Jump to content

Biggest complaints regarding gameplay.


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

honestly right now we need a much more complex warfare system that doesn't boil down to just Numbers=Victory, maybe include mechanics revolving around military R&D, Force Organizations, Generals, etc...

 

also Nukes need a buff, there underpower for there cost  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Bjorn Ironside said:

I did put forth sometime ago that people should only be able to hit 10 cities above and 5 cities below.

With spies its even worst when you take in to account it takes you 14 days to get 42 spies 

There's nothing wrong with the spy game. Once an alliance wins the spy war they should have free reign on spying planes, and use half of their ops to continue to pin the spies.

If you make it easier to build spies back up then you are in a cycle of never being able to actually spy military because it will always be spy vs spy.

 

If you think the spy game is a numbers game then you are very wrong....don't forget surfs up was a thing, chaos was essentially fully spy wiped by ketog, and ketog was sitting about 30 spies per nation average. Coming in to dial up our side was heavily outnumbered, 3-4:1 IQ favoured in fact, and we flipped that spy war over time.

If Alex nerfs spying because a group of people won the spy game while 3-4:1 outnumbered, then there is an overarching problem - complaining enough for the admin to change the game when it is by no means unbalanced.

 

17 hours ago, Bjorn Ironside said:

 

 

 

Edited by dtc justice
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deja said:

This is ridiculous. You just want to be able to be able to war against nations that should be out of your nation score range but aren't because of a loophole. Further, you want to be ableto war like high score nation against low score nations without having to risk high prices of war, which defeats the balance of risk and power of war.

You've been exploiting a loophole in the game. That loophole should be fixed. It shouldn't be easy to go to war and disregard counters because you can't be hurt because you have nothing to lose.

It not a loophole, the only reason they in range is because said nation is basely destroyed. And would be at a serius disadvantage when it come to air war. As an example, i am currently at war with 3 fighting pacifist members, that is countering me. They have on avarge 5 cities less then me. 
Each of them have around a 1000 planes, i just did a double buy and i got roughly 600 planes out of that deal.
I am still at a disadvantage, simply because of low build time on planes. 
You can basely keep a nation down the same way you can drag down whales. 
On the other end of spectum you also have nations, that suck at nation score balancing (basely one of the only strategies you actually can have an effect on) and just max out tanks and ships. Bringing themself serverly out of range of their own tier level. 
I rather prefer that people stacking tanks, can be dealt with by people with more airpower, rather then having people invest in bunch of tanks of their own to smash into said tanks stacks. 
In short nation score keeps wars more dynamic, therefor creating funnier gameplay, for us people that actually start wars on the daily. And not actually make everything depend on who have the bigger numbers, 
a thing i am sure you will appreciate when you realize that the numbers is currently not on your side anymore. 
And in the current system it still possible for bigger nations to act as raiders. Because i rather prefer that even whales, like say Ripper can go full pirate if he want to. Rather then force him rerole his nation to do so.

To your second point, on the prices of war, it still have a cost.
The same buying stuff off the market can be expensive, same about blowing stuff up, and even cost of low infra accumulate over time. 
Infact if you look at scoreboard over what nations have lots the most infra, you notice that Arrgh current and former members is rather overrepresented.
And we do disregard counters not because we have nothing to lose, but because it will cost us more to deal with them, then ignorering them. 
And that is freaking great thing, as it prevent people from gething to upity about revenge.  
For us war need to bring in money, because it way we supstain and grow ourselves. 
Low infra funnily enough come at cost of income. 
You should know there is other ways to play this game, then being a farmer, i rather try to exspand that list as much as possible, then try an destroy every other style of gameplay

tenor (1).gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see a way for an alliance to run a central run bank that have a formal tie to the alliance in game (rather than simply being a nation that serves as an offshore to protect from looting).
 

The alliance bank would be operating cash and resources for immediate needs and it would continue to be looted when a nation is defeated in war. However, the central bank is safe from being looted and tracks all deposits and withdrawals for each nation. The central bank would set the currency, manage the money supply and set interest rates. It would have the capability to accept deposits and make loans from/to members and non-members. 
 

Thanks for soliciting ideas. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Tyrion said:

I was just about to type the same, but Breadbeard covered it.  No beige for offensive wars you declare.  Additionally, the game mechanics right now encourage you to not win a war so you can keep an opponent down. Somehow an overhaul needs to be made to encourage people to finish and win wars - it's an odd mechanic to purposely not win.

