PDA

View Full Version : Comming Soon!



Mr President
08-13-2013, 13:26
As most of you have noticed, we are changing some things around in the game. For the past few months we have been working behind the scenes updating, adding, removing several things within the game to help bring it up to date and remove the crap that has been laying around. We are cleaning things up and getting things organized. When completed (soon) we will be launching a LARGE push for the game. We will be advertising, emailing, facebooking and Maggio has said that he was going to do some sort of dance. Don't know what that is all about but we'll see. :)

We didn't want to get people here until we fixed some things. No sense in getting them here when we can't keep them here. Some of the things have already been installed. The new theme, new navigation and no more endless pages of navigation for the help/preferences section. We have accomplished much in a short time but there is still more to do as well. However, I thought I would fill you in on a couple larger changing aspects.

Attacks - We will be simplifying our attacks and what they do.

Standard Attack [SA]- All vs All = Land Grab
Ground Attack [GA] - Inf/Tanks VS Inf/Tanks - Kills population, destroys buildings(small portion) and lowers readiness (random 1-4).
Air Raid [AR] - Jets/Bombers VS Jets/SAMS - Kills land.
Amphibious Assault [AA] - Ships VS Ships - Kills Inf/Tanks/Population and lowers readiness (random 1-9)

- Missiles will be removed from the game.

- Infantry values will be adjusted so they are not so appealing to horde. They will cost you more in upkeep, give you less power in attacks/defends and will eat more food.

-OIL

Oil will now be part of the game. Oil will be required for all mechanical units. Spies and Infantry will not require oil. As a start, to help get oil in the game and not create a huge panic, I am using the same setting for oil that was used for food. So if a unit needed .0005 food, it now uses .0005 oil. These will be adjusted in time. You'll see the readout for produced and consumed each time a turn is used. States will be able to build oil rigs and sell oil on the market. Combined with the Techer strat, this should allow a state to function the entire set. I wanted a larger variation for oil on the market so the min has been set to $80 and the max $120. I want to see undercutting like there is no tomorrow. Eventually people will grow tired of this and kill off the undercutting nations :)

This will need to be tweaked as we move forward, but it is a good starting point in the game. Oil is something that I have always wanted to add in the game and this was a perfect time to do it. Always thought it was stupid that mechanical units consumed food. lol. Some will say that this will hurt the farmer strat, but there will still be a demand for food as the food eating units will have their food consumption values raised a little. (mainly troops).

Spy Missions -

These are getting weeded out. We have way to many and nobody uses 70% of them. Some new ones will be added to help offset the smaller attacks. Before we used missiles to blow up units. Now we will use spies to handle more of these functions, with increased results. Also, I'll be making it so as you upgrade spies you will be able to do more missions.


We will be looking for other ways to help support the techer strat. I believe that the Oil strat could support itself for the whole set so adding ways to help techers would only help us have another strat. Upgrades will be handled using science instead of money. I have some other ideas for science that i will add later on. I just wanted to give you guys a little heads up on changes that will be happening soon.

Hedge
08-13-2013, 15:47
nice ;)

k959
08-13-2013, 16:40
sounds intresting might just have to come back and play a set or to when this happens

Missionary
08-13-2013, 18:00
sounds awesome Mr.P :-).

maybe like the techer, farmer and oil strats together? so you can have buildings on each and the strat is still competitive?

Crimson Shadow
08-13-2013, 23:01
This all sounds great! Thanks for your hard work Pres!

What spy ops are getting removed? Almost all spy ops are useful in war time, so that is the only change I am slightly hesitant about.

MAGGIO
08-13-2013, 23:07
old dogs got new tricks huh

Superpasha69
08-14-2013, 09:22
Great Ideas Mr.P

Can not even add constructive critisism :)

When you say SA will be ALL vs ALL, so this will enclude SAMs too? (I'm not stupid I know what ALL means, but want to double check)

zardozr
08-14-2013, 18:25
Sams really should only count towards defense if someone is attacking you with aircraft.

blaa
08-16-2013, 04:59
"Standard Attack [SA]- All vs All = Land Grab"
Please elaborate this one.

