What do you think of game balance?

Balance is one of the most difficult things to get just right. We'd really like to hear your feedback on what works and what doesn't.

I'm a heavy tank / TS strategy user. I have a very offensive playstyle. Tanks just give you the most offensive bang for your production capacity. In cases where you wish you had more production capacity (i.e.: you have spare money lying around), tanks rock. In the endgame, they rock, and in the early game, luck and diplomacy are more important than troop optimization.

Also, I am a heavy (air) transport user. As carrier space is expensive, you want the best unit in that space. (Although a case may be made that, as air units are so expensive, you have little cash left, so should fill them with infantry. ).

IMHO, of course.

Militia bum rushing is overpowered.

Probably.

लिखा द्वारा Ad for nike, 06.12.2010 at 14:52

Militia bum rushing is overpowered.

Probably.

Fight me and we'll see.

Bigest problem is there is a total lack of defensive stratagy for the game. Right now its fastest troop producer wins.
Proposal 1= No free troops when conqureing a country.
This will make it harder for people to just blitz across the map.
Proposal 2=Make defence of all units better!
Most of the time the invading force needs OVERWELMING strength to win a battle vs a smaller force. 2 tanks should not beat 2 infentry. 3-4 yes but 2 the attacker has the weeker force BECAUSE the defender has terrain advantage and entrenchment, adding that 3rd or 4th tank now makes it a sesaw type battle.
Proposal 3= Add more defencive type stuff to the game like Pill box's Bunkers,Artilery(also an ofencive unit)
Lastly yesterday i took a city with a transport? how realistic is that? my higgens boat walked up the shore and captured there towns city hall all by it self?

Okay, someone should really add artillery... Good offence and defence, expensive, and kinda low range.... This would really balance the game out....

I think some strategies need a review. Iron Fist for example. The +3 HP are pretty good, but on the other side, the penalties are too heavy. Minus 2 range is too much, you will never be able to use that strategy on a bigger map, even if you use air transports, which are 1. even more expensive and 2. have minus range.
On smaller maps it can't be used either, not only because of the slow movement, but also because of the cost penalty. Here it's all about the income/unit cost ratio, which is also why I never use MoS on smaller maps.
And Guerilla Warfare- it says "weaker infantry and tanks", but then it also weakens all transports, by making them more expensive and slower. Too much penalty.
Perfect Defence- you nerfed it, ok. But again, in too many ways. -1 attack, -1 range, more cost and, yea that is a nerf to this strategy, you reduced the cost of offensive units.
It's still good on smaller maps, but I think it now has fallen behind on the bigger ones. Maybe retaking the - 1 range change would help there.
Reducing the cost of offensive units was a little nerf to Imperialist too. Maybe +1 range would make more people play it.

लिखा द्वारा learster, 13.03.2011 at 04:18

I think some strategies need a review. Iron Fist for example. The +3 HP are pretty good, but on the other side, the penalties are too heavy. Minus 2 range is too much, you will never be able to use that strategy on a bigger map, even if you use air transports, which are 1. even more expensive and 2. have minus range.
On smaller maps it can't be used either, not only because of the slow movement, but also because of the cost penalty. Here it's all about the income/unit cost ratio, which is also why I never use MoS on smaller maps.
And Guerilla Warfare- it says "weaker infantry and tanks", but then it also weakens all transports, by making them more expensive and slower. Too much penalty.
Perfect Defence- you nerfed it, ok. But again, in too many ways. -1 attack, -1 range, more cost and, yea that is a nerf to this strategy, you reduced the cost of offensive units.
It's still good on smaller maps, but I think it now has fallen behind on the bigger ones. Maybe retaking the - 1 range change would help there.
Reducing the cost of offensive units was a little nerf to Imperialist too. Maybe +1 range would make more people play it.

You listed pretty much all Strategies. If all of them have their own minuses, that's a sign of balance to me If there are no overpowered strategies and all strategies are somewhat equal, that's great, isn't it? No strategy is supposed to be perfect, you will always have to sacrifice something.

Well of course I list many strategies, when you ask what I think of them.
MoS was just a side note and I think it's pretty fine the way it is now. Perfect Defence might be ok too, yes. But I still think the other two strategies need some tweaking, Iron Fist more than Guerilla Warfare.
Or at least update the description of Guerilla Warfare to include the weaker transports, because I think that should be known before you buy it.

