Posts by Walrus_3d 1914

    Please put a link to the manual in the Mobile Forum.

    Please put a link to the manual in the Mobile Main Page.

    Please update the manual to address the Mobile interface.

    Please update the manual to address gameplay changes.

    Intel reports of unit locations, especially submarines, are perishable. Don't trust them beyond the first hour unless you're actively patrolling the area and find them again.

    Splitting makes bombers next to useless.

    Is anybody aware if there are plans to fix this loophole?

    I would argue that there are, accidentally or on purpose, multiple benefits to actively playing the game, i.e., staying online for the duration of a war, or as much as possible. The ability to split units to avoid bomber damage is one of those.

    Splitting doesn't make bombers useless, it makes them less effective against intelligent and active players. When AI split, they tend to send the larger part of the force in the direction of the bomber, taking it away from protection and making it easier to destroy. A player who isn't logged in during the bombing run won't split regardless.

    What would you suggest as a correction? Either the bomber has to target the unit split from, or the bomber has to target the unit split to, either way an active player can split in such a way that the "target" designation disappears from the more valuable stack. You could prevent players from splitting units that are currently being targeted by bombers, which is completely unrealistic, and would make it more difficult to use bombers effectively against AI in fortresses.

    You could have the bomber's damage for that run apply to both units after the split, which would certainly solve the particular issue, but could potentially lead to server-breaking situations, such as if a unit is split into multiple pieces, and one or more of those units then joins with other nearby units, all of which would be *attacked by the bomber* and thus also *defend themselves from the bomber*. So, if someone split the armored cars from their artillery stack and joined it up with a stack of 20 balloons during the 2-hour bomber transit, so that the bomber is suddenly attacking a unit with 10 Air Defense instead of 4, now you run the risk of losing the bomber completely.

    I'm not certain if it's even possible to allow the program to give you a real window of time to redirect the bomber without returning home, but that would also allow you to choose which of the split units the bomber attacks.

    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 up to 19 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 risking 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.