls so I can block him on the next turn. Of course he'll be able to fly in a 4 wall on the next turn to stop my blocks but at least it will have set him back a turn. The more I restrict him the more I'll win the production meta game and I'll be able to take his capital.

Turn blocking may have been unintended and can be viewed as cheap but it added another level to Afterwind that made it far more engaging (and dare I commit blasphemy) but better than games like Chess because it was not about killing the most units it was about guarding your attack and blocking their attacks, it made the game more like two guys with a sword and a shield battling rather than two guys in a shootout - there was give and take and defence and attack and counterattacks. The game ebbed and flowed. No game I've played has combined attack and defence as well as Afterwind has and it's what's made it such a good game.

This update has taken away a level of play from Afterwind, it is a negative update in the literal sense of the word. The world will keep on spinning and people will keep on playing Afterwind but I'm not convinced this was a change for the better. I'm open minded enough to acknowledge that this is a good change for new players who don't understand turnblocking, however I'd like to point out that all of the best Afterwind players at the moment did not understand it at one point and learning about it and how to counter it made them better. I won't say anything more on the matter unless good points can be raised in defence of it.

I wish I'd have Berrie's rhetorical skills. I could't imagine a better way to point it out than the way he just did it.

@Guerrilla: IMO there is no such thing as cheap tactic. If it's allowed by game design and game rules, then it's free game. That said, I do not believe Turnblocking is a cheap tactic. It requires skill - you have to prioritize your movements. And most definitely - you cannot count on it. Therefore you have to make preparations in case the TB does not work. I believe that falls into the "Or does it take more skill to analyze the situation and take proper action?" category.

Now you remove TB of the game and suddenly unit spamming becomes stronger and your odd TB does not work. You still have to make preparations, but it is now a much more certain fate.

I do not see how the second case takes more skill than the first one.

Also: Call of Duty games are incredibly lacking in skillful play. Noobs can get 1:1 K/D and whoever gets killed the most gets a boost.

Barry, i've always been a fan of your writing, and your story is very clear as always. I will try to respond on it, although my English is far worse then yours.

Kirjoittanut Barrymore, 25.04.2012 at 11:22

[...]
As for flowering and walling and turnblocking not being skillful you tell me which of these requires more skill than the other:

Scenario A)
Take as many cities and gain as much money as possible so I can take my enemies cities. I need to keep my units together so they're not blocked then eventually I'll be able to get there if I can outproduce him.

Scenario B)
Take as many cities and gain as much money as possible so I can take my enemies cities. To get there I'll need to protect my stack from blocks whilst also trying to block his movement as best I can. He's using movable D-lines to protect his stack from blocks so I'd be better off predicting his movement and trying to fuck his walls so I can block him on the next turn. Of course he'll be able to fly in a 4 wall on the next turn to stop my blocks but at least it will have set him back a turn. The more I restrict him the more I'll win the production meta game and I'll be able to take his capital.

Good points. However,
1. You are saying what is removed (turnblocking with one unit), but you don't say what has been added (turnblocking with 50% of the opponents stack). In scenario A, you are saying that it is just about outproducing a enemy in witch i don't agree. If you have 20bombers in a city ready to attack, then i'm still able to sacrifice 10 militia in order toblock them off for a turn. Also, i can build a wall around the enemy units i just blocked, to prevent another move the next turn.
2. You can also add to scenatio B: My opponent is able to make a 100% full proof wall, so there is no way to stop my enemy when i don't use this same (lame) tactic. With the new update, these actions have been fixed.
3. This story is written a bit 'one-sided'. I could make the same story about Scenario B, telling: "I just have to make sure, all my first moves is 1bomber near a city that will be walled, or 1bomber to my enemies stack. Then i'm sure i will prevent him from expansion, and i even can take his (empty) cap, because my opponent is unable to reinforce".

Kirjoittanut Barrymore, 25.04.2012 at 11:22

Turn blocking may have been unintended and can be viewed as cheap but it added another level to Afterwind that made it far more engaging (and dare I commit blasphemy) but better than games like Chess because it was not about killing the most units it was about guarding your attack and blocking their attacks, it made the game more like two guys with a sword and a shield battling rather than two guys in a shootout - there was give and take and defence and attack and counterattacks. The game ebbed and flowed. No game I've played has combined attack and defence as well as Afterwind has and it's what's made it such a good game.

I dislike how you underestimate Chess, but OT: You are saying again that there is no way to turnblock and its about having the most units only. I disagree with that, because it is still able to block (but you have to think now, weather it is usefull to use this). Furthermore, its also still able to wall up and protect your cities, so they won't become useless. I have seen games where a players has a big city (like germany) with 40units in it, but is unable to move them for about 10 turns. Now, how fair and strategic is that? These games where no exception, and you see them in every 1v1 or teamgame battle.

