Reduction in RNG Discussion

I just wanted to open a discussion on this topic as it is something i have always seen people complain about. A certain amount of randomness is great, can add flavour and excitement to games. However we all have those games where we feel cheated due to neutral fails, ridiculous rolls and lotto tbs. Especially in the case of neutrals where You're sending the same thing successfully for dozens of games and you think its' safe then one day you get this fail and it throws your game off.

My proposal would be to try and find a way to average out the rolls, reducing the variance in results. Currently, say for example you have a tank with 8 attack, a value between 1-8 is rolled twice and the average taken is your roll. Perhaps an increase to the average of 3 rolls for more consistent results.

In the case of tbs, i personally would just like to see lotto tbs taken out of the equation, someone throwing a 1 unit tb at a 50 unit stack both first priority moves(2% chance of success) and getting it. Maybe just cut out tbs with a <20% chance of success.

Opinions? Thoughts?

Press upvote, be happy

Hard support

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 16.12.2015 at 19:08

My proposal would be to try and find a way to average out the rolls, reducing the variance in results. Currently, say for example you have a tank with 8 attack, a value between 1-8 is rolled twice and the average taken is your roll. Perhaps an increase to the average of 3 rolls for more consistent results.

"All rolls are now executed twice, with the final result being the average (this will be the roll you see in battles). This way the units with high maximum attack/defence are now much less likely to roll 1."

Source: http://atwar-game.com/news/news.php?news_id=12

Apparently in the early version of this game it used to work like that... I've asked Amok some months ago and he say that it was changed to only one roll. I'm unsure at which date was made this change as I couldn't review it in the news... (or probably even more important: why it was changed).

TBs, I still love the old TB the best, it made this game so much more strategic.

If you want to normalize the rolls based on power (def or attk)
I suggest normal distribution will do. Take the mean, and sd, and plug into a normal obj. There is a library for statistic in c/c++ so i'm sure they should be for whichever code they are programming in.

For people who don't understand:
It would make the middle number more likely to occur and the high and low values rare.

I'm not an expert statistician, but i taken a class in it, so i'm willing to help however I can. However, doing this will reduce the random factor by a lot.

Simple: change min max damages... currently min damage is by default 1, infantry attacking can roll 1 2 3 or 4, for an average damage of 2.5 Change min max to 2 and 3 and tada! U pretty much reduced ur variance by 80% while keeping same attacking power (on average)
The problem as I see it is that the higher the stat, the higher the variance , ie more prone to bad rolls. So for exempls tanks could be 3-6
think of it like a sword in zelda, do u want a 10-30 damage one or a 18-22?

100% support on the first one, but don't completely agree on the TB one. Well, now that I think of the times I was playing against G.K, I'm leaning more towards it, but less than 20% seems too extreme, perhaps less than 10%. Also, apparently I was inactive when some change happened in the system, can someone explain to me the exact effect of # of units (keeping in mind priority)?

लिखा द्वारा Cthulhu, 16.12.2015 at 23:58

Normal Distribution

I support this one.

At the start I had the doubt that this would just complicated more the current mechanics as normal distributions aren't really that easy to explain to a newbie. But I guess is someone is interested in the rolls mechanics then he should already have a brief knowledge about probabilities. Rest of the players will be happy simply by knowing that your units are likely to roll the mean.

As for the TB system ,don't change it. The chances of insane tbs are very low already and I've personally only experienced then once (Crey use 1 unit to tb my 45 stack force, with #1 as my priority - either just unlucky or Phoenix is right and Soldier did knew secret tb mechanics, and shared them with SA).

If I were to change the TB system it would only be the priorities. They are too complicated to explain to a beginner and also puts you at disadvantage when it comes to 2vs1, 3vs1, etc..

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 17.12.2015 at 10:34

लिखा द्वारा Cthulhu, 16.12.2015 at 23:58

Normal Distribution

I support this one.