 

4 hours ago, Lord Tyrion said:

Baseball should also be part of a blockade - your team shouldn't be able to get out of the city or others in to play against you.

 

4 hours ago, Lord Tyrion said:

Less ability to play a shell game with funds and the ability to create offshores the way you can.  Creating a new AA should cost something or have a timer. 

 

4 hours ago, Lord Tyrion said:

Likewise, to counteract small nations from just nuking people with high infra as a result of that change, perhaps part of ground control is seizing their ability to produce new missiles or nukes.

All these things would do would be to allow the bigger/winning side to pin down and curbstomp the smaller/losing side even more than they can now. All these things would do is lead to even more inactivity during long wars and not improve the balance or player involvement. Why would people keep logging in if all they could do was read the attack messages against they nation and watch their nation be destroyed every day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make the military deployable. I should not be able to invade Vietnam and New York with the same troops 5 minutes apart. Then people would have to consider holding troops back for home defense. One should have to deploy a set number of assets for each war.

Split ships into 1. Sea defense ships (ship to ship, blockade..) and 2. Air defense ships

Split tanks into 1. ground assault tanks..and 2. Air defense tanks

Split a/c into 1. air superiority fighters..and 2. bombers

"Raining blood, from a lacerated sky"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zim said:

It not a loophole, the only reason they in range is because said nation is basely destroyed. And would be at a serius disadvantage when it come to air war. As an example, i am currently at war with 3 fighting pacifist members, that is countering me. They have on avarge 5 cities less then me. 
Each of them have around a 1000 planes, i just did a double buy and i got roughly 600 planes out of that deal.
I am still at a disadvantage, simply because of low build time on planes. 

You're not at that big of a disadvantage, first of all. They each have 1,000 planes, you can keep ground control with a troops double buy and match relatively evenly against them.

But that's not the point. Those 3 can run roughshod over you and accomplish nothing, still not stopping you from raiding because it costs you maybe a couple hundred thousand in infra, tops. Which is the point. You can cheaply stay at war almost indefinitely with a nearly full military capacity reflecting your full city count against smaller nations. The score system's entire purpose is to prevent this.

1 hour ago, Who Me said:

In short nation score keeps wars more dynamic, therefor creating funnier gameplay, for us people that actually start wars on the daily. And not actually make everything depend on who have the bigger numbers, 
a thing i am sure you will appreciate when you realize that the numbers is currently not on your side anymore. 
And in the current system it still possible for bigger nations to act as raiders. Because i rather prefer that even whales, like say Ripper can go full pirate if he want to. Rather then force him rerole his nation to do so.

The fact that bigger nations can "act as raiders" is another way of saying big nations can hit small nations. Again, the score system's entire purpose is to prevent this.

 

2 hours ago, Zim said:

To your second point, on the prices of war, it still have a cost.
The same buying stuff off the market can be expensive, same about blowing stuff up, and even cost of low infra accumulate over time. 
Infact if you look at scoreboard over what nations have lots the most infra, you notice that Arrgh current and former members is rather overrepresented.

I don't know if you're deliberately misleading with statements like these or if you just haven't actually thought it through.

Sure, Arrgh is high on the leaderboard for straight infra losses, but all of those losses are lost under 500 infra and cost nothing to rebuild.

 

2 hours ago, Zim said:

And we do disregard counters not because we have nothing to lose, but because it will cost us more to deal with them, then ignorering them. 
And that is freaking great thing, as it prevent people from gething to upity about revenge.  

Once again, that's the point. You can war whoever you want and disregard the counters because they don't cost you anything to lose. Once again, to reiterate, that's the original point of what needs to be fixed. War should be expensive, it breaks things, kills things, expends resources.

Revenge, or as the rest of us like to call it, countering, is the whole point of alliances in the first place, which is kind of the point of the game. So again, you're illustrating exactly the thing that needs to be fixed. 

 

Edited by Deja
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of arbitrarily waiting for the community to suggest that city cap on city timers be increased (It was 5 then later moved to 10). We should just have it increase by 1 or so every 6 months. I'd also put it to 12 now tbh.

It allows new players who want to attempt to catch up, feel like they have the option to do so. 

Edited by Keegoz
  • Like 1

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Justin076 said:

Destroying land makes no sense. Instead may I suggest making a % of land non-arable after attacks for x amount of time. The details can be worked out. Land cannot be destroyed, however it’s use for farming can be.

