Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Leader Name
  • Nation Name
  • Nation ID

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

MBaku's Achievements

Casual Member

Casual Member (2/8)



  1. It seems to me that at some point - either money was being added to the server economy that wasn't backed up by in-game trades or the money that was added to the economy was backed up by in-game trades and was lost due to a lack of book keeping and intentional or unintentional embezzlement. The only way $1m should be able to enter the TOSE bot is that a banker accepts $1m money in-game and adds it to the alliance bank. I know that some folks were given authority to receive this money and it wasn't well accounted for. As someone that used to have banker perms - I feel like I had the opportunity to just not report these types of trades, but accept the trade and add the money to the economy. I think it was a big lack of oversight issue - because TOSE was massive and took a number of competent people to run effectively - something that was sorely lacking towards the end.
  2. a cultured man i see - i too speak sarcasm I know the dominance of ground attacks in this meta even after the nerfs - but strictly in terms of advantages based on space control - AS it the best control to have and I don't think it's even close. It makes it very difficult to go from a losing position to a winning one. ground can get you the win, but air is what keeps it. Maybe things are different for you up at c40 - but most of us humble noobs at c20 below don't bring/buy credits. if they run out of gas/muni - which many do because they're broke and don't listen - their max mil falls faster with zero resistance and they lose the war. I wonder - in that war with Dreadnought - did Akak use the second naval attack to drain resources? He already had a blockade, seemed like an interesting choice when an airstrike would destroy more ships and infra. You also decided to use a naval attack - maybe after seeing the loot from Inconnue's beige? did you notice dreadnought was out of muni before your final airstrike? Probably would've been easy to set up a cycle there since they don't produce muni. But i guess it's funner and more costly to just let them rebuild and roll them again.
  3. They do consistently kill many more ships than naval as long as there isn't any plane resistance on the other side, by about 20%. at c20 300vs 300 naval kills about 35 and you lose 37, 1500 planes will kill about 42 ships and you lose 0. Airstriking ships is the best net damage attack in the game. I just thinks ships are only useful in specific strategic situations - dropping resistance and maintaining blockade. They also use up so much gas and muni i'll often use naval attacks to simply zero my opponents gas/muni when they're already low so i can blockade and shut them down entirely. But the ability to maintain a blockade in a dogpile is what makes the game boring - particularly because it's so cheap to maintain that blockade when you outnumber your opponent. Maybe we need to drastically increase the RNG on navals so a double buy against max ships has a decent chance of breaking free with even a pyrrhic victory. Even this is often too expensive and has little strategic value. I dislike the superiority of planes in the meta - the war is over once you get air superiority - you can trash ships for a massive net damage advantage, and cutting tank power in half makes it so difficult to regain the advantage in a competitive war. I think AS should not cut tank power in half - it should simply increase the casualties planes can do. That way an opponent can still fight back with surprise attacks and a double ground buy. (This has the added bonus of solving the plane suicide problem that many are complaining about) I think a healthy meta allows you to have the potential to win in the two other spaces if your opponent is winning in one. Right now, the whole game is air dominance - then the loser has to move to guerilla/raider tactics. Once you lose air you can't compete in air, ground, or sea. That's silly and boring. I also dislike that if you build a single troop - you can no longer decommission anything for the rest of the day. building and decomming troops make for dynamic gameplay for folks that are dogpiled. Tank flashing was popular in gw16 but you only flash a single buy or else you're stuck with all the tanks for the day. Maybe each turn you get a percentage that you can decom based on how many troops you built or something.
  4. either that or simply allow the military unit purchase reset to occur faster - in line with the time it takes for a turn to change.
  5. Under the new proposal ID would get 50% infra and less resistance (probably 9) and with the new buff - block 1/2 improvements being destroyed. It's cutting missile effectiveness exactly in half (maybe a bit less because infra damage on two cities is more expensive than one). I think a 50% reduction is the core purpose of ID, even though this method seems a bit more mechanical. The current buffs alone with no change means 50% chance of blocking and if the missile gets through, only one improvement destroyed instead of two. Taken together ID makes missiles 75% less effective in destroying improvements. That's too much. What if they just make ID and VD function the same? - 25% chance of being shot down, reduce improvements destroyed by 1.