At the start I had the doubt that this would just complicated more the current mechanics as normal distributions aren't really that easy to explain to a newbie. But I guess is someone is interested in the rolls mechanics then he should already have a brief knowledge about probabilities. Rest of the players will be happy simply by knowing that your units are likely to roll the mean.

As for the TB system ,don't change it. The chances of insane tbs are very low already and I've personally only experienced then once (Crey use 1 unit to tb my 45 stack force, with #1 as my priority - either just unlucky or Phoenix is right and Soldier did knew secret tb mechanics, and shared them with SA).

If I were to change the TB system it would only be the priorities. They are too complicated to explain to a beginner and also puts you at disadvantage when it comes to 2vs1, 3vs1, etc..

The graph of probability distribution would be sufficient to explain. That being said I would agree the normal dist would change the mechanics for the worse with even small battles being quite reliable. If we were to move to a different tb system it would be better not to revert to the old one where you had one unit tbs galore.

Turn blocks have a significant impact on 3v3 and clan wars now. I personally don't mind turn blocks. It is a major game changer. After all, most of this game has to do with luck, so why would we take out the luck and input pure numbers? That's not how a real war is fought.

Imagine a General leading an army of 50. And one infantry turn blocks that whole stack, maybe because that one little infantry injured the General, so they had to stop for a while and couldn't continue. Because we all know armies can't be lead without a leader. So I am just putting into perspective, that it is possible for 1 unit to turn block. Even if the chance is only 2%, theres no reason to change this 2% to 0.002% because that's slim to nothing.

Stop rushing, start slow rolling, you wont have to worry about your 3 sea trans getting turn blocked.

लिखा द्वारा PleaseMe, 17.12.2015 at 11:35

Stop rushing, start slow rolling, you wont have to worry about your 3 sea trans getting turn blocked.

kk i'll stop rushing, problem solved ty mecoy!

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 17.12.2015 at 11:43

लिखा द्वारा PleaseMe, 17.12.2015 at 11:35

Stop rushing, start slow rolling, you wont have to worry about your 3 sea trans getting turn blocked.

kk i'll stop rushing, problem solved ty mecoy!

ty!

लिखा द्वारा PleaseMe, 17.12.2015 at 11:35

Turn blocks have a significant impact on 3v3 and clan wars now. I personally don't mind turn blocks. It is a major game changer. After all, most of this game has to do with luck, so why would we take out the luck and input pure numbers? That's not how a real war is fought.

Imagine a General leading an army of 50. And one infantry turn blocks that whole stack, maybe because that one little infantry injured the General, so they had to stop for a while and couldn't continue. Because we all know armies can't be lead without a leader. So I am just putting into perspective, that it is possible for 1 unit to turn block. Even if the chance is only 2%, theres no reason to change this 2% to 0.002% because that's slim to nothing.

Stop rushing, start slow rolling, you wont have to worry about your 3 sea trans getting turn blocked.

What is realistic has no impact when you're talking about a strategy game like aw.. units stranded on sea are quite realistic aren't they.

लिखा द्वारा Xenosapien, 17.12.2015 at 11:55

लिखा द्वारा PleaseMe, 17.12.2015 at 11:35

Turn blocks have a significant impact on 3v3 and clan wars now. I personally don't mind turn blocks. It is a major game changer. After all, most of this game has to do with luck, so why would we take out the luck and input pure numbers? That's not how a real war is fought.

Imagine a General leading an army of 50. And one infantry turn blocks that whole stack, maybe because that one little infantry injured the General, so they had to stop for a while and couldn't continue. Because we all know armies can't be lead without a leader. So I am just putting into perspective, that it is possible for 1 unit to turn block. Even if the chance is only 2%, theres no reason to change this 2% to 0.002% because that's slim to nothing.

Stop rushing, start slow rolling, you wont have to worry about your 3 sea trans getting turn blocked.

What is realistic has no impact when you're talking about a strategy game like aw.. units stranded on sea are quite realistic aren't they.

what if someone decided to jump off the cruiser in the middle of the ocean? u never know lol.

