Resourceless Provinces- 0
Resource Provinces- 5
Cities-10
Capitals- 15
10pts for a city nothing for a province is wrong. European countries have big advantage cities closer together
2pts for a province maybe extra for countries like Canada Russia vast areas where u pick up no victory points
Any better ideas
Resourceless Provinces- 0
Resource Provinces- 5
Cities-10
Capitals- 15
Has anyone got those points. 626 as a solo player and from what starting point/country?
Which map are you asking about? I can't think of a game I've ended that hasn't been over 626 points. My last game (Khabarovsk - 100 player WaW) I had two players team up on me within an hour of joining the game and was virtually overrun completely. At one point, I only had two cities left and I still finished the game with 640 points. Game before that was my personal best of 1,790 (also WaW but this time as PNG).SlamHammer wrote:
Has anyone got those points. 626 as a solo player and from what starting point/country?
I have only ever cashed out with a coalition, grabbing the gold and gone, knowing full well if I didn't someone else would.
Some of you guys are missing the point.
It's easier to play in a more "condensed" country, because movement is faster thus everything happens faster.
Playing from a Canadian or Siberian province requires hours of pointless walking/driving.
In the meantime, others are busy... winning.
I'd say it has pros and cons depending on your play style. If you are very aggressive early, it would be a disadvantage. However, if you're the type that likes to focus on your economy and build up an army first, it would work to your advantage. Experienced players are often reluctant to invade the large countries because of how much of a time commitment it will be. Extremely mountainous countries like Tibet are similar.z00mz00m wrote:
Some of you guys are missing the point.It's easier to play in a more "condensed" country, because movement is faster thus everything happens faster.
Playing from a Canadian or Siberian province requires hours of pointless walking/driving.
In the meantime, others are busy... winning.
Most of you probably weren't playing the game 2/3 years ago, or don't remember it, but I was, and the points system was different back then. Rurals used to be worth points as well. It wasn't much, like 1 each, but it was something. Cities wore worth less. Also, building tanks was more complicated. You needed a tank plant and infrastructure. Also, you could build barracks in rurals. Personally, I liked that system better.
*industrial complex, not tank plantsDonk2.0 wrote:
Most of you probably weren't playing the game 2/3 years ago, or don't remember it, but I was, and the points system was different back then. Rurals used to be worth points as well. It wasn't much, like 1 each, but it was something. Cities wore worth less. Also, building tanks was more complicated. You needed a tank plant and infrastructure. Also, you could build barracks in rurals. Personally, I liked that system better.
Also, really? You prefer the confusing, treacherous path that somehow led to light tanks ruling king, instead of the balanced system we have today? Or do you mean the point system? If it the point system I agree, rurals should be worth 1 VP, giving them at least a small purpose. It's not like people are going to ignore the cities, just keep them at 10VPs. We need them for production, and it's not like we need to annex them to produce troops (cough cough). And yes, tanks were extremely complicated to build. Light Tanks needed Level 1 Infrastructure and any Industrial Complex. Medium Tanks need Level 2 Infrastructure, and Heavy Tanks need Level 3. All units were like that. Mech Infantry needed Level 3 Barracks. I don't exactly remember, but I think you need both Infrastructure and Barracks for any ordnance. I think for AT and AA you only need Barracks, but memory fails me Β―\_(γ)_/Β―. And militia only needed barracks, no industrial complexes, which to a degree is nice (like in HWW if you are hiding in colonial Africa, where cities are basically nonexistent.) The catch is that whales gain an unprecedented advantage. So I mean, maybe those Pacific islands in WaW and Pacific Conquest really are worth it after all. ![]()
I meant the points part. The unit production mechanics were overcomplicated._Pyth0n_ wrote:
*industrial complex, not tank plantsDonk2.0 wrote:
Most of you probably weren't playing the game 2/3 years ago, or don't remember it, but I was, and the points system was different back then. Rurals used to be worth points as well. It wasn't much, like 1 each, but it was something. Cities wore worth less. Also, building tanks was more complicated. You needed a tank plant and infrastructure. Also, you could build barracks in rurals. Personally, I liked that system better.![]()
Also, really? You prefer the confusing, treacherous path that somehow led to light tanks ruling king, instead of the balanced system we have today? Or do you mean the point system? If it the point system I agree, rurals should be worth 1 VP, giving them at least a small purpose. It's not like people are going to ignore the cities, just keep them at 10VPs. We need them for production, and it's not like we need to annex them to produce troops (cough cough). And yes, tanks were extremely complicated to build. Light Tanks needed Level 1 Infrastructure and any Industrial Complex. Medium Tanks need Level 2 Infrastructure, and Heavy Tanks need Level 3. All units were like that. Mech Infantry needed Level 3 Barracks. I don't exactly remember, but I think you need both Infrastructure and Barracks for any ordnance. I think for AT and AA you only need Barracks, but memory fails me Β―\_(γ)_/Β―. And militia only needed barracks, no industrial complexes, which to a degree is nice (like in HWW if you are hiding in colonial Africa, where cities are basically nonexistent.) The catch is that whales gain an unprecedented advantage. So I mean, maybe those Pacific islands in WaW and Pacific Conquest really are worth it after all.
Please log in to post a reply.