"Ground Attack [GA] - Inf/Tanks VS Inf/Tanks - Kills population, destroys buildings(small portion) and lowers readiness (random 1-4)."
Remove tanks from the sentence and I agree.

"Air Raid [AR] - Jets/Bombers VS Jets/Bombers/SAMS - Kills land. (Yes bombers will now defend)"
I'll stop at this for a little longer, since I completely disagree with this one. I feel that our air attack system was far from perfect, but I believe that tweaking it this much is no good. I'd recommend dropping the BR and returning to AR. jets/bombers vs jets/sams. In that way you could have either a strong attack and no defence (bombers). Or strong defence and no attack (sams). Or weak attack and defence at the same time (jets). With what you have suggested I will probably only go with jets or bombers. Depending on the fact which one is stronger. Or you could also make SAMs super strong, but since it is a important unit in SA as well, then it might as well get hoarded.

"- Missiles will be removed from the game."
Should add tanks to that sentence.

"- Infantry values will be adjusted so they are not so appealing to horde. They will cost you more in upkeep, give you less power in attacks/defends and will eat more food."
So another unit will be hoarded. You can't make all units equal. Why have different units then? If you are just doing this to stir the water and maybe then the older players wouldn't be winning so much, then I'd like to reiterate that if the older players worked hard once to get the mechanics straight, then they probably can do it once more. Or leave the game (I'm referring to nw 2.0, where old players either left or still won the sets).

"-OIL"
I have no opinion.

"Spy Missions -"
It's good that unnecessary things are removed.

I would also like to see some more stuff removed (state tax, two types of casher buildings).

Mr President
08-16-2013, 12:22
"Standard Attack [SA]- All vs All = Land Grab"
Please elaborate this one.

"Ground Attack [GA] - Inf/Tanks VS Inf/Tanks - Kills population, destroys buildings(small portion) and lowers readiness (random 1-4)."
Remove tanks from the sentence and I agree.

"Air Raid [AR] - Jets/Bombers VS Jets/Bombers/SAMS - Kills land. (Yes bombers will now defend)"
I'll stop at this for a little longer, since I completely disagree with this one. I feel that our air attack system was far from perfect, but I believe that tweaking it this much is no good. I'd recommend dropping the BR and returning to AR. jets/bombers vs jets/sams. In that way you could have either a strong attack and no defence (bombers). Or strong defence and no attack (sams). Or weak attack and defence at the same time (jets). With what you have suggested I will probably only go with jets or bombers. Depending on the fact which one is stronger. Or you could also make SAMs super strong, but since it is a important unit in SA as well, then it might as well get hoarded.

"- Missiles will be removed from the game."
Should add tanks to that sentence.

"- Infantry values will be adjusted so they are not so appealing to horde. They will cost you more in upkeep, give you less power in attacks/defends and will eat more food."
So another unit will be hoarded. You can't make all units equal. Why have different units then? If you are just doing this to stir the water and maybe then the older players wouldn't be winning so much, then I'd like to reiterate that if the older players worked hard once to get the mechanics straight, then they probably can do it once more. Or leave the game (I'm referring to nw 2.0, where old players either left or still won the sets).

"-OIL"
I have no opinion.

"Spy Missions -"
It's good that unnecessary things are removed.

I would also like to see some more stuff removed (state tax, two types of casher buildings).


At this time, Tanks will remain in the game.

The BR will be dropped. It will simply be AR and set up the same as It use to be, except now bombers will defend. Having Bombers defend is not going to be a huge difference. Most people won't even buy them as they didn't in the past. And if they do buy them, it will only be a couple million at most. SAMS power will be increased a little to help offset this change as well. As I said, I was only giving you all a glimps of some changes.

Infantry is the easiest to horde. It the least costly on all fronts and has a great deal of power. Increasing the values a little is not going to stop hording. But it will make it more costly to horde them. Nobody is going to horde ships or bomber. That's why everyone buys them at the end of the set. I'm certain people will master the new settings. Nothing I can do about them unless I make them have random values that change daily. :)

I am going back and forth on removing the tax. Before I do anything I really need to look at pros and cons for both sides. And having one building for casher is a possibility for the future.

And about the old players... I have nothing against them and I truly hope some return and play, but these changes are not about or for old players. They are so we can attract new players to the game. Old players are set in their ways and want everything to be how it was. Times change and so does the game. We can't attracts new people when we are constantly working to keep the old players happy. Not to mention, they only play for a set and then we don't see them again for a year.

Superpasha69
08-16-2013, 16:01
Why ha severyone got a problem with two cashier types of buildings??? does it really matter if you buil 30k of 2 types of building or 30k of one type? as the income you get wount change that much, but what will change is the ability level of knowing what percentage to keep comercial and residential buildings at.

I just do not see the result it would achieve.

State tax...also a minor thing that we all know to have it at 50% but then new players wount, it is a little thing in the game that you will learn as you play..which imo makes it more interesting,

Removing tanks, why??
We all use tanks at teh start of the set, every single set i played I used tanks...so once again removing them will not bring in extra benifits and at the same time it is not as useless as missiles

Superpasha69
08-16-2013, 19:47
Why ha severyone got a problem with two cashier types of buildings??? does it really matter if you buil 30k of 2 types of building or 30k of one type? as the income you get wount change that much, but what will change is the ability level of knowing what percentage to keep comercial and residential buildings at.

I just do not see the result it would achieve.

State tax...also a minor thing that we all know to have it at 50% but then new players wount, it is a little thing in the game that you will learn as you play..which imo makes it more interesting,

Removing tanks, why??
We all use tanks at teh start of the set, every single set i played I used tanks...so once again removing them will not bring in extra benifits and at the same time it is not as useless as missiles

zardozr
08-16-2013, 21:00
People always seem to ignore the fact that surface to air missiles are hoarded to increase defense in attacks that they should not even play a part in. Am I the only one who thinks that is stupid?

MAGGIO
08-16-2013, 22:12
if i had my number one choice i would return the AR to the old way before the BR was there.

jets/bombers vs jets/sams.

if you dropped bombers and tanks altogether it would be ideal (awesome is the work lol)

instead of finding a use for these units they should have been let go a long time ago no offense. the br works, but its not better than the AR

they can always be reinstated at a later date.

@blaa i get what your saying about casher buildings #streamline the 40/60 thing is kinda of a twist on the strat that is kinda cool though

Mr President
08-16-2013, 23:04
People always seem to ignore the fact that surface to air missiles are hoarded to increase defense in attacks that they should not even play a part in. Am I the only one who thinks that is stupid?

What attacks are they in that they shouldn't play a part in?

Mr President
08-16-2013, 23:07
if i had my number one choice i would return the AR to the old way before the BR was there.

jets/bombers vs jets/sams.

if you dropped bombers and tanks altogether it would be ideal (awesome is the work lol)

instead of finding a use for these units they should have been let go a long time ago no offense. the br works, but its not better than the AR

they can always be reinstated at a later date.

@blaa i get what your saying about casher buildings #streamline the 40/60 thing is kinda of a twist on the strat that is kinda cool though

AR is going back to the way it use to be except bombers will defend. Do you all really think that little change is going to make a big difference? Lol once it goes back to AR and BR goes away not many are going to keep a lot of bombers on hand.

Crimson Shadow
08-16-2013, 23:41
The BR will be dropped. It will simply be AR and set up the same as It use to be, except now bombers will defend. Having Bombers defend is not going to be a huge difference. Most people won't even buy them as they didn't in the past. And if they do buy them, it will only be a couple million at most.

