Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Radoje last won the day on February 24 2019

Radoje had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

980 Upvote Apprentice

1 Follower

About Radoje

  • Rank
    Orion Bank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Alliance Pip
    Soup Kitchen
  • Leader Name
  • Nation Name
  • Nation ID
  • Alliance Name
    Soup Kitchen

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name

Recent Profile Visitors

1320 profile views
  1. It really makes the long term players dedicated to your game feel appreciated when you say they're rigging your game and holding it hostage. Here I thought I was engaging in your in-game mechanics and creating a community. My bad, I guess.
  2. ^ This. Also, looking at your graph here, the short term buyback costs would be around 2.5mil resources, which I hate saying but, is basically jack shit in the grand scheme of things lol. If anything, I'm also really for the infra idea over cities.
  3. I'm not sure, it might have something to do with the api and how the rest of the formulas are calculated such as population. Prob a good question for Alex though
  4. ^ True. You could just go to an offshore, but an option where you can exempt some members would be very nice.
  5. I'm okay with this as long as it stays limited to a few bil and doesn't spiral out to where there are tens of billions being injected into the economy Good intentions, mediocre results. It's the man's game. Experiments are worth it.
  6. I agree with Sphinx. For the alliances that have already built up a large high tier playerbase before the change, this'll basically ensure nobody can reach them for a considerable amount of time. This is just a bandaid fix. It's the production of resources that's broken right now, not the way to spend them. If you reduce the bonus, after the next global the state of the game will be where it once was. That being said, I'd love to see some new additions like projects or even completely new mechanics. Basically anything we can do every day to keep us occupied. I'm a big fan of mechanics that force you to login once a day and perform X task to get X of something. It's a bit flash-gamey, but at least it's something to do
  7. But at which point, if your goal was to (for example) also take down the opponents tanks with your air, you would have to kill their air first, meaning you have no threat of them buying aircraft again to take you down. You'd first take down all of their aircraft and than proceed to airstrike their tanks, which wouldn't make it any different.
  8. The proposal I made only impacts airstrikes on units other than aircraft. In which scenario, it wouldn't make updeclaring any different. When you're updeclaring on an opponent, the objective of the updeclare is to take down their aircraft, in which case, you'll be airstriking aircraft. In that case, you wouldn't take any extra casualties on your air, and only would if you were airstriking their tanks/ships afterwards. It wouldn't change updeclaring at all. In fact, in my opinion, larger nations are far stronger in the current meta, where they can freely downdeclare with 0 tanks and 0 navy and just crush everything in front of them, while taking almost no aircraft damage themselves. If they lost aircraft while airstriking soldiers/tank/navy, it would nerf them and make the smaller nations have a better chance at countering.
  9. No, I heavily disagree. The point of a war is not to reduce the other side's infra levels. That's the point of a war if you're heavily favored to win or drawing out the conflict as a loser. The immediate goals of your blitz and the subsequent rounds after it is to reduce your opponent's units to 0. Infra levels are largely irrelevant to your war effort. If infra levels were more important than units, than you'd beige every opponent no matter what instead of expiring them to keep killing their units, which is obviously not the strategy everyone uses.
  10. You'll take some infra damage, but it's not significant in the long run and you won't get looted if you simply store your cash away. But when you're running only aircraft, you won't lose any navy/tanks and even if you take aircraft casualties, it doesn't matter because you'll take all of your opponents air down and kill all of their tanks and navy without taking any of those casualties yourself. You can neutralize all of the opposing units (4) with only 1, and take very miniscule casualties yourself. How is that balanced? I also addressed a fix to being beiged even when you win a war with aircraft, simply reduce naval attack resistance damage from 14 to 12 and that problem is solved.
  11. I feel like because soldiers are so cheap and expendable that there's no point to not slaughtering them at your opponents tanks because they cost close to nothing and you can build 1/3 of your max every update. I think a more pressing change is how absolutely broken aircraft currently is. I've actually been thinking of a change that would be helpful with nerfing aircraft, without it being significant or damaging to the rest of the war system. I've talked to quite a few people about it and they all seem to agree. So when you airstrike units other than aircraft, it would be balanced to take aircraft casualties, for the sake of this example, a random number between 1-5%. So if for example, you have 1,000 aircraft, you might lose 10-50 in your airstrike against tanks/ships. The reason this number is generally pretty good is because it means airstrikes are still very much viable, but when you're blitzing 2-3 targets, you might withstand 50-150 aircraft casualties which means you're far easier to counter, and massive walls of nations with nothing but aircraft become less viable, hence ground/navy becomes semi-viable again where you can expect your attacker to take casualties while taking your tanks down. Currently, in most cases you have no reason to build tanks other than to get a GC, and than as soon as you get rid of the opponents aircraft you can just delete your tanks and never use them again. Their use is very limited and they act as a support to aircraft, which is not realistic (if that even matters), but more importantly it just means you have a useless unit. But, a problem arises with Navy. Spamming max navy means that your opponent will have to sacrifice a lot of aircraft taking down your ships, and because ships cause more resistance damage than aircraft, you can still beige them with your ships. To balance this issue out, you could simply reduce Naval resistance damage from 14 to 12, meaning they'd be even with aircraft. So now your attacker takes aircraft damage while trying to take your ships down meaning it's easier for your alliance mates to counter, and you still do a shitload of infra damage and can beige him with your ships if you're faster than him. That's pretty balanced if you ask me.
  12. The same way we have bulk import improvements to cities, we should have a "build all cities to X infra/land" button, because when you fight any war with anyone, many or all cities will get hit and than you have to tediously go through every single one and write in dumb numbers like 165.34 or something for all of your cities, in my case 20. It's just quality of life and would be very convenient.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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