I'd be alright with this suggestion if you could have a way to 'repair' land so it can be used for farming again when a war ends. Obviously not something insanely expsensive.

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Dreadnought
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

 

  • Ways to destroy land.

People make long term investments about land as much as they do about cities - with the understanding that it is, as cities are, permanent. RoI that likely already takes years for that land to actually pay for itself. Scrapping permanency of land will make it meaningless, not to mention make any investment into it retroactively worthless. Blocking the use of it, or severely nerfing land/food output for XYZ time if the city were to be nuked would be a better option.

Increased improvement damage during wars ought to do the trick, if you're aiming for more destruction and making permanent war and resource farming templates unviable.

 

As for actual suggestions, I endorse Adrienne's QoL list. Many of those little things would make the game far more enjoyable and should be easy to do.

I'm not sure how I feel with moving update times, it further favours the aggressors, imo. Perhaps splitting the current update/buy into two and making units more durable (meaning you don't get insta wiped while you're sleeping) might be a better option.

One small thing I'd add, while trivial, would probably make peacetime more lively. Introduce Alliance Embargoes, as people have repeatedly asked for it. I know every time Sheepy struck it down as encroaching on individual nation's choices and sovereignty (lol), but perhaps those concerns could be alleviated by simply making nations able to "opt out" of any alliance embargoes on their Account page, like this was done:

image.png.b32a6217962573f145823977a32c4f44.png

Edited by Theobius

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a few suggestions.  Make of them what you will.

1.  No time limit on Wars.  You fight until either (a) one side wins or (b) both sides agree to peace

2.   Blockade Runners.  There's no such thing as a perfectly watertight blockade.  Nations that are under blockade should still be able to get some resources in from outside, but at a price.  That price being the doubling, or even tripling, of the cost of the resource being brought in (so, 2,000 tons of steel at O$3,120 per unit now cost from O$6,240 to O$9,360 per unit).  Also, make it so only a percentage actually gets through.  That percentage being determined by some in-game mechanic that I can't figure out

3. New projects.  School of Mining. Because you can improve productivity of manufacturing improvements but not resource extracting ones, save for uranium mines?  Free Port.  Basically hoovers up those remaining commercial percentage boosts.  Should be cheaper to build, money and resource wise, than the ITC due to having less impact.  Military Academy.  Improves your officer corps leading to increased chance of victory in war.

4. Immense triumph in a ground assault leads to one enemy city being occupied and its resources and improvements now being at the disposal of the occupying forces.  All occupied cities are returned at the conclusion of a war only if peace is agreed.  Otherwise the side whose cities are under occupation must execute an immense triumph victory of their own to restore sovereignty.  Occupation continues for ten days after the conclusion of the war, after which sovereignty is restored by default (to stop people using wars as a cheap way to gain more cities).  To counter balance this the IT in ground battles no longer leads to the winner nerfing the loser's air power.  Also, air attacks will now randomly hit enemy occupied as well as enemy native cities.

5.  Some kind of Tech mechanism but not as flawed as the other game's.  Perhaps based around schools (city improvement) boosting basic educational levels and Universities/Research Centres (projects) to do the actual science.  This is turn would lead to improvements in weapon systems (tanks, planes and ships only?) but at increased cost per unit per level (up to how many?  Definitely not infinite).

Edited by Mark76
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the planes ARE too op (i can't get enough and spend millions on them, then a nation attacks and wipes them out in a single turn)

But you need to figure out a way for weaker nations to get out of a war with a stronger because i have 8 cities (soldier cap is currently 120,000) and im being destroyed by nations who are 'equal' or 'close to equal' in strength. No. They have 11 cities and 200,000+ troops, and i can't beat that. So we need to make a 'surrender' option in wars 

people will abuse it if you don't regulate it, so do something like "You can only surrender if you have _____ less than your opponent's ______. Or something.

(Just wanted to say that because it is REALLY pissing me off)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Deja said:

You're not at that big of a disadvantage, first of all. They each have 1,000 planes, you can keep ground control with a troops double buy and match relatively evenly against them.

But that's not the point. Those 3 can run roughshod over you and accomplish nothing, still not stopping you from raiding because it costs you maybe a couple hundred thousand in infra, tops. Which is the point. You can cheaply stay at war almost indefinitely with a nearly full military capacity reflecting your full city count against smaller nations. The score system's entire purpose is to prevent this.

