Suggestions

Discussion in 'Alternate Future Advance' started by redbaron4850, May 4, 2016.

  1. redbaron4850

    redbaron4850 Map Maker

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    May 1, 2016
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    20
    Please post any and all suggestions for the game in this thread. It doesn't matter what it might be, paths, apocalypses, balancing, income, modes, anything! If you think it is a good idea I want to hear about it here.
     
  2. Hexaotl

    Hexaotl

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2013
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    46
    ┬┤Giving air units some sort of fuel or timer so they cant sit and bomb constantly. Personally i like the World in Flames air system since it is realistic and balanced, but just having mana for fuel works too. I think it would be a nice way of nerfing air without nerfing its combat strength
     
  3. redbaron4850

    redbaron4850 Map Maker

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    May 1, 2016
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    20
    I personally have never actually played a game of WiF so I can't speak much for the system or how it is balanced, but I have seen the "realistic air movement system" on hive that I think was Fingolfins. I saw that planes are "launched" from an air factory and I guess had ammo? While I like the idea behind the system, I don't think it works for the scale and pace of the game that TAF is. I really can't speak for balancing since I have never used the system and am not sure how it would balance with the rest of the game.

    I want to emulate fast placed game play mainly focused on combat on a large scale with multiple fronts. If that's what WiF is then it's a shame I have never played it but it just seemed like more of a EU4 type of game where combat is just a secondary focus.
     
  4. ralllerboy

    ralllerboy hi

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2013
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Give an additional infantry unit to yellow if he goes Indian Commune, currently he has 1 infantry unit, and it blows ass. Sure he has the health upgrade, but it doesn't feel like it does enough to such crap units
     
  5. House Martell Bannerman

    House Martell Bannerman ISH when?

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    6
    I think you should make the map bigger, and cleaner, wich more confortable colours and sprites, so we can focus on the things that really matter: get nukes
     
  6. redbaron4850

    redbaron4850 Map Maker

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    May 1, 2016
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    20
    The map really can't be bigger unless the proportions change quite a bit. Making the map look less cluttered would be ideal but is hard to accomplish without changing things like city counts and incomes or where and how a lot of the terrain features affect the locations of battles that typically happy.
     
  7. TheVinylRaider

    TheVinylRaider

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,584
    Likes Received:
    226
    In all seriousness Wif is like the most realistic and microintensive ww2 map with multiple fronts and multitask, the lvl of awarness on wif is on parseks above Taf. Taf is precissely more of an EU4 type if u compare it to wif ofc. Its models are insane tho u should take a look on them altough i guess that Taf must be close to its limit of size.
     
    • This This x 2
  8. redbaron4850

    redbaron4850 Map Maker

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    May 1, 2016
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    20
    I've never really played WiF or ever had a good game or lobby for it I guess. I compare TAF more to risk devolution and diplomacy on starcraft as the style of map. It has nowhere near the depth of WiF which is what I was comparing to EU4 in terms of all the shit to do. Maybe it was the bulky ui or something. But I have only tried to play it one or two times. TAF is solely focused on combat, income, diplomacy, and strategy. You need at least 3 of those things to win and everything in game is either combat or economy oriented.

    Competitive TAF is very similar to fast paced risk games. It's the RP crowd that frowns upon wars that really slows down the game.
     
  9. nodle

    nodle Budtender

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,791
    Likes Received:
    1,104
    You shouldn't deny the rp crowd either, plus the high income makes it so boring, I literally spam trade ships by fourth turn and have a income of 6k. Nerf income again I usually end up with overbearing amounts of gold. Which leads to who can spam more infantry type of style of game.
     
  10. redbaron4850

    redbaron4850 Map Maker

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    May 1, 2016
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    20
    I don't want to nerf income overall again. Some regions or nations might need tweaked but I just don't see how it is possible for any nation in game to have that high of income so early unless someone leaves or just rolls over and lets you walk all over them. For that to happen you would need to start as a larger power and have 6 or 7 active ports that early on.

    As far as my comments about the "rp crowd" I don't they should be counted out either and a lot of the new features in advance serve more of a purpose rp wise than not. It is when you get mixed player lobbies or strict abusive rp hosts that games are usually over before a climax.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2016
  11. nodle

    nodle Budtender

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,791
    Likes Received:
    1,104
    As Eu u could gain a 5k income with trade by turn 5. Plus even though you increased the costs of nukes and silos, still stupidly easy to obtain and blow the world up.

