| Andy | Monday, October 12, 2020 - 09:23 am 
Defense helicopters have a very long range.
the range is unrealistic and was chosen to allow the helicopters destroy attack batteries shooting from a very long distance.
we wanted at the time, and now, to have a defense weapon that is effective against long range missiles.
The strategic intercontinental missiles have a very long range.
In the mean time, for quite long, we have defensive missiles that can intercept nuclear missiles.
These have a very long range.
we will in the coming weeks, reduce the range of defense helicopters to something more realistic.
we will also update the nuclear defense missiles to make them effective in the defense against strategic intercontinental missiles.
We were alerted to this old problem by a player. It could have been done long time ago. |
| Lord Mndz | Monday, October 12, 2020 - 09:33 pm
Andy, be careful when making this change. conventional missiles can be used 1000 at once, i don't know what can stop them if defence missiles and helicopters would be out of range.
one option is to make missile interceprors much more powerfull and they could stop attack without killing batteries. they could shoot more rounds with greater range/accuracy and ammo could be cheaper.
nuclear defence batteries are very expensive and they are only used in small numbers to stop nuclear attacks. so unless they fire hundreds of rounds per attack and their ammo gets cheap this could be too expensive. |
| Andy | Monday, October 12, 2020 - 11:01 pm
Using 1000 strategic long distance missiles in a single attack is as crazy as having to disband a unit after each attack.
1000 per weapon is too high.
The current nuclear defense missiles are too expensive.
everything can change.
we will be very careful with changes! |
| John Galt | Tuesday, October 13, 2020 - 03:34 am
Andy I have over 1 million conventional missile batteries. I must be completely insane  |
| Andy | Tuesday, October 13, 2020 - 08:49 am
You probably are ...
but even than, how many should you use in one attack?
To be clear.
We are talking about ideas here.
Not jumping to conclusions and turning things upside down.
Using helicopters as a defense against very long distance batteries was needed when it was introduced long time ago. despite the 16.000 range.
Replacing it by lets say "strategic defense missiles" seems like a good idea but in the current conditions, price numbers etc., it is not practical.
We are busy with too many things.
At some point, a change might be possible.
also, unrelated,
allowing one military unit to participate in the defense will be part of the next upgrade. |
| John Galt | Tuesday, October 13, 2020 - 04:59 pm
Andy the best solution is to just merge offensive and defensive weapons. Instead of having Defense Missile Batteries, Nuclear Defense Batteries, Mid Range Missile Batteries, Land Based Cruise Batteries, and Conventional Missile batteries they could all be replaced by just three weapons: short range missiles, medium range missiles, and long range missiles. When I launch an attack with my long range missiles, the defense will respond with their own long range missiles. It is so much simpler this way. I know it is a lot of work to do, but I think it will be worth it. |
| Lord Mndz | Tuesday, October 13, 2020 - 08:41 pm
Andy,
you should remember how many conventional batteries you have deployed yourself against me in last war. I bet it was 300k or more, so there was a reason for that. I also have crazy amount of them in my CEO stock because currently they are the best weapon and you only need to have them at 120 quality.
they are not the biggest problem in war game for sure |
| Andy | Wednesday, October 14, 2020 - 01:33 pm
For now, I am mildly interested in the range of helicopters and will focus on it when looking at this part of the war game.
mildly means it is not our biggest issue.
as to merging weapons, it is not our biggest problem either right now.
we might get to minor changes now and then but don't hold your breath.
It represents a major development effort, reminds me of the competition world, and how many takers?
everyone has these missiles, many have these corporations.
we will do other stuff before.
We will experiment with ammunition that is used by multiple weapons.
this was not done before. we are checking the code.
if possible, we might make some changes.
We are ready to install an upgrade that has military units participating in the defense (one unit).
more reductions in defense cost.
minor changes in army units. Minor because we do not want to cause any major shakeups and the military unit participation is significant enough.
As usual, we will install while many of you are asleep.
|
| Lord Mndz | Wednesday, October 14, 2020 - 05:41 pm
my countries never sleep
Mb you can also reduce navy and offence maintenance? I have country eating 350B per month only because I like to have big navy.. |
| SirSmokes | Wednesday, October 14, 2020 - 09:11 pm
Hi everyone. Military costs aren't the only issue when it comes to how much a country makes or losses. I'm just saying health and education costs are crazy high. In your country alone Andy it eats up way to much income and your left with a negative monthly debt because of it. |
| Andy | Wednesday, October 21, 2020 - 12:21 am
Maybe everything should go to zero and we will all be bathing in money.
trivializing it will not benefit the game.
we are reducing the maintenance cost of mainly the defensive forces to make it possible for players to hold a good defensive army which will make them take more risks if they believe their countries can defend themselves in a better way.
who will be benefiting from a reduction in the cost of the maintenance of the navy.
a great navy is a powerful weapon in war and requires others to build large defenses against it.
the least that can be done, is to make such a very large navy cost a great deal.
Just imagine it was cheap and huge navies everywhere will make people try to avoid war at any price and stay out of the war game. |
| Lord Mndz | Wednesday, October 21, 2020 - 09:56 pm
i agree that defence must be strong and cheap, but without someone attacking there is no point to have any defence at all.
in the past ppl had almost unbreakable defence, but all kinds of weapons maintenance was cheap and peaple were attempting to attack alot trying to get through defence.
i think it would be more fun to make defence weapons stronger but keep maintenance low for all kinds of weapons. |
| Andy | Friday, October 23, 2020 - 05:47 pm
I think that there should be more reasons for attack.
the cost of the army declined a lot and keeps declining.
the profitability of many corporations is now much higher. |
| Lord Mndz | Friday, October 23, 2020 - 07:21 pm
yes, I can see that direction and this is great! (and still need to encourage you to do even more) |
| Andy | Friday, October 30, 2020 - 03:56 pm
I will |
| Andy | Friday, November 13, 2020 - 03:57 pm
we keep reducing the cost.
It takes time for the change to materialize in the monthly cost.
do you see a large difference by now.
I am sure we have reduced by at least 40% in the past months. |
| Lord Mndz | Friday, November 13, 2020 - 05:07 pm
Hi Andy,
I think we are talking in different scales - 40% is good, but it needs to be 10 times which is 1000%. If we want to have standing armies, then army costs should not be at the size they influence economy a much |
| DETA | Saturday, November 14, 2020 - 11:15 am
You could also deploy smaller armies... ;) |
| Andy | Saturday, November 14, 2020 - 05:13 pm
Reducing by 90% seems to me too far.
we are not done yet but 10 times lower is not needed.
war costs you but you should be able to pay for wars by building a reasonable economy.
and as DETA said, why build huge armies.
If we reduce the price by a factor of 10, you could build an army which is ten times larger.
all this does not help.
Ammunition was too expensive compared to weapons.
this is being corrected. |
| Lord Mndz | Saturday, November 14, 2020 - 06:20 pm
Small armies always benefit the attacker, as defending party will not keep big army as default while attacker will buy big army only for purpose to attack and will ignore high cost of army for short time.
if both off/def are very cheap, then you can have offensive army for counter attack and pretty huge defences to deter attacker from risking at all.
problem is that weapons are very cheap, and you can build army very suddenly which benefits you and not defending player. |
| Amalie | Saturday, November 14, 2020 - 11:59 pm
I agree
Making def and off weapons and ammunitions cheap would benefit both new and experienced players who want to play the war game and fight till the end lol but are too afraid buy the needed weaps and ammo to fight
Especially maintenance cost
Oooooh child that still hurts my pockets |
| Andy | Friday, November 27, 2020 - 04:35 pm
Another round of reductions of the cost of ammunition will be completed in the coming days.
more reductions in the cost of ammunition and in the maintenance of the army.
The maintenance cost of the army depends on:
- numbers of soldiers and officers and their salaries.
- The market price of ammunition used for training
- The market price of maintenance products. |
| Lord Mndz | Friday, November 27, 2020 - 05:59 pm
Thanks Andy, very good, any improvement in this situation is appreciated. |
| Pierre Vajhun | Friday, November 27, 2020 - 06:39 pm
Can a developer of the game pls check why as a CEO I can only own 75 corps? |
| Vlad48 | Sunday, November 29, 2020 - 11:26 am
imo
reducing the number of weapons types and interaction between them just dumb down the game
for dumbed down strategy games there are always 10,000 mobile games available |
| Andy | Friday, December 4, 2020 - 02:21 pm
Pierre Vajhun
Free members have a limitation on the number of corporations in an enterprise.
I will check the documentation and correct it. |
