Defensive bonus flaw

This is a typical situation for a scenario player... Attacking a trench with storm and kruups. The trench have -10 defense against storms, but since your kruups have better attack (7 attack storm, 8 attack kruups) the kruups will attack first. This is clearly not good for you as your troops will be fighting the trench with it's full defensive points.

You want your storms with 7 attack to fight the trench with 15 def, than your kruups with 8 attack to fight the trench with 25 def.

I've been thinking several ideas but they could potentially lead to flaws or infinite loops... so I wonder if anyone can suggest a change for this problem.

作者： Dukal2, 28.01.2016 at 17:56

Lol you retard krupps attacks first cuz they are ground:main attack units , and storms are grand:secondary attack ... thats why they attacks first

xaxaxaxaxaxaxaxa

作者： Dukal2, 28.01.2016 at 17:56

Lol you retard krupps attacks first cuz they are ground:main attack units , and storms are grand:secondary attack ... thats why they attacks first

作者： clovis1122, 28.01.2016 at 17:44

since your kruups have better attack (7 attack storm, 9 attack kruups) the kruups will attack first.

A nice solution would just be to add a feature which allows players to choose the order in which units attack, either generally or for individual battles (although both could be implemented). Then it would be down to the players skill and knowledge of units rather than just a game mechanic.
Would be a great feature if the admins had time, but could be confusing to work out how to implement so it was simple to use.

Kruups as 8 Att same as regular art, unless attack bonuses on trench as well witch i could not read in description. Nerfing them to 7 could solve the problem as Storms would now be equal to kruups and then keep it's purpose in the game for def bonuses? They say: The devil is in the details... Are you the devil?

Dude can we fucking ban clovis please? He's still trying to change strategies to scenarios after being told sooooo many fucking times that's now how strategies change. Change the map not the strategy simple fucking logic.

作者： Helly, 28.01.2016 at 20:27

He's still trying to change strategies to scenarios after being told sooooo many fucking times that's now how strategies change.

How is this even related with strategies?

作者： Helly, 28.01.2016 at 20:27

Change the map not the strategy simple fucking logic.

Please suggest a change with the current SL's MapMaker tools that would fix this issue.

Stop playing this WWI non sense
You are welcome

By the way same problem is happening when u attack a city with a sub loaded with marines in GW, marines attack first so u win the battle but cant take the city in most cases, annoying...

作者： Kraigg, 29.01.2016 at 01:29

By the way same problem is happening when u attack a city with a sub loaded with marines in GW, marines attack first so u win the battle but cant take the city in most cases, annoying...

No shit sherlock.

Thats how its suppose to happen, subs in this case are trans, you wont see a trans attack before its cargo cuz that would wipe out the troops its carrying.

作者： Evic, 29.01.2016 at 06:57

作者： Kraigg, 29.01.2016 at 01:29

By the way same problem is happening when u attack a city with a sub loaded with marines in GW, marines attack first so u win the battle but cant take the city in most cases, annoying...

No shit sherlock.

Thats how its suppose to happen, subs in this case are trans, you wont see a trans attack before its cargo cuz that would wipe out the troops its carrying.

Dumb remark from a dumb Nazi loving moron

Thank you for ur input, it works just fine when playing MOS, but I supposed since u are a Scenario noob u dont even know what those letters stand for

作者： Kraigg, 29.01.2016 at 07:12

Dumb remark from a dumb Nazi loving moron

Thank you for ur input, it works just fine when playing MOS, but I supposed since u are a Scenario noob u dont even know what those letters stand for

Then its mos that is broken, not GW.

And i like how you bring up nazism and scenario playing for no particular reason what so ever, next tito maybe?

作者： Evic, 29.01.2016 at 07:16

作者： Kraigg, 29.01.2016 at 07:12

Dumb remark from a dumb Nazi loving moron

Thank you for ur input, it works just fine when playing MOS, but I supposed since u are a Scenario noob u dont even know what those letters stand for

Then its mos that is broken, not GW.

And i like how you bring up nazism and scenario playing for no particular reason what so ever, next tito maybe?

