Log in

I forgot my password

Who is online?
In total there are 6 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 6 Guests :: 1 Bot

None

[ View the whole list ]


Most users ever online was 41 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:18 pm
Latest topics
» Why no AET/boot of 1?
Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:35 pm by Plops

» Map Editor Missing Tiles
Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:00 am by WalkerBoh

» No forgiveness lol
Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:15 am by Xmo5

» Automated Z-Games
Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:48 am by WalkerBoh

» Sami: the Art of Stealth
Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:16 pm by Everdan

» GL Game Report: Everdan vs mxdcyw2000
Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:50 pm by sulla

» anyone still about
Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:06 pm by WalkerBoh

» Bug and Glitch List
Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:38 am by WalkerBoh

» Tank on a mountain
Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:55 pm by WalkerBoh

Top posting users this month
Plops
 
WalkerBoh
 


Differences with AWBW game

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Differences with AWBW game

Post  Blanci on Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:13 am

---------------------------
EDIT-- just found Old Forum Topic with same title!
Differences between AWBW and AWDS by GIPFace
http://www.amarriner.com/awbw_forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=13838
nice heated debate!


-------------------------------------------------

Blanci wrote:
   However at awbw i d think grit is broken on nearly all maps ive seen. Please explain what is different in your other version of AW to make grit less effective.

Mara Saragon reply

If by "other version" you mean AWDS, that's a topic I'll happily discuss. (..)

I will state briefly that the biggest difference by far is the charging system. It's not merely "faster," that's just a lazy shorthand I use a lot. In the older games, CO Power charging was based on funds, and the funds of damaged units fed that bar. (I.e. Infantry feed 1000g to the bar, Tanks 7000g, etc.) In AWDS, each power star is instead worth 100 "points" to begin with, increasing by +20% with each use until reaching +280% on the 9th use; on the 10th use, it resets to +100 for the rest of the session. Each unit has a set points value in this charging system. Several units share points values: Recons, Tanks, AAs, Arties, T-Copters, and B-Boats all are worth 100 points, which is to say they are worth the exact same to your power bar when killed. This completely changes the rules of cost-effectiveness. In the latter case, 6 dead Recons will charge Andy's SCOP the same as 6 dead Tanks. It makes no sense, therefore, to tech up past Recons until you have a few mixed in with Infantry to charge your bar.

This ties into production slots, maximizing how many units your SCOP affects, etc



Last edited by Blanci on Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:37 pm; edited 2 times in total

Blanci
Recon
Recon

Posts Posts : 156
Reputation Reputation : 35
Join date : 2014-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  MaraSargon on Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:01 pm

Alright, I'll try to expand on what I said last night a bit more now.

So I've explained how charging works in AWDS. Now, much like any other AW game, you want to try and maximize the number of units being affected by your CO Powers. However, you want the units feeding said power to be as cost-effective as possible. Since Recons and Infantry are the most cost-effective units in this sense, COs that boost at least one in some way have an advantage over COs who don't. In addition, you must maximize your production slots so that you have as many of these cost-effective sacrifices as possible without reducing your offensive capability; which, again, favors COs who already boost those units.

Let's look at a game of Andy vs Grit. For the sake of argument let's say they're playing the DM's top-rated map, The Coast:


Let's say Grit is red and Andy is blue.

Both sides set about making T-Copters and Infantry to start with and race toward the center base closest to them before back-tracking to their natural expansions. Once his expansion bases are up and running, Andy begins mixing Recons into his forces toward the front lines. Grit isn't prepared to protect Artillery this early, so he responds with a Recon or two of his own. He's able to turn out an Artillery and perch it in a defensible spot pretty soon, though.

When the two forces meet, usually around day 5 or day 6, the clock starts. You have no more than 3 turns before someone gets SCOP. Holding back and avoiding this, as Grit might be wont to do, is not an option, because if the opponent is allowed to expand unchecked then he will eventually get hit by a Black Bomb. Grit has to use a build that is much more aggressive than he might try in the older games, and that means using lots of Directs and staying mobile. He's never going to have more than 3 or 4 Artillery, and teching up to Rockets is out of the question.

Grit will get SCOP first no matter what, because the units doing the brunt of the fighting (Direct vehicles) are no match for Andy's. This is where Grit hits his next problem: Andy can easily keep important units out of Artillery range, because Grit can't afford to wait. If he waits, he falls behind, and when the next round of SCOPs is 3 or fewer turns away he just can't afford to do that. So he uses SCOP, he doesn't hit anything important, and it's Andy's turn. Andy uses SCOP, runs in, reduces Grit's unit count during post-power weakness. He might hit an Artillery, he might not, but it doesn't matter at this stage in the game.

So now Grit has a problem: he has to prepare for the next round of SCOPs, and he's only got 3 turns to do it. If the first round didn't involve air units, the next one definitely will. That means he has to build an AA. AAs are inefficient to begin with: more expensive than Tanks and Recons, same charge rate as both; but Grit's are so weak that he can't even OHK any air units. In the meantime, he can't do any walling up to speak of, and he can't build (and expect to protect) any decent force of Artillery. Grit can't compete using this build, but it's the only one he can use.

By day 20, two or three rounds of SCOPs later, the game is basically over. Grit will have lost one of his expansions by this time if not earlier, which means he no longer can keep up with unit count. He can survive a little longer by turtling up, but sooner or later Andy will get a Black Bomb. Game over.

