Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 192.

  • Fire at will!

    atreas1 - - News

    Post

    Quote from Islandboy: “Just did it again, my sub auto fired on a peaceful ship, putting our countries at an unwanted war. This is bull@#$%. Developers need to fix this now so people can play this game.... ” And as they are there, they could at last stop this nonsense where subs are considered "range units".

  • I think it is about time for the game to acquire the notion of "sea borders" (alongside the "land borders"). Then ANY unit inside these borders is automatically fired on (very realistic) but outside the borders nothing happens.

  • Research Balancing Update

    atreas1 - - News

    Post

    The research balancing update is a choice of the designers - it is their game, so there is no point in debating how right or wrong it is. What cannot be denied, though, is that this update seriously harms furthermore the situation for grain-based armies (which, btw, was the clear majority of the armies of that time). The proof is really elementary: - Already before the update those armies were (correctly) considered as having a disadvantage against other types of armies, especially the combo pla…

  • In the 22: probably best to avoid Germany. Due to both food shortage (only one double core food) and oil shortage (only one oil), it will be in an almost hopeless position if you have active opponents nearby. It is also vulnerable from almost all sides, and the only (minor IMO) strong point is the possibility of getting some nearby AI, but again if and only if the neighbors are inactive. Before the research upgrade I would say in the 22 Romania was hands-down a superpower, due to the strong oil/…

  • Add to that that you can declare war on Crimea and this not to be counted as a war (no war penalty).

  • Forgive me but I fail to see the point in at least two subjects: 1. If we examine the cost from the point of view of gold spending, why should Bytro change that to lower their revenue? Also, why do you believe that it is the cost of IC that makes new players quit? One could equally well argue it is connected to the fact of facing gold spending. At least, the high cost of IC helps on that. 2. From the strategic point of view, a high cost makes the super-valuable IC extremely important strategic g…

  • Although you can emulate all fire control features for ranged units if you are willing to be 24/7 online, the fire control ability for subs is completely unique and, as Vorlon correctly pointed out, extremely powerful (the hold fire). One could perhaps argue for taking it out, for been OP, but surely is worth the money if you fight sea battles.

  • This has also been proposed recently in an english post. There was a generally very negative opinion, for two main reasons 1. It can be hugely abused. 2. It will result in the games lasting for ages, as nobody will ever capture a working IC near the front.

  • Since the resource boost by buildings is applied progressively, it is only normal to expect that the manpower boost is working in the described way. Given the fact that it has been announced there will be a change to the way some things operate in the next update, and buildings will require 100% health to operate (infrastructure was mentioned), i am not sure this loophole will exist for long.

  • At least with the trading with the ally the units will be forever stuck in that level. With this proposal there is simply no drawback (at least till they fix this loophole, as I think they have in mind).

  • That would in fact be a way to bypass the SBDE restriction, which I know it is not desirable. By that method you could have 5 tacs Lvl4 and 5 tacs Lvl3 in a stack that would operate with 100% SBDE. Same for all other units as well.

  • First of all, Yugoslavia in the 22 map has 3 while many other countries have 4 and none has 5, simply because it doesn't have a double goods. But this is not the real point. The real point is that ALL other resources are improved by expansion. Food is the exception - it generally worsens when you expand The situation is much worse in certain maps than in others, due to distances and especially due to the number of cities (these are the ones who consume more food). No, it is not the same at all. …

  • I was thinking of another solution, but the idea is similar: To increase the base food production of all provinces by a certain percent (up to 20%). Or, at least, to do that for the countries with only two food cores. My idea was based on the fact that (I guess) the base production is a constant, easy to change, while other solutions might require tampering with game mechanisms.

  • In effect, any ship escapes from the blast, because if the rocket hits the sea it doesnt detonate, like it does in the land. To hit the ships you must first immobilize them (via subs).

  • army sizes

    atreas1 - - Suggestions / Criticism

    Post

    In general, I would LOVE to have an upper bound on the number of planes of a single kind in a stack (for example, 5 tacs maximum) without any further change on HP. But, for such a change to be effective, IMHO it should also be accompanied with a restriction on overlapping patrolling stacks (or even a complete revamp of the unrealistic notion of endless patrol). I dont care so much that planes are lethal against land units, as to the fact that with the current system we dont even have any real do…

  • Non-aggression pact

    atreas1 - - Suggestions / Criticism

    Post

    These are all nice and good, but they have a huge loophole: They dont apply to AI - you can backstab AI anytime without any retribution. And this should better be tackled somehow.

  • Quote from attacker101: “Quote from Nooberium: “The switch from Goods to Food alone forced a complete reevaluation of economic and research priorities. ” well you've got to feed your scientists . ” Beside the joke, I was wondering if this change puts in HUGE disadvantage the countries with only two food cores. It was already tough to keep track of food after expansion with such countries - now it will become a hell. Perhaps (???) some change in the maps is in order?

  • war tactics

    atreas1 - - Suggestions / Criticism

    Post

    Any war game is a simulation, and any simulation has some underlying assumptions. In this game, some of these assumptions are: linear movement to provinces through a single route, unlimited supply lines, and no real way to block resupply (even to block trade), and all buildings in the "center" of a province. Many very good ideas are violating, in one way or another, these assumptions. Yes, I would also love that troops need supply lines, as I would also like some of the other assumptions to be l…

  • Attacking convoys

    atreas1 - - Questions and Answers

    Post

    I strongly doubt that any amount of bad luck can explain this result. The only real explanation is patrolling interceptors. X-factor can change slightly the results, but it cannot easily transform an easily won battle to a badly lost one.

  • army sizes

    atreas1 - - Suggestions / Criticism

    Post

    The damage OUTPUT will be the same, but the damage INPUT will be dramatically different. By forcing the planes to split into more stacks, they receive far more damage (since the AA value of the land units is used only when they are attacked. But this difference is more due to the restriction on the number of planes in each stack. Currently it is a classical optimization problem (to optimize output damage or to minimize received damage) - the proposed scheme just maximizes received damage and in …