I think adding bombers to the defensive equation does make a pretty big difference, unless I am looking at this wrong. If bombers can both attack and defend, then what is the point of jets? At level 8 jets have a strength value of 4.42 compared to bombers strength of 8.5. The whole point of bomber's high strength was no defense, meaning that in order to use them you had buy SAMs too, making them too expensive to use effectively during a long-term war. Bombers doing both + SAM upgrade = no purpose for jets. I would definitely encourage any nation I was a part of to go bombers/SAMs over jets any day with the change.


What attacks are they in that they shouldn't play a part in?

He doesn't want them to be included in SAs. Literally he's right, it doesn't make sense, but I don't think it is the deal breaker that he is making it out to be.


Why ha severyone got a problem with two cashier types of buildings??? does it really matter if you buil 30k of 2 types of building or 30k of one type? as the income you get wount change that much, but what will change is the ability level of knowing what percentage to keep comercial and residential buildings at.

The only reason I am for the change is because it helps explain things more easily to new players. Vets know that casher buildings need to be built in a 2:3 ratio, but trying to explain it to new players can be a little frustrating at times.


State tax...also a minor thing that we all know to have it at 50% but then new players wount, it is a little thing in the game that you will learn as you play..which imo makes it more interesting,

Removing tanks, why??
We all use tanks at teh start of the set, every single set i played I used tanks...so once again removing them will not bring in extra benifits and at the same time it is not as useless as missiles

I can see both sides for tax, only reason I would be against removing it is during war time, setting it to 0% can give you a major population boost to defend against GA. (Which I guess is a pretty big bug...so maybe it would be best to remove it.)

I've never used tanks, but even for those who use that strat tanks are useless after the first week. I would be okay with seeing them removed.

MAGGIO
08-17-2013, 02:13
AR is going back to the way it use to be except bombers will defend. Do you all really think that little change is going to make a big difference? Lol once it goes back to AR and BR goes away not many are going to keep a lot of bombers on hand.
You know me ...
Ground forces
Air forces
Naval forces
Keep agm call it missile defence
Spies are special ops or special forces.

Tanks have a tiny role for start up and bombers play no role. It would be possible to dump them.

None of which is on the tippy top of ant to-do list but its good to get good input.

MAGGIO
08-17-2013, 02:15
I do think bombers defending AR is better than BR regardless. Try it one way. If you don't like it then try anoyher

Missionary
08-17-2013, 04:08
You know me ...
Ground forces
Air forces
Naval forces
Keep agm call it missile defence
Spies are special ops or special forces.

these are ago idea. makes the SAM unit not look like a incorrectly named unit and the Spy option on the side looks abit tacky lol. special ops would look loads better.

but things like 1 building for casher, removing state tax etc could be done and not even noticed. they are just a couple of pointless options that make a complicated game slightly more complicated. these are one of the little things that can be changed which would have little to no effect on the game and make it seem abit easier to play.

Mr President
08-17-2013, 08:48
I think adding bombers to the defensive equation does make a pretty big difference, unless I am looking at this wrong. If bombers can both attack and defend, then what is the point of jets? At level 8 jets have a strength value of 4.42 compared to bombers strength of 8.5. The whole point of bomber's high strength was no defense, meaning that in order to use them you had buy SAMs too, making them too expensive to use effectively during a long-term war. Bombers doing both + SAM upgrade = no purpose for jets. I would definitely encourage any nation I was a part of to go bombers/SAMs over jets any day with the change.



He doesn't want them to be included in SAs. Literally he's right, it doesn't make sense, but I don't think it is the deal breaker that he is making it out to be.



The only reason I am for the change is because it helps explain things more easily to new players. Vets know that casher buildings need to be built in a 2:3 ratio, but trying to explain it to new players can be a little frustrating at times.



