How to fix the balance of AtWar

With all due respect to the team responsible for the game's development, I come here to shout my humble opinion into the void. This post is the result of my dissatisfaction with the current role that Strategies play in the game, going far beyond numbers for nerfs / buffs, but directly touching AtWar's own game design.

---

Balance in AtWar
Balance is often interchanged with "fairness" in many contexts, but game design requires a higher standard in order for a game to be considered balanced. Balance is a property of a game that involves the relative value of the game's choices. When a game is balanced, players begin with the perspective of their starting goals, each decision holds value and the outcome of the game is revealed during final scoring.

In this post I will not address the issue of Upgrades, which hinder the development of the game for newcomers.

Game design balance covers expansive topic and to assist in breaking it down we have three categories of balance:

• Internal Balance: related to the Upgrades that the player has, as well as his premium subscription, which grants him access to the General and rare units.
  
• External Balance: encompasses the player's intent at the beginning of the game, being composed of all available Strategies.
  
• Positional Balance: it is related to the map/scenario to be played, as well as the number of cities and reinforcements.

---

Design considerations when creating a new Strategy

• Symmetry: how does the Strategy interact with all the others? Are they very similar or divergent and is this intentional?
  
• Internal balance issues: how does it interact with the player's Upgrades?
  
• Repetition: does the Strategy offer enough variety of mechanics or is it simply a repetitive back-and-forth sequence?
  
• Tactic saturation: are there at least three or four legitimate paths to victory?
  
• Pacing conditions: how does the Strategy act when directly confronting or retreating units every turn, or dealing with scenario-only mechanics?

---

Strategy Complexity
The span of complexity encompasses the entirety of a Strategy from unit stats to the other mechanics and layout to player decision trees. The key areas of complexity in game design is striving for a high depth to complexity ratio and the playing value created through emergent gameplay.

AtWar will benefit if the people responsible for the meta development strives to aim for a high depth to complexity ratio. By decreasing the cognitive burden on players while increasing their opportunity to make interesting decisions, a game will become simpler to balance, more enjoyable to play and generate a better reputation upon every match. This ratio can be improved using two simple methods:

• Reduction of Complexity: eliminate mechanics and unit stats constraints which contribute a proportionally small amount of strategic depth.
  
• Expansion of Depth: extend existing ideas in a way that increases strategic value while adding a minimal amount of complexity.

---

Emergent gameplay
Games with a high ratio of depth to complexity can sometimes be described as easy to learn but difficult to master. These games feature a simple set of rules and an important game design concept known as emergent gameplay.

अवतरण:

Emergent gameplay refers to complex situations in video games, board games, or table top role-playing games that emerge from the interaction of relatively simple game mechanics.

In AtWar, we might define emergent gameplay as having two key components:

• A simple ruleset (a.k.a unit stats or Ethos).
  
• Strategies cannot be fully deciphered simply from knowing the game controls.

Applying emergent gameplay is one of the most difficult tasks in game design. It requires successful playtesting and convergent but harmonious ideas.

---

Utility
Utility is defined as the usefulness of something, the ability of a product or service to satisfy needs or wants. In a game, the utility might be defined as the "meta".

At the current state, AtWar fails to increase utility through a reduction of complexity, something that, in the long run, becomes extremely counter-productive, even unfeasible.

We can increase utility through the reduction of the length of Strategies, and an expansion of the options available.

---

Pacing and choices
In my opinion, one of the biggest flaws of the Strategies today is the complete ignorance of the value of pacing.

Pacing has the ability to build focus and motivation in a gaming experience so that the next turn feels more important than the last turn. Since pacing has a tendency to play out over the timeline of a game, a shorter playing time can preclude the effectiveness of many interesting approaches to pacing. The longer a game lasts the more options it can potentially employ to implement pacing. Pacing is largely determined by what players are doing, how efficiently they do it and how they approach the end of a game. Take a look at this article on Wikipedia: Freytag's pyramid.

Much of the AtWar Strategies are not conditioned to the "dramatic arc", they act as cake recipes, where players have only mechanics which encourage chaining actions one after another, it feels like the player has no control/liberty over his own game.

---

The importance of the Ethos in Strategies
The Ethos of a Strategy can be defined as a clash between theme and mechanics. It must present clever, elegant, or unusual resolutions to in-game issues, showing information in a concise, centralized, or attractive manner. It provides familiarity, purpose, clarity, assurance, parsimony.

The nature of an Ethos can be described in three ways:

• Supplementary Ethos: weak theme, strong mechanics. Strategies that require changes in order to become used more often.
  
• Heavy Ethos: strong theme, weak mechanics. Might be unfriendly to new players or demand Upgrades to be worth something.
  
• Inseparable Ethos: balanced theme, balanced mechanics. This is what good Strategies look like, Imperialist, Lucky Bastard and Iron Fist are great examples of that.

