How about being able to attack an army while on travelling. This would slow an army if attacked and create more need of strategic planning and increase the random risks of army movements...

2nd the motion.

Easy to implement after waypoints are implemented!

Wow, that was a short post :)

This sounds great. Adds a lot of realism. 3rd that! :p

I'd say that I 4th it but that would be lame and unoriginal. Anyway, I like the idea and makes it more practical for you to have cities nearby each other so if someone attacks the innermost city then you can have armies in the outer cities to stop it. For example, you (or your alliance) have Boise, Missoula, Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, Edmonton, you can set up Seattle or Boise to not have any armies at all in it because you can always have enemies be intercepted before reaching them because they are surrounded by other cities that you own.

Very great idea! We need to be able to implement some territorial system, say your own armies have increased movement within a certain radius of your cities (maybe the bigger the city the faster the movement). This would allow for intruders to be met with an interception force rather quickly. It would also mean strategic placing of waypoints to enter where resistance is weaker.

sounds like a good idea, but some players and alliances might be able to exploit it and camp around hombases, there would have to be restrictions and such

Why restrictions? Would be cool to see alliances enforcing pass tolls. :hand

10 Geos 1 pass
50 Geos 6 passes
100 Geos 1 month flatrate :D

How about being able to attack an army while on travelling. This would slow an army if attacked and create more need of strategic planning and increase the random risks of army movements...

I see this is a very old thread, but...

It was meantioned ages ago, waaayyy before gewar.net. Mickey was going to try and introuce this...

I wonder what happened to the the idea....Luke? - or is it still on the backburner until we get some more gameplay improvemnets such as infastructure?

I had plenty of thought on this a little while ago - my plans (from GEH forum)


How about the ability to airlift your army(s) to a city, thereby making the travelling quicker - at a price of course.

Different types of armies - infantry, mechanised etc.

The ability to create navy vessels - transports, destroyers, cruisers, aircraft carriers etc. With the ability to attack (or defend) coastal cities.

And one I'd really be in favour of, and it has already been mentioned - email notification if an army is on it's way to one of your cities.


on http://www.googleearthhacks.com/for...p?t=3758&page=2

I think the different classes of attackers needs to be looked at again. Well done in suggesting it, casp3r.

If my memory serves there was a thread about trying to make armies have to follow certain routes to get to certain areas so that they couldn't just fly over water or across the ice caps and that it was very difficult to implement. Having said that, it would be REALLY COOL! Imagine if you had some european cities and you wanted to attack north africa. You have the option of a land assault by going around the mediterranean, with a high chance of being intercepted near the Middle East bottleneck (see attacking armies enruite to a city) or you can move a transport vessel and ferry them across the sea. You wouldn't be able to move troops from the Americas to Europe or Africa without a warship convoy. Honolulu would be a pretty safe city.

If this gets implemented it can change the way assaults happen in the game dramatically and lead to even more strategy.

One solution which doesn't implement the different classes or warships would be to put waypoints on every continent and a few coast based ferry waypoints and you have to choose your route. If the game notices that your chosen route will go over a body of water (major sea or ocean only, creeks and small lakes shouldn't matter) it will send you an error message or the army will stall at the last checkpoint. This also makes attacking an army enruite possible too. You could say an army must remain at each checkpoint for 5-10 minutes before automatically moving on to the next, this allows your opponent to sit in waiting at the checkpoint and if they are fast enough, take a dent at your forces. Of course the owner of the moving army can change direction and avoid that checkpoint at any time aswell.

If you need to travel by water you must go to a coastal waypoint and choose your next coastal waypoint, again avoiding land in this situation if you have a fair way to go.

If you were in russia wanting to attack in Europe on one side of the world to the other, you may not have to use the checkpoints as there wouldn't be a major body of water to avoid, it's only if you need to go around a major sea. But if it happens that the game wants to send your army the wrong way around the world to reach the european city (across America) it would be better off to give it at least one waypoint to head the land based way.

Ocean travel should be slower and more expensive than land travel, remembering that land travel also should be more expensive then normal static upkeep.

remember this suggestion - http://www.googleearthhacks.com/for...read.php?t=3759

And using that ocean travel could be a 2.5 or 3 times upkeep multiplier and should move slower.

