Settlements, Towns and cities

[TntAttack]

I propose we fix the current towns system, quite inequal and matches are almost always decided based on numerical number of production facilities, of which the leading player gets more of.

I think we should emulate the AoM concept of settlements, towns and cities.

For those that aren't familiar, basicly settlements only produce infantry and transports, towns infantry, transportable equipment like aa, arty and etc. Cities can produce everything including aircraft and naval ships.

To develop your settlement/town, I believe you need a specific industry and an engineer to apply his ability upon to the settlement or town.

Each player should start with a city and the TCS (filler word for whatever towns, cities and settlements are called) should be generally randomly much like in AoM.

My only fear with this idea is that with all the radical gameplay changes we have made that this would make the game too drastically different and that it might deter older and current long time players from playing.

And that I am burdening the dev for such a small matter.

Tho for once this change might not break singleplayer and actually give new tools for map makers....

Your thoughts guys. Do you currently like or hate this current TCs system. Would you rather keep it as its a distinct flavour of this AOWw variant and rather not cross contaminate withs gameplay features with that of AoM?

[DreJaDe]

I propose we fix the current towns system, quite inequal and matches are almost always decided based on numerical number of production facilities, of which the leading player gets more of.

A quick view tells me otherwise though. It looks even more unequal. Though I'm still looking.

But all in all I kinda disagree.

In AOMW, it have a lot of timeline that the population was able to grow while in AOWW, the population just dropped and dropped.

There weren't really any upgrade in the settlement system that happened in ww2 nor is there a population growth. It's also quite a short amount of time so there isn't even really a time for such thing to happen...

But I think a unique idea can be done like maybe making the spawned towns in ruins and will need fixing to be used. Or at least only infantry could be trained.

Then maybe we could now apply scorch earth and things like that.

[TntAttack]

A quick view tells me otherwise though. It looks even more unequal. Though I'm still looking.

You don't make sense. It's not but it is more?

But all in all I kinda disagree.

In AOMW, it have a lot of timeline that the population was able to grow while in AOWW, the population just dropped and dropped.

There weren't really any upgrade in the settlement system that happened in ww2 nor is there a population growth. It's also quite a short amount of time so there isn't even really a time for such thing to happen...

Although the time frame was short, the crux of the proposed idea is to balance TCs by making them adhere to reality in as so much that nations had production cities that could produce advance vehicles and aircraft.

Further on along this idea could be that scorch earth concept of yours.

Towns and settlements were rural and undeveloped places that can't miraculously produce a German junker out of thin air, after a 3 turn jeep liberated them from the pacifist grey neutrality they had.

I find in most of my matches, where I have a fringe town located far from the action, I must always produce aircraft or naval units as its logistically (distance to travel to frontlines) a more viable choice.

Although this does make this fringe area weaker to enemy incursions, it also means that my overall airforce/navy is greater than my opponent, hence the inequality.

By restricting advance vehicles and aircraft to industry specific facilities and production cities, we can make for a more dynamic and exciting gameplay whereas in the player has more desire to hold on to key strategies cities and towns.

Also, I think it might pair well with the machine gunner update that is currently in the works.

[DreJaDe]

You don't make sense. It's not but it is more?

Short explanation is that it actually makes the game unequal.

I tried making a game and it spawned me with town and a village while all my enemy all have a all towns.. That's kinda bad.

For me
It's either all spawned TCs will be a town or upgradeable villages. While we spawn with a town. Which is kinda what I suggested but chance things up with ruined TC and normal TC because it doesn't fit in AOWW game theme.

Although the time frame was short, the crux of the proposed idea is to balance TCs by making them adhere to reality in as so much that nations had production cities that could produce advance vehicles and aircraft.

In reality, we could easily rename then to cities...

Towns and settlements were rural and undeveloped places that can't miraculously produce a German junker out of thin air, after a 3 turn jeep liberated them from the pacifist grey neutrality they had.

