Announcement Fire at will!

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

    • The fire at will has caused some wars in my games including AI on AI like I have never seen before.

      Also there is a problem at places like Gibraltar. There are two Coalitions and they are at peace with my coalition,
      we sail through the Straights and suddenly everyone is firing on everyone. We cannot give Right of Way to avoid the wars.

      I think this needs to be fixed, maybe have a new category that says 'fire on all neutrals and at peace'
    • Thanks for the feedback, everyone! With this change we had good intentions and wanted to give players more options in naval warfare. We did not intend for this change to have such a large impact on currently running game rounds. We apologize for vastly altered game situations due to the update.

      We are currently discussing potential changes to the new behaviour to satisfy more player needs. That said please don't expect any fast change over night as we are bound to our update cycles, so even if we decide for a change the current behaviour will stay at least for a little while.
    • WayneBo wrote:

      Placed a destroyer in range of a neutral cruiser just as a check.
      The cruiser did NOT fire at will.
      The only cases of unintended combat I have seen are when two unit come into direct contact.
      Is that the intent?

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money -
      - more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game sometimes.
      So beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :whistling:
    • WayneBo wrote:

      so we can interpret
      "close by neutral or enemy units"
      to mean:
      units on the same map pixel?
      >>

      Restrisiko wrote:

      WayneBo wrote:

      .. warships in range of neutral shipping,
      and no attacks.

      Do you have High Command and switched to aggressive?
      .. with "Standard Setting" the units need to meet at the same point (within the usual range tolerance for close combat)
      .. automatic fire at distance starts only when set to aggressive (High Command Setting)

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money -
      - more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game sometimes.
      So beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :whistling:
    • Don't mean to be late to the party, but I also see a lot of trouble with this update.

      I can now not just put my artillery near an AI country I want tot attack and go away for half a day without the artillery also shooting at the neigbouring AI that I did not want to attack.

      Also, there is no more snooping around the map with a couple of units sent of to sea since if they encounter a neutral vessel on the sea they attack each other. So you have to check on sailing units every couple of hours and hope they do not encounter subs.

      I know a counter is not easy but what I think would fix the whole thing is by building in another relation type between countries. Something named ''uneasy'' ''careful'' ''suspicous'' or ''threat'', countries their units designated by this relation comming to close would be attacked. This could be done so that you can set your relation with certain future opponents to this setting without declaring war to them and without them catching you completely of guard when you are not there.
    • freezy wrote:


      We are currently discussing potential changes to the new behaviour to satisfy more player needs. That said please don't expect any fast change over night as we are bound to our update cycles, so even if we decide for a change the current behaviour will stay at least for a little while.
      Not that much I hope, since this release was released I stopped buying HC since it putted me at war with the whole map. Used to set on agro and send it trough out my enemies land, now if I do that I get into a war with all his neighbors. I thought the HC was to give you a little bonus not to force you at war. I know is up to me to set the orders but it feels like I have to be on every 2 hours not to disturb anyone which is getting frustrating. Also about the update cycles, hope it will be fast, I see you guys making updates even 2 weeks apart one from the other, all I'm saying is speed the boat on this one, EVERYONE is upset about this update for the AI .


      Also when you know there is something that can ruin your customers experience why wait 1 month ? Speed the development team to remake the update , after all there is only one part of the code that needs to be worked on:
      Set AI aggression to the same relation that you have with it. We are at war , we fight, we are at peace, we peace :)

      You said IF you decide for a change... why the IF ? Didn't saw one good comment about this AI in 2-3 threads. Not to mention that if you don't see this as a game breaker and wait 1-2-3 months ... RIP. I'm sure the new players will understand perfectly the game since day 1 and can have a fight with 2-3 AI nations. From the first battle they will loose they will close the game and delete it. Who wants to be beaten by a computer in your first game/server, etc.

      Take the advice from someone who works A LOT in marketing , don't take this to long to make it work, especially because in my mind it can be repaired pretty easy. Aggression from 4 to 1 for the AI.
    • I do not understand why this change was made at all. Maybe someone would care to explain the reasoning?

      As suggested above, I have tried out how I could make this work for me instead of against me, but I have not found any useful use nor 'abuseful' use.
      Personally I focus on economic and industrial superiority, which is bound to fail when your arty starts war with just about everyone on the map.

      Further, this change is not logical.When I order my troops to be aggressive towards my enemy, it is not the same as being aggressive to all in sight.

      I really would love to hear the reasoning behind this weird change.