Main issue I have is that the order in which battles are fought can change the outcome of said battles.
Posts made by erik542
RE: Advice needed for Handicap between unequally skilled players
The problem you're facing is that the regular bid system only provides an upfront boost of units. If there is a meaningful skill gap between players then unit per unit, you'll get more down and pick better battles. What you'd need to do is give them an income boost. So while you're going to be shredding more of their men per turn they will be producing more men. Also on some maps it might be reasonable to give them a free tech or something.
RE: Find province command
Well it'd be good to put in the territory tab if when the territory gets selected somehow that it showed the list of units in that territory just like if you were hovering over the territory with the tab open. This would be helpful in cases where people need to tally up units in multiple crowded territories to calc.
RE: Player Ranking/Rating System
- I don't like that scoring system because it doesn't take into account your opponent. While in a tournament or league scenario that scoring system would be sufficient, but outside of that using it to establish some kind of ladder to try to establish who are the best players of game overall will inevitably fail because two people can just play each other a lot to propel both of them to the top of the ladder. Under an ELO system, losing ELO for losing games prevents that as well as reduces the effectiveness of farming scrubs for free wins.
RE: Update for Domination 1914 No Man's Land
Regarding Zeppelins: There really isn't any real room to lower the cost of zeppelins without zeppelin spam becoming very common due to cost effectiveness because SBR is actually a very powerful ability that demands a rather high unit cost regardless of unit stats. Suppose we make the zepps a 0/0 for $14, then you've only made the problem worse because then it'll be a statistically even money trade to bomb territories that are worth only $2.The fundamental math for SBR makes it very expensive.
Regarding sz151: It's mostly the fact that it connects with Sakhe and it's so close to the US. Fixing that in a not clumsy manner would require just redrawing the region.
Regarding money changes: I'm concerned about Germany building a factory in Rhine and / or Champagne and punish the crippled French production. Honestly, until France gets industry, it can get tricky to actually spend all of its money. On round 1, France has 20 production and thus can't even spend all its money on infantry.
Things you didn't bring up that would be good: Removing Papua infantry (allows germany to buy navy in New Guinea round 1). Moving Picardy art to Paris (makes sz25 optional).
RE: Player Ranking/Rating System
- You could implement a basic ELO system.
- Ranked play could be agreed upon at the outset of the game and results reported to the forums by screenshot.
- I think that only certain maps should count and a player's overall rank would simply be their peak rank.
- Tournaments and leagues are defacto ranked games.
- At this stage, probably not because games / year is low compared to most other games like LoL and OW.
- Damned if I know.
RE: World At War - Official Thread
So I've seen some criticism to this and other Sieg maps that there isn't a very good counter to infantry spam.at first I thought it was just some whining, but when I sat down and crunched the numbers, there seems to be some validity to this.So let's look at the numbers of infantry spam and the most cost effective response, inf + art. Art costs 3.5 and inf cost 2. To evenly match at stack of inf with inf + art, you would need to spend $5.5 to their 4, or roughly 1.375:1 cost ratio to crack a stack. That doesn't seem too bad, but we should compare it to non-Sieg maps whose primary distinguishing characteristic is the $2 inf. On most other maps inf cost 3 and art cost 4. This means you spend $7 to crack their $6 stack giving us a ~1.16:1 cost ratio. In effect, the discount given to defense has doubled from non-Sieg to Sieg maps.
Proposal: Reduce the cost of art to 3. What does this do? In my cost effectiveness analysis, to brings the cost ratio down from 1.375:1 to 1.25:1. Currently, people just don't really buy artillery that often and I doubt it'll have a dramatic effect on a map that heavily values mobility. Ah, but what of the elite who also sits at $3? Well it will still have it's own place as a unit since it is supported rather than supports but also it only takes up 2 space on a transport to the art's 3.