Posts by Edwylm

    This you can do anyway. So using it as a counter-argument is naive.

    nay it is not naive. if you know when someone will go inactive/gets booted from the round players that are invited usually take place seldom is it rare to see a random player join. having manual removal lessens the chances of replacement cheaters. it is known that the devs placed a join limit to games to prevent late game joiners on the grounds to give a player a unfair advantage. Also players didn't like the fact that their former ally being booted and replaced by a random player and attacks them from within due to the right of way.

    well i'm not a dev i'm just a volunteer moderator.

    I'm sure it could be a static number, like 5%, and perhaps a medic unit which moves really slow and looks like a tent with the + symbol that increases said number.
    ------- (Second edit: maybe this tent can reduce morale loss in provinces when you just capture them and you're freshly assembled army has to live in a gritty 25% morale province)-------

    Secondly I think if the buildings themselves have upkeep and the wounded/prisoners wouldn't be a unit, just a number without morale, it wouldn't be a big hassle.

    yeah but realistically if it was a unit then you might have the problem of "killing wounded/prisoner units". this isn't want the game wants to focus on. remember that buildings get damaged when a battle takes place in a prov. so camps/hospitals will be damaged to. (you might say script it so they don't get damaged but in battles things happen). it would be a nice fun little feature to have the little details. its just not needed.

    Also another problem would be allies become enemies. the number of wars separating pows by each country. along with what happens when a country is gone... what happens to the pows. this suggested feature is complicated.

    having a hospital building isn't far fetch for help increase morale, prison camps is just complicated, if it is a possibility the devs like the idea they would have it as a building but what would it do? decrease enemy morale faster in said prov? and those that have the building would it have a chance of "escape pows? revealing army locations, damaging morale,resources, buildings...

    This system should be automatic!


    >>Replace inactive player with AI in defensive position (will focus on building and guarding borders)

    This is already into the game unless you mean when the player isn't logged in but yet not inactive yet. However the AI in the game isn't the greatest as it can be easily predicted.

    This system should be automatic!


    >>Clear the player from the game, freeing the spot for a new player to come and control his lands.

    And thus freeing a spot for wolfpacking, multis and other players that might want to cheat. from this suggestion there isn't much protecting the player in which plans on coming back into the game. So this feature will probably never going to be implemented.

    Well that is why there is the option for share map, share intelligence, spies, patrolling, and diplomacy. There is no need for another feature to reveal they enemy's position.

    Artillery and ships should not have a continuous fire animation.

    Instead, 1 minute before they actually fire, they can fire a projectile that takes 1 minute to hit the target.

    Canons should fire a cannon ball and ships should fire a missile or a different projectile than the canon anyway.

    reason for this is to represents a bombardment which at times lasts hours not just 1 min. however players can shot and move their range units to also represent small bombardment times.

    canon balls were not used in ww1 they used different ammunition but artillery and navel guns used similar ammunition so there is no need to change the "projectile" sprite.

    with wounded troops it can be complicated as wound is broad. a person can recover in a few days to never be able to return to action. what determines how long they are out of action, how do you figure out the system to calculate besides being random. in a way there isn't no need for this kind of feature as morale acts like the number of troops are in the group. 1 unit = 1000 troops and 100% would represent this. but no one really cares for the numbers as its a bit unrealistic to a point.

    POWs this is also broad. there are some POWs that are wounded, it would mean more resources to be used to maintain them, and a big problem to consider are escaped POWs... Some POWs even to to sabotage activity in and outside of the camp. Some were forced into labor.

    It would be interesting but they are really complicated to implement. however i could see hospitals to help increase morale of units faster. These were suggested in the past in the old forums and these were some of the reasons why these features wouldn't work out.

    these are fully specialized wolves with armies, arts and LCs in position. They have troops located in every small bot town.

    that there isn't a problem, AI capital farming is not against the rules as its not a active player that volunteered and that you still have to kill the units for the AI. That is a common strategy but this has its downs to as it takes manpower away from the real action. unless i misunderstood

    I have a feeling that neither you nor Narmer have seen this strategy

    oh i have but this is very rare case but i can kill those 10% traded by sns and by split stacks along with location and other tactics. to be honest to beat a bigger enemy you need experience and activity. but yet again you could do what ww1 did and send waves of units... however sending 10% to ally player isn't that good unless they plan on leaving as they have more troops that can deal damage to the enemy which is much more helpful to their ally.

    in some circumstances it means loosing 5-15 % of points per day

    there is tactic behind it now lets say they are small nations not doing much that could be seen as wolfpacking. report it.

    But more often, to avoid live subject, they will wait till friend becomes AFK with all his remaining army far away on the sea...

    that sounds more like them leaving the game. now if they were to go AFK that be less effective but if they were to return and its repeated that would be considered as active activity. report it. but even then they moved all their units away into the sea well there is a plus you don't have to worry much about those units fighting unless they were ordered to go on a suicide run.


    you are also at risk for gaining so many provs at a time that you would have a small military to begin with. thus harder to protect. Along with lower and unstable resources due to low morale. coming from experience when you have 100+provs taking a large amount of provs will mess your economy up and bigger maps you do not have the time to sit and build up your morale.


    and 10% of units a day isn't all that much so it be unlikely.


    for some strange reason a lot of players want good stats so overall giving land is hurting their stats and their troops that die waiting for their ally to take them also hinders the stats. so their is a punishment but only for those that care about their stats (which i believe stats should be hidden to prevent player discrimination). so a lot of players tend to run away with their units and become inactive.