Although this is what you see, it can actually be a different thing in explanation altogether. If we really apply reality, you also don't spawn infantry out of thin air and IRL, it would take more time to produce adult soldiers to fight. Something like 30 turns per infantry should be more realistic...

By restricting advance vehicles and aircraft to industry specific facilities and production cities, we can make for a more dynamic and exciting gameplay whereas in the player has more desire to hold on to key strategies cities and towns.

Reading this, I keep thinking that this would just push for stalemate that you hate... Everyone will set up defence that at the point of plane's existence, the germans will have already set up their OP AA in all key areas.

Playing this game for a month now again and I still see so many people playing the infantry spam game which is more robust than any other strats. And this idea will just push for that more.

Also, I think it might pair well with the machine gunner update that is currently in the works.

I think so too. But think about it. Does this really push for a more dynamic game? Or does it only push for the one side of the dice?

To finalize my comment. I actually like the idea of changing things up with towns but I think there's a better way to do this and of course there will be a disagreements which I hope you all are ok.

[TntAttack]

Short explanation is that it actually makes the game unequal.

I tried making a game and it spawned me with town and a village while all my enemy all have a all towns.. That's kinda bad.

For me
It's either all spawned TCs will be a town or upgradeable villages. While we spawn with a town. Which is kinda what I suggested but chance things up with ruined TC and normal TC because it doesn't fit in AOWW game theme.

I have played 2 games of age of Modern, haven't experienced what you have, although Dahee did in one match have to run further than me, it is a minor issue I see in AoWw as well. Ideally the village/town/city spawn and placement is to be balanced and fair.

Towns and settlements were rural and undeveloped places that can't miraculously produce a German junker out of thin air, after a 3 turn jeep liberated them from the pacifist grey neutrality they had.

Although this is what you see, it can actually be a different thing in explanation altogether. If we really apply reality, you also don't spawn infantry out of thin air and IRL, it would take more time to produce adult soldiers to fight. Something like 30 turns per infantry should be more realistic...

Ah. It's interesting how you interpret this. I guess I will explain what I thought was obvious.

Between reality and what can be implemented in game (esp with what we have), there is a line we can draw and define as realistic enough for the sake of simplicity and in the interest of players playing the game e.g no 30 turn infantry training, no months years research time.

I found that TCs with the ability to make more powerful units outclass the usefulness of infantry esp in competitive matches where the infantryman is cannon fodder used to push an attack. When both players infantryman spam counters each other's infantryman spam out, it's left to the advance bombers and tanks, or naval units in a naval map. (That is, the player with the most can easily overrun the player with less)

Reading this, I keep thinking that this would just push for stalemate that you hate... Everyone will set up defence that at the point of plane's existence, the germans will have already set up their OP AA in all key areas.

Playing this game for a month now again and I still see so many people playing the infantry spam game which is more robust than any other strats. And this idea will just push for that more.

It's possible, but do digress on how and why this could occur. I can't rule out a stalemate occurring, but am notbsure how exactly. Human ingenuity and the ability to blunder is quite strong.

As for infantry spam, it could be a balance issue if players are opting to use infantry over tanks and aircraft. Perhaps we should increase the price of smg units as well to 3?

This would make aircraft much more valuable e.g. one 6 turn bomber or 2 smg units. Pick one. So perhaps not? What do you suggest? Is there balance issue regarding infantry right now?

[DreJaDe]

have played 2 games of age of Modern, haven't experienced what you have, although Dahee did in one match have to run further than me, it is a minor issue I see in AoWw as well. Ideally the village/town/city spawn and placement is to be balanced and fair.

Currently, there's no city spawn in AOMW and I found put that spawning villages is lower than towns which further solidifies what i mean that this will not solve the problem of spawn and just do the opposite.

I found that TCs with the ability to make more powerful units outclass the usefulness of infantry esp in competitive matches where the infantryman is cannon fodder used to push an attack. When both players infantryman spam counters each other's infantryman spam out, it's left to the advance bombers and tanks, or naval units in a naval map. (That is, the player with the most can easily overrun the player with less)

I actually found the current tactics to be more realistic. It's either combined arms or there's some player that will do modern ones and some who will do ww1 style.

