Popular Post Hereno Posted March 27, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) 1. Most, if not all, major alliances are on the Arrgh! Do Not Raid list. This is largely respected by the members of Arrgh! 2. This leaves primarily young, weak alliances to be raided by Arrgh! but also by many members of those large, anti-pirate alliances, who ostensibly do not support Arrgh! 3. While I was in Arrgh!, we ended up disbanding several young alliances just through raiding the shit out of them, not on purpose. Among these are the Frontier Sort Alliance and Cobalt, both of whom had allies, neither of whom would help, and both of whom no longer exist. We also split the membership of the Socialist Workers Front in half, that I remember. I lay blame for these disbandments on the alliances and their cowardly allies, not on us for enjoying the game. The result of the system of affairs that exists right now is that large alliances as they exist right now are more or less immune to the piracy of Arrgh! due to the fact that Arrgh! is not strong enough to take on the world by itself. The result is that our pirate activities increasingly focus on the weak and vulnerable, not destroying, but promoting the status quo wherein major alliances are free to grow sky high, out of our range, with little interference from the one group who might be able to stop them. I contend that they are not only aware of this, but actively support it, and that is why it is only the likes of such players as Prefontaine that this problem was ever actually addressed in a public setting. The problem is that the changes he suggests, and which Sheepy are implementing, will only create a multitude more problems, which will inevitably have to be patched up after the next major war exposes them all. Arrgh! is a great idea and I happen to have some very good friends there. They are, and remain, the best alliance in Orbis, and they cannot be faulted for the drawbacks they face for a lack of real support in the community for their goal of having this not be an infrastructure simulator. No, the duplicitous powers that be, who stand idly by while a class of superior alliances is created, including their own, are to blame. They lie and distort facts to the game developer, treating the development team consisting of Sheepy as a tool with which to wage OOC war on their IC enemies, and refuse to take a stand on much of anything to avoid the drawbacks of warfare. The worst offenders are the GPA, Alpha, and other long-term alliances who do nothing but grow their pixels privately and do their best to stay away from real politics, with the goal of dominating the game through the tried-and-true tactic of simply not playing it for years so that they can grow larger than anybody else, while changing the playing field any time they are confronted with a losing war. This has happened not only with Arrgh!, but after many major conflicts, where we have seen players lobbying for changes to the game mechanics that are inevitably implemented with little thought, post alpha and beta, by an inexperienced and fickle game developer, at behest of a raging community of dozens of players who care less about the game than their own superiority within it. There will always be a best way to play, a way to win, and a superior strategy. There will always be winners and losers, and the winners will always be determined by who is the strongest. But the continual upwards expansion of infrastructure is not something that has to continue. Growth as a fact of gameplay does not have to be a truth in the world of Orbis. It is a fact for the same reason that being able to spend up to 50 bucks a month on over $20,000,000 cash per nation, if not even sold on the market, is a fact of life in this game - because the developer does not give a shit. If he really gave a shit about this game, he would not be allowing larger nations in the game to use baseball as a perpetual money-making system by botting the hell out of it for hours and hours each day, the free-to-play version of donations. He would not have a private development forum that only large alliance leaders and his personal favorites are invited in, to discuss things without having to deal with input from the rest of the community, as though we cannot be trusted to act in our own best interests, or recognize that our own best interests are the betterment of this game. I, for one, am sick of watching people leave the bullshit festival that is Planet Bob, purposefully bringing their shitty, awful communities with the same names and same stupid players over to this bullshit festival, just to see that in fact the boss has changed names only. This game is just as broken as CyberNations and nobody actually cares enough about the game itself to be honest about it and treat it with respect. And why would we when the game creator himself has such little respect for it or our community? I hereby announce the formation of the Black Guards of Orbis. We stand for fun, we stand for anarchy, and above all else, we stand for Orbis and against all who oppose us and our values, no matter their strength. We will kill even God the Sheep if we have to - there is no power greater than that of the working class. There may never actually be a "we" to this experiment, and I don't really care. If this fails it is because there was nothing worth saving in the first place. Death to all who stand in the way of freedom for working people. Long live the Black Guards of Orbis! Edited March 27, 2016 by Hereno 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Hooves Posted March 27, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) By far one of the most sensational DoE's I've seen in a while. You forgot to add Arrgh's