First turn turnblock.

Hey everyone. After discussing it with CacaoCow, I'm just suggesting that (but I don't know how hard it would be to program) it be impossible to turnblock on week 1.

Turnblocking is very cool. I use it a lot, and it adds a whole new dimension to the game: you have to protect your main stacks from it by using defence-lines and such, and it requires some skill to counter.

But on week 1, if you're in a 1-city country, there's literally nothing you can do about it, bar moving every unit out of your city first and hoping you get 50% lucky. It also means you have slightly less range. This is wrong, I feel, especially since the games where you'll get turnblocked first turn are games which are on small maps and are very dependent on the outcome of the first few turns. Effectively, it makes small countries a much weaker choice, because even if you manage to send a bomber to the bigger country's capital, his other cities can send bombers to yours.

Some might say "start far away from him then" but this only applies if you get 2nd pick. In addition, (now I'm narrowing it down to Europe, 5K), one of the best choices against PD Greece or PD Ukraine is Austria. A small country within range of Ukraine and Greece's cities.


This is why I'm asking Ivan/Amok to consider making week 1 moves "unblockable". I don't know if this is possible, but it would help make some games less... random, and not representative of skill.



(just before the haters start saying I'm butthurt, this discussion arose after I beat Cacao when he essentially failed to turnblock me in first turn in Vienna with a bomber, since I moved all my troops out before doing my moves).

Sounds like something you can fix by just not playing assholes.

Assholes can happen any time. I agree with Iron, this is a developer issue, you can't always chose who you play against, esp in CW and Tourney's.

作者： BASED Ironail, 22.06.2011 at 12:23

(just before the haters start saying I'm butthurt, this discussion arose after I beat Cacao when he essentially failed to turnblock me in first turn in Vienna with a bomber, since I moved all my troops out before doing my moves).

Tell me you learnt that from our Austria vs Poland matches.
I agree with the turnblock issue, also it's kind of lame that a single bomber division can stop huge armies, maybe the system has to be reworked so you can only proportionally block.

I'd forgotten it was there, but maybe, Aristo, maybe.

作者： Fruit, 22.06.2011 at 12:26

Sounds like something you can fix by just not playing assholes.

Turnblockers aren't assholes, they just want to win.

As long as it is possible to turn block, why shouldn't do it?
It is part of the possible actions in this game, and you cant block everything. So if people are not capable of building defence lines around heavy stacks or just split them, it is their personal problem.
But I agree with the suggestion of making first turn blocks impossible, because this really can decide a game.

作者： BASED Ironail, 22.06.2011 at 15:52

作者： Fruit, 22.06.2011 at 12:26

Sounds like something you can fix by just not playing assholes.

Turnblockers aren't assholes, they just want to win.

but if you ask them not to do so they become one.

Please disable turn block on first turn ! just let all units move freely, its ok if the cap is empty, i would rather be able to take a country so i have better troops to retake my cap. Meanwhile he did not capture anything with the units used to take my cap, so i had an advantage in units and can retake my cap. BUT when i use Marines, and they get stuck in my CAP I lost the game before it even started.

作者： Aristosseur, 22.06.2011 at 14:17

proportionally block.

This. Turn blocking chances should be weighted by the number of troops, or based on attack or something. 1 bomber shouldn't have a half/half chance to hamper 999 troops from moving, that's just unrealistic.

作者： Vespre, 24.06.2011 at 23:54

作者： Aristosseur, 22.06.2011 at 14:17

proportionally block.

This. Turn blocking chances should be weighted by the number of troops, or based on attack or something. 1 bomber shouldn't have a half/half chance to hamper 999 troops from moving, that's just unrealistic.

It is not unrealistic. Imagine all 999 soldiers are still sleeping, because it's morning when the turn begins. So 1 Bomber attacks the barracks or their outpost and they need the whole day to reorganize. Btw, 1 bomber is not 1 bomber, it is like a little formation of bombers.
Turn blocking adds more tactical aspects to the game and all you have to do is build a few defence lines around your heavy stacks, or just split them so your opponent cant turnblock them all.
Not that difficult.

作者： Guest, 25.06.2011 at 06:26

作者： Vespre, 24.06.2011 at 23:54

作者： Aristosseur, 22.06.2011 at 14:17

proportionally block.

This. Turn blocking chances should be weighted by the number of troops, or based on attack or something. 1 bomber shouldn't have a half/half chance to hamper 999 troops from moving, that's just unrealistic.