And in all honesty, I don't agree with you at all. Counters are much more cheaper than offensive units. 2 turn subs vs 12turn BS? 2-3 turn AT vs 4-8 turn tanks? From what I see, its more based on skill, luck and experience.

While that is true that stronger player can easily win against weaker player, it's not like they don't have a chance.

I experienced this quite a lot and is experiencing it currently.

As for infantry spam, it could be a balance issue if players are opting to use infantry over tanks and aircraft. Perhaps we should increase the price of smg units as well to 3?

My opinion to this is that it's actually quite realistic. How much planes, tanks, artillery do we have vs infantry IRL? Infantry would always be much more numerous unless it's a cavalry type.

It's not really a balanced issue for me but more on how just it works.

Though for SMG, my opinion to that is to limit it to barracks. Or to make them weaker. IRL, their guns arent really that strong. Using SMG's in ww2 is not that better than rifles cause SMG have shorter range and weaker punch. They are only good at close ranges. Making them 3 turn seems to be not worth as they are as useful to me as rifleman.

Though I do have another idea which is to buff rifleman again. Make them deal more damage.

[TntAttack]

I found that TCs with the ability to make more powerful units outclass the usefulness of infantry esp in competitive matches where the infantryman is cannon fodder used to push an attack. When both players infantryman spam counters each other's infantryman spam out, it's left to the advance bombers and tanks, or naval units in a naval map. (That is, the player with the most can easily overrun the player with less)

I actually found the current tactics to be more realistic. It's either combined arms or there's some player that will do modern ones and some who will do ww1 style.

And in all honesty, I don't agree with you at all. Counters are much more cheaper than offensive units. 2 turn subs vs 12turn BS? 2-3 turn AT vs 4-8 turn tanks? From what I see, its more based on skill, luck and experience.

While that is true that stronger player can easily win against weaker player, it's not like they don't have a chance.

I experienced this quite a lot and is experiencing it currently.

I agree with you that it's based on skill, luck and experience, but the probability of winning against a numerically superior (in industry and population as they are quite closely linked) opponent drops considerably once the gap widens.

(Only exception if the player had invested in naval assets that can compensate for a lack of industry, although their disadvantage still exists, albeit less)

In regards to counters, as you implied, they are a defensive cost effective units that can block the attackers offensive for less.

But even then, what next? You have successfully defended, but can you keep it up forever? Assuming your opponent isn't stupid to leave a obvious hole in his defense, sooner or later you are going to run out of counters after he counters your counters.

Guerrilla warfare only works you can deal more damage then what you can take. For every turn you fight or run, the enemy gains a larger and larger economic advantage (turns worth of value).

To top it off, if the opponent
- Hits your industry, makes you such setbacks
- Takes your town, even for a second. Gains another industry, in addition to the numerical industry advantages he has.
- Spams almost uncounterable units without sufficient strength e.g. battleships, jet fighters, mass trucks of infantry and artillery.
You lose.

Therefore in conclusion, it's not fair the the winning player can squeeze the life out of the weaker player simply because he has access to almost every unit, the ability to spam and counter whatever the losing player may throw at him.

The villages, towns and cities adds a depth and variety that the game currently lacks. Since you agree that infantry spamming is realistic, what's wrong with this set up that promotes mass infantry battles with the occasional bomber/tank/ship or two?

I don't claim that this idea will prevent players from begin defeated by a more numerical opponent, but it could decrease the probability. (Or so how I see it)

[DreJaDe]

The villages, towns and cities adds a depth and variety that the game currently lacks. Since you agree that infantry spamming is realistic, what's wrong with this set up that promotes mass infantry battles with the occasional bomber/tank/ship or two?

It's a problem because it forces the game into stalemates more. That's what im saying since early on.