Your name sucks that's why

作者： Kraigg, 29.01.2016 at 07:19

Your name sucks that's why

My name is fine, its just you who suck.

作者： Kraigg, 29.01.2016 at 01:29

a sub loaded with marines in GW, marines attack first so u win the battle but cant take the city in most cases, annoying...

That is because they have the same attack. A proposal was already made in that aspect - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=18697

作者： clovis1122, 29.01.2016 at 07:53

That is because they have the same attack. A proposal was already made in that aspect - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=18697

sub shouldnt attack first, if its the first one to attack then after its killed all of its cargo (marines) would be destroyed (sunk)

作者： Evic, 29.01.2016 at 07:59

作者： clovis1122, 29.01.2016 at 07:53

That is because they have the same attack. A proposal was already made in that aspect - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=18697

sub shouldnt attack first, if its the first one to attack then after its killed all of its cargo (marines) would be destroyed (sunk)

You are entitled to your opinion, but that is what it is, an opinion

作者： Evic, 29.01.2016 at 07:59

作者： clovis1122, 29.01.2016 at 07:53

That is because they have the same attack. A proposal was already made in that aspect - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=18697

sub shouldnt attack first, if its the first one to attack then after its killed all of its cargo (marines) would be destroyed (sunk)

作者： Ivan, 27.01.2015 at 17:18

作者： clovis1122, 27.01.2015 at 15:17

I don't know if I get it. It is totally random, or both attacker units roll first, and the higher roll goes first? Either way thanks for your reply. It doesn't work as I though....

It's totally random.

EDIT: Support my proposal or make a new one if you believe it shouldn't be random...

EDIT #2: Source - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=17742

作者： Kraigg, 29.01.2016 at 08:04

You are entitled to your opinion, but that is what it is, an opinion

Following your logic sea trans should attack first too? ( ik they can take cites but the basics of it are the same)

Thick skull that guy... Dont u see a difference between a sub and a trans? one has 1 attack the other one has 7 attack, one is a transport, the other one is an ATTACK unit, use on the side as a transport mean

By ur "logic" when u load an inf on a destroyer in NC inf should attack first, when u load a marine on an heli in DS marine should attack first, nice reasonning dude

You are trying to argue with "real life logic", which makes ur posts irrelevant, we are talking about gameplay and how to improve it

Cheers

作者： clovis1122, 29.01.2016 at 08:05

作者： Evic, 29.01.2016 at 07:59

作者： clovis1122, 29.01.2016 at 07:53

That is because they have the same attack. A proposal was already made in that aspect - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=18697

sub shouldnt attack first, if its the first one to attack then after its killed all of its cargo (marines) would be destroyed (sunk)

作者： Ivan, 27.01.2015 at 17:18

作者： clovis1122, 27.01.2015 at 15:17

I don't know if I get it. It is totally random, or both attacker units roll first, and the higher roll goes first? Either way thanks for your reply. It doesn't work as I though....

It's totally random.

EDIT: Support my proposal or make a new one if you believe it shouldn't be random...

In my experience it isnt random at all, marines always attack first

作者： Kraigg, 29.01.2016 at 08:10

Do subs not carry 2 marines on strats off?

Use your logic, if a sub attacks a city with 2 marines on it, and sub attacks without landing marines on shore and it gets sunk in the attack..............how do the 2 marines still attack?

its as if trans attacked first, got sunk and troops still followed XAXA

作者： Evic, 29.01.2016 at 08:17

作者： Kraigg, 29.01.2016 at 08:10

Do subs not carry 2 marines on strats off?

Use your logic, if a sub attacks a city with 2 marines on it, and sub attacks without landing marines on shore and it gets sunk in the attack..............how do the 2 marines still attack?

its as if trans attacked first, got sunk and troops still followed XAXA

I cant believe you are still arguing about this, but let's give it a try, since you dont seem to grasp anything else than ur flawed "logic"

1) This is a turned based game
2) each turn is suppose to represent a week
Still following me?
3) Both Subs and marines are stealth
4) day 1: sub drops the marine at strategical point
5) day 2: sub gets in position for the attack
6) day 3 to 6 nothing fucking happens
7) day 7 they synchronize their attack so that the sub attack first

Happy?