It's a no-win situation for Grit. If he does the normal AWBW strategy, he gets Black Bombed and/or out-numbered. If he goes the Direct route, he's out-gunned. While you can contrive a map layout that is winnable for him, it is exactly that: contrived. You'd never play a normal game between the other COs on it.
avatar
MaraSargon
Mech
Mech

Posts Posts : 46
Reputation Reputation : -80
Join date : 2014-01-28
Age : 26

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  Iordor on Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:30 pm

That map itself is contrived to favor recons, and aggression. You have roads leading all the way up to the major bases, not to mention that the map's fairness is questionable since it isn't symmetrical, and it gives the player who takes control of the top flank(blue) the advantage.

The problem here is that he's not playing on normal AWBW maps - grit would easily clean up on the top-s rated map in AWBW: http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=56121

Regardless, do you really think that flak(you have him higher than grit in your tier list) consistently beats Grit? Lol.
avatar
Iordor
Mech
Mech

Posts Posts : 83
Reputation Reputation : 35
Join date : 2014-06-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  MaraSargon on Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:42 pm

Iordor wrote:That map itself is contrived to favor recons, and aggression. You have roads leading all the way up to the major bases, not to mention that the map's fairness is questionable since it isn't symmetrical, and it gives the player who takes control of the top flank(blue) the advantage.
It's not at all contrived. Recons are favored by default in AWDS due to their charge values.

Iordor wrote:The problem here is that he's not playing on normal AWBW maps - grit would easily clean up on the top-s rated map in AWBW: http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=56121
That map is impossible in AWDS and invalid as an example by default. There are only 6 S-Ranked maps in AWBW that work in AWDS: Caustic Finale, Eclipse, Hypnotize, Lakefront View, Shadow's Domain, and Unsung heroes. Some of these must be modified to maintain compatibility. Grit can beat Sasha in Shadow's Domain, but is otherwise incapable of winning. Fun fact: Recons are still the main reason for this.

Iordor wrote:Regardless, do you really think that flak(you have him higher than grit in your tier list) consistently beats Grit? Lol.
Yes, Flak consistently defeats Grit in AWDS. Every CO consistently defeats Grit in AWDS. Grit's AWBW build is unusable in AWDS because of the set charge values. He must play the Direct game, and he can't win the Direct game.
avatar
MaraSargon
Mech
Mech

Posts Posts : 46
Reputation Reputation : -80
Join date : 2014-01-28
Age : 26

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  Blanci on Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:26 pm

Wow what a refreshing looking map posted by marasargon: Coast.  I d actually love to give it a try. When i first came to awbw i played on lots of such crazy maps and in fog very enjoyable.  I guess thats why i am still around awbw after all these years as i had so much fun.. still remember much of it !


HOWEVER.  The map seems to have contested bases very near frontline dividing diagonal.
Is this feature necessary to suport the "grit not broken" idea?? Question  Idea

If we get rid of those frontline bases then surely Grit would thrash any ordinary CO. I m not really familiar with the detail of AWDS (dualstrike?) but even if powerbar charging is faster i dont see how anyone could even get near him on this Grit-friendly chokey map.
(Are you basically saying that the faster charging of CO bars in AWDS is what makes grit not broken there?)

Its gonna take me a while to read more carefully your "thesis" on Grit in dualstrike. But at the moment i cannot quite see it all.  Perhaps a test game would illuminate issues. We could play on AWBW up to where you believe AWDS cop or scop could be used and from that point we might be able to see where things lead.
I can create an almost identical map on awbw but getting rid of the contested bases.  (or is that the crux?)

Blanci
Recon
Recon

Posts Posts : 156
Reputation Reputation : 35
Join date : 2014-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  MaraSargon on Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:48 pm

Blanci wrote:HOWEVER.  The map seems to have pair of contested bases very near frontline dividing diagonal.
Is this feature necessary to suport the "grit not broken" idea?? Question  Idea
No, it's simply a feature I find fun. The crux of the argument is the cost-effectiveness of Recons.

Blanci wrote:If you get rid of those frontline bases then surely Grit would thrash any ordinary CO. I m not really familiar with the detail of AWDS (dualstrike?) but even if powerbar charging is faster i dont see how anyone could even get near him on this Grit-friendly chokey map.
Again, the power bar doesn't just charge faster, that's just a lazy shorthand to describe the star-point system. AWDS has 25 units, but only 10 charging groups. The 100-point group includes Recons, Tanks, AAs, Artillery, T-Copters, and Black Boats. For comparison, the 220-point group (the highest) consists of Megatanks, Battleships, and Carriers. Infantry and Mechs are the 40-point group.

That system makes Recons and Infantry disproportionately good at charging a CO bar. What does that mean? Well, during early testing in 2010, GipFace of Wars World News explained it this way:
GipFace wrote:Why does Grit suck?

The game is too fast
It looks like +1 range doesn't deter the infantry horde from smothering Grit. At the time of COP in that game, Grit only had 2 arty up. Narts desperately used Snipe Attack because he needed 110/110 inf more than the 5 range arty. I find that arty are especially weakened in this game because there isn't enough time to set up an appropriate formation. If you build arty early, the opponent will move up and capture more properties than you. By the end of the game, Sami had nearly 7 stars and would invoke SCOP on her turn. In AWBW, she would've only had 3 stars.

He can't harass
80/100 copters, tanks, and recons. So he has to slow-roll his army forward, which means more enemy inf on the field.

Arty cluster is beaten with air
Mass arty can be answered by b-copters, which will force Grit to tech-switch into weak antiair. However, there's an even better solution: in the above game, I banked enough money for a black bomb. The black bomb is best at hitting midrange clusters: clusters of infantry aren't expensive enough, and expensive units are usually scattered. If airports are standard, artillery don't stand a chance. Even in my Jess vs. Drake game, I only built one arty, and it really didn't do much. It was a bad move; a tank would've served me better.

