Afterwind too luck based?

As you should know if you had read the FAQ on battle mechanics, attacking and defending are entirely based on luck. It is simply the laws of probability that makes you so sure that 3 tanks can kill a militia.

The implications of this can potentially be immense, if you're really unlucky. For example, I once sent 5 MoS marines to attack 4 infantry in Lyon, France. All my marines died and 1 infantry survived even though I should have won the battle since i have much higher attack. Rather pissed, i sent 2 marines to slaughter that 1 infantry. It failed once again (bad luck). Finally, I sent 4 marines to attack Lyon and captured it with all 4 marines alive. As this was at the very start of the game, it greatly limited my expansion and wasted my money and reinforcements, thus causing me to lose the game.

On the other hand, I once had an air transport successfully defend against 2 attacking militia. It was quite late in the game so it wasn't really game changing, but imagine if this happened during vital turning points during the most heated moments in a tournament!

Afterwind is supposed to be a strategy game based on skill. I personally feel that all these luck elements take away some of the skill element away from the game, forcing one to have to hope that their battles go the way they want. As an offside suggestion, battles should take place with troops always rolling their highest possible attack/defense, leaving the game more concentrated on skill and logic rather than random chance.

The problem is, very often battles are won or lost based on random chance in the real world. A defending militia, with a good set of ambush tactics, and local knowledge would do massive damage to even a well trained attacking force. The next city over, with a different commander, could line up and end up slaughtered for almost no loss.

The luck element in AW is there to account for these factors beyond your control. If you want to take a city, send in more troops. Then again, I've been in a desperate situation where I've had 1 inf left against 3 militia defending my cap after it was grabbed. Nothing like seeing one inf retaking your capital in the nick of time, while the rest of your forces crush the line holding the enemy's cap!

TL;DR Fortunes of war is a real thing.

There is a lot of Luck in attacking and defending, and like Cynar siad, it could be seen as tribute to the Real world where no plan survies reality.

I know it could be frustrating when it happens 3-4 times to you while your opponent is smiling, but thats thats life, next time you wil be the smilling one ;-)

But maybe it would be a idea to set up the min Damage, for example Marines not with 1-8 insteat 3-8 that would, but such suggestion should be in another Topic

Maybe there should be an option to disable luck? For tournaments and other events based solely on skill?

Luck is what drives everything. That is why you should "always have a contingency plan" (Abe Lincoln, Vampire diaries)

Live life on the edge man

Afterwind is one of the least luck-based turn-based strategy strategy games I've ever played.

Ever.

If anything, luck is too small a factor, leading the game to be far too predictable.

If you want to see what a game that actually relies too much on luck, try Battle for Wesnoth. Very polished in all aspects--gameplay, graphics, storyline, interface, multiplayer, modding aspect, community--but goddamnit the gameplay has one outstanding and very annoying aspect; it relies far, far too much on luck. Otherwise it would be the ultimate hex-based TBS game.

Play that, then come back. Trust me, you won't be complaining then!

Wr1tt3n by YOBA, 03.07.2012 at 16:46

Afterwind is one of the least luck-based turn-based strategy strategy games I've ever played.

Ever.

If anything, luck is too small a factor, leading the game to be far too predictable.

If you want to see what a game that actually relies too much on luck, try Battle for Wesnoth. Very polished in all aspects--gameplay, graphics, storyline, interface, multiplayer, modding aspect, community--but goddamnit the gameplay has one outstanding and very annoying aspect; it relies far, far too much on luck. Otherwise it would be the ultimate hex-based TBS game.

Play that, then come back. Trust me, you won't be complaining then!

I'm sorry, but you obviously haven't played many strategy games if you this is the least luck-based. Look at Chess, Checkers, Command and conquer, Many big rts games,
Luck is not very prevalent in any RTS games i play except this one...

It once took me 3 turns and 11 infantry to capture Lebanon... Sometimes you just hit an unlucky streak, and it leaves you scratching your head..

Wr1tt3n by Pierceys, 03.07.2012 at 21:04

Wr1tt3n by YOBA, 03.07.2012 at 16:46

Afterwind is one of the least luck-based turn-based strategy strategy games I've ever played.

Ever.

If anything, luck is too small a factor, leading the game to be far too predictable.

