Posts by Walrus_3d 1914

    The biggest problem with large stacks of bombers is how the game processes losses.

    1 bomber = 3 hp, 3 hits is a lost bomber, so at 33% you know you'll lose it on the next hit it takes.

    10 bombers = 30 hp, so you would think that at 33% you would have 10 bombers at 33% each, so the stack can take 20 hits before losing a bomber. Not so.

    In my experience, a stack of bombers at 93% that takes a single hit becomes 9 bombers at 100%. You've lost a whole bomber, and you now have a stack that can take two more hits before losing a bomber.

    The trick is to split your bomber stacks once they start taking damage, so they're never one hit away from losing a bomber.

    10 bombers, split at 93% or lower.

    9 bombers, split at 92% or lower.

    8 bombers, 91%, and so on.

    Never attack with a stack below 50% or a single bomber below 34%. Cycle damaged bombers and let them repair for a day or two.

    If your enemy has fighters, attack well away from them, or ground your bombers until your fighters can take care of them.

    If anyone has experience different from what I've presented, feel free to share. I would love to be mistaken.

    I think all of the suggestions are valid except "create disinformation" and "disrupt unit orders".

    The validity of information and the survivability of unit orders are the only factors that make the game playable. If there is potential for a unit command being given and reversed, you would have to constantly monitor the game just to ensure it was doing what you told it to. People would quit en masse.

    Imagine you've created a trade with country A and the trade route is through country B. Now country B goes idle, and the AI cancels the trade route.

    I think the idea is interesting, but fails in this environment given the frequency with which active players become inactive, unless you made trade routes through AI countries automatic, which would defeat the purpose.


    I think the fundamental difference between in-map assistance and account pushing is that "assistance" is between active players in the map, who intend to both stay active, to the benefit of both players. "Account pushing" occurs when one player intends to leave the map, and plans that departure with the still active players.

    Receiving assistance in-game can be a result of good diplomacy, good strategy, or external relationships. Account pushing, to me, is solely based on factors external to the game.

    On a related note, this happened in a Dominion map.

    Player A contacts me, suggesting that he'll give me his remaining control points (we both had two) if I then join another Dominion map with him and give him the control points in the second map. I refuse. Two weeks later, Player B allows him to walk into the final control point (right of way, war, right of way), and they both fight me to prevent me taking any of his four points before the timer is up. I assume they collaborated on another Dominion map afterwards.


    I'd ban B by Account-Pushing. Since A was eliminated from the round, he's pending from a game ban by the same reason and I'd make sure A and B never meet again in a new match.

    Thank you!

    I opted to ask the question rather than file a report, since I wasn't certain to start with. It seems B has left the match anyway, as they "don't want to play with whiners", but I sent them a system message explaining your perspective on the rule. I'm comfortable that it was a misunderstanding of what is or isn't allowable in a particular map.

    Thank you for your time.

    From my understanding of the rules, this is not pushing. For it to be considered pushing, 'A' needs to join the game with the sole intention of helping B (General Game Rules). If he decides to quit only halfway throughout the game, then it would not constitute pushing..

    I'm with Buddha on this one. It's not the fact of joining and quitting that's the issue, it's the effect on the map.

    I think the kamikaze quit is as damaging as the join-to-quit, in some ways more so.

    Had this come up the last few days.

    Coalitions: (A and B) vs (C and D)

    A decides he's going to quit the map.

    A Attacks D with all of his troops.

    B attacks and captures all of A's empty provinces.

    C and D attempt to negotiate with A for a full day.

    A declares he's going to attack everyone. Only attacks C and D.

    B finally reveals, two days later, that A was quitting, and they did it that way to "keep the map balanced". None of this is revealed until after A is eliminated.

    This is on days 21-24 of a 15 player map. Is the kamikaze approach to "I'm quitting but giving my coalition partner all my provinces while destroying/capturing his enemies" account pushing, or is it just unfortunate that we were on the wrong side of it?


    If it's too hard for them then they shouldn't do it. I don't.

    It's not a question of being too hard. It's the need for some people to get sleep at night. 2 hour days means you miss 3 or 4 days of play in one night. That's not manageable for normal people.

    If the 10x or 12x games were geographically controlled, like within four time zones, it would be more playable. Maybe even with a daily pause, or if every ninth "day" were 8 hours, and the other "days" were two hours each. Variable day length? I think that would be playable.

    Since our own unit movement is either in Green (normal) or Red (attacking), I propose that the indicator during a Forced March should be Yellow. It's more readily identified than the "sped up" indicator, and I think it would do a better job of reminding players that forced march is a hazard to their unit's Morale/Condition.

    The current game manual isn't accessible from the mobile GUI, and doesn't address features specific to the mobile GUI.

    Two years in to the mobile release, there should be an accessible player resource for mobile players.

    I may be the aberration, as I like the arrowheads. It makes it easier to align move points to existing movement on the map, since you're now aligning arrows instead of attempting to overlay moving dots.

    My two issues with the new UI, both related to the quick unit/province info on mobile:

    1) selecting the unit, I can't see what unit they're attacking or their att/def rates, only their overall strength. This slows down my combat management since I have to select each unit multiple times, my own and my enemy, to see what was previously available with one click. The unit being attacked could be added to the "attacking/time to next attack" line with hopefully little difficulty.

    2) selecting the province, the GM (speed up) button is 2/3 the size of the construction button. The unit being produced should be 2/3 of the button, and the GM portion should be 1/3.

    On a related note, "confirmation for gold spending" should be the default setting.

    Otherwise, the new UI is excellent. I have hopes that improvements like this will result in the eventual creation of a dedicated "build queue" tab for mobile.

    Thanks for your time.

    I would like the idea, except for two reasons.

