New poll discussion

Main Server Survey:
The players voice determines how Aderan Wars will evolve. Use your power to shape the game!
The results of this survey will affect future changes on the main server.

Q1: Do you wish to see the Personal Transfer Ratio (PTR) to be reset to 0% for everyone. This includes players who already have a PTR higher than 60-70% because they bought large parts of their account from other players? (Everyone will have their PTR reset to 0%, those who bought or sold 10 thousand units will end up with a 0% PTR just like those who bought or sold 10 million units from other players through other means than ingame resources, allowing them to again buy resources from others and increase the size of their accounts even further).
Should a reset occur it will only reduce your PTR by the value it had when the update got released.
Example: You sent away 30k attack turns before the release and 5k attack turns after the release of the update. Your total outgoing transfer will be reduced to 5k, down from the current 35k.

Or do you want that it can be reset only by a maximum of 20%.
From 10% trade ratio to 0%.
From -15% to 0%.
From -32% to -12%.
From 60% to 40%.

Please select an option:
A) Yes, I do want PTR to be reset to 0% for everyone
B) I want PTR to be HALVED for everyone, not reset completely.
C) Yes, I do want PTR to be reset, but only by a maximum of 20% for everyone
D) No, I do NOT want PTR to be reset for anyone at all.
E) I don't care / Undecided
F) I don't understand the question

Q2: Do you wish the weapons upkeep to be removed completely from the game?
Average active player weapon upkeep: 17 million Kuwal / Turn
Average weapon upkeep for players above average army size: 29 million Kuwal / Turn
Global weapon upkeep: 3.9 billion Kuwal / Turn

Please select an option:
A) Yes, I do want it removed completely
B) I want upkeep to be halved
C) No, I do NOT want it removed
D) I don't care / Undecided

Q3: Should there be a restriction concerning maximum alliance membership size or an income penalty for being in an alliance

Please select an option:
A) Size restriction (i.e. no more than 20 members in an alliance)
B) Income penalty (a few % of income lost based on size and amount of members in an alliance, one example was discussed on forum as 'alliance upkeep')
C) NO penalty AND NO size restriction

Q4: If there must be a size restriction. How big should the restriction be?

Please select an option:
A) max 15 members per alliance
B) max 20 members per alliance
C) max 30 members per alliance
D) max 40 members per alliance
E) max 50 members per alliance
E) max 100 members per alliance
F) Undecided

Q5: Airforce will be released within the next month, further buildings will follow shortly.
In order to make construction more 'interesting' and accessible to more players.
Currently there is a fixed cost and a short construction time with buildings you only need to build once.
A change is suggested to be a flat % cost of a player's income per turn for the duration of the construction, increasing the construction time and adding an armysize requirement (dropping below the required armysize would result in a stop/pause in the construction or the inability to use the building if it has been already finished).

Example: Construction Yard level 1, 15% of personal income, construction time 4 days, required army size 10,000
Construction Yard level 2, 15% of personal income, construction time 10 days, required army size 2,000,000
(it will be possible to 'pause' the construction to build other critical buildings like training facilities or weapon factories)

Your current level of administrative efficiency would affect the income loss, so just because you decide grow before building something doesnt mean you'll have to pay more

Please select an option:
A) I would like to see this change happen
B) I do NOT want to see this change happen
C) I dont care / Undecided

Q6: Should it be possible for airforce units to destroy value of a player without any costs if the defending player doesn't have any defenses, or should planes that attack and destroy buildings do so at some cost (for example in terms of using bombs). If bombs are chosen then a bomber could for example destroy buildings worth 100 million kuwal by droping bombs that cost 30 million or 50 million kuwal.

Please select an option:
A) Aircraft should destroy buildings for free.
B) Aircraft should destroy buildings by using bombs that have to be built/bought.
C) I dont care / Undecided

Q7: To increase the pace at which wars can be waged and to reduce the power of a first strike, 50% of all attackers and defenders 'killed' during battle (regular strike missions) would only get "wounded", becoming available at a later time again. Weapons they used still be gone forever. Attackers and defenders killed by assassins would all get killed, just like the assassins used in the mission

Please select an option:
A) I would like to see this change happen
B) I do NOT want to see this change happen
C) I dont care / Undecided

Q8: If people vote for the update that 50% killed units get wounded instead. Do you support that 50% of all military units that get killed will be wounded (not only attackers and defenders, but also spies and assassins). This includes assassination missions and sabotage missions. Missions would be altered so that people who make a sabotage or assassination mission are not at an advantage nor a disadvantage due to this mission.

