India, the paper tiger. Country bonuses.

Over 13 cities to take over, poor as hell, and still stacked to the BRIM with infantry.

It's harder to conquer than all of eastern China. Nevermind the fact that all of east China gives 6 or 7 times more income.

Wouldn't it make sense to change the requirement of which countries get infantry? Stacking India with infantry just because it has so much money doesn't make that much sense, as its income per capita and income per land area are still extremely low. In other words, if all of southeast Asia combined to form one country, they'd be defended by infantry, and they'd be harder to conquer than central Europe. A bucket of mediocrity is not better than a bucket of gems.



And now for country bonuses: What exactly determines them? Is it just the countries total city income?

You have to go very out of the way to conquer all of Far East Russia, but it has a pitiful country bonus.

Japan has almost the same country bonus as India. Japan has anywhere from 5 - 8 cities, India has anywhere from 13 - 16.



I think country bonuses (boni, whatever) should be based on the difficulty of conquering the entire country. Countries like Alaska, Far East, Siberia, etc. should have higher bonuses because they're so out of the way.

Written by Vespre, 10.04.2011 at 19:12

...

agreed. I always hate the fact that i have to waste like 3 marines in order to capture russia far east and get pennies for it.

Written by Vespre, 10.04.2011 at 19:12

Over 13 cities to take over, poor as hell, and still stacked to the BRIM with infantry.

It's harder to conquer than all of eastern China. Nevermind the fact that all of east China gives 6 or 7 times more income.

Wouldn't it make sense to change the requirement of which countries get infantry? Stacking India with infantry just because it has so much money doesn't make that much sense, as its income per capita and income per land area are still extremely low. In other words, if all of southeast Asia combined to form one country, they'd be defended by infantry, and they'd be harder to conquer than central Europe. A bucket of mediocrity is not better than a bucket of gems.



And now for country bonuses: What exactly determines them? Is it just the countries total city income?

You have to go very out of the way to conquer all of Far East Russia, but it has a pitiful country bonus.

Japan has almost the same country bonus as India. Japan has anywhere from 5 - 8 cities, India has anywhere from 13 - 16.



I think country bonuses (boni, whatever) should be based on the difficulty of conquering the entire country. Countries like Alaska, Far East, Siberia, etc. should have higher bonuses because they're so out of the way.

India might be not very rich, but it's a massive unit producer.
As for country bonuses (I refuse to use 'bonii'), it's the other way around - there's the overall income for the country, then out of that, city income is determined according to its population compared to the total country population (capitals have that also multiplied by 2). Then, the income of all cities is combined, and the remaining difference is the 'country bonus'. We're doing it that way, because there's no way to find out GDP for all cities in the game, we only had figures for countries GDP.

Written by Ivan, 11.04.2011 at 01:39

it's a massive unit producer.

Bangladesh + Burma + Thailand + Vietnam combined are a pretty big unit producer, as well. Don't you think you could give players a bit of a break with India by stacking it with militia, or at least a mix of militia and infantry?

My reasoning is if you want to take over a high population city, you have already have to kill 8 units in that city to compensate. I don't see why the additional handicap of having to defeat infantry makes much sense.

The Bonus thing makes sense, I guess, but I still find it weird that countries still have the exact same bonuses with 100 add'l cities added.

Right now the problem with India the way it is is that it makes South Asia a bad starting point. It's only merit is to act as Europe/China's production point.
Again I would encourage the developpers to split India in at least 3 parts to make it more fair for South Asia starts.

Written by Mofo, 11.04.2011 at 08:44

Right now the problem with India the way it is is that it makes South Asia a bad starting point. It's only merit is to act as Europe/China's production point.
Again I would encourage the developpers to split India in at least 3 parts to make it more fair for South Asia starts.

Well it's also disadvantaged by having to fight off two sides.

Personally, I really don't see why it can't be defended by militia, or half militia and half infantry.

Or, China defended totally by infantry, bacause of it's huge income, and the amount of reinforcements that can come through it, while indo-china(Thailand, Vietnam)stays the same, and India mixed with a 3/4 militia 1/4 infantry. This should make it more interesting for someone starting in indochina, and even more interesting for a middle east vs china conflict.

Written by nonames, 15.04.2011 at 06:11

Or, China defended totally by infantry, bacause of it's huge income, and the amount of reinforcements that can come through it, while indo-china(Thailand, Vietnam)stays the same, and India mixed with a 3/4 militia 1/4 infantry. This should make it more interesting for someone starting in indochina, and even more interesting for a middle east vs china conflict.

This sounds perfect to me.

The main argument against this is that "India produces a lot of units".

1. China produces just as many, if not more.
2. The ability to produce a lot of units is just not useful at all when you're poor.

Coupled with the fact that India has both Europe and the Far East to worry about, it makes Pakistan/Bangladesh one hell of a bad starting point.

Quote:

...

Coupled with the fact that India has both Europe and the Far East to worry about, it makes Pakistan/Bangladesh one hell of a bad starting point.

dude, have you seen how many people start in pakistan/bangladesh and end up taking almost all of asia?

Written by Psychostick, 15.04.2011 at 20:28

Quote:

...

Coupled with the fact that India has both Europe and the Far East to worry about, it makes Pakistan/Bangladesh one hell of a bad starting point.

dude, have you seen how many people start in pakistan/bangladesh and end up taking almost all of asia?

And how many times have you seen someone starting in Pakistan and losing to someone you starts in china.

Written by Psychostick, 15.04.2011 at 20:28

Quote:

...

Coupled with the fact that India has both Europe and the Far East to worry about, it makes Pakistan/Bangladesh one hell of a bad starting point.

dude, have you seen how many people start in pakistan/bangladesh and end up taking almost all of asia?

I think that has more to do with skill level than geographic location (a skilled player can conquer Germany with Ghana), taking all of India at the start is next to impossible with all of the Infantries there also it's not that rewarding as it is still very poor and South Asian starters can never fully utilize, India's production value until much later. I only seen rank 8/9 players do well in those places. If it's a 1 on 1 battle between players of the same caliber in Eurasia with starting in South Asia and the other in South East or East Asia, the one in South Asia never wins. (personal experience as a mainly Eurasia focused player)

I've been playing a lot of Pakistan lately.

India is way too underpowered to be defended by infantry.

I think it should be defended 100% by militia.

Is anyone else going to get behind me?

I play as Pakistan and Bangladesh and disagree, its too OVERpowered to be defended by militias.

Written by Pinheiro, 21.04.2011 at 11:31

I play as Pakistan and Bangladesh and disagree, its too OVERpowered to be defended by militias.

Maybe that's just due to your own skill level?

I just don't see why India should be defended by infantry. Turkey isn't, and neither are Syria, Azerbaijan, Egypt, and Iraq, and together they are also a massive unit producer, and have MUCH more wealth than India, at about the same land area.

So why is India defended by infantry?

Written by Vespre, 21.04.2011 at 12:28

Written by Pinheiro, 21.04.2011 at 11:31

I play as Pakistan and Bangladesh and disagree, its too OVERpowered to be defended by militias.

Maybe that's just due to your own skill level?

I just don't see why India should be defended by infantry. Turkey isn't, and neither are Syria, Azerbaijan, Egypt, and Iraq, and together they are also a massive unit producer, and have MUCH more wealth than India, at about the same land area.

So why is India defended by infantry?

Once scenarios come out, just change the settings to your likeing. There, all is good.

Quote:

Quote:

... we only had figures for countries GDP.

if possible use GDP ppp (power puchasing parity) ! Its a modification fixing (or trying to) the problem that a dollar for example hasn't the same vaule in thailand than in the US refering to u can buy much more in thailand with it that in the US...

-Start as Paki.
-Use GW.
-Produce massive militias and marines.
-conquer india in 4-5 turns.
>??????
>Move foward to Asia/Europe.

Written by Vafika, 22.04.2011 at 09:10

-Start as Paki.
-Use GW.
-Produce massive militias and marines.
-conquer india in 4-5 turns.
>??????
>Move foward to Asia/Europe.

Your forgot profit.

The profit Asia and Europe.