Posts by Demonaire

    Considering the repeated messages violating the forum rules with regards to the prohibition of swearing or another offensive words, in addition of insulting remarks, which altogether have deviated the original purpose of the topic. I proceed to, again, erase the offensive message and, this time, close the thread.


    The use of euphenisms or not is totally irrelevant: rule-breakers euphenisms still breaks rules, in the same way when you didn't use euphenisms while you dedicated some word to moderators.

    Edition reverted and reply erased by the offensive remarks and swearing.

    If people can't follow the forum rules, please refrain to write here. Thanks in advance.

    You still can use aggressive fire mode as you did before. Just give the countries you don't want to attack right of way. Even if they don't give RoW to you it is enough that your ranged units won't attack them. Normally most players give RoW to all AIs at the beginning of the game anyway, so shouldn't be a problem. And later in the game most AIs "in between" will be destroyed anyway as well. And regarding larger blocks of human players that you would not want to give RoW: Well you just have to keep your distance to them then or temporarily set to "fire at will" while near their borders. That will probably be the only behavioural change, and that is imo warranted.

    That means after we implemented the fix for fire at will you should be able to make use of the new blockade behaviour while for the most part not losing any old options.

    With all the due respect, that can't be the answer in a war simulator game. It's not possible to tell the player "be risky with the RoW if you don't want your troops attacks neutrals". They're neutrals precisely because we haven't trust enough to give RoW to them.

    I just lost a round due to players "clashing" with my troops to provoke wars. It practically became impossible to control naval passes. Hence, you know what we can expect when potential enemies discover we gave them RoW just because we wouldn't want to enter in a war with them.

    Insults doesn't need context. And if you were insulted by another player, you always will be able to send a ticket, relating all the situation developed. No "Report Article" button is needed for that.

    On the other hand, my piece of advice in those cases is always take screenshots of the infringments in the moment it happens, just in case.

    1. The rules are written as it is: "The denunciation of Goldmark is not permitted and leads to an immediate warning. The use of Gold is an explicit part of the game. The same applies to the premium account."

    2. I think it's important the last part of your message: "In my case warning woks and I do not use map DE any more as there is no point in using it. "

    I mean, if some player are signaling another player for using GM in the DE, that's clearly a tacit suggestion to unite all the Non-GM players to fight against the GM player, even if it was non-intended. My point is: we are way too much sensitive about GM denunciation in the match newspapers than the same denunciation in forum or chat, since the former has great potential to ruin player's experience in the game.

    So, as stiff as it can be, the sole mention in the newspaper, the mere suspiction, from someone in the match that some player is using GM is directly considered GM denunciation and measures will be taken. And with that said, on the other hand, I don't think there are another reasons why would players talk about GM in newspapers. I mean, I don't imagine a player saying in the newspaper "Goldmarks are so great, I love them!" Even if there is one, that player surely would publish that message as anonymous, by the reasons explained aforementioned.

    Summarizing, the ruler would be: if you want to talk about GM in the newspaper, don't suggest any player is using it and avoid any criticism about that coin. If any, chat and forum are better places to do that criticism, as long as it's argumented


    Awful update.

    Mainly, the update destroys the submarines' feature of being stealth and, in that way, bypassing stationary units in the sea.

    It's so unreal... German Empire would have lost the WWI faster, had their submarines forced to attack any enemy unit in contact with them.

    I must communicate that my laptop was robbed and I'm working with a borrowed one. That's why I hadn't been able to enter to Skype or take care of the chat as I'd wish.

    I'm in the purchasing process of a new laptop. Until then, Thanks for your patience.


    Clearly unrealistic.

    Besides, it's still the option to ask somebody to hire military saboteurs or to bombard that city to destroy that port.

    1. I doubt that's unrealistic when history have examples of great armies stopped by small units.

    2. That's part of the art of war.

    3. If you consider that, please send a ticket to a Game Operator, who, in turn, will contact the administrators to verify and , if it's true, correct that bug.


    The problem is killing AIs is incredibly boring and believe it or not the reason we play a game is for fun not to be forced into the mindless grind of clearing a map of AIs. But if Bytro feel to 'win' a map players have to suffer that boredom then they are not providing us a fun game but a mundane task instead. It's a shame you feel like that but I do realise some players prefer killing AIs as they are predictable and easy to kill, those ones would happily keep playing a map when the real fighting is over but many of us really don't consider that challenging or fun.

    I won't deny to fight against normal AI is boring (In fact, I think AI should be smarter, at Elite AI level, and become that Elite AI even smarter), but by that reason the system gives people a procedure to end the match sooner when there are 3 players or less. However, some players decide to not ending the match until they have got a better position in the table, and that's a valid stance. As I said, it's a good dilemma whether decide to save time by renouncing some prizes or gain a big reward by consuming some time.

    The fact is no map ends with all their players active, and I don't think it's fair that players who were outsmarted by others win "free" prizes just because they endured more than them. Even more, I think that's a very boring, not funny, way to play.

    Prizes are there to take it. They're yours. But don't tell me it's funny to gift rewards to people who didn't fight them.

    Not necessarily - there are many reason why a player will expand quickly this could be as a result of being a muli who used alt accounts to run Kamikaze for him. Or a big GMer who simply ran out of funds so quit, could have been a lot of luck involved in placement. However the players who stick it out to the end and show that kind of activity and commitment to the game should be given some kind of reward - it's not gifting when the rest of the map has chosen to forgo any reward.

    As for the first case, you can report it. If that report doesn't punish that player, then that player played better than the others.

    As for the second case, that is still to play better than the others. Twisted in some way, but that's the logic here.

    Finally, the players that show activity until the end of the match already receive a reward for that: their puntuation in goldmarks (something inactive players doesn't) And they can pursue bigger rewards by conquering inactives (something very easy to do, given the AI). But "gifting" the Top 3 just because activity, or even semi-activity (and not by "play the game"), is clearly an inadequate reason to prize them.

    I am speculating (and if I'm wrong, please correct me Pershing), but I believe he was suggesting that forcing the active players to grind out points against inactive opponents is simply a waste of time.

    Thus removing the AI and inactives so as to give rewards to the top 3 active players results in virtually the same outcome but allows them to move on to a new active game sooner.

    Did I get the gist of your argument?

    Yes, maybe it's a waste of time, but it's part of the bargaining: Gain time by renouncing merit? or sacrificing time to improve your position?

    Reality is the inactive players in Top 3, before going inactive, played better than the others. So it's fair the active players must fight for grabbing those points and not simply "gifting" them just because they were active throughout the match. After all, since they're active, they already have a big advantage against them.