HE DOESN'T BOOST INF... OR COPTERS, OR TANKS, OR RECONS
No inf boost means every CO with an inf boost will have an edge in the inf wars. But not boosting the other three units is a real problem. Who cares if he has a few super artillery? I simply attacked into it and got my meter charged.
What he doesn't mention is the attacker's advantage when it comes to dealing with an Artillery cluster. Say I'm Olaf with a force of Tanks, Recons, and Infantry, and say Grit is hiding behind some mountains with a 3-deep screen of Infantry and a few Directs for harassment. We both have full production and can reinforce at a decent rate.

My Recons and Tanks both charge 100 points upon death, and my Infantry charge 40. I want my Tanks and some of my Recons to get a SCOP boost to break Grit's line, so I move up Infantry and some of the Recons to attack. The Infantry start flanking on the mountains while the Recons chip away at the front. Grit starts attacking with his 2-3 Artillery that he has, suicides some Infantry, and fixes the gaps in his screen. Eventually he get's SCOP, but he can't quite reach my reserve Tanks and Recons, so he has to continue his normal strikes on the attackers. However, the extra damage he deals this turn charges Olaf's SCOP. I fire SCOP, quickly measure out some damage and movement calculations, and begin sending my reserve units into the fray. The Infantry in the mountains continue softening up the weakened line, and my units dig a hole in Grit's line.

In AWBW, there would have been more reaction time. In AWDS, Grit only had about 3 turns once the attack started, and then Winter Fury hit him. In AWBW, he might still have 5 or 6 turns to recuperate and push Olaf back out. In AWDS, he has 3 turns before Winter Fury strikes again. In that time he would somehow have to 2-shot all of the units that attacked, deal with the incoming Recons and Infantry, and keep his Artillery protected using only 2-3 Artillery and a couple of his weak Tanks and Recons. Even leaving out Winter Fury's economic damage, Grit just can't hope to do all of that in 3 turns. By the time he gets anything into position that can turn back the tide, Winter Fury is already close to being charged again.

By the way, I'm being generous in that assessment. 7-star mass damage COs can use SCOP before 6-star firepower COs by doing an ass-pull with Infantry and lighting off mid-turn. The economic damage they cause by doing this every 3 turns reduces the overall strength of Grit's forces, drains money, and slows down his SCOP by taking away potential star-points he could gain in normal combat. In the above example, Olaf can contentedly sit it out for a couple rounds just throwing Recons an Infantry at the Artillery cluster until Grit's economic losses and the thinning of his line forces him to pull back closer to a base. And even then, I'm still leaving out the effects of air units. With Copters, Olaf doesn't even have to wait that long, he just has to run harassment and force Grit to build AAs, which weakens his ability to reinforce the screen protecting his Artillery. Remember, he only has 3 days: every distraction costs him.

Blanci wrote:Perhaps a test game would illuminate issues. We could play on AWBW up to where you believe AWDS cop or scop could be used and from that point we might be able to see where things lead.
Custom Wars Classic is better. It's not an exact clone of AWDS, but the system is much more similar.
avatar
MaraSargon
Mech
Mech

Posts Posts : 46
Reputation Reputation : -80
Join date : 2014-01-28
Age : 26

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  Blanci on Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:16 pm

Wow i never realised the AWDS charging meter was so complex !
Thnx for the info. Where can we see a full list of the unit charge groups?
You say custom wars is similar to the awds charge system. But we cant play human v human yet can we? And also i thought there were only like 3 maps available at present on CWT.
I guess i could do a trial on my DS if i can find it.  Though with that wierd speed charging i guess my bearings may be way off as you suggest.  Curious.  Theres so many variables possible around AW type game its easy to take certain parameters as god given.
Was the AWDS tierlist /Gipface analysis mainly developed for non-fog? or was plenty of fog  games used too?  Personally i think fog could make a few changes but at awbw fog hasnt been studied competitively very much.

Another seperate query though pertinent to the title of this topic:
In Custom Wars the website speaks about customisation (at least in the future?)  Which things will actually be customisable by users? For example will we be able to define our own units, choosing ranges, cost, defence and attack power, etc ? will the players do it or would that be in map design stage?

Blanci
Recon
Recon

Posts Posts : 156
Reputation Reputation : 35
Join date : 2014-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  MaraSargon on Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:47 pm

Blanci wrote:Wow i never realised the AWDS charging meter was so complex !
Thnx for the info. Where can we see a full list of the unit charge groups?
========================
Charge Values
========================
40 - Infantry
40 - Mech

60 - Black Bomb

80 - APC

100 - Recon
100 - T. Copter
100 - Artillery
100 - Tank
100 - Black Boat

120 - B. Copter
120 - Lander

140 - Missiles
140 - Rockets

160 - Medium Tank
160 - Cruiser

180 - Fighter
180 - Bomber
180 - Neotank
180 - Submarine

200 - Piperunner
200 - Stealth

220 - MegaTank
220 - Battleship
220 - Carrier

Blanci wrote:You say custom wars is similar to the awds charge system. But we cant play human v human yet can we? And also i thought there were only like 3 maps available at present on CWT.
Custom Wars Classic (CWC) is a different game from Custom Wars Tactics (CWT) made by a completely different team, and it had functional network play before development ceased 6 years ago.

