Administrators,
Why there is no loot gain once you conquer an entire country? Once conquered, the victor should seize all enemy assets and material goods. In real world it is possible to move most of resources, in depth of territory before an enemy reaches it, but it also has its limitations. Once no where to retreat, when conquered all resources go to enemy hands.
Another thing: countries used to destroy infrastructure and factories when retreating in order to prevent them going into enemy hands and to slow enemy down. Why not put a retreat button in game, and also retreat and destroy infrastructure button?
Why there is no disband unit button in game?
Please log in to post a reply.
This should be in the Suggestions area. We can already get war loot, retreat has already been talked about and we decided not to have it and there is no unit disband button because we must learn to choose which units to build carefully.
Here's a couple bugs that I keep seeing on the Blitz map...I've reported it to no avail.
The city of Sophia in Bulgaria can never repair damaged Infrastructure...it's always greyed out no matter what.
The province directly below Sophia, Gorna Dzhumaya, has a ridiculously low output for an Oil producing province.
What's the deal with this? These two bugs really hurt the Yugoslav expansion plans.
And I have a question: how does one win War Loot?
Also, I know this is only a suggestion and probably in the wrong place, but what about the idea of having a new relationship option: one where you not only share maps, but also share the ability to let your forces be controlled by your allies if you are not responsive (i.e. inactive for several hours even though you are not officially inactive in the player list). Or as a variant, if enemies are within local visual range of your forces, your allies can control your unit at that time only. Or maybe this handy variant: if you are inactive, and your ally(s) units are located within close range of your units, then they can temporarily commandeer your forces to better coordinate defenses.
This suggestion is not unrealistic as it has been practiced in times past between close allies when one ally would lose their field commanders in an area and need guidance during a communications black-out situation (or greyed-out before electronic communications). If the trust between two allies is very high, then the inactive aspect of allied force control might not even be necessary. This would easily avoid being problematic because the moment one ally abuses the forces of another, then that other ally can just lower their alliance level to put a stop to it. This would have the added benefit of allowing experienced players to help newbies along a little instead of having to type out every strategic move when orienting a new player to the game. I've just had to do that twice in the past week and it gets exhausting.
If you think this suggestion has merit, perhaps you can forward it to where it is most likely to be well-received by the developers and/or designers of the game and the system.
Thanks,
Diab O. Lical
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.Capture a capital.Diabolical wrote:
And I have a question: how does one win War Loot?
As for your suggestion, it is plain awful. It makes multi-accounting even more efficient and you can completely ruin someone else's war plans. Only idiots would use.
Wow...terse.
Well, the idea is for a higher-level alliance option that only is granted to your closest allies. And as for multi-accounting, I never saw the problem with creating one's own allies when nobody else will help you. But so long as the trades are not self-defeating (i.e., throwing away a nation for the sake of another), there should not be any restrictions on this. Anyone who tries to create multi-accounts just has a harder time managing multiple matches and if he or she actually does sacrifice one nation for another (i.e., partnering north and south USA and letting one take over the other) then the gains are worst than not sacrificing (i.e. taking over a multi-account second nation only to reduce it's productivity to a fourth of it's capacity).
Multi-accounts do have benefits for smart players, but so what? The ganging up aspect of this game already is far worse than multi-accounts could ever account for. Newbies think they can use multi-accounts to circumvent limitations (they never read the restrictions when they start playing). So let them do so, its a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot move anyway that teaches noobs to scale back and not rely on a very short-lived crutch. And if one were to multi-account as allies instead of lackeys, then they are doing no more than if you had someone (i.e., a family member in your clan) who always sides with you.
Finally, the system's red-flags for multi-accounting are a colossally epic fail as there are a million ways around them (not that I'm admitting to anything). Many players probably have family members who also like to play and who might share an IP address through their WiFi (which is one of the red flags). And the enforcement of anti-multi-accounts by the moderators is quite tedious (well, it would be if they actually did research on possible multi-accounts instead of just assuming the system to be right all the time).
I know I'm ranting a bit, but the restrictions on multi-accounting have been horribly overthought and over-enforced and the policy needs to refined to simply disallowing frequently lopsided trades (something that can VERY EASILY be achieved by smarter programming to prevent instead of 'catch-in-the-act'). This way, multi-accounting (or lackeyed clan members [and other] ) players can forcibly be restricted from the practice of screwing oneself over for the sake of another.
