Rok Semloh

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Rok Semloh last won the day on February 10 2017

Rok Semloh had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

259 Excellent


About Rok Semloh

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
  • Alliance Pip
  • Leader Name
    Rok Semloh
  • Nation Name
  • Nation ID
  • Alliance Name

Recent Profile Visitors

1095 profile views
  1. Generally speaking, the game developers position on this has been: no. The reason isn't so much that you're cheating as much as it's a huge hassle to setup a manually operated system to prove it isn't cheating. People have cheated a lot in times past and claimed to go to school together etc. I used to try trading with a nation that, while we weren't on the same network at the time of the trade, we had at times past been on the same network at the same time. The trade was blocked. I understand why, though. Not sure if Alex will weigh in or not, but just based on previous responses to questions like this, the answer will likely be to find other people to trade with.
  2. While your 5 naval IT/3 ground IT point is valid, it isn't utilized by raiders, so go tell them that. The instant cash benefit of a ground IT isn't as significant in wars with nations who have warchests, and if naval blockades are up, that cash can't be used for trading. As far as wars go: I have fought more than a few dozen wars in my time.
  3. You have been here about a year longer than me including beta, but you aren't God's gift to PnW as you seem to think, and you're wrong if you think ground forces aren't under-powered. They aren't useless as some are trying to say I'm claiming, far from it, but they aren't the fulcrum of strategy in warfare in this game like they used to be and should be again. With naval IT's you can knock down 3.5 resistance per MAP With air IT's you can knock down 3 resistance per MAP (with IT), but you can not only half the effectiveness of tanks but also destroy large quantities of whatever else you may want to destroy, such as ships or tanks. With ground you can get more bang-for-buck on resistance per map (3.33 with IT) than air, but beyond locking ground in order to decrease the effective use of air against you, it would be silly to continue using ground unless you have to re-lock it or are out of other options. Air can still be effectively used long after the effects of locking air aren't an issue anymore (i.e. enemy tanks are gone or severely degraded) so it will probably be used again unless naval superiority over one's opponent is so great it doesn't matter and then the most effective use of your MAPs is continuous naval attacks. If we kept ground attacks at 10 resistance per IT, but made it so that six consecutive ground IT's in a row equals victory in war regardless of where resistance stands, then we have mixed it up to the point where that has to be a serious strategic consideration for both parties. Conversely, if we raised the amount of resistance damage per ground IT to 11, it would become the best bang-for-buck IT available, and would again become the fulcrum of strategic making in war between two or more players (as it used to be, as it is in real war, and I am arguing: as it should be).
  4. You just assumed, wrongly, that you must have more experience. You are arguing with one of the most vetted players in this game and refuse to accept his opinion. Ever thought of it that way? I was also one of the first to suggest having different types of ground troops and would advocate for more complicated units within each system of battle; ADA troops/ships, Bombers/fighters, etc. and that would still be great to see, although would require extensive testing and balancing and would take a very long time to design, create, and implement and PnW will likely never get to that level.
  5. You aren't wrong at all when you say people should use ground attacks. Of course they should! But the majority still don't. Neither of us has hard metadata from the game to prove it; although I would love it if we could get data from two years ago on ground attacks as a percentage of warfare and now. I would bet my left nut they were far more prevalent when warfare revolved around them (as it should) than now. Yeah I'm just busting your chops man you aren't bad at all. Impressive growth for a nation that young even for a reroll.
  6. No. Ground forces attack is broken as evidenced by the fact that people don't use it nearly as often as they used to. It used to be the main staple of warfare in this game and has been reduced to a side thought. Currently, in-game war is operating in one of the least realistic ways possible. That's what you'd call broken. I just looked at your nation's war record. LOL Edit: Okay, that was harsh, but I still have yet to see one single detractor actually make a case for why the broken ground attack system shouldn't be fixed. Still no takers on day 3?
  7. Still nobody who has a real rebuttal to the obvious need for fixes on ground forces. I have fought over 100 wars in this game, had 22 cities when 26 cities was the absolute maximum anyone had, and comfortably sat in the top 50 for about a year before quitting and re-rolling. Ground forces simply aren't viable for sustained continuous attack. They're good for perhaps 1 immense triumph to get ground lock against an enemy who knows what they're doing, and if you run out of ships, planes, and nukes then you could resort to ground forces if that's what is left, but the majority of people don't have strategies centered around ground forces triumphing over their enemies anymore. That's the problem here. Even if the 10 resistance damage was kept in place and the 6 consecutive ground IT victory was brought back, that would make it much more viable again.
  8. The detractors above must be high if they actually think that most people use ground forces frequently in war. You're also delusional if you think the majority of wars aren't naval spam. One person above actually said realism doesn't matter in a game that is trying to mimic real world politics and war... The 6 consecutive IT ground victory was actually pretty true to form for a real war's victory criteria in real life. It would be great to see that brought back. The current resistance elimination is way off, gives incentive for some very unrealistic strategies and tactics, and is all around broken.
  9. Pretty straightforward: very few wars bother to use ground forces, and certainly not on the scale they used to. In a real war, ground forces are absolutely key to a true and complete victory, yet in the game the first person to spam the most ships (and sometimes aircraft) wins the war. Make the three types of victories, Naval, Air, and Land all do the same amount of resistance damage (12) so that strategic decisions incorporating more than just 80% navy and 20% air are viable.
  10. It's funny Alex brings this up because I was about to suggest exactly this.
  11. RIP IOM lol
  12. Good to see a Warhammer alliance out there.
  13. I've posted national news here since early 2015 and this is the first time some of the (newer) people have said anything. Anyway, since the others aren't doing it, I will: congratulations me on such an accomplishment! Not many people take nukes this early in their nation's life, so we are proud to defend our alliance and our people.