Blanci wrote:Was the AWDS tierlist /Gipface analysis mainly developed for non-fog? or was plenty of fog  games used too?  Personally i think fog could make a few changes but at awbw fog hasnt been studied competitively very much.
GipFace never touched on fog much himself, but I've never found it to be a game-changer. Recons and Infantry are the best vision units, and they see heavy use in non-fog games anyway.

Blanci wrote:Another seperate query though pertinent to the title of this topic:
In Custom Wars the website speaks about customisation (at least in the future?)  Which things will actually be customisable by users? For example will we be able to define our own units, choosing ranges, cost, defence and attack power, etc ? will the players do it or would that be in map design stage
The desktop client will allow you to change anything in the game through the use of .txt files, much like you can in games like Europa Universalis and the other Paradox titles. This includes editing units, terrain, COs, etc., as well as adding new ones. There will also be some support for new mechanics that aren't in the original games, but you'd have to ask JakeSamiRulz about exactly how extensive that'll be.

And uh, before I get bombarded with too many questions about CWT: I'm not one of the programmers. My roles in the CWT team are designer, soundtrack composer, and play-tester.
avatar
MaraSargon
Mech
Mech

Posts Posts : 46
Reputation Reputation : -80
Join date : 2014-01-28
Age : 26

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  Blanci on Sat Sep 20, 2014 2:09 pm

Thanks for all the info.
I think you said somewhere (or someone did) that AW is very complex like (or more so than) chess and so theory of AW strategy could take a long time to really develop to a certainty. On this basis I think i can make a few more points tentatively.

True the charging you describe seems fairly different in AWDS (and CWT) than we have here at AWBW. Still, I dont see its an on-off switch but makes a finite measurable difference with AWBW . However if the map is very Grit friendly then we have another measurable effect in Grits favour.

So we end up with a smaller set of maps on which Grit may be " broken". Clearly the percentage of typical maps is what would count.
The map you mention is very Grit friendly and may not best support your argument.

The AWDS power charging effect is still hard for me to estimate at present with my experience here. Also unfortunately due to horrible historical reasons many of us at AWBW have very little competitive experience of the brokens. Still, i venture a couple of further points.

First, you say grit tanks are weak . This i never noticed the few times I had the pleasure to use him and is a surprise to me. Checking the data indeed Grit tanks are weaker... BUT only in direct attack. Grit tank defense is equal to other normal CO...and his defensecounter is 23% (instead of 27%) enough to allow Grit strong arty to finish-off (FO ..a type of KO) the offending offensive enemy tank in one shot. Meanwhile grits tank retreats to recharge. This would be a big heavy unit number plus to grit. Also Grit infantry are equal strength to normal COs.
Using grit tanks and inf mainly as shields he really gets no disadvantage but gets a big plus from his massive extra range on his arties.
Really we should put this abstract range plus in numerical perspective. Its not like 4 instead of 3. Counting hit squares-- the range 4 gives 7 attacked squares extra compared to the range 3 which yields only 5. So grit arty effectivity is simple mindedly already more than double that of the normal arty. Strategically the extra range allows grit to do things other COs cannot do.

Still, as you say, the AWDS meter charging may go against grit. But grit already has unit number advantage as he should if the opponent accepts battle little by little. And can shield easily his distant arties.
Perhaps it can depend quite a bit on battle strategies that are used. If grit plays weakly perhaps a breakthrough with sudden charging of CO Power can hurt, But if Grit plays as he should .. forcing either retreat and gains, or steady battle and unit number gain he may still be broken.

Interesting topic.

Blanci
Recon
Recon

Posts Posts : 156
Reputation Reputation : 35
Join date : 2014-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  MaraSargon on Sun Sep 21, 2014 12:12 am

Blanci wrote:True the charging you describe seems fairly different in AWDS (and CWT) than we have here at AWBW.  Still, I dont see its an on-off switch but makes a finite measurable difference with AWBW .  However if the map is very Grit friendly then we have another measurable effect in Grits favour.
Grit-friendly maps have never been shown to put him past 2nd Tier (and as a reminder, AWDS tiers are numbered from the bottom, with 1st tier being the worst), and even then he can never beat Javier.

Blanci wrote:So we end up with a smaller set of maps on which Grit may be " broken". Clearly the percentage of typical maps is what would count.
Percentage is what is used, and Grit's percentage of maps he's usable on is quite low.

Blanci wrote:The map you mention is very Grit friendly and may not best support your argument.
If you mean "The Coast," then no, that's quite definitively not a Grit-friendly map. Any map with airports is, by definition, against Grit's favor, because he cannot deal with air units effectively.

Blanci wrote:The AWDS power charging effect is still hard for me to estimate at present with my experience here. Also unfortunately due to horrible historical reasons many of us at AWBW have very little competitive experience of the brokens.  Still, i venture a couple of further points.
Perhaps you should consider fixing that. If you never use them, how can you be sure that they are still broken? It's been 10 years, the metagame of AWBW must have changed somewhat in that time.

Blanci wrote:First, you say grit tanks are weak . This i never noticed the few times I had the pleasure to use him and is a surprise to me. Checking the data indeed Grit tanks are weaker... BUT only in direct attack.  Grit tank defense is equal to other normal CO...
Defense is irrelevant in this case. Turtling is an inherently unwinnable strategy in AWDS, as I will elaborate over the course of this post.

