A few changes to Turn Block

First Idea

If you attack a transport on the same move as them, you have a 100% chance to turnblock, regardless of how many transports there are.

here are a few scenarios to make people understand how this will work:

- unguarded Transport/AirTransport is attacked the same move as someone tries to block it - it is defeated, as long as all who are in the tranports.

- Transport/AirTransport in a city tries to leave the city with a full load of troops as someone blocks it on the move move - The move is blocked, and battle continues as ifthe units in the trasports weren't in the transports, meaning the entire city is blocked, units that try to move out that turn will also be blocked because a battle has taken place.

- Transport/AirTransport is in a city and units that are not an Transport/AirTransport try to leave the city as someone turn block on the same move - Normal turn blocking rules apply for any move other than a transport trying to move. (this is VERY important admins - i believe there was a bug when turn blocks were first changed that allowed you to have a 50% chance at turn blocking a city if there was a Transport/AirTransport in there, regardless of what tried to move, it is also important that this work in harmony with my second scenario.)

-Transport/AirTransport guarded by Destroyer/Bombers Etc move in one move and someone tries to turnblock - The bombers are included and normal turnblcok rules are applied. (Again, VERY important to get right.)

What it will accomplish:
People will have to think more strategically, you know you have to move your transports to somewhere they can't be blocked or they will be rendered utterly useless, and totally remove any chance of progress, this means walling is as important as when it was during the height of turnblocking, but it does not make the game as annoying to people as turn blocking, which made no sense at all really, this does make sense though.


Second Idea

A fairly simple one, If Stealth units are Detected (not unstealthed, as in have hit a unit and are unstealthed, but have been detected by sentries or other units) then there is a 75% chance to turn block them if you move on the same move they do, regardless of how many marines are there.

The idea came to me after countless times of attacking Dehli in India with 100's of marines and then moving them out in the next turn with no problem (even if he has units otside and knows exactly how many units i have in there) and destroying my enemies next attacking force the turn after he retakes Dehli.

What it will accomplish:
I honestly think Stealth strats were the only strategies that were actually boosted by the turn block change, because they only ever had to worry about turn blocks when they took a city, which was solved for them during the change. This will change that and as such require people to use use Stealth strategies properly, not how people use GW now, exactly like how they use Imperialist.

It is not the end of Stealth strategies though, because if your enemy does not utilise the advantage of detecting your units, and doesn't hit them with enough troops then your units will be unstealthed and be able to get to cover, removing turn block disadvantages (unless of course you are in a city, then you are fucked, unless he's an idiot and moves all his units in.)

Sorry if this is a double post but i just want to clarify my overall thoughts on turn block.

When turn blocking was originally removed, i believed it was a terrible idea, it removed a large portion of the games strategy and depth. But i understood why it was done, it was just poorly executed, instead of utterly nerfing and effectively removing it (which i believed gave various stratagies advatanges, one being SM, which is solved in the first idea, and the second being stealth strats, solved in the second idea), there should have been harmony, at the time i could not think of a way to achieve this, but now i have started, hopefully more ideas spring from this post and more strategical depth is reimplemented into the game.

Oh btw, this could pathe the way to Blitzgrieg being a usable strategy once again, now wouldn't that be fun

there may possibly have to be a few strat stat adjustments to accompany these turnblock changes, but we will see what happens.

Tarafından yazıldı clovis1122, 06.03.2013 at 18:50

Tarafından yazıldı nonames, 06.03.2013 at 17:58

First Idea

If you attack a transport on the same move as them, you have a 100% chance to turnblock, regardless of how many transports there are.

I dont Support. this will be hard to codificated and also would make a ULTIMATE NERF to SM trought (NC trans are too OP. sorry)

I massive boost that was given to it with the removal of Turnblock, so it is only fair. it would be the end of Sky Menace Spam, but you will still have a speed advantage.
If SM got back certain stats that were nerfed after the turn block update, it could work out. Like i said, i'm willing to work out and reach an agreeable level of balance.

You are also very biased in your thoughts here, you acknowledged there would be a SM nerf and did not want it, but did not aknowledge the Stealth strat nerfs or did not care enough to notice it. i would like people to understand what changes an update will bring and weigh out the positive an negatives into a balanced resolution.

Tarafından yazıldı nonames, 06.03.2013 at 19:04

Tarafından yazıldı clovis1122, 06.03.2013 at 18:50

Tarafından yazıldı nonames, 06.03.2013 at 17:58

First Idea

If you attack a transport on the same move as them, you have a 100% chance to turnblock, regardless of how many transports there are.

