TB = SH*T

It took me 6 turns in a row to actually TB it, how is this even possible:

Pro Air Transports obv.

You spelled SHIT as SHIAT. Let me fix that for you.

Geschrieben von Meester, 29.05.2013 at 05:13

You spelled SHIT as SHIAT. Let me fix that for you.

Lol i think he did it on purpose

Basicly turnblocking works like this:
Chance to turnblock = to the difference between you and your enemies troop counts
Chance % = your units count / opponent units count

Example:
You have 3 Militias and your enemy attacked with 10.
3/10 = 30 % Chance that you will be turnblocked

This will work upto a max of 50%. So even if you send 1000units and the enemy has 1, there is a 50% chance he will avoid. You simple have a 50-50% chance; every time you attack.

The old turnblock was less based on the number of units, but more on the priority of the movement. Meaning if you attacked one or more units, there was always a 50% chance (even if you attack with 1 unit). You could increase your chance if, for example, you ally attacked the same units in his first move too, which made it then 66% chance of turnblocking with just 2 units (and 75% with 3 players, etc). This worked upto a max of 99,9%

Yes tb is shit , 1 unit can tb more then 100 unit !

Because at most it's a 50% chance.

so 6 in a row is 1/(2^6)

0.015625

or 1.5%

1/100 really isn't that slim at all bro. it can happen.

Geschrieben von Hugosch, 29.05.2013 at 07:24

This will work upto a max of 50%. So even if you send 1000units and the enemy has 1, there is a 50% chance he will avoid. You simple have a 50-50% chance; every time you attack.

This.

Geschrieben von E.A.B, 29.05.2013 at 08:14

Yes tb is shit , 1 unit can tb more then 100 unit !

No. With the old system, yes you had a good chance of blocking with 1 unit. That was one of the main arguments against the old turnblocking. But with the current system; you will probably not block! If i have 100 units, that will be attacked with 1 unit; the chance of turnblocking is 1%.
You probably noticed that the old players want MORE turnblocking (like the old system), while you guys seem to be willing less turnblocking (or no turnblocking at all). Notice that turnblocking cannot be entirely removed from the game, otherwise there would be no fights unless you attack the same city or someone didn't move at all.

Geschrieben von Hugosch, 30.05.2013 at 01:51

Geschrieben von E.A.B, 29.05.2013 at 08:14

Yes tb is shit , 1 unit can tb more then 100 unit !

No. With the old system, yes you had a good chance of blocking with 1 unit. That was one of the main arguments against the old turnblocking. But with the current system; you will probably not block! If i have 100 units, that will be attacked with 1 unit; the chance of turnblocking is 1%.
You probably noticed that the old players want MORE turnblocking (like the old system), while you guys seem to be willing less turnblocking (or no turnblocking at all). Notice that turnblocking cannot be entirely removed from the game, otherwise there would be no fights unless you attack the same city or someone didn't move at all.

but i am telling the truth and that happen to me only 1 time :P and don't forget there is 1% chance and it happen to me
any i couldn't retake my cap that game and it was a normal 3v3 , i kill france and france (neutral) cap me and germany tb me . not a big deal

Geschrieben von Hugosch, 30.05.2013 at 01:51

Geschrieben von E.A.B, 29.05.2013 at 08:14

Yes tb is shit , 1 unit can tb more then 100 unit !

No. With the old system, yes you had a good chance of blocking with 1 unit. That was one of the main arguments against the old turnblocking. But with the current system; you will probably not block! If i have 100 units, that will be attacked with 1 unit; the chance of turnblocking is 1%.
You probably noticed that the old players want MORE turnblocking (like the old system), while you guys seem to be willing less turnblocking (or no turnblocking at all). Notice that turnblocking cannot be entirely removed from the game, otherwise there would be no fights unless you attack the same city or someone didn't move at all.

Exactly.

