OP Tactical battles

We all know here bigger stack wins small ones, but irl it wasnt like this, sometimes smaller armies defetead big ones, but now its impossible on atwar, i would like opinions how to make it possible, Muslims won 300 against 1000, Napoleon won in Egypt with 15000 against 30000 mameluks and lost 300 soldiers while Mameluks lost 20 000 etc etc, we all know how Romans slaughter enemy armies cause op tactics and equipment

I think that's where the critical chance statistic comes into play.

Raising that across all units would make battles more random, which people like you would love but those that have the game down to pure strategy and mathematics would hate.

You can play a custom map scenerio or even make one yourself...

كتب بواسطة Brsjak, 08.05.2017 at 13:01

You can play a custom map scenerio or even make one yourself...

yea i can, but gameplay still be more less same

Well, this is sort of represented by units. For example, Spartan Hoplites (because Sparta) will beat the crap out of untrained militia, even when heavily outnumbered. This is also represented by generals. Napoleon and other elite commanders could eke victory out of a seemingly hopeless battle (which is represented in gen buffs).

كتب بواسطة Greenflame, 08.05.2017 at 20:20

Well, this is sort of represented by units. For example, Spartan Hoplites (because Sparta) will beat the crap out of untrained militia, even when heavily outnumbered. This is also represented by generals. Napoleon and other elite commanders could eke victory out of a seemingly hopeless battle (which is represented in gen buffs).

depending on numbers still

كتب بواسطة MURAD IV, 09.05.2017 at 07:11

depending on numbers still

Depending on ALL kind of numbers: amount, deff, att, HP, crit

This game does not portray the reality of war. It's only a sample as it's Risk:Commander, the board game. I thought ppl knew this...and the brothers don't care so you can add 1k suggestions and maybe 1 will be implemented

كتب بواسطة Guest, 13.05.2017 at 03:13

This game does not portray the reality of war. It's only a sample as it's Risk:Commander, the board game. I thought ppl knew this...and the brothers don't care so you can add 1k suggestions and maybe 1 will be implemented

i know that still, but Risk is unchangeable, while here we can make it realistic

كتب بواسطة MURAD IV, 08.05.2017 at 12:29

We all know here bigger stack wins small ones, but irl it wasnt like this, sometimes smaller armies defetead big ones, but now its impossible on atwar, i would like opinions how to make it possible, Muslims won 300 against 1000, Napoleon won in Egypt with 15000 against 30000 mameluks and lost 300 soldiers while Mameluks lost 20 000 etc etc, we all know how Romans slaughter enemy armies cause op tactics and equipment

There are some custom maps that try to emulate this - they tend not to be as popular, because 'IRL' what AW player is going to choose the side with 30000 troops that get slaughtered by 300?
However, there are a few that are balanced (i recall a Swedish map where it's 4v1, and it is very difficult to win as the smaller army, as the map maker balanced it and designed it in such a way that even if 2 of the 4 left, it still took a skilled player to win as the '1'.)

But the short answer is: Not Improssible, just players don't want to be humiliated by an OP army defeating their massive stacks.

كتب بواسطة brianwl, 15.05.2017 at 07:07

There are some custom maps that try to emulate this - they tend not to be as popular, because 'IRL' what AW player is going to choose the side with 30000 troops that get slaughtered by 300?
However, there are a few that are balanced (i recall a Swedish map where it's 4v1, and it is very difficult to win as the smaller army, as the map maker balanced it and designed it in such a way that even if 2 of the 4 left, it still took a skilled player to win as the '1'.)

Sweden is NOT Over-powered!

كتب بواسطة brianwl, 15.05.2017 at 07:07

كتب بواسطة MURAD IV, 08.05.2017 at 12:29

We all know here bigger stack wins small ones, but irl it wasnt like this, sometimes smaller armies defetead big ones, but now its impossible on atwar, i would like opinions how to make it possible, Muslims won 300 against 1000, Napoleon won in Egypt with 15000 against 30000 mameluks and lost 300 soldiers while Mameluks lost 20 000 etc etc, we all know how Romans slaughter enemy armies cause op tactics and equipment

There are some custom maps that try to emulate this - they tend not to be as popular, because 'IRL' what AW player is going to choose the side with 30000 troops that get slaughtered by 300?
However, there are a few that are balanced (i recall a Swedish map where it's 4v1, and it is very difficult to win as the smaller army, as the map maker balanced it and designed it in such a way that even if 2 of the 4 left, it still took a skilled player to win as the '1'.)

But the short answer is: Not Improssible, just players don't want to be humiliated by an OP army defeating their massive stacks.

ah no wonder my roman maps never get played. 1 legion = 100 barbarian units.

كتب بواسطة brianwl, 15.05.2017 at 07:07

كتب بواسطة MURAD IV, 08.05.2017 at 12:29

We all know here bigger stack wins small ones, but irl it wasnt like this, sometimes smaller armies defetead big ones, but now its impossible on atwar, i would like opinions how to make it possible, Muslims won 300 against 1000, Napoleon won in Egypt with 15000 against 30000 mameluks and lost 300 soldiers while Mameluks lost 20 000 etc etc, we all know how Romans slaughter enemy armies cause op tactics and equipment

There are some custom maps that try to emulate this - they tend not to be as popular, because 'IRL' what AW player is going to choose the side with 30000 troops that get slaughtered by 300?
However, there are a few that are balanced (i recall a Swedish map where it's 4v1, and it is very difficult to win as the smaller army, as the map maker balanced it and designed it in such a way that even if 2 of the 4 left, it still took a skilled player to win as the '1'.)

But the short answer is: Not Improssible, just players don't want to be humiliated by an OP army defeating their massive stacks.

well IRL those battle mostly was buying time etc, but wasnt crucial for whole outcome of War but maybe one OP battle every 50t, would be possible, like some suprise or something

كتب بواسطة Darth., 15.05.2017 at 09:48

كتب بواسطة brianwl, 15.05.2017 at 07:07

There are some custom maps that try to emulate this - they tend not to be as popular, because 'IRL' what AW player is going to choose the side with 30000 troops that get slaughtered by 300?
However, there are a few that are balanced (i recall a Swedish map where it's 4v1, and it is very difficult to win as the smaller army, as the map maker balanced it and designed it in such a way that even if 2 of the 4 left, it still took a skilled player to win as the '1'.)

Sweden is NOT Over-powered!

It was a custom 17th/18th century historical map, so at that time they were. In the scenario they had superior units, but at high cost, so the map was balanced.

كتب بواسطة brianwl, 15.05.2017 at 11:51

كتب بواسطة Darth., 15.05.2017 at 09:48

كتب بواسطة brianwl, 15.05.2017 at 07:07

There are some custom maps that try to emulate this - they tend not to be as popular, because 'IRL' what AW player is going to choose the side with 30000 troops that get slaughtered by 300?
However, there are a few that are balanced (i recall a Swedish map where it's 4v1, and it is very difficult to win as the smaller army, as the map maker balanced it and designed it in such a way that even if 2 of the 4 left, it still took a skilled player to win as the '1'.)

Sweden is NOT Over-powered!

It was a custom 17th/18th century historical map, so at that time they were. In the scenario they had superior units, but at high cost, so the map was balanced.

Meh you didn't get it

كتب بواسطة Darth., 15.05.2017 at 12:46

....
Meh you didn't get it

picked the wrong week to give up coffee