Kirjoittanut Barrymore, 25.04.2012 at 11:22

This update has taken away a level of play from Afterwind, it is a negative update in the literal sense of the word. The world will keep on spinning and people will keep on playing Afterwind but I'm not convinced this was a change for the better. I'm open minded enough to acknowledge that this is a good change for new players who don't understand turnblocking, however I'd like to point out that all of the best Afterwind players at the moment did not understand it at one point and learning about it and how to counter it made them better. I won't say anything more on the matter unless good points can be raised in defence of it.

I would say that you should have give it a try. When i first heard about it, i was not 100% convinced it worked (and i'm still not). But not trying it at all, and only complaining will help no one, and surely not Afterwind. Therefor i'm advising everyone, to play for a week or 2 and then come back with nice arguments. I'm sure (if it doesn't work the way it is suposed to) it will be changed, or even have a rollback.

Thanks for getting back to me.

I don't believe that blocking with 50% of troops would be viable. I've got to admit there could be times where it's worth sacrificing that many troops just to make a block but in most cases I think I'd just rather attack the stack with all my forces and destroy it? Perhaps that's the intention. As an additional point there's no way of knowing how many troops it would take to make a block (I just tested this, if you want to block a stack in a city you have to use way more than 50% of what you see they have there... if the player builds units in that city or gets units in from the outside so long as the total number of units is over double what you sent at it then it will not be blocked). So you sacrifice your troops to try and block and it doesn't even work? There's no way that blocking could ever be viable if you consider it's not even a guarantee, you're better off just doing what you were going to do or going all in on their units.

The invincible wall exploit was horrible that's why I wanted to see it removed, I'm not much of a coder but surely there's a way to change the positioning algorithm (where two enemy units inhabit the same space) they should attack each other instead of push each other away. So you attack a unit in a 4 wall with say 3 bombers, the unit escapes into the city to be replaced by another unit, the new unit and the three bombers move into the same space and so they fight and the bombers win. Invincible wall broken. Again, I'm not a coder so I don't know if that's even possible so don't hold me on that

And yes, my example was biased however I'd argue that;

'Take as many cities and gain as much money as possible so I can take my enemies cities.'

Is still less complex than;

'I just have to make sure, all my first moves is 1bomber near a city that will be walled, or 1bomber to my enemies stack. Then i'm sure i will prevent him from expansion, and i even can take his (empty) cap, because my opponent is unable to reinforce. Then take as many cities and gain as much money as possible so I can take my enemies cities.'

As for walls - I'm hesitent to reveal my plans to the public (because if this sticks we're all going to have to play this way) but I guarantee you a compotent player would not let his stack get walled (considering that walls are so easily prevented).

As for the stack of 'unmovable' units because of blocks- In those 10 moves the player did nothing to try and make his Berlin stack usable? He deserved it being blocked.
Though I had that in a game the other day, it made it more interesting because I had to think how I could complete a full flower with multiple people placing units near it. Again, it's taken away the depth of the game, we've gone from; "How will I make it so I'm safe to use these units?" to; "I can use these units". If you're a chess player surely you can appreciate that.

I did try a game, as you know I play SM quite a lot and I prided myself at being quite good at it... I feel no pride in playing this way. I'll carry on trying it out but I'm really not optimistic. Certain strats like Impi or SM are way too overpowered and it's more likely that these strats will be nerfed rather than the change reverted.

On another note I've a lot of respect for someone that can speak another language. Your English is certainly much better than my dutch, the only word I know is 'Eikel'.

EDIT: Since this is a 'constructive criticism' thread I'd like to add some more to what I mentioned above about the 'units sharing the same space' code. I don't know what is possible so I'll just go ahead and niavely assume that anything is possible. It is silly that 1 unit can block 200. Whilst I would say that that 200 should be protected in someway that's irrelavent to the arguement.
So how about this:
The units used to defend (and defeat) the attacking unit stays where it is, the rest of the units move on.
OR how about just lower the % threshold to ensure a block, why not 25% instead of 50?
OR can something be done about wallfucking? If this was change was made when wallfucking didn't exist then I don't think I'd have much of a problem with it, but since you cannot secure a city with defence lines you need to have blocking as a way to ACTIVELY defend yourself.

EDIT AGAIN: Or a mix of the new TB system (50% etc. etc.) and the "The units used to defend (and defeat) the attacking unit stays where it is, the rest of the units move on."

You send x units at the enemy, it blocks y amount of units in their stack. The rest move on.

