The most recent changes to the Distance to Capital calculations were to have made it calculated by air rather than land routes. Unfortunately, though they did fix that aspect of it, Bytro broke the calculation multiplier and it is now far too oppressive.
As an example. The UK player for the Road to War map will lose parts of Egypt to extremely low morale if fortresses aren't built throughout. It can take a few days of play for the losses to begin occuring, but this never happened before the update. As USA, if you capture territory on the opposite side of the map, you cannot increase morale above the minimum threshold on captured provinces to prevent rebellions even with fortresses built. The negative value from distance to capital can go well over -50 at extreme ranges and this unrealistic principle has made resource production next to impossible.
For example, USA could capture Soviet "Perm" province for the Rare Materials and not make any substantial resources (25% non-core penalty x 25% morale = 6.25% production) and in fact will likely lose the province to rebellion even with a level 5 fortress if the war is still going on (-5 Wars + -30 Neighbors + -65 Distance + 25 Fortress = -75 Morale maximum).
Before the change to the calculation, one could have far-reaching empires without overly-oppressive reductions from Distance to Capital. Now, you cannot win by invading your enemies unless they are near to you. This has ruined the game for many players and more and more people are starting to take notice.
Also, if Butter Ball Bill comments on this post in the negative, he is to be disregarded by other readers as he has apparently developed a personal dislike for anything I suggest and I wish this and related posts to remain on topic so as not to be removed by the moderators. I am reporting this as a bug to be fixed, not a suggestion to be criticized.
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.
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.It would also be appreciated if you didn't use coarse language when agitated. I am not interested in innuendo-based exclamations.Butter Ball Bill wrote:
Diabolical wrote:
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.It appears to be a bug to me as what once appeared to work well now no longer does.Butter Ball Bill wrote:
On a side note: no bug present.
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.Where did we go wrong? Why can't we get along? I know I'm just as much to blame as thee, but we need to take out our hostilities on the battlefield, not the forums.
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.Where did we go wrong? I think you suggested an idea I didn't like and said I was wrong. I'm trying to think of a word that describes this action that won't get me in trouble...
EDIT: I found one. I was being a tushie hat.
I completely agree. The distance does not even have to be that far, it happens when playing as the USSR and conquering Saudi Arabia and Iraq in the 10 player Blitz map.
Supporting images below. Game 1,180,501 on the 10 player Blitz map day 59.
As an American, I am not familiar with that implication but then it took us a long time to comprehend the seriousness of the shoe-slapping that is practiced in the Arab world to be considered a very high insult (we were confused by images of Iraqis hitting their shoes on the statue of Saddam Hussein as it was being torn down).Butter Ball Bill wrote:
Where did we go wrong? I think you suggested an idea I didn't like and said I was wrong. I'm trying to think of a word that describes this action that won't get me in trouble...EDIT: I found one. I was being a tushie hat.
And a hat for one's tushie....a fashion statement in Ireland?
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.Well, the proper term is ass hat and is meant to be an insult.Diabolical wrote:
And a hat for one's tushie....a fashion statement in Ireland?
And I'm sorry for personalizing my distaste of your critique. I tend to take such things personally and can easily be haste in my reactions.
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 the same. You may be a new Bill(joke)!
*sheds tears and reaches for Kleenex*
Sorry for reviving an old topic, but it's just to say the distance from capital is affecting me now. As the Soviet Union, I have cores with 75% of moral. It also means that some of my non-cores have below 50% tops.
Hah! And you thought YOU were dredging up an old topic. But my earlier point concerning distance to capital negative morale modifier as being broken is still true in the sense that this "feature" hasn't been fixed or adjusted to compensate for large empires stretching across the map. I am playing as USA in a Road to War map and with maxed out Fortresses, no active wars, and no enemy provinces nearby, my territories only half-way across the map are "stable" at about 50% morale. I can't even afford to invade Russia next or my morale will plummet.
And the low morale issue is still compounding large-empire maintenance problems with supplies. If you have 200 provinces, for example, and are wide-spread due to the size of your empire and not even stretched out (but generally a round-ish empire with your core provinces AND capital in the center), you will still face shortages of Food to feed all the provinces and your army and Oil to lube your army. No matter how maxed out your production is in every non-core and core province for Food and Oil, there's never enough. And the market doesn't always have those supplies available. And in order to achieve the size of the empire you have (200 provinces), you have to field an army large enough to invade neighbors and maintain security after the wars are over.
OK, so a crafty player like myself may have to max out fortresses throughout the distant territories and even have second or third level fortresses in the core provinces. But I can't imagine how bad it must be getting for some players in the new World Map.