I also think a more indepth look at these countrys are required to make it so the guy who takes turky in the europ game dont win 90% of the time.
I actualy find that the most imbalancing thing in the game is not the stratagy the income or the location of player start but the ability to grow your army without spending cash by capturing citys.
EX: i build 50 bombers 1airtrans and 4 melitia then fly around the map hitting citys and every one i hit regrows more units for me.
Ballance i feel is verry bad right now. this is proven by fact that the same countrys always dominate the map leading to less depth of stratagy and more emphasis on just taking capital.

लिखा द्वारा UrlanderPendragon, 13.03.2011 at 11:36

I also think a more indepth look at these countrys are required to make it so the guy who takes turky in the europ game dont win 90% of the time.
I actualy find that the most imbalancing thing in the game is not the stratagy the income or the location of player start but the ability to grow your army without spending cash by capturing citys.
EX: i build 50 bombers 1airtrans and 4 melitia then fly around the map hitting citys and every one i hit regrows more units for me.
Ballance i feel is verry bad right now. this is proven by fact that the same countrys always dominate the map leading to less depth of stratagy and more emphasis on just taking capital.

About the countries : we all know the maps now, Turkey isn't the only "unbalanced" country if you go this way.But this first choice is part of the game.
Put 5k starting funds in europe, and Ukraine will be the new turkey (or Austria), put 3 k and what do you think about belgium ?

About the air force : If players were building defensive lines, the 50 bombers stack loose one turn each week, and they can easily try to intercept them too.

I totaly agree with everything your saying. I belive what your pointing out is that by adjusting income your just makeing some other country the new turky. I belive its not that turky is to strong but that it has advantages of easy little countrys to capture and good income and nice troop production.
This said i think as do you that the fix is not just dumping more cash on another country but i belive it would be spliting turky up into 2 parts. OR you could make it so no country space is big enuff to produce 10x the smallest country space.
For example if the smallest country only produces 1 then the bigest space should only produce 10 in its 1 city or 5 in 2 citys.
The reson i say this is becasue if a country can produce 38 units in one turn then you would logicaly haveing a country that produces only 4 unit have to fight almost every city to gain control of the entire country. As it is set up now your 4 units conquer 38 units in one battle.

Sky Menace is currently the most unbalanced thing I see in this game. (I might add the TB system still needs some working on.)

You can't defend the indefencible Gob. Sorry if I seem to be complaining, I am simply pointing it out.

There's a different on playing sky menace in 10k starting funds or in 50k starting funds !!!!

लिखा द्वारा UrlanderPendragon, 12.03.2011 at 14:33

Bigest problem is there is a total lack of defensive stratagy for the game. Right now its fastest troop producer wins.
Proposal 1= No free troops when conqureing a country.
This will make it harder for people to just blitz across the map.
Proposal 2=Make defence of all units better!
Most of the time the invading force needs OVERWELMING strength to win a battle vs a smaller force. 2 tanks should not beat 2 infentry. 3-4 yes but 2 the attacker has the weeker force BECAUSE the defender has terrain advantage and entrenchment, adding that 3rd or 4th tank now makes it a sesaw type battle.
Proposal 3= Add more defencive type stuff to the game like Pill box's Bunkers,Artilery(also an ofencive unit)
Lastly yesterday i took a city with a transport? how realistic is that? my higgens boat walked up the shore and captured there towns city hall all by it self?

Please try my map Planetary Invasion II and see how I addressed the issue of lack of defensive strategy. Actually play the map with others and you will see that you can use a defensive strategy in combination with some offense due to the defensive units I created. Please send feedback of any improvements you may have as well. - Thanks

Up I see something for artillery good attack and good defense and expansive .... So if it costs 250 founds to buy one ... 250 x 10 =2500 ... So you buy with 2,5k 10.. They both def and attack good so lets say ten 10 x 10 =100 so..you have 100 def and 100 attack at the cost of 2,5k? No no that is stupid it will just unbalance everything ... Btw something u need is like a +2 critical on GC Tanks since GC Is useless when you removed the bonus up I know it was to op but now.its so something like two critical for tanks wI'll make GC middle ppower no weak but not OP took

As a noob, Europe seems too powerful (lots of $ with easy expansion) when you play the whole world.

I put "everything is OK". Obviously, it is not balanced when there is a rank difference. Unless you disable upgrades.

I came back here after two months and i got really pist to see all the new upgrades. The earlier upgrades where more focused on variety and very few just made your units better. I came back today and see so many flat upgrades that just tilt the game to much in the favor of the older players

लिखा द्वारा Ivan, 05.12.2010 at 04:08

Balance is one of the most difficult things to get just right. We'd really like to hear your feedback on what works and what doesn't.