I can see both sides for tax, only reason I would be against removing it is during war time, setting it to 0% can give you a major population boost to defend against GA. (Which I guess is a pretty big bug...so maybe it would be best to remove it.)

I've never used tanks, but even for those who use that strat tanks are useless after the first week. I would be okay with seeing them removed.
good points crimson.

MAGGIO
08-17-2013, 16:33
good points crimson.

we may need to refresh unit name/type anyway, we don't live in the 90s anymore

the year of the drones ;0

Hedge
08-17-2013, 17:54
if we are going to take away a unit from air units it should be jets and just keep sams and bombers jets have no purpose really ;)
now as for the sams being part of SA well you can use bombers and jets when doing a SA why shouldnt sams count its perfectly reasnoable to me ;)
as for removeing state tax why?

zardozr
08-17-2013, 20:27
Sams should only count when defending against a force of bombers or jets though, even in the description of them it says that they are for defense in air raids and yet they are bought in mass quantities in order to defend against SA......which makes no sense what so ever.

If people are in favor of having that unit for its defensive strategy then the unit name and its description should be changed, any new person started out will not know that SAMS are good for anything but defense in air raids.

Hedge
08-18-2013, 05:08
true the only problem i see is that the description is wrong but otherwise i see no problem :)

zardozr
08-18-2013, 13:49
So you don't see a problem with SAMS counting in defense against a force of nothing but infantry and ships? Surface to air missiles should only do damage to aircraft but currently they are being used to defend against attacks by infantry.

MAGGIO
08-18-2013, 16:32
First off its really cool to hear feedback from players of today. @Hedge, and @Zardozr the previous system worked better which was the AR. It was Jets vs. Jets + AGM. Jets had low NW so there would be millions of jets vs millions of jets+a few mil agm. the AA would lower the readiness so you would really dig into a state. It just seemed way better to me.

#2 I think this is a good time to consider getting rid of specific unit titles. Jets, Inf etc... the arguments will NEVER Stop as to what specific title should vs other specific titles... for example how much a "bomber" can defend. you change all that to "air forces" and you remove the specifiness out of the argument. SMOOTH SAILING lol


sidebar, Special Ops for Spies, then we could have a drone strike that kills buildings as an op COOL

Dogma
08-20-2013, 19:36
I don't think Bombers should defend at all since not that many bombers outside the B 17 and the B 29 had any defense. I don't like the idea of combining the casher buildings as it is something that needs to be learned and takes thought. I am ok with going back to AR killing land, but I think we need to keep the BR as well as it presents another strategy in war.

I am seeing suggestions to make the game easier to play, the level of difficulty is why I still play after 11 years so yall do what you want there, I will just B**** about it.

MAGGIO
08-20-2013, 21:31
I don't think Bombers should defend at all since not that many bombers outside the B 17 and the B 29 had any defense. I don't like the idea of combining the casher buildings as it is something that needs to be learned and takes thought. I am ok with going back to AR killing land, but I think we need to keep the BR as well as it presents another strategy in war.

I am seeing suggestions to make the game easier to play, the level of difficulty is why I still play after 11 years so yall do what you want there, I will just B**** about it.

yeah what cant we have both the AR and the BR? good points dogma. i dont really care either way about merging buildings i like that little twist on the strat so im on the fence.

to you exact statment about b17 and b29 dogma, the argument will always continue as long we call them jets and bommbers instead of air forces.

MAGGIO
08-21-2013, 01:51
if we could do an AR and a BR why would we do one vs. the other?

Mr President
08-21-2013, 10:53
First off its really cool to hear feedback from players of today. @Hedge, and @Zardozr the previous system worked better which was the AR. It was Jets vs. Jets + AGM. Jets had low NW so there would be millions of jets vs millions of jets+a few mil agm. the AA would lower the readiness so you would really dig into a state. It just seemed way better to me.

