Posts by Walrus_3d 1914

There are more inactive players because there are more new players, which wouldn't exist without the "new" interface.

... Or play 100 and 500 player maps...

The provinces in the United States aren't necessarily the states, either. They were dividing them for playability, not accuracy.

Quote from Hastings TNT

I would refute the concept that any planes swimming can detect subs, fighters must be patrolling in air to detect subs I have not tested this but would say it is not possible if fighter is "swimming on water"

I've experienced this. Was transiting a fighter from England to Greenland and detected a sub in the water south of Iceland.

Detection also works during an attack, so you can reveal troops in a fortress by attacking it directly with fighters.

When the end of game timer lines up with day change, the final score is the one that counts. In a 90 day match, it's the day 91 score. If the win is based on control points, it's the last score calculated on the day the timer runs out, so if the timer expires 12 hours into day 47, the score calculated at the beginning of day 47 is what's used.

The actual score calculation is based on provinces, province morale, and upgrades constructed. The formula is in other threads in the forums and on discord.

I can't imagine a loans scenario that wouldn't be abused, wherein players who are losing taking out massive loans, building up a massive army, then all out attacking. If it doesn't work, they just quit and leave the debt to the AI.

Loans between players, I don't think, are a helpful mechanic, either. You give a massive loan to an ally, they betray and eliminate you, wiping out their debt in the process. That alone would be another tactic for multis and other cheaters.

Seems unnecessarily complicated to create and monitor that kind of activity.

Nukes are just completely out. Total anachronism, I play WWI so nukes aren't an option. I would rather play in the days of sail than the nuclear age.

Quote from Walrus_3d 1914

Embark times have been corrected on the latest update. Thank you, Dev Team!!

According to the update notes, this was corrected, but from what I can tell it has not.

If it was only bombers, then your subs were detected by spies or agents.

Fighters on the water can detect hidden units, but bombers can't.

Quote from frisianqueen

I had the same experience, 3 subs from Ottoman Garrison.

Were they in the northern river? I'm curious if there are three more in the southern river that I'm glibly shuttling troops across.

Embark times have been corrected on the latest update. Thank you, Dev Team!!

I had an odd experience I thought I'd share from a Dominion map.

At war across a river with another player, my fighter reveals 3 submarines. I attack them, because that's what you do with submarines.

Later, I realize I'm at war with the Ottoman Garrison, because the 3 submarines belong to them, not to the nation I was fighting.

Less concerned about my lack of attention that led to attacking neutral submarines, and more concerned about the fact that an AI with no harbours had 3 submarines in the first place.

Does Ottoman Garrison start the Dominion map with submarines? First heard, if so.

If infantry in the water were swimming, there would be no embark time. They would just go.

They're embarking onto armed transport vessels, from which they're able to shoot at the crew of the cruisers.

The fact that infantry have an attack/defense rating at sea is the indicator that they can attack ships. It's on the Units page in the manual.

I don't hate the idea, but I think it adds an unnecessary level of complexity that would also take away some of the realism of the game.

Imagine a unit of 1000 infantry at 90% morale. They fight in a few battles, they survive, they drop to 60% from combat, then they rest for a few days in a high morale province, now they're back up to 90%. You stack them with another newer unit at 98%, now both are at 94%. This perspective makes veteran status relevant, that you have 1000 infantry who have survived combat.

My perspective: an infantry unit at 90% morale is 900 infantry, not 1000. The province that produced them wasn't able to field the entire quota, so they deployed without the full complement of soldiers. They go into combat, 300 die, now they're at 60%. They go to a high morale province _where the lost men are replaced by new conscripts and recruits_ until they number 900 again. Now you add them to 980 new recruits, where the two units merge into two 940-man units, with veteran and green infantry evenly distributed throughout.

My perspective doesn't need veterancy to be a factor, and I want it not to be, because in the real course of the game, that infantry unit is going to be one of thousands sacrificed in combat. I don't care about their back story, I just need them to die instead of the artillery.

Veterancy should apply to named units. Maybe. And it should be a temporary morale boost for the units that are in the stack with named units.

That's what barracks are for. A level 2 barracks in a double resource province at 100% morale produces 3 infantry per game day. That should be sufficient for most purposes.

Lack of infantry has never been my problem.

I'll throw in a recent experience:

In a control point map, I was at 28/30, the nearest competitor was at 19/30, and they quietly traded with two other players for 12 CPs, putting them at 31/30. I declared war and captured one of their control points, and they traded again to get two more from the same players, putting them at 32/30. At the same time, the countries they traded with also attacked me, to ensure that the account was successfully pushed.

For the record, I was the largest country on the map, with the largest army, and was 12 hours away from capturing the last two points I needed when they commenced the trades.

I would agree that trading control points should be made illegal for control point maps, and that account pushing reports should be given priority over game bug or other player reports. This occurred three weeks ago and I've yet to receive a response to the report.

The single advantage to railguns over bombers, defensively anyway, is that a railgun is "set and forget" as long as it's outside of bomber range itself. A defensive bomber has to be set to attack each target. Railguns on the coast allow you to go to sleep, or work, or whatever else you need to do that isn't actively prosecuting a defense against invasion. Even if the railgun is within enemy bomber range, you can set a bevvy of fighters to patrol, and stand a fair chance of your railgun surviving the encounter.

I don't put railguns where I expect the enemy to be most active. I put them where I expect me to be least attentive.

Quote from Shivaji_Maharaj

one more thing i had a doubt about, if i retire from a game, will i still get the win goldmark bonus?

Yes, when active players retire from a match, they receive medals and GoldMark based on their ranking at the time the retirement occurs.

you can't submit screen shots in mobile, but the support response should be via email, and you can submit screen shots in reply.

I've had the same issue with units at the top edge of the screen.

Landing in an enemy province, the disembark time doesn't update if the province is captured during the disembark.

This is related to the glitch that doesn't update travel time when province ownership changes, but the disembark time remains the "enemy" timing even if you stop and restart the disembark.

This is wildly frustrating. Please find a way to correct it.

When equal units are in combat, there is no advantage to the "attacking" unit. Fighter combat is always frustrating for that reason.