    Sorry if I sound negative baron but the last few games I've played in advance, it's been a literal spam more special forces or planes than the other player type of game. Because of the nerfed income in 1.5 it made you specialize in a fighting style and destroyed alot of the spam I now find in advance.
     
  12. redbaron4850

    redbaron4850 Map Maker

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    May 1, 2016
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    20
    A lot of players do mass special forces. This is the current meta of the game. They are very easy to counter and even 2 bombers can completely stop an invasion in the first couple turns. I am currently in the process of updating the Infanty, Tank and Ship information on the drive sheet and to lay everything out like the pages for Fighters and Bombers.

    When it comes to nukes it costs over 30k before you can even build a single nuke. If you are completely against nukes and or apocs, the No Superweapons mode is back and works properly. Simply play that mode and you won't ever have the problem. Or if in standard and people build nukes, try and get a coalition of forces to enforce a no-nuke policy and team up on people who make them or something. You could always just take them out yourself though.

    With that said there are different tactics that fare better in different environments so players tend to push those types of strategies. 1.5 plays slower now because incomes were reduced. They were not reduced in any way from 1.4d afaik. What makes the difference is that the income timer is longer giving players more time between turns to wage war and lose units. This just gives players more time for their units to die if they are in a war or less of a steamrolling effect because of the longer turn time.

    Longer turns are a double edge sword allowing the more skilled players to have all the time in the world they need to micro and set up crazy strategies while the less skilled players do about the same. The difference is that the less skilled players can't recover quickly if unexpectedly attacked and usually roll over and die. This has been my experience nearly every time I have played 1.5* and it really reminds me of the pace and gameplay of 1.9d. A lot of people liked 1.9 but it is simply too slow paced of a game for my tastes and I don't want to see advance head down that road.

    If anything I'd like to get the income timer down to one minute or 90 seconds but with the length of the income trigger it is hard to accomplish without causing horrible lag for a lot of players.

    *I have only been hyper agressive or afk when playing 1.5
     
  13. nodle

    nodle Budtender

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,791
    Likes Received:
    1,104
    Holy shit your the Sukramo of taf.

    First of all, to counter bombers, players usually only need to mass normal infantry for those groups of stingers to stop bombing tactics or you can build 300g mobile flaks so your suggestion is worthless.

    30k takes US round ten turns and probs will be mass trading at the same time. Also please don't say "if he does build nukes just rush him" that's not the point of this thread, point is to balance the game out.

    With your comparison to 1.9 is fair enough but *in my* opinion you set the game pace to a retardedly high income, fast turn has lead to people either massing infantry in war, or people massing everything and acting defensively, leading to a spam filled game which helps disconnect people from the game.
     
  14. redbaron4850

    redbaron4850 Map Maker

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    May 1, 2016
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    20
    Heavy infantry spawns two stingers and two sappers for the cost of one bomber. They are quite effective against bomber groups. Against the couple bombers early on they are much more cost effective compared to any other AA.

    Some people like nukes and some don't. Tactically, they allow players to potentially swing a war in their favor. Winter is there to prevent players from destroying the world if the have something to lose.

    They don't offer much else than that except for a forced apocalypse, but nerfing the cost would make it so superpowers easily control the number of nukes in game and increasing winter limit would promote players to use them more because there is less of a consequence
     
  15. nodle

    nodle Budtender

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,791
    Likes Received:
    1,104
    Like... Are you trying to help prove my point? You have turned it into a special forces/heavy infantry mass game now, like how do you not see this.

    Also im not suggesting to Nerf the cost, but perhaps fall to the holy version of nukes where it turns them more into a strategic silo than hiding nukes across the world like the Arctic before mass nuking the game. Cause like nobody ever does that right?
     
    • This This x 1
  16. redbaron4850

    redbaron4850 Map Maker

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    May 1, 2016
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    20
    Land battles in taf have always revolved around spec forces. They have more maneuverability and a higher dps than standard infantry and therefore are easier to micro especially early on. After upgrades infantry and commander are quite good also. Standard infantry need to be paired with armored forces to be as effective. I don't see this as a problem rather, it is something that is integral to the pace of the game. Special forces are generaly twice as expensive as normal infantry and gold for gold other army compositions are equally as effective.

