I would enjoy a "Paratrooper" card if it was costly to use. Perhaps some of the code for the Bomb Card could be used in its implementation?

* When you use the Paratrooper card, it destroys half of your armies in that territory.
* The remainder then "attack" a distant territory. (Is it possible to limit the ability to territories you can "see" via a Reconaissance or something like that?)
* It should happen last in the turn, like a Blockade, so you won't want to do it from your front lines.

It should be used in games with local deployment or a similar rule, so you can't simply deploy your full income from the new location on the next turn.

I love the nuke idea I think it would be good for diplomacies also for slot game why not let certain slots get more cards (I see that this would be a problem in non diplo and skill slot games) but I like the idea WMD for diplo and cold war games. I think this is a good idea because it wouldn't make sense for Iran to have as many nukes as USA. Also I think cards are pretty much units I like artillery maybe I tank unit (can capture 2 territories) but here's my idea for cards you have parts and a player could with the setting on decide to spend most of the parts he makes per turn on cards. I think that would be enough of a domestic simulation maybe a revolt or something as a card for instance player a plays a revolt card in the bonus of Italy Italy bonus make half as less troops so basically I sanction card for bonuses. but I think the idea of letting players invest in cards they choose would be better for instance player A decides to invest in nucaler bomb cards

It would be awesome if Fizzer opened up an interface so we could write code or design our own cards :)

I think that could add endless possibilities :)

yes but I like my idea for cards it would make nuke building fun and PE in diplo game scary as hell

dont know if something like this was already mentioned but I would suggest a > stealth unit < which obscures the number of units within its territory by creating dense fog or something like that.

Edited 1/9/2016 02:36:45

The only things I think that shall be implamentedd are motor artillery one because that would actually be really strategic a nuke card and the rest of my card ideas
s

i dont like the idea of adding all these special units because warlight is in essence a simple but fun and strategic game. if you keep adding new units its going to end up being like call of war (look call of war up if you dont know what it is)

I think people are going about these special units all wrong. How I can see them being used is somehow different. How in the way cards would be played but would need the same balancing and functions in the same way. Sometimes I see cards as a way to balance the game and how different cards can counter each other. Well let's say we do have special units on the field. HOw would they be used in essentially. It is starting to sound more and more like Starcraft 2. Just remember this is an indie game and created by one man. We can't expect fizzer to make the great wall of china just because we asked him to do it. whatever. It just would require too much building up to what could be bad for business. If You had a successful store which everybody would go to in town with no competitors. Why would you go to another town to start an even bigger business with too much competitors. You know? Then you'd need to make a big building and foundation underneath it. Once thats all done. Would your earlier buyers still be there or would the competition drive you out of town. Taking in mind the massive investment in starting this business in hostile area. I know this was very elaborate but It's how I see it.

I too, believe the units of Warlight should not become overly complicated. I do, however, like the new card ideas and have come up with a few of my own.

Mine card: Acts essentially as an automated bomb card. Place on one of your own territories and, should it be overtaken, the remaining enemy forces on that territory are reduced by 50%, thereby creating new strategy for counterattacks.

Trench card: Alters the offensive kill rate in a territory (perhaps to 40% or something similar, depending on the settings).
May be useful for creating even more interesting 1v1 scenarios.

Cavalry card: Permits a one-time multi-attack from a specified territory, probably with a chain no greater than 2 or 3.

Patriot card: All bonuses under your control when card is played receives an additional +1, for that turn only.

I believe if Fizzer were to incorporate some of the ideas on this forum, the dynamic would change dramatically... mostly for the better, I must say.

the only things I think should be added are a nuke card the motor because that would be fun and you should have a setting where you can spend your card parts on certain cards because that would be cool

Long time ago I was moderating and PBEM game which involved several units, save regular infantry, and it was similar to basic concept of this game. Units that could be included in this game are (no water units :-( ) artillery, tanks and aircrafts (fighters and possibly bombers).

Artillery (supporting role unit) - for each artillery unit one infantry unit receives double offensive (if attacking) or defensive (if defending) bonus - it may be 2 hits (with luck it may be 2 hits) or extended hit (regular 0.6 offensive, gives 2x 0.6 offensive, that means defending unit is eliminated - 1.2 points hit worth). Artillery units are worth as one army (when buying), but with following limitation in combat - when infantry attacks with artillery, first all infantry units are removed as casualties, then artillery. If all infantry units die in attack and artillery units remain, on attacked site moves only artillery. Similarly, in defense, if attacked, all infantry units are removed, but if any artillery piece remain, they count as zero value, therefore it should be important to keep artillery units with enough infantry stack, or they are worthless in defense. So, for instance, you attack with 5 infantry and 5 artillery, and defense has 8 units (basic defense rate is 0.7 - I said units as there may be artillery, too) - defense will take 5 infantry units, and will be annihilated. On target space land all remaining artillery unit BUT no infatry, so if defender move one single unit there, all artillery will be gone without fight.

Tanks - act as infantry with 2 hits and as 5 infantry units - but, with the price of 5 infantry units, and only unit with base move of 2. So, other side needs 5 full hits to eliminate this unit, however, this unit is taken as casualty after infantry, but before artillery, so a stack with infantry can guarantee longer life for this unit - this unit is not overpowered but also is not underpowered. Attack with artillery (2 artillery units support one tank) can make difference as there could be no casualties in attacks - especially in multi-attacks (blitzkrieg) it can make bold trusts in enemy back. Tanks should be only taken in bonuses where there is value more than 5 and/or if basic armies per turn is more than 5. Lesser numbers should not yield tanks even if total income is more than 5. Movement of tanks means that they can move and attack, or attack first province and can be included in second attack in adjacent province (if they survive first attack), or to just move twice.

Fighters and bombers - fighters should work as reconnaissance units, thus decreasing fog level, but also as interdiction, interceptors and bomber escort - all in the same time. Fighers decreases for in adjacent provinces, support attacks as artillery do, defend air space against enemy air units (fighters are first taken) and support bombers. They are worth 2 infantry units so they can be obtained everywhere where bonus is 2 or more. Also, they support bombers from their start province. If used alone - it is interdiction strike and can take (regarding their size) all units if there is "One Army Must Stand guard" set to zero or decrease to last unit (which can be artillery, for instance).
Bombers do strikes, like interdiction strike, but more than one province away. Without fighters they are easy prey for single defending fighter, so escorting them is a must. Attacker must plot the way to target, and if in first provinces all escorting fighters are gone, bombers alone come to turkey shot in next province and are gone if there is single fighter. Bomber is worth 5 units when buying (like tank), but targets tanks first, then artillery than infantry. Each is worth one hit (therefore tank become easy take without fighters on the sky)
All air units should have the following limitation - if they move they cannot participate in combat and they move AFTER all other moves/attacks. However, their attack should conduct the way infantry do, but with aircrafts, you can do 3 attack from same province - bomber w/wo escorts, interdiction with fighters and simultaneously with infantry and/or tanks and/or artillery - no unit can be used twice. Only bombers can do deep reconnaissance (deep in enemy territory). They are used in defense the same way as artillery - once infantry and tanks are gone, they are gone, too. They can move if starting and ending provinces (regardless of distance) are hold by owner at the end of the turn (or if they are transferred to ally), but if province is taken, the movement is aborted.

All these units should only be used in advanced scenarios.

The original creator of risk made a map got some dice some figure and the game was ready. Its been changed alredy. To find the way how many chenges wont change the base idea of the game is the job of Fizzer. Finally theese are optional settings u wont need to use them.

Capital, barack, etc also could be fine for map makers and custom game creators.

In my opinion from these special soldiers could be got for crads too, for example one spy on a huge map is good for nothing. When u callected the pieces of spy unit card u can take a spy to the map.

