Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Side conversation: Part One

  1. #1

    Default Side conversation: Part One

    [Today 14:06] Visconte
    : And also i blame blaa because i sold all my ships and jets to blaa 5 hours prior to attack. But good timing by AU on that first strike, dno if it was intel or just luck but gotta give credit. [Today 14:04] Visconte
    : Until the attacker gets to kill in 5 minutes(if declaration is timed well) and defender has to build 27 days there is not gonna be people staying here for more than a set or two.
    [Today 14:01] Visconte
    : What i think is not in balance here is that i spent 2 weeks building that army and it took 20 AA-s to kill 75% of it. The war attacks need to be tweaked alot.
    [Today 14:00] Visconte
    : The thing i meant was that it does not matter if its 2 hours, 4 hours or 8 hours. If its done during sleeping hours its the same effect. So changing the time is not gonna help the defender much, unless yeah its 12 hours which is kinda too much i think.


    We made it so war attacks can't happen unless war is declared. You can't spy op (harmful) unless the war dec time has passed. We increased the war dec time so states would have greater notice and time to prepare. I think these changes have a positive impact, but I'm certain more need to be made. I am ok with weakening attacks but it's a fine line. If we keep them like they are then people don't like being killed so quickly but if we weaken them then people complain that it takes too long to kill a state. Now granted, not many wars happen now. Most of the time it's just a net race to the top. Warring provides an alternate route to the top without having to out net someone. I don't want to lose that as I think it's a huge part of the game. So let's talk about making the attacks less harmful. How much? 10%? 20%? 50%? What do you think? I don't think it should take 5000 turns to kill an average state. The wars would last forever and nobody would do them as it would be pointless. AND, let's say we do lesson them, does that fix it? You would still spend 27 days building a state that another state/nation could war and destroy half your state. Granted maybe they didn't kill you but they still ruined your state.

    I'm ok with trying to weaken the attacks a little more, but no matter what we do, however many days you work on building your state, it could still be ruined. Unless of course, we remove war and war attacks fully. Which I really don't want to do that.

    One more thing... I haven't really seen a war in many sets now. So most of you have netted each of these sets. Now, one set, you have been warred and people are saying we need to make changes. To me, If I died one set out of 6, I would be ok with that .. But I do know you all spend a lot of time building your state, but each time you create a state you're accepting the possibility of being warred. Perhaps the times have changed and I haven't caught up to it yet. But without warring, the game loses a huge part of it's character. But let's hear some ideas

    "You counted on America to be passive... You counted Wrong!"

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts
    194

    Default

    Why is that people complain after been killed... you can't be a winner all the time.

  3. #3

    Default

    I last won like 2014 or something, so not always the winner But people complain because it takes awful lot of their time to actually play this game decently.

    But about the war attacks. Maybe there could be somekinda counter-attack method where a big state automatically attacks back its attacker. For example someone does AA, he gets automatically countered by an AA or some "general attack" that does damage if it is a bigger state up to some point. I think nation army could be used to do these counter-attacks. That way we could implemend nations into this game some more. How much the attacker loses depends on how big his target is. That way the attacker would also carry damages and not just the defender. If you want to take someone down you would have to plan first and use a tactical approach rather than just click and refresh.

    And about the gameplay i have been thinking this for quite a while now: There should not be an option to have only one kind of troops. Something like a 20% difference should be allowed but currently its like max infantry up to half-way round and then max ships to the end. Other units are somewhat pointless, especially in netting rounds. As a side effect this would also mean it is not possible to sell all your stuff on the black market and buy one kind of units for the suiciders. By suicider i mean a state that attacks someone bigger without gaining anything from it and rather just doing it for the advantage of his friend or teammate, not just someone who attacks without war.


    I agree there have been some improvements on the war attacks in this game but if someone wants to **** up your game its still as easy as it was before. Its just not covertly possible anymore, but if someone publicly attacks a defender still has no chances.
    Margus:
    Just saw Antons ripped body and now i see that Visconte is a beautiful man aswell.#nohomo.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Visconte View Post
    I last won like 2014 or something, so not always the winner But people complain because it takes awful lot of their time to actually play this game decently.

