How AtWar Can Become Great Again

This post describes how the game we all love can improve; and what's stopped me from playing again. Issues with AtWar's adoption has always been related to time. The average game time in combination with the learning curve is a bit much for consumers.

AtWar is an accessible strategy game with a high skill floor. I see the demographics of AtWar as people who enjoy games such as Chess, Civilization and MMORPGs (like Runescape and WoW); less like Risk or Paradox Interactive. Of all these games, AtWar is the best at being accessible (free played on a browser). However, it can improve in its other areas by viewing what these games do well.

Chess
Chess is a versatile game with many competitive time limits https://herculeschess.com/time-control-for-chess-tournament/. A blitz player and a standard player know what to expect when they are playing; as do their viewers. However, AtWar competitive matches (basically EU games) can take up to 2 hours. Casual games can push the limits of human focus beyond 6. I can guarantee you that this uncertainty costs new players (as it does in blogs; hence readtime).

The mechanics of Chess are easily understood; but not conquerable yet. In contrast, the mechanics of AtWar are a science not even the owners understand and deemed unconquerable. The latter is great because it will be hard for an all-encompassing AI to lower interest in player strategies. The main issue is that the game is outright deceptive in its mechanics due to bugs.

I disagree with the consensus that AtWar isn't fun to watch. There are many video concepts creators could use to make them interesting. However, AtWar's mechanics deceive the viewer: We wait until the end of turns expecting to see strategic genius that has already occurred DURING the turn. In Chess, a single reactionary move is made over many minutes, but people understand its purpose.

There are many mechanics that are counterintuitive to a viewer's interest. Are the boilerplate actions - of say unit by unit walling - that take up 10 - 20% of a turn truly necessary? Should we be relying on wall glitches and culture-based honor to guide high level gameplay? Why is a super specific part of the game the only viable competitive aspect? Is luck integral to the game? Let it be known the early games of AtWar are inherently more interesting than Chess...

Risk
On the surface, AtWar functions similar to Risk. There are 2D Maps and battles operate on rolls that add uncertainty to the game. Whether this is beneficial or not can be argued. However, AtWar does not have serial turns; risk doesn't involve OT or CRDT algorithms, economy, or partial movements. Using Risk as the marketing strategy has always been flawed.

Paradox Interactive
I'm going to be honest. I haven't played any of these games. I have played Sid Meier Civilization. People enjoy the in-depth progress of a civilization they control. The economies and travel systems (where armies visually walk to location) are almost realistic. The graphics are great with the maps being 3D.

Fundamentally, these games have a greater difference to AtWar than Chess. AtWar becomes a completely different game if we model these games. It's an interesting concept to imagine: An RTS AtWar with armies and battles that involve terrain and ongoing sieges over real time... This isn't the current state of AtWar though.

In AtWar, in-game progression is implemented through economy and user-created content such as RP.  However, actual players experience in-game progression that is dictated by the game - through turn events - and NOT the player. In addition, economies are only relevant for the creation of units. The game has no scientific research progression; strategies are chosen before the game. There is no gradual anticipation as large armies march into cities and raze it (nor do you have command over that). AtWar is more similar to Multiplayer Civilization than Hearts of Iron. A turn ends and the game state is new.

These demographics aren't similar. However, games such as Paradox Interactive pose great questions. Are inconsistent mechanics - such as nonsense unit placement - part of the "micromanagement" skills you need for AtWar; or are they unnecessary? How much of AtWar is related to its economy: Especially when the economy becomes irrelevant due to unit production spreadsheets.

MMORPGS
AtWar requires large time commitments; with the SP Upgrade System being a culprit. It's easy for the dedicated players to be fine with this system. However, newer players will be unable to compete when your units and unit types are outright worse.

A competitive player plays for the glory of ELO and tournaments. A casual player doesn't play for SP. It's a weird mechanic to have as a sense of progression; on top of the steep learning curve AtWar already has. Plus, we lock the content from the new player for...

