i've been thinking that it could be interesting if the kill rates could be adjusted territory by territory would allow certain territories to be better for defense or a good place to base an attack c

https://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features

put it there and maybe fizzer will think about it

While I understand the desire for such a feature I don't think it is even remotely practical.

For one, the map would become so complex with the modified kill rates as to become unplayable. How can you identify the kill rate of a given territory without ruining the aesthetics or playability of the map? Mind you, any change would have to work across all platforms.

Such a modification just introduces far too much complexity to be worthwhile

I agree. Warlight should be kept simple and easy for newcomers.

Edited 8/18/2015 18:37:18

actually it can be applied very simply for small-medium maps using only 2 different kill rates (offensive and defensive) showing them with the symbols + and - on the territory....
and about newcomers... they don't have all maps available.

Edited 8/18/2015 21:53:21

Every terretory got already his worth in form of borders to a good bonus (attack value) chokepoint to defent the opponents entry to your bonuses (defense). They got values alteady. Not as clear as if you say: got 10%more attack rate, but in form of a better/worse placement

I originally agreed with Richard, because I couldn't understand how you could identify what was going on at a glance.

Then I liked Wildzar's response with the plus/minus.

I don't think the plus/minus would work on every map, though, but you could do something like put the army numbers in a square box for +defense, put the numbers in a 3 sided square for-defense, put a ^ above the numbers for +attack and put a v below the numbers for -attack.

Whatever makes it intuitive at a glance

Yeah, seems cool on the surface, but would be a problem to display. Can you imagine playing a map with these altered rates on your phone? Yuck. Not to mention all the math you'd have to do for your moves.

I think that is too complicated personally.

Hanky pinky, what exactly is a "three sided square"?

Wildzar, setting that only works for one type of map is a horrible idea. Such settings should be usable on all maps. In your setup, instead of having one number there would need to be three different values in each territory. So many maps would need to be redesigned, including the ever popular MME, in order to support these additional values (some of the bonuses are already to small to support three digit numbers let alone two more numbers).
Not only would this overly complicate the map and ruin the aesthetics but it would also greatly increase the complexity of the game.

So in other words, implementing such an idea would both ruin the look/feel of the game but also the gameplay!

+1 MoD & ChrisCMU

interesting idea, wont happen

about this idea....
one of our clan members had this idea, I simply found it interisting and I would like to say why...

this game is a strategic simulation of battles and in the reality any battlelfield has some points easier (or more difficult) to defend or to attack from (i.e. walls of a castle or mountains) as mentioned even in the "art of war". That's why I support the possibility to make the simulation more "real".

about the feasibility it is a different matter... we are here to discuss if it is possible and eventually how. Personally I believe that it should be possible to make it simply and without wasting the graphic and the playability of the maps (I suggested + and -, but for sure there are simplier ways like using dots etc.), and to who tells that it will become complicated to play I answer that they should try some of the ultra-weird settings that some players already sometimes apply and they will see that the game is already quite complex and this eventual addition will not make it so crazy. I also say again that there is no need to apply it to all the maps (some settings are pointless in some maps...)

just think about it.

+1 MOD. If you want real-time games to still be enjoyable, you need WL to be a game where calculations can be made quickly so that decision-making can occupy the most time (and the best decision-makers, not the fastest calculators, are the ones who end up winning). Territories are already at the right level of complexity for that on most strategic maps.

Also, as usual: gameplay > realism

Edited 8/20/2015 15:15:10

Sounds like a really cool idea, would definitely make the game a lot more interesting. Especially for experienced players.

Err hate to break this but calculations are a part of the game. You should have a skill advantage if you can make proper calculations at a breakneck pace.

