New Tech Tree and Victory Conditions Concept

[TntAttack]

I have found the game to have lost some of its original charm. Perhaps the unreasonable, unbalanced nature of the game previously spurn on imaginative potential and fostered a united community.

Since the last few updates, the game has become more and more polished, and I really like it.

However there are several things this game is needing or in dire need of, that I speculate could bring back the liveliness and life of this game.

1. New Victory Conditions

2. Fraction Based Tech Tree

3. Customisation


1. Victory Conditions Concept

The game is about a world war on a national level. The game should reflect this. (Skirmish game mode including multiplayer, campaign unchanged)

I propose the introduction of 2 new Victory conditions instead of the plain old genocide of every little infantryman hiding in the bushes.

1.1 Atomic Research Technology.

The US, UK, Germany, Japan, Russia all should have atomic research as a victory condition. Italy and France should have some other alternative.

How it works, see Tech Tree below.

1.2 Numerical Town Total
[Edit 2]
Players who own 85% of the total map wins. Allied player's percentage of total towns count in team matches.

-Jason suggested 90% of maps greater than 20x20 tiles.
-Drejade said 100% total towns

Players could end the game immediately after reaching 85% or 90% total towns coverage or leave later. This would be nice esp on larger maps, which after owning 70-80% of the map makings cleaning up a chore.

[End of edit 2]

2. Fraction Based Tech Tree

The game menu tech tree needs a update. It's unappealing, unlogically but it works. Keep it or change it, if you can.

However the technology research of the ingame matches is sorely lacking.

[Edit 1]

As you know, currently in in game matches we have several unit upgrade variants for several units e.g. zeros, German anti tanks guns, etc.

We also have fraction based bluffs like usa's War Machines and the Russian's Great Patriotic War which are a great concept just poorly implemented.

Theses are great but in the game it feels half complete esp since you gain better units anyways from leveling up your industry. For example, take the redundant fighter planes research tech line e.g. zero tier 1, zero tier 2, zero tier 3 all inferior to jet fighters esp when the resources used to produced and research zeros could be used to industry up.

I propose for each fraction their own tech tree with different areas to "research" in.

Note: Main tech tree = Current game tech tree

Ingame tech tree= Proposed miultiplayee ingame tech tree.

Whether they are both the same and or affect each other much like how the main tech tree currently which units you have unlocked is up for debate. I reason that doing that would make it harder for newbies to win multiplayer matches as they would have to invest in multi areas just to have a decent tech pathway.

Unless we give them some starting funds.

[End of Edit 1]

2.1 The Idea: Air, Ground, Navy, Secret.

Tech Tree divided into different areas.
Example Concept:
(For simplicity sake the tree below is really just a table)

US Ground:

Line One: Stuart Tank--> Mlee Tank--> Medium Tank Industry
Two: Us Light Arty --> US heavy mortar (not real) --> etc
Three: Recon jeep--> Light Tank->>etc

-Insert rough sketch here once I figure out how to upload an image that can't be over approxly 370kbs in size.

See 2.3 Tech Tree Suggestions

2.2 Nuclear Research!

Line One: Heavy Water->> etc
Line Two: Physics research ->> Potassium (?)->>>
Line three: etc ->>> etc->> Nuclear Atom Tech

[Edit2]
Note: Should atomic nuclear research constitute instant victory or a precondition to victory by science?

There are no atomic weapons by any other nation except USA during the Ww2 (to my knowledge). Therefore it's not fair to let only the USA have nuclear capabilities.

1. We make the USA a starter nation, with op end game I.e can nuke other players.
2. We make the game end once a nation gains nuclear technology.
3. Other?


2.3 Tree Tech Suggestions

Tank Armour plating: Bonus+1 armour
Infantry Training: Infantry+2 damage
Infantry Grenade armament upgrade: All grenades do 15 percent more damage.

