Neutral Generator Needs Tweaking

There's nothing worse than attacking a neutral city and fail capturing it because it reinforced randomly. Or seeing Paris with 9 or 10 units in the first few weeks, for example. I suggest that the neutral reinforcement system should only reinforce on the reinforcement weeks (5,9,13,17...) instead of making the system completely random. This will allow for less fails and a warning sign for when it comes to reinforcement week. At least this way players will know when to send a little more units to take a neutral city.

The current neutral generator can often make the game unfair for some players. Especially in a 1v1, where one player has 4 or 5 neutral cities around him that are reinforced while the other has an easy expansion. What I'm suggesting will avoid this and make things more balanced.

I already made a thread like this a while back but nothing was done. Please, this should be implemented. I don't know what kind of priority it is, whether it's high or low priority, I'm sure many will agree that this should be implemented.

I completly agree. I hate when neutral cities reinforce near my starting country.I think that it would be the best if neutral cities reinforced later on in the game.

Wr1tt3n by tophat, 29.12.2012 at 11:40

There's nothing worse than attacking a neutral city and fail capturing it because it reinforced randomly. Or seeing Paris with 9 or 10 units in the first few weeks, for example. I suggest that the neutral reinforcement system should only reinforce on the reinforcement weeks (5,9,13,17...) instead of making the system completely random. This will allow for less fails and a warning sign for when it comes to reinforcement week. At least this way players will know when to send a little more units to take a neutral city.

The current neutral generator can often make the game unfair for some players. Especially in a 1v1, where one player has 4 or 5 neutral cities around him that are reinforced while the other has an easy expansion. What I'm suggesting will avoid this and make things more balanced.

I already made a thread like this a while back but nothing was done. Please, this should be implemented. I don't know what kind of priority it is, whether it's high or low priority, I'm sure many will agree that this should be implemented.

Would that mean neutral countries would be reinforced in turn one? I would have to send 11 units to 9 milita Spain if this were to happen and that would change a lot of expansions for most people. If your sytem would start on turn five then this should be supported.

I totally agree! Nothing worse that the feel when 2-3 countries you want to take have +1 unit and your oponents are all normal

Wr1tt3n by Guest, 29.12.2012 at 12:05

Wr1tt3n by tophat, 29.12.2012 at 11:40

There's nothing worse than attacking a neutral city and fail capturing it because it reinforced randomly. Or seeing Paris with 9 or 10 units in the first few weeks, for example. I suggest that the neutral reinforcement system should only reinforce on the reinforcement weeks (5,9,13,17...) instead of making the system completely random. This will allow for less fails and a warning sign for when it comes to reinforcement week. At least this way players will know when to send a little more units to take a neutral city.

The current neutral generator can often make the game unfair for some players. Especially in a 1v1, where one player has 4 or 5 neutral cities around him that are reinforced while the other has an easy expansion. What I'm suggesting will avoid this and make things more balanced.

I already made a thread like this a while back but nothing was done. Please, this should be implemented. I don't know what kind of priority it is, whether it's high or low priority, I'm sure many will agree that this should be implemented.

Would that mean neutral countries would be reinforced in turn one? I would have to send 11 units to 9 milita Spain if this were to happen and that would change a lot of expansions for most people. If your sytem would start on turn five then this should be supported.

ofc not on week1. it starts on 5

The system is fine. One unit more or less doesnt make a big difference. It has been a part of AW forever and everyone is well adapted to it.
But the main reason why I would keep it as it is is because it encourages players to expand on all neutrals as early as possible.

I don't have a problem with it being as it as atm, unpredictable.

Wr1tt3n by VRIL, 29.12.2012 at 13:29

The system is fine. One unit more or less doesnt make a big difference. It has been a part of AW forever and everyone is well adapted to it.
But the main reason why I would keep it as it is is because it encourages players to expand on all neutrals as early as possible.

1 unit doesn't, but many cities nearby with extra units each makes a big difference, and what I'm proposing still increases the neutral count every reinforcement week. So it still encourages players to expand on all neutrals as early as possible, probably even more at that. Also, it's not the fact that neutrals have "1" unit more, it's the fact that it reinforces after you attacked it (on the same turn) that affects it more. I hate having to preempt the "possibility" of the neutrals reinforcing.

Wr1tt3n by tophat, 29.12.2012 at 13:39

many cities nearby with extra units each makes a big difference

Thats rather unlikely. If it happens to you anyway just prioritize the cities to attack this turn and you should hardly notice a drawback.

Wr1tt3n by tophat, 29.12.2012 at 13:39

So it still encourages players to expand on all neutrals as early as possible, probably even more at that. Also, it's not the fact that neutrals have "1" unit more, it's the fact that it reinforces after you attacked it (on the same turn) that affects it more. I hate having to preempt the "possibility" of the neutrals reinforcing.

Probably, yea.

It would make the game easier indeed. But its not hard at all to figure out how many units are needed to take a city safely. So its also an indicator of your game experience/skill.

Support.

Support. Even though I thought I already did.

Support!

I agree with your complaints, but I think your solution would make things too predictable. Perhaps a compromise:

• Neutral reinforcements are calculated after the battle phase. This means that if Slovenia has 1 militia and you attack it, if you take it, nothing happens. If you don't, there's a chance that Slovenia will have 2 militia after your turn starts. I'm not sure this is possible, but I think this would solve most of your issues.
  
• No neutral reinfs before week 1, so 1st turn expansions aren't screwed up. Only after week 1's battle phase.
  
