I got a bright new idea, but I want some feedback on the forums before I post it on uservoice. How about an optional feature where there are three types of troops. (Infantry, air, and tank.). And each type of troop has an advantage over another. (Infantry-Air-Tank etc.) (Think rock-paper-scizzors.). There could be three colored numbers in each territory, with each color representing a type. And you could just order one type to attack another sigle type of the opposing territory. (Air attacks tank.). An advantage could get a 20% attack ratio so 20% more of the enemie's troops (with a disavantage) would be lost. For example, say I attacked an enemies 50 tank units using my 70 air units. Under normal circumstances, only around 30 would be lost from the enemies units. But, since 20% more armies are lost, 40 armies are lost from the enemies tanks units. I can't wait for your feedback!

Interesting, but would make the game a bit more complicated and longer. Although there could be an option to turn it on/off by the host.

That's why I said "optional feature". The game host could turn it on/off.

Sounds cool to me.

I'm always for things that make a game more complex and skill intensive.

sounds really fun!

Sounds like a mess to keep track of, especially on bigger maps.

i like the more complexity aspect...but wouldnt this begin to turn 'risk' into those older original hexagonal board war game? you know, the ones where you had cardboard 'chips' with actual military icons that you'd stack onto a hex, the board being the map of the region in conflict (use to play the korean war this way--before puters took me over!)

i think this also involved rolling dice for luck and advantage etc...(not sure lol)
each unit had limits on motion, and ratings one how they perform in attack/defense...

I like the idea, and maybe maps could be made specifically for this game type....maybe even 'historical' battles genre..:)

could be an interesting idea, reminds me of the board game blitzkreig

I have a habit of overthinking things like this.. a problem with infantry-tank-airplane in a rock-paper-scissors aspect... tanks are very vulnurable to air and infantry without infantry support in dense terrain... only specialized infantry or specialized anti-air weaponry would have much of a chance of damaging the airplanes reasonable in a logical standpoint..


I know personally in most RTS's that try to include a bonus damage based on types It just gets laughable because the base tactics used in that style of strategy is diminished to try and enforce the rock-paper-scissor theorem in lieu of it..

just my 2 cents of course. many games I play tend to overlook the logical applications to their rules nonetheless.

Sounds a bit like Axis&Allies where each unit had different attack and defense strengths.

Perhaps it could be that infantry would function just like the basic armies we have now, tanks would get a bonus to offense and could always multi-attack one extra territory beyond the first, and bombers would get a big bonus to offense, be unable to defend, and could directly attack up to 3 territories away from their location. Tanks could cost 3 deployment, Bombers could cost 5, and both of them could take 2 hits to kill.

This sounds like it could be a good and fun game, although I feel that it would be a completely new game in itself.

I think, for Fizzer/Randy already taking care of Warlight, then to create a new game or tweak what already exists, and then to maintain the new game/tweaks it would require way to much time. Fizzer/Randy would need to clone himself many times over.

On top of time, there would be the problem of new add ons if this idea was added. For example, boats, healing of troops/tanks/boats/etc, helicopters, cannons, submarines, and all the bonuses or lack there of that would be attributed to all the above troops.

I also feel that there would be no such thing as a quick game, which isnt necessarily a problem, I just foresee a lot of waiting and a lot of miscommunication between teammates.

There could also be the problem with people sabotaging team games. This sort of game could take weeks or longer to play especially if people only make one move a day. Imagine playing a game for a month, then one of your teammates being booted or even surrendering..., I know I would be frustrated.

Again, I dont think this is a bad idea, I just foresee a lot of maintenance. You **should** add your idea to the user voice for voting. I am just one person out of thousands that play this game. Just sharing my opinion, though my opinion wasn't requested.

I think the essence of making it workable would be in making it as simple as possible, as per my example... I think just a little bit of unit variation goes a long way in increasing game complexity...