Remove maximum event units for scenarios

Holy fucking shit this trash "feature" has ruined so many maps, Pyrrhus hates it, Dire hates it, and now that I decided to finally make a map, I hate it too, what kind of terrible person came up with the idea of limiting the maximum number of event units a faction can have

How fucking many do you want to add wtf?!?!?

Kirjoittanut Alex, 23.12.2021 at 07:24

How fucking many do you want to add wtf?!?!?

100k units by turn 2

Kirjoittanut Alex, 23.12.2021 at 07:24

How fucking many do you want to add wtf?!?!?

As many as he wants

Kirjoittanut Alex, 23.12.2021 at 07:24

How fucking many do you want to add wtf?!?!?

Its more for neutral countries for spots that have to conquer other regions before they can become powerful. Its not to create sp farm maps with 10k+ units.

Kirjoittanut Zephyrusu, 23.12.2021 at 05:12

Holy fucking shit this trash "feature" has ruined so many maps, Pyrrhus hates it, Dire hates it, and now that I decided to finally make a map, I hate it too, what kind of terrible person came up with the idea of limiting the maximum number of event units a faction can have

At some point, when there are too many event units in relations to city recruitment abilities and too many trenches the map itself stops to matter.

There is a reason some WWI players hate any other map or scenario AtWar has to offer, now Ain't there?

Kirjoittanut Rock Lee, 23.12.2021 at 11:55

At some point, when there are too many event units in relations to city recruitment abilities and too many trenches the map itself stops to matter.

There is a reason some WWI players hate any other map or scenario AtWar has to offer, now Ain't there?

Point isn't player events, it's neutral events

Kirjoittanut Zephyrusu, 23.12.2021 at 12:55

Point isn't player events, it's neutral events

Oh. Netural events were limited because peiple used it to farm sp and fullfill "destroy x bombers" achievment simply by spawning 1000 bombers with 1 HP in netural cities and attacking them.

Now when there are RP maps, massive armies scenario such as WWI, cw boosters, premium booster and daily login booster for SP it seems less important because it's so easy to collect sp. But back then filling achievment was the most prominent way to gain sp and buy necessary upgrades.

Lol people are bringing up WW1. WW1 barely has any events. And there's no other way to replicate ww1 than by having trenches. And there aren't even that many trenches. In my opinion, we should have 10 rows of 3 trench columns in the west, and 12 rows in the alps, and 5 in Edirne. Should also have many more trenches in Kuwait, Greece, Carpathian mountains, and a lot on the east front. An early-stage nuclear development facility should also be added near Berlin with events on turn 49 that gives Germany early nuclear prototypes, since WW1 ended on turn 36, anyway. It allows for greater creativity and alternative history, especially since Einstein was alive at the time and was German. Einstein would have made nukes if WW1 lasted until turn 50.

Kirjoittanut Tribune Aquila, 23.12.2021 at 14:30

Lol people are bringing up WW1. WW1 barely has any events. And there's no other way to replicate ww1 than by having trenches. And there aren't even that many trenches. In my opinion, we should have 10 rows of 3 trench columns in the west, and 12 rows in the alps, and 5 in Edirne. Should also have many more trenches in Kuwait, Greece, Carpathian mountains, and a lot on the east front. An early-stage nuclear development facility should also be added near Berlin with events on turn 49 that gives Germany early nuclear prototypes, since WW1 ended on turn 36, anyway. It allows for greater creativity and alternative history, especially since Einstein was alive at the time and was German. Einstein would have made nukes if WW1 lasted until turn 50.

I once asked a clanmate why he plays west germany in wwi every evening. He said it's fun to drink carlsberg, listen to music and scroll over memes for two hours until turn 30 arrives.

teamwork makes the dreamwork my atwar buds

Instead of removing, why not propose an increase? Having no limit means there's the likelihood of abuse and incentive to farm medals...
(not like an increase will prevent that either, although it'll lessen the severity)

I'm against the removal of the limit. Maybe a small increase like to 750 or something is fine but not removal.

To be honest as well, if you can't make do with 500 event units for neutrals, then you need to rethink just how many units you're spamming or how to implement your map. Here's a start, make a strong neutral units so you don't have to spam 20-30 units as events.

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 23.12.2021 at 22:20

I'm against the removal of the limit. Maybe a small increase like to 750 or something is fine but not removal.

