Most Dangerous

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Most Dangerous

      I think it would be really cool if the World Herald had a "Most Dangerous" list day. This would be a measure of the overall battle effectiveness of a country since the start of the game. This should probably be total enemy value killed. You could include some kind of kill ratio, but I think it's best to just use total enemy killed, because the ratio or absolute differential could really obscure how dangerous a country is. Perhaps they are able to make more units and willing to sacrifice more, so total kills is where it is at. The kill value needs to be different than that shown for battles in the News though. The value in the news is just the man power needed to produce the unit, which, for example, is relatively low for planes and high for infantry. The kill value should be a measure of the difficulty to kill the unit, which should include hit points and perhaps it's strength against common units and maybe it's elusiveness. For example, range units and planes might be considered more elusive because of range and/or speed and maneuverability. Such units clearly have more value. That is why we always want to kill these first if we can. You could replace the current "Richest Nation", which is almost completely useless, with this. The technology is pretty useless also, as you assume any decent player is keeping research going, but may be researching things that are faster or slower. I think the "Most Dangerous" status would be a very desirable stat to achieve and, in general, players would eagerly await to see the list posted in the Herald.

    • "Most dangerous" would be fun. That said, "wealthiest nations" does serve the sometimes useful purpose of telling who has the most cash on hand.

      FYI, in case you had noticed, the "wealthiest nations" percentage statistics are roughly proportionate. You can determine roughly how much cash everyone else has by extrapolating from your own percentage ranking and your own cash on hand. I know that to be true from observing the resources on hand info provided by intelligence spies.

    • Replace the largest armies one with this. Honestly, you can have a person with 175 level 1 militia and they will still top the larges army list when they are a soft target
      "White Fang knew the law well: To oppress the weak and obey the strong"
      Jack London, White Fang

      My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower

    • NukeRaider33 wrote:

      a person with 175 level 1 militia and they will still top the larges army list
      That's true, but unlikely in reality. Usually the "Largest Military" list accurately reflects overall power, although it does get thrown off at times by navy. But you know who is who and who to pay attention to and what kind of units they use already. The largest military stat is by far the most useful list in the News.

    • DxC wrote:

      But cash just tells you who the biggest noob is
      Early game I interpret the list of richest this way:

      Those with lots of cash are barely active, likely to go inactive, and/or a good target.

      Those with very little cash are ambitious and should be observed for hostile intent.



      Late in the game it is simply a mathematical expression of economy and trade embargoes.



      I like the idea of most dangerous. How about using the "force strength" number of defeated units, adjusted for fortifications when applicable.

      Would you keep that as a running total from the whole game? Or possibly from the last 4 days or something.

      I would prefer to see it as a whole number similar to economic output, rather than make a less meaningful percentage of the whole listing.
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Retired from Bytro staff as of November 30, 2020.

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<

    • I see the idea ( Most dangerous ) as putting undue influence on players attacking and those waiting to attack.
      There is enough infomation given and occurring on the world herald and other area's of infomation for players to interpret. My opinion is the last thing you want in a war game is a linear path to your objective and so i think there
      is enough infomation with the right balance to keep us thinking and keep it interesting.

    • I just noticed in the newspaper it was switching between wealthiest nation to most dreaded. Why can't it switch between all statistics, sometimes I just want to know general power of a nation and I have to wait 5 days to see military stats again, so this would be very useful. I see no reason to replace anything if this is implemented.

      I think what you are describing is a rating of how effective an army is. this could be calculated based on total manpower casualties and defeats. The less you loose and the more the enemy looses the better. For example Artillery Rockets and Bombers are very effective ways of gaining these superiorities, because the attacking army takes minimal casualties while the defending army takes extreme casualties. I think this is something that should not be sugarcoated in the newspaper, because it should be a highly accurate representation of how dangerous an army is. Bombardment is highly effective and would add a great deal to this rating. If a nation uses many Bombers and artillery like troops, this number would generally be higher.