Posts where I'm quoted

You know, if each individual unit is suppose to represent an army, why not name them as such?

Tank - Armored Battalion
Infantry - actually this ones pretty vague, but to go with the flow could be like Infantry Division?
Marines - I don't know much about the marines, so eh
Bomber - Air Wing
Battleship - Carrier Battlegroup
Submarine - These typically go solo, so maybe just leaving it as is?

Anyways you get the point, since they're not actually individual tanks or infantry, why not have their names represent this fact?

Because these are mechs and who doesn't like giant bipedal tanks. And they're not invisible. After all, I don't hate marines because they're essentially tanks. I hate them because they're essentially tanks. Confusing I know. But naw, seriously, it's not their stats that bother me, it's the fact that they're SUPPOSE to be a unique unit, but as is they aren't. If they were intended to be an invisible tank, I wouldn't care. But it flat out says every unit must be unique, which marines aren't. That's why I hate them. I have no problem with there being units that are essentially "a tank but stronger", if that's their intended role.

Having the cap give you all cities is a terrible idea, however various bonuses for taking neutral territory, at the expense of reinforcements from said territory might be nice.

I know, as I said it's not anything that matters, just something funny.

This is here rather then ideas and suggestions simply because it's not anything that really matters, I just found it funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship#Modern_times

Since Afterwind is suppose to be set in modern times, the fact that battleships exist is an error, since no new battleships have been made for decades and the last remaining battleship was retired in 2006. Just thought I'd point out this little trivia

You learn something new every day.

Written by Otokonoko, 30.01.2011 at 18:19

If an ally takes all of his troops out of a city, you can go and take it from him with your troops. Although I do think it would be cool to allow allies to have their troops stationed in eachother's cities to defend them.

You can take it back even if you're still allied?

Would be nice since some gold medals are rather easy to get, I mean I've gotten three of em in just six days.

I do think something needs to be done about naval commander. Last night I played against someone who spawned in taiwan using naval commander (I had the western hemisphere), and so he took japan and indonesia and south/east china. But despite taking my cities, he couldn't really do anything. So I just sat there staring at him as he held onto my coastal cities until eventually I bum-rushed him with a doomstack of around 500 tanks simply cuz I had way more territory since I wasn't bound to the ocean. Naval commanders will rape your face if you fight them at sea, but in the grand scheme of things that wont help you win, since 90% of this game takes place on land.

I think something like an aircraft carrier or a destroyer is needed. Something that's long-range and can hit cities farther inland. Obviously they wouldn't cap, and would instead act like bombers, killing everything inside the city. This way the naval commander can then send in land forces and take the city without having to fight using said land forces.

I second this, also the ability to give cities would be so good. I can't tell you how many times I've allied someone who controlled some cities in a region I owned, so I had to go and unally him just to get those back.

Actually, I've found the 'games played' number to be off as well. My stats say I have played 43 games which is NOT true at all, I've played half that at best. But from what I can tell the counter includes reconnects so every time I've reconnected to a game it's counted as a game played.

All's fair in love and war, that's called espionage and spying.

I'm always a fan of options. Personally, I don't give a shit about rushing, but if someone wants to play a game with no rushing, why not? The more options there are, the more people can play the game they want, so the more fun it is for them.

Again, Kaze, as I said nothing you do will stop the players. If they can't formally ally with someone they'll just make a NAP and not attack eachother. You can't make someone fight if they don't want to, so it's best to leave alliances the way they are.

Well if you play a lot it's not that hard to rank up exceptionally fast. Also it depends on their play styles. If they're just naturally good at these sort of conquest games, and are very, very aggressive. They'll get tons of SP per game and then get medals really fast. And some games give TONS of sp if you do really good, like a game I just finished ended up giving me like 25k SP. (dem gold medals) So you should check their other stats, how many games they've played, how many they've won, how many units they've killed, how many battles they've had. Cuz I mean they've been around for almost a month so being rank 7 is far from unreasonable. I've only been here for 6 days and I'm almost rank 6.

If people wanna ally with everyone else and attain less SP, that's up to them. There's nothing stopping you from allying them, building up your empire, and then warring the fuck out of them. I ally people all the time, but I'll still invade others because that's the only real fun aspect about this game, fighting other players and seeing who's better. However everyone's sense of fun is different, I like fighting others but some just wanna be neutral and have a big empire. We shouldn't penalize them for playing the game in a way they enjoy. Especially when it doesn't negatively effect anyone.

Also, keep in mind that people don't have to use game mechanics to ally one another. It isn't like your units automatically attack nearby enemy units. There's this thing called a NAP - Non Aggression Pact, two players mutually agree not to attack one another and as such simply don't attack eachother. If alliances were penalized all it'd do is make NAPs far more popular. If people don't want to fight, they wont fight, no matter what you do.

That still doesn't make africa valuable nor anybody wanted it. That's just Hitler wanting it cuz it had land and people, nothing of any actual importance. But I guess technically someone fought over it, doesn't change the fact that it's an entirely worthless continent.

Considering all the bitching about the marines, on all sides, I'd say they're the main subject of this update. Even if not intended to be. <.<

I don't think the amazonas needs to be split even if all those cities were added. Keep in mind, it's not the size of the region, I mean just look at russia-far east. What determines whether or not a region should be split is how many cities it has, even with all those cities that region only has 6 cities, MANY regions have that many or more. I really love those city placements, would help make the amazonas area easier to fight in that's for sure.

Written by learster, 28.01.2011 at 12:00

Written by King Cow, 28.01.2011 at 11:26

So the other player has to make what 50? 100? 150? inf to be safe and set up defence lines, sentry planes and keep an army close by just incase you get past. While you have to do what, move from A to B and attack?

You see no problem with this?

No I don't. That's what I'm doing every game, setting up huge defenses while expanding into my enemies. Sounds like a good game to me.

His point was that the ammount of defenses required vastly outweighs the offensive capabilities needed. You can just pump out say, 50 marines while they have to get tons of infantry, tanks, put up defense lines and all of that. So while you can sit there and just make a bunch of marines and order them to attack his capital, he has buy tons of defense and offense (to retake the city should you manage to break his defenses), not mention all the money and reinforcements he spent on those defenses don't actually contribute unless he gets attacked, so for the entire game they just sit there when they could be put to use expanding or attacking.

I agree with both the ideas of making the +100 cities on big maps as default, as well as adding various cities to south america. Especially the center around the amazons is dreadfully empty and god help you if you have to fight there, you can't reinforce it to save your life. And it's not like there aren't any cities there or anything, there may not be tons and tons, but I'm sure there are some.

Also, I don't get why people are saying Europe is too crowded with +100 cities, it seems just right to me. The only part of it I could consider too crowded is that little area to the east of italy that has like 7 capital cities right next to eachother. Everywhere else seems just fine to me.

Whenever I play, since I'm a 100% offense player (Blitz and all, shitty defense on every unit), I just make a dedicated stack of tanks near my capital and that's it. If my capital is ever taken the very next turn there's a giant doomstack of tanks taking it back. The whole marine-rushing-the-capital thing only really works on bad players, good players can easily counter. This wouldn't change whether the marines had 3 defense or 6, marines can't really hold cities anyways, atleast not against good players.

Wouldn't be that hard to fit that in the space provided.

Decreases attack of tanks and infantry by -1, increases stats of bombers and stealths to 8/6 and range of air units by 2. Cost for bombers/stealths decreased by -30 and air transports by -50, transports have double stats.

That's no longer then some of the descriptions used, and hell you can cut out the 'transports have double stats' since unless it's double capacity, nobody gives a flying fuck lol. It's all about how you word it.

Besides, not like they can't just modify the UI to provide enough space. I mean the lack of details is why I've only bought Blitz, because Blitz actually gave details on it. I simply don't know what any other strategy actually does. So I wont waste my SP on something without knowing what I'm getting.

Y'know, I wish all the strategies gave detailed information. Like Sky Menace or MoS just go "hurp they r bettar unitz!", I hate that and it keeps me from buying other strategies. Every strategy should be like blitz or imperialist where they specify what the strategy does. Sky Menace: Air units gain +2 movement and bombers gain +1 offense while infantry and tanks get -2 offense/defense

Obviously that's probably not true but that's what I mean, I wanna know WHAT the strategy does so I know if I should buy it or not. Cuz that sky menace strat sounds kinda fun, but I don't know any details about it.

Y'know, I'd like to point out that I think this new update BUFFED marines. Now they have the exact same damage as tanks and only one less defense. This is why I am just so sad that the 7/3 was buffed to 7/4, atleast with 7/3 the difference in defense was quite noticeable, but only one less defense isn't that noticeable in the long run.

Also, I second tank upgrades, every other unit gets upgrades. And sure it's cuz they're weaker at the start, but once they get some upgrades it balances out more. Marines and infantry both have the same upgrades, so why don't tanks get them too? Tanks get the movement upgrade, the lucky upgrade, the lower-cost upgrade. I'd love that so much, and it'd actually give me something to spend my SP on. Since now that I got blitz, there's just no upgrades to get since I primarily use tanks.

Did... did you SERIOUSLY just say that MoS was one of the least played strategies?

Tank General 874
Perfect Defense 483
Naval Commander 197
Master Of Stealth 126
Imperialist 113
Guerrilla Warfare 70
Sky Menace 52
Blitzkrieg 7
Lucky Bastard 1

MoS is the fourth highest strategy, and note that all strategies above it are the free ones that come standard. So out of all the extra strategies MoS is the most used one. Why is that? Why is MoS the most used one? Cuz marines have been broken, and still some-what are (I still think 7/3 would be best) to a much lesser extent. So seriously dude, stop trying to play it out like MoS is some underpowered strategy nobody uses, because that is NOT the case.

No strategy is perfect and I stand by the fact that blitz works perfectly as is intended. As you said, Yaddo, you don't defend with blitz, you intercept. You always attack cuz you can move faster then anyone else.

Meh, again I'm done arguing with you. You're just another marine user QQing cuz his marines were made unique, instead of the "tanks that are invisible" they use to be. With or without this update I'd still win against marine users, so it really doesn't matter to me. I just wanted a unique unit out of the marines, which clearly the marine users don't.

Also, I can imperiously state it's broken when it goes against one of the tenants laid forth by the game makers. It's been very clearly said that every unit must be unique, a "tank but stronger" isn't a valid unit. Well if a "tank but stronger" isn't valid because it's not unique enough, why the fuck is a "tank but invisible" acceptable? Going off those guidelines the marines aren't unique enough, and as such are broken. Unless you wanna try to tell me that having a tank that's invisible is unique enough, at which point I'd like to see duplicate units with better stats, since clearly such minor changes make a unit unique now days.

Edit: Was too slow, that was for cluebie.

Oh... that explains it, I should prolly make a note to check the dates of the original post, not just the last post made v.v

I'm a bit confused, is this basically asking if we want to keep say.. the USA split into regions, or if we want them as one big solid country? Because the way the polls worded makes it sound like it's talking about splitting countries into smaller chunks, but there aren't any really big countries left that could survive a split, so I'm a bit confused.