    First, immature players would name countries and provinces after body parts.

    Second, it would increase the country management workload having to figure out where a country/province is when it has a non-standard name. They're hard enough to locate already on mobile.

    AI attacks arent the isue, if you diclare war on new target before attacking and not do suprise atack, AI's do not attack you. Ypu can controll that by making sure you do not hit attack before you diclare war under diplomacy.

    Not accurate. If your popularity is low enough even due to declare wars, AI can and will attack you on their own. My comment was specifically to AI countries with which you're already at war. Change your status to peace, and even though theirs is war, the attacks from their side will decrease, and you have a chance to raise your popularity.

    I've found that the AI will cease attacking, or at least attack much less often, if I set my status with them as "peace" or better. I haven't yet let it go long enough to see if I can get a cease fire, and you still take the at war morale hit, but at least it lowers the flood of AI units into my provinces.

    You can turn off all models and labels in the map filter menu.

    Incorrect for mobile, haven't tested on pc. You *can* turn off all models in the settings, which is not helpful. You can turn off the labels for specific units in the filter, which leaves the models blocking the view.

    If we could filter out the models and labels of certain units, that would be excellent, better yet if settings/filter allowed the removal of models without removing the labels.

    Thought I'd add these to the discussion. I've never played Legacy.

    In the first image: how many units are there? Which ones are on land, which disembarking, which at sea, which in combat? If the units on land, how far are they from the city? ... Where Is The City?? These questions take minutes of trial and error clicking to answer.

    The second image is what comes up when I select the mass. Neither the 79 unit army nor the 30 unit army are reflected.

    I'm fairly certain this is what most people are complaining about. Tactical decisions can't be made without clear information about what's going on, and there is nothing clear here.

    The game should include the ability to add a "Trade" to the "Build Queue" so an important trade can go through ahead of other builds. If you have promised to trade 5,000 Oil in a trade to someone and are waiting for them to reply, you don't want an item to build and consume all or part of the oil designated for your trade.

    Instead of adding it to the build queue, they could remove "traded" resources from your stock.

    Attacks should be more accurate when revealed by a fighter.

    I disagree. Knowing the enemy's position doesn't make my rifle more accurate; the distance at which most combat occurs is visual range. It would add a level of complication to the code that wouldn't be borne out in the gameplay.

    Attacks should be more accurate the closer you are to the target, with the exception of planes and submarines.

    Artillery isn't much more accurate at a closer range; it's the same shells being lobbed by the same mechanism. This would also be needlessly complicated.

    The trade screen reverses the order of the trade when the offer is sent and appears on the text window. This is confusing and lacks continuity.

    My offer to sell shows up as a "buy" on the list for other players. The X is there so you can tell if your offers are at the top of the list for everyone else. I think it's the most straightforward way to present the information.

    Units should have ranks based on their experience / the number of kills they have made. Then their hit points could reflect their added skill.

    Again, excessively complex, and not in line what I believe the intent of S1914 is. You would end up spending forever looking at the ranking of each of your enemy's units, and comparing them to your own, in order to make what should be very straightforward calculations: my troops and morale vs their troops and morale.

    The unit with the highest rank in a stack predetermines what building improvements to build once a battle is successful. If you are not micro-managing the game and you win a territory, everything grinds to a halt as the troops just sit there or move to the next target. There should be some way to plan ahead so you can repair a railroad to advance a railgun or repair a port to help facilitate an invasion, etc.

    This is an interesting idea, but I really can't imagine how it could be effectively implemented. You would never be able to capture a province with a railgun if it didn't already have a railway. Same issue with building a harbour because a ship assisted in the invasion. That's why you get notifications when provinces are captured; so that you can return to the map and make province decisions.

    At unit spawning, their fire control should be predetermined so submarines can sneak past an embargo to a rally point or an artillery can leave a city without for a rally point without attacking an enemy first.

    First, I think you're confused about what submarines do. They don't have fire control, since they don't have a ranged attack. Because they're a melee unit, they can't ignore enemy units in the water. With a rally point, if an artillery already has a move order once spawned, it shouldn't fire at enemy units; it should move first.

    Include in the "Add Target" the standard Move and Attack buttons for each leg of the journey so that the movements at the end of the journey remain concealed. Attacking shows a red line and is concealed from the enemy but moving shows a light line which is visible to the enemy. The Add Target only has the light line an tells the enemy your next move.

    THIS one I agree with. The initial attack/move orders should already have the "add target" options included, and there should be an "add attack target" and "add move target". Also, enemy attack lines aren't more or less visible to the enemy. They show up as move lines until the enemy's final track is revealed.

    I always have to log out and sign in to get my railgun to pass over a newly constructed railway.

    This I've never dealt with. Try submitting a bug report.

    Since you determine moral based on how far you are away from the Capital City, you should use this distance as a delay in the announcing of a surprise attack by an opponent which is then flashed across the screen. The further away the territory that is being attacked, the longer it take for the alert to be presented. It should only work if you have a recruiting office in each territory connecting the territory in a relay to the Capital City.

    I would like this idea, except that delaying the reporting of attacks would necessitate delaying the reporting of every troop movement that was distanced from your capital. News articles would have to appear later based on the distance from each capital. The only way to delay the report of an attack, basically, would be to make the overview map unreliable. One of the most important features of the game interface is that the map is never inaccurate. If I see a unit, that's where it is at this moment, and that's what it's doing at this moment. I may not see all of the units, but the ones I do see are correctly represented.

    One possible option for what you have in mind would be to hide units in motion; we got a report of their last position, and now they're moving so we don't have a precise position report. That, I think, would be realistic but terrible. Imagine a map with fading unit position indicators and a "possible current position" ring around them. Woof.

    I don't hate your ideas, overall; I just don't think they're practical.