Changing it back to the old TB system won't eliminate threads like this one. There will still be complaints. From my experience the current one is far superior. I think most who hate it are still just reacting from the initial change, which was a huge adjustment back when it was first implemented. If the old system was to come back, the competition, difficulty and complexity will reduce significantly. Remember, it was early 2012 that the system was implemented- we are much stronger and complex players than we were a year ago. Going back to it would make the game too simple.

However, I liked the attack/defense idea. It could help to sort out this issue people have with the current system. Yet again, I think a drastic change would just bring on the same complaints etc.

I have to agree with Cow there

Geschrieben von Guest, 30.05.2013 at 12:26

Bringing back the old tb would add complexity, not reduce it. Now it's just spamming units with cheap strategies, expansion decides everything and there is no need to prioritize your movements apart from transports because nobody would waste units for a tb attempt.

lol dude. I've explained the tb system so many times to you and in many other threads. Read again. There's way more movement priority in the new system.

Geschrieben von Guest, 30.05.2013 at 15:08

Geschrieben von tophat, 30.05.2013 at 15:01

Geschrieben von Guest, 30.05.2013 at 12:26

Bringing back the old tb would add complexity, not reduce it. Now it's just spamming units with cheap strategies, expansion decides everything and there is no need to prioritize your movements apart from transports because nobody would waste units for a tb attempt.

lol dude. I've explained the tb system so many times to you and in many other threads. Read again. There's way more movement priority in the new system.

Lol dude. I know exactly how the tb system works, certainly better than any other player and yet my point stands. There is no priority because nobody CARES about tbs and because even trying it would be a massive waste of units.
You are completely wrong so I think you are immune to arguments at that stage.

Well firstly, of course the first movement TB is normally a waste of units the majority of the time. It's the 2nd and 3rd and 4th ..... and 15th movement priorities that are important to establish. Where does the complexity take effect? Just think of all the possibilities. Not to mention determining what your enemy will do, and what stacks he will move. For example, your enemy has a huge stack somewhere, and you won't dare tb it because obviously it would be a huge waste of units. BUT, what you can do is tb his other later priorities. For instance, if you suspect he will move his 2nd biggest stack as his 2nd move, TB it with your first move. Here, you'll see your chances go up. Same goes with all other combinations.

Geschrieben von Guest, 30.05.2013 at 15:46

So a first move blocks a second move every time right? Wrong.

I never said this. Btw max chance is 50% cow.

Geschrieben von Guest, 30.05.2013 at 15:46

Sorry but I don't have the time to fight about this topic every second day, nobody but you and Hugosch wants to keep the current system so I don't really feel like putting my energy into convincing two more people when everybody else already agrees with me.
You are wrong when it comes to the complexity discussion, and everything else is only subjective feelings.

You're just generalizing the matter, Hugo and I are not the only ones, we're just defending what we think is right. (What is right) And no I'm not wrong. Nor are you, at least not entirely, you're partially incorrect. But as you said, there's no need for trying to convince each other, it'll never happen. Play more and maybe you'll come to the same conclusions as me.

Geschrieben von Guest, 30.05.2013 at 16:10

I doubt is something to do with how much I play. Actually it was part reason of why I quit that I think the game became a spamfest.

Also my first sentence was a typo, I already corrected it before you posted.

I agree with you with the fact that it became a spamfest. But it's only because people play lazily and take the easiest way; by spamming rather than actually playing with priorities. I'm not at all a spammer nor are you, and we're both very good players. It's just a lack of knowledge that people have so they spam to make it easier on themselves.

As for your typo. Yeah sorry was making my post while it was it's original format, or maybe I didn't notice but oh well. Yes your chances increases, but it's not "most of the time successful" because the max is 50% for all scenarios. I don't know the exact formula for this. (this is why I asked Amok for a complete explanation of every possible tb combination in that one thread) but he still hasn't provided that yet. All i can tell you is that a 1st tbing a 2nd is a mediocre success rate. I much prefer tbing 1st against 3rd and all other priorities with the same differential value such as 2nd vs 6th and so on. It will really improve your tbing game.

