Jump to content

Dreadnought

Members
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dreadnought

  1. Going only based off the OP... The only thing I dislike about the spy system is the fact that it is virtually impossible to be caught. Everyone targets spies first, once those are gone, you basically don't get caught 9.9 times out of 10. Doing the equation on the wiki, 60 vs 60 spies, arcane vs covert, max sneaky, you have a 28% chance of failing and 28% chance of being caught. Let that sink in...less then a third of a chance of being seen while at max spies. To me, that is simply too low, not a little low, very low. The defending force has an invading force that can kill upwards to half of the defending force's spies in one shot (without the Spy Sat Project) and the odds are all in the invading force's favor. There is absolutely no real defense in the spy system, which is just bad in my opinion. Even if we keep the level of success in the system, which I understand is needed, because if it wasn't successful, no one would do it, but jack up the getting caught percentage by way more then simply 28%. For the spy sat, it was expensive, because it does added damage. I only got it really for the extra spy buy. Why not simply lower the damages against the board for normal spy operations, so to compensate for the spy sat? Making the spy sat more understandable to get. If the spy sat were to get nerfed or lowered in cost, yea, I would be upset and like a refund of something. Other thing, planes, ground control doesn't do much of anything, if the other side has air control. I thought originally, when the tanks attacking planes came in, it would be simply base. If planes target tanks, tanks can fire back, plain and simple, I guess I misunderstood something. As for planes against ships, unless ships have AA capabilities, then planes don't need to be able to do even more damage to a target that simply can't defend itself. I personally don't think any unit should be able to attack another unit without that unit being able to defend itself and planes are the only unit that can attack other units. Other units that realistically, are able to defend against planes. New project is understandable and people have given many great names. Treasure trading/selling, is also nice. Alternate times will simply speed up building of things in general, which I suppose its ok, don't matter either way to me. That's all I really care from the OP. Everything else, I don't quite pay attention, because I guess I just don't notice or see it as broken or what have you. So quick recap... Jack up the getting caught rate for spy vs spy, decease the damage from spy vs spy (should never able able to simply wipe an entire force in one day or even two). Lower damage across the board to accommodate the spy sat? Added defenses are needed against planes for ground and sea.
  2. You do know Afghanistan was backed by the US, which is why they beat off the USSR, right? They didn't win "on their own" and USA isn't at war with Afghanistan, like the USSR was. In either case, any nation that has improvements well beyond its infra level should be forced to have power redirected to the improvements they want to actually have powered. Otherwise, it puts way to much power into the once larger nation, against the current smaller nations. Outside that, if a 30 city nation loses all its infra, it's improvement count is within its infra level and just rocks with full military improvements and basically nothing else, there is nothing wrong with that. I personally don't think a 30 city nation should be able to drop so much and be able to hit a 20 city nation or smaller, but that's just me. At that point, you have to change the accessibility of whom you can declare on. As for the directing of power, in this specific situation, this should also affect the raws as well. You have 40 improvements, but infra level is 1000, you redirect power to all the areas you want, but raws also function at full power? Because they don't use power? Rather bs in my opinion as well. You can only power what your infra level allows you, if you have more improvements then what your infra level allows. This will mostly affect whales who have 20 farms, get smacked down, run max military and 20 farms and whatever else they can while low on infra at full effectiveness. Power the farms or the military? Also, if your military loses power to its improvements, then the units held by that improvement is lost. The same way if it was destroyed during battle. You still have the improvement though. No power, there shouldn't be any allowing of full military use of it then, even if you already had the soldiers before losing power. This will hurt those huge nations who choose to shrink themselves so much, to where they only rock military improvements at 1K infra or less builds. You lose 500 infra in a city, immediately 10 improvements lose power and at first it is randomly chosen by the game, but afterwards you can redirect the power as you see fit or simply buy more infra. This way, it forces those more not giving a crap raiders, who simply just want to burn a nation down, to think through its military efforts, as it can go small, but it can easily lose a portion of its military quite easily. If this was put in, you can have a pre-set power direction installed for your nation. Basically, if the above examples happen, it