As of yet, I haven't been able to achieve a large empire spanning even across a continent let alone wrapping around the globe. But with the size of the map taken into consideration, and the exaggerated Mercator map-stretching of northern provinces, I would imagine a world-spanning empire facing a completely impossible task of maintaining morale and supplies even if they were to: disable EVERY Seaport, throw every military unit into combat and have them be destroyed, AND max out every Food and Oil Province production in their empire. It just is not possible.
If the developers at Bytro don't address this UNTENABLE issue soon, they are going to have lots of their most experienced players (many of whom pay for premium points) balking. And the mass hysteria caused by the heavily-influenced masses who pay attention to those advanced players' trends will turn the much-anticipated World Map matches into the most hated part of all of Call of War.
In fact, Bytro should be ******* their pants right now wondering how they're going to prevent the total breakdown of their fan base if they don't address this soon. Because a storm is on the horizon and these new World Maps are fast becoming the worst thing that Bytro ever put out. And the simple fix -- in fact the solution is ridiculously easy -- is to adjust the distance to capital negative morale modifier to a fraction of it's current effect and/or (slightly less simple) add another building that alleviates distance to capital effects substantially (i.e., a propaganda center, or a series of secondary capitals with a strategic maximum based on the number of provinces or just preset).
That's it. That's all that has to be done to prevent the 
storm that's coming.
Everyone reading this needs to please "like" this and get everyone they know who plays the game to do so likewise so that the developers at Bytro will notice this message and accept the reality of what's about to happen to their brand.
I also welcome all of your comments, including any negative ones. I just ask that everyone keeps them constructive.
Thank you.
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.Lol. Couldn't agree more. Already feeling the effects of it on the world map.
I am totally behind this observation, its already becoming a dominant problem with my little empire. Secondary capitals sounds like a good idea !
Well then, please remember to "like" that post. And thanks!
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.Let's call them 'Administrative Capitals'.
I saw this coming in the near future when the World Map first came out. I would not be opposed to regional capitals or some sort of region system.Diabolical wrote:
Hah! And you thought YOU were dredging up an old topic. But my earlier point concerning distance to capital negative morale modifier as being broken is still true in the sense that this "feature" hasn't been fixed or adjusted to compensate for large empires stretching across the map. I am playing as USA in a Road to War map and with maxed out Fortresses, no active wars, and no enemy provinces nearby, my territories only half-way across the map are "stable" at about 50% morale. I can't even afford to invade Russia next or my morale will plummet.And the low morale issue is still compounding large-empire maintenance problems with supplies. If you have 200 provinces, for example, and are wide-spread due to the size of your empire and not even stretched out (but generally a round-ish empire with your core provinces AND capital in the center), you will still face shortages of Food to feed all the provinces and your army and Oil to lube your army. No matter how maxed out your production is in every non-core and core province for Food and Oil, there's never enough. And the market doesn't always have those supplies available. And in order to achieve the size of the empire you have (200 provinces), you have to field an army large enough to invade neighbors and maintain security after the wars are over.
OK, so a crafty player like myself may have to max out fortresses throughout the distant territories and even have second or third level fortresses in the core provinces. But I can't imagine how bad it must be getting for some players in the new World Map.
As of yet, I haven't been able to achieve a large empire spanning even across a continent let alone wrapping around the globe. But with the size of the map taken into consideration, and the exaggerated Mercator map-stretching of northern provinces, I would imagine a world-spanning empire facing a completely impossible task of maintaining morale and supplies even if they were to: disable EVERY Seaport, throw every military unit into combat and have them be destroyed, AND max out every Food and Oil Province production in their empire. It just is not possible.
If the developers at Bytro don't address this UNTENABLE issue soon, they are going to have lots of their most experienced players (many of whom pay for premium points) balking. And the mass hysteria caused by the heavily-influenced masses who pay attention to those advanced players' trends will turn the much-anticipated World Map matches into the most hated part of all of Call of War.
In fact, Bytro should be ******* their pants right now wondering how they're going to prevent the total breakdown of their fan base if they don't address this soon. Because a storm is on the horizon and these new World Maps are fast becoming the worst thing that Bytro ever put out. And the simple fix -- in fact the solution is ridiculously easy -- is to adjust the distance to capital negative morale modifier to a fraction of it's current effect and/or (slightly less simple) add another building that alleviates distance to capital effects substantially (i.e., a propaganda center, or a series of secondary capitals with a strategic maximum based on the number of provinces or just preset).
That's it. That's all that has to be done to prevent the
Everyone reading this needs to please "like" this and get everyone they know who plays the game to do so likewise so that the developers at Bytro will notice this message and accept the reality of what's about to happen to their brand.
I also welcome all of your comments, including any negative ones. I just ask that everyone keeps them constructive.
Thank you.
Good. I'll make a poll in the suggestions/criticism section.
Please log in to post a reply.