Blanci wrote:and his defensecounter is 23% (instead of 27%) enough to allow Grit strong arty to finish-off (FO ..a type of KO) the offending offensive enemy tank in one shot.
Irrelevant. Grit's Artillery will never hit an enemy Tank until the enemy allows it. Turtling allows your opponent to dictate the terms of engagement; if Grit chooses to turtle like this, he is allowing his opponent to hold their strongest units out of range until SCOP, which comes every 3 turns. If I'm Max fighting Grit, I'm not going to attack his Tank with my own: I'm going to shred some Infantry, get a SCOP charged, and then run in with vehicles to break open his wall. I'm not even going to engage the Tank with a Tank, I'll engage it with a B-Copter, a far more favorable matchup.

And bottom line is: I don't care about Grit's Artillery, they are only a threat at a time of my choosing. I'd much rather get in that cheap shot you're offering me at the Tank, which can cause more inconvenience to me.

Blanci wrote:Meanwhile grits tank retreats to recharge. This would be a big heavy unit number plus to grit.
Retreat to repair? First of all, using a Tank to soak up damage is already a waste of money. For 3000g less, a Recon can do the same job and give you the same charge. By using the Tank, not only is that 3000g not adding anything to your charge meter, that's also 3000g you're not banking on a more powerful unit. Grit's really going to wish he'd never used a Tank for a turtling strategy once his opponent banks on a Black Bomb.

Blanci wrote:Also Grit infantry are equal strength to normal COs.
Irrelevant. Grit doesn't boost them, and he weakens their Recon support. Every other CO in the game boosts at least one of them. These units are king, because they charge SCOPs quickly. When SCOPs are being fired off every 3 turns, d2d effectiveness simply DOES. NOT. MATTER. Grit's Infantry get mauled by enemy Infantry from someone like Grimm or Sami; hell, even Lash and Jake can tear them apart.

Blanci wrote:Using grit tanks and inf mainly as shields he really gets no disadvantage but gets a big plus from his massive extra range on his arties.
It doesn't, though. You're wasting funds on units whose only use will be to shred my sacrificial units, and then get massacred by my SCOP units. Again, by turtling up you simply allow me to dictate the terms of engagement. You want to turtle with Tanks? You think that's gonna stop Javier, the CO that Grit can never hit with full damage except on (S)COP? You think it'll stop Jugger, who can kill anything you have with Infantry alone?

And once again: No one cares about Grit's Artillery. They are only a threat when I allow them to be.

Blanci wrote:Really we should put this abstract range plus in numerical perspective. Its not like 4 instead of 3. Counting hit squares-- the range 4 gives 7 attacked squares extra compared to the range 3 which yields only 5. So grit arty effectivity is simple mindedly already more than double that of the normal arty. Strategically the extra range allows grit to do things other COs cannot do.
It doesn't matter what Grit can do: it's what he can't do that kills him. Grit can't run harassment, he can't use or counter air units effectively, and his need to protect Artillery via a turtling strategy lets his opponent set the terms of engagement. He might have time to get set up in AWBW, but Grit only has 3 turns between SCOPs in AWDS. There's a reason I assume he only has 2-3 Artillery: without failure, Grit must spend so many resources protecting his Artillery from these frequent SCOPs that he is hardly ever able to actually build them. He can only protect 1 Artillery in every batch of 6 or 7 units, because those other units can't do offense and continually die to SCOP-boosted units every 3 turns.

Blanci wrote:Still, as you say,  the AWDS meter charging may go against grit.  But grit already has unit number advantage as he should if the opponent accepts battle little by little.
But he doesn't! Grit's opponent dictates the terms of battle. Grit deals so little damage-per-unit that he often gets SCOP first, because he just gets killed that quickly. Who cares about his Artillery? They've barely hit the field by the time the first SCOP comes! Losses? He has 3 Artillery. 3. Defenses? Bitch please, I have Copters. He has AAs, you say? AAs that can't 1-shot Copters; and take up a production slot, which means less reinforcements for his protective screen. And in the meantime, I've been banking. Black Bombs love unit clumps.

Far from a unit-count advantage, Grit loses units faster than any other CO.

Blanci wrote:And can shield easily his distant arties.
Grit cannot shield more than 3 Arties, and distant or not they do not matter. 3 Arties are not a threat, even with Grit leading them. It's pathetically easy to bull through that when you get SCOP every 3 turns.

Blanci wrote:But if Grit plays as he should .. forcing either retreat
Erm, him and what army? Laughing He needs SCOP just to make some room for his line to reform, much less force a retreat. And he doesn't even get that until 3 days after he needs it.
avatar
MaraSargon
Mech
Mech

Posts Posts : 46
Reputation Reputation : -80
Join date : 2014-01-28
Age : 26

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  Blanci on Sun Sep 21, 2014 8:55 pm

MaraSargon wrote:Grit-friendly maps have never been shown to put him past 2nd Tier (and as a reminder, AWDS tiers are numbered from the bottom, with 1st tier being the worst), and even then he can never beat Javier.

is that javier with 1 tower?

MaraSargon wrote:Percentage is what is used, and Grit's percentage of maps he's usable on is quite low.
If you mean "The Coast," then no, that's quite definitively not a Grit-friendly map. Any map with airports is, by definition, against Grit's favor, because he cannot deal with air units effectively.

Interesting. Though often AA may deal with air, and furthermore these AA can shield Grits arties against tanks at the same time.  True air doesnt seem to help grit .

Do you think the airbase on Coast map would even make grit poor within AWBW then?
( Yes, I am looking for a way to play test here as we cannot yet do so at cwt. )


MaraSargon wrote:If you never use them, how can you be sure that they are still broken? It's been 10 years, the metagame of AWBW must have changed somewhat in that time.

Yeah. I was arguing in forum years ago we need a broken league. No one supported me.

Blanci wrote:  Grit tank defense is equal to other normal CO...
MaraSargon wrote:Defense is irrelevant in this case. Turtling is an inherently unwinnable strategy in AWDS, as I will elaborate over the course of this post.

Wow thats hard to swallow.  But i suppose that would not also apply at AWBW so we cannot test that.

MaraSargon wrote:Grit's Artillery will never hit an enemy Tank until the enemy allows it. Turtling allows your opponent to dictate ...: I don't care about Grit's Artillery, they are only a threat at a time of my choosing.

But if the enemy waits he concedes terrain and cities. With a contested city once gained, Grit can even retreat and defend city from afar with long range arty.

MaraSargon wrote:Retreat to repair? First of all, using a Tank to soak up damage is already a waste of money. For 3000g less, a Recon can do the same job and give you the same charge.

Recon are almost never used to shield at awbw ...  they are defensively weaker than infantry! against tanks.. Tanks often KO recon in 1 shot.  
Again you continually refer to meter charging like its primordial.  I am very surprised and curious.-- that AWDS seems quite different to AWBW.

MaraSargon wrote: When SCOPs are being fired off every 3 turns..

... that high frequency of scop sure sounds wierd to us awbwers.

Finally  I am partially but not totally convinced. Though i cant really argue much against actual game statistics from AWDS. How much is from actual games rather than theorising?  Grit might be a CO who is difficult to use properly.  I hope we get chance to test sooner rather than later.

Blanci
Recon
Recon

Posts Posts : 156
Reputation Reputation : 35
Join date : 2014-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  MaraSargon on Sun Sep 21, 2014 10:08 pm

Blanci wrote:is that javier with 1 tower?
No, Javier can beat Grit even without towers.

Blanci wrote:Interesting. Though often AA may deal with air, and furthermore these AA can shield Grits arties against tanks at the same time.
AAs have an extremely unfavorable match-up against Tanks, and are an even bigger waste to charge your SCOP with. They're all in the 100-group, remember. What's more, that AA is needed to chase Copters. It can't shield regardless.

Blanci wrote:Do you think the airbase on Coast map would even make grit poor within AWBW then?
( Yes, I am looking for a way to play test here as we cannot yet do so at cwt. )
I have no way to know, I haven't playtested Grit enough in that game.

Honestly, if you want to playtest the easiest way would be using an AWDS ROM and Teamviewer. It'll lag a bit, but it's the real deal.

Blanci wrote:Yeah. I was arguing in forum years ago we need a broken league. No one supported me.
Damn, tough crowd. Even the Pokemon community has a broken league!

Blanci wrote:But if the enemy waits he concedes terrain and cities. With a contested city once gained, Grit can even retreat and defend city from afar with long range arty.
Yes, but the enemy isn't just sitting on their ass. Just because the Tanks are in reserve doesn't mean they're idle. Even Grit's Artillery can't cover all of his units all the time. Staying in reserve doesn't require you to concede anything, it just means you must take better care of where and what you attack. Remember, turtling is death when SCOPs are so frequent.

For context, we're only talking about 2-3 Tanks here. The Tank-Copter-AA triangle usually prevents you from fielding more, because the more you focus on one of these, the more vulnerable you are to its counter. As we discussed earlier, these units aren't ones you want to lose needlessly. This is also why land-only maps are not necessarily in Grit's favor: while there are no air units, there is also no cost-effective counter to Tanks, except for another Tank.

Blanci wrote:Recon are almost never used to shield at awbw ...  they are defensively weaker than infantry! against tanks.. Tanks often KO recon in 1 shot.
Only if their firepower is boosted. In any case, Recons are generally used as a quick-and-dirty way to block a chokepoint while a contested base or city is being captured, if used defensively. They aren't expected to survive, they just need to make the opponent waste some attacks. Remember, it's not a great loss if a Recon dies: their purpose in life is to make suicide-dives into enemy lines and charge the CO Bar.

Blanci wrote:Again you continually refer to meter charging like its primordial.  I am very surprised and curious.-- that AWDS seems quite different to AWBW.
Well like I said, SCOPs are king in AWDS. There are only two COs that don't use SCOP, and two others who use both COP and SCOP. The other 23 basically always use SCOP.

Blanci wrote:... that high frequency of scop sure sounds wierd to us awbwers.
I don't doubt it. AWDS SCOPs charge a little over 2x faster than they do in older games.

Blanci wrote:Finally  I am partially but not totally convinced. Though i cant really argue much against actual game statistics from AWDS.  How much is from actual games rather than theorising?  Grit might be a CO who is difficult to use properly.  I hope we get chance to test sooner rather than later.
It's all from actual gameplay. I've actually had a chance to play with GipFace a couple times and tried to do exactly what you suggested: see if Grit is just hard to use. Never could do it. Still try occasionally, but I never manage it. I've tried everything. I've adapted AWBW strategies, I've tried playing normally and just building an Arty when I'd normally build a Tank, I've even tried some totally original build orders; and I've done this on a variety of maps, including some S- and A-Rank AWBW Maps. Doesn't work. Grit can only be competitive if Skills are equipped; he is unusable with his default stats.
avatar
MaraSargon
Mech
Mech

Posts Posts : 46
Reputation Reputation : -80
Join date : 2014-01-28
Age : 26

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  theether on Mon Sep 22, 2014 6:08 pm

I have to through in, that a while ago I challenged MaraSargon to a game where I played Grit and he played Max.
We played on Aria of War and I practically lost.
Keep in mind that we played on AWBW.

Now I'm probably just a worse player in general, but this makes believing him a lot easier.