will pull power from the section (not the specific improvement) of improvements you listed first. Example...You have 5 choices: Resources, Manufacturing, Civil, Commerce and Military. I put Manufacturing as my first section to lose power. So, if I get randomly hit and cities drop in infra, power will be randomly taken from the improvements in that section first and so on and so forth. Once the second is done, it'll move onto the next section on the list. This will at least give people the ability to fight off the randomness of having their military improvements just lose power first. This would then open up the spy ability of being able to scramble one's pre-set power direction. Basically, if the spy operation is successful, it will just set it back to "random" setting. Removing the pre-set feature, made by the player. The defending player can fix the problem immediately or I suppose, make it a one day force hold (until their day change mark happens, so it can never be more then 24 hours). Since the added change of being able to set your own day change time, anyone thought that maybe in the "intelligence gathering" spy ability, they are also told when the nation's day change is also? I am still firmly behind that spying is by far the most out of wack thing on here. With planes tying. It seems WAY to easy to spy intelligence or almost anything else and either succeed and be caught or not caught. There should be more then simply, having 60 spies and Arcane on. Put more variables with it...military size, overall average land size and city size, etc. A nation with half the amount of spies a fully maxed out nation has, should not have any real chance of success. Also, a handful of spies, shouldn't be able to kill upwards to 20 spies either. These spies aren't Agents 47.
  3. I refrain from getting on here, as it is usually a shit show unfortunately, but this post actually made me want to figure out my password and comment. There are lots of good ideas and some, if enacted, I would seriously consider quitting the game. Some comments/ideas... Land I will have to agree with those who are against it. Removing or "destroying" land from a nation is extremely counter productive. I can see why Bjorn would be 100% against it, dropped 25B+ to get 36 cities to 10K land each. You think he'd be playing still if all of a sudden that land was in game for being taken or just removed? To recover any of that at current prices would just be terrible. Even if you cheapen it, it would have to be so cheap, to make it almost worthless. Which then will strongly affect the Farms. So taking or destroying land, can't really be allowed unfortunately. Now the idea of making it non-usable for a period of time, is something that can work. You nuke a city, I lose money, but I can make that up with, well using Bjorn, with his 10K land each. That's over 300K food a day that can be made, assuming rads aren't terrible. So over 2M in a week. Why will he care if he gets nuked? His food production will more then cover what he loses. So temporarily blocking "X" amount of land from being used, will affect farms, population per sq mile and still commerce, just maybe not as much. There should be a cap as well, as unlikely as it may be, to avoid people from basically nulling someone's entire land mass. Not everyone sits with 5K+ land, so to just make one's land be 100% worthless wouldn't be hard. I also do agree with Bjorn's idea on land to improvement ratio deal. I'm not saying we need to have improvements also limited via land, but a city with just 250 land having 50 improvements seems rather weird. Even if its just a side poke, to where per 40 improvements, you need 1000 land. The game can't be realism, but I feel this little dash of realism can be installed. Now the portion of Bjorn's idea of more land should affect improvement production, I'm on the fence for that. We already have the stacking bonus and to let land also play into raw production would give a bit to those with high land already. Matter of fact, if you went this way, a whale could product no manufactured goods at all and just straight up product raws like crazy and sell. Less pollution to deal with, so you wont need Hospitals or Recycling Centers either. I suppose it depends on how much of a bonus land would give as well. The idea is interesting, connects and makes sense, but it can easily broken, if not very carefully thought through. I kind of feel there should be a land policy, we have urban, why not land? Projects More would be nice. Maybe you can set the prices for projects to be on a progressive scale. Depending on how many projects you have, the prices of all other projects you didn't make increases to a capping point. Makes choosing projects more thoughtful and increases future projects more. This will stop the need of the new projects coming in the future to be how they are now with monster amounts of resources, but very little money. I would only guess the reason for that type of build is to hit whales more, but this strongly hurts those smaller, as how are they going to get those kinds of amounts? Take the two city projects for example, you have the first open up at City 11...who would have all those raws and manufactured goods by city 11? Without alliance support and what alliance would even give that to a 11 city nation? Even though getting it sooner, then later is always best. More space