The Ultimte Starting Position

I said that ^ [i will clarify below]
I didnt say that ^

sorry about confusing you there... I stated ''it is a far better game'' meaning: ''any game is far better''... or ''a better game is created''
I wasn't referring to cow at all in that statement, but just to games in general... in a new sentence.

the only person that has mentioned ''doomstacks'' is yourself Germanico ... that issue hadn't crossed my mind, and in truth its not what I commonly see while working cow tickets either.

I still stand by my point. Penalizing growth by limiting annexed income by -75% is not encouraging expansion / wars / growth. <- it hits the game right in its gut by punishing the player for doing what comes naturally.

why not allow this -75% to be mitigated with a tech or building, or both. ? <- this would allow small to mid sized empires to get better income where they want it while making it cost ineffective to attempt to gear up ALL of their annexed cities.
Players are going to conquest... even if that isnt the idea of the game and not required to win [currently it is required to win] .. that is what they WILL DO.. I advocate not punishing this natural and expected game play strategy with a -75% penalty.

I believe the higher income in late game that you are worried about could be off-set by increasing cost of high level research and building requirements for top tier units [in late game].
it is also reasonable to have a variable rate of upkeep , rather than fixed, for units that are being spammed [if that happens] meaning after a certain number are made, adding more will significantly affect upkeep as the decided [by you] nation limit for max army size is exceeded.
you could easily warn players ''over building one type of unit will increase upkeep of that unit type'' [across the board] and players will accept it because it is a measure to prevent ''doomstacks''

The issue of bringing down a big player can be settled by enabling the coalition system [or something similar] so that players can [and they will] team together for a goal.
almost every map I have won in any of the games I had to face a few enemies that attacked PURELY because I was ''the biggest guy'' in the round.

thanks again for the reply... the praise given for active development and good communication with the playerbase, is deserved.

Hi Dan,

what you are proposing is basically a pop cap: "a variable rate of upkeep , rather than fixed, for units that are being spammed [if that happens] meaning after a certain number are made, adding more will significantly affect upkeep as the decided [by you] nation limit for max army size is exceeded."
Under no circumstance would we implement a limiter in the form of a max army size or such, sorry.

FYI the Annexed City income is 33% not 25% - which at first sounds small BUT makes a much larger difference in late game when a) population is higher in these cities and b) the economical buildings are stacking on top

Conquest is of course the heart of the game... Especially in CON. And yes, we are currently working on the coalitions - albeit slightly extended. This does not change the fact that unchecked resources will lead to an exponential growth that can not be stopped. It's been an issue in games for ever and a day and either can be part of the strategy OR simply lead to players churning as they become aware that no sensible strategy will ever make them win against said opponent.

I was suggesting an incremental unit upkeep cost applied only when player makes more than a certain amount, no max limit - just a cost limitation, it was a suggestion to prevent doomstacks .. which is a ''problem'' I am not aware of myself.

I need to give annexed cities + pop increase + upgrades a chance to impress me... so far i have been underwhelmed by the production I gain for annexed cities... they barely seem to pay you back for war costs needed to take them in the first place. I will study this closer over time

It would be never enough. we have in CoN only 66% penalty on ressourse provinces and only 50% on provinces without ressourses for none-core.

And it is still not enough? Please delate accs of such suggester, who dont understand a need of penalties.

Welcome to Conflict of Nations Last warrior
this was difficult to read but appears directed to me? .. so I shall reply,
Yes.. annexed Non-homeland cities have 66% penalty on production [its -75% for occupied city + annexed province] ... homeland provinces have 50% penalty.
Denouncing other users [asking for them to be deleted for sharing ideas in the forum!!] is a rule break and you seem to have missed the whole point of a forum [for sharing ideas + opinions]
You have added nothing to this topic [with your 2nd post on this forum]

The way I see it is. If you are having an awful economy... so is the other guy. Its really just economics/inflation. We produce more from annexed provences etc we build more. We get given less we produce less.

Havent really given enough thought, but Id prob really see things like that ^

Good discussion here. @FMD: don't be to harsh to Last Warrior
Effectively the idea really is to ensure growth thru conquest, albeit not exponentially with a focus remaining on the Homeland. That's why we upped the percentages to 33% yield from annexed cities vs occupied or provinces.
According to my latest math, annexing a city should amortize after approximately 3.5 days (obviously depending on market prices at that given time, city morale, population and resource produced).
This is simply calculating cash and resources produced over time while annexing (and after), vs. cost of resources and cash invested into annexation - both converted into market price cash.

Truth be told I do believe the manpower cost for annexation is too high - so we will be reducing it by 50% in the next update. That should help reduce the manpower loss.

Ok, I will be nicer to him if he stops deputy modding and asking for me to be banned !
[Because this is a rule break, and he wasn't warned for it]
I'm enjoying all the genuine feedback and communication from dev team [thanks Germanico] that we are seeing on this topic
I may have more to add on this topic after I have seen the effect that increasing population has on annexed cities... this is taking time and I'm unsure how much time it is intended to take, for cities to gain population
in my current round I'm at day 12 and with hospitals in place I havent seen population growth yet.

I'm staying optimistic that population growth will have a good effect on annexed city income, as a player I measure the total cost of taking and annexing new cities by including the loss of troops / use of missiles / reduced econ from morale loss affect of warfare. [all homeland my cities can lose a little morale and thus income]
This total cost including income loss, that a player incurs to take new cities is naturally ALOT higher versus a built up and capable player than it is versus a small ai nation.

bad news. manpower usage helped against steamrollers.
i did not demand to ban you. i mean it without personally nicknames. you aren't alone with such awfull ideas.

cost of lost troops are inkluding for whole war, not for capturing single city. With lost troops you killed a troops of enemy.
And under lost troops i understand lost units, not a men in single troop. in my first game (day 14) i have already 50 units, i lost 2 units yet. Also you cant count lost troops for capturing the city as investition and waiting for return. Lost troops are only your fault. Write to wifes of fallen men, write to childs, why you send theirs fathers to fight with oneway ticket.

Lost troops count only with killed troops of enemy. That is only true return of lost troops. Occupied city is for free. Anexed city can have return of invested capital.


P.S. my 2nd game (day11) 41 units, 1 lost. my 3rd game (day11) 30 units, 6 lost (i was to late online). Also i cant count lost units for investition.

You actually did ask for him to be banned simply because you couldn't understand the basic principles of what he was suggesting.

The cost of taking and annexing territories is well beyond the compensation they offer even after a week or two of production. Particularly when it comes to taking a well defended territory. A city is offsetting given the defense forces and possible rebellion status. A territory without a city is even more so. I have games where I have taken 2 cities of two different nations on top of nearly 20 territories and held them for a couple of weeks after annexation and they still have not paid off with level 5 arms facilities. I record everything I do on all my games with a log and it just doesn't add up at all. It'd take more than a month rt to actually have any dent. Realistically if a population is happier with said conqueror they will work harder....

I've been at this game for about 30 days now and I have a real problem with resource production in annexed provinces and cities. Over time I find that my resource generation plateaus and often drops as I expand my territory. I think this is an issue. Over time it becomes harder and harder to continue expansion because the resource generation just isn't there to support it. With a larger territory I need more forces to adequately defend, more forces means more upkeep which means less production, theoretically this should be offset by the production of the territories I've annexed, but this isn't the case. At best I break even on production, which leaves no advantage to annexing territories, and at worst I start to lose production, making game progress slower. I think a slight buff in production for annexed provinces and cities is needed, I think 5-10% would be plenty.