Please select an option:
A) I want attackers, defenders, spies and assassins get wounded
B) I want only attackers and defenders get wounded during normal battles. Spies and assassins as well as assassinated units will die.
C) I dont care / Undecided

Q9: Remove normal attack and defense soldiers and make training/untraining of all military units cost the same. (And also most likely rename super soldiers to just attack/defense soldiers)

Please select an option:
A) I would like to see this change happen
B) I do NOT want to see this change happen
C) I dont care / Undecided

Q10: Workers would get removed. The income miners produce and the % killed in an invasion mission would get adjusted so that players keep an identical risk in losing them as well as an identical income production.
Example: Before update 1 million farmers, 500k workers, 500k miners = 115 million income per turn, 4500 units lost on first invasion mission
After update income production will still be 115 million income per turn with only needing 2 million income units and first invasion mission will kill 4500 units.
Players who have a worker superiority medal will be able to get/improve a different medal by the same value (i.e. if you have silver level then you can improve any of your awards by 3 levels)

Please select an option:
A) I would like to see this change happen
B) I do NOT want to see this change happen
C) I dont care / Undecided

Q11: Do you want the cost of all strike missions other than farm and raid missions be changed to 1 AT and 5 ST?

Please select an option:
A) I would like to see this change happen
B) I do NOT want to see this change happen
C) I dont care / Undecided

Q12: Administrative Efficiency lowers the income of players who have a population bigger than the average player. This has existed for a long time on Aderan Wars. Current average Armysize is 4.644.011. A higher population always earns more income than a lower population even if you have a low AE. With a population 5 times higher than average armysize, you will produce roughly 50% income per income unit. (Your income will be 250% of a person with a population equal to average armysize).

Would you mind if a cap will be added at 10.000.000 armysize, so that if average armysize grows beyond 10 million population, the base value for calculating AE will not be average armysize, but instead 10.000.000 armysize?

Please select an option:
A) I would like to see this change happen
B) I do NOT want to see this change happen
C) I dont care / Undecided

Q13: If you were the admin of this game, what changes would you make to improve it? (this includes adding new features, changing or removing current features)
You can ignore this question, if you have no suggestions.

Special Agent 47 wrote:I would like to request that if possible allow future polls to have a place to allow players to say something, the present poll has multiple answers, but I agree with none of them and have no way to express my true opinion. My only option is to pick something that is a false representation of my true opinion.


Edit

Also, add options like on the size of alliance question, to make it a % of the active player base, hard limits are a tricky thing, as the game grows the limits should as well.


Edit again

sorry but main is becoming AW2, can't you 2 use different updates and ideas instead of making 2 idntical games with different kill ratios?

the last question has a place where you can write things.

You can add your opinions and also add something about previous questions if there was no such possibility.

question 3 Answer is D both a limit to the number of players in an alliance, & an upkeep charge...

#9 it should not cost the same to train a super as it does a assassin or spy, do not mind seeing normal soldiers removed from the game tho...

Afaik each question has a "No" reply in which case you can reject all suggestions and everything will remain as it is.

First and foremost do something so it gives you time to actually reply before kicking you off and erasing all your replies. I typed 2 good paragraphs only to have them erased so I have come here to speak my mind.


1. fairly clear, I would only ask the option to include "other" or "see below" be used as none listed really fit my opinion of what should have been done.

2. fairly clear, again would like to see the option for a user to state their opinion of more then yes, no or 1/2. Maybe tie it to AE somehow?

3. Yes to BOTH. But not a hard limit. I think there should be a cost because you get so many advantages, so a % of income or "tax" is reasonable, but also a size limit should exist. It should be a % of the active player base, not a hard limit, so as the game grows, so does the alliance allowable size.

4. Covered in 3

5. I understood it fine and personally like it.

6. Nothing should be destroyed for free no matter what! That said I dislike the way you are following the AW2 strategy for set pricing on attack cost and defensive losses. Stick with it as it is now, you send more you lose more but kill more. Also, you should address if ground troops can bring down AF ships. I mean we have tanks and MA which by all means can take down bombers and jets. I think this needs to be looked into and discussed more before finalized.

7. Why are we copying AW2 into main? if they are going to become the same game then just merge them and be done. Go in Different paths with different games in the franchise, not make them all copies of the same game.

8. See 7, but if you insist on copying Kenzu and AW2, explain how someone assassinated can live? I can see shot soldiers down on a field and unconscious being brought back, but people with throats cut?

9.Im fine with removing normal soliders as no one uses them but please clarify when you say "training/untraining of all military units the same" you mean attack and defense only or spies and assassins cost the same as strike and defense? I voted yes to the first but no to making spies and assassins cost as much as supers.

10. Fairly clear

11. fairly clear (I personally want to see war keeps its high cost and effectiveness, but want to see the more time consuming and mundane actions such as farming and raiding be allowed to happen at a higher rate then 4 to 5 times a day, or 23 times using MT)

12. Please explain this better, as I read it it means AE will be permanantly locked in at 10 mill army size so in 2 or 3 years when everyone is 100, 200, or 300 mill army size we will all only get 20% of our incomes. I like how it is, growing as the game grows. Did I miss something?

Special Agent 47 wrote:First and foremost do something so it gives you time to actually reply before kicking you off and erasing all your replies. I typed 2 good paragraphs only to have them erased so I have come here to speak my mind.

will add something for that in the future

Special Agent 47 wrote:
3. Yes to BOTH. But not a hard limit. I think there should be a cost because you get so many advantages, so a % of income or "tax" is reasonable, but also a size limit should exist. It should be a % of the active player base, not a hard limit, so as the game grows, so does the alliance allowable size.

my idea for the income penalty was you pay 0.075% per member who is above AE, and for all who are under AE you pay the respective fraction of their armysize / average army size (so if someone has half of the average army size then upkeep would increase by 0.0375%)

Special Agent 47 wrote:6. Nothing should be destroyed for free no matter what! That said I dislike the way you are following the AW2 strategy for set pricing on attack cost and defensive losses. Stick with it as it is now, you send more you lose more but kill more. Also, you should address if ground troops can bring down AF ships. I mean we have tanks and MA which by all means can take down bombers and jets. I think this needs to be looked into and discussed more before finalized.

The question was if the Defense is gone and you have no other way of defending yourself, if after all of that the enemy can still destroy stuff for free.
Obviously your defense will protect you from direct bombing

Special Agent 47 wrote:7. Why are we copying AW2 into main? if they are going to become the same game then just merge them and be done. Go in Different paths with different games in the franchise, not make them all copies of the same game.

If attack and defense soldiers would recover, it would increase how often people can mass each other during wars. I think it would make it more interesting. You mass someone and to mass again you only need to train some units and build weapons, basically increasing the amount of actions you can take during a war.
plus makes retaliation somewhat easier

Special Agent 47 wrote:8. See 7, but if you insist on copying Kenzu and AW2, explain how someone assassinated can live? I can see shot soldiers down on a field and unconscious being brought back, but people with throats cut?

Kenzu thought some people would want all units being recovered, if you want neither just vote no on question 7 and problem solved

Special Agent 47 wrote:9.Im fine with removing normal soliders as no one uses them but please clarify when you say "training/untraining of all military units the same" you mean attack and defense only or spies and assassins cost the same as strike and defense? I voted yes to the first but no to making spies and assassins cost as much as supers.

idea was supers going down in price, or maybe sligthly increase spies and still reduce price of supers

Special Agent 47 wrote:12. Please explain this better, as I read it it means AE will be permanantly locked in at 10 mill army size so in 2 or 3 years when everyone is 100, 200, or 300 mill army size we will all only get 20% of our incomes. I like how it is, growing as the game grows. Did I miss something?

