Posts by Furry1

    It would definitely be a challenge for the devs, however, it is an idea that I like as well and have thought about it myself, along with being able to name those units that have developed some experience.

    No, I disagree. Transport ships have very little in the way of armor or weapons. Also, slower. Any cruiser should have a field day against them. Programmers are taking the easy route and simply assigning combat power to units regardless of reality. IF you move transports and you don't want them sunk, you should have to also assign combat vessels to escort. This part oft he game is too simplistic and unrealistic.

    Okay, so let me understand this correctly, you feel men on transports should not be able to sink a LC but you have no problem with a LC traveling at 67 KMH in WW I?

    It's been down for awhile now. I'm sure the Devs are working overtime to try and fix it. All in all, it's like playing the game. You just have to have patience. Let's all remember the servers are under a major strain with everyone being around during the lockdown so, hic-coughs are to be expected.

    they are slower then your naval units so practically if you're around you shouldn't lose agaisnt them you can bombard, move, bombard, move. If it does get caught and loses it's basiccally been overrun by hundreds of infantry transport vehicules. (1infantry = 1000 units) which makes it rather realistic you might outrange them, but if they're with to many they can catch you.

    Even a pack of rats can bring down a magnificent Lion if there's enough of them.

    It's a GAME of course BUT

    Sorry, no they do not affect the strategy unless you're trying to equate what you're doing with realistic map. The strategy within the game remains the same WITHIN the confines of the game. i.e. If you're playing as France and want to take over Great Britain in a 31 player map you need to make sure you can land on their shores safely. This means being able to bombard via guns, ships or planes. Now going back to WW I, that was impossible to happen because France and the UK were allies, so, the map accuracy has no bearing on the strategy of the game.

    Guys, please do not expect accuracy for the maps. In the 31 player map, Newfoundland has some weird F sitting on top of it. Cities are NOWHERE near where they really are in Canada OR the U.S. for that matter. It's a GAME, it does NOT pretend to be geographically or politically or militarily accurate. In WW I we'd have millions of men set up in a trench network across from each other with machine-guns doing most of the killing.

    Whoa whoa whoa. I did it about a week or two back. Had 13 inf with a fort (Don't recall the level) They had higher morale than the ELEVEN 11 men coming to attack them. Set the flower with all 13. which was over an HOUR from them being attacked. First attack, I lost 7 and he lost 6. Second attack, fort destroyed and he took the city with one man left. It's been PATCHED.

    I have a screenshot from the game I would like to post as its unbelievable. I have a province that says I require 48,680,642,639 days in order to recruit one soldier. Which is over 133 million years. I'm sorry... I don't have that much time :p

    Obviously your recruiting officers aren't doing their job. I'd fire them. As for image copy, see if there is an app called Gyazo for the phone, easy to copy anything then.

    There is also another "trick" that can be implemented but it's a little harder now with "cool down" rules and that is where you have a faux war and allow your ally to take those lands from you and then come back to the coalition after the fact.

    Back to the original concept for this post. Sorry, GM should be GM whether you buy it, win it or are given it by Bytro. It's been a few years now since the whole "HEY Guys, look at this, you can help your allies with your GM." but what we then had to find out the hard way was ..."But, only if you BUY the GM." Also, seriously, you think winning 3150 GM in a 100 player game could possibly impact another game with a multi-account? If we were talking tens of thousands of GM, I could understand but do the math, 3150 after 50 days is about 63 GM per day. Not enough to make that huge a difference in any game. I re-iterate, it's still nickel and diming us.



    EDIT: no edit, i want to stress the point of commitmentless tutorials to reduce unfair learning curves.

    Excuse me, what exactly is an unfair learning curve? Also, please explain to me why I would want to volunteer playing a game that can take more than a month to play to train someone I don't even know?

    Firstly, not EVERYONE quits the tutorial map. The incentive to stay and win and get additional Goldmark for the win is already established. In fact, I don't know a lot of people who are still around that did NOT finish their tutorial maps when they started. Reality is if they don't bother finishing it, they normally move on and although their account is still listed in Bytro, we never see them again.


    As for players training under a more experienced player, that is why we have alliances. Kingsman for example makes a big issue of taking junior players and teaching them advanced tactics in playing the game. In fact, going into a game with one of our more junior players and look forward to training him a little to improve the game for him.