Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 21.

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

  • If you do not happen to be interested in algorithms, as most people aren't, move on, because this post has nothing for you :p That being said, I was having an infantry unit collect some a single province and return to his base city, so I used a waypoint. I noticed that the way he took to the province and back to the city was different. This is surely not optimal, because one of these must be the shortest path, and the shortest path to and from a city is identical. I tried using both paths alone …

  • Not really actually, one hour becomes approximately 30s, and that's the time needed to cross a province or a turn of battle. Research now takes 15 minutes, and the game 7 hours (could be fun once a year a 7 hour stretch). It would need focus, but it still doesn't qualify as fast paced.

  • Why be limited to 6x. Initiate a 100x speed mode; the game would become like a real time strategy game (command and conquer for example), with games lasting 1-2 hours

  • The technical term is a machine learning engineer, but I figured I wouldn't enter technicalities for the sake of relevance.

  • I don't see why people complain about golders; in fact I pity golders. They will spend; I will quit, they will end up spending money to beat a miserable AI. That being said, I've played several games without seeing any so I'm guessing they're not as rampant as some think.

  • Being an AI programmer myself, I can pronounce with certainty that the mid-game artificial intelligence is still immensely stupid and simple. I've been analyzing it a bit: it seems to have some repeating timer (a day or so). At the termination of the timer, almost all its units move simultaneously and unison, to seemingly random locations. The upgrading of its units only determines how many airstrikes it takes me to kill the stack. Also, this is why I made a post about more exclusive rank-based …

  • Ok, let me be clear. I mean the presence of a TYPE of game such that: 1) this type is only for high ranks 2) this type is only initiated infrequently 3) potentially, if you leave this type, you are temporarily not allowed to join other games of this same type. This addresses several issues: -new players can't even join -We all have real life. But this is a proposed type of game mode that requires commitment. When I start some games I'd like to know I can pour hours strategizing without ending up…

  • Yeah I'm saying potentially a rank restriction, but also make a player think twice before abandoning games... Like, make these restricted games infrequent, so a player can't just leave and join a new one the next day. Or penalize leavers.. or something

  • I was thinking about how this game reflects military reality. While the devs seem to have put in lots of effort in making units and their stats realistic, a critical aspect is missing, and it's not something that can be controlled: personal investment in keeping one's citizens alive. One would think it's a trivial issue, and not impactful, but I feel it significantly discourages restraint in war (which, for a war game, is probably a good thing). Consider a situation with two nuclear coalitions o…

  • Hi. I was reading a few pages on the forum lamenting the lack of some tactics which would really add dimension to the game, such as resource trade, territory trade etc. Now, I'm sure that the mention of these makes many of you want to instantly respond "ABUSERS AND CHEATERS". And you're right. But I'm kind of tired of having my gameplay curtailed by restrictions to the effects of users who are not playing the way they are supposed to. Even worse, in-actives have played a decisive role in most of…

  • Because we like feeding each other's egos by hearing the same thing being agreed on over and over again. Wanna join? Say it with me!

  • As a heavy navy user, I don't believe people who invest in navies should be "circumvented." We've spent time devoting our strategic development to holding our islands by sea, and cheap-shot infantry tricks should, and now do, not work. If the mainland is desperate to invade, come at me with Naval AWAS, subs, the likes, in mass numbers, Apart from that invading an island is meant to be difficult, and it appropriately is so.

  • What's with them all happening at once. Why not make them bubble up sporadically :p

  • Coastal Territory

    user8394273 - - Suggestions

    Post

    Yeah the simplified notion of disembarking troops being a casus belli seems to address the most irritating issue of not being able to auto navy defend, while probably being easy to code too.

  • unit veterenacy

    user8394273 - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from playbabe: “I see, so you simply want an obvious reward when you successful combats other then winning the game. ” That's my issue. For an attacker, successful combat yields the goals which are initiated by that combat. The defender by succeeding, merely denies the attacker his objectives. (bar a swift counterstrike which is not always possible.) In a two player game, denying your opponents' goals is tantamount to achieving your own, because of the zero sum nature of it all. This is no…

  • unit veterenacy

    user8394273 - - General Discussion

    Post

    @'playbabe I see not how the purpose is served. The officer does buff units, and rewards people who have kills over many games. As for rewarding combat (particularly defense, which only leaves a defender losing), the officer does not satisfy that.

  • That's why I suggested something called coastal territory, at least some sea close to a nation should trigger the naval defense when penetrated by enemy carriers.

  • Honestly 1) it's hilarious 2) It's a viable strategy. Why? Sure, he achieves nothing this game. But in general the mere existence of a possibility devastating, or at least annoying, counter attack would force a commander to leave some troops behind, thus weakening the attack. The strength of this tactic is not in what it achieves, but in its mere possibility forcing the attacker to leave some troops behind. Naturally, nothing is achieved by it, but it must be done anyways occasionally, as that i…

  • Coastal Territory

    user8394273 - - Suggestions

    Post

    I was thinking this game could use something like coastal territory, or an area near the shore of a country that belongs to it. For example, when opponents attack by sea, I don't think war is declared until the units completely disembark. Correct me if I am mistaken. This is unrealistic, as no sane army would watch a foreign nation's troops land and get comfy on their beaches while fiddling with their thumbs. I'd assume that naval forces would engage the moment that transport crosses into a nati…

  • unit veterenacy

    user8394273 - - General Discussion

    Post

    Well perhaps not necessarily; a snowballer's snowballing happens because more cities means means more troops means more cities means more troops and so on. One would presume the composition of such armies is biased in favor of masses of freshly trained units due to the supposed exponential increase in training capacity due to conquest, so the benefit of experience might not fall in these armies' favor. On the other hand, nations who are invaded early and manage to fight tooth and nail to repel t…