Upgrades Overhaul

I'm proposing an overhaul of the current Upgrades system.

Currently upgrades do not matter. Past the SP required to get to say, rank 6, you'll have most of the relevant upgrades for your chosen strat and maybe a few more. After this point upgrades do not matter in the slightest. General movement or General ARB? Militia ARB? Who cares? It doesn't matter. I've had to kid myself that chosing General ARB has effected my game in the slightest because it's frankly unoticable.

I propose some more dynamic upgrades that a) Actually matter b) because all the upgrades matter there is an actual decision to be made between which to pick and c) Perhaps as a result of this there's a way to reset upgrades to make things more flexible for players.

What I want is upgrades along the lines of this:

Ambush-
Your Marines gain +2 attack when attacking from a submarine.

Conscription-
A cities reinforcement week is reset when you capture it.

Propaganda-
Cities reach their peak income faster, also the maximum income of a city is raised to 150%

Defence Doctorine-
Half of a cities Militia is converted to Infantry free of charge upon taking a city.

Salvage-
You salvage 10% of the enemies defeated units as your own upon a successful attack.

Autonomy-
A city may produce units even if that cities capital is taken (capped at 50% capacity. Ie. Lyon (a 4 pop city) could produce 2 units even if Paris is not under control).


Things that not only have a noticable impact on a game but also change the way a game is played. Perfect Defence would go for Defence Doctorine straight away. MoS would go for Ambush. There is no bad choices for any strategy but there are plenty of meaningful choices between different upgrades. Also upgrades that don't just effect attack and defence but also income and production.

These are upgrades that I've just made up on the spot in about 2 minutes of thinking and by no means fair or balanced. However they do give an indication into the way I'd prefer upgrades to be in the future: Meaningful and noticable.

Thanks for reading.

Hmm, sorry but I don't agree. I would like to see that we can actually do something with our SP when we have bought all important upgrades, but high ranks with these would be overpowered a lot.

Well there's no reason why they should be linked to SP at all. Say you get an upgrade per rank up. 0-5 takes no time at all and there wouldn't be as much of a difference between 5 upgrades and 8 upgrades. You're also forgetting that currently high ranks already do dominate low ranks which is inherent in any game where you get upgrades from time spent playing the game.

I like dis.

I like ~Caulerpa see many flaws in this sorry. Would make dem Higher ranked players unbeatable.

These are completely unfair advantages that would throw the game utterly out of balance. Upgrades should not be 'game-changers' as your proposed, but tools.

Yes this would really improve the game play. I could also imagine an upgrade tech tree with different branches for unit range, attack, defense and so on.
A bigger variety of balanced but strong upgrades would be a nice option to spend SP on.

I like this
Calurepera mad cause he no sp to buy the new upgrades

लिखा द्वारा DURRHUNTER, 26.02.2012 at 15:46

I like this
Calurepera mad cause he no sp to buy the new upgrades

hes rank fucking 9 he has most of them

For all of you guys who dont like this idea, I am proposing a change to this idea:

Instead of these being upgrades you can buy, they are "tactics" that are automatically given to you as you rank up. For example, autonomy would be given once you reach rank 4. You get propaganda once you reach rank 6. Also when a game is created, one of the options would be to allow or disallow certain tactics.

How do you like that idea?

Yes, this is what afterwind needs.

@high ranks being overpowered, then i suppose there's no point of the sp we earned?

लिखा द्वारा Runway1R, 26.02.2012 at 18:27

Instead of these being upgrades you can buy, they are "tactics" that are automatically given to you as you rank up. For example, autonomy would be given once you reach rank 4. You get propaganda once you reach rank 6.

Seriously, stop tying your ideas into every single topic you come across. Keep your ideas to their own topic.

अवतरण:

Also when a game is created, one of the options would be to allow or disallow certain tactics.

Not sure about this. It could effectively cut out several strategies.

But I'm all for this happening for scenarios. That would be great.

लिखा द्वारा YOBA, 26.02.2012 at 19:21

लिखा द्वारा Runway1R, 26.02.2012 at 18:27

Instead of these being upgrades you can buy, they are "tactics" that are automatically given to you as you rank up. For example, autonomy would be given once you reach rank 4. You get propaganda once you reach rank 6.

Seriously, stop tying your ideas into every single topic you come across. Keep your ideas to their own topic.

Seriously? Let the man share his thoughts. He doesn't need to create an entirely new and unnecessary thread on the same subject as this one.

Yeah these upgrades would make high ranks way too op, autonomy is a very good idea, and should be included not in an upgrade

Frankly these were made as examples of what upgrades could/should be rather than upgrades I wanted to put into the game. I took no time to balance them properly as I pulled them all out of my anus so please don't judge them as finished products.
I was thinking last night that the only upgrade I truly noticed were the Air Transport Capacity uprades as they truly changed the way I played the game. The rest were at best average and at worst unoticable. I wanted to change upgrades so that they actually did something noticable and changed the way people played the game.

I also wanted to make them so instead of MoS and GW players just going for the marine upgrades etc. etc. All upgrades were viable for all strategys (And so I suppose I should change the Ambush one) so players aren't pidgeon-holed into certain choices then have nothing worth buying with their SP after they have their key upgrades.

I'd also ask people to think outside of what the upgrade system current is. If we were designing a system to reward time played could anyone honestly say they would chose the current model? Does anyone say OH FUCK YES EXPENDABLE INFANTRY FINALLY YEAH?

To reiterate: More meaningful chocies. More noticable impact on game.


P.s. A few more for you:

Mobility Doctorine-
Air Transport and Submarines gain +2 capacity. Transports gain +3 movement. (Although I'd prefer Air Transports and Sub upgrades to just be included by default... 3 troop transports are awful)

Military Academy-
A city where your general is stationed may produce Officers which give the same benefits to a stack as your general would.

Total War-
A militia is produced in each capital you own, free of charge, every reinforcement week.

Remove upgrades. I mean it.
In my opinion every upgrade should at least work like a strategy, means it increases a stat, while it has also a negative side-effect. You pick a few upgrades then and create your very own strategy this way.
These days the more experience a player gains, the more addional advantages does he get through upgrades.
No need for that, new players should at least have a slight chance to compete with the high-ranks.

I like Total War. The Ambush one would be a no-no, since it's better if subs attack first

I don't really agree most of the upgrades are just way to OP (unless you make them like 100K SP lol) and some can have negative effects like Defence Doctorine, 50% of militia in cap changes to infantry? what if you use GW? that would be more negative then positive.

P.S i dont get Total War a bit, do you still need to pay weekly maintaince with it? if not, its OP if it is,then it can have negative effects also >.>

I swear people are refusing to see the point here and instead are getting caught up yelling about things being op. The strength of bonuses can be altered just as strategies have been altered over time. Not only that but those were just ideas I plucked from whatever was floating around in my brain at the time. I'm sure if upgrades were going to be overhauled Ivan/Amok would not just copy and paste what I said and say "job done".

If it makes it easier to understand I'll boil it down to this:

Upgrades don't matter at the moment, they should matter.

Range and capacity upgrades do make a difference. Also the def/att modifications are at least noticeable.
But cow is also right. We dont need to make experienced players even stronger. In a CWs for example it makes mid ranked players even more scared of high level players.

I guess the real problem are not the upgrades themselves but the SP we spend on it.
It takes a while to gain 20k and all you get is a lousy lucky infantry upgrade. But for 50SP your general adds +1 def to all units what is actually prettyuseful...
You see here the relations are just not right.

Give us something AWESOME to spend our SP on. Without making the experienced players even stronger.