What starting funds amount do you want us to consider? Strategies such as GW and Imperialist have a much easier time in low income conditions and are heavily outbalanced in high starting fund conditions.

The game is good, and balance is charming

I think definitely some strategies are more OP than others, but it all depends on how one utilizes their units and practices their prudence. Any great tactician could do with most strategies.

Other than that, I really like how structured the economics is (despite how oversimplified it is); it makes the game more interesting.

Now only if the strategies could be a bit more balanced...

The game itself is balanced. Not counting strategies, upgrades, SP, battles, and a lot of systems.

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 02.02.2014 at 11:00

I think definitely some strategies are more OP than others, but it all depends on how one utilizes their units and practices their prudence. Any great tactician could do with most strategies.

Other than that, I really like how structured the economics is (despite how oversimplified it is); it makes the game more interesting.

Now only if the strategies could be a bit more balanced...

Strategies are fine. Some are clearly better than others in specific situations, of course. But this still don't make them unbalanced.

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 02.02.2014 at 20:22

Strategies are fine. Some are clearly better than others in specific situations, of course. But this still don't make them unbalanced.

Yeah, I pretty much agree. However where I diverge is that, more times than not, some strategies can be more beneficial than others in most situations (depending on the map, though it generally applies to all maps). To rid of this "handicap," then, all you need to do is figure out the best way to utilize one's strategies to their highest potentials. Perfect Defense, for instance, is good for defending and luring the enemy into one's territory but arguably bad for attacking. Then, you should always defend, and not attack. The same applies to Guerrilla Warfare, Stealth, and all the strategies: whatever its strength may be, emphasize it.

There's already a thread for tips on all the strategies, though. And since it really helped to clarify some things for me I'll just shamelessly c/p it-- http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=6756; http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=2411

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 02.02.2014 at 23:15

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 02.02.2014 at 20:22

Strategies are fine. Some are clearly better than others in specific situations, of course. But this still don't make them unbalanced.

Yeah, I pretty much agree. However where I diverge is that, more times than not, some strategies can be more beneficial than others in most situations (depending on the map, though it generally applies to all maps). To rid of this "handicap," then, all you need to do is figure out the best way to utilize one's strategies to their highest potentials. Perfect Defense, for instance, is good for defending and luring the enemy into one's territory but arguably bad for attacking. Then, you should always defend, and not attack. The same applies to Guerrilla Warfare, Stealth, and all the strategies: whatever its strength may be, emphasize it.

There's already a thread for tips on all the strategies, though. And since it really helped to clarify some things for me I'll just shamelessly c/p it--http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=6756

Hue the actual problem with strategies/units is that tanks/marines/whatever are too expensive compared to infantries. Infantries are the most powerful unit atm, go watch high ranks and you'll see xD.
People think that if they boost the attack for tanks/marines/whatever, then it would be fair but no. I think they should buff the cost and nerf attack/def. If they keep doing minimal changes, PD/infantries will always be better than most of strats in overall.

New player here.
For such a multidimensional game, I think this game has fantastic balance along all of its dimensions. Unmatched in my experience. Keep up the good work. If you make changes, change lightly.
_____
- This is the most-serious wargame I've found that didn't involve moving around pieces of cardboard, while also being delightful to play.
- AW's gameplay is as minimally complex as a global-warfare-and-international relations game might ever be.
--- This game is apparently enjoyed by those with no grasp of history, politics or military science, but is compelling to those who have an interest in such subjects.
- The learning curve to basic competence is shallow, but the climb to excellence is steep, and worthwhile.
- The playtime-to-reward curve for upgrades is almost perfect (yes its a grind, but by the time you've achieved something, you know how to use it better).
- The way diplomacy is implemented is fantastic and provides many possible outcomes.
- Careful planning and execution is rewarded, boldness and audacity are also rewarded.
- Real-world uncertainty is well simulated (battlespace chaos, fog-of-war, duplicity, uncertain battle outcomes).
- Balance between static and dynamic warfare approaches, defensive and offensive tactical approaches, and a real recognition and application of the Strategic, Operational and Tactical levels of warfare.
- The balance between units' defensive and offensive capabilities, range, cost and special abilities is well-thought-out.
- I can think of no wargame which best simulates international relations and warfare so succinctly. The maps are beautiful, the nations/cities are appropriately balanced, and have rooting in reality etc.