    I've had a plan for nukes since before I even made advance, I have just never tried to implement it. But basically it would be kind of a mix of both systems. You could train and store nukes in silos and transport them between silos via a truck type land unit. Launching a nuke would be a targeted aoe spell that launches an unelectable physical unit and makes it detonate when it reaches the target. The biggest problem to the spell system in 1.5 is that nukes can't be stopped no matter how much AA you have. I just don't care enough about changing the current system to make it a priority.
     
  17. nodle

    nodle Budtender

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,791
    Likes Received:
    1,104
    Honestly baron, I don't understand what your point is anymore nor mine. So I will try to re-iterate my jives.

    First of all my main problem is not the balance between units but between the spam/mass unit tactics and because wc3 suffers from Unit Lag, please take these suggestions seriously.

    First the infantry spam, last night I was in advance game and Africa decided to mass guerrillas. However what he did was ridiculous, he massed guerrillas from 12-24 metro's into Arabia and Europe. The mass couldn't even move because he spammed it to death. So in this situation, yes baron he was easily countered with T-95's however it took 15mins to clear the mass with bombers as well. How much did this manoeuvre cost him? 8k. How much can he make per turn in 15mins? Idk probably alot more.

    Also let's use the situation, you can try to rush bombers early game but it's essentially pointless as it doesn't give you a advantage, massing normal infantry or more logically heavy infantry stops this tactic cold in its tracks. I also didn't even mention that building a tank factory is so much more worth it because you can mass mobile flaks to counter air as well. Hell most games I don't even bother with a airforce because it's so stacked against it.

    So my evaluation of advance is this

    Tanks>Infantry>Navy>airforce

    With nukes trumping all but the weakest force airforce.

    Whereas in 1.5 I would evaluate it as this

    Tanks>Airforce>Navy>Infantry

    And that's the way it should balance out.

    Nerfing income can help negate infantry spam or if your completely against that, Nerf the draft income or draft cost for infantry but as well as increasing gold cost of vehicles.

    Also your nuke idea is good but holys still beats the current one in TAF advance
     
  18. redbaron4850

    redbaron4850 Map Maker

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    May 1, 2016
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    20
    I have thought about ways to reduce infantry spam past a specific point and the best way is probably to limit the total number of units of type allowed at once time. I've considered reducing drafts to something akin to Final 1.3a standards but you would still be able to just make armored unit with low draft cost and then push out 500-1000 infantry units causing the same mass problems that you speak of.

    Unit lag in warcraft 3 starts around 300-500 units moving for a player at once and gets worse the more you have. This is a pathing bug with WC3 and with a game of this scale it is hard to get around.

    I guess the only way to get around it would be to limit the total number of infantry by any given player to about 500 which I don't think is a bad idea. I don't like the idea of scaling down the size of conflicts much more than they currently have been. Infantry has seen a rise in popularity with the addition of unit rallies and the number of units moving at one time has seen a large increase as well due to it.

    As far as nukes are concerned, I do not like the fact that you can't protect yourself from a nuclear strike outside of destroying the nuke silo and can't even consider a similar system because of this alone. Until I work out the triggering for my new proposed system, it will stay as it is. There are many warnings and ways to stop players from obtaining nukes and I just don't see them as a problem.
     
  19. redbaron4850

    redbaron4850 Map Maker

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    May 1, 2016
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    20
    I think it's interesting that you rank the archetypes how you do. I don't think it is as simple as you put it and would define the major archetypes as:

    Infantry
    Ships
    Tanks
    Fighters
    Bombers
    Helicopters
    Defenses

    Obviously 1.5 doesn't have helicopters but I think that you would rank the archetypes based off of a simple counter system as there are overlaps and what not. It's hard to define it as being so simple because there are different ways to deal with different situations for each type of unit.
     
  20. nodle

    nodle Budtender

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,791
    Likes Received:
    1,104
    Reason why I put navy so low is because you can't use your navy to kill all your opponents whereas with armour you can. Infantry I would put at top actually, just so all around useful and counters all. What good are fighters without bombers? Helicopters and defenses I didn't add because I don't see players massing helis and for defenses I didn't put down either because they are not Vehicles.
     
Affiliates
Make Me Host  HiveWorkshop  Brigand's Haven  BlizzMod  Warclave