    But about the war attacks. Maybe there could be somekinda counter-attack method where a big state automatically attacks back its attacker. For example someone does AA, he gets automatically countered by an AA or some "general attack" that does damage if it is a bigger state up to some point. I think nation army could be used to do these counter-attacks. That way we could implemend nations into this game some more. How much the attacker loses depends on how big his target is. That way the attacker would also carry damages and not just the defender. If you want to take someone down you would have to plan first and use a tactical approach rather than just click and refresh.

    And about the gameplay i have been thinking this for quite a while now: There should not be an option to have only one kind of troops. Something like a 20% difference should be allowed but currently its like max infantry up to half-way round and then max ships to the end. Other units are somewhat pointless, especially in netting rounds. As a side effect this would also mean it is not possible to sell all your stuff on the black market and buy one kind of units for the suiciders. By suicider i mean a state that attacks someone bigger without gaining anything from it and rather just doing it for the advantage of his friend or teammate, not just someone who attacks without war.


    I agree there have been some improvements on the war attacks in this game but if someone wants to **** up your game its still as easy as it was before. Its just not covertly possible anymore, but if someone publicly attacks a defender still has no chances.

    I have always liked the idea of making it more balanced for military and not just one unit. But we do need to figure out how to make it somewhat fair for war. If we force everyone to be fully balanced then it will fully protect the top states from being attacked, and I don't like that. I think there still needs to be a way to make the top states fall during a war. If not, then we have eliminated our moto, domination leads to war. Personally, I am more for making the war attacks a little less damaging. This would make it so a nation can't fully wipe out a nation in one strike. The top states won't fully be protected, which I like and the wars would be a little more drawn out and gives the defender a little more advantage.

    "You counted on America to be passive... You counted Wrong!"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,813

    Default

    What if we made it so other units can help defend against certain attacks?
    Infantry grab machine turrets and add 10% of infantry power.

    Or you can make 'random' war events.

    "A squadron of jets help defend against yor amphibious assault, you lose xxx ships. Enemy loses xxx jets and ships. Enemy does not lose readiness"
    Nations
    [usa] x 48[wlf] x 8 [want] x 3 [tng] x 1 [NS] x 8 [px] x
    1 [HuuF] x 1

  6. #6

    Default

    regardless of what helps what, war is always going to be destructive to everyone involved. It's a game designed to have heartbreak. That's why we've seen so much peace lately I think, just because everybody hates that feeling of logging in and seeing the create a state page.

    I think a viable option is to extend the war declaration timeframes to more like 12-24 hours, or allow for some other type of insurance that a nation can buy in tech that reduces the power or number of war attacks that their nation can receive in a 12-36 hour window. That would make it potentially so only 1 state could get killed in that timeframe and wars would end up lasting much longer
    Change your words, change your life

    words --> thoughts --> actions --> habits --> success/failure

  7. #7

    Default

    Nation Wars is a war game. And people die during wars. I think the solution to this is just to play better and be more balanced.

    We couldn't kill Visconte right off the bat because of his massive amount of sams.
    AR was out of the question so we just AA'ed him down. We could barely AA him because we lost so much ships in the process too.
    We couldn't GA him as well because of his massive amount of infantry. So we had to time the attack.

    We had a very easy time killing cookie because right before the war I took intel on him around every 6 hours. Right before the onset of the war I saw that he had 10,000 ships.
    Either that was just luck of just a very bad call on his part. I mean come on guys. We declared war on you in the middle of the day then declared peace. Shouldn't that have
    been obvious

    Weisscream and Whilston got killed because AU declared war on blaa before we got to finish Visconte off.


    Instead of making the attacks weaker. Why don't we just make something that makes it easier for a nation to rebuild?
    Yesterday I was GA'ing Visconte. I dumped 200 turns into that. But he just used 5 turns to get 6 million population. It just reversed everything i did for 200 turns.
    Something like that will help defenders to survive, as well has having a balanced army that can deter and defend against GA's, AR's and AA's.
    Battles are fought with soldiers. Wars are fought with men.

  8. #8

    Default

    I agree that it was a mistake by my side to sell my ships and jets to blaa the evening before the attack but that doesnt change the fact that you backed out of equal war and then stabbed us in the back by suiciding when we were asleep.