Kirjoittanut McBamBam, 25.04.2012 at 12:11

My point above without getting off topic too much... is cheap tactics like the above are created when abusing the game mechanics.

i'm going to stop here and say, how is it cheap, you can do it two, they are just finding the best way to win the game, you see that's called clever thinking, you do what works best for you. I myself don't enjoy getting noobtubed, but i know it is part of the game, they are not cheating, they are playing without the limits of the engine, it is not "cheap."

the same for turnblocking, no matter how you think, afterwind has been knocked down a level today because an important part of the strategy has been completely removed, and tbing wasn't cheap, it followed the game engine, and whether it was a mistake on the developers side or not, it added a whole new depth afterwind that is now lost.

The militia inside of cities should not count towards the 50%. You get free militia, which you don't even use most of the time, every time you take a city. So even if you only have 5 attacking units that you want to tb, you have to account for all the useless militia. This makes the 50% extra useless and terrible, on top of what it already is. This could be done by only accounting the 50% rule towards units that moved that turn.

Edit: this also makes the "less than 4" rule completely irrelevant- because most of the cities spawn 4 militia when you take them.

Also the fact that you cannot actually see the amount of enemy units you need to tb fucks the system. Because, you see 20 units at the beginning of the turn- send 10 to tb. They produced 5 more units and suddenly you don't meet the criteria, gg.

Kirjoittanut VRIL, 25.04.2012 at 08:28

No update bashing. Just constructive criticism.
1. Post your suggestions
2. Pray for real improvements

I start:
Make TBs determined by time moved (not turn order) so skill is involved more than luck.
Currently it makes no sense to have 50% blocking a stack. Why would anyone donate
50% to the enemy? Only in some cases with low defensive units involved it makes sense to attck
the stack.

I actually thought TBing was time-based before I learned how to actually do it. That's why I can get so many moves done in one turn... practice, lol

Kirjoittanut McBamBam, 25.04.2012 at 12:11

200 tanks were sent at London, thankfully London was saved because they sacrificed a militia to the Sun God every week; thus paralyzing the tanks. Does this make sense?

They would be slowed somewhat, it doesn't make sense that an army can ignore an attack on it. It would have to:
1) form up and destroy the enemy, wasting time
2) divide its troops, some to defend against the attackers, the others to continue on their objective, they don't waste much time but they have less force to take their objective
3) ignore the enemy, taking increased casualties and risking their supply lines, if they choose option 2 and don't commit enough troops, this is a similar situation

Kirjoittanut McBamBam, 25.04.2012 at 12:11

History shows that putting a small group against a vastly greater force has little or no impact on the larger force...

No history doesn't, otherwise all warfare would have been decided by who has the best tech and most troops.

As I remind, this game is a simulation, with some trade-off because it's only a game.

The discussions we had about balancing units and strategies(mainly infantry and PD strategy) , were all around some realism.

The question : "who engage first ?" needs a reply game wise, that's why the turn's mechanism was implemented.

Let's see if 30% or 25% from the stack is balanced

There's been an update, please check the news.

Thanks for taking our concerns onboard Dev Team.

Will test it later but on paper it looks like a fair compromise.

In my opinion there is now no tactic. the one who had the most units wins the game. so there is no fun and that makes the game senseless.

Kirjoittanut Barrymore, 25.04.2012 at 13:49

the only word I know is 'Eikel'.

OT: There is no doubt that I agree with you that 'micromanagement' and tactic is more fun, because it simply needs skill. The question is: What will bring more tactic and strategy in this game? To awnser that question you also have to know that is shoudn't be too complicated to understand, otherwise you will scare off new players. You have to find some balance in it. Chess is a the best example of how you want it.
However, Lets hope the new update will change our views. I will try it soon

Hugo, I think the community is most aggressive because Afterwind is a game of momentum, and TB was, in it's old form, a way to fight that and turn the battle around. For instance - if you are a skilled player and you join in a neutral country in the middle of another game, where your enemies have a much higher income and unit count, you could defend yourself using turnblocks and walling to control your enemy's units while you expand and gather a good army to neutralize the threats.

With turnblocking in its current form you have one device less to use against an army of greater numbers, making the sheer number of units much more important. Strategies with cheap units like Imperialist and Guerrilla Warfare, and strategies that rely on unit spamming like Perfect Defence and Iron Fist surely have the upper hand now and I'd hate to see them being nerfed.

The way the game is now resembles a lot arm wrestling - where a battle can be balanced but when a player reaches critical mass, all is lost.


Regarding the wallglitching bug, would it be possible for units in the same place to not be pushed apart, but engage in battle? This way I think the wallglitching would be fixed and flowers would be able to be a valid option for protection again.

I agree with everything Pulse has said