Will this be the end of my unluck?

लिखा द्वारा Cthulhu, 16.12.2015 at 23:58

I suggest normal distribution will do.

If we take multiple rolls and average them then we get a discreet approximation to the normal distribution anyway, which is simpler than adding a normal function. Let me show you:

For a standard tank with 8 attack:

According to clovis the probability distribution is currently:

(essentially totally random)

However when we add two rolls and average them the result is this:


Now, when we do 3 rolls:

Starting to look familiar?

Just to prove it keeps going, for 4 rolls:


This works because the vaules are distributed randomly and independently with a constant mean value (never thought I'd use that defention in real life), so we can approximate the normal distribution just by taking a few rolls and them averaging them, then using this to calculate the roll given out.

If we were to do this, I would suggest we use 3 rolls, because it allows easy rounding (no numbers end up half way between to values). With even numbers the distribution ends up skewed in weird ways when you round the values to the nearest whole number.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 17.12.2015 at 10:34

लिखा द्वारा Cthulhu, 16.12.2015 at 23:58

Normal Distribution

I support this one.

At the start I had the doubt that this would just complicated more the current mechanics as normal distributions aren't really that easy to explain to a newbie. But I guess is someone is interested in the rolls mechanics then he should already have a brief knowledge about probabilities. Rest of the players will be happy simply by knowing that your units are likely to roll the mean.

As for the TB system ,don't change it. The chances of insane tbs are very low already and I've personally only experienced then once (Crey use 1 unit to tb my 45 stack force, with #1 as my priority - either just unlucky or Phoenix is right and Soldier did knew secret tb mechanics, and shared them with SA).

If I were to change the TB system it would only be the priorities. They are too complicated to explain to a beginner and also puts you at disadvantage when it comes to 2vs1, 3vs1, etc..

I can confirm as I was an officer in sa, soldiers big secret was sending two separate Tbs at the same unit consecutively from diferent sources. Don't think there is science to that he was just lucky.

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 17.12.2015 at 16:30

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 17.12.2015 at 10:34

लिखा द्वारा Cthulhu, 16.12.2015 at 23:58

Normal Distribution

I support this one.

At the start I had the doubt that this would just complicated more the current mechanics as normal distributions aren't really that easy to explain to a newbie. But I guess is someone is interested in the rolls mechanics then he should already have a brief knowledge about probabilities. Rest of the players will be happy simply by knowing that your units are likely to roll the mean.

As for the TB system ,don't change it. The chances of insane tbs are very low already and I've personally only experienced then once (Crey use 1 unit to tb my 45 stack force, with #1 as my priority - either just unlucky or Phoenix is right and Soldier did knew secret tb mechanics, and shared them with SA).

If I were to change the TB system it would only be the priorities. They are too complicated to explain to a beginner and also puts you at disadvantage when it comes to 2vs1, 3vs1, etc..

I can confirm as I was an officer in sa, soldiers big secret was sending two separate Tbs at the same unit consecutively from diferent sources. Don't think there is science to that he was just lucky.

so pretty much the big secret was send more units to increase tb chance but lower your prio arbitrarily to decrease it again. lol.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 16.12.2015 at 19:08

I just wanted to open a discussion on this topic as it is something i have always seen people complain about. A certain amount of randomness is great, can add flavour and excitement to games. However we all have those games where we feel cheated due to neutral fails, ridiculous rolls and lotto tbs. Especially in the case of neutrals where You're sending the same thing successfully for dozens of games and you think its' safe then one day you get this fail and it throws your game off.

My proposal would be to try and find a way to average out the rolls, reducing the variance in results. Currently, say for example you have a tank with 8 attack, a value between 1-8 is rolled twice and the average taken is your roll. Perhaps an increase to the average of 3 rolls for more consistent results.

In the case of tbs, i personally would just like to see lotto tbs taken out of the equation, someone throwing a 1 unit tb at a 50 unit stack both first priority moves(2% chance of success) and getting it. Maybe just cut out tbs with a <20% chance of success.