I dont Support. this will be hard to codificated and also would make a ULTIMATE NERF to SM trought (NC trans are too OP. sorry)

I massive boost that was given to it with the removal of Turnblock, so it is only fair. it would be the end of Sky Menace Spam, but you will still have a speed advantage.
If SM got back certain stats that were nerfed after the turn block update, it could work out. Like i said, i'm willing to work out and reach an agreeable level of balance.

You are also very biased in your thoughts here, you acknowledged there would be a SM nerf and did not want it, but did not aknowledge the Stealth strat nerfs or did not care enough to notice it. i would like people to understand what changes an update will bring and weigh out the positive an negatives into a balanced resolution.

Clovis Favorite strategies: Sky Menace, Perfect Defence, Guerrilla Warfare


lol, you are right. he only cares because his op spam strategies get nerf.

btw, blitz will be good again? :0 i love the strategy.

Arbie, I'm very in favor of this, however it would make crossing large bodies of water impossible (using SM, for instance). Stealth bombers would be able to turnblock a deathstack to oblivion (and then you could argue that we can have several stacks, but according to your logic, no matter the order of TBs, they would always block the units).

I propose another idea to be used with these two: air units be able to make walls. The ideal solution would be to return impassible units, though.

Tarafından yazıldı clovis1122, 07.03.2013 at 12:41

Sorry for doublepost but I am now retruning to the main point...

Tarafından yazıldı nonames, 06.03.2013 at 19:04

You are also very biased in your thoughts here, you acknowledged there would be a SM nerf and did not want it, but did not acknowledge the Stealth strat nerfs or did not care enough to notice it. i would like people to understand what changes an update will bring and weigh out the positive an negatives into a balanced resolution.

The first idea would be very hard Nerf for SM, because they use A LOT (trust me went I tell you this) Air trans... like 50% more thad any other stat... this will be very hard for they thad for normal transport(because NC use them like 2% more thad any other stat... and maybe they use it less thad PD or IMP trought ). I don't support SM Nerf because I play it a lot( and this is what EXACTLY give me preference on the air trans idea) I just dont support it because what I expained up... I just cant support they to be so easy to be TBed... This will cause they to be impopular and no one will really want to have they on a unwalled city and risk all they troop thad are attaking a very far away city.

About the second idea... I said nothing because thad is really somenthing realist and would balanced GW a bit (MOS doesn't spam too much marines like GW indeed...) It will just nerf marines a bit but would make it more realist and GW more strategically strategy( because would be HORRIBLE to get TBed on a city... maybe making the TBed charge to dont work went they on citys). but the TBed went you detect it will make a more strategically use of Sentry Planes thad I think are the less main unit used on the entire atwar

The whole pont is so that marines are tunblocked in cities if they are detected, this is to stop people taking a city, leaving and then retaking it without consequence.

as far as it nerfing SM, this is understandable, maybe if it was only 50 or 60%, idk.

Tarafından yazıldı notserral, 07.03.2013 at 11:17

Arbie, I'm very in favor of this, however it would make crossing large bodies of water impossible (using SM, for instance). Stealth bombers would be able to turnblock a deathstack to oblivion (and then you could argue that we can have several stacks, but according to your logic, no matter the order of TBs, they would always block the units).

I propose another idea to be used with these two: air units be able to make walls. The ideal solution would be to return impassible units, though.

i did say that if you were to move the bombers in the same stack as an air transport then the turnblock won't apply, so deathstacks won't be affected at all. What will be affected is if a deathstack tries to leave a city moving the air transport out first.

Tarafından yazıldı clovis1122, 07.03.2013 at 17:19

Tarafından yazıldı nonames, 07.03.2013 at 17:06

The whole point is so that marines are tunblocked in cities if they are detected, this is to stop people taking a city, leaving and then retaking it without consequence.

Come on do you really want to trapped 3 def marines on a city? you know this is unfair specially if you other strategy or MOS ( this doesn't affect GW at all, because this is what this is made for )
Also cost doesn't help too much... This is understandable for GW but not for other strategy. sorry I disagreed on this point). Altrought I support second idea went they get Tbed out of city such like discovered by sentry... as I said this can boost Sentry use A LOT!!!.

Tarafından yazıldı nonames, 07.03.2013 at 17:06

as far as it nerfing SM, this is understandable, maybe if it was only 50 or 60%, idk.

I completely support This one ^^ now you are talking about something understandable.

i hope is a 60% always chance to turn air transports.
and
always turn block marines when they are detected.