We could add tech about radar:
Naval Radar Tech: Enable all naval units to see further and increase attack by xx and range by 1.
Counter Rader Tech: Disables opponent radar effect. (E.g. Only counter Normal radar tech, not advanced radar tech)

We could add tech about Encryption and Code-breaking
Enigma machine : Prevents enemy espionage (or x) ability
Code Cracking : Designed to crack enemy communications.

Suggestions on what these abilities these tech can provide?

Priority on the radar, as the current radar tech sucks.

3. Customisation


3.1 Unit and City Customisation

Unit names or identifiers like "31th airborne divison" that players can set on groups of units e.g. select 4 infantry, name write/select/randomly-generated to 1st infantry division.

Additional features: In game chat bot would announce the destruction of every division e.g. "Bluebeard's 7th tank division has been destroyed by Player2".

Cities should come with a name that is visible underneath or above their sprite image. Name could be randomised to prevent nasty player made names, not that I believe that would be too much of a problem.

[End of edit2]

[DreJaDe]

2. Honestly, the tech tree could be what the upgrade section already is.

I actually agree on this so much if it is as such. The gem upgrades should be arranged more logically and more progressive from the last and that no things that are different altogether (like buying planes then suddenly the next one is a ship)

But if you meant it like what we buy is what we have "IN GAME" like buying a tech 2 upgrade will instantly make us have them at the start of a game. Then I disagree.

2.2 I can agree with nuclear research but instantly winning is not... Cause people will just rush it. There's not really much explanation to salvage this idea of an instant win.

3. Not much use to naming a unit but for towns? Then yes. I think setting up a city upgrade with preconditioned name should be possible. Like Britain having New York or Germany having Tokyo.

For 1.

I somewhat agree with this but with a somewhat different idea.

Instead of 85%, I more agree with 100%. Cause rushing tc is quite easy in small map. The games can be over quite easily so no.

Now, like I said. I don't agree with instant win.

Instead, it should be like when I have 100% of tc, other enemy units on map should be revealed (preventing hidden units hunt) or a time limit for enemy to capture a town for the player who dont have any tc.

(Should only work in multiplayer.)

[Jasondunkel]

I have found the game to have lost some of its original charm. Perhaps the unreasonable, unbalanced nature of the game previously spurn on imaginative potential and fostered a united community.

Since the last few updates, the game has become more and more polished, and I really like it.

However there are several things this game is needing or in dire need of, that I speculate could bring back the liveliness and life of this game.

1. New Victory Conditions

2. Fraction Based Tech Tree

3. Customisation


1. Victory Conditions Concept

The game is about a world war on a national level. The game should reflect this. (Skirmish game mode including multiplayer, campaign unchanged)

I propose the introduction of 2 new Victory conditions instead of the plain old genocide of every little infantryman hiding in the bushes.

1.1 Atomic Research Technology.

The US, UK, Germany, Japan, Russia all should have atomic research as a victory condition. Italy and France should have some other alternative.

How it works, see Tech Tree below.

Addtional mechanics: Espionage can affect research and give other players information on the level of research you are up to.

1.2 Numerical Town Total

Players who own 85% of the total map wins. Allied player's percentage of total towns count in team matches.

When a player gets 85% or more of the total towns, he unofficially wins. The game proceeds as normal, dubbed the resistance phrase but it really for anyone who likes finishing off their opponents or ingame lobby chatting.

The winning players can immediately leave and claim victory. The losing players can choose to resign or keep on fighting.

Summary: Button for winning player to claim victory once he gets 85% total towns. Game can continue despite one player or team winning owning 85% of the map.
Button for losing player to quit or continue playing despite losing already.
Change permission to allow defeated players to see entire map and chat as well once winning player has reached 85%.

2. Fraction Based Tech Tree

The game menu tech tree needs a update. It's unappealing, unlogically but it works. Keep it or change it, if you can.

However the technology research of the ingame matches is sorely lacking.