In the game he kept obliterating my Infantry meatshield with his Recons (more than I could hit with my Artys) and kept me from advancing that way.
My weakened Shields then couldn't block his Tank.

So he took out one Arty while I got his Tank.
Seems like a good trade for me, but in this turn I couldn't simultaneously attack his Recons and lost more Infantry.
He also had more income, as Grit can't really snatch properties like Max can.
It happened this way or similarly. The game was a while back, so please excuse me if I can't recall it exactly.

While I'd still call Grit broken in AWBW, I'd also say that he's below the other broken COs.
And with AWDS having changed mechanics only against Grit I can understand him being subpar there.
avatar
theether
Recon
Recon

Posts Posts : 129
Reputation Reputation : 42
Join date : 2014-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  MaraSargon on Mon Sep 22, 2014 7:28 pm

theether wrote:It happened this way or similarly. The game was a while back, so please excuse me if I can't recall it exactly.
More or less, yeah. I tied you up in the northern front and kept you hemmed in at your southern mountain base. Eventually we called it a draw when we went something like 5 turns without either side making progress.

The point of the match was to simulate an AWDS-like strategy, and then point out where the differences would have happened. I did some math afterward, and in the time it took me to launch one COP and one SCOP at Theether's line I would have used like 3 or 4 SCOPs in AWDS. In other words, that charging system was literally the difference between a hard-fought draw and a curbstomp battle.

EDIT: Now that you mention it, Aria of War is AWDS-compatible and S-Ranked. I wonder why I didn't put it in my discussion notes... guess I miscounted the tiles when I was putting them together.
avatar
MaraSargon
Mech
Mech

Posts Posts : 46
Reputation Reputation : -80
Join date : 2014-01-28
Age : 26

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  Blanci on Sun Oct 05, 2014 7:21 pm

Well. This is interesting stuff. And flies in the face of awbw accepted wisdom!
I would really fancy grit against Max. I guess pushing forward on the bare centre of "aria " is not too inviting and Max copters are nice but grits arties are cheap for what you get and unique.
Anyone up for a test game?

Question for maraSargon and CWT /awDS folk......  Do you guys ever play or appreciate no-power game.?
Isn't this a common ground with awbw as game is equal in this case.

Blanci
Recon
Recon

Posts Posts : 156
Reputation Reputation : 35
Join date : 2014-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  MaraSargon on Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:41 am

Blanci wrote:Question for maraSargon and CWT /awDS folk......  Do you guys ever play or appreciate no-power game.?
Isn't this a common ground with awbw as game is equal in this case.
If you mean the game option of totally turning off powers (including D2D), I don't bother with it. It's boring as shit.

If you mean just choosing not to use CO Powers, I also don't bother with that. It's boring as shit.

I mean I know there's untapped balance discussions in there, but it's still a game, and my first priority while playing any game is fun. Razz
avatar
MaraSargon
Mech
Mech

Posts Posts : 46
Reputation Reputation : -80
Join date : 2014-01-28
Age : 26

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  Blanci on Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:01 am

MaraSargon wrote:the game option of totally turning off powers..It's boring as shit.
LOL.
So I suppose you joining our No Powers League would be out of the question ?!

Seriously though, i think it depends a lot on the map in question.

Quite a few awbw league/competition maps are too narrow with not enough contested cities and not enough interesting choices in general. This often leads to boring standoff situations which i presume is your main concern (as pointed out with examples on CW/T? website). I do agree. In fact I am convinced this is what led to many of our good players drifting away from AWBW. The fact that it was/is difficult for strong players to make progress against even half decent defense. And this also stretches games out for inordinately long times... simply hoping for your opponent to get bored and make an error.

This situation and the standard awbw kind of map arose from considerations of balance and fairness. And so most maps ended up rather similar in certain ways and many other interesting possibilities were basically dismissed as dodgy without proper consideration, unfortunately! I give examples later, or perhaps refer this discussion to an ongoing debate properly in the Design Maps subForum.

However, let me just say that I have played on lots of other maps here at awbw which are very rich gameplaywise . Its not only the map ... there are other factors too..like fog, and funds per city, predeployed units , any of which lead to more gameplay choices (strategies and tactics) and is thus more difficult to play, allowing more creativity, less boring standoff. (( i should say some awbers may disagree but plenty agree with me too )) . We can leave fog debate for later, as some people just dont like fog anyway and focus on the other aspects here.
Many map features promote fluid interesting games while others favour standoffs and massive buildup.  As well as those already mentioned we can add backwards properties give more deployment choices, forward HQs, mixed-up bases maps, having air and sea with available funding. I defer to map design subforum for more on these.
Let me take just one example... Mixed Base Maps.  We have a lot of these at AWBW but we never yet had any competion with them, though their fairness is not in doubt in general (some cases must be careful if bases are too near enemy) but in general for example Walker made lots of them and said they were balanced enough though later decided that he personally didnt like them. I think really they take the gameplay to new places where experienced players just dont want to go. But a major point about mixed base maps (which i pointed out frequently) is that they have massive amount of frontline ..and generally lots of contested properties.. and it is more or less impossible to get a static standoff when your forces are stretched so much. There has never been a draw or standoff on any mixed base map yet , perhaps it could happen but its almost impossible. CO powers are not necessary to get an exciting and fun battle.  (im not saying i dont like CO powers.. they too are an interesting additional element).
Apart from mixed base maps there are lots of other maps too which are fun. Also many horrible standoff maps could be made better by introducing more contested properties (or increasing funds or play in fog). I dont think it is sensible to dismiss NO Powers Games out of hand.

