Victory Condition Ideas

How about a victory condition thread.

More countries on the ''Hold ''x'' country for ''x'' amount of turns? We only have a few.
First to ''x'' amount of SP
Kill the Enemy General. In other words, if your general dies, you lose.
How about capturing a particular city and holding it rather than countries?

How about more units win?
The most battles win?
Which is almost like SP win but better.

"LilD" best rapper on AW

Escrito por Deray YG, 07.11.2011 at 08:07

How about more units win?
The most battles win?
Which is almost like SP win but better.

"LilD" best rapper on AW

So you want the game to end after 1 turn?

Yes cuz then I'd always win

Escrito por Tik-Tok, 07.11.2011 at 05:01

More countries on the ''Hold ''x'' country for ''x'' amount of turns? We only have a few.

This is already in the game.

Escrito por Tik-Tok, 07.11.2011 at 05:01

First to ''x'' amount of SP
Kill the Enemy General. In other words, if your general dies, you lose.

The General can be killed way too easily and would make for a play style which I believe wouldn't be intended by the developers. Furthermore, offensive strategies would be rendered almost useless unless one hopes for an easy victory.

Escrito por Tik-Tok, 07.11.2011 at 05:01

How about capturing a particular city and holding it rather than countries?

This would be absolutely amazing for scenarios, I'll even +rep you if it gets put in the game.

Escrito por YOBA, 07.11.2011 at 12:18

This is already in the game.

Yes, I know but only certain specific countries which is why I asked for more of them. I think only 6 are available at the moment.

Escrito por YOBA, 07.11.2011 at 12:18

The General can be killed way too easily and would make for a play style which I believe wouldn't be intended by the developers. Furthermore, offensive strategies would be rendered almost useless unless one hopes for an easy victory.

Not really, due to the fact they have such low defense and offense, they always die last. It's a different game style. Also, the best thing about game options and victory conditions is that it does not affect game play. It only adds options available. If you don't like it, don't play it.

I would love a Kill The Enemy General type game. Taking territory while hunting down the enemy general.

Escrito por Tik-Tok, 07.11.2011 at 15:22

I would love a Kill The Enemy General type game. Taking territory while hunting down the enemy general.

It's a very cool idea and it would add a whole new dynamic with retreat tactics, repositioning walls, etc.

Ivan said it was the original idea when they introduced the general in-game.

How about a "hold X or more countries for Y turns"? or even a "be the first to get an income of X amount of money per turn"? this would mean people would have to not get a ton of units because it would lower their income per turn

Escrito por Pinheiro, 07.11.2011 at 15:52

Ivan said it was the original idea when they introduced the general in-game.

Ivan is a reasonable man and wouldn't include a game mechanic-breaking feature like this. You just shot yourself in the foot there Pinheiro. T

They'd need to re-work the whole game or it would receive a lot of critics for how application of established tactics would have changed radically for the worse under such a victory condition.
And it's not just that; it simply wouldn't work with the game mechanics for the reasons stated above. It doesn't take much thinking to get to this conclusion.

Escrito por Ivan, 20.09.2011 at 15:13

Escrito por Guest14502, 20.09.2011 at 14:22

Re: new victory conditions, can you make one "eliminate the enemy general"?

I think it would be a fun twist on things for some games.

We were going to introduce it when we added Generals. Don't remember now why we didn't... I think Amok had some concerns about it.

Escrito por Guest14502, 20.09.2011 at 14:22

We were going to introduce it when we added Generals. Don't remember now why we didn't... I think Amok had some concerns about it.

Yeah, I wonder what those concerns were bro.

Escrito por YOBA, 08.11.2011 at 13:04

Escrito por Guest14502, 20.09.2011 at 14:22

We were going to introduce it when we added Generals. Don't remember now why we didn't... I think Amok had some concerns about it.

Yeah, I wonder what those concerns were bro.

>General +2 def fpr all units in stack
>General get's killed by 1 militia

Great gametype!

Escrito por Garde, 08.11.2011 at 13:07

Escrito por YOBA, 08.11.2011 at 13:04

Escrito por Guest14502, 20.09.2011 at 14:22

We were going to introduce it when we added Generals. Don't remember now why we didn't... I think Amok had some concerns about it.