    The conversation between our leaders:
    From: Jiang Province(#29)
    Date: 17:26:43 - Tuesday 13th of September 2016
    Subject: RE: RE: RE: War declaration

    Message:
    Hello.

    Is the reason for the war frustration of not being able to get the first
    spot and thus just suiciding or some other and a bit more valid reason?

    We have no intention of doing pointless war attacks. If there is a good
    reason then lets go.

    WhackstoneRE:

    I've got some guys in my nation from australia who I think it's their
    second or third set. Gave them some extra privileges the other day and it
    looks like they got a little excited with them

    looks like we'll be going to war to try and take the top spot, that's the
    only reason.



    WeisscreamRE:

    That would mean you also have to take out second and third place. Which
    means there will be a united front against you. But do as you guys wish

    WhackstoneRE:

    , I'm not interested in war...just revoked some of their privileges


    Weisscream



    And then you declared peace.
    We just didnt believe you would stab us after such message. Yeah we were naive. Not gonna happen anymore.


    About the balance thing. Why would it be that a defender has to be balanced in 5 different armys while the attacker can only build one? I think it makes more sense to have both the defender and attacker have balanced armys. Or at least have 2 units balanced because in order to kill someone you usually need atleast two different units. I would call it a suicider if there is just one type of attacking units a state produces(except infantry which is just cheapest) but somehow some people here think a bit differently about what a suicider is.

    Its almost impossible to build a balanced army here that a nation of 5 cannot get through. And at the same time compete for the first spot. It takes approximately 10 days compared to attackers 3 days to build up the same amount of army for example in air defence. The only reason there has not been constant war after war in this game for last months or even a year is that estonians pretty much made a deal to ignore the flaws in this game and not to attack and destroy everyone else. If we or anyone else with enough people decide they will war for the whole set pretty soon there will be noone left to play because its so attacker-oriented currently. Defending states are at the mercy of attacking states and cannot do anything to protect themselves while attackers can theoretically do whatever they want. There should be a possibility for a 70 mil networth state to take down 100 mil networth state but not a possibility for a 10 mil networth state to take down 10 times his size on its own and with less than 100 turns.

    And a suggestion also: Ground attack should not take construction sites. Its enough that it kills the readiness and buildings and population. Building a state up with 25 construction sites after 200 attacks is not possible. Air attack only takes land and it takes more turns. So that is not in balance aswell.
    Margus:
    Just saw Antons ripped body and now i see that Visconte is a beautiful man aswell.#nohomo.

  9. #9

    Default

    I don't know if you'd call what the three of us (Imperium and Enterprise) did as suiciding. We had a pretty balanced army of Spies, Infantry, Jets and Ships. We had no intention of ruining your game just for fun. The three of us did it primarily to get your land and get ahead. Enterprise was top 5 at the time.

    It's much harder in my opinion to build a balanced army if you're an indy because it takes turns to do so. The three of us are cashers so we can buy units accordingly.

    I didn't know our leader told you that we weren't interested in war. So I didn't know that it seemed like a stab in the back and we apologize for it. I just assumed that you had an 8 hour advance notice of our intentions and we just moved the time of the war to where we had the advantage. Sorry if it seemed like an act of treachery.

    Also I agree that GA's shouldn't destroy construction sites.
    Battles are fought with soldiers. Wars are fought with men.

  10. #10

    Default

    ahh...diplomacy at it's worst...

    the original plan was to declare at 22:00 anyway. 'Enterprise' jumped the gun because for some reason he thought gametime was his time in australia. easy mistake of course, so we declared peace and then declared at the appropriate time anyway.

    it makes the game especially interesting when we have players in Estonia, Australia, the US, and elsewhere. somebody's always sleeping
    Change your words, change your life

    words --> thoughts --> actions --> habits --> success/failure

Similar Threads

  1. raul part 2
    By Minimus in forum Redemption Wars & Relations
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-23-2008, 00:53
  2. Better Running Back - Part II
    By Rassputtin in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-30-2008, 22:08
  3. need help finding comp part
    By k959 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-29-2008, 18:32

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •