Do you like the new turn-blocking system?

So, it's been over 2 weeks since the update.
Now that everyone had time to play with the new turn-blocking system, what is your final opinion of it?

I dont like turn blocking system .very bad

Written by knobhead, 13.05.2012 at 06:16

Is this just the change to TB or is it also the removal of such things as flower walls etc

Change to TB.

If people vote no , u will change it , ? oh come on i like the new

I dont like it,
it is ok and i would not leave Afterwind if it wont be changed again, but i would prefer the old TB System, but even this may change when transports are intercepable again and the other little bugs coming with the Update are "finished"

No, not really. The game lost much of its versatility. Although its still playable and unbalance isnt much of a problem after all I didnt experience the amount of fun I had before the update. That is because individual playstyle matters so much less without 1 unit TBs. I developped expansion alogrithms for the major countrys that worked out quiet successful against any kind of players so now I already ended up playing these patterns brain off the first 3 to 6 turns and still winning. This was unthinkable before and I miss the challenge now. The only variety there is now are random neutral reinforcements the rest is pure maths. That is not the kind of game I want to play.

I always thought of turnblocking as a unique feature that should have been supported and improved. After the update you dont have to worry about TBs anymore in game but the actual system now
is even more complicated and much harder to understand. Do you really expect anyone to do the maths beore each turn to calculate his chances for a successful TB? I am sorry but I dont see many
improvements with your update.

Question for the admin: Can't you just make this a tick box option? I feel like I've endorsed the idea enough, but I'm still unsure if it's possible since I've received no input on it from the Staff (not that I can recall anyways). If it's possible, why not do that? Everyone would be happy. Just make it turned on by default (Turned on = no TB). You could also dedicate a section of the tutorial to TB (Or make more than one tutorial that unlocks as your rank progresses where it is needed).

Now, on-topic, I do not like the update personally, but I understand how other players like it from their position. I personally do not like the new system, as it, in a way, "dumbs down" gameplay. As an example, it's like attending a College and getting Average marks, but then you're transferred to a High-School so you can get better ones. It's taking the challenge away and making it incredibly easy. This is a personal preference, again, I see how other players would love this update. I simply cannot play this anymore though, as it's too similar to Risk (Please please please try and make this game it's own instead of the original intent of a better version of Risk!!!), and the strategy is too basic. I think some of the main things needed now for this system, or some better TB options (A fairer way to flower as an example), Strategy balancing (SM = Hulk in a pre-school), and more inclusion of D-lines (I've seen Mods saying to use them for "their original intent", but their original intent is too slow and costly. Quick options (like tactics!) could help I would bet, but can't say for certain. Honestly, if the majority likes the new system, keep it. Just don't expect the people who liked the old's challenge and strategy to adapt. I personally will not adapt, because i've played this game for two years and still see no incentive other than a nice community.

I dont like it.

I like it.

I think many of the negative votes are related with the unintentional side effects that came with the update, such as transports loaded with units counting as an active stack that are harder to block.

Vote also reflects intensity of preference, and as Pin says, other side effects. System really isn't that different I think, but a change for the better.

Also to the players using multiple accounts to try and affect the voting, you obviously don't realize that we can detect that, and aren't going to be influenced.

If Pinheiro Said he like it , TB will not be change . The case is closed

Written by Covid19, 13.05.2012 at 17:23

If Pinheiro Said he like it , TB will not be change . The case is closed

So the word of one Mod is worth more than 20+ fans? It's sad to admit that's it's true.

It's clearly a joke, and also said by a random dude not Ivan. Seriously, stop posting like this please, if you want to continue to be able to use the forums.

To be perfectly honest, I think the update makes it harder for the newbies just starting out. They'll be hearing about all this TB stuff, and then when they find out what it is they'll be like "Oh my God, if I could block huge stacks with one unit that would make my life so much easier."

I dislike it a lot, mostly because Imperialist and Guerrilla warfare and all these other cheap(as in cost) unit spamming strategies are too powerful. I would be fine with it if there was a way to fix these strats, but there really isn't. If you nerfed GW any further it would be destroyed and Imperialist really has no way to fix it besides making units cost more, but you might as well remove the strategy if you do that.

either way, turnblocking was a nice defense for last resort and really added to the game. Now it is kind of pointless(throwing attacking units at defending units usually ends up losing, especially with a general involved on the defensive side) really it's just a added effect to throwing your units at a stack to hopelessly fight it.

I'm okay with the system its just them transports

"oh hey look unprotected tanks on a transport I'll hit them with a bomber. looks like it didn't go through i guess I have to try again. oh boy lets try again"....Follows this single transport across the Atlantic to finally hit it with 20 bombers right before it lands in san deigo

voting no because I liked the old tb system I felt like that single militia was so manly standing up to 300 bombers that they stopped to mourn his death for the entire week.

- I liked the old system
It put a value on having ready-reserves, was somewhat unique, and valued the military principle of audacity. Audacity is very important -- many good commanders lack it, many unskilled leaders blindly rely on it, but no great general is without it.

- I like the new system
Probably more "realistic" (as if that mattered), and places greater emphasis on the the tactical principles of mobility, mass and inertia.

-That being said, I like the new system better if forced to choose.
o It doesn't suck.
o It introduces *novelty* -- which is something that every other great game of strategy lacks, which AW can have in abundance.

