| Monday, September 22, 2003 - 11:41 am |
It's recently being shown just how much easier it is to take out large countries as opposed to small countries. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, the #1 ranked 60m pop country was just taken. This trend is obviously not realistic.
Attempts have recently been made to rectify this problem by changing the war index makeup. I am not happy with the changes, and I haven't met or seen more than one or two people who are happy with them. Instead of making the conquest of large countries harder, the conquest of all countries has been made harder (or made to take much longer at the very least). I don't think anyone would deny however that some compromises have been made in the quest for better defenses of large countries.
Now I really don't know if these would work as alternatives, but I figured I'd just toss them out...
Maybe the number of cities within a country should be limited or maleable in some way. With less cities, (or a more concentrated distribution of the population of cities) our defenses will not be as spread out.
Just a thought.
And on a less impactive but more logistically difficult note...it would be so great and so convenient if we could sort cities, corps, etc by certain criteria like population, stockpiles, etc. If more information were shown on one page without having to click into all these sub-screens, we who have slower connections could manage our countries so much easier. Not to mention the reduction of costly page views for the administrators. =]
| Monday, September 22, 2003 - 12:01 pm |
I agree, huge countries are still incredibly vulnerable
small countries now practically have to be destroyed,
| Monday, September 22, 2003 - 02:38 pm |
I also agree with this - I dont think that the pre september situation re war was fair as it would only take an hour to win a country (altho definitely fun) and so something had to be done, but now we have reached the other extreme where countries are almost impossible to win, unless they are large populations as stated above. Which again is ridiculous ... imagine spending a year (and $50 bucks or whatever) building your country only for it to be taken because of a technicality in the game play that should be sorted... I would have been furious if it had happened to me as it did to Fully Completed.
Dear gamers, please review the situation, reducing the number of cities is one way for sure... or perhaps allowing a % of the defences from other cities to be able to assist in a war scenario depending on distance from the target, x % could join in the defence ... because if you have 10K fighters flying over a country, it would not only be the target itself that would defend but every defensive position in the path of the fighter planes ...
Open to discussion here but changes need to be made
| Monday, September 22, 2003 - 06:52 pm |
Well I have to admit Ian was in a bad situation and yes I'd have been furious but IMHO it had nothing to do with the "war rules".
It was however due to a change made by W3 "mid-stream" so to speak which I'd have been totally pissed off over where I him.
I can anticipate and prevent since I know about it, what sucks is Ian was directly affected by it immediately and it takes time to ramp up or down.
At least when he gets the country back he'll be in a position to easily prevent it (would take time though) from happening again.
It is a perfect opportunity to point and say to W3 that "this is bullshit" find other ways to limit population.
| Monday, September 22, 2003 - 06:53 pm |
MaBo does have some interesting ideas though ... several sound pretty darned good to me.
| Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 02:44 am |
Paying $50 a year only to be taken so easily is not on. As they have said they make changes according to their database feedback so its more a number game than a idea game. So if you want to affect the gameplay do some odd things in an attempt to throw the database out. - Use special forces more, use slave countries to waste offensive weapons, use lots of army jeeps. Do some stupid things to tip the game around.
| Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 05:30 am |
What's really gonna piss fully off is when he signs on and finds out it's still the same game month as when he last looked at it.
I know he was expecting War tonight but 1 game month per day means he's got two more to wait.
| Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 06:49 pm |
Look, it's a game and it has it's own silly quirks like chess or monopoly. There is just no way that a game like this can have a realistic war componant without having geography (or rules of supply, combined arms, tactical modes, morale, training, technology, etc.).
| Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 12:23 am |
Yes silly they are, but why dont they just STOP "improving" the game. Just change a few things back, and leave it the way it is.
Make the wars possyble and simple. With bigger consequences. Huge countries should not be easier to take then smaller ones. does that make sense? NO!
Here's an idea. What if you could use all your defense like you use your airforce.? They can protect anywhere in the country. Then there will be no need for limits. You will have to rip trough the defense in order to kill one civillian. I think that sounds good.