    Put a retire button somewhere so that the guy who wants out wont be scared about how his military stats

    That will not help they could order their units to suicide or place them in areas to slow down the enemy from taking land.


    Quote

    But there is this fieldmarshal killing everyone with ease. K/D 22:1 , huge armeis of 10 000 arts adn 1000 BS. I am feeling in danger. We count with friends. Hmm. We cannot win as coalition (1500) but we can win as a single player (1000 points). SO as my friends keep loosing to Fieldmarshall we decide to give me all provinces left ant this should be enough to reach 1000 points and win a game for me. Fmarshall is very close he has already 750. There is 3 of us lowering his morale with wars. So I take their provinces. Farm capitals of my friends. send spies to destroy double provinces of FMarshall (FM). I send some troops on suicide missions to lower FM morale. Farm couple of AI capitals and win by default.

    There you would get banned from game as you would be capital farming active players.



    coming down to it we simply can not moderate the number of "friends" that can be in a game. reason why how do we know if they are really friends? a response would be "Look at alliances". well not every friend can be in a alliance and if this would to happen you can easily get around it. And with allies in game can be considered as friends thus we still can not limit.


    limit number of provs taken, we still can not do so as you would hinder real wars. Along with players could easily be able to get around said limit. they could claim it was a border/personal dispute. or they still comply to the rules and take lands while your ally still defends/suicides we still can not moderate.


    however if its a large amount of land than something might be up report it and the gos will look into it.

    As we have stated many context is key if we find evidence of rule breaks than we will take action.

    Here is the thing about that rule. it is very broad and loosely upheld because of this. with all the complaints we have seen realistically there wouldn't be a game for anyone to play. backstabbing well even the elite AI can do that. Thats the reason why there is the option for team set up.

    As the word "refrain" doesn't mean that it is against the rules. which is why there are rules clarifying and having the option for features. We have seen the devs trying to limit the coalition member traitors with mix results.
    its quite complicated but if this issue is big than things might be done to try to prevent it but as of now there is no rule that prohibits such actions

    This is a complicated matter its much like the topic of banning backstabing. I have played many a game and seen this happen. i have had allies message me to take over their lands when they were or were not at war. one time after we defeated an enemy my ally had not a lot of units left. he messaged me to take his lands because he felt that he was going to lose and would be a hindrance to our alliance pack. In his perspective it was a mercy kill.

    In another round a ally attacked a nation and his armies got destroyed. there he knew that he was finished and he didn't want to let his coalition members to also die. he requested that we invade him to prevent his enemies from taking his land. he also sent resources and units. the thing is this is seen in irl in past and in current life. ww2 and ancient period wars are big examples of this action. its an act of preservation and to prevent your enemies from gaining to much power and to protect your people. however his enemy called us backstabers so eh. but the mentality of it is for-filling a death wish and prevent your enemies getting stronger.


    now another situation you might seen is giving land and resources after allies taken over a enemy nation which there in lies a problem about your donation cap idea. its so hard to set what is and what isn't acceptable in a complicated matter where context is needed. 1 it could like backstabing, 2 mercy kill, 3 some kind of deal, 4 something else. the best option in your case you could report it for suspicious activities and see how things go from there. but as boris stated "If one player in a later stage of the game decides to surrender this isn't a violation of the rules."

    There is no unit that acts like AA guns when you look at any unit the only good unit to defend against planes are fighters 4.0 air attack. ground unit is .5 which is a balloon and slow. tanks are better due to them have HP. but all these ground units do not have much air attack. 1 bomber vs 1 balloon well the bomber will take no real damage where it will destroy the balloon. the max balloon air attack is 50 in a stack which is only 25.0 air attack compared to 50 bombers or even fighters

    A more effective AA Guns would be like artillery which can damage passing air units in an area, even patrolling zones should be able to intercept planes flying in the zone but nope.

    i wouldn't see a problem about damage air fields adding more time for re-fueling/re-arming realistically damage runways would slow down the rate of how many planes can land/take off.

    As with the use of GMs denouncing the use/users is against the rules keep that in mind

    nah

    block possibility to divide stack under bombardment


    plus fighters are great against ground units , i have maps in which they kill more than bombers, you just lose them more often because you make more runs

    fighters are more balanced compared to the bomber. the reason why they "kill more" is merely because there are more fighters. before bombers most players didn't use fighters much because there were more effective methods back then. most players used them to find subs and to see what is in high level forts. when bombers came fighters had more uses and became used more. The fighter is the only unit to counter other fighters and bombers. fighters also don't deal a lot of building damage and thus forts would still provide its protection. unlike bombers where they can level a entire city in a couple of hits.

    as with blocking that wouldn't work and you would see many exploits when it comes to it. example all you need is to send out planes but have them never attack thus the stack would be stuck. if you have a big battle group this would be a huge problem .