#2 I think this is a good time to consider getting rid of specific unit titles. Jets, Inf etc... the arguments will NEVER Stop as to what specific title should vs other specific titles... for example how much a "bomber" can defend. you change all that to "air forces" and you remove the specifiness out of the argument. SMOOTH SAILING lol


sidebar, Special Ops for Spies, then we could have a drone strike that kills buildings as an op COOL


If we remove specific unit titles how would an indy know what to produce? Would it simply say Sea Units on the markets? Where would SAMS fit into this? Would they be there own unit?

I really have no problem with unit names. There will always be an issue of jets or bombers, tanks or troops until we figure out a better attack solution. For now, I think it's best we go back to the beginning and start again. I am not fond of how things are set up. It's attacking strength vs Defending strength. It should be more along the lines of units vs units with strength for each unit. Someone with 100B SAMS should not be able to defeat someone doing an SA. It needs to be more unit vs unit but in time that will come. Rassputin had a good idea. It's a little complicated and I'm sure I would change some of it, but all in all I liked it. However, we won't see it for a while. And Dogma, Rass's idea actually makes the game harder :)



I don't think Bombers should defend at all since not that many bombers outside the B 17 and the B 29 had any defense. I don't like the idea of combining the casher buildings as it is something that needs to be learned and takes thought. I am ok with going back to AR killing land, but I think we need to keep the BR as well as it presents another strategy in war.

I am seeing suggestions to make the game easier to play, the level of difficulty is why I still play after 11 years so yall do what you want there, I will just B**** about it.

I will remove bombers defending. Some suggestions that make the game easier to play are not always bad. We can lesson more complicated areas and still keep it challenging. I'm all for hearing every idea. :)

Missionary
08-21-2013, 16:55
I am seeing suggestions to make the game easier to play, the level of difficulty is why I still play after 11 years so yall do what you want there, I will just B**** about it.

although i agree with you on that, inorder to get members her to stay i think it needs to be done. saying that, i dont think the game is difficult. it gives the impression of being difficult when it actually isnt.

Hedge
08-21-2013, 17:31
well we could always make br destroy land and demolish buildings and ar just kill off bombers for example ;)

Superpasha69
08-22-2013, 06:04
although i agree with you on that, inorder to get members her to stay i think it needs to be done. saying that, i dont think the game is difficult. it gives the impression of being difficult when it actually isnt.

piss easy to play :)))

Build attack build buy food attack build.. :)

Mr President
01-30-2014, 19:06
All of the changes mention in the first post of this thread have now been implemented. I am very excited about these changes. I think I have covered everything and not expecting errors, however they are possible.. If you get an error or see a mistake please send me a message and I'll take care of it.

Good luck!

MAGGIO
01-31-2014, 02:24
all that was implemented? HOLY CRAP!

Dogma
01-31-2014, 14:03
WOW, great job Mr P. Looking forward to it...

Margus
02-01-2014, 03:25
I'm happy that bombers weren't set to defend. Bombers and AGM-s should be the way they are. Using same amount of money to buy infantry and bombers, bombers have up to 20% more SA strength. 20%!! Infantry vs agm-s in SA defense is also around 20%. This gives more options to netting and spices things up. Inf vs inf is very boring, but inf vs bombers is interesting as the state using bombers has more SA strength, but lower defense so he is risking getting grabbed.

There was talk about oil rigs being built also by techers and farmers. How? Mixed strats never work good and I don't think you can change that. But oil strat added is good imo. Let's say everyone hoards infantry, like they always do, and food price goes up to 100 or even 120 (black market), then the ones who choose to hoard ships could get their hands on cheaper food (oil) at 80$. Good to have new options and new strategies, I like it : )

blaa
02-01-2014, 04:27
Found a tiny bug. In expand page, it always shows you have 100 un-built land. Even if I don't have free land!

Mr President
02-01-2014, 10:15
I saw that last night. I'll try and take care of it later today. I have a question for domination players, I remember a building called universities. What were they for?

