Should transports be able to take cities?

Tell me what you want

I voted, but I may change my mind. AT taking cities would make SM more powerful. AT would effectively have 8 units for SM.

Where is option just leave it as it is?

Napisao JUGERS2, 28.04.2021 at 08:08

Where is option just leave it as it is?

As it is right now is "yes, both Air trans and Sea trans"

Where is the option for "sea trans should and AT shouldn't" which was there for years

Napisao Dave, 28.04.2021 at 08:20

Napisao JUGERS2, 28.04.2021 at 08:08

Where is option just leave it as it is?

As it is right now is "yes, both Air trans and Sea trans"

Well 1 day ago wasn't that like... I mean the one Mobster wrote above where naval tran can and air tran can't.

Napisao JUGERS2, 28.04.2021 at 08:24

Napisao Dave, 28.04.2021 at 08:20

Napisao JUGERS2, 28.04.2021 at 08:08

Where is option just leave it as it is?

As it is right now is "yes, both Air trans and Sea trans"

Well 1 day ago wasn't that like... I mean the one Mobster wrote above where naval tran can and air tran can't.

That's true. I fixed it yesterday when I posted here: https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=47320#m760110

It makes no logical sense that one kind of transport could take cities, but another couldn't. Either they both can, or neither can.

Personally I'd prefer that no transports can capture cities. But if the majority feel the other way I'll make them both able to capture.

Napisao Mobster, 28.04.2021 at 08:22

Where is the option for "sea trans should and AT shouldn't" which was there for years

That had to be a stupid bug.... no logical reason for that.

Here I added another option.... if you want things to be like the old fucked up way, you can vote "Why should anything make logical sense on atWar?" and I'll know that's what you want.

Well i disagree with that. I would like it to be as an option to the poll i think i am not only one who disagrees. Also you broke them and now naval transports can't even wall. Many things have no logical reason behind them like units following other units in a walled city.

Napisao JUGERS2, 28.04.2021 at 08:36

Also you broke them and now naval transports can't even wall.

No, I didn't:

Napisao Dave, 28.04.2021 at 08:43

Napisao JUGERS2, 28.04.2021 at 08:36

Also you broke them and now naval transports can't even wall.

No, I didn't:

I am literally at a game right now and i can't wall with sea transports

I think the meta team should speak about it.

Napisao BasarisizNinja, 28.04.2021 at 08:56

Sea trans should able to take cities and AT should not. Vote up if you agree

Vote this option for that:

Why should anything make logical sense on atWar?

No

AT taking cities is pretty broken, unless it's possible to give a unit 0 attack. NT also makes no sense, but there are a lot less port, and even less port capitals. I don't think either should take cities, and the only people that want NT to take them are old fags who don't want change. I'm going to miss it, but it really doesn't make sense that empty NTs can take anything.

Napisao Nero, 28.04.2021 at 09:42

AT taking cities is pretty broken, unless it's possible to give a unit 0 attack. NT also makes no sense, but there are a lot less port, and even less port capitals. I don't think either should take cities, and the only people that want NT to take them are old fags who don't want change. I'm going to miss it, but it really doesn't make sense that empty NTs can take anything.

That

Napisao Nero, 28.04.2021 at 09:42

AT taking cities is pretty broken, unless it's possible to give a unit 0 attack. NT also makes no sense, but there are a lot less port, and even less port capitals. I don't think either should take cities, and the only people that want NT to take them are old fags who don't want change. I'm going to miss it, but it really doesn't make sense that empty NTs can take anything.

I don't know how AT capturing cities is broken, yes they have more range but they cost 550, who would try to jew something with a 1 attack unit who cost 550 lol.

I think defenders should be rewarded in close battles but I don't care either way.

Naval trans yes at no

Actually at should be able to take the city if the attacker had land units aboard the at but died from the battle
but normally i dont think it should

I voted for both transports to be able to take because it's immensely frustrating when everything but your at dies and you can't take the city because of that

Why should they be able to take cities when they aren't manned by any soldiers? The great thing about this game is that you'll run out of units when attacking a city, occasionally, and all that is left over are transports. You need those left over transports to send them back and re-deploy your men. It's what makes the game realistic. It's similar to "leaving supplies" when your army is killed/imprisoned by the city authorities

This is ridiculous

Napisao LukeTan, 29.04.2021 at 04:05

I voted for both transports to be able to take because it's immensely frustrating when everything but your at dies and you can't take the city because of that

then just have that exception work
no need to have both to take

A part of me wants the Air Transport to be able to capture cities, because you technically did win by one unit.

In a result of a tie, the defender ALWAYS wins, regardless of which unit is in the city.
But, in the result of a loss by 1 Air transport, it also results in "win" because you didn't end up losing the city since Air Transports cannot capture cities.

As for sea transports, we have had the luxury of sneakily being able to take cities without our opponent looking. Or sending a final 'screw you' after being defeated.

Either way, it won't have much effect on the game. All it does is tip the odds in favor a tiny tiny bit to either the defender or the attacker depending on whether or not capturing cities is enabled or disabled.

Submarines taking cities when?

Submarines and helicopters should be able to capture too then. I really don't like this update.

It's logical after all.

I mean if we think about this logically air transports and sea transports in real life need to be operated by someone. If a plane lands at an airport and the airport is empty the crew could reasonably claim it for thier country in a war...

To me, it doesn't make that much of a difference. But, I don't play Ukraine, so I don't truly understand how frustrating it can be to lose Moscow or RNW after winning it by 1 AT.

I find it silly to get into the "logical" sense of things when it comes to atWar. Sure, lets say that transports can't take cities because it is "illogical". Should we then remove their ability to DEFEND cities as well? I've hold London rushes winning by 1-2 naval transports. Like, don't think about what's "logical". Think in terms of game balance.

No one has complained before about naval transports taking or defending cities. So, if we remove it, it runs the risk of changing the balance ever so slightly. For better or worse, I can't determine that until the change happens and people try it. This new change might just be a way to normalize the game more, and remove less frustration from the attacker when he wins by 1 AT.

Napisao Lelouch., 09.06.2021 at 08:42

To me, it doesn't make that much of a difference. But, I don't play Ukraine, so I don't truly understand how frustrating it can be to lose Moscow or RNW after winning it by 1 AT.

I find it silly to get into the "logical" sense of things when it comes to atWar. Sure, lets say that transports can't take cities because it is "illogical". Should we then remove their ability to DEFEND cities as well? I've hold London rushes winning by 1-2 naval transports. Like, don't think about what's "logical". Think in terms of game balance.

No one has complained before about naval transports taking or defending cities. So, if we remove it, it runs the risk of changing the balance ever so slightly. For better or worse, I can't determine that until the change happens and people try it. This new change might just be a way to normalize the game more, and remove less frustration from the attacker when he wins by 1 AT.

quite the philosopher young louch