projects would be interesting notion to get into. This is where you get into mutually exclusive projects. You can have it to where the Moon, Mars and Venus are all projects, but you can only go to one of them. Or if you are very "out there" (hehe), you can do the solar system, Moon + 8 planets. What can this lead to? Nations moving outwards, claiming things in the name of their alliance/nation. Have each destination's cost be different, depending on what the area offers. Have each area offer something others don't have. Sure you can have some overlap, like on earth, but each place has one or two unique things that no other area has. You have the ability to build a leveling outpost/city on the area, but no military. ------ Lets use the Moon as an example, build moon project, a new map appears for your nation to plant your city/outpost. You can level it up over time, increasing productivity, size to build more things, and unlock the more unique abilities the area has to offer. For instance, the Moon, increase military support for your Earth nation. So enhanced spy operations, enhance military support for your offensive and defensive engagements, etc. You give unique resources to each area that can be transported back to your Earth nation, at a cost. This then opens the door, which some has brought up, to "research/upgrading" things. Or if you are wanting to keep this idea simple, using the Earth resources, just have the unique resources break down into Earth resource, but give a big ratio. 100 Moon rock broken down, gives 1000 steel for example. How the outpost/city would work? Just be a fraction of the improvement selection as your Earth cities. Don't know how you will build a coal/oil plant. Money shouldn't really play a role either or military. Civil and resources, unique improvements depending on the area as well. How would you level them up? Earth just collects whatever needed, pays to ship them up to whatever area and once you hit certain amount, you can choose to spend it to level up the outpost/city. Land? Could play a role, but I feel the leveling up of the city should make that not needed in this regard. There should be more mutually exclusive projects types. Meaning, if I get this, I can't get something else. I don't believe their should be a project that affects pollution. It will just give more power to whales in the end. Being able to produce more and not suffer for it, along with making more money, as they wont need as much hospitals or centers or can be at higher infra levels. Alliances Alliances as a whole, I agree, need some pop to them. Possibly more titles? Also, more micromanage control on what/who gets what access. Several of Princess Adrienne idea's were interesting. Make taxes more streamlined: -being able to select multiple nations to move around -seeing the daily/weekly income across the board -seeing how much people have paid through taxes, etc etc Should be able to select multiple nations to accept, reject, remove, promote within the alliance. The bar across the screen that shows the information for what the numbers mean in the control panel and the taxes, going down while you scroll is useful as well. I wouldn't go along with the whole, give alliance's random objectives to fulfill. Some people brought up team color and alliances becoming less bare. People treat team colors as kind of a giant home full of strangers, due to the team color bonus that was brought in. Why not go one step further? Have each team color have a community table. Each alliance can appoint one person to represent them at this table. The game provides situations to be done that will affect the entire team color. They last for a period of time and the situations have a positive and a negative effect. This way, everyone has to work together to come to a consensus or the situation just doesn't take effect. So if a situation that greatly helps whales, but hurts everyone else pops up, the whale alliance can't just make it happen. How the voting count, can be figured out if this happens. Can make it majority rules or super majority rules. I would make it to where a certain amount of votes will be required before something goes into affect. To avoid the one or two active alliances putting in votes, making whatever they want happen to happen. If there are 10 alliances, then 4 (example) need to vote before the vote passes or not. This will also give the micro alliances more something to do and power as well. I would also make it to where an alliance would require a certain age or population count, to be able to join the table. To avoid 10 people making 10 one man alliances and all voting in one direction to skew the process. War I'd have to agree on the fact that a 20+ or even 30+ city nation can get so small, it can hit someone half or smaller in size, is just terrible. That should never be something that can be done. I don't agree there should be some kind of city limit only, in the sense of, I can only hit people 5 below or 10 above, as that EXTREMELY restricts larger nations. I at 40 cities, wouldn't be able to touch anyone except for a hand full of people. It would also make everyone within range of one another to be on guard all the time, because the restricted amount. If one goes up in military, then everyone else might as well, but the person only has so many targets. It will also limit war as well, considerably. So it is a tough