  6. I thought part of the concept thrown around is that if there are no non-military improvements that the bombardment would then target other improvements like power and military. Or maybe that's just nukes. It seems silly that if your'e running up against a 1 npp/1 police station/5553mmr build that once the police station is gone, bombardment effectively does nothing. The whole idea behind "improvement degradation" was that folks didn't think it made sense to keep 60 improvements forever when you're down to 200 infra. I think destroying improvements will add another level to the game in warfare but making bombardment kill only non-military seems pointless. If we don't want improvements to be destroyed more often scrap it, if we don't want them to be destroyed at all - go with roberts idea and just make them impervious. But if we think destroying improvements would be a useful aspect of the game then i think making them easier to destroy in battle is better than just having them slowly wither away, which was under consideration for a bit.
  7. I see this being big trouble for raiders. Ships are expensive and if they're losing 42 improvements per war cycle, they're gonna have to rebuild a lot. I think having to actually destroy improvements is a better alternative to "improvement degradation" which was thrown around as an idea a lot last year. I think dogpiles are supposed to be one-sided - maybe this is a way to incentivize more balanced wars? It could create a bad gameplay experience, but if your alliance is getting dogpiled maybe they need to step their FA game up or folks should find a new alliance. I could see both of those things being healthy for the game, folks act a bit more cautiously because war is more damaging and people move alliances more, get to know more people, the power balances change more frequently. I don't know enough about the politics to know if the recent dog-pilings are because people deserve to be dogpiled or because the game mechanics make dogpiling more common. There needs to be a way to incentivized more balanced warfare - that'll be how this gets more fun. I don't know if bombardment is a step towards balance or away from balance. I agree with treasures - but I also think you shouldn't be able to trade them while actively in war, maybe that's the case and I missed it. Seems obvious though, - it'll be too easy to just hand it off to a buddy and get it back after - unless the goal is to remove treasure hunting. For ships - I think ships vs ships should have a higher kill rate than planes vs ships - they spend so much more gas/muni and since they can't hit ground or planes - i imagine they should be engineered to kill other ships to some degree. For improvements, I disagree - I like the idea of destroying improvements - there's always something to do when you're being sat on - whether it's a missile/nuke/spy op - or if you're completely shut down, rebuild a city to 500 infra with just coal/oil power and barracks. you can do that and build max soldiers for less than the daily bonus. Could do it with multiple cities if you play baseball. Everything should burn - I think some projects should be able to be destroyed if they're a building (Trade Center or Research Center) and not a technological advancement (like Recycling Initiative or Pirate Economy). More improvement destruction should just make city rebuilds more common and investing in 3.5k infra builds less common (depending on the war outlook of your particular alliance). Once it's leveled though- it would be easy to just continue to level it as soon as one rebuilds. Maybe the difficulty of destroying infra and improvements should increase as you have less and less left, like how infra gets more expensive the more you buy. That way the first 10 improvements out of 50 die pretty easy but the last 10 are much more durable.
  8. With all this guaranteed improvement destruction, the tactician/guardian policies will probably need a rework. The possibility of destroying an improvement from a ground or naval attack will probably feel almost insignificant and become obsolete as an attrition method vs nukes/missiles/bombardment.
  9. I think if it's tied to city count, folks can lose the ability to field 75% quickly with the ability to destroy improvements increasing. It also doesn't divide easily since there's only 3 drydocks per city. 66% should be the highest considered, or 2 drydocks per city. If you get knocked down below that, you'll need to rebuild something to get back the bombardment ability. I don't think the ability to destroy improvements don't need to be super expensive. The improvements themselves are super cheap to replace. And missiles don't cost nearly that much. That's why i'm more in favor of something more like 1/6 or even 1/3 of max ships based on city counts.
  10. I think a minimum number of ships could work, but 75% is pretty big - I'd like to see something more like 1/6 or half your ships if you're running 1 drydock each city. But also, lots of folks just run no ships at all, especially last global. This would make ships important and necessary all the time and could make the meta shift towards aquiring naval superiority in globals - if that's the goal. I think the problem is that it's too hard to get naval superiority if you're losing because whoever can keep air superiority can also dominate navy. It's pretty much impossible to win in the air if you're dogpiled. Losing 16 improvements per war or 42 per cycle will speed up large conflicts a lot. Also, how guaranteed are the improvement destruction for non-IT hits? I think a moderate success could be one improvement and the rest should be none.
  11. Is this decided yet? Seems pretty OP to bombard with one ship and destroy two improvements against enemies with no navy.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.