Search Results

Yeah I do that all the time it helps with the AI that has the wonderful habit of sending half his defenders right to your ships, allows you to simultaneously shell the city and have the transport run into your knives.

There is no way to have ships auto-respond to incoming bombardment? I'm literally hiding them when I go to sleep so they don't get sunk, which defies the point of having a navy.

I'm a bit confused about naval war mechanics, what is the "defense" stat even for? Whenever I attack enemy ships with my own, the enemy ship never does damage, even if my ships are within its firing range. Does the user need to make the ship manually attack otherwise it just sits there and takes a beating? If so, what is the defense stat for ships for?

Quote from Teburu: “Quote from ewac123: “Quote from DOA70: “Quote from user8394273: “So I'm on the verge of my first solo victory in a WW3 map. As NZ, i rushed Australia's capital early game (he can't get troops over to defend because Australia's so big), and having him lose his capital just made him quit. I quietly took over the relatively inactive Pacific basin, then built a massive navy of fully upgraded destroyers and frigates (20 destroyers, 10 frigates), by day 25-30, without a single armo…

If you continue reading the post I then reintroduce that variable, and produce a final outcome which takes into consideration that fact. My initial computation was merely a demonstration of the method. If you have read any serious math papers you will see they start by isolating the crux of the problem and then reintroducing the meaningful, but methodologically trivial complications. If you have an understanding of expected value under conditional probability that I do not, and reach another con…

Quote from Dealer of Death: “Quote from user8394273: “So I'm on the verge of my first solo victory in a WW3 map. As NZ, i rushed Australia's capital early game (he can't get troops over to defend because Australia's so big), and having him lose his capital just made him quit. I quietly took over the relatively inactive Pacific basin, then built a massive navy of fully upgraded destroyers and frigates (20 destroyers, 10 frigates), by day 25-30, without a single armor unit or aircraft. By then the…

Ok, let's make a BIG simplifying assumption, that the probability of revolt is 50%, then 0% after the first day (it actually drops to like 20-30, but that makes calculations a bit more annoying) Strategy of full forward: Day 1 we take 20 cities, on day 2 we take 20 more but 10 of yesterday's revolt. We have 30 cities, 10 of which will not revolt. Day 3 we take 20 more cities, but 10 of day 3 revolt. We now have 40 cities, 20 of which will not revolt. Etc. Each day we take 20, and 10 revolt, ther…

Insurgency isn't a sure thing, and after the first day it's fairly improbable. Expected value analysis might justify moving on if your goal is rapid expansion, knowing that 4/5 times you'll get another city faster, whereas 1/5 times you'd be penalized with having to do twice the work. Overall that adds up to 4/5*0.5 +1/5*2=4/5, which is less than 5/5 which is the default of waiting. So doubling your speed 4/5 times at the cost of being twice as slow once out of 5 times when you lose a city to ro…

So I'm on the verge of my first solo victory in a WW3 map. As NZ, i rushed Australia's capital early game (he can't get troops over to defend because Australia's so big), and having him lose his capital just made him quit. I quietly took over the relatively inactive Pacific basin, then built a massive navy of fully upgraded destroyers and frigates (20 destroyers, 10 frigates), by day 25-30, without a single armor unit or aircraft. By then there was the standard Afro Arab Coalition with Mongolia …

The current situation with ships is uneven. I can park on my enemy's coast and get just as much healing as I would parking near one of my own harbors?? It would make a lot more sense that there be a special building that heals ships more than just 2 HP/day when they are near it (could even be the harbor itself), and in return ships no longer heal near any random coast. That adds realism, and also keeps things balanced- ie, your injured ship no longer takes forever to heal, but you have to withdr…

To my knowledge the Elite UGV is a seasonal unit, which goes away if we don't buy it later on. I'm just wondering if we're going to get a non-elite UGV for free players. The other seasonal units have non-elite counterparts that fulfill strategically a similar niche. The elite UGV's niche doesn't really exist in a non-elite version; ex, the ability to spam vehicles in hostile enemy territory. It makes sense to me that a non-elite version be released early, lest CON goes down the path locking out …

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…