mass raids on DEIC as of late not receiving an answer. Edited March 27, 2016 by Hooves 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 gl to you Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areton Chashul Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) o/ Edited March 27, 2016 by Areton Chashul Quote Lord of Holdengrove Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crust Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 Good luck! If the alliance is still alive once I'm back from my vacation I might join. Quote It's my birthday today, and I'm 33! That means only one thing...BRING IT IN, GUYS! *every character from every game, comic, cartoon, TV show, movie, and book reality come in with everything for a HUGE party* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valakias Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 Like dealing with 40 improvements cities at 1k score is fun. I had to gimp my nation to even get close to that range. Good luck in your venture. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foltest Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 I'd respect this more if you could actually be honest about Arrgh and their tactics. Good luck and nice WoT. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted March 27, 2016 Author Share Posted March 27, 2016 I'd respect this more if you could actually be honest about Arrgh and their tactics. Good luck and nice WoT. I am currently being smashed to bits by a member of your alliance with more cities than me and an average infrastructure level of under 500 per city. I've characterized Arrgh! in this announcement as an alliance that disbands small alliances through sheer firepower by taking advantage of a game mechanism originally designed to allow the losers to fight back in losing wars and help even the odds so that they cannot be destroyed very easily, which creates an environment where older, stronger alliances have less competition and can grow relatively unhindered. I've suggested multiple ways to combat this, keeping in mind that losing ground attacks can destroy improvements, such as having air strikes destroy improvements, having improvements count toward score, and simply taking advantage of the tactic itself. There is no dishonesty in my announcement. I am not a dishonest person. If you feel I have misrepresented anything in my treatise, I encourage you to speak out and make the truth known. I have nothing to hide. --- Since I'm posting, thank you to everyone who has wished us well so far and/or shown support, be it publicly or privately, for the ideas behind this alliance or the alliance itself. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 Like dealing with 40 improvements cities at 1k score is fun. I had to gimp my nation to even get close to that range. Good luck in your venture. How many players are running that kind of build? 4-5 at most... I assume. Quote ☾☆ Warrior of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foltest Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 I am currently being smashed to bits by a member of your alliance with more cities than me and an average infrastructure level of under 500 per city. I've characterized Arrgh! in this announcement as an alliance that disbands small alliances through sheer firepower by taking advantage of a game mechanism originally designed to allow the losers to fight back in losing wars and help even the odds so that they cannot be destroyed very easily, which creates an environment where older, stronger alliances have less competition and can grow relatively unhindered. I've suggested multiple ways to combat this, keeping in mind that losing ground attacks can destroy improvements, such as having air strikes destroy improvements, having improvements count toward score, and simply taking advantage of the tactic itself. There is no dishonesty in my announcement. I am not a dishonest person. If you feel I have misrepresented anything in my treatise, I encourage you to speak out and make the truth known. I have nothing to hide. --- Since I'm posting, thank you to everyone who has wished us well so far and/or shown support, be it publicly or privately, for the ideas behind this alliance or the alliance itself. I'm going to go ahead and say 8 cities versus 7 isn't really the "target" of the proposed changes. Not sure why an honest person would try to cast that as similar to Arrgh's 12 vs 6 (or similar) tactics. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EliteCanada Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 Respectable man. Respectable goals. Respectable AA. o/ Best of luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimitri Valko Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 I wish you luck in your further sea-ward adventures. o/ Arrgh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Von Dietrich Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 Go in fiery blaze, comrade! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted March 27, 2016 Author Share Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) I'm going to go ahead and say 8 cities versus 7 isn't really the "target" of the proposed changes. Not sure why an honest person would try to cast that as similar to Arrgh's 12 vs 6 (or similar) tactics. I didn't, Holton, although I'm pretty sure that with 5k tanks, a few thousand more infra would probably put that guy out of my range. Stop shitting up my thread with your bullshit. If you really feel the need to take out some anger on me, you're more than welcome to continue bombing my infra like your alliance-mates have because I raided one of your inactive members. Edited March 27, 2016 by Hereno 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 I'm going to go ahead and say 8 cities versus 7 isn't really the "target" of the proposed changes. Not sure why an honest person would try to cast that as similar to Arrgh's 12 vs 6 (or similar) tactics. The target of these proposed changes are aimed at maybe 5-10 players. All of which could be countered with a bit of teamwork, dedication and coordination. This 'Arrgh tactic' is not as widespread as the infra-lovers would have you believe. 