It is not unrealistic. Imagine all 999 soldiers are still sleeping, because it's morning when the turn begins. So 1 Bomber attacks the barracks or their outpost and they need the whole day to reorganize. Btw, 1 bomber is not 1 bomber, it is like a little formation of bombers.
Turn blocking adds more tactical aspects to the game and all you have to do is build a few defence lines around your heavy stacks, or just split them so your opponent cant turnblock them all.
Not that difficult.

As we are talking companies of infantry and squadrons of bombers: 1 squadron of bombers wouldnt be able to pin down 999 companies of troops. i'll be nice and say maybe 20. Problem with proportional blocking though is that we'll see shitloads of 999 unit stacks instead of spreading it out, which IS unrealistic.

Turnblocking isnt a problem unless you play SM and PD, if you feel otherwise then you are playing your strategy wrong SO for the same guys to whine about turnblockign and PD beeing OP... so fail guys... so extremely fail. Until PD gets an attack nerf, which Ivan has said no to, there is no gain in ruling out turnblocking. Unless u play said strategies.

What they COULD do to eliminate turnblocking is to add an option for forced peace status among all players at start. That of course has its drawbacks for the blitzers out there, but all tweaks has its downsides. Just a matter of what you are willing to lose by gaining a new feature/tweak.

作者： Zol, 25.06.2011 at 11:20

作者： Guest, 25.06.2011 at 06:26

作者： Vespre, 24.06.2011 at 23:54

作者： Aristosseur, 22.06.2011 at 14:17

proportionally block.

This. Turn blocking chances should be weighted by the number of troops, or based on attack or something. 1 bomber shouldn't have a half/half chance to hamper 999 troops from moving, that's just unrealistic.

It is not unrealistic. Imagine all 999 soldiers are still sleeping, because it's morning when the turn begins. So 1 Bomber attacks the barracks or their outpost and they need the whole day to reorganize. Btw, 1 bomber is not 1 bomber, it is like a little formation of bombers.
Turn blocking adds more tactical aspects to the game and all you have to do is build a few defence lines around your heavy stacks, or just split them so your opponent cant turnblock them all.
Not that difficult.

As we are talking companies of infantry and squadrons of bombers: 1 squadron of bombers wouldnt be able to pin down 999 companies of troops. i'll be nice and say maybe 20. Problem with proportional blocking though is that we'll see shitloads of 999 unit stacks instead of spreading it out, which IS unrealistic.

Turnblocking isnt a problem unless you play SM and PD, if you feel otherwise then you are playing your strategy wrong SO for the same guys to whine about turnblockign and PD beeing OP... so fail guys... so extremely fail. Until PD gets an attack nerf, which Ivan has said no to, there is no gain in ruling out turnblocking. Unless u play said strategies.

What they COULD do to eliminate turnblocking is to add an option for forced peace status among all players at start. That of course has its drawbacks for the blitzers out there, but all tweaks has its downsides. Just a matter of what you are willing to lose by gaining a new feature/tweak.

It's even not a problem if you play SM/PD it's just about drawing 3 units out of the city and building lines.

Agreed

作者： Guest, 25.06.2011 at 06:26

作者： Vespre, 24.06.2011 at 23:54

作者： Aristosseur, 22.06.2011 at 14:17

proportionally block.

This. Turn blocking chances should be weighted by the number of troops, or based on attack or something. 1 bomber shouldn't have a half/half chance to hamper 999 troops from moving, that's just unrealistic.

It is not unrealistic. Imagine all 999 soldiers are still sleeping, because it's morning when the turn begins. So 1 Bomber attacks the barracks or their outpost and they need the whole day to reorganize. Btw, 1 bomber is not 1 bomber, it is like a little formation of bombers.
Turn blocking adds more tactical aspects to the game and all you have to do is build a few defence lines around your heavy stacks, or just split them so your opponent cant turnblock them all.
Not that difficult.

I know that one troop is one formation.

It is not realistic. One squadron cannot disrupt 999 squadrons. Maybe 5 or 6, but not an entire stack.

Defence lines? That can only work on land, if you have a shitton of infantry/tanks with you. What about over water?