---

Suggestions for the future
I have a series of suggestions and changes that could be implemented after a few playtests, but I prefer not to post them here for now so as not to scare everyone! But at first this is it:

• Remove self-sabotage: many Strategies have unnecessary nerfs that will just induce players to error.
  
• Keep options open: today, most Strategies offer a SINGLE path to victory, destroying other options. When in fact they should offer an EASY way to victory, while keeping the other roads open.
  
• Transparency: let everyone see, opine, test frequently.
  
• Special units: make better use of special units like Anti-aircraft, Sentry Plane, Buildings.
  
• New Strategies: in my opinion, AtWar needs an absurdly high wave of new Strategies, something that may become easier to implement if the suggestions I made above are followed. Think of games like League of Legends or Counter-Strike, players have dozens and dozens of heroes or weapons available, imagine if LoL had only 20 heroes, or if CS offered only 15 different weapons. All players would be conditioned to do the same thing over and over again, saturating the game quickly.

---

Graph reference

The radar format chart was made to roughly illustrate a comparison between the robustness of all strategies subject to change. All Strategies were categorized through six AtWar intrinsic mechanics: Attack, Defense, Movement, Health, Luck, Economy. I will refer to such mechanics simply as "Attributes". Considering a performance grid that varies from 0 to 5, the default value of the sum of all Attributes is 12. The "None" Strategy has 2 points in each Attribute.

The value of an Attribute does not depend purely on the bonuses and penalties related to the units, as it must also take into account the Strategy orientation and the internal, external and positional balances. Imperialist, Lucky Bastard, Blietzkrieg, and Relentless Attack, were not modified, since they already show good results. The "forgotten" (or abandoned) strategies, such as Scorched Earth and Hold the Line, were not considered, since they require greater care and more time for analysis to have a satisfactory status, something I already started to do more than 7 months ago in the days of Garde. Overview of the impact of the changings I'm purposing:

Strategy	Attack	Defence	Luck	Movement	Health	Economy	Total value
Naval Commander	4	3	2	3	2	1	15
Desert Storm	3	1	2	4	2	1	14
Master of Stealth	3	2	2	3	2	2	14
Perfect Defence	2	4	2	1	2	3	14
Great Combinator	2	2	2	2	4	2	14
Hybrid Warfare	3	3	2	2	2	2	14
Insurrection	3	1	2	2	2	4	14
Imperialist	1	2	2	2	2	5	14
Sky Menace	4	1	2	4	2	1	14
Blitzkrieg	2	1	2	5	2	2	14
Counter-Insurgency	2	3	2	3	2	2	14
Lucky Bastard	2	2	5	2	2	0	13
Relentless Attack	3	1	2	3	2	2	13
Iron Fist	2	2	2	0	5	2	13
Guerrilla Warfare	2	0	2	3	2	4	13
Industrial Powerhouse	2	3	3	2	2	1	13
None	2	2	2	2	2	2	12

Please note that the table above and the graphs below doesn't represent the quality of the Strategy as a whole, many of them are pretty situational, such as Naval Commander and all the ones air/stealth-oriented. Its nothing but a parameter for the exercise we're doing here.

---

Desert Storm
Orientation: Ground/Air units.
Updates: Make DS more about movement and economy management.


Helicopters

• Decrease attack bonus from +2 to +1.
  
• Decrease range bonus from +3 to +2.

Bombers

• Remove the range penalty.

Tanks

• Decrease cost penalty from +30 to +20.
  
• Remove defence penalty.

---

Guerrilla Warfare
Orientation: Ground/Stealth units.
Updates: Slightly increase GW defensive capacity, making Infantry a unit more similar to the Militia, while transports return to their standard expansionary capacity at a higher cost (redundancy removal).


Infantry

• Decrease attack penalty from -2 to -1.
  
• Decrease defence penalty from -2 to -1.
  
• Increase range penalty from -1 to -2.

Transport

• Remove range penalty.
  
• Increase cost penalty from +150 to +200.

Air Transport

• Remove range penalty.
  
• Increase cost penalty from +200 to +250.

---

Iron Fist
Orientation: Universal.
Updates: Considering that the Militia is unable to leave cities (without transport), and that IF is a strategy that makes large-scale movement/detection almost impractical, it's an adjustment for large countries/continents.


Militia

• Receives +1 defence against Marines and Submarines only.

---

Master of Stealth
Orientation: Stealth units.
Updates: Submarine becomes a more effective when fighting naval units. Air Stealth is more cost-effective. A few more minor adjustments and redundancy removal.


Submarine

• Decrease attack bonus from +2 to +1.
  
• Decrease range bonus from +2 to +1.
  
• Remove critical chance bonus
  
• Increase HP by +1.

Stealth

• Remove range bonus.
  
• Increase the critical chance from +2 to +4.

Marines

• Increase defence by +1.
  
• Decrease cost discount from -40 to -30.