Id like 2 kind of generals too, one of them incrase the attack kill rate, other the defense, how many % should be an option for the host.

The bomb card also should be changed, now 50%, but it would be better if the host could decide how many percent will kill. The strength of the special units should be optional.

NUKE CARD

Actually a distinction between land units and waterborne units (ships) would be very interesting, and perhaps not too complex. It would allow for some types of maps and some very interesting emergent strategy.

For instance, you could have a special unit called a Transport Ship. It counts as 0-1 units by itself, but it can travel in territories designated as "water". It can "carry" (be combined with, travel with) any number of regular armies, and transport them across a sea to another area of the map.

This appeals to me, because of the depth of strategy* and the possible developments in map design.


*: If you've ever played the boardgame Diplomacy, you will understand. Despite its simplistic rules (in many ways much more basic than Warlight), strategic elements like a balance of fleets to armies can be important determiners in winning or losing. I've seen many a player lose a good game simply because they didn't build enough fleets, or too many.

This transport ship is too much, and waterborne creatures too, there are ships on the maps

My original idea was simply for two "types" of units - land and sea, as in Diplomacy - but I couldn't think of an easy way of making that work in Warlight.

I agree that my "ship" idea is a little removed from the spirit of Warlight. Still, some kind of definition - parts of the map which function differently - could be an interesting addition to the game.

ib think fleets are cool so what needs to be made Motars,ships,My card idea spend card pieces the way you want to, and one thing I havint seen is how those will be made I imagine sialer to cards?

if so I think what I said about cards should apply here

I enjoy many of these Card Ideas and Unit Ideas but lets be practical about this.
The Commander is a neat special unit it adds a certain aestetic to the game not seem before on warlight in any way shape or form, but its esential useless in combat and adds a sense of vulnerablitiy to the game if he dies you die, and as a Diplo player this is interesting. The commander adds no battle field advantage or income advantage, it only gives aestetic value and vulnerbility. What i would suggest be done with the commander is give a 10-30% attack and defence bonus as like "inspiring the troops" so you have an incentive to use him.

As for other Units and cards I think that the Artilery, Insurgent, and Tanks/Calvery are the most useful and easy to apply to the game, as well as being to most practical in a Diplo and FFA situation.
Artilery- lets you damage units 2-3 territories away but cannot take a territory without other armies.
Insurgent-lets you hide armies in one any territroy you own and is invisible to enemies once they take it and can be ordered to attack at any time(however this would be best in card form and not unit form)
Tanks/Calvery- can move/transfer 2-4 territories at a time(this is useful for blitzkreig attacks and exploiting a breakthrough hence the supreme tactical advantage)

Im ok with the Nuke card idea but it seems alot like the bomb card and i think it would just be easier to modify the Bomb card. But another idea i like is that you can spend card fragments which would make it more strategic on which cards you choose to spend Fragments on.
Also Sea units are NOT going to happen no matter how cool it would be because it would need to restructure all 700+ warlight maps and require map creators to add soo many extra special territories.

also i read Genghis's thread was cool and too many people were unnecessarily bashing him for voicing his opinion which if you dont like just ignore it there is no reason to bash him for it.

The Commander is a neat special unit it adds a certain aestetic to the game not seem before on warlight in any way shape or form, but its esential useless in combat and adds a sense of vulnerablitiy to the game if he dies you die, and as a Diplo player this is interesting. The commander adds no battle field advantage or income advantage, it only gives aestetic value and vulnerbility. What i would suggest be done with the commander is give a 10-30% attack and defence bonus as like "inspiring the troops" so you have an incentive to use him.

False. Commander drastically changes how games are played. While a commander against a commander is a tie by itself, commander is VERY helpful in combat.

This games demonstrates his power (read: someone is using his commander wrong.)
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10255523

My point is: Despite his vulnerability, he is so powerful that he must be used in combat. Hiding him is a poor choice.