Margus
02-01-2014, 12:07
I'm pretty sure it was tech buildings

heyneken
02-01-2014, 14:15
Yeah it was tech.

zazibuzi
02-02-2014, 06:21
Found a tiny bug. In expand page, it always shows you have 100 un-built land. Even if I don't have free land!

Same here, but for me it shows that i have 204 unbuilt land atm and it's increasing..

Margus
02-02-2014, 18:09
Why is infiltrate nation HQ and research labs gone? :/ or is it only available at higher spy levels?

Mr President
02-03-2014, 13:53
I have combined a few intel options. If you go to Infiltrate Nation Govt it will give you the following info:

Summary of the Nation test2[tst2]



State
Title
Privileges

Rank
Networth
Land
Last Login



test(#530)
Leader
T F E A M O V


0
$11.669
468
17:46:50-02/03







Nation Development Information


Genetic Manipulation of Crops
100%


Prosperity
100%


Residential
100%


Industrial
100%


Medical Treatment
100%


Banking
100%


Oil Tech
100%






Nation Army Information


Draft Rate
1%


Dispatch
0%


Spies
0


Infantry
0


Tanks
0


Jets
0


Bombers
0


SAMs
0


Ships
0

Mr President
02-03-2014, 13:55
Higher level spy missions hasn't been implemented yet. I should have removed that from the list and gave you more details on the new missions. I'll try to update my post as soon as I can.

Margus
02-05-2014, 06:08
infantry strength is 1,105 instead of usual 1,445. That is a BIG change and basically leaves infantry useless unit. Missiles nr2. Why was it changed?
I was hoping it would be tanks + infantry now and food + oil, not infantry REPLACED with tanks, food REPLACED with oil. Who will consume food if infantry will not be used as it is too weak?

Mr President
02-05-2014, 09:04
We are trying to find the balance that will help make tanks more useful. We had to start somewhere so this is where we started. Tweaks can be made but we really want to try a full set before any decisions are made.

MAGGIO
02-06-2014, 01:38
We are trying to find the balance that will help make tanks more useful. We had to start somewhere so this is where we started. Tweaks can be made but we really want to try a full set before any decisions are made.

Fair statement

anyone have the know how to figure all the calcs out to see what is now the best unit to have on hand using the least amount of resources and yielding the highest nw?

Rmstepp
02-06-2014, 15:37
Tanks are definitely better than infantry now. Ships will still be good towards the end

Rmstepp
02-06-2014, 15:42
infantry strength should be closer to 1.18 and food consumption should either go down, or oil consumption for tanks should go up. i think that would even them out a little

Bright
02-07-2014, 01:44
Tanks are definitely better, I wouldn't make the oil consumption increase too steep though- decreasing food consumption for infantry works too though. I plan on using a blend of both units to see how they work in tandem.

northbabylon
03-11-2014, 19:53
You were defeated!
You have been invaded by XXX, you lost 1.127 land, $6.623.429, 894 food, 458 Oil and 0 science.
During this attack, you lost nothing.
While defending, your enemy lost nothing.

How? I had over 1m jets on hand. Do they not defend in SA anymore?

blaa
03-12-2014, 01:51
According to my calculator jets didn't defend few years ago as well ;)

northbabylon
03-12-2014, 02:09
I always remember them defending.

Have I been away from the game that long?

blaa
03-12-2014, 03:50
Don't worry, I thought the same thing.

blaa
03-25-2014, 02:51
Current Balance Est Payment Est Turns till Payoff
$-1.495 $-4 400

Mr President
03-25-2014, 13:16
Fixed Blaa.. Next time please send in a ticket. I almost didn't see this :)

DBozMen
04-03-2014, 07:07
Allright it seems i need to read up a bit....

We got oil in the game :-)

northbabylon
04-03-2014, 08:03
Hey Dennis, welcome back :)