Yeah, I wonder what those concerns were bro.

>General +2 def fpr all units in stack
>General get's killed by 1 militia

Great gametype!

No, you PROTECT the general. The reason why the General has such low defense and attack is so that when in a stack, the general attacks or defends last. If they had high enough attack, they would die. Generals DON'T fight. They LEAD.

Secondly. As a game mechanic it would be fine and like I said. The best thing about such ideas and implementations is they dont change the game. If you don't like it, don't play.

I want to hunt down Enemy generals. I think it would be a fantastic new edition to the game.

As Tik-Tok said, the general will be always the last unit to die when in a stack. Maybe your opinion about it is related to your misconception of the battle mechanics.

Escrito por Pinheiro, 08.11.2011 at 15:01

As Tik-Tok said, the general will be always the last troops to die when in a stack. Maybe your opinion about it is related to your misconception of the battle mechanics.

I don't Tik misunderstood anything. Its just what people do most of the time, almost no one uses their general unless their done for.

Excellent thread, I hope they revisit the concerns regarding the "eliminate enemy general" option when they have the time. Would add some variety.

Most SP is already in the game, but I still have one concern for general...


Assassins are a rare unit that kills the general no matter what if its in the stack, that basicly means you win.

Escrito por Deray YG, 08.11.2011 at 15:06

Escrito por Pinheiro, 08.11.2011 at 15:01

As Tik-Tok said, the general will be always the last troops to die when in a stack. Maybe your opinion about it is related to your misconception of the battle mechanics.

I don't Tik misunderstood anything. Its just what people do most of the time, almost no one uses their general unless their done for.

Oh LilD, you have much to learn. My general is on the front line of almost any strategy I use. He's usually defending India with a few hundred infantry or militia. Either that or he's flying in an Air Transport surrounded by a few hundred bombers in a well protected super stack rushing to your cap.

Don't fuck with Muad'Dib. He who own controls the spice, controls the universe.

I don't like learning..............

Escrito por KYBL, 08.11.2011 at 20:11

Assassins are a rare unit that kills the general no matter what if its in the stack, that basicly means you win.

Good point. If this idea get's implemented there is a need to disable assassins and suicide bombers.

Escrito por Deray YG, 09.11.2011 at 11:06

I don't like learning..............

I'm sure you will regret from that statement one day. And I trully hope you're trolling us.

Maybe but I just gotta make a new form of battle strategy that works for only people with my kinda style. Tik-Tok's pointers are good but they don't always work for me.

Thanks to the strategies I use, my general stays at my cap most of the time anyway providing a nice defence buff.

So there. Just putting it out there because a lot of people appreciate this and keep their general in their capitals.

Escrito por YOBA, 09.11.2011 at 11:56

Thanks to the strategies I use, my general stays at my cap most of the time anyway providing a nice defence buff.

So there. Just putting it out there because a lot of people appreciate this and keep their general in their capitals.

See this is the point I was talking about, almost everyone does this. No one really moves their general at all

Escrito por YOBA, 09.11.2011 at 11:56

Thanks to the strategies I use, my general stays at my cap most of the time anyway providing a nice defence buff.

So there. Just putting it out there because a lot of people appreciate this and keep their general in their capitals.

Then your general is pretty useless. With the upgrades I have, he is a valuable unit.

I disagree, not that it is a bad idea or anything but lets say it is a world game and the victory conditions are as you suggested, Europe has a better chance of winning since it has more countries. Asia barely has any.

Escrito por tophat, 15.11.2011 at 20:17

I disagree, not that it is a bad idea or anything but lets say it is a world game and the victory conditions are as you suggested, Europe has a better chance of winning since it has more countries. Asia barely has any.

More countries doesn't equal more troops smarty-pants. Another advantage of Asia is how close together the troop-producing cities are so you can create large stacks of troops in China and India with relative ease that can cover the entire front really.

And no, Asia doesn't "barely have any [countries]". With Kosovo, Europe has 71 countries. Asia has 47 countries which comes up to 56 in Afterwind if you add in the islands in south-east Asia. Just pointing out some facts.