Master Blaster
-
Posts
151 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Master Blaster
-
-
Are you an encydopaedia salesman?
-
Shhh you're ruining the magic. You're making children cry.
But in all seriousness your probably right but that's still 40 members that don't see the conversations on the forum. If only there was a way to message all members without doing it one at a time. *wink wink hint hint hey sheepy*
You mean... alliance announcements...?
Though I suppose it'd be nice to be able to comment on alliance announcements as well as to be able to edit them.
-
May the force be with you.
-
Yes, the way this game is heading, there's a massive incentive to be a part of the mega alliances. The mega alliances can control entire color bonuses (and continent bonuses if/when they get added). The mega alliances can build new nations up faster. The mega alliances can protect new nations better. There's more political leeway given to mega alliances because no one wants to fight one.
Frankly, small alliances/lone wolves really don't stand a chance.
It probably won't ever be 1 huge alliance, but a group of mega alliances, much like now, where 4 or 5 alliances control continents and colors and everyone else is a raid target and have no bonuses.
-
Looks like 7 days to me.
If nations were only to declare 6 days after a war expires, then that would be 11 days between declarations, not six.
-
2
-
-
Have the points and ships and resources, but pressing the attack button just refreshes the page. No points are used and no battle occurs.
-
This still won't stop people from sending 50 troops to attack 9000 tanks and 70000 soldiers.
If you have a war system where it's strategically sound to do that (and they all use resources), you have a broken war system.
I'd suggest modifying that 40% to be EITHER 40% OR the amount of resources the attacker used: whichever is less.
-
2
-
-
Also, people will be able to circumvent the aid limit by using the difference in price limits. For instance, If I sell 10 units of steel to a newbie nation for 0.25X, that newbie nation can turn around and sell those 10 units of steel right back at me for 1.5X, netting 1.25X cash. Since there's no limitation to this kind of trading yet, doing this multiple times will get around the proposed aid limit.
-
2
-
-
While you're at it, can you add an optional message tag to trades?
Also we should be allowed to have a no-trade list, which prevents certain nations or alliances from accepting our trades.
-
1
-
-
In the same vein, I figured out why he wasn't losing his plane when attacking me. You can order an airstrike with 0 planes. That just makes it that much worse.
-
If you have a large army and have "defeated" another player, they can still send attacks with just 1 soldier or 1 plane. This causes you to use the full amount of resources to defend. For example I have to use 36 gasoline and munitions with my 145 planes to defend against a single plane (which doesn't even die: http://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1496 ). That's over 100 gas and munitions each day on just one person to repel just one unit. A 5 day war and that's over 500 units of gasoline/munitions. This will only get worse as nations get larger.
This makes fighting against an active player completely pointless since you "lose" even if you "win".
I'm not sure what could be done about this. I suppose if the "winning wars" and resource spoils were implemented, it would cut back on the resource drain. Being able to transfer military units to other players could also work. It seems unreasonable to have to sell off military just to avoid this.
Edit: Perhaps allow people to divide their units into "active duty" and "reserves", so that only "active duty" units are used in battles? Then in the event of an "immense triumph" against your nation, your reserves automatically become active units?
-
Agreed with Kadin, aircraft deal with them well. Failing that using ships to block off steel shipments allows one side to push them back. This is a non-issue.
Uh, I haven't seen that aircraft deal well with tanks.
See: link -
Well I did an airstrike on soldiers too. It took out 345 soldiers when there were over 16000 defending troops. That's around 2% of the total troops.
5 tanks out of 796 is 0.6% of the total tanks.
I'll have to wait to try it out a third time. My guess is it will be a similar amount.
In comparison, ground battles have consistently destroyed an average of 60-70 tanks per combatant per battle.
Edit:
You ordered an airstrike upon the nation of Pennsylvania led by Casey. The attack was an immense triumph. Your forces lost 1 aircraft, while Casey's defenders lost 3 aircraft. You used 15.00 munitions and gasoline executing the attack. The attack destroyed 6.38 infrastructure in the city of Bethlehem and 10 tanks.60 attacking planes, 3 defending planes, 605 defending tanks. 10 tanks destroyed.
