Posts where I'm quoted

Actually walling up doesn't do anything in regards to the what this thread is about. Walling up is no different then any other action, the enemy can get the first move and bypass your wall entirely and take your capital. I've had this happen to me many times. There is literally no defense against a first turn capital rush or turn blocking since if the game decides to give them the first move, you lose. It kind of removes any sort of strategy from the game since at that point it's pure luck. Tis why I avoid small maps like europe and capture the capital game modes, too easy to exploit things like this.

Oh, he was talking about scenarios, bummer I thought we had the ability to customize the map itself

This intrigues me, what do you mean by "draw map" and all that.

For the 'increase turn limit' well that's not always possible as mentioned above, but another reason it's not entirely possible is because of scenarios. The particular scenario I play most of the time is 1860 because it's fun and cuts out a lot of the neutral grind you do in vanilla games. But it's turn limit is locked at 50, I can't change that.

Also, you say this could be exploited but it's no easier to exploit then any other method. If you are worried about farmers, what's to stop them from just making their own game, farming endless and then allying in the end? There exists methods to farm SP that are just as easy as what I proposed in this thread. So that's not really a reason to do it.

Also to those who are all "It's my sp, why should I share it", well if it's truly yours then break your alliances if you have any. Nobody is forcing you to be allied when you win after all. However for those of us who work as a team yet prefer to play diplomacy type games (after all, we're not ALWAYS a team), it kinda screws us over when we work together yet only one of us gets the win.

This just happened to me, sigh such bullshit. Two and a half hours down the drain. I now feel your pain, Tok.

Well after two frustrating games of having my SP halved, I'd support that addition. It only makes sense for allies to get the rewards for their work. Hopefully one day it is implemented.

I was just curious why allied victory doesn't come into play when the game ends when you hit the last turn. The last couple of games I played I didn't have the most SP, but due to my actions I essentially won the game for my allies, since if I hadn't acted they'da lost. I don't get why allies don't count as being the winners just cuz the game ended due to a turn limit. Is it suppose to be this way? Cuz it really is quite frustrating to lose half my SP and have a loss marked on my profile when I won the game.

Frankly I'd love the ability to have more control over the units. Altering their stats and who can use them. Sure it wouldn't be balanced but then, if a scenerio isn't balanced people wouldn't play it. The vanilla game would remain balanced, scenerios are just there for people to make what they want. Would kinda remind me of the SC/WC3/SC2 custom game scene. The more control players have over their creations, the more unique scenerios we can get.

While I like options, I personally think that'd be unnecessary. Typically if a player is using drag-n-drop, it's because they know what's in that city and just want to rapidly move it. If they have say, tanks, infantry, and bombers on a city and only wanna move the bombers, they'd simply click that city, click 'move units', select the bombers, and move them. And then once those units are seperate, they can drag-n-drop.

All that needs to be done is make it so militia aren't included unless you're using gurellia warfare. Without that strategy there's no reason to move militia for the most part, so when a player uses drag-n-drop, they don't want the militia included.

Also, if you think about it, how would they adjust what units are drag-n-dropped? Would they have to change their settings every time they wanted to take different units? Make it so they only drag infantry and tanks, well what if they wanted to throw in some bombers and unique units, would they then have to go and change their settings to include those units?

In the end, simply making it so militia aren't included would suffice, after all that's how it use to be and nobody cared. If it aint broke, don't fix it.... even if it is currently broke.... <.>

All units should be dragged except militia. If I wanted to move only specific units, I'd manually do so. The very fact that I'm dragging and dropping is because I want to move my entire army quickly. Thus all units that aren't militia should be dragged (like it use to be). Only exception should be like, gurellia warfare should allow militia to be dragged, since that's about the only time they're actually used for combat.

Well..... fuck... any idea on when said bug will be fixed?

I was using Blitzkrieg

I haven't played for a bit, but last time I did play I could just drag my units from a city, to wherever I wanted them. However back then, the militia stayed put. But I just played a game and every time I tried to drag my troops, it pulled the militia along with them. Having to manually go in and select the troops I want to move is a real pain, is there any way to make it so militia will stay put even if I drag my army?

But again, Specter, if you make alliances worthless (which is this topic's goal), then verbal agreements and the Peace option will simply be the new alliance. If they wanna ally in the first place they wont just go "oops, I killed your tanks" because obviously they'd be attacked. If they were going to do that they wouldn't have allied anyways. I just don't see the point in changing alliances and imposing retarded restrictions when all that will do is make alliances worthless. They're fine as is, if people wanna go all neutral with the world, let them.

I don't get why you guys feel the need to try and ruin other peoples games because that's exactly what you're doing with this thread. If you don't like alliance spamming, don't do it, but that doesn't give you the right to tell other people how they should and shouldn't play.

With the new rep system, just down-rep those who play like this. When people start seeing players with like -20 rep, they'll learn somethings up. Actually maybe it'd be nice if small snippets could be added for why you rep/downrep someone. So when you give someone bad rep you could post 'abuses admin' or something.