To be honest as well, if you can't make do with 500 event units for neutrals, then you need to rethink just how many units you're spamming or how to implement your map. Here's a start, make a strong neutral units so you don't have to spam 20-30 units as events.

Experienced mapmakers' input is irrelevant, apparently.

Here is how events are actually used. Suppose you are making a WW2 map and want to merge Finland with Hungary and Romania into one faction because you don't want pointless minor picks making the map harder to fill. But you don't want a bunch of Romanians and Hungarians running around in Lappland and besieging Murmansk, so instead you make Finland low or even zero-reinf land and substitute its reinf with unproducable Finnish event units. Since these would have to spawn every reinf turn, the total amount of event units the "Axis Minors" spot would need exceeds 500 or even 750 event units. The argument of "make a strong event unit instead of many weak ones" holds no basis because one strong unit and many weak ones are not the same, one strong unit would die to stack bonus, you wouldn't be able to wall with it, and anyway there's no reason for super saiyan Finns to be running around. But this is not even the only way events can be implemented, just look at Aetius and Pyrrhus' Second Punic War, that's another map hampered by event limit (for the Barcid faction).

As for neutral event units, it's a technique used in relatively recent mapmakiing. You give a neutral province events that spawn every reinf turn until the end of the game, so if a player captures the neutrals, they get the event units for themselves. Since the point of the event units is for the player to use them, same problems as above apply.

To begin with the argument that the event limit is to "limit SP farming" is stupid in and of itself, people can just as easily SP farm with 500 units as with 5000, it is idiotic for paranoid fears over SP farming to be limiting mapmakers this way. Anyway Aetius, Pyrrhus, Dire and many respected mapmakers have been complaining about this for years and in comes the creator of Chinese Ostfront saying they should "implement their maps better", this is why staff and mapmakers have never gotten along.

Kirjoittanut Zephyrusu, 24.12.2021 at 01:48

Romania could transfer troops north even if these were seperated nations. Besides letting your troops just march and do nothing for 5 turns is probably a very bad idea.

More than that, if Axis are concentrating forces in the north then it's on any sensible Russia to punish them for that and attack the balkans and center Europe. I can go even further and say that you couls just give Russia better transfort.

In the old WWII some italies thought it'll be funny to go sky menace and attack Britian. In these cases any sensible British Africa has easily captures Rome.

You can never assure fair 1vs1 to all players with loopholes and wittings, even if you balance a scenario for ten years. The key is giving the players tools to make balance by themselves as TEAMS.

Kirjoittanut Rock Lee, 24.12.2021 at 12:20

Romania could transfer troops north even if these were seperated nations. Besides letting your troops just march and do nothing for 5 turns is probably a very bad idea.

More than that, if Axis are concentrating forces in the north then it's on any sensible Russia to punish them for that and attack the balkans and center Europe. I can go even further and say that you couls just give Russia better transfort.

In the old WWII some italies thought it'll be funny to go sky menace and attack Britian. In these cases any sensible British Africa has easily captures Rome.

You can never assure fair 1vs1 to all players even if you balance a scenario for ten years. The key is giving the players tools to make balance by themselves as TEAMS.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're even trying to say, maybe you wrote what I said wrong.

Kirjoittanut Zephyrusu, 24.12.2021 at 12:33

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're even trying to say, maybe you wrote what I said wrong.

It's alright mate. I just tried to argue that narrowing and restricting fronts is not the way to balance maps in my opinion.

Kirjoittanut Rock Lee, 24.12.2021 at 12:37

It's alright mate. I just tried to argue that narrowing and restricting fronts is not the way to balance maps in my opinion.

How did I argue for narrowing or restricting fronts, all I said was that I wanted the Axis Minor troops produced in Finland to be Finnish

Kirjoittanut Zephyrusu, 24.12.2021 at 13:03

How did I argue for narrowing or restricting fronts, all I said was that I wanted the Axis Minor troops produced in Finland to be Finnish

I thought you didn't want troops moving from southern to northern axis.

If you just want to seperate production why can't you create hungro-romanian state in the south and finnish state with finnish troops in the north and put it under the same faction in the scenario?

Kirjoittanut Rock Lee, 24.12.2021 at 13:19

I thought you didn't want troops moving from southern to northern axis.

If you just want to seperate production why can't you create hungro-romanian state in the south and finnish state with finnish troops in the north and put it under the same faction in the scenario?

I would have to make units depend on province rather than faction that way, and if I do that they'll be able to produce Soviet units in the lands they capture, which is memeworthy.

Kirjoittanut Zephyrusu, 24.12.2021 at 13:20

I would have to make units depend on province rather than faction that way, and if I do that they'll be able to produce Soviet units in the lands they capture, which is memeworthy.

I don't want to sound insensitive to details and stuff. But even if Finland had events unit only it would still be finnish troops wouldn't it?

And what would happen if finnish event troops would capture Leningrad. They'll still be able to recruit troops there? Or Leningrad runs on event too?

Besides why is it so funny that Finland would be able to recruit Russian troops if it conquers it? Or soviet nation produced finnish troops? It happens in every war. If you want 100% accuracey in details then you should not use the map at all and just the scenario events. And it does not sound so crucial or relevant to the game. Sorry if I sound insensitive.

Kirjoittanut Rock Lee, 24.12.2021 at 13:38

I don't want to sound insensitive to details and stuff. But even if Finland had events unit only it would still be finnish troops wouldn't it?

And what would happen if finnish event troops would capture Leningrad. They'll still be able to recruit troops there? Or Leningrad runs on event too?

Besides why is it so funny that Finland would be able to recruit Russian troops if it conquers it? Or soviet nation produced finnish troops? It happens in every war. If you want 100% accuracey in details then you should not use the map at all and just the scenario events. And it does not sound so crucial or relevant to the game. Sorry if I sound insensitive.

Production in Soviet lands does not really represent production in those lands per se but rather using the resources there to arm and recruit troops from your mainland, in a WW2 map anyway. That's how it was irl too, Hiwis were a non-factor. And yes if Finns took Leningrad they'd be able to recruit Romanians there but Finns taking Leningrad is rather rare regardless of whether Finland is independent or not, wacky stuff can always happen and the point is to limit the possibility of them happening.

Or you could give Finland to Germany instead of Axis minors, and then it'd be normal for Germans to be there since they fought on the Finnish front anyway.

Kirjoittanut Zephyrusu, 24.12.2021 at 13:49

Production in Soviet lands does not really represent production in those lands per se but rather using the resources there to arm and recruit troops from your mainland, in a WW2 map anyway. That's how it was irl too, Hiwis were a non-factor. And yes if Finns took Leningrad they'd be able to recruit Romanians there but Finns taking Leningrad is rather rare regardless of whether Finland is independent or not, wacky stuff can always happen and the point is to limit the possibility of them happening.

Or you could give Finland to Germany instead of Axis minors, and then it'd be normal for Germans to be there since they fought on the Finnish front anyway.

Look, I know that some mapmakers love to complain and compete about accuracey, but you really don't have to overthink it to the level of "what it represents". Besides that theory is silly. It takes a year to train a rifleman, It takes year and a half to train one tank squad properly, it takes 6 years to train a pilo. Do you really think that it is realistic that a tank division magically appears in the corner of your empire because you allocated resources? So if the logistic center and the production is in moscow they will appear in leningrad and the island near Japan at the same time? If you wanted to make it realistic you had to make recruitment center and only allow conscripts in the city. But ofcourse for petty oldmakers (you know who) it's far easiet to bitch "Haha Germany has just recruited French troops how silly". We love you as you are you don't have to impersonate them.

Besides, it's not rare at all that occupying states recruit troops at these lands. The best Soviet brigades in WWII were of Asian cultures which Russia destroyed. Germay managed to find new recruits in many slavic nations and even recruited cops in the extarmination camps. Absurdic or not at times of crisis people deem the armies as practical option to cope with poverty/uncertainty.

If Finns took Leningrad and found there Russians to recruit it would not be unlikely. And you don't have to give upon the connection between the map and the game dynamic just in fear of inaccuracey.

In the end maps and scenarios are suppose to be fun, challenging and offer teamwork. The identity of the troops is really irrelevant if the map is good. At least for the players it does not matter.

So now it is up to you - are you building your map for the players's fun or for Aetius's judgement?

And just to clarify something - I think it'll be good to give trusted mapmakers access to create maps and scenario with no limits. I just think it's wrong to lose the connection to the map.

Kirjoittanut Zephyrusu, 24.12.2021 at 01:48

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 23.12.2021 at 22:20

I'm against the removal of the limit. Maybe a small increase like to 750 or something is fine but not removal.

To be honest as well, if you can't make do with 500 event units for neutrals, then you need to rethink just how many units you're spamming or how to implement your map. Here's a start, make a strong neutral units so you don't have to spam 20-30 units as events.

Experienced mapmakers' input is irrelevant, apparently.

yea, you're the one discarding my input as irrelevant

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 24.12.2021 at 14:42

yea, you're the one discarding my input as irrelevant

Because it is. I can make an SP farm map right now and farm thousands of SP with my buddy in a few minutes (obviously I'd get banned but that's beside the point), more events wouldn't change that. What I can't do is add as many events as I want.

Kirjoittanut Rock Lee, 24.12.2021 at 14:42

So now it is up to you - are you building your map for the players's fun or for Aetius's judgement?

Players prefer maps that function as properly as possible more than wacky abstract maps, how much are Aetius and Dire's maps played compared to Tik-Tok's?

Kirjoittanut Zephyrusu, 24.12.2021 at 15:28

Players prefer maps that function as properly as possible more than wacky abstract maps, how much are Aetius and Dire's maps played compared to Tik-Tok's?

I don't know dire's map. But even in Aetius maps you could conquer Germany with Russia and raise German troops.

Besides, Realism is not the reason his maps are played. You said yourself why they are played and what you think of him, and I don't want to speak ill of his.

Regarding Tik-Tok maps - the scenarios community at his time was small but loyal, and for a long time his maps were success. He became irrelevant because of that pettiness and arrogance that I try to steer you clear of. When mechanics changed he was to busy with his picks and his game Nazi Germany must always prevail drama, instead of rebalancing it. So the map at the end was not even balanced.

Funny thing is Tik-Tok speaks against censoring and mod intervention but he boycotted hundreds of players from his map for bizzare reasons "leaves too early" "leaves too late" "noob" "doesn't communicate"' "asks too many questions" Aetius's bans list is a joke in relation to him.

He wanted to monitor everything and deside which player plays what so it took 2-3 hours to host wait before game even started. Is it really suprised that people migrated to easier scenarios,?

So in summarize Tik and Aetius are really bad examples.

Look. I really all for letting you a pass from restrictions because I trust you. But unlimited map and scenario setting will bring back the UN games of before the limits. Which really twisted the game badly and map premiums abuse their power and control non premiums. A rank 5 could legally win 10k SP per game simply obeying and letting the UN abuse others. Maybe should be removed only for truated mapmakers.

Also, it's important to understand. Back at the UN era. Nonpremium ability to make sp was completly depended on the premium hosts. So nonpremium werr basically their bitches and had to do whatever they said. And often betrayed before the end of the game.

It was today paytowin^500.

Kirjoittanut Rock Lee, 24.12.2021 at 15:49

Kirjoittanut Zephyrusu, 24.12.2021 at 15:28

Players prefer maps that function as properly as possible more than wacky abstract maps, how much are Aetius and Dire's maps played compared to Tik-Tok's?

Look. I really all for letting you a pass from restrictions because I trust you. But unlimited map and scenario setting will bring back the UN games of before the limits. Which really twisted the game badly and map premiums abuse their power and control non premiums. A rank 5 could legally win 10k SP per game simply obeying and letting the UN abuse others. Maybe should be removed only for truated mapmakers.

I do believe there are systems in place where players are able to report if a map is a SP farm map. I understand the fear of sp farming and medal farming, but I think it is very easy to catch someone who is abusing the system and take the proper course of action as a response. For example, if in just 1 day someone is a r7-8 just by playing 1 map over and over again and someone looks into it and sees its an SP farm map, then its easy to undo the unfair gains and remove the map from atwar.

Kirjoittanut DireWarlord99, 24.12.2021 at 18:02

I do believe there are systems in place where players are able to report if a map is a SP farm map. I understand the fear of sp farming and medal farming, but I think it is very easy to catch someone who is abusing the system and take the proper course of action as a response. For example, if in just 1 day someone is a r7-8 just by playing 1 map over and over again and someone looks into it and sees its an SP farm map, then its easy to undo the unfair gains and remove the map from atwar.

Yes. You are very much right that it can be monitored. But I suspect it'll be hard to regulate such things. Especially the map that seem legit.

Some 'farm maps' were techniquely legit, They were played more than a year and a half and filled 20 players several times a day. Everybody saw that the hosts are being tyrrants and make too much SP. Everyone worried and ranted but no one could explain why they are so abusive.

I know for sure that The Empire map makers. If you could come up with a critera to when and why is it legitimate to cross the limits (for what purposes) then I think it will solve all our problems