1.65% of the tanks. Looks like planes are just consistently worthless against tanks (and probably soldiers).
And this one was an "immense triumph".
-
Then that makes air force increasingly worthless the larger the nation and the stronger the land forces.
-
3
-
-
You ordered an airstrike upon the nation of Pennsylvania led by Casey. The attack was a moderate success. Your forces lost 5 aircraft, while Casey's defenders lost 11 aircraft. You used 37.00 munitions and gasoline executing the attack. The attack destroyed 4.20 infrastructure in the city of Centralia and 5 tanks.I ordered an airstrike to destroy tanks. This was 148 planes vs 11 defending planes and 796 defending tanks. The amount of tanks killed is ridiculously low for a "moderate success". 37 munitions and gas and overwhelming air superiority, not to mention the additional point cost of airstrikes should do more than that.
-
2
-
-
That's probably not necessary. I just want to be able to make corrections/updates to announcements without having to make another one. If I have to make an entirely new announcement just to make an update or correction, it opens the possibility of confusion when the old announcement is still up.
-
Self explanatory.
-
I think this idea was implemented as color stock.
That would be extremely disappointing if that were the case.
-
If you did that, that would mean anyone who went below 100 infra wouldn't be able to maintain a powered barracks. Then they would be unable to defend themselves entirely. You could also see a situation where you have say 200 infra, 1 power plant, and 3 barracks with 6000 soldiers. Destroying any infra from even a pyrric attack would render them unable to respond until they have then reduced their soldier count by 2000, and destroyed a barracks, or they would have to rebuy infra just to be able to respond. It might be easier, but it doesn't make as much sense.
I'd suggest just having a chance (say 10-15%) of destroying a random improvement during an immense triumph.
-
1
-
-
If they've sold 500 infra, they've already lost around $280k. Multiply that by the number of cities it is done with. That's a huge loss just to down declare. A person who has done that may do more damage on paper to a smaller target, but they've already destroyed more money than they'd likely lose in a war. They'll still be able to declare on "lower tier" nations if their infra was just destroyed in a war rather than sold. It'd just take them longer to do it. However, if you have a way of destroying improvements, selling infra is going to hurt a lot more, since you'll be deprived of lost improvements unless you were willing to expend even more cash just to rebuy expensive infra to get those improvements back.
Edit: and sustaining an army with no infra is going to be fairly difficult. First off you have practically no income. You'll be reliant on trades and whatever pittance you can get from looting. You won't be able to replenish troops due to the population requirements of buying soldiers. Countering someone who has done this would amount to whittling down soldiers, then being able to do ground attacks that at least have a chance of destroying improvements. That should suffice.
-
1
-
-
A better alternative would allow a method of destroying improvements. Selling infra is effectively destroying it. If your enemy is selling infra, they've just saved you the trouble of destroying it.
-
1
-
-
I was under the impression that destroying improvements was going to be added as an ability of planes at some point.
-
A minor update I've made is that you can only charge/offer 50% - 150% of the average price of a resource when making a global offer. Personal and Alliance offers remain unrestricted. This should help set up a more competitive, easier to use, global market.
From the looks of it, the average price of steel is $477, so 150% of that is $715, which doesn't even cover the cost to make steel to begin with. The only people selling steel will be those utterly desperate for cash, those who misclick on the offers of people buying steel for that price, or people who don't understand math.
-
6
-
-
I'd take you up on the debate if you want.
Allow lifting a blockade without having to declare peace
in Suggestions Archive
Posted
There are times when you want to put pressure on a player for them to send you money or resources. However, if you blockade them (which might be absolutely necessary to convince your opponent that you're serious) you cannot receive the aforementioned cash or resources without declaring peace. And if you declare peace, you have to wait several days just to re-declare. A simple solution would be to allow the blockade to be lifted while still at war.