Announcement Fire at will!

    • As stated earlier in the thread, it will be reworked again. To be specific, "the fire at" will setting will return to it's former behaviour, while the "aggressive" setting will stay as it is, so that it is an opt-in behaviour to attack neutral units instead of an opt-out. I know this won't cover every use case, but it should fix the biggest issue while still allowing for the intended mechanic of setting up blockades or to prepare pre-emptive measures while being offline.

      Due to our development, QA and release cycles this won't happen over night, so also not in tomorrow's update. Without going into details, it is not just a simple code change and there are other factors involved as well. ETA on this would be one of the game updates in August, sorry for that delay.
    • This crap completely destroyed the game. No one will buy a high command because of this. And to play it so that nobody knows when and how the war begins ... well this is really a "strategy game". :) :)

      Return this change, it has no justification besides pulling money from players for this bullshit, which I forgot as many times as it does not even have an AI or opponent activated.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Mr. Bridger ().

    • freezy wrote:

      while the "aggressive" setting will stay as it is, so that it is an opt-in behaviour to attack neutral units instead of an opt-out.

      So if I have HC, and set to aggressive , go into my enemies land, take 1-2 province hit a border that he has with another player/AI, I attacked those as well ? Why ? If I only have war with one why put the pressure on me to be aggressive with the surrounding players/AI when I don't want to.

      Anyway, is your decisions out there, I just wanted to input a opinion, don't want to sound salty or anything :), I know you guys are doing your best so I would like to thank you for it.
    • nemuritor98 wrote:

      I'm wondering, why didn't this make it first to the Frontline Pioneer games? Isn't the FP supposed to try things first and deliberate whether or not it's balanced and whether or not to include it in the game?
      It was in frontline pioneer games. Every change first goes to frontline pioneer games. No feedback received on this one.

      Newbss wrote:

      freezy wrote:

      while the "aggressive" setting will stay as it is, so that it is an opt-in behaviour to attack neutral units instead of an opt-out.
      So if I have HC, and set to aggressive , go into my enemies land, take 1-2 province hit a border that he has with another player/AI, I attacked those as well ? Why ? If I only have war with one why put the pressure on me to be aggressive with the surrounding players/AI when I don't want to.

      Anyway, is your decisions out there, I just wanted to input a opinion, don't want to sound salty or anything :), I know you guys are doing your best so I would like to thank you for it.
      In that case it is entirely your choice to choose a path where your aggressive unit does not get into range of neutral units, or to switch off the aggressive mode when getting into range of neutral countries. You can still use the fire mode for advancing, if you are careful (or very care free). Additionally we enable the new possibility of giving out pre-emptive orders to protect your country from soon-to-be enemies who are sneaking up on you on land or on sea while you don't pay attention.

      The much bigger issue was that the new behaviour of "fire at will" was forced on people and that there was no way to opt-out without having high command. By reverting this the new functionality is then opt-in and knowing the new behaviour you then have a choice to make use of it or not.
    • freezy wrote:

      nemuritor98 wrote:

      I'm wondering, why didn't this make it first to the Frontline Pioneer games? Isn't the FP supposed to try things first and deliberate whether or not it's balanced and whether or not to include it in the game?
      It was in frontline pioneer games. [..] No feedback received on this one.
      ..
      Then the consequence would have to be: All players who were involved in FP games with this innovation must be suspended by the Frontline ..

      :00008185:

      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:
    • For me so far this has caused one war, and that was on a coalition member of the player I was invading.

      A standard practice of mine is to grant right of way to all ai players. This will prevent your units from opening fire upon them because you have given them permission to be on your lands or within your sight. I have made sure that the AI is granted Right of Way before venturing in their direction. I suppose it is possible that they would open fire on me if I venture too close, but I haven’t seen that happen. It isn’t necessary to wait for them to grant me ROW in return, as that doesn’t affect how my own units operate.

      Many players do set their relations with AI to ROW. If you don’t you should try it, It has many advantages.
      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
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • freezy wrote:

      It was in frontline pioneer games. Every change first goes to frontline pioneer games. No feedback received on this one.
      Haven't seen any post saying you added this to FP and while I'm not a FP right now, I can bet you didn't add it in the list of notifications you have in-game for the FP rounds.

      When playing a FP round we usually see the pop-up: "We made some changes. Refresh the game. Hope you like it." Which says literally nothing about what was added, changed or removed.