Since my very first game until now, I haven't had an issue with upgrades. Even when I was rank 1 I could beat rank 7s fairly easy. Upgrades don't play THAT large of a role. I think you're problem here is that you simply fought a better player, and want to try and blame the upgrades. The fact is, they were probably simply a better player. I can't think of a single upgrade that'd give a player an unfair advantage, since every upgrade out there only changes minor things, and is easily overcome by simply being a good player.

If this is made available to all, it would even help players learn about other players. Go and look up what your opponent likes to use the most, and get a feel for their strategy.

Just a quick question, say any of this is actually implemented. What's to stop two players from simply going "hey, dude, let's not attack eachother" "ok", and just leaving it at that? This is why wasting time on alliances is, as I said, a waste of time. Nothing you do will change anything because no ammount of penalties or changes will make players fight if they don't want to. They don't need a game mechanic to simply not attack one another. So yeah, how do you guys propose we force players to fight instead of simply honoring verbal agreements, since all this nonsense will just make verbal agreements the new alliance system.

I don't think they should, I mean they're called strategies for a reason. A strategy is an over-arching plan for the entirety of the battle, or in this case, the war. It shapes how you will do things for the entire game. Tactics are something that's changed real-time, strategies aren't. But more then that, it'd be horribly unbalanced. Changing things up mid-game wouldn't be fair. Say you need money so you just swap to imperialist, gain a few thousand, then go back to a different strategy. It should stay as is, make the proper strategy choice before going into the game, plan ahead.

Hmm, so it's added pretty much as soon as it's gained? Would explain why I didn't notice. I'd notice a giant lump of 7k SP, not really gonna notice 500 sp here, 500 sp there.

Those you fight against often and those who actually are a threat to you could be added to enemies. Or maybe it's more of a "he's a dick ignore him" list. Although I prefer to think of it as a rivalry list.

... The fact that I haven't gotten any of it? If I'm suppose to get that SP after their first week of playing, then I have yet to get it. I'm pretty sure I'd notice around 7k SP thrown into my lap, but I haven't gotten it yet. And it's been over 7 days.

I still don't see why this is all necessary, it's hardly game-breaking to have one person allied to two people who are fighting. It's not like it gives any advantages. Only time it becomes unfair is when you get ganked, but no ammount of penalties will change that. Since they'll just gank you without being officially allied. There's no way to change this to get the result you want, and there's no reason to bother. I really don't get why I've seen this subject numerous times lately. It's like people honestly think they can make players not cooperate just by removing the ability to use alliances.

That's my point, my one friend has been playing for eight days now. No SP yet.

All that'd do is make Peace the new Alliance, and people will still just go "let's not fight". Can't make people fight, no matter how many penalties you stick on alliances. Would be best to leave them as is, since they're the most versatile now.

I have said it before, I'll say it again. Changing the alliance system will accomplish NOTHING other then wasting time that could have been spent on developing shit that actually matters. You can't make players fight if they don't want to. Using the OP's example, if we put penalties or whatever on alliances. Say player 1 and 2 fight, player 3 just mutually agrees with both "I'm not involved, you two slug it out", player 3 remains "allied" to both players through a NAP (Non-Aggression Pact) and the outcome is the exact same.

Players don't need a game mechanic to ally up, they can do so simply through verbal agreements. So yeah, these threads about changing the ally system really should stop, since they don't accomplish anything. I mean I'm all for voicing suggestions and shit, but no matter what you do this situation will never be resolved because, as I have stated, players wont fight eachother if they don't feel like it. They don't need a game mechanic to remain friendly to one another.

In the end, if you put penalties on alliances, alliances simply wont be used and NAP's will be the standard form of allying players. Nothing changes except now the dev's time has been wasted implementing something that makes absolutely no difference.

I could see that working, since you're overly aggressive and brutal in taking territory, said territory doesn't support you. So it's harder to recruit/draft people (thus lower reinforcements), and they're likely to side with an invading force thus decreasing your stats when attacked in such a city. So while you may take territory quicker, it wont be as valuable.

Written by Amok, 31.01.2011 at 12:36

Written by Colt556, 31.01.2011 at 12:11

I referred someone like 8 days ago and I don't think I've gotten SP from them yet.

Check your profile, there's an invited users section.

I know that, it says I have two users invited for a total of around 7k SP, one invited 8d ago, one invited 7d ago. If the SP is payed out after 7 days, howcome I haven't gotten it?

I referred someone like 8 days ago and I don't think I've gotten SP from them yet.

Yeah well, those could very well be unofficial names. I mean if you see a unit named 'Armored Battalion' and it has a picture of a tank, and it's stack icon is a tank, you'd likely call it a tank. No reason why official stuff can't be slightly more complicated, I mean that's why slangs exist after all. And it would solve a few issues since this isn't the first time I've seen you post that one unit = a small army.