[Edit 1]

As you know, currently in in game matches we have several unit upgrade variants for several units e.g. zeros, German anti tanks guns, etc.

We also have fraction based bluffs like usa's War Machines and the Russian's Great Patriotic War which are a great concept just poorly implemented.

Theses are great but in the game it feels half complete esp since you gain better units anyways from leveling up your industry. For example, take the redundant fighter planes research tech line e.g. zero tier 1, zero tier 2, zero tier 3 all inferior to jet fighters esp when the resources used to produced and research zeros could be used to industry up.

I propose for each fraction their own tech tree with different areas to "research" in.

Note: Main tech tree = Current game tech tree

Ingame tech tree= Proposed miultiplayee ingame tech tree.

Whether they are both the same and or affect each other much like how the main tech tree currently which units you have unlocked is up for debate. I reason that doing that would make it harder for newbies to win multiplayer matches as they would have to invest in multi areas just to have a decent tech pathway.

Unless we give them some starting funds.

[End of Edit 1]
2.1 The Idea: Air, Ground, Navy, Secret.

Tech Tree divided into different areas.
Example Concept:
(For simplicity sake the tree below is really just a table)

US Ground:

Line One: Stuart Tank--> Mlee Tank--> Medium Tank Industry
Two: Us Light Arty --> US heavy mortar (not real) --> etc
Three: Recon jeep--> Light Tank->>etc

With a bit of tweaking and balances, we can even add stuff like "Tank Armour plating: Bonus+1 armour" , "Infantry Training: Infantry+2 damage".

Think of the possibilities!

"Infantry Grenade armament upgrade" All grenades do 15 percent more damage.
Naval Radar Tech" Enable all naval units to see further and increase attack by xx and range by 1.
Counter Rader Tech" Disables opponent radar effect. (Only counter Normal radar tech, not advanced radar tech)

Start with the older and prewar units. As the tech tree advances, we gain better and better units in each field.

2.2 Nuclear Research!

Line One: Heavy Water->> etc
Line Two: Physics research ->> Potassium (?)->>>
Line three: etc ->>> etc->> Nuclear Atom Tech

Once you get the tech, you win the same.
If both players or teams get the tech, either we have a tie, or we continue normally (lame) or we continue with nukes enabled.

Note: Should nuclear research breakthrough constitute instant victory or a precondition to victory by science?

3. Customisation

3.1 Unit and City Customisation

I would like to name my units or there to be a random name generator for my units. I would also like to have renames on towns so that they aren't as dull.

3.2 Player Avatars

Would be nice, not necessarily.


To be continued or edited if post is popular

the atomic bomb should not be a prerequisite for victory. because the goal is that we can all use the A-bomb. if harchie put it really well into aomm and stratego is happy with it, it should go here too. with a bonus for the usa. We can rate the game as a win at 85%, I would find it better at 90%. I think this idea is a good one. However, with maps that are larger than 20x20.

the research tree is different for the nations.
in terms of the matter at hand, i sometimes have the feeling that i don't need to research one or the other thing because i have one or the other right away thanks to something better.

E.g. with the fighter planes you don't need to research everything because the jet planes are coming soon

or when it comes to tanks, i really have to research the very heavy tanks because you actually get along very well with the medium tanks or only heavy tanks.
i.e. the appreciation for some research matters is not really given.

So here the question arises whether it doesn't make more sense to let the industrial areas run longer.
research currently takes 10 rounds.
it should then last maybe 20 rounds so that what has been researched can also be used sensibly.

here I know the stratego that doesn't really want to.

[TntAttack]

the atomic bomb should not be a prerequisite for victory. because the goal is that we can all use the A-bomb. if harchie put it really well into aomm and stratego is happy with it, it should go here too. with a bonus for the usa. We can rate the game as a win at 85%, I would find it better at 90%. I think this idea is a good one. However, with maps that are larger than 20x20.

More on this please.
1. Atomic bomb not prerequisites for victory by science because?