Geschrieben von tophat, 30.05.2013 at 16:18

Geschrieben von Guest, 30.05.2013 at 16:10

I doubt is something to do with how much I play. Actually it was part reason of why I quit that I think the game became a spamfest.

Also my first sentence was a typo, I already corrected it before you posted.

I agree with you with the fact that it became a spamfest. But it's only because people play lazily and take the easiest way; by spamming rather than actually playing with priorities. I'm not at all a spammer nor are you, and we're both very good players. It's just a lack of knowledge that people have so they spam to make it easier on themselves.

As for your typo. Yeah sorry was making my post while it was it's original format, or maybe I didn't notice but oh well. Yes your chances increases, but it's not "most of the time successful" because the max is 50% for all scenarios. I don't know the exact formula for this. (this is why I asked Amok for a complete explanation of every possible tb combination in that one thread) but he still hasn't provided that yet. All i can tell you is that a 1st tbing a 2nd is a mediocre success rate. I much prefer tbing 1st against 3rd and all other priorities with the same differential value such as 2nd vs 6th and so on. It will really improve your tbing game.

I want the old TB back

I rather have a bunch of noobs with horrible skills complaining, than high ranks like me posting our frustation with this new TB system.

The way I see it is that lower ranks actually had a better chance to stand up against higher ranks when there was the old TB system. Right now, the upgrades already give so much to high-ranks that when it comes to a spamfest, a higher rank always has the advantage because of cheaper units, better attack or defence, more movement or whatever else. Especially when the higher rank has a general and the lower rank doesn't (which he don't want to waste money for, because he keeps losing and doesn't have enough SP to buy decent upgrades yet anyway).

Anyway, Sorry, TopHats, but Cow really is right this time. The old TB system has more skill involved and you need to think, what to TB, when to TB and when would you move your own stack. Right now it's all about unit count.

Geschrieben von Brandreas, 31.05.2013 at 01:53

The way I see it is that lower ranks actually had a better chance to stand up against higher ranks when there was the old TB system.

Im pretty sure new players were much inferior to high ranks before the TB system got changed. For example: It was pretty easy back then to pull
off a 1v4+ when you got the right country and they were right next to you. Even when they allied up. Nowadays it is really hard to go out as the victor
of just a 1v2 or 1v3 against the same new players.

It was close to impossible for new players back then to get familiar with the turn block mechanics and counter methods before rank 8 if they had to try
things out on their own.

I don't see why everybody is complaining about how hard the old tb system was for the newer players that didn't understand it.
I think I could find loads of people that would create a manual on how the tb system works in order to get it back from which all would profit

I like the new TB system more, kthx.

Geschrieben von Goblin, 31.05.2013 at 09:59

Geschrieben von Dbacks, 31.05.2013 at 08:41

I don't see why everybody is complaining about how hard the old tb system was for the newer players that didn't understand it.
I think I could find loads of people that would create a manual on how the tb system works in order to get it back from which all would profit

Manual ...manual for something that could be explained in one sentence and it's actually so damn simple ...

...and D, you forgot what it was like when you first started playing AW or you knew everything from the start?

never played with it on a high level, high enough to even bother noticing

When i was a low rank, i never had trouble with the old Tb sytem, i only found annoying to get turn block by bombers, but in this one is way worsth! Its impossible to turn block unprotected transports!

For once i agree with holy

Geschrieben von VRIL, 31.05.2013 at 03:53

Geschrieben von Brandreas, 31.05.2013 at 01:53

The way I see it is that lower ranks actually had a better chance to stand up against higher ranks when there was the old TB system.

Im pretty sure new players were much inferior to high ranks before the TB system got changed. For example: It was pretty easy back then to pull
off a 1v4+ when you got the right country and they were right next to you. Even when they allied up. Nowadays it is really hard to go out as the victor
of just a 1v2 or 1v3 against the same new players.

It was close to impossible for new players back then to get familiar with the turn block mechanics and counter methods before rank 8 if they had to try
things out on their own.

