I'm relatively new to the game but just have a few thoughts that might make it even better. Apologies in advance for any naivety!

(1) Introduce an automatic way to place new fishing boats, mines etc. Sometimes I don't have much time to play the game and it would be good if I could skip the Google Earth bit for a day without losing the chance to place new resource gatherers. It would also mean I could play from PCs without GE installed such as when away from home. There could be a small charge for this - maybe an extra 10 Geos or something.

(2) Make the number troops in an enemy's army visible. It is more realistic that in 'real' warfare you would be able to observe the approx size of the army. The experience could/should still be hidden.

(3) Make larger armies have an advantage in war. Typically it would be more realistic if there was a slight bias towards a very large army when fighting a small one. So 10000 fighting 100 would perhaps only be expected to lose 80-90 troops in a defeat of the other team. An example formula might be to multiply the troops lost when the 'dice' falls against them by 1/((ratio of army sizes)^0.01). So with 10000 vs 100, one team would lose 1/100^0.01 = 0.955 and the other side would lose 1/0.01^0.01 = 1.047 multiplied by the existing method.

(4) Allow cities to be fortified or buy 'gun emplacements'. This could rapidly get over-complicated but some simple system to buy 'city defence' that would give a defending army an advantage (say 20-50%) over attacking troops would be good.

Do any of these sound any good?

Rob

i like one and four. 2 keeps it interesting if it's hidden. haha i've heard of a few surprises with 200K around somewhere and 3... too much math for me. haha nice ideas tho.

you have an alliance? decepticons is recruiting for active potentials like you :) PM spywareagen7 :)

Rob, thank you for sharing these ideas.

I think that #1 would not be plausible. This is because we try to award players that are more active. Since activity can usually be directly translated to the effeciency of resources. If automated, it would allow players to create what we call "farm accounts." These are accounts that are soley created to fund active members. It is currently legal, but something that borders unethical IMO.

As for #2, I'm not even sure this is possible code-wise. Showing the size of all armies would probably put a lot of stress on the server and may be a nightmare to design. I am not a coder, so I can only speculate on this.

#3, This is basically how it is already. When a 100k army attacks a 100 troop army, the whole series is broken down into mini attacks. For example, in this instance, there would be about 10 attacks consisting of 10 vs 10, 10 vs 10, etc until 1 army was destroyed. So because of this, very large armies will almost always win against tiny ones. We do see many outrageous ratios, however, so be careful playing with the mentality that big is always better.

#4, in the beta version of this game we had something very similar in place. You could purchase city defensive walls to help give you a ratio boost when your city got attacked. You could purchase a level 1 wall for a set amount of geos. Then 36 hours later, you could purchase a lv 2 wall for more geos, and finally 1 week later, a lv 3 wall for even more geos. The cost was based on the city value and the walls would give you a 10%, 20% and 30% chance of winning each battle respectively. Referring to my example in #3, the % chances to win a battle refer to the mini battles, not the main (overall) battle. Not sure if this feature will be coming back or not, as it is still being debated.

Rob, we have many features that existed in the beta version that will be coming back soon. I hope you enjoy the game as is, especially knowing that it will only get better!

Starchy

I think you misunderstand my point 3. What I'm saying is that in a battle of 100k vs 100, the 100k army would be expected to lose 100 troops in their series of minibattles to defeat the other army. What I'm saying is that perhaps they should lose less than that because they are so much bigger.

Rob

ah yes, I see now.

Didn't work out so well for the Persions again 300 Spartans though.....

Blitz that was a matter of slave's fighting Free men though!!!

Point remains - that I highly trained and drilled smaller force, with a geographical (ro city walled) advantage has a chance of at least winning a better than 1:1 ratio.

Ergo, I believe point 3 is not necessary.

In an open field, they're a goner. But we are generally attacking cities and the like. The results could be all over the place. 100 troops can sneak into a city and cause more than a 1:1 win-loss ration too.... With the amount of coding necessary to create what happens mostly anyway (I've never seen a 100 man army beat a 100,000 man army), this will be unlikely.



But if you want to have a think about different classes of troops with strengths against some types and weaknesses against another, go crazy!