allilee Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Actually, I see a lot of moaning from well you and others frankly. People can actually defend themselves. There is nothing stopping them other than personal and alliance choices. Choices have consequences. It is not the game admin's job to make your choice supperior than the choice you and your alliance did not make. So no. We should not keep changing the game to "fix" it. You say about a choice - even if nations with 8 cities were fully militarised they wouldnt be to defend themselves against a nation with 12 - so your point is meaningless Maybe thats because Arrgh and the other war like alliances have the best grasp of the mechanics. We are 'moaning' for your benefit. This update actually benefits alliances such as Mensa and those that know how to blitz properly. We can put you out of the fight for good in the first few minutes of warfare. Unless you are sitting on a !@#$ mountain of cash, you will be at our mercy... This update is bad for everyone! Well thats why I suggested about just adding something to game where - lets say if a nation in my alliance with 9 cities got attacked by someone with 15 cities then anyone in the alliance with 15 cities or less can attack the aggressor if that makes sense? So instead of changing the formula make alliances more easier to defend their members Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooves Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Well thats why I suggested about just adding something to game where - lets say if a nation in my alliance with 9 cities got attacked by someone with 15 cities then anyone in the alliance with 15 cities or less can attack the aggressor if that makes sense? So instead of changing the formula make alliances more easier to defend their members Are you suggesting some sort of bounty system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 It seems he can have 65k while you can have 47k. He has 1 less city than you and almost twice as much infrastructure in each city, because you have more cities and lower infra you naturally have a disadvantage. If this update was aimed to hurt nations it was nations like yours that would have had advantage over a nation with less cities but higher infra. Your numbers are flawed. For one, he had (and still does) over 70,000 soldiers. You are unable to use 100% of your improvement capacity because your population is not high enough. We'll see if I can actually get 47,000 troops. 2 Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 I don't think allilee knows that 3 alliance members can attack a raider. And no, your point in no way invalidates mine allilee Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Your numbers are flawed. For one, he had (and still does) over 70,000 soldiers. You are unable to use 100% of your improvement capacity because your population is not high enough. We'll see if I can actually get 47,000 troops. I don't believe the update reset military so that could be it. His max was 75k he lost about 4000 against you so that seems to be what happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allilee Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) I don't think allilee knows that 3 alliance members can attack a raider. And no, your point in no way invalidates mine allilee You said earlier that people can defend themselves Explain to me how a nation with 8 cities can defend themselves against a nation with 12 cities? Yes Rahl, 3 alliance members can attack back - but only those in the war range, who also have 8 cities - against a nation with 12, would still lose even with max military Lets say as well, if I could actually attack you (if I had much lower infra) then how would be able to defend yourself? Edited February 27, 2016 by allilee 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 You said earlier that people can defend themselves Explain to me how a nation with 8 cities can defend themselves against a nation with 12 cities? Yes Rahl, 3 alliance members can attack back - but only those in the war range, who also have 8 cities - against a nation with 12, would still lose even with max military Lets say as well, if I could actually attack you (if I had much lower infra) then how would be able to defend yourself? If you cannot figure how to win 3 on 1 or have someone drop infra to help then I am sorry for you. Maybe you should pay someone to come run your alliance mil strategy for you. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allilee Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) If you cannot figure how to win 3 on 1 or have someone drop infra to help then I am sorry for you. Maybe you should pay someone to come run your alliance mil strategy for you. Yet again you miss the point - the amount of infra you would have to drop would be phenomenal - the game shouldn't work like that The guy with more cities and repair more of his military each day, and a nation with 8 cities against a 12 would never get an immense triumph Edited February 27, 2016 by allilee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Shouldn't? I promise I have looked at the numbers and run the sims. It is hardish but nowhere near as impossible as you make out. Clearly not or another group would not be running the strategy. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allilee Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) Well I'm still saying that people from the same alliance as the defending nation should be able to attack the aggressor if they have the same amount of cities or less That doesn't change too much Edited February 27, 2016 by allilee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 They can. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allilee Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 They can. How can they without losing their infra? Which would also mean decreasing improvements, which nations such as Arrgh haven't had to do as their infra got destroyed and so they have kept most of their improvements Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Use your immagination. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Well I'm still saying that people from the same alliance as the defending nation should be able to attack the aggressor if they have the same amount of cities or less That doesn't change too much This sounds a lot like an old suggestion regarding alliance wars where nations can attack any nation in the alliance that attacked them regardless of score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Well thats why I suggested about just adding something to game where - lets say if a nation in my alliance with 9 cities got attacked by someone with 15 cities then anyone in the alliance with 15 cities or less can attack the aggressor if that makes sense? So instead of changing the formula make alliances more easier to defend their members Let's get rid of war ranges and scores and let's drive away the !@#$ing pixel hugging carebear !@#$s... maybe then the game will get interesting. All I see is people asking for the easy route. Pay me enough money and I'll infrabomb the shit out of you so you can go and counter em, unfortunately the whining from the 'must change brigade' have gone and !