Game Suggestion

Dear community,
While me and my friends find this game really interesting and entertaining to play, there are a few suggestions I'd like to recommend the development team to consider.
While I find those suggestions needed, I'm up for other's opinion on any of my suggestions!

Suggestions Lists:

• Alliance Options:
  Explanation: Being in an alliance is an important key factor to win a game and all the current alliance feature are well thought of but there are some other features I'd personally like to be added (and I'm sure other people would like it too).
  Whenever a person wants to make an alliance, a small window will pop up with the head titles of "Alliance's Agreement (/Options)". In that window you can enable or disable the following features: Allow/Disallow stationing units in alliance's friendly cities to help defend it. Allow/Disallow friendly alliance's units to pass through Defence Lines (suspecting betrayels). Allow/Disallow getting 'field reports' from friendly allaince units. (Field Reports: How many units, where, which type and what they are doing, nearby enemy units). Allow/Disallow alliance units to combine. (Place your units with your alliances unit making 1 'unit circle'. If you place your units into your alliance's units, He gets to control all of the units. If the alliance member places his units into yours, you will be able to control them) (OPTIONAL: Adding an option to disband merged units) Those options are changable throughout the game (like game options change). If anyone has more 'Alliance Options' please tell me below and i'll add it to the list.
  
• Being able to hand a city (not a capital city) to an alliance member.
  Why? When someone attacks your alliance and you send units to defeat an enemy that conquered a city in your alliance's country, you capture that city under your alliance's control. Resulting in NOT receiving Full-Country bonus and you not being able to produce military units there. (pretty much a useless city)
  
• Being able to preview posts on the forums.
  
• Paying to be able to change your profile photo... I know money is important in creating a game but comeon... (>.>)
  
• Stealth Ground Transport: Like a small jeep or anything of the sort(Doesnt have to be offensive, just being able to transport ground -human- units)
  
  * NEW *
  
• Abandon / Surrender: There are 2 options:
  1) Add a penalty to people who abandon or surrender (NOT TIMEOUT) (penalty of like 5% SP off of your available SP for abandoning games).
  2) If a person abandon or surrender, his SP will be divided to the remaining players in game.
  
  Why? Had enough of spending 2~3 hours of gaming and building an army to attack a person to see them quit as soon as he notices them.... Spend too much time and money to not win SP....
  

You can already do the second, and i like the concept of ground transport you can already do that on a custom map.

Allies; Maybe, but..That would take way too much time, I don't want games to turn into 5mins.
I agree 100% about pictures and forum post preview. Actually, forum needs A LOOOTTT of improvement. As so do clans/website.
About the last one; The game is fine as it is, there are custom maps for people who have other "taste".

1) How can you hand cities to alliance members?
2) How long would it take to tick allow or disallow to 5 options?


NEW SUGGESTION ADDED!

Napisano przez Cerberus1432, 06.02.2014 at 15:22

1) How can you hand cities to alliance members?
2) How long would it take to tick allow or disallow to 5 options?


NEW SUGGESTION ADDED!

1, have 1 unit (militia, obviously) in the city. He won't be able to take it.
2, I don't know. I haven't saw it in a tick/untick form. I still think the current system is ok, betrays are also fine. Just get used to dicks, and don't ally them. Don't like getting 3v1d? Change Maximum Alliances option.

Napisano przez Guest, 06.02.2014 at 15:34

Napisano przez Cerberus1432, 06.02.2014 at 15:22

1) How can you hand cities to alliance members?
2) How long would it take to tick allow or disallow to 5 options?


NEW SUGGESTION ADDED!

1, have 1 unit (militia, obviously) in the city. He won't be able to take it.
2, I don't know. I haven't saw it in a tick/untick form. I still think the current system is ok, betrays are also fine. Just get used to dicks, and don't ally them. Don't like getting 3v1d? Change Maximum Alliances option.

the point of alliance options is to give more freedom for alliances and more stuff to do as an alliance. For now the alliance has no other point than not being able to attack each other because you can attack others together without attacking each other without an alliance as well... So give the alliances more features.