Mate my air is basely zeroed, even with ground control they have a small edge.
But it true i have ground advantage. That they can find ways around it. It called strategy, one of the only things that keep the war system actually intreasting. That ones personal choices can have an effect on  the war we fight. 

8 hours ago, Deja said:

The fact that bigger nations can "act as raiders" is another way of saying big nations can hit small nations. Again, the score system's entire purpose is to prevent this.

Why do you want me to stop being able to raid? With a depleted millitary i won't be able to fight evenly with people at my own city count. 
And fighting people with fewer cities, dosen't prevent them from winning. Nation is not meant to be destroyed in war to a point were they can't fight back. 
No matter how much you IQ remnants which that was true. What effect do you think this would have on people sithing on each others for months, hmm? 
Ah you sure you want that change when NPO is now gone? You don't seem have ever been beaten down for a periode. So how do you know that fewer cities nation is at a disadvantage, against bigger nations with destroyed militaries?
When you have never been on either side of that conflict, hmm?
Nations that buff themself up into score range of people with higher city count, also still need to be dealt with. That you have yet to adress a solution for. 
The score system is not there to prevent biggger nations from attacking smaller nations. But put ones nation up against other nations that is able to fight one effectly, in a one against one match up.
Of course it rarely a one against match up, the fewer cities normaly have the advantages simply because there is more of them. You will heavily limited who can fight who, the higher up in city count you get. As there is simply fewer people around. 
The end result is not pretty. It will also basely become impossible to drag down whales. And they can keep producing. Meanwhile alliance that cram all their members into one tier would be strongly buffed by this.
A thing they really don't need. 

No it a way to say that bigger nations can still play the game in other ways then farm simulator. The score system isen't there to prevent that again. It is there to match you up against equivalent nations. 
And it dosen't prevent people with more city, to lower their score to hit said nations. 
Nothing prevent as example you from dropping your score to come and hit me. So you can proctect the lower city nations... but no that take effort and cost your money...
We shouldn't be punished because you unwilling to act against it, in game. So you try get moderated out instead. 

8 hours ago, Deja said:

I don't know if you're deliberately misleading with statements like these or if you just haven't actually thought it through.

Sure, Arrgh is high on the leaderboard for straight infra losses, but all of those losses are lost under 500 infra and cost nothing to rebuild.

No they are true, just because Arrgh is more conscious about our expensive then rest of you dosen't mean we not aware of the cost. We avoid stuff that cost us money, with the playstyle we follow. 
You can do the same, if it so a big benefit why aren't you doing it? 
I already know the answer, it because there already excist draw backs to having low infra, and you don't think does drawbacks are worth the benefit, isen't that right? 
High infra come with drawbacks and benefits. It already is balanced to offer varity in game play, a thing you have yet to adress aswell. 
Just because you don't want play the game the same way you do, dosen't mean we should be prevented in playing the game at all. 

And actually Arrgh infra is on average between 700 and a 1000, and when we loses more of it then the average player, the cost still accumulate over time.
We have lower infra, for just that reason. Don't you think i would love having 1600 infra, but the cost simply isen't worth it, because we lose said infra to often. 
Because of our playstyle we can't produce the same way other nations can. That is the cost you don't see, the incomst we missed because of productions. 
We play this game far more activily then most nations, it outright required to maintain yourself as a raider. 
And why i am here willing to write small essay as answers, rather then a few lines. 

The game is called politics and WAR, wars is meant to be fun, something people always can do. It not so you can sit on people on months on end. Nations should never be put in position were they can't fight back, that you seem to prefer. 
Do you really wanna be at back end of that? Your nation destroyed, circle beiging you over and over again. How long before you quit would you say? 
That is the cost of the change you wanna make, get it?
And wars are expensive, they risk. and why we got out of way to do them the most cost efficent way as possible, like not fighting counters. If we believe the cost is more then what is gained. It a choise. 
One of the few meningfulls way you can do it in this game.

8 hours ago, Deja said:

Once again, that's the point. You can war whoever you want and disregard the counters because they don't cost you anything to lose. Once again, to reiterate, that's the original point of what needs to be fixed. War should be expensive, it breaks things, kills things, expends resources.

Revenge, or as the rest of us like to call it, countering, is the whole point of alliances in the first place, which is kind of the point of the game. So again, you're illustrating exactly the thing that needs to be fixed. 