I like infantry battles but I don't like to make the game even harder than it is when it comes to that. And like I said, its not realistic. The game also bases on real life so we need to factor that also.

Therefore in conclusion, it's not fair the the winning player can squeeze the life out of the weaker player simply because he has access to almost every unit, the ability to spam and counter whatever the losing player may throw at him.

And I don't see how making the tc spawn even more unfair could make the game more equal.

And in reality, even if the tc spawn is equal, this will still fail to solve the supremacy of the other player... It more like further solidifies it... It will just do the opposite.

Think about it. How could the weaker player even contest on this type of set up? You fail to explain how it would have solved that problem.

The way I see it. A more economic player could produce more output or equal the output to the weaker player and focus on development. While the weaker player could only just focus on making defences to counter the other player.

IRL this is like Germany VS allies or USA vs Japan. Germany and Japan might have successes early on, but the economic output of the allies came up on top in the end.

And BTW, this is the most successful example... If we followed your suggestion, the results will just turn more worse.

[TntAttack]

You know what. You are right. I dug myself a hole trying to defend my point via saying it would be easier for the weaker player to defend if there is a point difference.

Simply, the game would make far more "stalemates", of which the weaker player can have more of an easier time as the enemy's production of units isn't capable of producing non infantry units e.g bombers and fighters, from fringe towns which can stack into the already advantageous position they have.

This way its truly a contest of skill, of the firepower power of both sides were roughly similarly, the disadvantaged side can still make a comeback.

Especially if there are key strategy cities you want to hold and deny your enemy.

But to say that this would make weaker players combat stronger player is crazy, I apologise for the confusion.

[Jasondunkel]

I like the idea of making the cityscape a little more interesting.

I like the idea of differentiating between villages, towns and industrial centres.

also that villages can only produce small things, cities more or everything and industrial centres can also produce everything. here the question is whether units that have a construction time of 7 rounds or more can then get a round plus x in production there.


all in all, there is a more realistic picture in the game.

the actual problem of the distribution of production sites is not solved by this, but only distributed differently. because the problem is almost always that one or the other has better access to the tc's.

only a few cards , as drejade has done . this problem of random distribution is always unequal.

the question is can the random generator work better there? @stratego?

[b2198]

So what I understood from this is that different TC types have different values in quality in AoWW? That's worth noting for the rework of the TC generation code, though that's unlikely to be implemented in the logic in the near future, since there are many other points that have a higher priority right now (it's not even near in-game testing stage yet), unless Stratego thinks otherwise and says this is a higher priority feature for the generation code.

[DreJaDe]

So what I understood from this is that different TC types have different values in quality in AoWW? That's worth noting for the rework of the TC generation code, though that's unlikely to be implemented in the logic in the near future, since there are many other points that have a higher priority right now (it's not even near in-game testing stage yet), unless Stratego thinks otherwise and says this is a higher priority feature for the generation code.

It was already done in AOMW.

I don't think there's a need for a full rework of anything.

The problem we have here is whether or not the idea is good.

[b2198]

So what I understood from this is that different TC types have different values in quality in AoWW? That's worth noting for the rework of the TC generation code, though that's unlikely to be implemented in the logic in the near future, since there are many other points that have a higher priority right now (it's not even near in-game testing stage yet), unless Stratego thinks otherwise and says this is a higher priority feature for the generation code.

It was already done in AOMW.

I don't think there's a need for a full rework of anything.

The problem we have here is whether or not the idea is good.

No no, I mean the rework of the TC generation code that will (hopefully) make it give more balanced distributions of TCs.

[TntAttack]

Should we ask some AoMw players if this is a big enough issue to warrant a code fix?

[TntAttack]

@Everyone... So in order for a discussion to progress, there has to be a consensus on what everyone opinion is. I am rather hesitant to rush this idea as it's quite a massive change in gameplay, and I understand Drejade concerns about stalemates and unbalanced town generation.

However, those concerns aside, what else? Let's wrap up this discussion.