Tanks

• Remove range penalty.
  
• Remove defence penalty.

Destroyer

• Remove all penalties

Infantry

• Decrease critical chance by -2.

---

Perfect Defence
Orientation: Ground units.
Updates: Internal balance issue. Adjustment that has a greater impact only on small presets or low-fund scenarios.


Transport

• Increase cost by +30.

---

Naval Commander
Orientation: Naval units.
Updates: Attempt to leave NC a strategy with some efficiency on the ground for slightly higher costs.


Tanks

• Remove attack/defence penalties.
  
• Increase cost by +10.

Marines

• Decrease attack by -1.

---

Sky Menace
Orientation: Air units.
Updates: Changing it from Supplementary Ethos to a Heavy Ethos.


Tanks

• Remove cost penalty.

Helicopters

• Increase attack by +1.
  
• Increase range by +2.

Air Transport

• Increase attack bonus from +1 to +2.

Anti-Aircraft Defences

• Decrease cost by -200.

---

Insurrection
Orientation: Ground units.
Updates: Greater synergy with internal balance. Transports return to their standard expansionary capacity at a higher cost (redundancy removal).


Militia

• Increase critical chance bonus from +2 to +3.

Infantry

• Remove attack penalty.
  
• Increase critical chance by +2.

Marines

• Decrease attack penalty from -2 to -1.

Submarine

• Remove attack penalty
  
• Remove range penalty.
  
• Increase cost penalty from +150 to +200.

Transport

• Remove range penalty.
  
• Increase cost penalty from +150 to +200.

Air Transport

• Remove range penalty.
  
• Increase cost penalty from +200 to +250.

Recruitment Center

• Increase cost by +400.

---

Industrial Powerhouse
Orientation: Ground units.
Updates: Attempt to make IP a strategy more focused on luck and economy, forcing a certain defensive posture of the player.


Militia

• Decrease range by -2.
  
• Increase critical chance by +2.
  
• Remove cost penalty.

Tanks

• Remove defence penalty.
  
• Decrease range by -1.

All naval units

• Decrease defence by -1.
  
• Increase critical chance by +4.

All air units

• Decrease attack by -1.
  
• Increase critical chance by +4.

All buildings

• Increase critcal chance bonus from +2 to +4.
  
• Increase defence by +2.

Recruitment Center

• Reduce cost by -600.

Fortifications

• Reduce cost by -500.

Anti-Aircraft Defences

• Reduce cost by -300.

Bank

• Reduce cost by -300.

Radar Array

• Reduce cost by -150.

Coastal Battery

• Reduce cost by -130.

---

Great Combinator
Orientation: Universal.
Updates: This makes GC a universal-oriented strategy, instead of focusing only on land units. It can be as good as IF.


Bombers

• Decrease attack by -1.
  
• Decrease defence by -1.
  
• Increase HP by +1.

Destroyers

• Increase HP by +1.
  
• Increase cost by +20.

---

Hybrid Warfare
Orientation: Universal.
Updates: Incisive attempt to make HW an even more universal-oriented, leaving Militia off balance and correcting inconsistencies with values.


Militia

• Remove all bonuses and penalties.

Stealth

• Remove all penalties.

Tanks

• Remove cost penalty.
  
• Decrease defence penalty from -3 to -1.
  
• Decrease range by -1.

Bombers

• Reduce cost by -30.

Submarine

• Decrease attack penalty from -2 to -1.
  
• Decrease defence penalty from -2 to -1.
  
• Increase discount from -25 to -40.
  
• Remove range bonus.

---

Counter-Insurgency
Orientation: Air units.
Updates: CI is now less focused on a single unit, having greater gameplay strength. Also flirts with Buildings. It needs another name, "counter" in the gaming world might sound different from the military term, imo.


All units

• Increase view bonus from +1 to +4.

Helicopters

• Increase range by +2.

Marines

• Remove attack penalty.

Submarine

• Remove attack penalty.

Stealth

• Remove attack penalty.

Sentry Plane

• Receives +2 defence against Tanks and Infantry only.

Radar Array

• Reduce cost by -150.

Fortifications

• Reduce cost by -500.

Anti-Aircraft Defences

• Reduce cost by -100.

---

Note: This study was made based on the MDA framework, which is a formal and iterative approach to understanding games developed in 2004.

Well made and structured post. However I disagree with the conclusion that ''AtWar needs an absurdly high wave of new Strategies''. I do however agree that strategies such as Imperialist, Lucky Bastard and Iron Fist are some of the most well designed strategies the game has to offer.

What I think would be a better move, is for mapmakers to have the ability to create custom strategies for their maps. That way the mapmaker himself can customise strategies well tailored for the map. Ideally some event units could also be locked behind specific strategies, as the mapmaker himself sees fit in terms of balance.