Also there is another fundamental reason why at least some of us AW players should consider the No-Power Mode seriously.
If we really wish to explore nd understand the depths and possibilities of AW then we really need at some point to break it down into simpler elements. Chess experts consider end game opening game combinations etc aspects seperately.  In AW too we need to break things down, and one obvious simplification is with no powers. I think learning about no Power AW can help in getting to grips with full blown AW.  So only on this basis you really cannot dismiss no power AW.

But we do need to work more to ensure we have more fluid gameplay maps.

Blanci
Recon
Recon

Posts Posts : 156
Reputation Reputation : 35
Join date : 2014-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  MaraSargon on Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:04 pm

I didn't say No Power mode is invalid, I just think it's boring. Anything else is putting words in my mouth. Razz

You don't have to tell me twice about trying out other map types or game settings. Been experimenting with them for years. For example, it's generally understood that Black Bombs have no counter in low fund settings; but in high fund settings, it's starting to look like Stealths might be a feasible counter. Okay, sure, the jury's still out on that, could be totally wrong, but it's cool that such a counter can even be considered.

I think it might be an interesting challenge to balance some maps around non-default settings, but unfortunately such maps have never been popular outside some of the DM's War Room maps.
avatar
MaraSargon
Mech
Mech

Posts Posts : 46
Reputation Reputation : -80
Join date : 2014-01-28
Age : 26

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  Blanci on Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:32 pm

Yeah sure,  But I want AWBW players in general to realise that NoPowers is not necessarily boring if played on maps or with conditions which stretch the gameplay and imagination.

And you did say that you dont play much on certain map types or conditions.  For example have you tried proper fully mixed up bases maps?   Examples
Ring Around the Roses  by Kreugster
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=53600
Dark Forest  by " I am Not Airob"
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=49969
If you try these you can see that even with no powers there is a lot of difficult deployment choices and very challenging and boring standoffs very unlikely to develop(never yet seen).

This is just one kind of map/condition which is fun even without powers.


Last edited by Blanci on Sun Oct 12, 2014 5:38 am; edited 1 time in total

Blanci
Recon
Recon

Posts Posts : 156
Reputation Reputation : 35
Join date : 2014-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  MaraSargon on Sun Oct 12, 2014 12:44 am

Blanci wrote:Yeah sure,  But I want AWBW players in general to realise that NoPowers is not necessarily boring if played on maps or with conditions which stretch the gameplay and imagination.

And you did say that you dont play much on certain map types or conditions.  For example have you tried proper fully mixed up bases maps?   Examples
Ring Around the Roses  by Kreugster
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=53600
Dark Forest  by " I am Not Airob"
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php
If you try these you can see that even with no powers there is a lot of difficult deployment choices and very challenging and boring standoffs very unlikely to develop(never yet seen).

This is just one kind of map/condition which is fun even without powers.
I have zero interest in maps that are not AWDS-compatible. (Also your second link is broken.)
avatar
MaraSargon
Mech
Mech

Posts Posts : 46
Reputation Reputation : -80
Join date : 2014-01-28
Age : 26

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  Blanci on Sun Oct 19, 2014 5:57 am

Thanks. Link repaired.
Just wondering how these maps might be incompatible with AWDS ?





Last edited by Blanci on Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:47 am; edited 1 time in total

Blanci
Recon
Recon

Posts Posts : 156
Reputation Reputation : 35
Join date : 2014-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  MaraSargon on Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:54 am

Blanci wrote:Thanks. Link repaired.
Just wondering how these maps might be incompatible with AWDS ?
Well only the first map is incompatible, but it's the only one I could see at the time. Anyway, it's incompatible because AWDS only allows maps up to 30x20.
avatar
MaraSargon
Mech
Mech

Posts Posts : 46
Reputation Reputation : -80
Join date : 2014-01-28
Age : 26

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  Blanci on Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 am

I recently found Old Forum Topic with same title!
"Differences between AWBW and AWDS" started  by  GIPFace
http://www.amarriner.com/awbw_forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=13838
nice heated debate!
( the old forum seems to be read-only at the moment.. cant post there)

And there are interesting arguments about the strength/brokenness of Grit, not only in awds but even within the AWBW CO power charging system. It seemed Kamuscha was intending to play using Grit against Gipface (using a non-broken) in awbw to try to demonstrate Grit  strength, while Gipface intended to show Grit weakness (even within awbw system).
Does anybody know if that challenge ever materialised?

PS. For any recent new and chinese players .. " broken" CO is a CO who is so strong that they easily beat all normal COs.

Blanci
Recon
Recon

Posts Posts : 156
Reputation Reputation : 35
Join date : 2014-04-17

Back to top Go down

Thethers Challege Grit v Max on Aria

Post  Blanci on Fri Apr 10, 2015 1:42 pm

After reading more details in this thread i think a challenge is in order......

Theethers Challenge !!

Ok... So i play Grit and any moderately experienced player is invited to join the game as Max.

For more info as to rationale i m afraid you ll have to read theethers post and stuff herein.
But in any case anyone fancying Max is welcome to try.  Good luck .. You ll need it. He he.

Just join the game in public waiting.

Blanci
Recon
Recon

Posts Posts : 156
Reputation Reputation : 35
Join date : 2014-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  Kamuscha on Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:02 am

Hachi does not have a 20% attack boost on all direct units d2d......
avatar
Kamuscha
Mech
Mech

Posts Posts : 22
Reputation Reputation : 12
Join date : 2015-01-31
Location : Rohirrim

Back to top Go down

Re: Differences with AWBW game

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum