Verified:

oldman Game profile

Member
877

Aug 8th 2013, 7:36:16

My personal take...

the increased difficulty to kill countries is an interesting concept. It will change the way alliance leaders run warchats and the a totally different approach to winning wars will be born. It makes the game interesting, so I'm not complaining.

But I'm kinda against the military losses multiplier. You have already made war longer and more difficult to decide sooner by implementing the longer kill runs, why would you want to penalize bigger countries? A kill run is now going to take longer and also takes much more military! That's a double whammy.

Also, this takes away bottomfeeding as a viable strategy in 1a since you lose up to 27% military sent per SS/PS vs 8% in the past . If this move isn't to nerf bottomfeeding, I don't know what is. Reducing build cost together with the military multiplier will just promote landtrading again. If that's your real objective, then I can see where you're coming from. Everyone will either be all-ex or landtrading.

And the spies, they are already WAY overpowered and you are going to make them stronger?! So a losing alliance just needs to build up countries with ridiculous SPAL and they can rewrite the results of the war by bombing structures all day long since killing is a lot harder now and crippling is the way to go? It doesn't make sense IMO.

I'm not sure if anyone feels the same but I would like to propose the following:
a) remove the military multiplier
b) nerf spy ops instead of strengthening it

Edited By: oldman on Aug 8th 2013, 7:39:49
Back To Thread
See Subsequent Edit