Player have to much protection

Andy,

6.) It seems you are opposed to using enterprises to commit major economic harm on countries then? Just would like to understand why you want to limit this function? Especially as countries can already decide to nationalize your corps if they notice a conflict with the CEO brewing. It seems to me strengthening the economic warfare abilities would add to the enterprise game greatly.

12.) I can see some big benefits here. It should include the ability to add stations within your country and remote. If only within your country your defense becomes weaker as you can't respond to certain threats in time. To build them remote you'd have to interact with others to build in their countries. The remote feature would help encourage federations to cluster together more and interact more.

14.) This was one idea to help make countries of different locations matter more, in time this would likely need to be supplemented with other changes making land locked countries have various values as well. Maybe resource allocation, geography effecting ground units movement, benefits from being near lakes vs ocean, river benefits, etc...

21.) I think this is the key point of all of this, utilizing the map to encourage interaction and conflict is the key. Many of the other suggestions especially the Navy one are one solution but they may not be the right or best solution.

Thank you for taking your time to listen, respond, and understand our perspectives. I feel like now that you made point 21 we are on the same general page and I am happy to see where this goes going forward.

6. Enterprises can damage countries but as in war, several attacks will not destroy an entire country.
10 corporations moving out can do just that. Some proportionality should be in place.
Nothing even close to moving one corporation will never happen in the real world, losing 300.000 jobs never happens, let alone 3.000.000 jobs.

This is a good start. Understanding that these are just ideas implementing the chosen one may take some time. I will make my response brief and too each bullet point.

1) Okay

2) I agree

3) I'm not leaving FB

4) Until something can be developed that would balance power between ocean front and land locked countries all players need the ability to build navies. I do like the bullet points, if you can figure out how to make it work. Go for it.

5) It should be more difficult to attack than defend. This is were I see Radar Stations becoming a big part of the game. Eliminating Radar Stations would or should greatly decrease the def and supporting feds response allowing greater damage to the attacked target and far less casualties.

6) I do not like stealing corps, Most players will not even notice until its to late. (Perhaps some type of notification when corp attacks starts)

7) Not realistic. Personally I do not like nukes , but it is a reality unfortunately everything in range will be killed or destroyed.

8)Sneak attacks increase to three and open up all targets

9) On Fearless Blue give new players the option to stay in war protection an additional 30 days at the end of 60

10) Agree

11) I agree, but more input is needed

12) It is a good move, this would be one way of removing the strength of having multiple feds helping in the air def

13) Until being able to balance power equally Navies for everyone

14) I agree

15) Personally I have been on the better or stronger team, and have still been beaten. That is why you play the game. Any given Sunday right

16) If anything def weapons are to low

17) I like this, but just for one country and only changeable once ever 60 days.

18) I would like to see the units larger with more flexibility in there design

19)I understand your point, and will agree with it.

20) This sounds good

21) I agree

I appreciate your willingness to listen to are ideas and thoughts. I wish nothing but the best for you and your crew.
Rob

Preparing for a limitation of the number of military units per base.

- It will be done gradually.
- units will be larger but in smaller numbers.
- We are looking at the abilities of the air force. We tend to require more land based action in war and less reliability on the air force.

Short term actions:

- Many units will become larger. around 10%
- Garrisons will become larger.
- The number of military units, depending on types, land, air, sea per base will be limited to 10 per base. The numbers will be reduced gradually after that.
- Fed support will be reduced to one defense wing.
- Dismantling of military units will be done without damage to quality. The quality will be averaged with all the weapons of a each type.
- Land units will become more significant.


You are advised to check the numbers of units and the numbers of military bases and decide on the numbers you want to keep. You can add military bases if needed.

your feedback will be appreciated.

Andy,

Thank you for your response on number 6.

This sounds like a solid change, with this change will you make military bases able to be completely destroyed, or reduce their capacity as they are damaged?

The intention is to count the undamaged fractions of bases and compute the total equivalent of bases of each type.

Destroying bases for 100% is possible, also now, except for the last one.
The last one can be damaged for 99%.
This is OK as the military units in the country will will require more than 0.01 base.

It is not going to happen all at once but we are already working on these issues even while the discussions can continue.

i think it sounds good, let's see what happens.thanks for looking into this

We intend to gradually implement many of the issues we discussed.
some will need more iterations.
some are easy and some will take more development time.

I will put here a new version of this list of points to implement, from time to time that should be clearer about what exactly is implemented.