Opinions? Thoughts?

You've not described the game dynamic accurately enough, so your solutions on tb's won't work.... I told you about movement dilution and you said it was "obvious"... So where's that variable in your calculation?

On the rolls.. The game is based on risk.. And that's not how risk works.

This isn't going to do anything to encourage more players to the game either.

Get the strategies sorted first. Give DS a nerff and make some new ones.

Hey, why not just give all units a fixed roll value?

Then everything will be predictable forever.

लिखा द्वारा Phoenix, 19.12.2015 at 18:37

You've not described the game dynamic accurately enough, so your solutions on tb's won't work.... I told you about movement dilution and you said it was "obvious"... So where's that variable in your calculation?

On the rolls.. The game is based on risk.. And that's not how risk works.

This isn't going to do anything to encourage more players to the game either.

Get the strategies sorted first. Give DS a nerff and make some new ones.

Are you referring to my guide or this post? "move dilution" as you have labelled it is pretty obvious yes if you understand how priorities work. It has no effect on the tb percentages. You seem to be under the impression that a 1 unit same priority tb on a 40 stack will be more likely to succeed if the tb'er makes less moves, which is not true. I thought i had convinced you of this but then you made this post.

a common complaint by players is due to the large luck factor, there is some merit to this. For example steve and bargain competing for the netherlands both as pd in a cw, bargain sends 28 and gen, steve sends 25 and gen, steve wins by 5. You'll see examples all the time. Clovis' revelation regarding the change to rolls only highlights the issue. Look at the data provided by endsofinvention. Do you understand where we are coming from and why my post received so much support? My proposals still allow for risk, i think the game would be boring without it, but not such a ridiculous amount. A game should be determined by skill, not by how lucky one is.

The strategies are as well balanced as they have ever been. DS is fine, it is just a lot of players are unused to it since it was so underused so are unable to handle its' gameplay. It is a high skill strat too so all the better.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 19.12.2015 at 19:28

लिखा द्वारा Phoenix, 19.12.2015 at 18:37

You've not described the game dynamic accurately enough, so your solutions on tb's won't work.... I told you about movement dilution and you said it was "obvious"... So where's that variable in your calculation?

On the rolls.. The game is based on risk.. And that's not how risk works.

This isn't going to do anything to encourage more players to the game either.

Get the strategies sorted first. Give DS a nerff and make some new ones.

Are you referring to my guide or this post? "move dilution" as you have labelled it is pretty obvious yes if you understand how priorities work. It has no effect on the tb percentages. You seem to be under the impression that a 1 unit same priority tb on a 40 stack will be more likely to succeed if the tb'er makes less moves, which is not true. I thought i had convinced you of this but then you made this post.

a common complaint by players is due to the large luck factor, there is some merit to this. For example steve and bargain competing for the netherlands both as pd in a cw, bargain sends 28 and gen, steve sends 25 and gen, steve wins by 5. You'll see examples all the time. Clovis' revelation regarding the change to rolls only highlights the issue. Look at the data provided by endsofinvention. Do you understand where we are coming from and why my post received so much support? My proposals still allow for risk, i think the game would be boring without it, but not such a ridiculous amount. A game should be determined by skill, not by how lucky one is.

The strategies are as well balanced as they have ever been. DS is fine, it is just a lot of players are unused to it since it was so underused so are unable to handle its' gameplay. It is a high skill strat too so all the better.

It does...
test it for crying out loud.

The example where steve and and Bargain went for netherlands... not luck. Steve's units would have been defending... the player thats makes fewer moves before arriving at a set destination is the defending stack. I had a similar roll vs Steve that is explained by this... something else soldier taught me that (again).. is explained by movement dilution... You really haven't consider this part of the game play at all... and you'll completely ignore it still because you think soldier is an inferior player that doesn't "work like that".

Who decides on whether a strat is weak or strong anyway? You and Meester?..

लिखा द्वारा Phoenix, 19.12.2015 at 19:43

It does...
test it for crying out loud.