Jeeez some people....

Once again this is completely irrelevant because we want something to make the gameplay better, while u want to argue pointlessly about how a turn based game should reflect reality

Ask urself the question: why do unit in a trans are allowed to move after disemarking? it is not realistic cause the trans spent the turn moving, therefore by the time it arrive at unloading shore, there isnt time left for the units inside to move...

Point being: realism and logic arent relevant here, gameplay is

作者： Kraigg, 29.01.2016 at 08:24

I cant believe you are still arguing about this, but let's give it a try, since you dont seem to grasp anything else than ur flawed "logic"

1) This is a turned based game
2) each turn is suppose to represent a week
Still following me?
3) Both Subs and marines are stealth
4) day 1: sub drops the marine at strategical point
5) day 2: sub gets in position for the attack
6) day 3 to 6 nothing fucking happens
7) day 7 they synchronize their attack so that the sub attack first

Happy?

Its impossible to land troops INTO the city without being spotted, units attack the city directly, not its surroundings, so in order for such maneuvers to be possible city population needs to be blind.

And yes, we need more realism in atwar, thats why more people play scenarios and custom maps, cuz they are way more realistic in this sense

And your second point about ATs is invalid since i agree on it, the 7 days thing however as proven above is impossible in cities

作者： Evic, 29.01.2016 at 08:32

作者： Kraigg, 29.01.2016 at 08:24

I cant believe you are still arguing about this, but let's give it a try, since you dont seem to grasp anything else than ur flawed "logic"

1) This is a turned based game
2) each turn is suppose to represent a week
Still following me?
3) Both Subs and marines are stealth
4) day 1: sub drops the marine at strategical point
5) day 2: sub gets in position for the attack
6) day 3 to 6 nothing fucking happens
7) day 7 they synchronize their attack so that the sub attack first

Happy?

Its impossible to land troops INTO the city without being spotted, units attack the city directly, not its surroundings, so in order for such maneuvers to be possible city population needs to be blind.

And yes, we need more realism in atwar, thats why more people play scenarios and custom maps, cuz they are way more realistic in this sense

I rest my case, you are indeed hopeless

Cheers

Edit: Wait wait wait I have another one for you, what is your opinion about chain transport, is it realistic?

作者： Kraigg, 29.01.2016 at 08:34

I rest my case, you are indeed hopeless

Cheers

Always a good answer when you dont have one

So marines of an invading army just sit and wait for 6 days in the city? drinking coffe, asking arround what would be good places to attack etc?

Then on day 7 they strike and take the city...............great logic

作者： Evic, 29.01.2016 at 08:36

作者： Kraigg, 29.01.2016 at 08:34

I rest my case, you are indeed hopeless

Cheers

Always a good answer when you dont have one

So marines of an invading army just sit and wait for 6 days in the city? drinking coffe, asking arround what would be good places to attack etc?

Then on day 7 they strike and take the city...............great logic

You dont even understand when I make fun of you, how amazing
You do know what sarcasm is, right??

作者： Kraigg, 29.01.2016 at 08:37

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

You dont even understand when I make fun of you, how amazing

You reply within 10 secs after i make the comments which means you dont even read them, proving how thickskulled and ignorant you are.

And people always turn to mocking after being left out of words.

I have to say this is really fun, thank you for your contribution

How exactly am I left out of words, not a single time you adressed the real issue at stake, gameplay, u keep on talking about how logical the game should be, there are literally hundreds of things not logical in the game, and you know what nobody cares cause the point is for it to be fun, get it?

作者： Kraigg, 29.01.2016 at 08:42

I have to say this is really fun, thank you for your contribution

How exactly am I left out of words, not a single time you adressed the real issue at stake, gameplay, u keep on talking about how logical the game should be, there are literally hundreds of things not logical in the game, and you know what nobody cares cause the point is for it to be fun, get it?

Dont be scared to quote.

You want the game to be revolving even more arround EU+ and competitive players, guess what, navy units always attacking first cripples lots of custom maps and scenarios and those are the maps majority plays.

Game shouldnt be changed to fit the minority