- The change, in the end, is (sorry) trivial.
o Diplomacy, time and resource management, planning and execution, flexibility, fortune and probability are all still factors.
o I can't really imagine how player strategy/grand tactics would have changed.
o Tactical *implementation* may have changed, but *tactics* haven't. Any tactical doctrine remained unchanged with the rule improvement.

I can see how many players, used to doing things the same way, every time, when facing certain circumstances may have found their lives flipped asunder -- because their deterministic universe has folded, because things that always went one way are now subject to a higher order of chaos (or lower order of order), but, if anything, again, realism is enhanced.

Written by Strategos, 14.05.2012 at 01:00

I can see how many players, used to doing things the same way, every time, when facing certain circumstances may have found their lives flipped asunder -- because their deterministic universe has folded, because things that always went one way are now subject to a higher order of chaos (or lower order of order), but, if anything, again, realism is enhanced.

Those of us that were stuck on one strategy found it unpleasant. The smart people that used more than one or two strategies found out how to maximize the use of the "update." I literally became unstoppable and realized the game was only about spamming. If your expansion was better you can spam more because you had more spawn points, thus you win. I could just join a world game and roll right over everyone because I could just spam bombers or infantry. And in EU/EU+ all it became was spamming infantry.

I voted no for what should be very obvious reasons.

On a casual game level, this update will probably work, but competitively , this removes a lot of strategy and fun out of the game, so i vote no.

I miss the flower power ):

Its crap.. ):

It has definitely made units more spammable. It promotes a style of gameplay that favours "making one huge stack and cutting a huge swathe to the enemy capital, without even having to worry about whether you'll reach it (you will if your stack is large enough).

Even those who say: "well you can still make lines around a city!" that's not exactly true. It might delay them, yes, but in the end his stack will ALWAYS move first". He can move out of the city and attack your line.

I don't like it much. Going through enemy units was good thing though.

I always felt that the old tb was a tactic to balance rich countries that had a large stack incoming and poor countries that had to wait a few turns to get more income.

Well at least 14 ppl are happy....

Written by BASED Ironail, 14.05.2012 at 11:21

It promotes a style of gameplay that favours "making one huge stack and cutting a huge swathe to the enemy capital, without even having to worry about whether you'll reach it (you will if your stack is large enough).

I am sorry but these types of complaints completely baffle me. It makes complete sense to me that a much larger stack of units is able to pass unaffected by a single unit to reach its target. (Not picking on Iron, have heard this repeatedly).

Written by Guest14502, 14.05.2012 at 12:06

Written by BASED Ironail, 14.05.2012 at 11:21

It promotes a style of gameplay that favours "making one huge stack and cutting a huge swathe to the enemy capital, without even having to worry about whether you'll reach it (you will if your stack is large enough).

I am sorry but these types of complaints completely baffle me. It makes complete sense to me that a much larger stack of units is able to pass unaffected by a single unit to reach its target. (Not picking on Iron, have heard this repeatedly).

its not 83 units, it is 83 platoons/regiments, so there are a considerable amout of troops in one unit, so 1 unit would be able to hold up units for one turn.

either way, this realism is irrelevant, sometimes it is better to have unrealistic features to make a good game.

Imagine in Cod or battlefield having to adjust you shots for world curve, or even better, random artillery strikes rained down the map at any point and wiped out the map or anyone who was outside.

in this game it takes 10 weeks to cross the pacific, tanks and infantry and shoot down air units (to avoid a rock paper scissors scenario).

What the players are saying is yes we should take realism into account, but this update has completely unbalanced the gameplay, removed large amounts of strategy from the game, and has made it a less fun experience. sometimes you just have to weigh the pros against the cons.

Maybe we should focus more on adding new features rather than fixing something that is not broken


edit: You are also a prime example of one of the arguements that everyone who supports the changes are people who do not understand the system or are too lazy to use/want a dumbed down game. You haven't played in months, sure everyones opinions are valid, but only if you play the game a fair amount.

1 Bomber Platoon is very easy able to slow down 80 Tank Platoons, because after the attack the 80 Plattons must regroup, repair, etc, this wont take a week but 1-2 days are realistic..
And when we take realism as Argument, where are the Bridges, Mountains, swamps and so one? Why are Helicopters so effektiv against Infantrie? Why can Tanks easily drive in the Ruins of a city where weeks of War destroyed the infrastructure and made barricades out of houses? Where are the Gasstations? A plane 4 Weeks on the Pacifik without a airport?

Its a game, realism cant be a good argument here

Written by Guest14502, 14.05.2012 at 12:06

Written by BASED Ironail, 14.05.2012 at 11:21

It promotes a style of gameplay that favours "making one huge stack and cutting a huge swathe to the enemy capital, without even having to worry about whether you'll reach it (you will if your stack is large enough).

I am sorry but these types of complaints completely baffle me. It makes complete sense to me that a much larger stack of units is able to pass unaffected by a single unit to reach its target. (Not picking on Iron, have heard this repeatedly).

Then you've clearly never studied actual military science or even played a realistic strategy game (not Bydlo of Empires). And you have heard the complaint repeatedly because a great number of people have a calculated reason to be believe that.

I dont see why a large army cannot be stopped by kamikaze bombers. They would be concerned of major losses since they do not know if there are coming more of them.
Do you really think mechanics that encourages making ridiculously large stacks make the game more realistic?

AW is a game. And games are not meant to be realistic at all. (prove me wrong)
Its just the scenario that is based on our real world.

IT HAVE NO SENSE THAT 1 ARMIES BLOCK 9376R937637236473582376752386R752386 ARMIES