@#$ed you over and made it even tougher for you. Alliances like Arrgh will just look at the new mechanics and work out an effective gameplan. Every time you move the goalposts all you are doing is giving certain alliances an even bigger advantage. We'd have worked out the pro's and con's of the new mechanics before most of you guys have even come to terms with the old ones. 3 Quote ☾☆ Warrior of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spooner Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Moving this post, since it fits better in this thread anyways: In response to your assertion that players were quitting the game over these score changes, I'm highly dubious. Your change, if anything, made the early levels of the game infuriating now. Players already had a problem dealing with 1-city 1000 infra (ish) nations kicking the shit out of 2-3 city ~500 infra players. Mostly due to the fact that the "raiding" players have the extra infra for military slots. With this change to caps, the two-city new players are screwed over even more than before, since their caps are not as high as the 1-city "tall" player. If anything this change has made the game worse for the newest players to the game, not better. In summary: Small-score non-raiders (newest players) - hurt by change; lowers retention Small-score raiders - helped by change; raises retention Medium-High score raiders - hurt by change; lowers retention Medium-High score non-raiders - helped by change; raises retention I'm highly skeptical that a change that hurts the new non-raiding players increases retention. Could an alliance give them money to quickly grow out of the small-scale raider range? Yes, absolutely. But you already stated that we're leaving alliance coordination out of the picture (since if we cared about alliance coordination, we could have beaten the pirate strategy in the first place). Before the change, PP wasn't attacking MENSA, and MENSA wasn't attacking PP. Why do you think that is? I suspect that it was an unspoken acknowledgement that PP knew their strategy could be beaten with coordination, so they left us alone and went for the easier targets. So is the problem here that uncoordinated players are complaining to you and leaving? Essentially you're catering the game to the lowest-skill players with this change. With this logic, perhaps you should add a "queue attack" feature so that Rose doesn't fail their offensive blitzes each and every time they try to do so. 1 Quote ☾☆ High Priest of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fasolt Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Maybe thats because Arrgh and the other war like alliances have the best grasp of the mechanics. We are 'moaning' for your benefit. This update actually benefits alliances such as Mensa and those that know how to blitz properly. We can put you out of the fight for good in the first few minutes of warfare. Unless you are sitting on a !@#$ mountain of cash, you will be at our mercy... This update is bad for everyone! That warning needs to be read again and thought on by those so reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fasolt Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) How can they without losing their infra? Which would also mean decreasing improvements, which nations such as Arrgh haven't had to do as their infra got destroyed and so they have kept most of their improvements Do you realize at all... That this does not apply to the vast majority in Arrgh (myself included). And barely applies to a few... And not to near the extreme you are trying to make it out to be. Edited February 28, 2016 by Fasolt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fasolt Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 In response to your assertion that players were quitting the game over these score changes, I'm highly dubious. Your change, if anything, made the early levels of the game infuriating now. Players already had a problem dealing with 1-city 1000 infra (ish) nations kicking the shit out of 2-3 city ~500 infra players. Mostly due to the fact that the "raiding" players have the extra infra for military slots. With this change to caps, the two-city new players are screwed over even more than before, since their caps are not as high as the 1-city "tall" player. If anything this change has made the game worse for the newest players to the game, not better. BINGO Let me create a second account and see what kind of horror I can inflict on the lowest tier this time around. Better yet... Let both me and Tywin do it together... Then youll really see an increase in the new player drop rate. Before the change, PP wasn't attacking MENSA, and MENSA wasn't attacking PP. Why do you think that is? I suspect that it was an unspoken acknowledgement that PP knew their strategy could be beaten with coordination, so they left us alone and went for the easier targets. So is the problem here that uncoordinated players are complaining to you and leaving? Essentially you're catering the game to the lowest-skill players with this change. With this logic, perhaps you should add a "queue attack" feature so that Rose doesn't fail their offensive blitzes each and every time they try to do so. Syrup deserves a mass apology for having to take the time to type out the obvious to everyone still unable to put the pieces together for themselves. Good strategic choices... In terms of - specific targets chosen... how those targets are approached (the tactical sequence)... nation builds of those involved in the attack... and how each builds particular military count can work in compliment to the others on that team. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 That warning needs to be read again and thought on by those so reading. They won't until it is too late. Quote ☾☆ Warrior of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 At the end of the day don't whine about your problem keegoz. Figure out a solution and implement it. Actually, this get at a larger point. Rather than dealing with game mechanics as they are the auto solution to the "problem" of the day is to whine to the admin. How about we grow up and just play the game. If you don't want to fix the current raider problem then deal with the results of that decision. If you decide to fix it then go do that. Play the darn game man. to be fair, arent you the one trying to get nuke damage lowered because you dont like how much damage they do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 to be fair, arent you the one trying to get nuke damage lowered because you dont like how much damage they do? I just don't want nukes buffed -which is the current trend in requests to break, I mean "fix", the mechanics. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allilee Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Do you realize at all... That this does not apply to the vast majority in Arrgh (myself included). And barely applies to a few... And not to near the extreme you are trying to make it out to be. Ok - there are still very large nations taking advantage of smaller ones though, albeit I may have over stated facts, but from the wars that have happened in my alliance it has been quite a lot of larger nations taking on smaller ones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Ok - there are still very large nations taking advantage of smaller ones though, albeit I may have over stated facts, but from the wars that have happened in my alliance it has been quite a lot of larger nations taking on smaller ones So I looked through your alliance. You have already made a pretty clear choice to prioritize economic building over military preparedness in your builds. This, again, is a choice that you have made. It is not wrong but it does have both upsides and downsides. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allilee Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 So I looked through your alliance. You have already made a pretty clear choice to prioritize economic building over military preparedness in your builds. This, again, is a choice that you have made. It is not wrong but it does have both upsides and downsides. We did yes, but that is only after the war to rebuild, but we told the members to stay militarised but anyway Still doesnt stop the fact some large nations are attacking much smaller ones (in terms of city numbers) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.