nut to crack to make it balance. I do like the idea of degrading improvements for nations who are in range of nations that are not 100% normal. You have 2K infra, down to 500 infra, but you have 40 improvements. Yes, something should be happening to you, simply because you are too big for what you current active infra allows. Either more power is consumed or over time improvements just become deactivated. I would not agree that they should be auto destroyed, even after a time period, as that is a bit much, but make it to where all of a sudden "X" improvement just doesn't work anymore until infra levels improve. Make it random, so all of a sudden a recycling center stops working or hospital or hanger or mall, etc. I would then give the option to the player to be able to reroute what improvements it can power up, to the ones it actually wants. So if it loses its 5 barracks, the nation can decide to give up 5 banks and reroute the power to the barracks. Loses money, but gets back its military. I feel this is an even balance, because even if the raider stays at full military might, he has to sacrifice production or money to stay alive. At some point, wont be able to sustain and will simply be bill locked, forcing it to grow once more. (unless I am missing something?) As for how often does it trigger? One a day sounds a bit much, but given drastic size difference, one a day for a 40+ improvement nation isn't alarming at first, only if you do nothing for a week or two. You want to raid, then raid, but you suffer having an oversize force in such a small area. I'm on the same page as others about anti-air. It is quite OP the airforce, troops and ships alone, should be able to do some damage to planes, if they attack them. Maybe a project to be an anti-air? Percentage towards each plane sent to hit the nation. Not allow beige towards the aggressor is a bit much. Yes, it is a risk choice, but it will just have it to where people will be less likely to just declare on people. I agree that the war mechanics needs to be changed. Having a strategy be, let the war expire, is one odd strategy to have in a WAR game. I don't agree with any kind of significant damage to things outside of MAP usage. Spying doesn't do a whole lot, but its still enough to where it can tip the scales a bit. If the alt-missile is limited like spying, only 2/3 operations a day that can be done by a nation AND on a nation, then its an interesting thought. Especially when you add the whole, must be at war with them part. Damage roll-over is an interesting thought, but how would you scale how much damage destroys an improvement? I believe if the above notion I suggested was put into place, then the damage roll-over notion wouldn't be needed that much. Blockades shouldn't be hitting more then what they already do, except for one thing, nations that are 100% tax. An alliance shouldn't be allowed to collect taxes from nations who are blockaded. Can't buy/sell on market, can't send to bank or receive from bank, shouldn't be taxed either. Blocking baseball is a bit much and same for use of credits. The nation needs to be able to do something to a degree. The main reason is, it limits looting in general. I have you blockaded, yet all your production is safe, because its going to the alliance? Yet, I can block you sending or receiving what resources you do have to the alliance? Because that makes sense. I'm not for the whole "deploy" your military to fight a nation idea. That crap existed in CN and it was terrible then. Spies I couldn't say this often enough...having max spies AND the defensive boost against spying, and a 1 spy nation can succeed and not be detected, pisses me off to no end. That should NEVER happen. Even 60 spies vs 60 spies, should be 90%+ success rate or even 75%. One nation with 60 spies + offensive spy power against a nation with 60 spies + defensive spy power, should be at best 50%. To use a personal example, Fraggle spied on me once...she (?) had ONE freaking spy...was undetected. I only knew because she(?) told me. That's complete bs. Being able to change nations's policies would be an interesting choice. If so, it can't be re-changed for 24 hours. The ability to possibly disable a project or improvement(s) for 24 hours or less, is also an interesting idea, obviously with low success rates. The rebuilding of spy count, I can understand it is annoying, buying only 2 spies a day, but to be able to just fill up again during war is a bit much. I'd say outside of war, but not in beige or gray, could you purchase more spies. This puts pressure on the attacks to get on nations constantly, to prevent them from buying spies again at a larger rate. Misc. People setting their own update point for their nation, it would make the game more unpredictable, but I don't know if the server could handle such things. A form of researching could be added to the game. Further enhance whatever in the game, mainly military. Possibly improvements, but the stacking ability already exists or you could make the stacking ability be a research needing to be unlocked. Also, have the research be on a timer, so it isn't instant. You collect what you need, you purchase, you wait "X" time, not being able to do any other research until it is done. I'm sure I have other thoughts, but it is quite late where I am...lol. Will edit, if something else pops up after I read what I wrote later.
