Jump to content

Menace

Members
  • Posts

    36
  • Joined

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    New Caldedonia
  • Leader Name
    Menace
  • Nation Name
    Sanctum
  • Nation ID
    111981
  • Alliance Name
    The Fighting Pacifists

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name: Menace

Recent Profile Visitors

704 profile views

Menace's Achievements

Casual Member

Casual Member (2/8)

30

Reputation

  1. I think the bombardment would be better if you could do it after getting a blockade, like how you can kill planes after getting ground control. Seems kinda out of place to have a minimum ship requirement for it, unlike really any other mechanic. Plus the losing side will rarely be able to use it with that high requirement percentage of ships.
  2. Well you guys did have a head start
  3. How does safety level factor into those odds? What if the some blockading nations have certain war policies affecting spying odds? The spy operation does not use up defensive spy slots in the attacked nations either, opening it up to abuse. Additionally, the amount of spies that the defender has compared to the attacker will no longer be a factor in determining the odds, when it should. Instead, the spy attack should be done on an opponent, lifting the blockades done by that nation. I would advocate again a simpler attack where odds are determined by the usual formula for amount of attacking vs defending spies and safety level, then divided by a certain number for the new type of spy attack. This would incorporate all of the current components involved in spying, including the defensive spying limit. Perhaps increase the number dividing the odds by a certain amount for the number of blockades that the defending nation has. This would use the current system of spying to create a new spy attack, instead of a new, more complicated system just for this type of attack.
  4. Maybe make it more difficult based on the number of blockades like you suggested originally. So the odds could be like the current system, but instead of dividing the odds by the type of attack only, it could be divided by the amount of blockades that could be broken also. So something like odds divided by 3 for 1 blockade, adding 0.5 for each additional blockade after to divide the odds of success. If this is too easy or hard, just change the amount dividing the odds.
  5. Yes, but the attack would also break all the blockades done by the attacked nation. So if you are blockaded by 2 nations, you need to do a successful attack on each one to trade again. If the attacked nation has 2 blockades on opponents, both of his blockades get broken when a successful attack is done.
  6. The amount of spies and espionage caution should effect the odds of breaking the blockade, like other espionage attacks. It would be easier if it just got rid of the blockade until another naval attack is done.
  7. Lets take two people with all the spy projects, with the greatest amount of spy building and killing. I've found that people with the projects often kill around 20 spies per attack. In the initial attack, say 1 is ineffective or fails or perhaps the other nation rebuilds. That means that it will require about 3-5 attacks to zero a nations spies . After that point, around a spy attack about every two days will be enough to hold down their spies. For these nations, that is about 25% of their spy attacks. If you look at 3 days, maybe only one spy attack can be used to attack another military unit. If you look at it in 5 days most attacks will be required to keep their spies down, perhaps 75-80% as you said. However, alliances do not fight wars against each other for 5 days. For a longer period of time, the amount of spy vs spy attacks compared to spy vs other military unit will decrease approaching nearer to 25%. Even under the current system, the first few initial 3-4 spy attacks are usually against spies. In the first two days of fighting, 100% of spy attacks are used to eliminate spies. Spies must be useless... Yes, it will be more difficult to win and keep spy supremacy as you called it, that is the entire point of this suggestion.
  8. Can you explain why it would make spies useless? I can see how it would make it more difficult organizing to hold an opponents spies down, rather than wiping out spies at the start of a conflict and then not worrying about it for a while. However, a day to wipe out spies and 6 days to rebuild with the associated projects is not unreasonable. This is a slower rebuild time than every unit in the game, giving multiple days to spy military while an opponent rebuilds spies.
  9. Same thing happens to me when trying to send to some people, but not others
  10. Menace

    Spies

    I agree that spy kills need to be reduced, but not by the amount you are suggesting. I think that increasing the rate at which spies can be built will help more in solving this problem, while making spy vs spy attacks remain cost effective. For example, nations by default can build 5 spies each day instead of 2, with intelligence agency 8 spies a day, and with spy satellite 10 spies a day.
  11. I like the idea of having some projects exclude others from being built, as this will lead to more interesting specialization. Perhaps this should be extended to making other types of satellite projects that are excluded by having another. I think some of these have too many prerequisites that would make it difficult for smaller nations to get some of these projects, even if they have additional slots. For example, the prerequisites for the city planning projects do not seem necessary and will only provide a greater hurdle to small nations. Instead of more prerequisites, there should be more projects that exclude one another. This way big nations will not simply get all of them and will have to make decisions on which projects are best.
  12. Make planes take casualties when air striking someone without air and make air striking units other than aircraft more difficult
  13. Tanks, ships, infrastructure, and soldiers get a certain defensive value when they are targeted in airstrikes. Also, gaining ground or naval control increases the defensive value of their respective units by a certain percentage. For example, when targeting ships in an airstrike, each defending ship gets the value of 1 plane in the calculations for the battle. If naval control is established by the defender, each defending ship has the value of 2 planes in the battle.
  14. Different recruitment rates for different units makes the game more interesting, instead of them all being the same. I believe most of the people that want a higher recruitment rate are frustrated at the ability to be pinned down. Instead maybe increase the recruitment rate for 2.1 days when a nation is in beige or when a defensive war has expired. This would give the ability for nations to rebuild their military.
  15. What do you expect from a shrek themed thread?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.