This way the competitive meta does not get radically changed, and people can personally balance for their own maps, which will lead to the most satisfactory result for everyone. In time, perhaps a custom strategy could even be considered good enough to be incorporated as an official one.

Estus shall bring balance to the force

I don't get your point, how did you come to it, or what you're even trying to suggest. All I see here is a couple of abstract observations without any real solutions or suggestions that can be applied to the game, and that don't actually reflect how the game is played.

Also don't understand you last points. In CS:GO the AK and M4 have been the weapon of choice of everyone since the inception of the game. In LoL and other MOBAs you will never ever see every hero played in a tourney, most of the time only 40% of the heroes get more than 5 picks. Because players will always figure out a superior option, and the superior option will always be played. Which is why the meta needs to be cycled and patches rolled out in a consistent basis.

Scenarios should however be able to have their own strats.

Actually I completely agree with everything you said, Estus, I don't know who wouldn't. For some reason it looks like 8 or 9 "high-rank" players have a monopoly over development and will not allow the game to transform. Do people realize how small the CW community really is? Why should they dictate the game play of 99% of atWar?

There needs to be an overhaul and millions of new strategies. There also needs to be "skills" that you can add to that perhaps influence certain speeds and whatnot, you should be able to add "skills" to the game and add to them with SP. You know what I mean?

The CW community needs to shut the hell up. If they want to continue their old game play style, then let them change the settings to allow for it in their specific games. But for the rest of atWar, there needs to be huge developments.

लिखा द्वारा The_Empirezz, 21.10.2020 at 13:52

What I think would be a better move, is for mapmakers to have the ability to create custom strategies for their maps. That way the mapmaker himself can customise strategies well tailored for the map. Ideally some event units could also be locked behind specific strategies, as the mapmaker himself sees fit in terms of balance.

I do agree with that. But this power to create custom Strategies would demand a huge change in AtWar, I guess only Dave could answer if this is even possible.

Right now I want us to work with what we got, keep our feet on the ground.

लिखा द्वारा Leo, 21.10.2020 at 14:03

All I see here is a couple of abstract observations without any real solutions or suggestions that can be applied to the game, and that don't actually reflect how the game is played.

Do you feel like AtWar gameplay improved in the last couple of years? If the answer is "no" (and I personally don't think it improved, its more like stucked), its because these abstract observations are not being worked on.

In this post I just wanted to pave the way for the direct changes I have in mind to at least be considered, not ignored. I've already pointed many flaws in AtWar's Strategies, but people simply don't understand why I suggested them to change. It happened before where others saw one of these suggestions, didn't liked, but no one was even able to tell me why they didn't liked it. That's why I felt the need of this considerations.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 21.10.2020 at 14:11

For some reason it looks like 8 or 9 "high-rank" players have a monopoly over development and will not allow the game to transform. Do people realize how small the CW community really is? Why should they dictate the game play of 99% of atWar?

Updating content of a game shouldn't have nothing to do with ranks or veterancy. It's about game design theory. Currently, there is absolutely none emergent gameplay in AtWar, to be honest, I think it never had. As I mentioned in the main post, AtWar increases the utility of its Strategies only by increasing complexity, when it should be exactly the opposite.

लिखा द्वारा Estus, 21.10.2020 at 14:17

Do you feel like AtWar gameplay improved in the last couple of years? If the answer is "no" (and I personally don't think it improved, its more like stucked), its because these abstract observations are not being worked on.

What do we exactly mean by "gameplay"? If it's the much needed quality of life improvements to the game, no, barely. But if we're talking about the actual meta, it didn't "improve", it changed. Every time I left the game and came back, the meta always changed to something new to a certain degree. The stuff that was viable back then back then is no longer a thing now. The game's pace and mindset also changed a lot.

But this is an observation coming from a competitive player. Not every atwar map is created equal, and not every atwar map is balanced. I think we all can objectively agree that the EU+ is arguably the most balanced setting in the game, hence why a lot of changes stem from there. It's hard to get a similar image on different settings, because there isn't much representative data or anything to play for. This is why I said your post doesn't reflect what's actually happening for the game. There are a lot of way to win in this game and pretty much every strategy has it's niche.

लिखा द्वारा Estus, 21.10.2020 at 14:17

In this post I just wanted to pave the way for the direct changes I have in mind to at least be considered, not ignored. I've already pointed many flaws in AtWar's Strategies, but people simply don't understand why I suggested them to change. It happened before where others saw one of these suggestions, didn't liked, but no one was even able to tell me why they didn't liked it. That's why I felt the need of this considerations.

Atwar's balance isn't perfect, nor will it ever be. But I don't see where it's coming from. Something must've pushed you to make this suggestion. And I don't believe it's the lack of variety in strategies, but more like of customization in the scenario maker. DS will never be viable in WW1 for example. This is why we need custom strats for maps and other customization options.