I WANT to GIVE an alliance member his city but he cant capture it and I can not give it to him, thats the point.

Napisano przez Cerberus1432, 06.02.2014 at 16:04

Napisano przez Guest, 06.02.2014 at 15:34

Napisano przez Cerberus1432, 06.02.2014 at 15:22

1) How can you hand cities to alliance members?
2) How long would it take to tick allow or disallow to 5 options?


NEW SUGGESTION ADDED!

1, have 1 unit (militia, obviously) in the city. He won't be able to take it.
2, I don't know. I haven't saw it in a tick/untick form. I still think the current system is ok, betrays are also fine. Just get used to dicks, and don't ally them. Don't like getting 3v1d? Change Maximum Alliances option.

the point of alliance options is to give more freedom for alliances and more stuff to do as an alliance. For now the alliance has no other point than not being able to attack each other because you can attack others together without attacking each other without an alliance as well... So give the alliances more features.

I WANT to GIVE an alliance member his city but he cant capture it and I can not give it to him, thats the point.

You actually can.
Empty and wall the city, and then tell him to take it.

According to 1) and 2),
SP system is kinda unfair. Though, this is not the solution at all. First, because 5% is way too much; believe it or not it is, a regular player wold even lose more of what he earns, if he plays on Europe+ or places where you don't get enough SP. Second, because many people surrender/leave before the game ends, and that's fine; do we all have to wait hours to the game to finish? What if the other guy just stands there for countless turns?

Im talking about leaving the game as he is about lose, not even letting you conquer his city/country.

Napisano przez Cerberus1432, 07.02.2014 at 09:08

Im talking about leaving the game as he is about lose, not even letting you conquer his city/country.

Me too.
It does not seem like a good solution.
Read above ^

Support
- Improvements to forum

No Opinion
- Changes to profile photos

Do not Support
- Alliance Options: An alliance is, or should be a big deal. An alliance should not be one's first resort, it should be one's last resort (peace or war first, war or alliance last). This approach mirrors IRL diplomacy and international relations. If you don't trust the player, don't ally them. Make peace (or attack).
-- Allow/Disallow stationing units in alliance's friendly cities to help defend it.
Wall the allied city if you wish to protect it. When a city is occupied by foreign (even friendly troops) there is disruption. AW simulates this well under the current approach.
-- Allow/Disallow friendly alliance's units to pass through Defence Lines
Break the alliance if you don't trust the player. Your distrust is likely well-placed.
-- Allow/Disallow getting 'field reports' from friendly alliance units.
If you're not willing to share battlefield intelligence with your allies, you probably should rethink your relationship with that ally.
-- Allow/Disallow alliance units to combine
How would they decombine? Who would pay for the unit upkeep? What if the original owner becomes the enemy/dies?
-- Being able to hand a city (not a capital city) to an alliance member.
In essence, if you cannot take and hold a city and country, you are not entitled to its wealth. Notice: A city you hold in a country you own gives you wealth. A city your ally holds in a country you own may not give you wealth, but it should be easier to retake a city from an ally than an enemy. Continuing, a city denied your enemy always has some value.

- Stealth Ground Transport: Build marines. I can think of no precedent for a Stealth Ground Transport as a standard unit.

Abandon / Surrender:
In the end, if abandon/surrender incurred one set of penalties, and timeout, a lesser consequence, what do you think the natural progression would be? Hint: Timeout vs. Surrender/Abandon. One who surrenders still smells up the common WC that is AtWar, but has at least flushed the toilet they shit in, but one who times out/closes window leaves the turd in the bowl for the duration of the current turn when they leave the loo, and subsequent turns, until they system flushes for them.

Napisano przez Cerberus1432, 06.02.2014 at 13:14

Dear community,
While me and my friends find this game really interesting and entertaining to play, there are a few suggestions I'd like to recommend the development team to consider.
While I find those suggestions needed, I'm up for other's opinion on any of my suggestions!