Actually, low ranks that knew how to turnblock where not inferior at all in a 3v1 situation they could screw you over if they knew how, and if they didn't you could never successfully block their spam anyways., i find it easier to beat low ranked players with this system, simply because i know how to expand much better and my knowledge of the game and how it works is far superior. Turnblocking as it was used then is now a very minor part of this game.

but one thing the change in the system didn't change is the luck of two massive tank stacks running into each other and attacking. one will get the turnblock and will take nearly no loses, while the other will be obliterated, so in this sense movement priority is still a massive part

But still my bombers cant kill a unprotected airtransports in water!!!

Geschrieben von nonames, 31.05.2013 at 18:55

Geschrieben von VRIL, 31.05.2013 at 03:53

Geschrieben von Brandreas, 31.05.2013 at 01:53

The way I see it is that lower ranks actually had a better chance to stand up against higher ranks when there was the old TB system.

Im pretty sure new players were much inferior to high ranks before the TB system got changed. For example: It was pretty easy back then to pull
off a 1v4+ when you got the right country and they were right next to you. Even when they allied up. Nowadays it is really hard to go out as the victor
of just a 1v2 or 1v3 against the same new players.

It was close to impossible for new players back then to get familiar with the turn block mechanics and counter methods before rank 8 if they had to try
things out on their own.

Actually, low ranks that knew how to turnblock where not inferior at all in a 3v1 situation they could screw you over if they knew how, and if they didn't you could never successfully block their spam anyways., i find it easier to beat low ranked players with this system, simply because i know how to expand much better and my knowledge of the game and how it works is far superior. Turnblocking as it was used then is now a very minor part of this game.

but one thing the change in the system didn't change is the luck of two massive tank stacks running into each other and attacking. one will get the turnblock and will take nearly no loses, while the other will be obliterated, so in this sense movement priority is still a massive part

I agree with you that lower ranks have a significant disadvantage in world games; adding flower power and removing walk through units would best serve this. The new system is much better and fine as it is. As i have explained in this thread and many others.

Zitat:

Zitat:

Geschrieben von Goblin, 01.06.2013 at 05:38

I agree with you that lower ranks have a significant disadvantage in world games; adding flower power and removing walk through units would best serve this. The new system is much better and fine as it is. As i have explained in this thread and many others.

Could you please explain to me what is the flower power?

really, and you say you played the old afterwind?

its when you make small pentagon of 5 bombers and you have your main stack in the middle, therefore they need to destroy 1 bomber to be able to attack your stack.

Zitat:

Zitat:

Geschrieben von Tundy, 01.06.2013 at 08:41

Geschrieben von Goblin, 01.06.2013 at 05:38

I agree with you that lower ranks have a significant disadvantage in world games; adding flower power and removing walk through units would best serve this. The new system is much better and fine as it is. As i have explained in this thread and many others.

Could you please explain to me what is the flower power?

really, and you say you played the old afterwind?

its when you make small pentagon of 5 bombers and you have your main stack in the middle, therefore they need to destroy 1 bomber to be able to attack your stack.

You're forgetting the most essential part. You have your five bombers around your stack yes, but you remake it every turn from the inside.

Zitat:

Zitat:

Geschrieben von tophat, 01.06.2013 at 11:37

Geschrieben von Tundy, 01.06.2013 at 08:41

Geschrieben von Goblin, 01.06.2013 at 05:38

I agree with you that lower ranks have a significant disadvantage in world games; adding flower power and removing walk through units would best serve this. The new system is much better and fine as it is. As i have explained in this thread and many others.

Could you please explain to me what is the flower power?

really, and you say you played the old afterwind?

its when you make small pentagon of 5 bombers and you have your main stack in the middle, therefore they need to destroy 1 bomber to be able to attack your stack.

You're forgetting the most essential part. You have your five bombers around your stack yes, but you remake it every turn from the inside.

i didn't know that, back then i was rank 4 without SM.