The example where steve and and Bargain went for netherlands... not luck. Steve's units would have been defending... the player thats makes fewer moves before arriving at a set destination is the defending stack. I had a similar roll vs Steve that is explained by this... something else soldier taught me that (again).. is explained by movement dilution... You really haven't consider this part of the game play at all... and you'll completely ignore it still because you think soldier is an inferior player that doesn't "work like that".

Who decides on whether a strat is weak or strong anyway? You and Meester?..

I have tested it specifically because you are stating it with such conviction, but not just that, i have played this game and tested its' mechanics for 2 years, i know what i am talking about. I am telling you that you and soldier are wrong about this interpretation of "move dilution". Nobody has ever spoken about it before on the aw forums, the burden of proof falls to you if you are interested in proving its' existence.

You are also wrong about the attack/defence mechanics. In the case of competing for expansion the attackers attack and the defender defends. This much is pretty straightforward. Whoever rolls first is random and the battle takes place with each participant rolling one after the other. when competing for a neutral attackers will defend and attack so both the offensive and defensive stats are used. This has been documented before on the forums a long time ago and is easily viewable if you test this yourself, turn on rolls and watch a battle. It is also why mixed stacks of offensive/defensive units are generally(not always) more effective when competing for expansion against another player than a pure defensive/offensive stack.

The strat changes are decided upon by a handful of players who have demonstrated their proficiency and knowlege of all the strats, their dynamic and gameplay.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 19.12.2015 at 20:25

लिखा द्वारा Phoenix, 19.12.2015 at 19:43

It does...
test it for crying out loud.

The example where steve and and Bargain went for netherlands... not luck. Steve's units would have been defending... the player thats makes fewer moves before arriving at a set destination is the defending stack. I had a similar roll vs Steve that is explained by this... something else soldier taught me that (again).. is explained by movement dilution... You really haven't consider this part of the game play at all... and you'll completely ignore it still because you think soldier is an inferior player that doesn't "work like that".

Who decides on whether a strat is weak or strong anyway? You and Meester?..

I have tested it specifically because you are stating it with such conviction, but not just that, i have played this game and tested its' mechanics for 2 years, i know what i am talking about. I am telling you that you and soldier are wrong about this interpretation of "move dilution". Nobody has ever spoken about it before on the aw forums, the burden of proof falls to you if you are interested in proving its' existence.

You are also wrong about the attack/defence mechanics. In the case of competing for expansion the attackers attack and the defender defends. This much is pretty straightforward. Whoever rolls first is random and the battle takes place with each participant rolling one after the other. when competing for a neutral attackers will defend and attack so both the offensive and defensive stats are used. This has been documented before on the forums a long time ago and is easily viewable if you test this yourself, turn on rolls and watch a battle. It is also why mixed stacks of offensive/defensive units are generally(not always) more effective when competing for expansion against another player than a pure defensive/offensive stack.

The strat changes are decided upon by a handful of players who have demonstrated their proficiency and knowlege of all the strats, their dynamic and gameplay.

Don't tell me I'm wrong about something when I've tested it and you haven't.

Yes I do have the battle screen turned on and yes I know they appear random, but they aren't

Who's in this handful of players? and who decides who has a say?
Don't say its a secret or give me some BS answer

लिखा द्वारा Phoenix, 19.12.2015 at 20:30

Don't tell me I'm wrong about something when I've tested it and you haven't.

Yes I do have the battle screen turned on and yes I know they appear random, but they aren't

Who's in this handful of players? and who decides who has a say?
Don't say its a secret or give me some BS answer

i just stated i have tested it, i literally did so 10 mins ago with xenosapien inspite of the fact that i have never observed what you are saying to be true. I base what i know off observation, you need to give me more if you seek to convince me.

If you watch the battle screen then i have no idea how you could come to the conclusion that one stack defends and the other attacks. If this was true it would be obvious. I could provide blatant proof but i shouldn't need to, and i am starting to feel it might be like trying to convince thefuhrer that the earth is round.

