Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Zoot last won the day on June 19 2016

Zoot had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Leader Name
  • Nation Name
    The Locos
  • Nation ID

Recent Profile Visitors

2348 profile views

Zoot's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (5/8)



  1. I'd be in favor of making land destructible somehow, but not the other two. My suggestion would be to give nukes the power to destroy a limited amount of land, to make nukes less pointless (and I call nukes pointless as the person in the game that has fired the 8th most of them).
  2. Why you gotta make projects that help whales to whale harder? Why Pre? Why you do that? WAIT! 180 resources per day at 3200 ppu = 576000 It pays for itself in 1 day... Anyone and their mother with a spare project slot is gonna grab this up, so if the point is to help out the tinies, then I think you're missing the mark. I'd suggest changing it to use a formula where it gives less the more cities you've got. Something like: - You get 3 of each raw divided by the number of cities you've got minus 2. So with there being 6 raws a city 1-3 gets 3*12*6 = 216 resources per day, which is more than your current, but after that the number starts dropping relatively quickly and once you start getting up higher in the cities it becomes virtually worthless. I feel this would accomplish the intend better than the current suggestion. EDIT: After discussing it with some people, the "divided by the number of cities you've got minus 2" is probably too aggressive a reduction. Perhaps something along the lines of "The amount of extra resources you get is halved for every 5 cities you have, i.e.: 1-4 cities: 216 5-9 cities: 108 10-15 cities: 54 ... That would make it useful for longer, but still useless for developed nations.
  3. Ok, I assume it is a mistake that it says "up to 4 cities" then? It should be 5?
  4. I don't know if it is just me being dumb, but I don't understand what "Every turn the nation gets 1 raw resource for each raw resource they can mine (except food) for each city they have up to 4 cities" means
  5. Wow, I didn't even know that was a thing. Yeah that's pretty silly. This suggestion is a good one.
  6. Land is already way overpowered. As you mention it has positive benefits for both food production and population while at the same time being indestructible. If anything land needs to be made less powerful, not more.
  7. You say this as if this is a new thing. It most definitely is not. If anything it is easier to survive as a micro today than it was in the past. Yes, there are raiders that will attack you, but in the past there were large alliances that would regularly look through the treaty web to see if there were any alliances with insufficient ties to protect them, and it wasn't just micros that were hit, but medium sized alliances as well. Trying to make an alliance without sufficient protection has never been a viable option. You either need friends capable of protecting you or you need to start out at a size where attacking you doesn't make sense.
  8. Not so sekret anymore Best of luck in your future endeavors Camelot.
  9. This forum is for making suggestions to improve the game. I am saying that your suggestion does not improve the game, it fundamentally changes it and creates and entirely different game without giving sufficient justification as to why it should be done.
  10. No, adding something for the sake of adding it doesn't add depth.
  11. What depth does it add exactly? Also a negative pollution index can be easily explained. It simply means that you have the capacity to handle more pollution than you currently generate.
  12. The game is currently build around the fact that the only thing your position the map means is what resources you have access to. You can currently instantly attack anywhere in the world. You can currently instantly trade with someone anywhere in the world. You can currently instantly play baseball against a team anywhere in the world. Making the position of a nation matter isn't adding depth, it is making a new game.
  13. You can literally move your nation. Realism is not a thing and I doubt you'll be able to convince people to support any changes based on it. If you want to convince people to support your change you have to explain how it will improve the game play. What will it add to it? How will it make the game more enjoyable to play?
  14. Your suggestion is missing something very important. It's missing the "why". Rather than just saying "This should be changed", try to explain the reasoning behind it. How will these changes make the game better? How will they improve the game? What aspect of game play do they improve?
  • Create New...

Important Information

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