Posts by ScaredyCat

    My thoughts:

    1) My sense is that this game is intentionally designed to make it difficult to achieve solo wins on big maps (like 500p map). This capital morale penalty is one such game mechanic. Another is the 'corruption' mechanic. I see this as a good thing because it makes teamwork more important.

    2) I think the map is okay the way it is right now. Your point about America having a hard time expanding is true. But this is a 2-sided coin: it is also hard for people to invade America.. So there are pros and cons to this. America is not necessarily disadvantaged by the lack of direct air connection to Africa. .

    3) I agree that the lag in late game for 500p map is a problem..

    I have the same experience as Furry. All the reports I made about inappropriate langauge in newspaper had led to removal of the articles. I have not personally observed any bans yet, but i think the warning seems to work in stopping inappropriate language..

    I suggest you keep reporting those articles

    A possible explanation is that you have turned inactive and the move/attack commands are sent by the AI.

    You can still turn AI even if you log in everyday. You need to make some kind of actions (e.g., moving your troops) to prevent turning AI. You can check if this explanation applies for you by looking at the newspaper - whether there is a newspaper article about 'Coup de tat' for your country.

    Regarding your first point about countering artillery by sending in single infantry to draw the fire, I think this tactic is much less effective now because:

    1) Your artillery stack gets a morale boost from killing single infantry (usually 1-2%).

    2) Your artillery stack can fire again after killing the 1 infantry (if you have sufficient artilleries in your stack).

    What this means is that this single-infantry tactic is only effective when you have very few artilleries in your stack. When you have more artilleries and more infantry in your stack, this tactic is not effective and may even backfire.

    In other words, I suggest you counter this tactic by (i) putting more artilleries in your stack (so it can fire multiple shots), and (ii) put a lot of infantry in the stack (so that you will benefit more from the morale gain from killing the infantry).

    I am not against your suggestion of having different 'fire only' mode, but i will personally not use it even if it is available. This mode is too easy to counter. For example, if an enemy stack is using 'fire only on arty' mode, I will send my infantry to attack that stack, and then move my artillery to bombard.

    For your 2nd point, I think the developers are already working on something to fix this, so I won't comment here..

    I have witnessed Bytro reduce the inactivity period from 5 days down to 2 days, so Bytro is also protecting these players K/D ratios, especially in 500 maps where you have huge armies, Bytro can fix this by simply returning to the prior 5 days inactivity standard.

    While on this topic another deceptive statistic with overall experience of players since Bytro made all AI Elite, these players are achieving high military rank with 80% of their score being fighting against AI

    Regarding inactivity period, I feel that a 2 day period is the lesser evil here (vs. 4 or 5 day period). When the inactivity period was 4/5 days, it is so easy to improve K/D ratio by bombarding those static troops standing there doing nothing. I would think that a shorter inactivity period results in the KDR being a better reflection of a player's skills and ability. Furthermore, in the past when inactivity period is longer and I want to preserve my KDR, I would just send my troops out of range of the enemy (e.g.. out to sea or far inland).

    As for the deceptive statistics, I personally see military rank as a poor indicator of a player's skills and ability. I don't infer that a player is a good player simply because he has high military rank. I am under the impression that most players with some experience rely on KDR more than rank.. But it would be cool if the rank system could be reworked to make military rank a more meaningful indicator (I have no suggestions though).

    Complicated. Many people goes AFK because of... "anything". You can't punish them for that since Bytro doesn't want to people are logged in constantly.

    However, an "equidistant" solution could be achieved by protecting the statistics from those who went AFK but, on the other hand, allow active players to improve their own by conquering the former countries of those AFK players.

    But going inactive here means being AFK for 2 days straight. Even if Bytro doesn't want people to log in constantly, they would still want players to log in at least once every 1-2 days right? I think if we want KDR to be a good indicator of skills and ability, then dropping the KDR of players who don't log in for 2 days straight seems like the right thing to do..

    Maybe the rules/definitions are clear to the GOs, but before this recent discussion, it certainly was not clear for me. I speculate that it is also unclear for many players...