What I am mystified by is that there seem to be few players who have previous rules-based-wargames experience. I don't know why that is! Maybe I don't bump into them when I play. Quite possibly they're bunkered-up with single-player simulations, playing against a computer (?) It could be that 'gamer' skills (fine motor coordination, rapid multitasking and decisive action, chaos management) are as least as important as planning, strategic vision and tactical perfection.
---
One thing that may be helpful, is to clarify early on what each unit 'represents' -- I'm new, and I figured each unit represents at least a battalion or larger formation. Sure my 'tank' unit has AFV's, but it also must have infantry support, mechanics, fuel-handling specialists, HQ etc. and that a Swedish Tank unit might actually represent many fewer vehicles and personnel than a Tank unit from Iran, but the two 'units' are equivalent in battlefield effectiveness.
People frequently complain that a 'Militia' (one man) couldn't stop a 'Tank' (one vehicle). I'm sure the Navies of the world would rejoice if they could purchase and maintain one destroyer for less than 9 x what it takes to feed and arm a paramilitary.

Or maybe I'm dead wrong an a tank is a tank.

Overall, this is an awesome game! Zombieyeti's bullet points hit it all on the head perfectly, in my opinion.

I've been totally addicted to the point that I've had to back off playing and exercise considerable restraint to have only two casual games going at a time (and only 48hour games). I had anywhere from 8 to 12 games going at once, some 48 hr some 24 hr...it was intense but really racked up the loser status in real life.

The level of detail that the map creators go into in order to make reasonably accurate maps, such as Ancient, Medieval, WWI, WWII and modern Europe maps, is very impressive. I'm particularly blown away by the few LOTR scenarios that I have played - truly remarkable balance and relative unit effectiveness. I like the unique units for each region and how the units are balanced when facing the opposite side. The various GoT and Westeros maps are fascinating and great to play, as well, in my experience.

There are some that I would like to tweak with my own versions, like the ancient "Greek World" map - I love it, but it could use a better variety of units that would also be region-specific. And, there are a few maps in my experience that are unbalanced (scaled mega-indonesia, for example). Some are just very challenging because the countries are poor but the units are standard costs (Golden Age of Piracy). I like those challenges, though, while others are frustrated beyond belief.

I agree with others here that the most unbalanced situations tend to be the disparate ranks, not the map. I'm not the best player out there, but I'm not an idiot, either (I know what a defense line is, unlike a 7 I played against and dominated back when I was a 3)...still, against a 9 or a 10, I'm toast...they have pretty much everything fast, lucky and cheap at that point, so your are pretty much uncompetitive below about 75k SP (halfway between Ranks 6 and 7).

But, the game has ways of compensating, like setting the range of ranks you want to join. I like to be challenged, but upgrades start to differentiate beyond sheer ability, as others have noted in this thread.

I also agree with others here that there are some strategies that are more universally applicable than others. It is very subjective, though, because your mindset and your experience can make or break a strat, even more than upgrades sometimes. There are some strats that I've used once or twice, and see no need to use them ever again. There are some strats that I have never used, and some of those I probably will never use, unless a scenario makes it worthwhile - for example, if you are starting in a defensive position with the odds against you, then PD is the way to go (like in some scenario maps). But I've never used PD in any other situation - it's off my radar - expanding and attacking wins games, not sitting around waiting to be attacked.

I pretty much use 4 strats for everything, choosing from the 4 based on geography, available units and average income level. They make sense to me, and I can win with them. And I save up for upgrades that complement those strats, either further enhancing the strats' units, or enhancing complementary units that are not already enhanced by the given strat.

लिखा द्वारा UrlanderPendragon, 12.03.2011 at 14:33

Bigest problem is there is a total lack of defensive stratagy for the game. Right now its fastest troop producer wins.
Proposal 1= No free troops when conqureing a country.
This will make it harder for people to just blitz across the map.
Proposal 2=Make defence of all units better!
Most of the time the invading force needs OVERWELMING strength to win a battle vs a smaller force. 2 tanks should not beat 2 infentry. 3-4 yes but 2 the attacker has the weeker force BECAUSE the defender has terrain advantage and entrenchment, adding that 3rd or 4th tank now makes it a sesaw type battle.
Proposal 3= Add more defencive type stuff to the game like Pill box's Bunkers,Artilery(also an ofencive unit)
Lastly yesterday i took a city with a transport? how realistic is that? my higgens boat walked up the shore and captured there towns city hall all by it self?

Balance is hard to reach in any game. The problem is that everytime you nerf or buff something you also nerf and buff other aspects of the game that synergize with it... so there is literally no perfectly balanced game out there.

Tbh costs and strategies don't bother me. It's the countries that do. If you play as Taiwan prepare to die within the first 10 rounds, if you play as Egypt or Turkey prepare to be overpowered.