Examples:

1. See above Mediterranean example which would require lots of land based waypoints and a high level of attack enruite probability. So you'd be quicker (even though ocean travel in more slower) to go to spain and use the ocean waypoint to travel to Morocco and attack from there.

2. If another alliance or some of your enemies controlled a large part of Central America that land route becomes very perilous to use to get from North to South America (or vice-versa) so you'd use an ocean waypoint move out to sea and come back in around Central America and avoid the armies.

Another use of the startegy aspect would be that if I clicked on a moving army it only shows me the next waypoint it is heading to and I'd have to guess the final destination.

Thanks casp3r for opening this issue up, but it seems I went a rather large tangent.....

Thoughts?
Did anyone read all of that?


blitzkrieg

and this;

Why not, that's an even better idea another tangent for blitzkrieg

We could create a freeway network between certain cities to expediate travel. travel on these routes would be fastest. Then a sealed highway network as secondary to other cities with amries on this going at normal speed and a unsealed network for home bases where travel would be slowest.

It all adds extra depth to the game.

Example 1; If I want to move an army from my homebase in Australia to Harare, Zimbabwe, I first have to move it to the nearest city to me (In my case Darwin) sea travel is slower than land travel so I'd then move the army to Perth then travel via sea to the closest sea port to Harare which appears to be Cape Town, South Africa. There might be one closer that I can't see as someone made our cities invisible on GE . The route to Cape Town will go over land so I have to use the navigation waypoint below cape town to avoid land. Upon landing in Cape Town my army has to follow the road network. There is no direct connection between Cape Town and Harare, so I have to get there via Johannesburg.

So; home base to Darwin, Australia. to Perth,Australia. ocean travel to navigation point below South Africa. Ocean travel to Cape Town, South Africa. Travel to Johannesburg, South Africa and finally Harare, Zimbabwe.

Example 2; I want to go from home base to Vienna, Austria *jeez it would be easier to work out if I could see the cities*

Home Base to Darwin,Australia. Ocean travel to centre of Indian Ocean navigation point. Ocean travel Chennai, India. Land travel for rest of way to Mumbai, India. - New Delhi, India. - Lahore, Pakistan. - Kabul, Afghanistan. - Tehran, Iran. - Ankara, Turkey. - Sofia, Bulgaria. - Budapest, Hungary and finally Vienna, Austria.

As you can see this involves a lot of chances to be attacked enruite as I am passing through probably a few enemy controlled cities so who knows how many troops would be left by the time I got there? Probably not worth the effort in travelling.

Remember I mentioned before that the army should have to stay at each stopover for 5-10 minutes before moving on the next.

See how this adds depth and extra strategy aspects? I like it anyway.

blitzkrieg


Oh I forgot, my travel to vienna example may be even faster if I get on the freeway route to speed my troops up...... By the time I got to the bottom of that post I had forgotten about that.

Also I think extra cost for travelling would be easy to intergrate with my example of multiplying army upkeep while army is travelling.

It's all depth, baby!
More blitzkrieg examples.

Army with upkeep of 57.6 geos a day "static upkeep" is travelling

There are 288 5 minute intervals in a day so that army costs 0.2 geos per 5 minutes (57.6/288).

Travel on designated freeway; upkeep multiplied by 1.5 = 0.3 geos (57.6/288*1.5) per 5 minutes travelling and speeds up by double.

Travel on other intercity roads; upkeep multiplied by 2 = 0.4 geos (57.6/288*2) per 5 minutes travelling and travels at same speed as now.

Travel on unsealed roads (between home bases or home base to city) upkeep is multiplied by 2.5 = 0.5 geos (57.6/288*2.5) per 5 minute interval but also travels at same speed as now.

Ocean travel is more expensive and slower. Upkeep is multiplied by 3.5 = 0.7 geos (57.6/288*3.5) per 5 minute intervals and travels at half normal speed.

With these examples, it should be better to get on the freeway to get faster, cheaper travel but this may end up being a long way out of your way to get to (there should only be one freeway per continent). and ocean travel is slow and expensive, but at least you can go a long way and not get attacked. For instance australia to austria example could instead go around africa and around England to Hamburg, Germany via ocean then only a few cities which you could be attacked at. It would easily be the safest route, but slowest and most expensive.

Blitzkrieg

I love the idea of freeways, where going from London to New York would be fairly fast, but first you'd have to get to either city to travel on the freeway.
:world
However, I don't really like the idea of airlifts. It would become too easy to control cities across the globe. Having to account for travel time is an integral part of the GEWAR game experience.