लिखा द्वारा Leo, 21.10.2020 at 14:03

LoL and other MOBAs you will never ever see every hero played in a tourney, most of the time only 40% of the heroes get more than 5 picks. Because players will always figure out a superior option, and the superior option will always be played. Which is why the meta needs to be cycled and patches rolled out in a consistent basis.

Of course, it will be never possible to balance a game 100%, there will always be an aspect that won't fit. But taking LoL as example, the balancing done in that game is extremely tight! If the same champions are always picked in tournaments, it's only because people are used to pick them, not because they are better than others. The vast majority of LoL players have to play with heroes in a random rotation that changes every week. Riot can throw any team of champions to play against any other team of champions, because they know things will work. I wouldn't consider this a game that was "superior options".

लिखा द्वारा Estus, 21.10.2020 at 14:34

I honestly don't really get why would you bring LoL into discussion. It only gives it less credibility.
1. LoL has a long time balance and powercreep issue. New champs are consistently more powerful than old ones, and the meta indicates some champs are simply way more powerful than others. Some lineups in LoL if you pick, you're literally gonna auto lose before the game even starts.
2. LoL isn't even that diverse of the game. Unlike other MOBAs you could've picked from to make a point, LoL actually forces you into 5 roles. Everytime this got upset and some team tried something new, it was immediately nerfed by Riot.
3. The rotation only happens because champs in LoL take money to unlock. Thing is, you should never balance a game based on the what the majority does. Balance should always stem and be observed from the top ranks/players. A bad player can make an overpowered champion look balanced, a good player will rape anyone and everything with him.

Anyways this is about atwar, I would really like to hear your direct suggestions about what needs to actually be done.

लिखा द्वारा Leo, 21.10.2020 at 14:30

I think we all can objectively agree that the EU+ is arguably the most balanced setting in the game, hence why a lot of changes stem from there. It's hard to get a similar image on different settings, because there isn't much representative data or anything to play for. This is why I said your post doesn't reflect what's actually happening for the game. There are a lot of way to win in this game and pretty much every strategy has it's niche.

It's not balanced just because you know what to expect from it, otherwise there would be no need for rules in tournaments.

लिखा द्वारा Leo, 21.10.2020 at 14:30

Atwar's balance isn't perfect, nor will it ever be. But I don't see where it's coming from. Something must've pushed you to make this suggestion. And I don't believe it's the lack of variety in strategies, but more like of customization in the scenario maker.

I didn't wanted to bring this up, but what pushed me into making this post had anything to do with mapmaking. I simply got shocked when I discovered that implementors dropped the concept of Strategies having an Ethos. I don't even know for sure if this is true, but the mere idea of having it removed from AtWar design made me write this down.

लिखा द्वारा Leo, 21.10.2020 at 14:30

Not every atwar map is created equal, and not every atwar map is balanced. I think we all can objectively agree that the EU+ is arguably the most balanced setting in the game, hence why a lot of changes stem from there. It's hard to get a similar image on different settings, because there isn't much representative data or anything to play for. This is why I said your post doesn't reflect what's actually happening for the game. There are a lot of way to win in this game and pretty much every strategy has it's niche.

There is only 1 way to win EU+, its expansion. You don't expand properly, following the step-by-step done by other hundreds of players, you lose. Thats why I'm not a big fan of competitive, because its all about expansion. Its the game mode that uses the least of AtWar's game design.

Wow, a well mannered/civilized discussion without any name-calling and flamewars.

I am impressed

लिखा द्वारा Estus, 21.10.2020 at 15:00

It's not balanced just because you know what to expect from it, otherwise there would be no need for rules in tournaments.

It's balanced in the sense every country has the same degree of power. It's fair. I can pick Ukraine vs Turkey and have a fair chance to win. I can pick France vs Spain and have a fair chance to win. This doesn't apply to a lot of other maps. I can't complain about the map being designed that way/unbalanced for me losing.

लिखा द्वारा Estus, 21.10.2020 at 15:00

I didn't wanted to bring this up, but what pushed me into making this post had anything to do with mapmaking. I simply got shocked when I discovered that implementors dropped the concept of Strategies having an Ethos. I don't even know for sure if this is true, but the mere idea of having it removed from AtWar design made me write this down.

If I understood you correctly, by ethos you mean the character of every strategy? It's uniqueness? Well the way I see right now every strategy is unique. No strategy offers the same thing as another, which is how the game should be.

लिखा द्वारा Estus, 21.10.2020 at 15:00

There is only 1 way to win EU+, its expansion. You don't expand properly, following the step-by-step done by other hundreds of players, you lose. Thats why I'm not a big fan of competitive, because its all about expansion. Its the game mode that uses the least of AtWar's game design.