• The likelihood of neutral reinfs is higher every 4 weeks. So Paris is more likely to reinforce after the battle phases of week 4, 8, etc. This makes these weeks even more vital to take as much as possible before both the neutrals and your fellow players reinforce.
  
• EDIT: Cities with infantry will only reinforce with militia, as an extra infantry makes a much larger difference to the players.
  

What do you think, Tops?

I support Math's suggestion instead.

Wr1tt3n by VRIL, 29.12.2012 at 13:29

The system is fine. One unit more or less doesnt make a big difference. It has been a part of AW forever and everyone is well adapted to it.
But the main reason why I would keep it as it is is because it encourages players to expand on all neutrals as early as possible.

1 unit can make a huge difference if you're so used to a strategy that you know how many units you NEED to take a city, and the maximum that you should send to be on the safe side but not overkill. This is crucial in early turns because you have to ration your reinforcements, and so you send what you need to each city considering the amount that each city has. If you were starting in Spain, and you sent enough units to just barely take Paris, London, and Rome, but London and Paris both get an extra infantry, which would lead to you taking neither city, you're fucked.

Cities that regen inf should regen militia instead, 9 inf vs 8 inf makes a huge difference, 8 inf + 1 militia doesn't (as much)

Wr1tt3n by Pinheiro, 09.01.2013 at 15:24

I support Math's suggestion instead.

this

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=4788
I agree with mathdino's first 2 points and vaglneer's suggestion

I completely forgot about what VAGINEER pointed out. I support that, and edited it into my post.

Support Math/Vagl and bump.

Wr1tt3n by Mathdino, 09.01.2013 at 02:17

I agree with your complaints, but I think your solution would make things too predictable. Perhaps a compromise:

• Neutral reinforcements are calculated after the battle phase. This means that if Slovenia has 1 militia and you attack it, if you take it, nothing happens. If you don't, there's a chance that Slovenia will have 2 militia after your turn starts. I'm not sure this is possible, but I think this would solve most of your issues.
  
• No neutral reinfs before week 1, so 1st turn expansions aren't screwed up. Only after week 1's battle phase.
  
• The likelihood of neutral reinfs is higher every 4 weeks. So Paris is more likely to reinforce after the battle phases of week 4, 8, etc. This makes these weeks even more vital to take as much as possible before both the neutrals and your fellow players reinforce.
  
• EDIT: Cities with infantry will only reinforce with militia, as an extra infantry makes a much larger difference to the players.
  

What do you think, Tops?

yes i this is what i mean. support

Yes I think we all will be happy with math's suggestions, and so to make it more clear. Support math's idea!

Wr1tt3n by Milkyy, 15.01.2013 at 16:55

Yes I think we all will be happy with math's suggestions, and so to make it more clear. Support math's idea!

Agreed. (Insert Support here)

Wr1tt3n by VRIL, 29.12.2012 at 13:29

The system is fine. One unit more or less doesnt make a big difference. It has been a part of AW forever and everyone is well adapted to it.
But the main reason why I would keep it as it is is because it encourages players to expand on all neutrals as early as possible.

I've played thousands of 1v1s and it makes a difference, sometimes not as bad, but sometimes it does cost games. It's the fact that it reinforces at the end of the turn. For example, a player attacks an 8 militia city with 6 tanks (usual routine and usual victory) but suddenly it reinforces to 9 militia vs 6 tanks and he fails, it's crucial.

What I'm suggesting still forces players to "expand on all neutrals as possible early" because it still reinforces on weeks 5,9,13,17 etc.. as i've suggested. So instead of it being completely random it's now systematic and players are now aware that the neutral cities will be reinforced on those weeks. Meaning they need to send a little more to be sure they conquer them.

I kinda agree.
I think we should be able to toggle random reinforcement.

Support

Support

SUpport

My suggestion (and VAG's addition) seems to be the most supported among the original poster and the rest. Here it is again.

• Neutral reinforcements are calculated after the battle phase. This means that if Slovenia has 1 militia and you attack it, if you take it, nothing happens. If you don't, there's a chance that Slovenia will have 2 militia after your turn starts.
  
• No neutral reinfs before week 1, so 1st turn expansions aren't screwed up. Only after week 1's battle phase.
  
• The likelihood of neutral reinfs is higher every 4 weeks. So Paris is more likely to reinforce after the battle phases of week 4, 8, etc. This makes these weeks even more vital to take as much as possible before both the neutrals and your fellow players reinforce.
  
• Cities with infantry will only reinforce with militia, as an extra infantry makes a much larger difference to the players.

The third one is optional if it would be a little weird to code. So admins, any chance of this being implemented?

Wr1tt3n by Mathdino, 01.02.2013 at 18:57

My suggestion (and VAG's addition) seems to be the most supported among the original poster and the rest. Here it is again.

• Neutral reinforcements are calculated after the battle phase. This means that if Slovenia has 1 militia and you attack it, if you take it, nothing happens. If you don't, there's a chance that Slovenia will have 2 militia after your turn starts.
  
• No neutral reinfs before week 1, so 1st turn expansions aren't screwed up. Only after week 1's battle phase.
  
• The likelihood of neutral reinfs is higher every 4 weeks. So Paris is more likely to reinforce after the battle phases of week 4, 8, etc. This makes these weeks even more vital to take as much as possible before both the neutrals and your fellow players reinforce.
  
• Cities with infantry will only reinforce with militia, as an extra infantry makes a much larger difference to the players.

The third one is optional if it would be a little weird to code. So admins, any chance of this being implemented?

That is basically what I suggested (except for infantry cities reinforcing with militia)

So yes, these points exactly need to be implemented. It just makes total sense.