Jump to content

Solomon

Members
  • Posts

    432
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Solomon

  1. I certainly wouldn't dismiss the idea out of hand, but my first impression is that it's an unhappy compromise between TW/Settlers and (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). The former tends to get high activity but for a short time. The latter has a much lower minutes/day commitment but many of its players have been doing it for years. If I thought this suggestion would get the best of both worlds, I'd be right behind it, but I fear it would leave everyone unsatisfied.

  2. I'm noticing a surprising amount of opposition to the, "winning wars" idea. Not to be brash but this is politics & war afterall...

    As you point out (unbrashly imo), it's politics and war and, while bandits can turn a profit at first, once they become politicized, plundering is no longer a very profitable option. 

    • Upvote 1
  3. Important:

    Allow the attacker to decide how many units he wants to use when initiating battles

    Make ground battles use less munitions for soldiers

    Using resources to build some improvements

     

    Later:

    Renaming Cities

    Add Drydocks/Navy Ships

     

    Not convinced of value:

    Live Income

    "Winning" wars

    • Upvote 4
  4. Will add to OP, but I've now made it so that in ground battles:

     

    Every 1 munitions you have makes 500 soldiers worth 875 un-armed soldiers. Tanks use gasoline and munitions at 1 per 10. Should you not have enough resources or can only partially supply your army, soldiers will fight without munitions but tanks need the resources to work and you will only be able to use up to the maximum supplied tanks.

     

    Pretty straightforward.

    This isn't pretty straightforward to me. :(

     

    I'm assuming the munitions get used up in wars as having bullets in your guns is worthless unless you use them. Are the munitions used up every time you make an attack or is it based on a daily deduction every day you are at war?

  5. Don't get me wrong - I enjoy plundering defenseless nations - but do we want the main focus of this game to be Captain Jack Sparrow raiding merchantmen and privateers or do we want a political simulator in which war is undertaken for political aims, knowing that there will be a heavy short-term cost to pay for longer term profits?

    • Upvote 2
  6. It's just a matter of timing. There isn't the same interest level in games like this as there was in 2006. And, regardless of how tired you are of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (like me), it's actually very well done and features very in depth tools and statistics for nations, alliances, wars, and other stats. It's much better now than it was a few years ago, yet the player base continues to decline.

    You may be right but one of the reasons why (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is declining is that it's stale - it was much more fun, much more dynamic in the early years. PW has the potential to be, if not ground-breaking, fresh at least.

  7. Steel Mills were changed recently so they use equal amounts of Iron and Coal to produce Steel. The problem here is that even high-carbon steel only has about 1% carbon in it and the process takes place in an ELECTRIC arc furnace. I suggest that Coal is removed from PW's Steel making process.

     

    If you are determined to increase the use of Coal in the game, you could make it a requirement of Iron production as iron smelting is usually done with coke.

    • Upvote 2
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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