Implementation
AtWar has been upheld by its community. Any improvement to AtWar will take effort from the community. I'm not sure why Dave - quite literally - bought the game a month into playing it. I'm not sure why I bought premium with a T-shirt when I was a literal broke boy in 2015. However, there is something in this community that makes me believe that this is still the beginning of AtWar. We may as well call it AtWar Classic.

I understand that many of us want to see the game increase in player count. We want to see strategies reach new heights as new players join. We want a game where our skills can be used competitively; perhaps for a living. We want to have fun. I don't think AtWar in its current form is that game for the reasons I've described. If we want AtWar to grow, we have to answer how we want the actual game to work. If we can do that, we will be able to usher the next golden age. Long Live AtWar!

What we really need is atwar merchandise. I would definitely wear a t-shirt with an atwar logo under my jacket during the winter

This is some excellent writing, I really enjoyed reading it.

I talked with a friend about the subject of new players several days ago, and we both agreed they have nothing going for them - for minimal SP they have to face premium high ranks with general, ally fagging, mechanics they don't underatand completly and a tutorial that doea not help. So many of them are only willing to play scenarios which eventually gets boring.

I have been thinking what to do. One suggeation I had is to limit the ally ending possibility in relation to what was at the beginning of the game to 20%.

Let's say 20 ranks 5 started a world game. If 5 if them ally ebded it then it is 25% and that is an ally fagging. They will be sanctioned with the half of the SP. I suppose there are more clever way to weight it. Like the relation of one player in relation to the average.

On the other hand the game can reward high ranks that chose to carry low ranks in a game. If rank 15 and rank 3 woon a game it will be good to give him pc.

Another thing is, rather than limiting good strategies only to highsp and premiums. I think it will be good to create strategies that expire when you reach rank 7. Like boosted DS or LB with cheaper units or even to give them a general until they are rank 7. That way a new player not only has more tools to cope but have an incentive to keep accumulating SP in order to buy the upgrades necessary to have these starts again.

In conclusion - the game prosperity relies on the players who suppose to fill it, and if they have nothing going for them then we have nothing going for us.

And just to clarify something, In the first years of afterwind for the better and the worse the whole community has aquuezed into the world games. And in that case it served the low ranks.

If those fags from Empire SRB would ally against you then their rivals from Warborn Legion and Dalmati have allied you just to give them the third finger.

Nowdays world games are hosted by cartells of psychopaths ranks 15-20s. Who have experted farming low ranks, who ban everyone who manage to beat them. Who prematurely pick the countries in plan to leave low ranks helpless. Who even rig rolls at times. Then it is no wonder that even the low ranks that choose to remain fleee to scenarios.

Scenarioa like RP and WWI are cool, but they are not everything the game has to offer. And if it's all players feel comfy to play it's only matter of time before they become tired of Atwar.

Welcome back Flame! Hope you've been well dude. As for your post, I'm not sure all of your arguments hold up in a debate, however you do have an interesting point I definitely think is worth looking into. I'd love to talk to you about it since you're one of the few non-shy players lol. I should be back in California soon so hmu on discord (though my opinion on it shouldn't/doesn't matter much more than anyone else here, i'm a player like everyone else at my core).

If you want this game to boost and grow make Premium free of cost and charge on upgrades like inf +1 range, +1 movement for naval transport, In this way people will be more than willing and happy to pay for upgrades this game can offer, collectively a price tag of 40ish dollar for just gen and some strat is not a good buisness model for this game.

It can be if Dave delete moderator team!

Kirjutas Johnny., 18.12.2021 at 05:21

If you want this game to boost and grow make Premium free of cost

Says the guy who hacked his premium package

Kirjutas Johnny., 18.12.2021 at 05:21

charge on upgrades like inf +1 range, +1 movement for naval transport,

Says the guy who exploited range bug yesterday

Kirjutas Sid, 18.12.2021 at 00:00

Welcome back Flame! Hope you've been well dude. As for your post, I'm not sure all of your arguments hold up in a debate, however you do have an interesting point I definitely think is worth looking into. I'd love to talk to you about it since you're one of the few non-shy players lol. I should be back in California soon so hmu on discord (though my opinion on it shouldn't/doesn't matter much more than anyone else here, i'm a player like everyone else at my core).