My soapbox has been turned over. Now back to my regular diatribe.
I think that last line ought to be my signature since it so closely applies to me...do you think it's witty?
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.*sigh*
The idea still sucks.
to many players, multi-accounting is not just an idea.
For the ability to control one's allies when they are absent or noobs, this idea is paramount.
I am sick and tired of having my allies never help me when my opponent is literally right next to them and they don't attack the enemy when I'm being threatened in a weak spot.
And if one were multi-accounting, they could easily just switch over to the other account and fight the battle where needed. But my idea would eliminate some multi-accounts because it would force liars not to fake their alliances so often and reduce the back-stabbing aspect of this game. And Backstabbling is THE most rotten part of this game.
Betrayal sucks but, unlike in real life, there are no consequences for betrayal in this game. And your rep isn't damaged at all. I've been betrayed many times and I've tried to tell others about it and they don't care, so the rep of the perpetrators are never damaged.
Though a rating system could aid in reputation tracking, I've experienced unjust ratings in the past also (from sore losers).
I guess what I really would like in this game more than anything else is for people to be able to defend against betrayal.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.That doesn't matter, you are ruining other people's fun.
Sometimes, betrayal is unintentional and [seemingly] unavoidable. I experienced this in a match recently where I had several units in a far off place slated to capture some islands that had been occupied by another player. I had since negotiated a peace and alliance offer before my war actually started. But those other units were forgotten and eventually reached their destination. The other player was absolutely convinced that I had betrayed him, and he didn't believe me when I said it was unintentional.
Sometimes the betrayal is due to misconstrued words in a message. In another match, I was seemingly betrayed when my so-called 'ally' sent a message to my other ally threatening them if they didn't cooperate with him just the way he wanted. He said that if we (his allies) got in his way of taking resources from our third party enemy, that he'd just attack us and take the province(s) anyway. Now, supposedly, he only meant that to my other ally -- who was in a weak position at the time -- and was bullying him. But the way he wrote it seemed to mean any of his allies who gets in his way would be trounced.
Well, my other ally forwarded that message to me (certified unedited) and I had tangible proof that we were being used and potentially threatened by our principal ally. The other ally had told me on numerous occasions how he was being threatened by the first ally, but I had dismissed it as misinterpretations or over-reactions. Well, once I saw this proof, I knew immediately that the first ally was intimidating my other ally but hadn't been doing so with me as I was more of a match against him. At this, I decided that I would not allow myself to be manipulated into eventually cornering myself in the late stage of the game and then losing to that a$$hole.
I forwarded the message to the first ally, and asked him to explain himself. He claimed it didn't mean what it clearly stated but he didn't deny authoring it. So, with my other ally in hand, we canceled our alliance with him and went to war with him.
Boy, did he get pissed. He accused me of back-stabbing him. Of course he ranted and raved and wrote scathing articles in the newspaper (to which I eloquently responded only to be called a 'silver-tongued devil'). In numerous posts to me and to the paper, he practically called me everything but white. He then accused me of multi-accounting to which I accused him of the same. Finally, he tried to 'report me' as if I had done something wrong.
Last I've heard, he's been kicked from the forums (I suspect he may have ranted all over himself here and got banned because of it). Of course, the game went on without him but not before I called on yet another ally to assist in taking him down. United, we did exactly that and he went down very loudly kicking and screaming into his own abyss.
With his reaction, which was fueled with much anger and expletives and rants, I accept that he may have really believed that he was the victim. But I am a player with integrity and I judged his excuses to be nothing more than the ravings of a lunatic. I'm glad to see him gone and I do not accept that I ever betrayed him. I don't know if he's been banned from playing, but I suspect that if here were, he'd just find another way to get back on with a new name and continue his selfish playing tactics.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.Was his name, by any chance, Herr Hoffman?Diabolical wrote:
Last I've heard, he's been kicked from the forums (I suspect he may have ranted all over himself here and got banned because of it). Of course, the game went on without him but not before I called on yet another ally to assist in taking him down. United, we did exactly that and he went down very loudly kicking and screaming into his own abyss.