Splitting them isn't a guarantee, it just makes the stakes lower. He blocks less, but you attack with less. Splitting a stack also makes it less powerful in both attack and defense, and when you're talking about stacks in the hundreds, that's a BIG advantage being lost.

you basically contradicted yourself. you say that each troop is a separate squadron, but you also say that if a 999 stack is attacked by ONE bomber squadron, the entire stack needs to reorganize. They're separate, so they should still be able to move, regardless of whether or not a lone bomber unit attacked them. They don't need to "reorganize", the way you said, since they are still separate entities. They can leave the "attacked" units behind.

作者： Vespre, 25.06.2011 at 14:48

作者： Guest, 25.06.2011 at 06:26

作者： Vespre, 24.06.2011 at 23:54

作者： Aristosseur, 22.06.2011 at 14:17

proportionally block.

This. Turn blocking chances should be weighted by the number of troops, or based on attack or something. 1 bomber shouldn't have a half/half chance to hamper 999 troops from moving, that's just unrealistic.

It is not unrealistic. Imagine all 999 soldiers are still sleeping, because it's morning when the turn begins. So 1 Bomber attacks the barracks or their outpost and they need the whole day to reorganize. Btw, 1 bomber is not 1 bomber, it is like a little formation of bombers.
Turn blocking adds more tactical aspects to the game and all you have to do is build a few defence lines around your heavy stacks, or just split them so your opponent cant turnblock them all.
Not that difficult.

I know that one troop is one formation.

It is not realistic. One squadron cannot disrupt 999 squadrons. Maybe 5 or 6, but not an entire stack.

- 999 squadrons in one city is also not realistic. -

Defence lines? That can only work on land, if you have a shitton of infantry/tanks with you. What about over water?

- What about destroyer lines? -

Splitting them isn't a guarantee, it just makes the stakes lower. He blocks less, but you attack with less. Splitting a stack also makes it less powerful in both attack and defense, and when you're talking about stacks in the hundreds, that's a BIG advantage being lost.

- max 1 stack blocked -> you will be able to move more units than if you only have 1 stack which get blocked -

you basically contradicted yourself. you say that each troop is a separate squadron, but you also say that if a 999 stack is attacked by ONE bomber squadron, the entire stack needs to reorganize.

- Still only an example. Or do you want to tell me the whole game is completely realistic. -

They're separate, so they should still be able to move, regardless of whether or not a lone bomber unit attacked them. They don't need to "reorganize", the way you said, since they are still separate entities. They can leave the "attacked" units behind.

- "Imagine all [...] soldiers are still sleeping, because it's morning when the turn begins. So 1 Bomber attacks the barracks or their outpost and they need the whole day to reorganize." -

^ It's not feasible for 1 bomber to kill a shitton of infantry. Likewise, one bomber can't hold back a shitton of troops.

A sky menace user shouldn't have to bring 35 destroyers with him across the pacific just so he can make defense lines.

you're repeating yourself. 999 troops are all separate, one bomber unit can't possibly even see all 999 of them, let alone hold them all back.

999 in one city is feasible, if you take the city to mean the urban areas, suburban areas, and the immediately surrounding areas.

The turrets should be able to destroy the turnblock. You could make useful.

This is why turn block needs to be removed or heavily modified. I'm sure amok and the other guy did not intended for it to be used like this or at all, it must be a side effect of this http://afterwind.com/home/faq.php?faq_id=43

Here is an idea for a fix, only hold back the number of troops required to actually kill the unit or units... If/when the unit/units die then any unit that did not roll moves on to destination.

Is this possible?

I don't know if it is possible, but is the best choice so far.

Note we're not talking about turnblocking as a whole, it's a really awesome thing and probably the only way to beat someone bigger than you - we are talking about first turn turnblocking which can make someone lose completely within seconds. It completely stops expansion whereas in later game while it may be annoying but will likely not make you lose besides when someone blocks you while they have your capital , but honestly that's your own fault and it's the only defense someone has to keep it capped.

作者： Fruit, 28.06.2011 at 00:11

Note we're not talking about turnblocking as a whole, it's a really awesome thing and probably the only way to beat someone bigger than you - we are talking about first turn turnblocking which can make someone lose completely within seconds. It completely stops expansion whereas in later game while it may be annoying but will likely not make you lose besides when someone blocks you while they have your capital , but honestly that's your own fault and it's the only defense someone has to keep it capped.

Exactly.
Turnblocking in general is a principal part of this STRATEGY GAME and forces the player to think about his moves. It punishs for mindless stacking and spaming. I already wrote about the way how you can prevent getting blocked and it's not a big deal.