Dude your opinion matters more than anyone elses here IMO, you've been in the community forever and you seem like one of the most level headed guys here who actually cares about the development, growth, and sustainability of the game. At its core I feel Atwar has so much potential for growth, it's just hasn't been under the right leadership. I feel like so many people into grand strategy can enjoy this game and all the different scenarios they just don't know about Atwar. It took a decent amount of digging to even find this game but when I did wow I was really hooked to this game back in highschool, I loved the scenarios so much WW1 and Endseig and Barbrossa even the medival and ancient ones.

Hello!
I may not be an incredibly experienced player, but I live my life playing Strategy, Tactical, and Civilization builder games.
In my few games played on this site, I have noticed many of the same concerns shared by all of you. I.E. Bias to "Older" players, premium features, leadership problems.
However, I want to address one problem that I feel has not been discussed.

Everything in this game is built on numbers! How much of this, roll damage of that, blah blah blah.
Someone who understands this unit well can be confident that if I attack THIS unit, I will win.

However, THIS IS NOT WAR!

War is strategy! You can't be confident that you will win! For example, the Battle of Issus (Issos). Alexander's force consisted of, at most, 40,000 troops. King Darius had, at modern estimates, 108-115 thousand soldiers under his command, While some speculated around 500,000. We all know the outcome of this battle though. A solid win for Alexander! If this simulation was run in AtWar, there would not be anything Alexander could do. He would have lost.

Essentially what I am ranting about is the low randomization factor in this game. In summary, 15 tanks COULD beat 20-25 tanks IRL, but it doesn't normally happen. However, in Atwar it DOESN'T happen, period. Maybe something to look at in the future Dave?

My apologies for intruding into the humble abode of the god-players,
-Para Bellica

Kirjutas veyinfinite, 02.02.2022 at 10:09

Hello!
I may not be an incredibly experienced player, but I live my life playing Strategy, Tactical, and Civilization builder games.
In my few games played on this site, I have noticed many of the same concerns shared by all of you. I.E. Bias to "Older" players, premium features, leadership problems.
However, I want to address one problem that I feel has not been discussed.

Everything in this game is built on numbers! How much of this, roll damage of that, blah blah blah.
Someone who understands this unit well can be confident that if I attack THIS unit, I will win.

However, THIS IS NOT WAR!

War is strategy! You can't be confident that you will win! For example, the Battle of Issus (Issos). Alexander's force consisted of, at most, 40,000 troops. King Darius had, at modern estimates, 108-115 thousand soldiers under his command, While some speculated around 500,000. We all know the outcome of this battle though. A solid win for Alexander! If this simulation was run in AtWar, there would not be anything Alexander could do. He would have lost.

Essentially what I am ranting about is the low randomization factor in this game. In summary, 15 tanks COULD beat 20-25 tanks IRL, but it doesn't normally happen. However, in Atwar it DOESN'T happen, period. Maybe something to look at in the future Dave?

My apologies for intruding into the humble abode of the god-players,
-Para Bellica

You may be the first person in the history of atWar to want MORE randomness (just ask guys here who've attacked with larger stacks and failed anyway)

Kirjutas veyinfinite, 02.02.2022 at 10:09

That would be cool only if the game was about actually battling and battle tactics. However this is more of a war macromanagement game. Technically anything can happen, since the game is based on rolls (chance), but the odds are very low just as in real life. Alexander went down in history precisely because that can happen once in history or twice, just as chance would predict.

Kirjutas RaulPB, 04.02.2022 at 14:47

Kirjutas veyinfinite, 02.02.2022 at 10:09

Fair point.