Постови у којима сам цитиран

Mabey it couldnt be a starting country bc they are too sad to have control over the world

They were cancled by the section

They are just current rules does it matter?

I would say it is suprising he would collect more sp than you in just western europe.

Написао Vespre, 21.04.2011 at 11:15

I think it's fine the way it is.

The balance is that Guerrilla warfare just isn't a viable strategy in any game outside of africa/latin america/middle east.

And I guess I could see it possibly working in europe, but only if there were some alliances/teams involved.

I would like to point out that the most common place GW is used to day is easter europe.

Precise definition of farming is kindah vague, but the one form of cheating is where your coordinating with your enemy to generate sp. leaving someone alive so they can be trampled by your enemies is called your allying that player, unless you like them. This one of the reason communication between allies is important.

Also tactically deciding that player rank 1 will be easier to kill over a skilled player, even if he gets a large empire ie allowed and is reasonable.

The type of farming where you are using your enemies but your enemy isn't aware you are using him to farm gets tricky as to where it is legal. Amok/Ivan have official ruling on this one, but i would say it technically isn't illegal. Reasons being that if your forces are nearly matched, even if the opponent aren't skilled, it will be a good learning experience for other players and therefore should be allowed. If there is a ridiculous difference in troops and land, that there is no chance of winning for the less skilled player you are simply torturing the newbie, which will most likely cause the newbie to quit and not come back therefore it is not allowed.

Coach mode would be cool for this too
edit: just for those in the coalition

Back to those with issues with number 3, I belive the clock idea is ment to be a pregame option. He isnt sudgesting that all games should be like this.

Lol i had the same issue is sudgested the option to be able to skip the peace if your the defender but that had too many holes. New sudgestion as like taking unocupied ally cities, to take your capital back all you need is one unit but it also ejects the "friendly" from your capitals (capital only)

Oh apparently someone else had the same issue so we havea merge of threads. new page:
http://afterwind.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=1073

He attacked my capital and accepted my alliance request on the same turn, i had been busy taking another guys capital. what was sad was i didnt even have time to take his capital bc i lost before i could end the alliance

Whether these sudgestions are easy or not im not sure but 1 and 3 would be nice. 2 is impratical just wastes time if you want people to vote u got have a discussion first.

Yeah i agree but the point of the two turn process is to give the defneding party time to prepare, but if the two turns are going to hurt him i still think he should be able to drop to war instantly.

So I understand the idea for the alliance waiting period, but i think it ahould be possible to go straight to war on someone if they took your capital.

I sent a pm to you labeled Sky Menace because that's where the situation lies. Due to how the movement window is set up (land, water and air separate screens) I have to move my general and my bombers separately out of a city. now if the city isn't walled up and if an opponent has his attack move between my moves, either my bomber stack stays and my general goes flying off in his transport (most likely straight into an enemy's city) or he stays and the bombers move which can be equally as bad if there aren't other units there to protect him.

This isn't a problem with the drag and drop feature i haven't had any issue when my stack is not moving out of a city, even if its attacked.

I do have a random question do general bonus apply when the general is inside a transport?

Anyone else having issues with thier generals running straight towards the enemy to find his army decided not to follow?

Also this game is updatable so when there is a way to do it we have the will.

Well Im not 100% sure on how cards will effect the game, but if you rember cards also are found in risk....
I think we can give the developers the benfit of the doubt on this one and hope for the best.

Oh lol your right sometimes i over think things

I was thinking it would pop up in the same window(or like) that game proposals are done in. So basically for the auction the country would start at something like half the countries net worth or more at players discresion. People then could bid on it as much as they want, and the seller could close it whenever he wants but only can accept the highest bid or refuse to sell.

Yihikas idea might be usefull in one minuet games where two allied players simply devided up the field with combined resources. though i agree it could get messy finacially and in terms of move order, thought that would be the price of this type of alliance.

Hmm just wondering would it be an open auction or closed auction? I would like it to be up the seller. open auction could lead to higher bidding wars and possibly people joining could buy countries, while closed auction gives controll over whom you sell to.

I think i take a simalar approach to Marc some times i ally them and use them as a barrier so that they arnt over run instanly and i dont have to do all the work for a good amount of game assuming my eney is good enough to take care of my ally for me.

The enemy of my enemy isnt my ally just someone i don't want pissed at me.

Edit: Just wondering who was the one kind soul among us?

Sounds awesome! For population decrease i would suggest it should be none for attacking neutrals but for attacking a player the decrease should be relative to the amount of troops the winner has at the end of the battle. Aka an overwhelming victory = no lose while a victory of one militia remaining can be sever. also with the increment it should be done at an exponential rate of some type rounding to the nearest whole number with a population cap either at what it is currently or slightly higher, but the rate expansion would have to change do to the city not being able to support the amount of people.

This would also address marcs comment about moving people. Personally i think the idea of moving reinforcements would destabilize the game if it was permanent. People would simply move all their people to few select cities, maybe even moving them from temporally captured enemy cities. Therefore somehow the country's population would have to naturally revert itself back to the original state and the population would have to be directly tied to the cities. This would not allow long term manipulation of a countries population density while allowing for front line refugees as it were. The population being tied to the cities is an indication of prosperity. Removing a population from its city means they can no longer provided for themselves and therefore no income. Furthermore these people have to be fed, etc. and therefore should be a drain on one's economy.

I would agree to that. Teleporting is not on the agenda today, though it might be cool. So gifting troops seems to be a problem, but land could be provided it only allows militia to remain. Disbanding isn't an option at this point so the units would simply have to be move outside the city automatically. Also if this was implemented i would assume the same or greater restrictions than the present 3 turns before one can transfer money. Yihka any thoughts?

@ joel
i think the idea is everything stays where its at just switches hands.

@ Indo
i agree that it could be abused from the traditional way, but i think that what you call "abuse" would lead to better cordinated team play

with the 0 troops just build a defence line around it the same turn u move out then only an ally can take it

Just saying public games are public, that means anyone can join unless something else disqualifies them.

I would like this! though it should disable all your chat channels besides your contact with the player. (though this could be circumvented but if one allowed the other coach mode there would have to be trust between the players) it would also be nice if it showed what they planed to do.

As in its not in the tutorial or shouldnt be in the tutorial?

I think this is in the tutorial information or atleast it should be