There aren't much useful nuclear weapons from all sides that we could incorporate so I reason we should make getting the nuke the winning condition.

E.g. USA getting atomic bomb, okay. What about the Japanese? It doesn't make sense to continue, how would the post nuclear research match proceed?

2. 90% on larger maps sounds good.

the research tree is different for the nations.
in terms of the matter at hand, i sometimes have the feeling that i don't need to research one or the other thing because i have one or the other right away thanks to something better.

E.g. with the fighter planes you don't need to research everything because the jet planes are coming soon

or when it comes to tanks, i really have to research the very heavy tanks because you actually get along very well with the medium tanks or only heavy tanks.
i.e. the appreciation for some research matters is not really given.

This reflects my experiences very closely.

So here the question arises whether it doesn't make more sense to let the industrial areas run longer.
research currently takes 10 rounds.
it should then last maybe 20 rounds so that what has been researched can also be used sensibly.

here I know the stratego that doesn't really want to.

I just drew a rough sketch of the tech tree so everyone could see but this website refuses to let me submit a file 372 kbs for being too large.

And it was in black and white

My understanding is that if we had a proper tech tree that scales well with the approx timeline of the current industry technology (about 10 turns give or take), we could scrap the industry tech altogether.

The difference would be that instead of industrying up for no reason, there would be tech like e.g. heavy tank construction, heavy bomber construction, advanced training for infantry if required to adjust the tech tree so that players don't get powerful units too fast and soon.

@Stratego (dev) What is the feasibility of this idea?

[DreJaDe]

So here the question arises whether it doesn't make more sense to let the industrial areas run longer.
research currently takes 10 rounds.
it should then last maybe 20 rounds so that what has been researched can also be used sensibly.

I agree that it should take more longer.

This will really make many of my upgrades feel more worth it instead of just rushing jets.

Because of this also, the ally navy will have more chances in game for now.

[Stratego (dev)]

We can think of making eras dependant of other techs or buildings.

Eg. 2nd industry can only be started if you invented writing and you own an airport for instance.

[TntAttack]

We can think of making eras dependant of other techs or buildings.

Eg. 2nd industry can only be started if you invented writing and you own an airport for instance.

This just delays industry upgrade, making it less attractive to industry up.. Negatively balances for weaker fractions dependant on better units later in game.

As for extending industry time, it's a bit of a missed opportunity to do something with those 10 so turns of no development like setting a tech tree that unlocks units progressively.

And to prevent players from getting too power units, we can delay such units under tech blocks like "heavy tank industry", "Naval ship industry", "Submarine industry" to accommodate for the lack of era industry tech.

[Stratego (dev)]

i wrote it as alternatives to a simple increase in ERA costs (they talked about 10->20 turn for example)

[DreJaDe]

This just delays industry upgrade, making it less attractive to industry up.. Negatively balances for weaker fractions dependant on better units later in game.

Is there a weaker faction in early game though?
I would say most of them are somewhat equal.

It's the later part which is the problem.
The jets being available in tc
The 2 turn type 21
The Yamato
The IOWA

I don't also get the logic you made here. Seems too opposite.
"Making it less attractive to industry up" then saying that it negatively balances the other faction dependent on later parts of the industry.

[TntAttack]

This just delays industry upgrade, making it less attractive to industry up.. Negatively balances for weaker fractions dependant on better units later in game.

Is there a weaker faction in early game though?
I would say most of them are somewhat equal.

It's the later part which is the problem.
The jets being available in tc
The 2 turn type 21
The Yamato
The IOWA

I don't also get the logic you made here. Seems too opposite.
"Making it less attractive to industry up" then saying that it negatively balances the other faction dependent on later parts of the industry.

Apologies, I was writing with my outdated understanding that the Japanese fraction was really weak in industry 1.

Negatively balances was poor wording.

I meant that weaker fractions (like the Italians I guess in this case, Japan is pretty powerful compared to before) have to endure for longer periods of long without getting better units which would favour stronger fractions.

My assumption is that there are stronger and weaker fractions that would benefit and lose from having a longer industry Era tech upgrade.

Besides this, in the interest of the player, we have to give them clear goals for them to work towards with favourable rewards. Hence my progressive in match tech tree idea.

[Dahdee]

This thread seems like it should be 2 separate subjects.

For the first thing, the victory conditions, yeah. Definitely a good idea. I would add that, if I understand correctly anyhow, the idea of holding a percentage of the map as a victory condition, is a good way to go. Also, obviously, holding most or all towns is a no brainer as well. I agree with both point of views here. What I would add is this:

1) For victory based solely on percentage of land occupation, make victory contingent upon holding that land for a set number of turns. Not just instant victory, make it a fight.

2) the requirement to hold 100% of towns... Not sure I agree 100% there. I think it should be a very high percentage (unless of course it's some kind of map where there's only 4 towns or something like that.) So, if the map has over a certain number of towns, it should not take occupying every town to win. But, should certainly be most of them.

Another idea in relation to this is to give a specific town a weight, call it a capital. If you take that and hold it for a specified amount of time, that gives a victory.

[Dahdee]

For the second thing, the tech tree or whatever we want to call it...

In the interest of not completely rebuilding the game I think we should stick to what we are currently working with, the industry eras.

The tech tree idea as I understand it has great merit. I like the idea. If it were a simple thing to implement, I think it's something we should explore. However, I'm not sure that's the case. I could be wrong, I don't have a developer version, and don't know what it would take to implement that, so if I am mistaken, I apologize.

All of that being said, perhaps the best way forward is to alter the timeframe of the industries.

I am for extending them.

I am also for adding another one, in addition to extending them.

I also think older tech should be cheaper to produce once the era advances, with the caviat that nothing is ever reduced below 2 turns, to avoid spam.

[Dahdee]

I meant that weaker fractions (like the Italians I guess in this case, Japan is pretty powerful compared to before) have to endure for longer periods of long without getting better units which would favour stronger fractions

Off topic, but I think the answer to Italy is to make their stuff cheaper to produce. Beyond industry 1 they are simply not competetive with the other nations. And, absent some fantasy alternate reality units, I don't think they can ever hope to be.

[Dahdee]

I did that, didn't I? Yeah, everything after "Off topic, that's me saying that, not TntAttack. Sorry man.

[Dahdee]

The recent changes to the AA bonuses and the changes to prop plane and jet damage bonuses are great too. As far as the industrial eras are concerned, they extend the usefulness of many mid tier and late game units, as far as planes are concerned. Some of the other technology ideas like spall liners, etc, could be explored to add more life to the units we have.

I mention this because if we do extend the timeframe of the eras, if there are more tech to advance, that will make it less of a race to just advance the timeframe (like spamming supplies to research of Industry). That plays into what Stratego said about making prerequisites to advance as well.

[TntAttack]

I find sometimes the biggest problem with thinking about new ideas is that it's dependent on another idea being implemented. And that idea complements another idea which is not yet introduced.

Seems like we don't want a unit tree tree. E.g tank a to tank b.

A passive tech tree sounds nice e.g. radar, additional eeapons and special bonuses.

Not ideal for "researching" as a prerequisites for the era tech. It's more of a side tech than a mandatory tech.

So the question is what kind of "main" tech should there exist as prerequisite before the era tech?

What about the following concepts that have been raised. Brainstorming would be much easier if I knew exactly how much overlap to other mechanics can my idea go.
1. Capital city
2. Settlement, Towns, Cities
3. Currency.

And yea, dahee I pretty much agree with you, just not sure how to visualise it implemented.

Q3: I know currency for units is not something that is planned if even possible. What about currency for researching?

What about a dedicated research building like the aoM? What about nuclear technology as a alternate victory condition?

