Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Azaghul

  1. I misread this as "paypal" and was expecting it to be something about donations. I appreciate all the work you put into this game! Don't beat yourself up about any coding mistakes people might criticize you for! Especially on the coding side, the best way to learn is to do. It's a lot easier to criticize than to actually be in the field trying to make something. If this wasn't a good game, you wouldn't have a dedicated base of thousands of players. It's super impressive that someone could make something like this in High School.
  2. I agree with everyone saying we just need to implement all wars ending in beige.
  3. Wouldn't have the first city count for score (and not allowing you to have zero cities) solve this issue?
  4. This could be interesting but would be really hard to make work in terms of balance.
  5. Would the lottery treasures be new treasures or taken from the current pool of treasures? The lottery sounds fun to me. Honestly I think admin should just go back to allowing treasures to be traded via in-game wars as long as the nation with the defending slot isn't in a separate alliance war. The infra lost from being beiged is a good balance to have to make the trade really worth it.
  6. Honestly I think bombardments as proposed are too weak, especially in the upper tiers. Even if takes 50% less gas/muni, launching a naval attack at 75% of my at 35 cities at current market prices for gas/muni costs about 2.7 mill. If each improvement slot is worth about 10-20k a day, two improvements is 20-40k lost income for a a day. Even if you take off 300k for value of the improvements (generous), that's 60-120 days for the attack to cost the target more than it what it cost me to attack.
  7. I think what he is referring to is the formula for the treasure bonus gives diminishing returns for each additional treasure.
  8. Bombardment as currently proposed is useless. Killing 1-2 resource/civic improvements is very, very small. At 35 cities @ 3200 infra I'd go into a war with about 1640 resource/civic improvements after military/power. Even a 20 city nation @ 2500 infra will go into a war with about 600 resource/civic improvements. If each improvement is worth 10-20k in profitability per day (maybe up to 30k, but we're talking averages), loosing two improvements is about 1 mill in income over a month. It would take many months to pay for the gas/munitions even with the 50% reduction. It should scale up with how many ships are used, which also serves as a good replacement for the "75% of max capacity" mechanic. 1 improvement for every 50 or 100 ships used. This has the added advantage of making it meaningful for the upper tiers without being overpowered in the lower tiers. The more cities you have, the more improvements you have, the less each improvement is worth to you, and the more the attack costs.
  9. I like all of these changes. I'm a little leery of having beige change how spies work, I kind of like the fact that the two arenas (spies vs conventional fighting) are somewhat separate. On that note, a quality of life change would be to warn/prevent someone from doing a spy attack against a unit they aren't eligible to attack. This could also be done for spying a nuke someone has bought that day.
  10. As you say, the delay isn't the main limiting factor for most people, so what I'm proposing wouldn't delay growth that much. The delays would be very short at the low level, 1-5 days between cities. 22 days total to get to city 10. 72.5 days to get from City 10 to City 20. 94.5 days to get to city 20, effectively the same as with the current timer. My main point is that I think the game is better, rewards more activity, and makes buying a city feel like more of an accomplishment when there is SOME delay between cities. It doesn't need to be a long delay, and I agree with the sentiment that 10 days is too long at lower levels. I could also go for something like a 1 day timer for cities 1-10, 5 days for cities 11-20, 10 days for 20+ cities. I just don't like the all or nothing approach of having no delay and then jumping straight to a 10 day delay.
  11. The ability to instantly buy a bunch of cities at once cheapens their value and makes their purchase feel like much less of an accomplishment. I think some kind of dynamic limit based on what city number is bought would make more sense. Something like the number of turns for the timer = city bought *6, half a day per city. City 10 would have a 5 day timer, City 10 a 10 day timer, City 30 a 15 day timer, etc. Also would give new players something to do a number of times throughout the day over their first few days.
  12. Same here. City timer says 71 turns, Project timer says 70 turns. I built a project 50 turns ago.
  13. If you don't like bounties no one is forcing you to use them. I don't use them, but I see no reason to get rid of the system for those that do use them.
  14. One thought: Have some commodities with high benefits but also highs costs that are only imposed on the producing nation. I think this could produce an interesting dynamic where smaller nations, for whom the "high costs" will be relatively modest in the context of a small nation, produce the commodities and sell the trade connections to larger nations, who probably would end up paying them something between the cost to the small nation and what the cost would be if they produced the commodity. On the flip side you could have a commodity that requires an expensive project to produce, but that provides a significant benefit only for smaller nations. A commodity that requires 20 cities to produce but reduces the cost of cities 1-10 by 10%, for example.
  15. I like this idea in general. It's debatable how much it adds, but it definitely doesn't hurt. I definitely foresee some not being used at all, while others being used by everyone. It might be interesting to add some type of element where the less common a resource is, the more of a bonus it provides. I would also like to see some commodities that impact resource production other than just food.
  16. Are the spy attack damage formulas posted somewhere? I can't find them.
  17. Cut infra damage from nukes dramatically, say 500 infra per attack. Instead, nukes mostly target military. A successful nuke destroys 50% of any type of unit (the attacker chooses which unit it targets). Reasons: 1) Requires coordination with other players to use to maximum effect. One player nukes, other players follow up with attacks based on that type of unit. 2) This change would make nukes more dynamic, not just a substitute for conventional attacks like they are now. 3) Good balance in that it gives players more opportunities to fight back conventionally against specific types of units without eliminating the winning side generally having the edge in most categories of military. I'd also consider drastically increasing the impact of radiation. Maybe resource and military improvements don't function in a city until all radiation the dissipates.
  18. An unbalanced market isn't necessarily a bad thing. Having some imbalances between costs of military units is a good thing, it creates room for different units in different ways and a larger variety of strategies and tactics, all things that make the game more interesting.
  19. Unlike Donald Trump, we're willing to admit defeat!
  20. Nice to war that doesn't go on forever with one side trying to drive others from the world. Well fought everyone!
  21. Can post screenshots/calculations if necessary. Infra destroyed when someone is defeated DOES seem to be included in the "Infrastructure Destroyed" statistic but not the "Value of Infrastructure Destroyed:" statistic.
  22. I disagree with this. The updeclare range is pretty generous and beige often provides opportunities for a beaten down upper middle tier nation to build up enough to get in range to hit top tier nations.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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