Dajobo
-
Posts
18 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Dajobo
-
-
As predicted raiders all hate the idea. What a shock!
-
1
-
-
Borg the bit you aren't considering here is balance. Atm there is no purpose in infra as it is a handicap. Why do you think raiders have bugger all infra?
This means the game mechanics are all skewed to more small cities.
They can't lose a city, they can't lose land and they have about 5 bucks worth of infra. Raiding is 100% risk and consequence free while trying to build a nation is super risky.
The second thing is raiders chose to attack. Usually it's players who's RL doesn't allow them to be online enough to co-ordinate with others. This makes raiding totally risk free again.
Players trying to build a nation don't chose to 1 v1 a raider. They don't even chose to be attacked. Why shouldn't a larger nation be a harder target?
-
1
-
-
Problem: All that matters in regards to war is how many cities you have. This means raiders with more cities and no infra will always beat people trying to grow their nations. Making military size set by infra instead just copies CN and wouldn't solve the issue at all.
Solution: Keep military size exactly as it is but let military building speed be determined by infra. E.G. A city with 1000 infra needs three days to rebuild army. 2000 needs two days and 3000 can rebuild all in one day.
Now more cities means more military so you still keep that incentive and balance. More infra now is also worthwhile as you can rebuild faster meaning infra doesn't make you a sitting duck. Infra is expensive over 3k so encouraging people to spend up on it also sucks a lot of cash out of the game slowing inflation.
-
4
-
-
I know nothing about the Politics on this planet but I know how to drink so this must be good!
-
"in 1000 days I have removed 3 members for not meeting our standards, and 5 people have left voluntarily."
This speak volumes to me. Well done!
-
1 hour ago, Azaghul said:
Allow nukes to kill a large % of one type of a nation's army. It's a simple yet elegant solution:
1) Allows nukes to be powerful without just being a mindless, automatic substitute for fighting well conventionally.
2) Gives people a chance to fight back when they are outmatched conventionally.
3) Encourages coordination. One nation nukes, they are out of MAPS and can't folloe up conventionally the immediately. But they can coordinate with other people who can follow up with attacks on that particular unit.
4) Creates more risk for people who are in a bunch of wars.
5) Gives people who are beaten down something to do other than just sit at zero military.
6) Generally broadens the numbet of strategies people can employ.
That other nation simulator game handles this well IMO. Not that this game should be exactly like it. But I like the fact that nukes are a leveler in conventional combat, especially for people who can fight and coordinate well.
Nailed it.
-
A man after my own heart. <3
#TLF #NeverRelevant
I wish I even knew what or who TLF is!
o/ Polaris
-
I love this idea in principle but his line disturbs me "Yes, you can have as many treasures as you can capture at once, but if you are defeated in a war you will lose them all."
This means over time one nation will end up with all of the treasures. Every defeat will equal an amalgamation.
-
As a member of UPN I applaud this logical decision.
-
Thanks Sheepy.
I'll go buy it again.
Also to those who asked, plenty of uranium. Just some weird glitch.
-
Just minutes ago I bought nuclear power for Wellington.
It took the money and steel but gave no power plant!
Unsure how long it takes to fix so I grabbed two oil powered ones till you get time.
-
It would seem to me that CIN really want a proper war upfront.
-
1
-
-
-
Here is my suggestion.
If you could buy/build guns (may or may not require resources)
Introduce "Conscription" up to the amount of guns you have.
EG. Four choices.
Conscript 20, 50, 75, or 100% of your population for a day. They could fight at 50% the effectiveness of a proper trained military.
The conscription level would reduce your income and productivity for the day by the same amount.
This means people can’t use it as a way to prevent raids and they need to be active every day to re-conscript but it does give some chance of fighting back. It does not remove the attackers advantage because if needed they can do the same but it does level the playing field a little plus throws an extra element of strategy in.
-
I sort of agree about being prepared but I suspect when you can have 30,000+ vs Nil there's a problem. Multiply that by three nations and you see just how dramatic the difference can be.
Would making military form a larger part of a nations score help?
-
Yeah but this nation isn't the issue and rebuilding later isn't either. I just think now while the game is in early beta is a good time to find and address issues like this.
-
1
-
-
The way the current system is you can be hit by multiple nations with many times your own military power. Currently my nation is crippled and has no military or capacity to create more than 2,000 per day to a maximum of 8,000, yet faces ~60,000 across several nations.
Yes I can (and will) change alliance and rebuild, but It strikes me as a flaw in game play when even if you have a healthy bank balance you are restricted too much to fight back.
Food for thought though as an individual less aware of how alliances work would at this point delete and leave the game.
-
2
-
[DoW] The Second Atomic Crusade
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
Me too.
CoA has a lot of members I really like!