Posts by Furry1

    On a completely different track of argument against vassalage in the game, I would have to say that we are playing in a game that takes place during the height of the Industrial Age and not during Feudal Times.

    Vassalage already exists in the game with coalitions and even some alliances.


    When a game begins, coalitions are created which means several things can happen depending on the leader.


    1. The leader can state that they are now a team and will work together to win the match. (My position, incidentally)

    2. The leader can declare himself as dictator and NOBODY is to do anything without permission or orders.

    3. The leader can institute a system whereby all other coalition players must give him resources as either a tax or whatever because that's how you get into the coalition or stay in the coalition. (In essence, vassalage)

    4. I've also seen some coalitions using members as farms for not only resources but even for land.


    Basically, this game can be almost anything you like but the onus is on the players.

    Yep, you're expected to create a FP game and if you don't do it they remove you as a FP, However, don't fret, in a day or two they'll bug you to join it again.

    A match I am in at the moment we had a player that was easily seen to be a multi-account. Neighbouring countries moving troops out of the way, allowing him to move in and take provinces and capitals with no losses. Tickets got submitted and less than 24 hours, the GOs removed the offending players from the match.


    Well done, guys and gals.


    BUT, the main reason for this post is simply to say a Thank You. Without the generous help of volunteers in the game, it would be a much harder time for all of us, so once again, I say THANK YOU because you guys don't hear that enough!!!:):):)

    Actually, it seems there was a bug that has now been addressed by the last update. I also encountered your complaint in a match I was playing and submitted a bug report.

    My girlfriend and I play a lot of matches together and we use GM to help each other at times. BUT every now and again we run into "You do not have enough proper Goldmark to perform that action."


    In other words, we no longer have Goldmark we paid for, the Goldmark we now have left is what we've won in a match or two. I feel this is simply wrong. Goldmark should BE Goldmark and not Goldmark A or Goldmark B. To be honest, we do not WIN a huge windfall of GM in any matches, so why nickel and dime us this way? :cursing::cursing::?:

    Which is ironic, since that trade save you from paying 20 tons of grain by the upkeep per unit.


    I mean, since when is a cannon feeded with bread?8o

    Okay, this has got to be one of the silliest arguments justifying the removal of trading units.


    Let's propose an arms trade step by step, shall we?


    In a match, German Empire would like to buy 10 Artillery units from America (doesn't matter which one, choose one)


    America agrees and the trade is agreed 20,000 Silver for 10 Artillery units.


    The moment the trade is done, here is what has happened.


    German Empire has sent over men to receive the artillery units and German Empire is now paying 200 units (you are assuming tons) of grain per day along with 50 units of Oil per day.


    The moment the transaction is completed the imaginary, invisible American men attached to the artillery pieces are relieved of their duties in helping transfer the hardware and go home to be replaced by imaginary, invisible German men.


    Ergo, the need for German empire to NOW pay 200 units of grain per day for the artillery units. America NO LONGER is paying 200 units of grain or 50 units of oil for upkeep of 10 artillery pieces they have sold.

    Yes, I can see that but MOST of us don't like to play the game for close to a year or more just to get up to such massive numbers.. The alternative of course would be to GM up some of those massive numbers. Sorry, but I prefer to win the match as quickly as possible.

    Think about this for a moment, if there were such a thing as a "Doom Stack" that was indestructible or could assure you of winning a match, that would become the goal for all matches instead of what's laid out. All units have different positives and negatives depending on what you're trying to do.


    Had a match recently where I easily killed a fighter in the water that was being used as a scout for a player. The reality is that the fighter had a bigger visual range than a balloon or an infantry unit but is very costly to use as a scout because it's so weak when discovered.


    As for the HTs vs Ts, in the beginning we used to require blueprints to build heavy tanks so now it's much easier BUT it still costs more to build and it's a player preference either way. I like to use a well-balanced army as much as possible so you will see a combination of tanks and HTs in my stacks.

    Thanks SP, so when we get it back up, I'll either have 3 cities that repelled the attack OR I'm going to be down 3 cities. I think the former which would be good but if it's the latter, I may need someone to bail me out of jail. *Jus' sayin'*