How so? If everybody CAN do it, then Few would ever do it. And it would actually discourage the betrayal aspect of the game. And frankly, just because somebody isn't smart enough to figure out how to do this doesn't mean that everyone else should be forcibly restricted from doing so.Butter Ball Bill wrote:
That doesn't matter, you are ruining other people's fun.
This is a war game. Backstabbing -- as much as I abhor it -- is a part of reality (though the lack of consequences in this game is not). And using EVERY tool at one's advantage is much more realistic than having to follow some completely-unenforcible rules that few people actually abide by (I've encountered lots of multi-accounting players and I've beaten them all).
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.What is the point in putting in a rarely used feature then? It would just waste the devs time.Diabolical wrote:
then Few would ever do it.
Your idea is still bad.
Wow, dude, you are as insightful as a low-level deity. I called him Herr Whatchamacallit, but yeah, that's him. Why? How did you know?Butter Ball Bill wrote:
Was his name, by any chance, Herr Hoffman?Diabolical wrote:
Last I've heard, he's been kicked from the forums (I suspect he may have ranted all over himself here and got banned because of it). Of course, the game went on without him but not before I called on yet another ally to assist in taking him down. United, we did exactly that and he went down very loudly kicking and screaming into his own abyss.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.I meant that multi-accounting would become rare if everyone could do it since it would become self-defeating. However, developing a lent control aspect would be very useful between allies (like if they were in different time zones or one is at work / school or the other is sleeping or at Church, etc...Butter Ball Bill wrote:
What is the point in putting in a rarely used feature then? It would just waste the devs time.Diabolical wrote:
then Few would ever do it.Your idea is still bad.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.Thanks for the compliment. We had a little trouble with when he tried to troll us so we did mass reportings until his account got banned. We got a couple points for it but it was worth it. As far as I know, he is the only member that has been banned.Diabolical wrote:
Wow, dude, you are as insightful as a low-level deity. I called him Herr Whatchamacallit, but yeah, that's him. Why? How did you know?
Not really, it would become even worse. If someone has two countries and two accounts, at the moment they would have to keep switching between the accounts or use two computers. With this feature, all they would have to do is use one account and they can control their mighty army as they wish.Diabolical wrote:
I meant that multi-accounting would become rare if everyone could do it since it would become self-defeating.
Who says they have to do any of that? Your limitations listed are not necessary.Butter Ball Bill wrote:
Not really, it would become even worse. If someone has two countries and two accounts, at the moment they would have to keep switching between the accounts or use two computers. With this feature, all they would have to do is use one account and they can control their mighty army as they wish.Diabolical wrote:
I meant that multi-accounting would become rare if everyone could do it since it would become self-defeating.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.They are multi accounting, they are going to try use everything to their advantage.Diabolical wrote:
Who says they have to do any of that?
yeah... you aren't understanding me. I mean that multiple computers or logging in/out back and forth aren't necessary to multi-accounting to occur. You are assuming too much.Butter Ball Bill wrote:
They are multi accounting, they are going to try use everything to their advantage.Diabolical wrote:
Who says they have to do any of that?
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.I'm ashamed to say one of my brothers use to multi-account until I made him stop. He did have to log back in and out, otherwise he could not use the forces in each account.Diabolical wrote:
I mean that multiple computers or logging in/out back and forth aren't necessary to multi-accounting to occur.
Ashamed? sheesh.Butter Ball Bill wrote:
I'm ashamed to say one of my brothers use to multi-account until I made him stop. He did have to log back in and out, otherwise he could not use the forces in each account.Diabolical wrote:
I mean that multiple computers or logging in/out back and forth aren't necessary to multi-accounting to occur.
I'm saying that one can (theoretically) multi-account without going through all that trouble. I'm not saying how as I don't want to get anyone in trouble, but the method has been confirmed and you are like the chief English speaking Forum guy, so I don't want to say too much But it can be done.
I also have it on good authority that one who used to do this (the multi-accounts aspect, not the lopsided trading) has since given up the practice and never has more than one account per any match. That person does not wish to give up any account(s) as they scored some cool names (not throw-away names like justin4227 or Timber1Lake) but they are playing by the rules on a per match basis and have been a good sport in spite of their feelings on the subject (which are similar to mine).
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.Please log in to post a reply.