2 Quote ☾☆ Warrior of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 The target of these proposed changes are aimed at maybe 5-10 players. All of which could be countered with a bit of teamwork, dedication and coordination. This 'Arrgh tactic' is not as widespread as the infra-lovers would have you believe. Meh, for the record, Sheepy has changed shit for less. Take the spy system for example. Only around 10 people had more than 150 spies, and spies don't do damage to infrastructure (Btw, still a bit bitter about this spy stuff). What this system right now has is, sure, maybe roughly around the same number of people who had more than 150 spies, but unlike spies, they are in a position where they simply can't be challenged by other players. When you need more than 4-5 players to take down someone and there are only 3 defense slots, it's broken. For relative stats: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=13193, 13 cities, averaging 25.84 improvements and 869 infra, score of 1501.00 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=15903, 14 cities, averaging 19.78 improvements and 721.84 infra, score of 1405.22 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=15902, 14 cities, averaging 19.57 improvements and 655.14 infra, score of 1369.83 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=10799, 12 cities, averaging 32.00 improvements and 787.27 infra, score of 1293.20 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=11175, 12 cities, averaging 43.75 improvements (And yes, I checked that number twice) and 750 infra, score of 1283.15 To put it in perspective, here is a normal person from the same population: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=6975, 10 cities, averaging 30.2 improvements and 1520 infra, score of 1312.75 A guy with 12 cities, a whooping almost 44 improvements per city still has less score than a guy with 10 cities and nowhere near enough improvements. Coming from me, who originally had 250 spies and wanted to pawn myself off to the highest bidder to spy the living shit out of anything that moved, THIS IS BROKEN. I'm not in agreement as to how it should be fixed though. But seeing as how Sheepy did fix things for less, I do think that, if not for the remaining bitterness in my heart, I would like to see this fixed. 5 Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foltest Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 I didn't, Holton, although I'm pretty sure that with 5k tanks, a few thousand more infra would probably put that guy out of my range. Stop shitting up my thread with your bullshit. If you really feel the need to take out some anger on me, you're more than welcome to continue bombing my infra like your alliance-mates have because I raided one of your inactive members. Unlike you, I really don't see the need to take this discussion OOC. Your soapbox and your 'mission' are both flawed. I'm simply doing my part to correct your path if you truly wish to uphold the values you're trying to project. Didn't you see where I wished you luck? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vassili Dovgan Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 We also split the membership of the Socialist Workers Front in half, that I remember. What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 Granted, on the pro side, the military upkeep for some of those nations said above is ridiculous. Which is probably why they need to constantly raid in order to maintain that kind of military. With the exception of the 44 improvements guy (he has ITC, lol), practically every one of those guys said above need at least some sort of alternative funding, either by raiding or by their alliance. As per nature of the alliance, raiding turns out to be the best source of income. There is also another down side to the tactic. If they somehow lost more soldiers fighting, then they lose them for good (or at least until their infrastructure goes back up). The population limit does serve as a limiter to their military, so if you do somehow manage to kill all those 120k soldiers, they can't buy them all back (or at least up until their population limit). On the other hand, tanks are up for grabs as long as you have steel. Both of these downsides contribute to target a single population: new players. What you are looking at right now is a giant wall between the lower and mid tier. Anyone below the mid tier is likely a new player. Anyone above has probably played for more than 6 months. "Oh, you can just have some teamwork and dedication to fix this problem," is what people say. Which is true, I would more or less agree with that statement. But the problem is, the target population is most likely to be disorganized, unfamiliar with the game, and lacking the sort of social capital and experience that most veteran players have acquired. The DNR also forces those players to get their income from said new players. And it is in the best interest of these players to attack the disorganized and incompetent. So, while those nations, for whatever reason why they are not building up their infrastructure again (perhaps their social capital is in lacking), they are forced to essentially prey off of the target population that is perhaps most critical for this game's survival. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) Meh, for the record, Sheepy has changed shit for less. Take the spy system for example. Only around 10 people had more than 150 spies, and spies don't do damage to infrastructure (Btw, still a bit bitter about this spy stuff). What this system right now has is, sure, maybe roughly around the same number of people who had more than 150 spies, but unlike spies, they are in a position where they simply can't be challenged by other players. When you need more than 4-5 players to take down someone and there are only 3 defense slots, it's broken. For relative stats: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=13193, 13 cities, averaging 25.84 improvements and 869 infra, score of 1501.00 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=15903, 14 cities, averaging 19.78 improvements and 721.84 infra, score of 1405.22 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=15902, 14 cities, averaging 19.57 improvements and 655.14 infra, score of 1369.83 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=10799, 12 cities, averaging 32.00 improvements and 787.27 infra, score of 1293.20 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=11175, 12 cities, averaging 43.75 improvements (And yes, I checked that number twice) and 750 infra, score of 1283.15 To put it in perspective, here is a normal person from the same population: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=6975, 10 cities, averaging 30.2 improvements and 1520 infra, score of 1312.75 A guy with 12 cities, a whooping almost 44 improvements per city still has less score than a guy with 10 cities and nowhere near enough improvements. Coming from me, who originally had 250 spies and wanted to pawn myself off to the highest bidder to spy the living shit out of anything that moved, THIS IS BROKEN. I'm not in agreement as to how it should be fixed though. But seeing as how Sheepy did fix things for less, I do think that, if not for the remaining bitterness in my heart, I would like to see this fixed. Mensa was one of the most spied up Alliances in the game when Sheepy nerfed Spies. Pretty sure Mensa alone had 10 guys with 150. I was one of them. We can be challenged within the current mechanics, either through teamwork and coordination with 1500 city builds (as shown by maths and is the current Mensa build) or by going to the extreme method that Pre (on his own) showed. Yes, my build is a powerful build for my score range, this is due to the fact I keep my infra low. For the benefits of being strong and having an extra 3-4 improvement slots over what my infra can support, I take a massive hit in the daily cost of running this build. To your ninja'd post: This guy is the lowest range guy I can hit, https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=4002600 days! Not a great example, he's been inactive for a while and no doubt raided down the ranges. So I checked the bottom 10, this guy was the youngest at 143 days: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=27009Thats nearly 5 months playing time. I do not class that as a new player. I then decided to check the ages of the 'victims' of the linked players you provided. Dan77: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=21262241 days, not a baby Me: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=3051980 days, a baby but boosted a great deal by his alliance it would seem Ryu: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=21262241 days, same as Dan Jacob: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=16301a whooping 351 days, almost a year old! Karrajor, (this guy is a real raiding pest it would seem, his one battle consists of) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=6944a MASSIVE 552 days old. The notion that we are killing the game by making it harder for new players is a myth. We would rather rich, high infra, no army, old targets, that is where you make your bread and butter! Edited March 28, 2016 by Wayne 3 Quote ☾☆ Warrior of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) Mensa was one of the most spied up Alliances in the game when Sheepy nerfed Spies. Pretty sure Mensa alone had 10 guys with 150. I was one of them. We can be challenged within the current mechanics, either through teamwork and coordination with 1500 city builds (as shown by maths and is the current Mensa build) or by going to the extreme method that Pre (on his own) showed. Yes, my build is a powerful build for my score range, this is due to the fact I keep my infra low. For the benefits of being strong and having an extra 3-4 improvement slots over what my infra can support, I take a massive hit in the daily cost of running this build. To your ninja'd post: This guy is the lowest range guy I can hit, https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=4002600 days! Not a great example, he's been inactive for a while and no doubt raided down the ranges. So I checked the bottom 10, this guy was the youngest at 143 days: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=27009Thats nearly 5 months playing time. I do not class that as a new player. I then decided to check the ages of the 'victims' of the linked players you provided. Dan77: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=21262241 days, not a baby Me: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=3051980 days, a baby but boosted a great deal by his alliance it would seem Ryu: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=21262241 days, same as Dan Jacob: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=16301a whooping 351 days, almost a year old! Karrajor, (this guy is a real raiding pest it would seem, his one battle consists of) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=6944a MASSIVE 552 days old. The notion that we are killing the game by making it harder for new players is a myth. We would rather rich, high infra, no army, old targets, that is where you make your bread and butter! But even if you can't hit new players, that still doesn't change the fact that Arrgh and nations like Arrgh still serve as a wall between the mid and lower tier! It still doesn't change the fact that your build inherent requires income that has to come from either your alliance (and a generous alliance that would be) or raiding! Even if there are veteran players who are still in the lower tier, it still doesn't change the fact that Arrgh can single-handedly control which nation moves beyond the lower tier! Eventually new players have to get to your level if they want to keep growing in this game. Again, for the relatively "insignificant" (granted, I'm biased in using that word) role that spies played before the nerf, I still think that something has to be done to address this. And, unlike the conspiracy theory that the top 10 in the spy list is going to hold everyone below that hostage, there is an actual organized group of super nations that dominate the mid-lower tier. Let's be honest here, how many people do you think it's going to take to "organize" against Arrgh's 1st page of super nations and actually come out on top? We are not talking one on one, or one super nation against 5. This is a discussion that there is a veteran organized alliance that contains at least 5 nations that have disproportionate militaries and improvements relative to their size against whatever organized force that may come out of a population that is, by virtue of being new nations, disorganized and relatively incompetent. And you honestly expect they have a fighting chance. Also, I apologize. Upon reflection, there must have been more than 10 people with more than 150 spies at the point of the nerf. I keenly remember how annoying it was that Apeman had 150 spies when he was nuking BoC, back when the assassination probability dropped like a stone. My memory of who had more than 150 spies, however, was in reference to before there was talk about nerfing spies. This, if I remember correctly, was when I just broke 200 spies, and the person in 10th had a little under 150. Edited March 28, 2016 by Caecus Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiroshima Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 As much as I dislike everything Hereno stands for, and I do mean everything, I have to agree with him and wish him luck on his future endeavors. 3 Quote “I'm cheap and enjoy butchering” - Manthrax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted March 28, 2016 Author Share Posted March 28, 2016 What? you went from ~68 to like 35 or so also where the !@#$ did you go? who is phoenix? are you really telling me that i just created the strongest leftist alliance in the game by !@#$ing accident? this planet :facepalm: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Opinions on Game Mechanics: 0/10Opinions on Game Politics: 20/10Overall 10/10 GLHF Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Again, for the relatively "insignificant" (granted, I'm biased in using that word) role that spies played before the nerf, I still think that something has to be done to address this. And, unlike the conspiracy theory that the top 10 in the spy list is going to hold everyone below that hostage, there is an actual organized group of super nations that dominate the mid-lower tier. Let's be honest here, how many people do you think it's going to take to "organize" against Arrgh's 1st page of super nations and actually come out on top? We are not talking one on one, or one super nation against 5. This is a discussion that there is a veteran organized alliance that contains at least 5 nations that have disproportionate militaries and improvements relative to their size against whatever organized force that may come out of a population that is, by virtue of being new nations, disorganized and relatively incompetent. And you honestly expect they have a fighting chance. We dominate because we are allowed to dominate. How many do I think it would take? Honestly, MENSAHQ. They have the builds and the coordiantion. We are not super nations. Look at the top 10, people with scores of 4000+, they are the super nations, the real untouchables. We are just nations in the thicl end of the action, that are focused on war and fighting. If you wish to mix it up with fighters then you need to build like a fighter, it's pretty simple. You can't have 1000+ more infra, with the improvement slots and the cash generated, as well as a strong city to military ratio, something has to balance out. Having anything above 1300 infra is not a fighters build. Simply claiming untruths as the truth is not the way to go. The Arrgh 'super nations' as you put it, do not prey on the new. Ask DEIC... I'm not and never have argued for keeping improvement slots (I nerfed my cities down to 1000 infra upon joining Arrgh, I didn't keep any extra slots), I would rather see them tied to infra more closely and once 50 infra is gone, an improvement randomly gets destroyed (with the exception of power plants). I'd also rather see military count as a percentage of total populaton instead of tied to improvements (cities), with each unit costing a certain amount of manpower (troops = 1 citizen, tanks = crew of 4, planes = etc etc). Something along these lines would actually give real worth to infra. Instead we get an ill thought out change to pander to the hurt feelings and bruised egos of the high infra brigade. 3 Quote ☾☆ Warrior of Dio 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.