I primarily am the player who pushes for the strat changes, many players talk about them but nothing is ever done. At current the discussion is held on the modforums but i seek out the opinions of others like mauzer acquiesce eagle dbacks eagles8539 etc.Trollface/learster/bargain too. Basically experienced knowlegeable players who can provide a decent argument. I also listen to clovis when he is not ranting and raving about scenarios. He does talk sense sometimes. Some of the suggestions that have been implemented since i started pushing for changes came from the suggestions section of the forums. You can hate on me if you wish, however nobody can deny that since i started pushing for the changes, far more strats have become competitvely useful and are now far more commonly seen. The community can not and should not decide. The vast majority of players don't know what they are talking about or seek only to protect their own interests(their favourite strats).

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 19.12.2015 at 20:52

लिखा द्वारा Phoenix, 19.12.2015 at 20:30

Don't tell me I'm wrong about something when I've tested it and you haven't.

Yes I do have the battle screen turned on and yes I know they appear random, but they aren't

Who's in this handful of players? and who decides who has a say?
Don't say its a secret or give me some BS answer

i just stated i have tested it, i literally did so 10 mins ago with xenosapien inspite of the fact that i have never observed what you are saying to be true. I base what i know off observation, you need to give me more if you seek to convince me.

If you watch the battle screen then i have no idea how you could come to the conclusion that one stack defends and the other attacks. If this was true it would be obvious. I could provide blatant proof but i shouldn't need to, and i am starting to feel it might be like trying to convince thefuhrer that the earth is round.

I primarily am the player who pushes for the strat changes, many players talk about them but nothing is ever done. At current the discussion is held on the modforums but i seek out the opinions of others like mauzer acquiesce eagle dbacks eagles8539 etc.Trollface/learster/bargain too. Basically experienced knowlegeable players who can provide a decent argument. I also listen to clovis when he is not ranting and raving about scenarios. He does talk sense sometimes. Some of the suggestions that have been implemented since i started pushing for changes came from the suggestions section of the forums. You can hate on me if you wish, however nobody can deny that since i started pushing for the changes, far more strats have become competitvely useful and are now far more commonly seen. The community can not and should not decide. The vast majority of players don't know what they are talking about or seek only to protect their own interests(their favourite strats).

DS is my favourite strat right now but I know it needs a nerf since infantry have had in city bonus' removed... the way you go about changing strategies is too "bit by bit" you need to consider how each individual strat and it's aspects affects the others and I don't think you've done that.

Not only that but meester came out and bragged about beating Mauzer with his RA Serbia to me as if to make a point that RA was still strong.. but after a few Q and A's he let out that the idea to have bombers and destroyers buffed in that strat was his idea.. allowing him to use RA in ways he planned for (sad that thats what he needs to do in order to beat someone)... disregarding the vast amount of newer players that just want to spam tanks and have fun.

What you're basically telling me is that players need to have been in the game for a minimum of 2 years (aka longer than you) for you to respect their opinion.

Talking about defending interests, it's not in my interests to share what I know about Movement dilution, so I have no desire to provide any "proof".. in fact I think you writing it off is hilarious.

लिखा द्वारा Phoenix, 19.12.2015 at 21:13

DS is my favourite strat right now but I know it needs a nerf since infantry have had in city bonus' removed... the way you go about changing strategies is too "bit by bit" you need to consider how each individual strat and it's aspects affects the others and I don't think you've done that.

Not only that but meester came out and bragged about beating Mauzer with his RA Serbia to me as if to make a point that RA was still strong.. but after a few Q and A's he let out that the idea to have bombers and destroyers buffed in that strat was his idea.. allowing him to use RA in ways he planned for (sad that thats what he needs to do in order to beat someone)... disregarding the vast amount of newer players that just want to spam tanks and have fun.

What you're basically telling me is that players need to have been in the game for a minimum of 2 years (aka longer than you) for you to respect their opinion.

