Special Traits Generals by user decision

Well basically what you do with your general in the game (Or what you do generally in a game and not your general, since your general represents you.)

special traits get developed. This can be negative but also good.

Special traits can become 2 things:
A unit modifier, as in units get more range, more attack.
Just a tag to show what kind of person you are:
-Favours Stealth units
-Favours Air units
etc.

This was a really cool feature in the total war games series (Medieval, Rome, etc). dunno how possible it is to implement in AW though

Here's some good ones for some negative effects:

"Ally Spammer"
gained when a player habitually allies more than 2 players per game
effect: -1 hp to all units in players capital

"Turncoat"
gained when a player habitually un-allies to attack his allies
effect: the title "turncoat" should be highly visible (discourages other players from allying with you)

@Guest: Love the TW traits!

Oh this is a great idea.
and i would like to add brutal slaughter doesn't Allie with anyone and wins 1+ attack
allying with three people every game 1+ defense or something like it

or dose it have to be like that one game if you cross it over several games that you do it will take a bit longer to get that. so it not easy to get every game and have them all. i think it adds balance.

and TW is awsome

作者： Sificvoid, 27.03.2011 at 15:09

Here's some good ones for some negative effects:

"Ally Spammer"
gained when a player habitually allies more than 2 players per game
effect: -1 hp to all units in players capital

"Turncoat"
gained when a player habitually un-allies to attack his allies
effect: the title "turncoat" should be highly visible (discourages other players from allying with you)

I'm sooo much in favor of this.

I would like it if there was a way where the general could gain the stealth ability and be able to go on subs. and fight with marines.. or for out SM people the general gains flight and distance.. but units in stack get -1 defense.

... I kinda feel this would ruin the game due to the fact that it would show your strategy to everyone. Also, imagine how complicated of an algorithm this would be.

作者： MarcJr, 27.03.2011 at 16:18

I would like it if there was a way where the general could gain the stealth ability and be able to go on subs. and fight with marines.. or for out SM people the general gains flight and distance.. but units in stack get -1 defense.

there is a problem with the stealth idea and that when they add the kill the general games. you can hide the general on let say south pole or north but it is an idea marc. i hate cold truths but there it is

作者： Psychostick, 27.03.2011 at 18:00

... I kinda feel this would ruin the game due to the fact that it would show your strategy to everyone. Also, imagine how complicated of an algorithm this would be.

algorithm?? how about +1 to a variable every time you execute a particular action? when you get to +10 (or what ever) you gain the trait defined by that action

作者： Xavier Agamemnon, 27.03.2011 at 18:28

作者： MarcJr, 27.03.2011 at 16:18

I would like it if there was a way where the general could gain the stealth ability and be able to go on subs. and fight with marines.. or for out SM people the general gains flight and distance.. but units in stack get -1 defense.

there is a problem with the stealth idea and that when they add the kill the general games. you can hide the general on let say south pole or north but it is an idea marc. i hate cold truths but there it is

well then in that type of game stealth generals can still be in stealth but just have a different ring around them..... I just want to send him in with different troops.. hell if its a general he should be able to do anything he wanted..

hell 5Ksp and you get a stealth general.

If this were implemented, I would probably just kill my general off at the beginning of every game in order to hide my strategy. I agree 100% with Zeroaintdead in saying that this would cause a lot of problems for the game as a whole.

Here are a few
Dictator-Efects the amount of troops able to produce and is adjusted based on the Win Loose % of player.
IE a good win makes troops easyer for them to get dou to there Popularity and a bad win percentage makes the public feer joining the army
Great Oritator-Raise income or lowers troop cost

You could also do as suggested and make it so based on a players ingame actions thins go +/- for there general like was said But i would give it a score like polotics score a politc shore of say 100 would alow you yo alli up with another country for a few turns with out aproval of the player where as a -100 may make it so when some one sends you a alli offer you cant except it unless they send it more them one time or it could make you have to wait a few turns before you can say yes.

a +/- system could be implimented for every aspect or score in the game but theses are the ones previosly brought up so im trying to stay on subject.

作者： Psychostick, 27.03.2011 at 18:00

... I kinda feel this would ruin the game due to the fact that it would show your strategy to everyone. Also, imagine how complicated of an algorithm this would be.

People figure out your strategy after a while anyways. Personally, I think you live with the consequences of your in game decisions.

Anyway this is all really just speculation until Amok or Ivan comments.

It seems like too much meta-gaming, in the sense that how you acted in other games effects your current games. I think it's a bad idea for several reasons
1: players would quickly figure out how to get the positive traits and avoid the negative ones, and there'd be no real downside
2: there are a lot of reasons for breaking an alliance. maybe several small countries allied against a very strong one, and when it was defeated they decided that they wanted to keep the game going and declared war on each other. Or, a weak player with a stronger ally he knew was about to betray him declared war in order to gain whatever little advantage they can. Or maybe an ally disconnected so you declared war on him so you could take this territory before your enemies did.
In these three cases and plenty of others, the act of breaking an alliance isn't necessarily an act of betrayal, so it's absurd to make assumptions that will permanently affect a player.

Ultimately, long time players will be familiar with each others' strategies, while newer players would barely benefit from knowing another player's rough strategy, so I don't see a point for the labeling business.

My second suggestion was:

Traits without any bonus. No trait will give bonuses.

However, it may be that you gain a trait by buying a SP upgrade for your general.



Of course, this may ruin your strategy IF you gain traits that describe your way of playing. If we do not add this, it won't be spoiled. However this also indicates that you should perhaps play with another strategy, not always the same one. That way your opponent may guess wrong and horribly die, even though you pretty much see someones strategy after you see their men.

... Also in the above post, alliances aren't supposed to be used if you are going to wage war again, peace is meant for that. Sure, there may be some cases to break one alliance. A simple fix for this would be that you are able to "propose" an alliance break... ? But that's not part of this suggestion.

Suggestion for a trait that may say what you usually do.

Duelist
Likes to duel against other players

Skilled Duelist
Won the majority of the duels.

etc.