      By the way, one more thing, with all this movement from the update you should consider 2 things:

      First, if you did announce it for FP first, which I doubt because I haven't seen it in the forums, and you didn't receive any positive or negative comment about it in the time it was in FP, I guess that'd be 1 week, then you should consider changing the way FP works because it'd be clear enough that it isn't working properly or as expected because, and I think we both can agree on this one, the vast majority of opinions about the update were negative once released in live version.

      As second option, if you didn't announce it for FP first, but still you did introduce it there first, then you should consider changing the way the communication between, at least, Bytro-FP and FP-Bytro works. Letting them know the changes you do in the game would be a good example of improving the communication. It could be done on the forum so you can receive comments or in the in-game notifications tab that FP rounds have.
      Estoy dispuesto a darlo todo, a luchar por lo que soy, a ser libre dentro de mi, a guerrear mientras viva.

      Manual: Básico y Machiavelli

      The post was edited 1 time, last by nemuritor98 ().

    • I just ran into an additional problem with the Fire at Will change:
      a player who only plays by mobile cannot change his fire setting.

      also it appears that Convoys of troops will start to engage other ships.

      I have a bug in a Beta game where two convoys from different countries engaged each other and are locked in combat for a single round and the countries do not go to war but the convoys are stuck in a perpetual locked combat with no additional combats.
    • I give RoW to all AIs in the game, yet I always open fire on me and fight more states than I would have thought. Convoys provoke more and more wars with states I have no interest at all ... Really stupid ..
      Of course I don't have High Command. if that is the reason to force players to buy HC, it would be good to say it straight away ... and start deleting accounts :)
    • I would like to point out that Freezy brought up a good point early on this thread:

      "1).. so players without High Command (..with the standard setting), either will (could) sooner or later get automatically in war against every seafaring nation .. !?!
      2).. or should grant at least RoW to all nations (also to all, at least maritime, players nations) as a precaution to avoiding inadvertent wars -- and thereby take the (rest)risk that RoW can provide for surprising and deep invasions "at night and fog""

      Scenario 1 (sooner or later gets you automatically in war against every neutral seafaring nation) has happened to me in the 2 games I have played since the update.

      Scenario 2 I would like to avoid. I rarely grant RoW of any nation that is not a coalition ally. Doing so I would take the risk that RoW can provide for surprising and deep invasions "at night and fog." And I've seen this done in nearly every game I have played.
    • gusv wrote:

      I would like to point out that Freezy brought up a good point early on this thread:

      "1).. so players without High Command (..with the standard setting), either will (could) sooner or later get automatically in war against every seafaring nation .. !?!
      2).. or should grant at least RoW to all nations (also to all, at least maritime, players nations) as a precaution to avoiding inadvertent wars -- and thereby take the (rest)risk that RoW can provide for surprising and deep invasions "at night and fog""

      Scenario 1 (sooner or later gets you automatically in war against every neutral seafaring nation) has happened to me in the 2 games I have played since the update.

      Scenario 2 I would like to avoid. I rarely grant RoW of any nation that is not a coalition ally. Doing so I would take the risk that RoW can provide for surprising and deep invasions "at night and fog." And I've seen this done in nearly every game I have played.
      Realistically, you would give ROW out to all the AI countries and examine human/inactive countries on a case-by-case basis. If near enough, maybe keep it at peace and be ready to invade if you accidentally bump into something. If far, but probably has a large navy or is transporting troops by sea, consider it based on circumstances and even if you do give ROW keep an eye on their units using spies.
      --
      Trying to be helpful, If my answers are incorrect, please let me know and provide the right information.
      I am not all serious, will tag along for a joke.
    • Giving RoW to AI immediately is one of the usual exploits of CoW - so much that I wonder why it doesn't start with that as a default. The fun fact is that in my last game I only got back RoW from ONE AI country, and that by Day 8 - till then all the others were extinct, and this country was only alive because I had preserved it for morale boosting purposes.

      RoW to active humans is imho to be avoided. I prefer to have one extra war than sleepless nights...
    • New

      I put all my subs on Return Fire to avoid problems.

      At this point it appears that every troop convoy in my game is determined to surprise attack my sub. *(my poor guys are minding their business at the bottom of the sea and these troop convoys manage to somehow attack them... the nerve of them !!!)

      I and my friendly gamers are trying to figure out a way that a troop convoy does not attack anyone.

      What may be needed is that the Troop Convoy is blockaded and does not go further but quite frankly a troop convoy should not initiate an attack on anyone.