There's one way to win in LoL, farm and destroy enemy ancient. There's one way to win in CS:GO kills and money. Point is, if you study any successful competitive game/esport, you will see that accumulating an advantage through expanding (be it farming, money, new countries etc) makes for exciting games. This is exactly why I think EU+ is the most balanced map there is, and why I think there's a lot of parallels AW can draw from other games.
On the other hands scenarios based on historical events are hard to balance, because you are limited by history and what actually happened in the conflict. Does stacking trenches in WW1 take skills? Despite being, imo, the best map made in AW and the one of the few map that could take the mapmaker to it's absolute limit, it's still objectively is struggling with balance and linearity, unlike EU+.

लिखा द्वारा Leo, 21.10.2020 at 15:49

If I understood you correctly, by ethos you mean the character of every strategy? It's uniqueness? Well the way I see right now every strategy is unique. No strategy offers the same thing as another, which is how the game should be.

I mean, its not only this. Reading what I wrote you will find out the exact reason why CI, INS and IP were launched, removed, and didn't got back since then. It's not about competitive, scenarios, EU+ or whatever, it's the modus operandi.

अवतरण:

There's one way to win in LoL, farm and destroy enemy ancient. There's one way to win in CS:GO kills and money. Point is, if you study any successful competitive game/esport, you will see that accumulating an advantage through expanding (be it farming, money, new countries etc) makes for exciting games. This is exactly why I think EU+ is the most balanced map there is, and why I think there's a lot of parallels AW can draw from other games.
On the other hands scenarios based on historical events are hard to balance, because you are limited by history and what actually happened in the conflict. Does stacking trenches in WW1 take skills? Despite being, imo, the best map made in AW and the one of the few map that could take the mapmaker to it's absolute limit, it's still objectively is struggling with balance and linearity, unlike EU+.

WW1 Isn't struggling with balance, It's a pretty balanced map with the expectation of Blitz UK, which blitz is banned in most ww1 games nowadays. In general, a huge portion of scenarios don't struggle with balance, and in general, scenarios are fun. Stacking trenchs may not need too much skill, but that's not including the other of other fronts in ww1.

लिखा द्वारा Estus, 21.10.2020 at 15:00

I didn't wanted to bring this up, but what pushed me into making this post had anything to do with mapmaking. I simply got shocked when I discovered that implementors dropped the concept of Strategies having an Ethos. I don't even know for sure if this is true, but the mere idea of having it removed from AtWar design made me write this down.

We have NOT dropped the need for strategies to have an ethos. I personally think this is important, and I've seen zero conversations in the Implementor's group suggesting otherwise. May I ask, what gave you the idea it was being removed?

लिखा द्वारा Fatcheek, 21.10.2020 at 16:17

WW1 Isn't struggling with balance, It's a pretty balanced map with the expectation of Blitz UK, which blitz is banned in most ww1 games nowadays.

Its completely unbalanced, I think you know that and is just trolling.

लिखा द्वारा Fatcheek, 21.10.2020 at 16:17

In general, a huge portion of scenarios don't struggle with balance.

I would say that a scenario needs around 10-15 playtests to develop the minimum balance required to play. If the mapmaker didn't playtested, then you can be 100% sure it's unbalanced.

लिखा द्वारा Estus, 21.10.2020 at 14:11

लिखा द्वारा The_Empirezz, 21.10.2020 at 13:52

What I think would be a better move, is for mapmakers to have the ability to create custom strategies for their maps. That way the mapmaker himself can customise strategies well tailored for the map. Ideally some event units could also be locked behind specific strategies, as the mapmaker himself sees fit in terms of balance.

I do agree with that. But this power to create custom Strategies would demand a huge change in AtWar, I guess only Dave could answer if this is even possible.

Right now I want us to work with what we got, keep our feet on the ground.

I've said before that I want to add custom strategies at some point. I still do, and its still on my list. But it will be a while because it's not easy and there are still too many other things needing attention first. So be patient

लिखा द्वारा Dave, 21.10.2020 at 16:18

May I ask, what gave you the idea it was being removed?

Gossip at its height.

लिखा द्वारा Dave, 21.10.2020 at 16:21

लिखा द्वारा Estus, 21.10.2020 at 14:11

लिखा द्वारा The_Empirezz, 21.10.2020 at 13:52

What I think would be a better move, is for mapmakers to have the ability to create custom strategies for their maps. That way the mapmaker himself can customise strategies well tailored for the map. Ideally some event units could also be locked behind specific strategies, as the mapmaker himself sees fit in terms of balance.

I do agree with that. But this power to create custom Strategies would demand a huge change in AtWar, I guess only Dave could answer if this is even possible.

Right now I want us to work with what we got, keep our feet on the ground.