    So I feel that it would be beneficial to revise the wording of the rules on pushing to make it clearer and more concrete.

    Interesting.. thanks for the discussion.

    From what I see:

    • I think we can all agree that in Walrus's case (in post #11), player A had clear intention to help player B right before quitting.
    • But I think there is no evidence indicating that player A joined the game with the sole intention of helping Player B.

    If this constitute account pushing, does this then means that:

    • 1) In future games, if my coalition-mates decides to quit halfway through the game (e.g., work commitement, health reasons, family members died) and send all his troops towards a competitor (who we may or may not be at war with), I am not supposed to capture his empty provinces?
    • 2) (Variation of the #1) Does it matter if capturing of the empty provinces is delayed by 2 days till he turns AI? (and assuming the recruitment center is disabled for easy capture)
    • 3) In future games, if I have to quit the game halfway for personal reasons, I am not supposed to help my coalition by giving away land, resources, and sending my troops to attack the competitors?

    If the above scenarios are not considered pushing, what is the distinguishing characteristics from the scenario described by Walrus?

    I don't disagree with the rules, I just want to better understand it so I can adhere to them.

    EDIT: to clarify that I am referring to Walrus's scenario in post #11 (i only saw post #17 after I made this post)

    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 have also experienced more lag than usual on a 500-player map since yesterday.

    But because 500-player maps tends to get more laggy over time, I am not entirely sure if this is due to the update

    I am not surprised by the outcome of this battle. Morale matters, but:

    1) There is some randomness involved in battle

    2) He has more units than you. If morale is equal, then the stack with more units will inflict greater damage. If you play around with this calculator (supplements), you will see that you have an advantage over your enemy's stack, but its not a massive advantage. This fits with the outcome of the battle (he lost more than you).

    Actually, I'm not sure who it was that mentioned it, but recently it was announced that there is no longer a penalty for not declaring war. Whether it's a surprise attack OR a declaration of war has no impact on your morale either way.

    Good to know! Thanks for the clarifications

    From my knowledge, the only disadvantage of surprise attack is that it lowers your reputation to a greater extent. Lower reputation can, in turn, affect AI countries' diplomatic status towards you (embargo, war).


    - Against AIs, I do surprise attack most of the time. I feel that in most situations, my reputation is going to be terrible anyway after invading a few AIs. So the benefit of declaring war is pretty minimal in the long run.

    - Against humans, I always do surprise attack. The element of surprise is very important in battle.

    HnR is activity based exploit, I do not have much experience with this exploit since past 2 yrs I am not as active on maps, without HnR those which return each hour to move forward fire and retreat will be lost, other exploits that do not all require activity to advance in this game will need to be mastered.

    I have suspicion this is a way to eliminate account sitters from the game and that everyone will now have benefit of offensive fire control which was previously a perk only enjoyed by High Command members, however I am only guessing as I have not tested the nuance of this change/fix. I look forward to testing this change on the battlefield, and wonder if the misfire or 1 arty unit preventing 6 other units from firing will also be eliminated...

    My interpretation of the update description is that this change is not the same as offensive mode. But I have very little experience with High command (only got high command for free for a very short duration when I first started the game), so please correct me if I am wrong..

    In offensive mode, a moving stack will stop moving and fire back when an enemy comes into range ('even if the execution of other orders has to be deferred'). I don't think this recent change involve stopping movement. In fact, i think this change may make offensive mode even more powerful because there may no longer be a delay before a stack on offensive mode fires.

    My thoughts on this update:

    1) Personally, I don't mind the change in path indicators. I kind of like the arrows actually.

    2) I think the change in range units mechanics that eliminates HnR is nice. It emphasizes the strategic aspects of this game.

    3) Not sure if this is a bug or an intended change: I noticed that the red marker indicating that a unit is being targeted is now gone. For example, my units being targeted by an enemy bomber used to have a red marker on in. Now, there is no such marker. I hope this is not permanently removed. Without this marker, players will have less time to respond to bomber threats (because we sometimes can see the red marker before the bomber comes into visible range), making bomber more powerful in this game.