What about a mechanic to raze or bomb cities to distrust production and tech?

What about espionage and code cracking?

Sorry. It's late, just want to write something to consolidate my thoughts. Answers appreciated.

[Jasondunkel]

we all agree that as a first step we increase the industry level to 20 rounds.

so that we bring that into the next version?

[DreJaDe]

I'm ok with 15-20

Though as they said. A prerequisite before teching up is also fine. Except that it takes time so the easier solution is fine for now.

As for @TntAttack
Sry didn't see.
Disrupting tc and factory is actually an idea I also have. Currently working on the idea itself.

Researching = winning is definitely a no for me.

Dedicated research center is fine and all but we way too few research techs anyway unlike in AOMW and atomic bombs in this games seems to be still too far away from reach.

Espionage and code cracking is fine but that already exist in spy though spies are kinda bad unit currently.

Currency outside gold is impossible.

[SS-Jericho]

I am also okay with 20. However a tech II start setting should be added.

Tech I is too tough to play because it is bland where you play what you have when you start. While all tech is about using the best units for the rest of the game without any progression. Tech II start is a lot fun, change my mind.

[TntAttack]

we all agree that as a first step we increase the industry level to 20 rounds.

so that we bring that into the next version?

Sorry for the late reply but maybe not 20. 15 is okay, 10 is best right now. I don't see much benefit in changing the era length if there is nothing new to research during the researching period.

[DreJaDe]

we all agree that as a first step we increase the industry level to 20 rounds.

so that we bring that into the next version?

Sorry for the late reply but maybe not 20. 15 is okay, 10 is best right now. I don't see much benefit in changing the era length if there is nothing new to research during the researching period.

It is to make the other research worth.

Like for Germany. Upgrading the panzer 4 is useless once you turned to industry 3 when the panther becomes available and becomes the same cost at 6 turns.

For allies, spitfire upgrades becomes useless after you enter the 3rd industry. And overall, the jets becoming available during this time all more for Germany who have it available in TC.

It is worth to increase it and I definitely disagree that 10 turns is the best.

[TntAttack]

There has to be more tech pathways in order for this to be ideal. Feels pretty restrictive if you ask me, holding back player rewards and giving them titbits of progress via few tech pathways.

The solution I guess is if there was at least 2 tech pathways for each air, sea, ground categorises.

(To be honest, my biggest beef with this idea is that I don't like the tech advancement path of most units, hold the phone, don't you need era 2 tech to even advance most if not all unit pathways? Example, jp zero, spitfighter)

[DreJaDe]

There has to be more tech pathways in order for this to be ideal.

This is stop gap rather than a permanent solution.

And no for spitfire that is available from the start. And if it so then that makes the idea to add more time per industry tech as zeroes are only useful for such short amount of time.

The solution I guess is if there was at least 2 tech pathways for each air, sea, ground categorises.

This just made it more harder though... Now you will need more tc to tech up instead of 1.

[Jasondunkel]

There has to be more tech pathways in order for this to be ideal. Feels pretty restrictive if you ask me, holding back player rewards and giving them titbits of progress via few tech pathways.

The solution I guess is if there was at least 2 tech pathways for each air, sea, ground categorises.

(To be honest, my biggest beef with this idea is that I don't like the tech advancement path of most units, hold the phone, don't you need era 2 tech to even advance most if not all unit pathways? Example, jp zero, spitfighter)

TNT it's not supposed to stay with the 20 more rounds of research, it's supposed to be a combination. further ways come.

say your suggestion with possible splitting of the research should then be added in a modified form.

as I wrote to you, I don't think it's good the way you recorded it

I don't think it's good that we have the rifleman and only then build up all the types of infantry in research.

but for example we could take the rocket research as a basis which is then needed for the "Panzerfaust", Bazooka,
for the Germans, this must also be researched for the v1 and v2

for everyone else it is then the prerequisite for developing the jet engine