I've said before that I want to add custom strategies at some point. I still do, and its still on my list. But it will be a while because it's not easy and there are still too many other things needing attention first. So be patient

Give custom strategies to premiums and allow general upgrades for non premiums pls

लिखा द्वारा Fatcheek, 21.10.2020 at 16:24

लिखा द्वारा Dave, 21.10.2020 at 16:21

लिखा द्वारा Estus, 21.10.2020 at 14:11

लिखा द्वारा The_Empirezz, 21.10.2020 at 13:52

What I think would be a better move, is for mapmakers to have the ability to create custom strategies for their maps. That way the mapmaker himself can customise strategies well tailored for the map. Ideally some event units could also be locked behind specific strategies, as the mapmaker himself sees fit in terms of balance.

I do agree with that. But this power to create custom Strategies would demand a huge change in AtWar, I guess only Dave could answer if this is even possible.

Right now I want us to work with what we got, keep our feet on the ground.

I've said before that I want to add custom strategies at some point. I still do, and its still on my list. But it will be a while because it's not easy and there are still too many other things needing attention first. So be patient

Give custom strategies to premiums and allow general upgrades for non premiums pls

if thats the case whats the point of buying premium?

लिखा द्वारा MrPhobos, 21.10.2020 at 19:54

लिखा द्वारा Fatcheek, 21.10.2020 at 16:24

लिखा द्वारा Dave, 21.10.2020 at 16:21

लिखा द्वारा Estus, 21.10.2020 at 14:11

लिखा द्वारा The_Empirezz, 21.10.2020 at 13:52

What I think would be a better move, is for mapmakers to have the ability to create custom strategies for their maps. That way the mapmaker himself can customise strategies well tailored for the map. Ideally some event units could also be locked behind specific strategies, as the mapmaker himself sees fit in terms of balance.

I do agree with that. But this power to create custom Strategies would demand a huge change in AtWar, I guess only Dave could answer if this is even possible.

Right now I want us to work with what we got, keep our feet on the ground.

I've said before that I want to add custom strategies at some point. I still do, and its still on my list. But it will be a while because it's not easy and there are still too many other things needing attention first. So be patient

Give custom strategies to premiums and allow general upgrades for non premiums pls

if thats the case whats the point of buying premium?

I just stated it, Giving Custom strategies exclusively to premiums.

Thread updated. I needed some time to work on the graphs.

Two people came talking to me in chat commenting on the changes I proposed and that was something that made for an interesting conversation, I think it is worthwhile to write here my considerations about two "controversies" suggested by me and the importance of both.

Guerrilla Warfare
This whole issue of transportation in GW (as well as in INS) is related to the way the Strategy works, and to understand this change it is necessary to recognize the Ethos of Guerrilla Warfare. In short, the players have Militia and Marines for affordable prices, the Militia being much stronger than the standard and greater capacity for movement, that is, it is a Strategy that represents guerrilla tactics (see FARC, Viet Kong, European partisans, etc.), being able to threaten his opponents due to his mobility and ability to attack different targets by surprise. Such mobility is highly favored by the low cost of the Marines, an "invisible" attack unit, and by the +2 range bonus the Militia has (which can become even longer with the General).

In GW, both Militia and Marines, despite being good offensive units with high mobility, we assume that the player must be able to produce high amounts of both Militia (to defend himself) and Marines (for surprise attacks). For this dynamic to work, the player MUST enjoy a certain amount of mobility, as this is one of the greatest advantages of the Marines, since they cannot be seen when on the move (consistent with Ethos). As attack units, Marines by themselves are inferior when compared to Tanks, Bombers or Destroyers, being the low cost and high mobility their only advantages.

Of course, with strong, inexpensive units at your disposal and privileged mobility, GW could become a clearly broken strategy in many situations. So, that's why I made the decision to INCREASE THE PRICE of Transport, preserving its natural value of MOVEMENT, which also preserves the Ethos of the Strategy both in the good part (movement) and in the bad part (economy). Arbitrarily damaging the movement and keeping the economy reasonably stable, is a way to hinder the gameplay and leave the true balance aside.

Considering my changes, the only problem left to the future of GW is the internal balance, since the Upgrades related to the Marines are many: -10 cost, +1 range and +2 critical.

---

Sky Menace
My stubbornness with SM is not new to some, but as I have talked about it before, I will just repeat a few points. SM Tanks are pure self-sabotage. It induces the player to error: the Ethos ir air-oriented, specially for Bombers, and they are extremely powerful. You have no urge to build Tanks because you can capture cities with the aid of Bombers using only Infantry or even Militia. So I must ask why are Tanks expensive? Why does the price of those terrible SM Tanks are equal to the Bombers? The Tanks are bad and you'll never buy it because you know that, but what's up with the price? Making a unit weaker and increasing its price, just doesn't make sense. It's a LAZY SOLUTION and a redundant nerf. In addition, this aspect only increases the difficulty of the Strategy, it is not related to its balance, making it much less friendly to new players.

Another interesting topic that I only realized after posting my suggestions, is that Helicopters have not been sufficiently improved. In addition to the bonus for critical chance and greater range, it would be interesting to grant +1 ATTACK and remove the cost increase I suggested. Its a fix for external balance issues, making Helicopters a more expensive and efficient alternative to Bombers to combat Infantry/Health/Luck-focused Strategies or players with all Infantry Upgrades unlocked.