作者： Vespre, 25.06.2011 at 20:13

A sky menace user shouldn't have to bring 35 destroyers with him across the pacific just so he can make defense lines.

Just use units out of your bomber or whatever stack and spread them around your stack, your main stack wont get blocked then, same effect like if there would be no turnblocking. Furthermore, if you're too lazy or just don't have the time for the spread-thing, no one forces you to build stacks of >50 units, split them and your opponent wont be able to block them all, START THINKING ABOUT WAYS, why do you play a game like Afterwind if you're not even able to solve that simple problems?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

On the contrary, first-turn-blocking: Can decide a game in the first turn and it's completely random. Most important thing to fix at the moment!

作者： the99percent, 27.06.2011 at 18:36

Here is an idea for a fix, only hold back the number of troops required to actually kill the unit or units... If/when the unit/units die then any unit that did not roll moves on to destination.

Is this possible?

yeah, this is the most sensible solution.

Amok might have to change some things, since I'm pretty sure the current system first does movements and then calculates battle results, in two stages.

It'd have to be changed to something like: move, battle, move the held back units that survived, and battle the held back units.


Turn-blocking shouldn't have a role as a major strategy, it's cheap and chance-based.

I disagree, it should be an integral part of the game.

Just not in the first week.

Why should it be part of the game? This is a strategy game, how does it make sense that I can invest more then you into a battle and come out losing, esp in a scenario such as 1 bomber squadron vs 100? lets say I have 4 stacks of 10 units, with only 4 units you have a 50% chance to stall all my forces, (yes i am not taking into account move order, but let say your first 4 moves were to move those 4 units and my first 4 were also to move my 4 stacks, it all works out to be around 50% either way) meanwhile your real army moves on right past, this makes no sense for any type of strategic game play.

One big problem with turn blocking is you cannot counter it in 1 turn, turn blocking prevents you from countering itself... as once your in range of his units he can trap you there, with only a 50% chance you will be able to break up your stack on the next turn, or the turn after that.

Want to add a recent example I had as well. with 3 units I was able to stall a enemy from taking my cap for 3 turns, he had a 20 stack of tanks and was obv less experienced in the game, He was unable to really do anything as my first move was always to send 1 unit to attack his stack, is this how a strategy game should be played?

He should've made defence-lines. But he was a less skilled player. Thus, you won, he lost.

We don't have to agree if turn-blocking is a thing to avoid in the whole system or just in the first week. The real issue is that it should be changed so it can't happen, at least, in the first week, because it can decide the whole game without any chances of counter besides luck.

So, let's, at this moment, think about the first proposal and see if it's possible to change it in the first place, because if it's impossible there is no reason for other discussions.

作者： the99percent, 29.06.2011 at 11:22

Why should it be part of the game?

I agree with you, but you're totally wrong. He wouldn't have a 50 chance, but a .5^4 chance, since there are 4 different stacks. He'd have a 6.25 chance of blocking all 4 stacks.


Everything else you say is right.

Ironail, you overlook a few things, just as everyone in this thread. Defence lines can only work on land. Over water, there are problems.

1. Bringing a stack of destroyers solely for the purpose of defence lining is not only an economic hassle, but will slow you down distance wise.

2. It's not even possible to ensure that the stack goes untouched, since air transports can't hold destroyers. All they have to do is hold back the destroyer stack, or attack the defense lines, and they are free to turn block the shit out of you.

3. Making multiple lines to prevent #2 from happening is a big time setback, and still isn't foolproof.


The only way defense lines are viable is if you are not crossing a large body of water.

Also, the entire premise behind this is full retarded. 5 soldiers can easily hold back 13 or 15 or maybe even 20 soldiers. If 5 soldiers attacked an army of 355, the vast, VAST majority of that army would be totally unaffected.

Indo, you cant use simple math like that, ill explain why. You are assuming we move each unit that will fight each other in the same order to the same unit, highly unlikely, it is more like he will move his units like this, lets say he has units 1 2 3 4 and i have stacks 5 6 7 8. each move is a turn, so on his first 4 turns he moves 1 2 3 4 in that order onto my 5 6 7 8, but i did not do the same, Lets say I moved my units in this order, 8 7 6 5 , in this case, my 8 will move before his 4, my 7 before his 3, so my units 7 and 8 will get their moves etc, in essence instead of trying to figure it out this math (which is super complex as it has variables to the power of whatever), I generalize and say half of his units at least will hit their target and half will miss, it's definitely not 6 though.