Suggestions Lists:

• Alliance Options:
  Explanation: Being in an alliance is an important key factor to win a game and all the current alliance feature are well thought of but there are some other features I'd personally like to be added (and I'm sure other people would like it too).
  Whenever a person wants to make an alliance, a small window will pop up with the head titles of "Alliance's Agreement (/Options)". In that window you can enable or disable the following features: Allow/Disallow stationing units in alliance's friendly cities to help defend it. Allow/Disallow friendly alliance's units to pass through Defence Lines (suspecting betrayels). Allow/Disallow getting 'field reports' from friendly allaince units. (Field Reports: How many units, where, which type and what they are doing, nearby enemy units). Allow/Disallow alliance units to combine. (Place your units with your alliances unit making 1 'unit circle'. If you place your units into your alliance's units, He gets to control all of the units. If the alliance member places his units into yours, you will be able to control them) (OPTIONAL: Adding an option to disband merged units) Those options are changable throughout the game (like game options change). If anyone has more 'Alliance Options' please tell me below and i'll add it to the list.
  
• Being able to hand a city (not a capital city) to an alliance member.
  Why? When someone attacks your alliance and you send units to defeat an enemy that conquered a city in your alliance's country, you capture that city under your alliance's control. Resulting in NOT receiving Full-Country bonus and you not being able to produce military units there. (pretty much a useless city)
  
• Being able to preview posts on the forums.
  
• Paying to be able to change your profile photo... I know money is important in creating a game but comeon... (>.>)
  
• Stealth Ground Transport: Like a small jeep or anything of the sort(Doesnt have to be offensive, just being able to transport ground -human- units)
  
  * NEW *
  
• Abandon / Surrender: There are 2 options:
  1) Add a penalty to people who abandon or surrender (NOT TIMEOUT) (penalty of like 5% SP off of your available SP for abandoning games).
  2) If a person abandon or surrender, his SP will be divided to the remaining players in game.
  
  Why? Had enough of spending 2~3 hours of gaming and building an army to attack a person to see them quit as soon as he notices them.... Spend too much time and money to not win SP....
  

A principle older than warfare: If you cannot take and hold something, it is not yours, and you are not entitled to it.

Napisano przez Cerberus1432, 06.02.2014 at 16:04

Napisano przez Guest, 06.02.2014 at 15:34

Napisano przez Cerberus1432, 06.02.2014 at 15:22

1) How can you hand cities to alliance members?
2) How long would it take to tick allow or disallow to 5 options?


NEW SUGGESTION ADDED!

1, have 1 unit (militia, obviously) in the city. He won't be able to take it.
2, I don't know. I haven't saw it in a tick/untick form. I still think the current system is ok, betrays are also fine. Just get used to dicks, and don't ally them. Don't like getting 3v1d? Change Maximum Alliances option.

the point of alliance options is to give more freedom for alliances and more stuff to do as an alliance. For now the alliance has no other point than not being able to attack each other because you can attack others together without attacking each other without an alliance as well... So give the alliances more features.

I WANT to GIVE an alliance member his city but he cant capture it and I can not give it to him, thats the point.

If you are sincerely soliciting game change suggestions, and don't think this will crap ur thread:

- Option for alliances to last 3-x turns. 'Leaving' this alliance would countdown turns to end of the alliance, until it ends at peace.
- An 'escrow' for the one who breaks an alliance? Players agree on a certain amount of income for a certain number of turns, or x% of earned SP to be surrendered to the other player should they break the alliance.
- Trade simulations: Every player is able to invest a lump sum, any turn, to any player that they are at peace/alliance with.
-- Every turn where both parties are at peace, the investor receives x% back as income, the investee .5% back as income (say 10%/5%)
-- Every turn where both parties are allied, the investor receives 2x% back as income, the investee receives x% back as income (20%/10%).
-- If war happens, the investor loses the entire lump sum, the 'investee' seizes y% of the lump sum.
(much historical precedent, say 50%).

(ones I'd really like to see)
- Alliance metrics, publicly available, for each player:
-- # of alliances made (overall number and average/game played, average players/game)
-- # of alliances broken by the player, and which player they broke the alliance with.
-- # of alliances the player was in where someone else broke the alliance and who broke it.

Unit Finder