I'm just here to bump the topic. I've spent more inadvertent gold than intentional gold, just in this screen alone. The fact that there is no recourse to return the GM to the player makes it all the more relevant that the single largest transaction in GM should include a confirmation step.
Posts by Walrus_3d 1914
-
-
I think the most reasonable implementation of "factory repair" of units would be to actually remove that unit from play for the amount of time it would take to rebuild that percentage of condition for that unit. For instance, if my factory can build a ship in 4 days, so 25% of a ship in one day, then my existing ship at 75% condition should take one full day to repair, as long as I'm not building anything else with that factory. If I have a factory and 50% of a tank, I should be able to build that tank up to 100% in half the time, instead of having to build a whole new tank from scratch. I believe that ends up still being a faster rate of repair than the normal repairs in the field. Also, I could have the option to only repair a certain percentage of the unit, much like building 25% of an aerodrome, canceling the construction, and being able to use it as an active runway.
With all that said, I'd also like the option to stop construction of a new unit, say at 50% or 75%, and to just be able to use it at that condition level, rather than waiting the full construction time. Could lead to some interesting defensive actions in extremis.
-
I like the option better of spying on your allies while defending them from other nations' spies. Let me put two spies in an ally's territory, and I'm not only protecting my interests from the enemy, but protecting myself from my allies.
It would also alleviate some of the concerns if your ally takes a territory in which you have an active spy, if that spy had the option to become a defensive spy rather than being a potential problem further on. If your ally takes a territory, and then five days later puts their own defensive spy in there, which then reveals your offensive spy...
I think the game should default to your spies being defensive in allied territory, with the option to make them offensive if needed.
-
There have been suggestions about being able to head to a different target within a certain angle without heading back.
Your response doesn't address my post. I'm not talking about changing an existing attack order, I'm talking about adding a movement order without realizing it will reverse an existing movement order, and the inability to assign an attack target to an aircraft that it can engage after landing at its next airfield.
-
I like the first suggestion.
The alternative one is not realistic to WWI technology tho.
I'm not sure I phrased it in a clear way. Right now, if I want to advance an artillery unit by a particular path and then attack an enemy unit, I have to guess where the best attack position will be, and add it as an extra movement order instead of an attack order. The attack order would potentially clear out the existing move order and change the path to the target. (The problem is similar for aircraft, in that I can either move a bomber to the desired airfield and then give it an attack order after it's landed, or I can give it an attack order that it will attempt to execute from the first airfield in range.)
It's completely within WWI technology that an artillery's orders would be "advance along this path and then engage this target", or that an aircraft's order would be "transit to this forward airfield and then commence attacking this nearby target".
An "add attack target" button would solve both problems and simplify complex operations.
-
Issue: giving an aircraft an attack order once it is airborne can result in it backtracking to the previous airfield, instead of continuing to its current objective and then continuing on as intended. Sometimes this results in hours of wasted flight time.
Suggestion: if a move or attack order would cause an aircraft to backtrack, add a confirmation step, similar to the warning about entering neutral territory, prior to negating the travel already completed.
Alternative suggestion: for ranged and air units, add an "add attack target", so that movement orders can be preserved while adding follow-on attack targets.
-
I like the idea of rings to give distances, (although the maps are already cluttered with the unit banners) for veteran players we all know to use movement time of any unit inf or mechanical unit to measure the distances, but the distance from airfields is a long time issue . (distance can always be measured with unit movement time)
Distance measured with movement time is along roads, which is less accurate when trying to gauge artillery or aircraft ranges. It also requires having a unit available, and time to plot the path and calculate the time/distance.
I think having a measuring tool would assist new players and speed up decision making for veteran players.
-
Actually, now I think about it, it could be a simple Game Setting like where we can turn on city names, or show resources. Make it a simple ON / OFF showing a radius circle for a number of items like Fighters, Bombers, RGs, Arty, basically anything that has a range.
That was what I was initially suggesting. An overlay view that you could turn on and off in settings. Basically when you have the view turned on, selecting the city would bring up the range rings when the province is highlighted.
-
There should also be an option to say whether it would follow a road or not.
That could be two separate tools, then. One to measure ground travel distances and one to measure ranges.
Along similar lines, I'd like an overlay of the sea lanes, so it's easier to choose which path to take, defensively or offensively, instead of making best guesses.
-
In Mobile, when you select
Diplomacy
Messages
Start New Message,
the interface shows you a list of all countries and their last dates of activity.
On PC, when you select the same, it does not.
My concern is that this gives an intelligence advantage to mobile users, since they will have more warning that a player is active but idle, or is about to go inactive, on a particular map.
Suggestion: Either add this information to the PC interface, or remove it from the Mobile interface.
Thanks for your time.
-
Suggestion:
Add an overlay, available in the settings/views, or in the province info itself,
which applies range rings to the province view when it is selected. For obvious
reasons, those rings could be at 40, 50, 75, 150, 225, and 350 km.
(Range of Cruisers, Artillery, Battleships, Railguns, Fighters, and Bombers).
At a minimum, they should be at 225 and 350 km.
Discussion:Given that fighters and bombers each have a known range, it would be very helpful
to be able to see that range visually -- prior to constructing aerodromes or producing
aircraft -- in order to ensure that you are able to transit your newly produced aircraft,
as efficiently as possible, to the corners of your (or enemy) territory.
Currently, the only way to accurately set distances between airfields is, having produced
an aircraft, to use its range ring to build new aerodromes within the range, which takes a
minimum of six hours' construction and is horrendously inefficient.
My initial thought was a simple ruler, which would allow you to draw straight-line
distances, but range rings would be optimal, since we're almost never concerned
about distances in only one direction at a time.
I don't know if there is already some similar capability on PC, but if there is,
then I'm asking for it to be applied to Mobile.
Thanks for your time.