  4. Not to steal from another game..., but I at least found it quite useful in the end. Suggestion 4... In the alliance panel somewhere, we should be able to see how many nations have of certain projects. All it shows is the 14 projects, a # in front of it to represent all the nations who have it in the alliance and possibly a link under it (like in taxes) to show the nations who have the project or all the nations who don't have it would probably be better. That way we don't have to click on each nation and see what they have or don't have. Rather taxing when you get to the bigger alliances.
  5. As for my 3rd Suggestion on the forums (City Simulator and Intelligence Control Panel Upgrade being the other two), the title rather explains everything. It would be extremely helpful to have a check box in the Battle and Air Simulators to reflect Ground and Air Superiority in battles. People still add in the actual numbers the nations have, the simulator does the math reflecting off the box being checked or not in the simulator. It'll make things easier for people and not having to do extra things outside the simulator to figure out the real total and then seeing their level of success.
  6. To further clarify this thought... Among the "Helpful Tool" tab, there should be a simulator for players to "build" a city in whatever way to see the outcome of the build. You choose the following... Continent Age Tax Rates (From Alliances) Improvements Infra and Land Size Check boxes to show the simulator if you have any of the econ projects (Ex. Ironworks, Enrichment Uranium, ITC etc etc) Then it spits out the following... Cash produced after taxes per turn/per day "X" resources produced after taxes per turn/per day (X = what resource production you put into the city sim) Disease amount Crime amount Pollution amount Power (Yes or No) Commerce Percentage Population Density I find this to be extremely helpful and would help newer players understand the game a bit more, without taking much risk. If anyone finds something else I missed, please comment.
  7. Let me clarify this more in detail... In the Control Panel, Officers+ (default) with settings to adjust if wanted, can see a section that shows all Intelligence Operations done from or too the alliance they are in. Example 1: An alliance member does a spy operation onto another nation. What you will see is something like this... (Alliance Member) did "X" spy operation on (Targeted Nation), it Succeeded/Failed and was caught/not caught. (X = the name of the Spy Operation they attempted, Ex. Gather Intelligence) No further details would be given. You don't get to see the details that the acting nation who did the spying sees if succeeded or fail, unless you ask them to show you. Example 2: An outside nation spies onto one of your alliance members... If caught: (Spying Nation) did "X" spy operation on (Targeted Alliance Member) and Succeeded/Failed. (X = the name of the Spy Operation they attempted, Ex. Gather Intelligence) If not caught: Unknown Nation did "X" spy operation on (Targeted Alliance Member) and Succeeded/Failed. (X = the name of the Spy Operation they attempted, Ex. Gather Intelligence) No further details would be given. You can only see the details of the damage if the targeted nation shows you the report. Also, in the settings nations can turn off showing these reports as well, just like they can with resource stockpiles. The alliance would see they can't see intel reports from nations who block this though, also just like the resource stockpiles.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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