Nation Wars Redemption V2.0

[heyneken]

Maggio, look at my signature, and answer to my question. What makes alliances complicated? The colors or alliances in general? Honestly I think it can be both with you, because you are so unpredictable.

I'm guessing the names. You'll then have a state name, nation name AND a<deleted> alliance name. Definitely the names.

[MAGGIO]

Must be

[heyneken]

I think the point where people brainstorm is kind of over. Gather up your best suggestions to one brief post so that people wouldn't be put off by your constant wall of writing. Also, we shouldn't just make new changes for the sake of making changes. I'm not saying it's definitely the case with you, but it kind of feels that way.

[MAGGIO]

Given the recent drastic change I'm just trying to give my input hoping at least one of the ideas will help. I never expect most or all my ideas to happen. Just brainstorming and giving my opinions on my observations.

[blaa]

Ok, but what do you expect after you finish another post with many suggestions? That people start commenting/improving them? That we try each and every idea you suggest? I think you should stick to one idea that YOU think is awesome as shit and present it to others after you have thought it through. It's not a problem to put a few paragraphs together and when people don't like it, then just come up with more random ideas.

You say that balancing units is impossible. I say the original wow/nw was very well balanaced, yeah, you can say that it caused infantry hoarding. Yeah, but I say that is not a problem. You kill others (usually select who you kill) for hoarding and call it your principle. Sure, I can live with that. But then you go and call for huge changes in the game, I think that is not reasonable.

You see, whenever I see your idea, I pretty much assume it is bad, because you play the game bad, so why on earth would I assume that your ideas rock? Even you say, that you don't know if your ideas work... why would anyone comment or support them?

My point is, think it through.

[MAGGIO]

i know the whole hoarding thing is a real issue between us.

what i was saying by "dont know if it will work" was me just trying to admit that im not a "know it all", NOT that I dont think things out or think they will work.

an example what I suggested the BR take land and tried to explain my reasoning. Will (i think) said feeding will be an issue and counter suggested that an increase in buildings destroyed would be a good incentive rather than my idea. I agreed and admitted that I didnt think of the feeding issue.

Admitting when I am wrong or dont know everything does not mean my ideas suck. Many of my ideas have been implemented over the years. i have had good ones and they are now part of the game and community so that should show YOU that I have good ideas and they should be considered.

A lot of what I do is post my brainstorming ideas. Even if my idea is rough, then another member could be inspired to come up with an alternate version or refine my idea. Even if my idea gets the juices flowing for someone else and they post a completely different idea then at least it out there and we are thinking.

You heyn and few others HATE ME, so even if the idea is decent it will always be scewed by your dislike of the way i play which is something I cannot help. also, just beause I play my turns a certain way when fighting with states and nations in the game doesnt always reflect how I feel about the game or community as a whole, but I understand how it would be hard to seperate the two for some, especially the ones who dislike me the most.

[blaa]

Don't play the hate card again . I don't hate you. You say you post because you are brainstorming and that's a good thing. I post because I want to criticize your posts, if they are constructive or not, is up to you to decide.

[MAGGIO]

at this point i dont want to hijack the thread anymore with our back and forth. if you like an idea say so, if not please say so too, just give me some contructive feedback specific to the suggestion and I will respect that.

[Mr President]

The new set has started. I lost internet due to the storm and didn't get it back. (still don't have it) and of course my phone doesn't work where I live. I was able to reset the round but that was all. No changes were made this set. We can make them as we move through the set if needed.

One thing I am thinking about doing - I am thinking of adding back in the SA but adjust it some, remove some units and balance them a little better and make it so Infantry is not the only unit you need to survive. Also, making it so you keep land during war attacks. Last set all I saw was people abusing the hell out of GA against the bots and others. nobody really fought back when GA'd. I understood the first part of the set doing this so people could try things out, but not the last.

My intentions were that GA was not to become the new SA. If that is going to be the case then SA will be returned.

[MAGGIO]

The new set has started. I lost internet due to the storm and didn't get it back. (still don't have it) and of course my phone doesn't work where I live. I was able to reset the round but that was all. No changes were made this set. We can make them as we move through the set if needed.

One thing I am thinking about doing - I am thinking of adding back in the SA but adjust it some, remove some units and balance them a little better and make it so Infantry is not the only unit you need to survive. Also, making it so you keep land during war attacks. Last set all I saw was people abusing the hell out of GA against the bots and others. nobody really fought back when GA'd. I understood the first part of the set doing this so people could try things out, but not the last.

My intentions were that GA was not to become the new SA. If that is going to be the case then SA will be returned.

I only see two options going forward.

1. Keep on with this GA update but remove ALL BOTS to see if people will defend themselves. But major updates would have to be made on how easy it currently is to kill a state with a GA. Many nations last set did nothing in the way of warring even though land was being taken from them rampantly. The state scores pretty much sum it all up. The only way to win the set with the GA update is to take out other states entirely. Either way removing the bots will only give you an outlook on what might happen if the ONLY way to get any real land is to take it from an active state and what that state will do in reaction to that. You may just get the same results in a few sets and go to option 2 anyway.

2. Do exactly what you were thinking by removing some un-used units, going back to SA, try keeping the land, and making some other adjustments. Try to simplify your workload and focus on fixing some other issues.


I think we voted a bit too early on whether or not to keep the changes last set. After playing the whole set I think not having the SA took something away from the game in some way and the GA update didnt replace that "something" quite how I personally thought it would. You can see quite a few people are not playing this set from two sets ago which i find a little alarming. I am not sure if it was just the nation i was in, but after getting stomped on in the first week the nation I was in just seemed to cave. It seemed other members did the same as well.