BladeGuner Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 I would urge you to resist making the game overly complicated with too many units and options. Some of the most simple games yield the most complex strategies. Chess comes to mind as an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Hi Blade, thanks for your advice. Would you like to tell me which option you think is making this game complicated? We really appreciate your genuine support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BladeGuner Posted November 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 At this point I don't think we are at the too complicated stage. But I see a lot of suggestions to add to the game. I just think that we should all give a lot of thought to adding a feature before we do it. The point is that we don't need a complicated game to have a lot of fun with it. Again, some of the simplest games as far as features and moves yield very complicated strategies. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 At this point I don't think we are at the too complicated stage. But I see a lot of suggestions to add to the game. I just think that we should all give a lot of thought to adding a feature before we do it. The point is that we don't need a complicated game to have a lot of fun with it. Again, some of the simplest games as far as features and moves yield very complicated strategies. Sir, I agree. As far as I know, we have about 14 units and officer and more maps coming. What do you think about them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BladeGuner Posted November 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 The way players are seeded or added to the map when they join a battle makes it so I have never played in the lower right portion of the map. I have always joined the battle early so that I'm either in the upper left or at least the overall upper portion of the map. If the seeding started in a different corner each time, the current map wouldn't get as boring as it is now. I think many other good players have the same situation, start early, play the same portion of the map. Having different maps would definitely add to the novelty of the game and make it seem as thou we are not stuck in a "ground hog day" situation. Playing the same battle over and over again. Im not sure what the impact of adding officers is going to be. I would urge you to consider implementing a way to allow only players that have a certain level of officer to play in battles against each other. The side effect of restarting the battles every 15 days levels the playing field. No one can claim that anyone else has a significant head start of months or even years like it was in W2V, were some of us had played continuously for years. Also the way the battle is seeded, players that start at the same time are given positions on the map next to each other. Even if you start late, at least your not dropped next to someone who started days before you. That's a good thing. As the number of players increases I would like to see battles that require a certain level to enter. This would keep the experienced players challenged by keeping the new players out. The new players get to join battles with other new players giving them a chance to learn without getting overrun by more experienced players, thereby getting discouraged and quitting. Anything that keeps newbies from quitting benefits everyone. By adding officers, you add a long term effect. Players that have been playing longer have better officers. This negates the restart benefit and without something like limiting the battles based on officer level it puts new players at a significant disadvantage. But making it so only like level players can play against each other, it gives everyone a long term goal, encouraging people to stay rather than walk away from the significant effort they put into building good officers. This adds to player retention. We already have units that I never use. The anti-tank gun comes to mind. It doesn't have a significant advantage over armor and it gets killed easily. I never use the except at the very beginning of a battle before I can build better units. Then I dismiss them as soon as I can build better units. The Air Force and navy are examples of a group of units that are very powerful but only contain a very limited number of types. Each unit has its strengths and weaknesses the mesh very well together. I am excited about the prospects of getting an aircraft carrier. It should add to the overall gameplay and change strategy enough to make it worth having it. I don't build many tanks either. They do have their uses in some very specific situations but overall there are more powerful units. The only time I use tanks is as a decoy when attacking a large group of SS arty and AA units. I can't use bombers to kill the arty because they will be killed by the AA units. So the tanks are used to get the enemy arty to fire at them so my artillery can kill the SS artillery. Other than this very limited role, I find that tanks are too limited especially since I can't load them into a transport. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BladeGuner Posted November 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Having only 1 tank wouldn't change anyone's strategy in any significant way. And would simplify the gameplay. Making it so that the light tank could be loaded into a transport would change things significantly. Giving even more delineation between the light tank and the heavy tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldmanjohn Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 Having only 1 tank wouldn't change anyone's strategy in any significant way. And would simplify the gameplay. Making it so that the light tank could be loaded into a transport would change things significantly. Giving even more delineation between the light tank and the heavy tank. I like this idea. My first time playing I didn't use any tanks and lost a lot of troops. Especially attacking players that are active. I learned pretty quick a few heavy tanks arty bombers and aa with 1 inf and scout planes are pretty much unstoppable. Although I have seen some players rush 10+ lvl 5 heavy tanks at other players drive right through there tanks whips out the arty and then finish off the tanks. Medium tanks other then the fact you don't need rubber seem pretty much worthless. I can see in some areas of the map if you can't get access to rubber or oil where these would be useful but then again that player is most likely going to be greatly at a disadvantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InnocentDevil Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 I more or less agree with what Blade Runner said regarding the popularity of some troops over others. As experienced players reach the end-game stages of wars, I've noticed how we increasingly see a lack of variety in troop selection as everyone shifts to the ultimate goal of an army based around bombers.Anti-tank troops should ideally be sufficient enough to handle tank squads; however, they lack the sufficient health and effective damage to eliminate enemy armor. Besides buffing the damage of anti-tank troops, an idea might be that when anti-tank squads are mobile, they have a reduced amount of health, but when they are sufficiently entrenched, their health might be boosted by a set percentage.As for the Navy, I don't see how they are very powerful, and would, in fact, prefer it if the Navy troops were buffed in firepower. The only people actually affected by potential Navy troops are those positioned along the coast, which is a very limited number of people. This limits the Navy in terms of usefulness and target availability. Thus, having access to a Navy should be an ability that plays a significant role towards players along the coast. However, as of now, I feel that its role is overshadowed by the abilities of the Air troops, as bombers are faster, more powerful, and have more target availability than that of Naval troops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BladeGuner Posted November 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 You need to tryout the navy units more. They are cruisers have the longest sight of any unit and they are really hard to kill based on thier massive power. If you have a city close to the coast there isn't any defense against 10 cruisers. Add a couple destroyers to draw any shore fire and I can wipe any city regardless how many land or air troops you have. Only limit is the city has to be close enough to the coast to be in range, but if you are you can kiss it goodby if you see a large navy on the way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 You need to tryout the navy units more. They are cruisers have the longest sight of any unit and they are really hard to kill based on thier massive power. If you have a city close to the coast there isn't any defense against 10 cruisers. Add a couple destroyers to draw any shore fire and I can wipe any city regardless how many land or air troops you have. Only limit is the city has to be close enough to the coast to be in range, but if you are you can kiss it goodby if you see a large navy on the way. Yes, counter measures to navy force are needed in future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.