I'd say that I 4th it but that would be lame and unoriginal.

You could say that you 62nd and 1/3rd it.

I like the idea of intercepting an army, but no with waypoints, just set the destination the army that you want to intercept and as soon as it catches it your army attacks it?

Personally it annys the carp out of me not being able to attack an army that is constantly on the move, theroetically these armies which are constantly on the move are unattackable.

Would be cool to buy "non-nuke" missiles you could aim at an army

I really like the idea of attacking armies on the move. As someone said earlier, it would make more sense to defend your cities on the edge of your alliance, rather than have to worry so much about the middle cities.

Similar to the game of Risk. Who the heck leaves all their armies in countries that are well protected in the middle of their empire? It just doesn't make sense from a strategic point of view.

When it came time for a war between Alliances, the two would clash at the borders and see who can make the most headway deeper into the others territory... Just like in actual battle.

I do not think waypoints are necessary, but could be interesting. I do like the idea that you have to select your travel route. You would choose different routes depending on if you were just going for speed, or stealth.

Heck, A city would not know they were the target of an army until the final leg of the trip!

This sounds like it could add a lot of fun and critical thinking to the game. Bravo on everyone's ideas.

I like the idea adds more strategy and more choices.... So the game will have way points... And each way point has a label im guessing maybe like its longitude and latitude points... hmmm thats sounds cool. ;bravo

The Emperor ;bunny

ya i like the idea, but there should be some exeption for new player under a month, but the idea is decent, i like it alot, maybe if the game is design that way, there would be more donator. tdinh08

I like the idea of intercepting an army, but no with waypoints, just set the destination the army that you want to intercept and as soon as it catches it your army attacks it?

Personally it annys the carp out of me not being able to attack an army that is constantly on the move, theroetically these armies which are constantly on the move are unattackable.You wouldn't have to designate a specific waypoint, just say attack this army and then your army will follow a path to a waypoint that makes it intersect with the enemy. The waypoints are just an idea to help allow for standardized army movement along a grid that means they can meet up with each other.

And yes, keep an army on the move and no one can get it so long as you keep on giving it a new destination before it reaches it's current one.

Well the waypoints are the cities :)

All roads start and finish at cities. It has to be this way or how else can you have a proposed "safe zone" in the middle of you alliance's territory? The players with cities in the safe zone could have armies defending the "line" and you could see an alliane break through another alliance's line and wreak havoc in it's rival's safe zone unless they come online and divert armies to protect.....

I'd like to see Homebases moved or setup so that they must be within it's alliance's "safe zone" (though this makes problems for indies...). I just would like to see the alliance feature really tinkered with from the ground up!

Well the waypoints are the cities :)

All roads start and finish at cities. It has to be this way or how else can you have a proposed "safe zone" in the middle of you alliance's territory? The players with cities in the safe zone could have armies defending the "line" and you could see an alliane break through another alliance's line and wreak havoc in it's rival's safe zone unless they come online and divert armies to protect.....

I'd like to see Homebases moved or setup so that they must be within it's alliance's "safe zone" (though this makes problems for indies...). I just would like to see the alliance feature really tinkered with from the ground up!


Ummm.... so its kinda like a RISK set up so I cant attack North Africa From The Middle East Unless I take Egypt In between...??? Is this correct cause that would be hard to get cities for new comers and such..... There should be like and out post or something like they had in the donator game (What ever happened to them) thta can be sued to prevent an enemy from coming to your city like a front line instead f all city battle or out side cities??? Im still kinda confused ill read the thread again.....

I had plenty of thought on this a little while ago - my plans (from GEH forum)


and this;

I agree with Blitzkrieg that we need some kind of waypoint system. I think some sort of routing will make it more interesting to play instead of just going from point A to B. It will require additional strategy to get to your target much like in real war (should I go by land, air, or sea; do I need to create a beachhead to attack a region, etc.).

I know some people are concerned that new / unaligned players would be adversely affected, but there could be some kind of free zones within continents (or this could be a variation with levels - the network becomes more complex with each level). This could also be related to Donator status (if you aren't a donator you can't go to another continent or something like that).

The question is how to implement it (and what coding restrictions would there be). I'll re-read all of what Blitz had to say and see if I can think of anything else to add over lunch.

Gruss