No i mean revenge as in revenge. I know what a fricking counter is. 
Revenge is when a player seak to attack people who have defeated them in the past. Creating personal animosity, a thing that can make this game very toxic, very fast. 
That it is not to ones econmic benefit to do so, discourge revenge, and therefor toxicity in the game. 
Honestly that i had to explain this says alot. 

  • Upvote 1

tenor (1).gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The war declaration range is still screwed up.  The fact that I can be hit by people I cannot hit is silly.  the game book has already been written on how to beat a larger nation.  Get as small as possible so you cant be hit and drag them one at a time.  This only serves to drag out wars.

The war declaration range should be more fair, so that if you can hit me, I can hit you. If that means shrinking the declaration range so be it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

It not a loophole, the only reason they in range is because said nation is basely destroyed. And would be at a serius disadvantage when it come to air war. As an example, i am currently at war with 3 fighting pacifist members, that is countering me. They have on avarge 5 cities less then me. 

Skol TFP!

But actually here are some of my thoughts

1. Mechanics could be added to approval rating. Something like defection rate from the military, or uprisings like in CIV when revolutions happen if happiness is not held to a given rate. The approval system would obviously need to be re-balanced such that it isn't a massive impact on the game but it would add a bit of depth and flavor to city management.

2. Make policy decisions important. Right now just war policy and domestic policy have in game implications, but the whole "government type" as well as economic decisions are just kinda sitting there with no reason to tweak them. I understand that some folks like the self expression that being able to be a communist theocracy gives, and that adding implications to such political choices may be divisive based on how people view politics OOC, but again this could add depth and ways to develop more complex strategies or national identities. This could be intertwined with a new war system or tech tree developments, but in order to avoid total changes I would say time limits on changing policies would be good.

3. I'd like to second some of the blockade ideas. I think that they should block taxes, probably block credits (less important honestly), but I really like the idea of blockade runners, but instead of a pay to use system, it could be like bounties where it is player based. I.e. a nation hires another nation off of some board and based on the size/tech of the hired players navy some amount of res get in. The players could set their own price for running the blockade, but if the nation who is running the blockade blocks some or all of the shipment then they receive those resources instead. This can provide some importance to alliances as well as it risks alliance resources but can get needed resources in. I think this doesn't interfere with the way the blockade is normally used right now which is to keep res inside a nation so the goods get taken.

4. This also provides a golden opportunity to mess with navy mechanics, i.e. specialized boats. You can still have the same number of ships, but you must choose between subs, aircraft carriers, speedboats for blockade busting, destroyers. Heck, throw in a pirate ship. It also could balance the use of planes vs ships depending on the type (subs can't get hit, aircraft carriers dogfight, destroyers have AA, ect)

5. Ground control could also be fun to mess with. Targeting improvements seems like a no brainer, but I also like the idea of occupying a city. A play can send X amount of soldiers/tanks to essentially take control of a city and siphons those res/taxes to the occupying nation, but defending nation get a big bonus when trying to retake the city. Guerilla warfare and whatnot. If not city occupation, then some sort of ground control = land control where farms are seized. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think something should be done with the approval system. Maybe implementing something like decisions that cost money or resources but improve approval. Reset everyone's approval rating. Maybe have a combat and revenue debuff/buff for low/high approval. Food shortage will hurt approval, not income, but low approval hurts income. Have the cost of maintaining approval scale with city count and infra level.

 

I think this will make wars more strategic as you cant just neglect your nation and lose wars to avoid beiging your enemy. Keeping a decent economy will help win wars. 

This will also make gameplay more interesting during peace since you have to log in to make sure your approval doesnt dip too low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Evlamica said:

I think something should be done with the approval system. Maybe implementing something like decisions that cost money or resources but improve approval. Reset everyone's approval rating. Maybe have a combat and revenue debuff/buff for low/high approval. Food shortage will hurt approval, not income, but low approval hurts income. Have the cost of maintaining approval scale with city count and infra level.

 

I think this will make wars more strategic as you cant just neglect your nation and lose wars to avoid beiging your enemy. Keeping a decent economy will help win wars. 

This will also make gameplay more interesting during peace since you have to log in to make sure your approval doesnt dip too low.

Ah yes revise approval rating and its (now) negligible effects, but please re-evaluate the whole formula for that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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