Talking about defending interests, it's not in my interests to share what I know about Movement dilution, so I have no desire to provide any "proof".. in fact I think you writing it off is hilarious.

Strat changes should be gradual, a fairly decent level of balance has been achieved, we are just tweaking now to bring the underused/underpowered strategies up. This wont change until a new strat/units are added to the default pool to shake things up. We've seen the effects of large poorly thought out sudden changes in the past.(gc going from op to almost useless, blitz, ra etc).

Meester was involved in the specifics of that change but the idea itself to include other offensive units has existed for a long time. I don't care to find the origin. And i would brag too if i beat mauzer with any strat with serbia.

And no, that is not what i am telling you at all. Time is irrelevant, just experience and the ability to argue and apply critical thinking.

Anyways im done here, i decided to engage in the discussion as a point of reference for the next player who bitches at me about the strats. Saves for tedious repetition.

I've said this in another thread but I'll mention it here for the sake of discussion:

DS is OP, but it's not like RA OP that it doesn't have a counter. Right now, it's overpowered because it boasts strong stats and a different style of gameplay than people are used to. Once people play with and against it they will get used to the nature of DS (I find it very nice because I've played it extensively, and am ok against it because know it's strengths and weaknesses) it will seem less OP. I'll give you this, it is overpowered in high fund games, but so is GW in low fund games (many other places too, is why GW OP), PD everywhere, mos in world etc. Basically, don't rush to the nerf DS campaign before familiarizing yourselves with it. As a bonus I'll add my views on some strats:

PD: Fine with the recent strat boosts, was OP in 2013-2014.
RA: Fine with the recent nerf, was OP in pre-nerf 2015
DS: Slightly overpowered with the recent boost, was okay but underused pre-boost.
NC: Was great before and after the boost, kinda a niche strat but not unstoppable.
SM: High fund powerhouse, never too op or too weak, always reliable.
MOS: World game galore and fun to play anywhere else. Not the best in low funds, GW better there.
GW: OP before I started playing, got nerfed and was still great but needed more specific settings (always OP lategame). Now it's been boosted to be great early game too. OP.
blitz: Weak. In fact, pitiful slowrolling. One of the funnest strats, but can't hold anything. Was OP before and got nerfed, and I believe it would require a slight boost back.
LB: Works decently in specific conditions otherwise troll strat.
HW: ''the other strat'' that im dying to try
GC: Lovely strat but needs some specific situations (okay money and starting funds and a country that allows mobility). Just maybeeeee a slight boost but not too much or else it'd get OP.
IF: overall great. Don't change it.

Anyway back to topic. Lao's roll stabilization thing is great, and the risk factor is still there. Every time you attack something there's a risk of your opponent defending and every time you don't defend there's a risk your opponent attack etc. Also, AW is a Risk (the game) based game not risk-based game where luck is the biggest factor. It's already similar to Risk in many ways, and also has the risk factor, and this idea of stabilizing rolls will only make our gaming experience better.

Although, I disagree about the TB thing to an extent. 20% is way too much, and if you're going that way 10% should be the most. I think the current TB system is workable, not bad and not perfect, but okay. I agree with Phoenix about focusing on strategies rather than the TB system at this point.

Also, the community should be heard at any and all times because it's our gaming experience that matters. However, certain people from the community should be taken into consideration more seriously (reasonable players, not even needed to be experienced in a lot of matters) than others. Sometimes the community as a whole can't make a proper decision such as in the nerf of RA; most of the people on forum were against just because they won games with it and making arguments such as ''cri more''. But again, everyone's voices should be heard and taken into consideration, whether that be great or little consideration.

PS: You should check out Xeno's strat suggestion, it's great.

I am in 2 minds about unusual rolls. One one hand it makes the game unpredictable and enjoyable on the other hand you will have people fall unlucky victim to it like the example Lao mentioned about bargain and steve.

In the real war you need to be lucky. This game is the real simulation of it. Even though all of that, I support this idea as it may reduce "rage" in the games.