If you want to see what a game that actually relies too much on luck, try Battle for Wesnoth. Very polished in all aspects--gameplay, graphics, storyline, interface, multiplayer, modding aspect, community--but goddamnit the gameplay has one outstanding and very annoying aspect; it relies far, far too much on luck. Otherwise it would be the ultimate hex-based TBS game.

Play that, then come back. Trust me, you won't be complaining then!

I'm sorry, but you obviously haven't played many strategy games if you this is the least luck-based. Look at Chess, Checkers, Command and conquer, Many big rts games,
Luck is not very prevalent in any RTS games i play except this one...

And to be honest, Chess has a fair amount of luck in it, if you have actually played it.. Because Making some moves you are hoping that your opponent makes a certain move in response ((luck)). For instance, as white, if you open with Queens Gambit, Black could try doing a Budapest Gambit, but black is relying on luck for white to actually bite and fall into the trap. ((might not be alot, but the aspect of luck is still there by using calculated moves)).. But then again, that might just be the way I see it, seeing is how im only around 1500 as a chess player ='(.

It's on both; skills and luck.
If a player has good thinking, planning, and knows how to block, he would burn the game. In the same time, the game depends on the strength of the countries, which is not always fair. Some countries have high income and weak while others have less income but strong, this affects the equilibrium of the game.

The lack of a random factor makes games much less interesting and a lot slower. Think about it, if you can calculate everything you probably have to try to calculate everything.

The random factor isn't so bad, the big problem is the level of importance of that first turn and even there Afterwind is one of the better games for making it not too random. If you elect a high risk strategy or a high risk set of moves you deserve to fall on your face sometimes.


If you want battles where pure misfortune was a serious factor look at;

Omaha (beach)
Arnhem
Bannockburn/Dorylaeum (different battles, same event)
Eylau

You cannot possibly create an entertaining game by having no random factor at all, yet, you cannot possibly create an entertaining game by having a random factor prevalent. I believe the luck factor at the moment is perfectly fine. It's small enough to be realistic, and large enough to be enjoyed.

Wr1tt3n by FrancisL.Sampson, 03.07.2012 at 22:21

It once took me 3 turns and 11 infantry to capture Lebanon... Sometimes you just hit an unlucky streak, and it leaves you scratching your head..

Wr1tt3n by Pierceys, 03.07.2012 at 21:04

Wr1tt3n by YOBA, 03.07.2012 at 16:46

Afterwind is one of the least luck-based turn-based strategy strategy games I've ever played.

Ever.

If anything, luck is too small a factor, leading the game to be far too predictable.

If you want to see what a game that actually relies too much on luck, try Battle for Wesnoth. Very polished in all aspects--gameplay, graphics, storyline, interface, multiplayer, modding aspect, community--but goddamnit the gameplay has one outstanding and very annoying aspect; it relies far, far too much on luck. Otherwise it would be the ultimate hex-based TBS game.

Play that, then come back. Trust me, you won't be complaining then!

I'm sorry, but you obviously haven't played many strategy games if you this is the least luck-based. Look at Chess, Checkers, Command and conquer, Many big rts games,
Luck is not very prevalent in any RTS games i play except this one...

And to be honest, Chess has a fair amount of luck in it, if you have actually played it.. Because Making some moves you are hoping that your opponent makes a certain move in response ((luck)). For instance, as white, if you open with Queens Gambit, Black could try doing a Budapest Gambit, but black is relying on luck for white to actually bite and fall into the trap. ((might not be alot, but the aspect of luck is still there by using calculated moves)).. But then again, that might just be the way I see it, seeing is how im only around 1500 as a chess player ='(.

Well yes when you put it that way you're right. I was thinking more along the lines of randomly generating numbers(like rolling dice)

If afterwind is based on luck,i am always unlucky kk.

Wr1tt3n by Guest, 05.07.2012 at 18:16

If afterwind is based on luck,i am always unlucky kk.

If afterwind is based on luck, then Lucky Bastards is the most OP strat around, and not sM..

But we all know the reality to that one..

Wr1tt3n by FrancisL.Sampson, 06.07.2012 at 00:34

Wr1tt3n by Guest, 05.07.2012 at 18:16

If afterwind is based on luck,i am always unlucky kk.

If afterwind is based on luck, then Lucky Bastards is the most OP strat around, and not sM..

But we all know the reality to that one..

SM isn't the best strategy bro -.-

There are better strats than it now ... You just have to work it out , I think some people have already worked it out