Yes, calculations are part of the game. However, for the vast majority of players, the math of Warlight is simple (and most of the legwork is already done for you by Analyze Attack or a more accurate analysis script like the one used by Math Wolf). Right now, you can do your long-distance planning for the next few turns (and generate + apply a broad overall strategy for the entire game) in a RT game within 5 minutes. Even if you're quick at performing those calculations, you aren't required to perform so many each turn that it gives you a significant advantage over your opponent- definitely not to the point where being able to perform calculations quickly allows you to beat players who are significantly better at risk management and decision-making than you are.

However, with territory-based kill rates, you'll now have to account for varying long-distance behavior depending on the path you send an army. It's just like that old "veteran armies" suggestion where users are now burdened with a lot more calculation than in the status quo, calculation that risks two things:

1. A real-time game where there's scarcely enough time to perform good decision-making because of the significant time investment that goes into exploring options. Less time to make decisions would likely lead to performance that is not only much poorer but also more varied, except for a small subset of players who can perform math in their head very quickly or have enough experience to build intuition on the map. It would make the WL competitive environment much less inclusive.

2. Games which are decided ultimately by luck as players don't have nearly enough time to make all necessary calculations and must instead randomly (or semi-randomly) go through a small set and pick the best option within that set. This means that a player who- by luck- stumbles upon the better situation within their small sample would ultimately make the better decision, but primarily due to luck.

Hence my view that WL's calculative aspect needs to be kept simple.

Keep in mind that I'm not stating that calculations aren't (or ought not to be) an aspect of the game- at the core of WarLight, some basic arithmetic and probability and involved (and as a rather quantitative person, I'm not complaining at all). However, they're simple enough so as not to consume very much time and instead let players focus primarily on the decision-making aspect (weighing options and deciding which risks are worth taking) of the game. I think it's important that decision-making remains at the core of WarLight and therefore think that ideas like this one that will place more emphasis on calculation ought not be implemented.

And of course, at this point you might contend that strategic decision-making is itself mathematical- which is something I agree with, at least within the context of WarLight. However, decision-making in WarLight is about devising mathematical models as opposed to deriving mathematical expressions.

When figuring out the odds of getting a Scandinavia FTB on Strategic 1v1, the number of turns it would take to compensate for armies lost in taking the Canada bonus, or the change in probability of successfully taking a territory that your opponent also borders if you end up attacking it second with the same number of armies, you can simply use known information (kill rates, success odds, projected army losses) to quickly derive mathematical expressions and calculate their results. But when figuring out your optimal strategy for a game, you ultimately construct a (non-explicit) model of the game and its possible outcomes, based on assumptions that you use to determine which sort of data is important, how you're going to use that data, how you're going to disrupt and contain your opponent, etc. In the realm of decision-making, these assumptions (and your ability to refine, expand, and trim your model) have a significantly greater impact than your ability to simply calculate and input data based on known expressions. Instead of utilizing the known (expressions) to navigate through the known (data), you're instead constructing models based on assumptions to figure out how you're going to deal with the unknown.

It's like the difference between solving a Pre-Calc exam problem in high school and solving an engineering problem in real life.

Edited 8/22/2015 04:31:38

How about you receive free armies for taking a territory but you cannot move them ? They stay in the city forever. You can still add extras armies and move how you want.

The fixed armies will greatly improve defense of cities. As for terrain type, you can have a terrain that kills x armies or by percentage every turn. This will replace the negative minus ones in maps



Attacker advantage is simply double borders.

Terrain can be made to stick armies for one turn if want rivers.



Warlight isn't a hex wargame. The only reasonable idea for me is fixed armies.

No. I mostly wrote it because I expected you to respond with a GIF like that (or maybe some really shitty "rap" lyrics that prove you passed pre-K and know how to rhyme) and exit the discussion. I mean, it was pretty clear you didn't read my first comment either.

You tend to seriously overestimate the amount of intelligence I think you have. :)

Edited 8/22/2015 04:50:11

I make 10 minute real time games. 10 minutes is enough time to write an essay. In the time you can write an essay, you can do many things.

It's sad when you expect me to put up a gif. It really takes out the comedic aspect and nobody wins.