Edit: I conclude by emphasizing that a general improvement in SM is necessary in a new atWar where there is a Building granting +20 defense against aircrafts.

लिखा द्वारा Estus, 23.10.2020 at 01:19

Unfortunately I disagree with everything you suggested. GW has been nerfed in the past and to nerf it again would make it unplayable in any early game situation. Yes OK for late game but you will completely remove it from a lot of game modes by nerfing it even more.

SM tanks are fine, why use a unit that isn't meant to be used for the strategy? With that logic we should buff sentry planes since they're so useless in all scenarios.
Lazy stats for tank indeed but you shouldnt be making tanks as SM anyway, it's an aerial based strategy and no reason to change ground units.

Also Helicopters have been talked about for SM but we figured let's keep them separate, or else we would need to buff bombers for DS as well and heli's for relentless attack also. We want variety and diversity. You shouldnt be able to utilize every unit unless you go None or IMP. That's the whole point of strategies.

Just to add my two cents here....

First, I'm impressed by all the thought and effort @Estus has put into this. Also the graphs for each strat are freakin' cool

As for the specific strat changes being suggested so far, I can't speak intelligently to any of the specifics, because honestly I'm just low-rank player. I defer to the opinions of the people who know much better than I do. (and, ultimately, to @Eagle)

However, in general, I want to say 2 things:

1) I think its important to have a clearly defined ethos for each strategy... like I said earlier this is definitely not something we want to give up.

2) I think some power creep is okay, maybe even necessary. Again maybe this is just my noob understanding of atWar, but it seems to me you can only nerf things so far, and I think we kinda have already. I would rather focus on buffs.... there is a lot more room to buff as long as everything stays in relative balance, and its more fun anyway.

Some time ago I had had a conversation with @Garde about the latter and (if I remember correctly) he was of a similar opinion regarding power creep... so I'm just saying I don't think we should be afraid of that right now.

लिखा द्वारा Dave, 23.10.2020 at 04:38

2) I think some power creep is okay, maybe even necessary. Again maybe this is just my noob understanding of atWar, but it seems to me you can only nerf things so far, and I think we kinda have already. I would rather focus on buffs.... there is a lot more room to buff as long as everything stays in relative balance, and its more fun anyway.

Some time ago I had had a conversation with @Garde about the latter and (if I remember correctly) he was of a similar opinion regarding power creep... so I'm just saying I don't think we should be afraid of that right now.

I think if we were to power creep on some of these strategies it would be easier to deal with a super strong defensive strategy rather than a super strong attacking strategy. Attack strategies have had their time for the last few years now...(Lucky Bastard, Desert Storm, Relentless Attack, Guerrilla Warfare).

Andddd... it gave weaker players a big advantage. The last 4 years everyone was hitting above 1500+ elo only because of strong attack, once LB was nerfed we saw that the overall elo pool for high ranks slowly dropped. So we now know how dangerous making attack strats too powerful can be.

लिखा द्वारा PleaseMe, 23.10.2020 at 04:44

लिखा द्वारा Dave, 23.10.2020 at 04:38

2) I think some power creep is okay, maybe even necessary. Again maybe this is just my noob understanding of atWar, but it seems to me you can only nerf things so far, and I think we kinda have already. I would rather focus on buffs.... there is a lot more room to buff as long as everything stays in relative balance, and its more fun anyway.

Some time ago I had had a conversation with @Garde about the latter and (if I remember correctly) he was of a similar opinion regarding power creep... so I'm just saying I don't think we should be afraid of that right now.

I think if we were to power creep on some of these strategies it would be easier to deal with a super strong defensive strategy rather than a super strong attacking strategy. Attack strategies have had their time for the last few years now...(Lucky Bastard, Desert Storm, Relentless Attack, Guerrilla Warfare).

Andddd... it gave weaker players a big advantage. The last 4 years everyone was hitting above 1500+ elo only because of strong attack, once LB was nerfed we saw that the overall elo pool for high ranks slowly dropped. So we now know how dangerous making attack strats too powerful can be.

Or this just suits your playstyle....

Individuals got different playstyles. Your for example is a passive one you are correct to have it since defending is way easier. Defending was always the meta in any CW settings. As for 1v1s you might be right about west LB rushing but as far as east Ukraine had to pick an offensive strategy to expand fast and counter the unit advantage turk has. The fact that 50 cost inf as pd can kill almost 2 90 cost ra tanks in defense seems to wrong to me. The real balance for me would be that either I go ra vs pd, pd vs ds, IF vs SM etc no matter the scenario I would have equal chances to win and winning would depend on my moves rather than losing at turn 0 before the game has even begun.

Just my opinion no offense.