Autumn Alsainn

Make it possible. I'm not sure why it isn't already, it's a bit silly.

Also the forums keep double posting on me - even when I only click the submit once.

Only thing I have to say is that deleting units killing pop seems pretty unnecessary. It's already been proven that even someone with growth policy can taken down and suppressed, purely by unit casualties alone (and the occasional housing), all this would really achieve in my eyes is making any sort of fluid strategy in regards to unit composition essentially impossible, As it would be suicidal. Otherwise, all of this looks very good!

What it says on the tin. Basically a little note icon on battle history entries, hover or it (or tap on mobile), it shows you the message sent as a reason. This would be a very big help to, well, everyone basically, in trying to establish a coherent chain of events when sending/planning/discussing counters and the after effects, be that members trying to proactively take action, gov organizing, or two alliances talking about a situation and trying to piece it together.

The forums were not loading and it posted this twice :dead:

Yep, I just lost 8 cavalry out of 35 on someone with no army. That should not be happening. Especially since they take pop away now.

So, as I think everyone is well aware, there are some major problems here. Firstly... Success Odds Success odds are determined by calculating a random number between 25% of your attacking strength and 125% your attacking strength. The same is rolled for the opponent. This is beyond "too much" RNG. I mean, you basically have to assume at all times you have less units than you have, up to *75% less*, this level of unpredictability will kill any major war operations. This means I, with 12 barracks, am not guaranteed a victory against someone with 3. Now, considering how expensive those extra buildings, those extra units are, that upkeep is... That's pretty fucking ridiculous. Forget promoting people to punch as far down as they can, more than anything, especially now that losses translate into lost population as well, you're promoting not fighting at all ever. Everytime you click the battle button against someone not inactive and zeroed is a roll of a slot machine, and we should all be in gambling addiction recovery groups by now. Reduce that RNG, and, dare I say, make military reflect more in score, so that maybe I couldn't attack someone with 3 barracks unless they were very foolish. Next, the casualties are just... They're just as bad! Just as all over the place! Just as you cannot possibly fathom the outcome, you can't predict casualties either! I could lose to half or less my bases, lose 2 cav, then win the next attack and lose 23. Some RNG is fine, but this ain't it chief. This ain't it. People are in support showing it still happening. Casualties should not be decided independently of each other, that's for sure, based on outcome yes, but linked to each other in some way. Nobody should be losing nothing when blood is on the field, especially as much as we're seeing in screenshots. Oh, and, this weird thing where you can fail naval battles? Against people with 0 ships? I've done it attacking with 3, nevermind 1, with how expensive those little bastards are, it seems a bit bewildering I should need to spend an entire days income amassing them just to not get bodied by RNG! THAT BRINGS US TO BLOCKADES. 5 days of unbreakable blockade is absurd. 12-24 hours as suggested by Roberts is better, or, even better yet, make it possible to break one by getting at least a draw on the person who put the blockade in place. There are people, right now, who are basically guaranteed to starve because of the games economics, and right now, the only thing stopping me from commiting a war crime by blockading them for nearly a week and then raiding all their food and water away is that even I think that's too cruel. And, it shouldn't be possible in the first place! They need to be shorter, and there needs to be something you can do in response to lift it. Proper, mass scale wars are already basically out of the question because of economics, in my frank opinion. However, with the current state of function of these battle mechanics, I don't think one would happen even if the economics made it more possible. Anyway, that's my thoughts on that. I also think the funny bug where income displayed schools doing 8x instead of 4x was better. Granted, the 4 is probably fine if you have max schools, but seeing as school #14 is 500k for me, who is one of the economically best off, at 53% edu, I don't think I or anyone else is achieving that unless we access the admin control panel too. 😛

So, as I think everyone is well aware, there are some major problems here. Firstly... Success Odds Success odds are determined by calculating a random number between 25% of your attacking strength and 125% your attacking strength. The same is rolled for the opponent. This is beyond "too much" RNG. I mean, you basically have to assume at all times you have less units than you have, up to *75% less*, this level of unpredictability will kill any major war operations. This means I, with 12 barracks, am not guaranteed a victory against someone with 3. Now, considering how expensive those extra buildings, those extra units are, that upkeep is... That's pretty fucking ridiculous. Forget promoting people to punch as far down as they can, more than anything, especially now that losses translate into lost population as well, you're promoting not fighting at all ever. Everytime you click the battle button against someone not inactive and zeroed is a roll of a slot machine, and we should all be in gambling addiction recovery groups by now. Reduce that RNG, and, dare I say, make military reflect more in score, so that maybe I couldn't attack someone with 3 barracks unless they were very foolish. Next, the casualties are just... They're just as bad! Just as all over the place! Just as you cannot possibly fathom the outcome, you can't predict casualties either! I could lose to half or less my bases, lose 2 cav, then win the next attack and lose 23. Some RNG is fine, but this ain't it chief. This ain't it. People are in support showing it still happening. Casualties should not be decided independently of each other, that's for sure, based on outcome yes, but linked to each other in some way. Nobody should be losing nothing when blood is on the field, especially as much as we're seeing in screenshots. Oh, and, this weird thing where you can fail naval battles? Against people with 0 ships? I've done it attacking with 3, nevermind 1, with how expensive those little bastards are, it seems a bit bewildering I should need to spend an entire days income amassing them just to not get bodied by RNG! THAT BRINGS US TO BLOCKADES. 5 days of unbreakable blockade is absurd. 12-24 hours as suggested by Roberts is better, or, even better yet, make it possible to break one by getting at least a draw on the person who put the blockade in place. There are people, right now, who are basically guaranteed to starve because of the games economics, and right now, the only thing stopping me from commiting a war crime by blockading them for nearly a week and then raiding all their food and water away is that even I think that's too cruel. And, it shouldn't be possible in the first place! They need to be shorter, and there needs to be something you can do in response to lift it. Proper, mass scale wars are already basically out of the question because of economics, in my frank opinion. However, with the current state of function of these battle mechanics, I don't think one would happen even if the economics made it more possible. Anyway, that's my thoughts on that. I also think the funny bug where income displayed schools doing 8x instead of 4x was better. Granted, the 4 is probably fine if you have max schools, but seeing as school #14 is 500k for me, who is one of the economically best off, at 53% edu, I don't think I or anyone else is achieving that unless we access the admin control panel too. 😛