Fatigue

The idea is basically that units would perform more poorly if they move in the same turn that they attack or defend. The further they move, the greater the penalty; with the maximum penalty occurring when they move their maximum movement range. Units staying in position would perform at 100% efficiency.

Fatigue could be a game option - possibly an adjustable setting (ex.: none, low, med, high). Also, certain upgrades/strategies/unites could have modified fatigue penalties.

This idea would be particularly relevant (and add realism) for pre-modern era games. In modern games, I don't know how realistic it would be to implement this. Maybe "fatigue" would reflect lack of fuel or resupplying. Anyway, it would definitely reduce the power of strategies based on high mobility like SM and Blitz.

No support

Like the idea but too hard to impliment and would absolutely kill certain strats. No support.

I support ! it's a great idea. And very realistic.
Look at the war in WW2. German lost the war against Russia because fatigue.

Not much support, only if you really want a realistic RP game you could toggle it, maybe as a part of a "realism" button

I dont support too.

These suggestions are getting more and more ridiculous.

the beauty of this game is that it is simple to learn but complex master at the same time. if you want all the complex shit go play total war or europa universalis

no support

Wr1tt3n by nonames, 17.07.2013 at 15:22

These suggestions are getting more and more ridiculous.

the beauty of this game is that it is simple to learn but complex master at the same time. if you want all the complex shit go play total war or europa universalis

So basically, you'd rather people suggest removing features to make the game more simple? That or you're just trying to discourage new ideas/suggestions...
Seriously though, I don't see how this idea is ridiculous. It exists in other strategy games (not to mention real life warfare). Maybe it wouldn't apply well to atWar. I don't know.
That being said, I don't see it as being complicated at all; You move a unit, its slightly weaker. You don't, it's at 100%. Pretty simple to me...

As I said it isn't a bad idea and it would add more realism to the game. Although I simply don't see it being easily implimented or even accepted if it doesn't even get support here in the forum. It would completely change the gameplay and make high mobility strats like SM or blitz useless.

Wr1tt3n by Wildchild92, 18.07.2013 at 01:47

As I said it isn't a bad idea and it would add more realism to the game. Although I simply don't see it being easily implimented or even accepted if it doesn't even get support here in the forum. It would completely change the gameplay and make high mobility strats like SM or blitz useless.

there comes my idea of a realism button

i will accept this only in a realism button

True. But it's not exactly chess either, and a little more complex than Risk at that (walls, transports, population, upkeep, economy, naval units, stealth, turnblock, etc.). To me, the main distinction between this and other games, like Total War & Civ, is that this has little to no empire/city management; economic development is passive, there is minimal diplomacy, no research tech tree and no trade. This simplicity actually makes the game focus more on strategy and it's more enjoyable to me.

Now the feature I'm proposing doesn't have to do with empire/city management. It would have an impact on the strategic gameplay. I don't see why it's a "ridiculous" idea to add this in a game that takes into account population casualties for example.

Wr1tt3n by Wildchild92, 18.07.2013 at 01:47

It would completely change the gameplay and make high mobility strats like SM or blitz useless.

Come to think of it, I don't think this would be the case. SM and blitz units would get to travel farther for the same fatigue penalty. I think it would balance out.
What would change would be defensive and offensive strategy. Units garrisoned in cities would be more powerful than reinforcements just sent in. So a mobile defense strategy would be less powerful than multiple smaller garrisons. On the other hand, long range offensive effectiveness would also be reduced. To avoid the fatigue penalty, you'd have to park your stack near the target on the turn before, leaving that stack open to attacks.

On the whole, I think fatigue would make it more difficult to capture cities quickly. On the other hand, defending multiple cities with one big stack of troops would also be harder. A large penalty would change the gameplay significantly, a minor one, maybe not that much... I think it would be interesting to have the option to play with this (could be part of a "realism" option or whatnot).

Sure it's realistic, but a line has to be drawn on this very basis of realism. Look back and see what makes this game great and unique; its mechanics are complex but simple to learn and authentic; and with a strategic gameplay that has multitudes of technicalities and tactics. If we try to continuously implement these "realistic additions" to the game, it will no longer be fun and it will lose it's originality and become just another one of those generic strategy games. I know I'm taking this far and this might sound a bit out of context but what you're proposing is an initial step to this downfall.

Wr1tt3n by tophat, 18.07.2013 at 17:29

Sure it's realistic, but a line has to be drawn on this very basis of realism. Look back and see what makes this game great and unique; its mechanics are complex but simple to learn and authentic; and with a strategic gameplay that has multitudes of technicalities and tactics. If we try to continuously implement these "realistic additions" to the game, it will no longer be fun and it will lose it's originality and become just another one of those generic strategy games. I know I'm taking this far and this might sound a bit out of context but what you're proposing is an initial step to this downfall.

Well that sounds pretty ominous. I wouldn't want to be involved in the downfall of this game... I must retract my dangerous idea immediately! :O

On a more serious note, I'm not proposing this because it would add realism and I don't think more realism = better. Rather, I thought it might be an interesting option to have. I think the fact that countries now have population and population casualties - as I understand it they didn't before - that impact finances and available reinforcements is more realistic and an interesting feature.

Anyway, I really don't intend to push the idea. Especially since it's getting little support. I was mainly taken aback somewhat because the first idea I post here was rather bluntly called "ridiculous" by a veteran member of the community. I was mostly responding to that. That said, I also realize that a change that alters the gameplay might seem unpalatable to some veteran players who might not want to have to adapt their well honed strategies...

Wr1tt3n by Grimm, 18.07.2013 at 19:32

Wr1tt3n by tophat, 18.07.2013 at 17:29

Sure it's realistic, but a line has to be drawn on this very basis of realism. Look back and see what makes this game great and unique; its mechanics are complex but simple to learn and authentic; and with a strategic gameplay that has multitudes of technicalities and tactics. If we try to continuously implement these "realistic additions" to the game, it will no longer be fun and it will lose it's originality and become just another one of those generic strategy games. I know I'm taking this far and this might sound a bit out of context but what you're proposing is an initial step to this downfall.

Well that sounds pretty ominous. I wouldn't want to be involved in the downfall of this game... I must retract my dangerous idea immediately! :O

On a more serious note, I'm not proposing this because it would add realism and I don't think more realism = better. Rather, I thought it might be an interesting option to have. I think the fact that countries now have population and population casualties - as I understand it they didn't before - that impact finances and available reinforcements is more realistic and an interesting feature.

Anyway, I really don't intend to push the idea. Especially since it's getting little support. I was mainly taken aback somewhat because the first idea I post here was rather bluntly called "ridiculous" by a veteran member of the community. I was mostly responding to that. That said, I also realize that a change that alters the gameplay might seem unpalatable to some veteran players who might not want to have to adapt their well honed strategies...

Well in the case of having it as an option in game settings, then yes it would be an interesting feature to have.

The way you're makeing it sound it would be intersting just to see how it affects game play. I mean if this were considered seriously what stat would it effect and how bad would this fatigue penalty be? Amuse me alittle, how drastic of a change would this be?

The option could have 4 settings: none, low, medium & high
Maybe low could be as little as 10% penalty for maximum range movement and high would be 50% penalty. Something like that.