I'm not giving this much hope

Admin wrote:
will add something for that in the future
TY


my idea for the income penalty was you pay 0.075% per member who is above AE, and for all who are under AE you pay the respective fraction of their armysize / average army size (so if someone has half of the average army size then upkeep would increase by 0.0375%)
That's fine as discussed in the forum thread on this subject, but please address the % of active players versus a hard limit on alliance size.


The question was if the Defense is gone and you have no other way of defending yourself, if after all of that the enemy can still destroy stuff for free.
Obviously your defense will protect you from direct bombing
My mistake, with this piece of additional information I still say nothing should be destroyed for free so I agree to your proposal.


If attack and defense soldiers would recover, it would increase how often people can mass each other during wars. I think it would make it more interesting. You mass someone and to mass again you only need to train some units and build weapons, basically increasing the amount of actions you can take during a war.
plus makes retaliation somewhat easier
I disagree, even doing this the ST and AT limits will kick in, and giving you 1/2 of everything win make wars unwinnable as you can never really beat anyone down because they can rebuild faster then you can take down. I might agree to something like 10%, and make that adjustable by diverting a large % of your income into healthcare, but 50% is massively unbalancing. You would most definitely have to adjust AT production and remove the upper limits. Please still address why your make multiple games identical instead of unique?




idea was supers going down in price, or maybe sligthly increase spies and still reduce price of supers
But not the same price?

Special Agent 47 wrote:12. Please explain this better, as I read it it means AE will be permanantly locked in at 10 mill army size so in 2 or 3 years when everyone is 100, 200, or 300 mill army size we will all only get 20% of our incomes. I like how it is, growing as the game grows. Did I miss something?

I'm not giving this much hope
That really didn't help but I understand your frustration.

Admin, I know it may be to much to ask, but could you incourage player to come here and speak through a game wide message? I truly wish more would come speak their minds and let their voices be heard.

Special Agent 47 wrote:Admin, I know it may be to much to ask, but could you incourage player to come here and speak through a game wide message? I truly wish more would come speak their minds and let their voices be heard.

I'll add a news message, but most people will not bother

*Slaps self in head*

#13, changes I would make

1. Redo the merc market. It is to highly controlled by to few people.

2. Make relations actually mean something, not just be a farming list. Make war mean something in times of war, and let peace help with trading or something of that nature. Right now they are useless setting that might as well read "those I can't hit" and "those on my list to hit daily".

3. Remove private trade broker and direct sending resources and create 1 system to do both were both are protected and both pay a small price. GM has mainly killed PTBs anyway. Also attempt to find some way to allow alliance programs. As it stands everyone is hung up with PTRs and its killing ingame interaction and trade between players. GM has removed the "human" element from trading.

4. more to come as they cross my mind.



*edit*
TY for the news message.

Special Agent 47 wrote:Please still address why your make multiple games identical instead of unique?

I'm taking 1 feature of a game and seeing if people are interested in having it in main, how is that making a game identical.
People want more action, partially it's in direct contradiction to making wars being quickly destructive.
Introducing a partial recycling to combat units will not make one side rebuild faster than the other since both benefit from it equally. I mass you, while your defenders recover, my attackers will recover. But until then, your spies and assassins are free to be killed

That being said I'm not intending to make games identical

Admin wrote:

Special Agent 47 wrote:Please still address why your make multiple games identical instead of unique?

I'm taking 1 feature of a game and seeing if people are interested in having it in main, how is that making a game identical.
People want more action, partially it's in direct contradiction to making wars being quickly destructive.
Introducing a partial recycling to combat units will not make one side rebuild faster than the other since both benefit from it equally. I mass you, while your defenders recover, my attackers will recover. But until then, your spies and assassins are free to be killed

That being said I'm not intending to make games identical

OK, how about you atleast see it in action in AW2 first before bringing it to main. I would still like to see uniqueness over duplication, especially within the same franchise, but if you can make it work and the masses like it then so be it. I still think the ST and AT limits will kick in and make wars unable to be won, the non SS players with only TC access will take the brunt of that as well, but agian we will just wait and see how it works is all I have to say.

considering massing a def is actually the mission that costs the least of all

My answers are just those that I sent to admin.
I didn't go over every question, just talked about the ones I didn't like the options.
Q3: I think there should be a base size of an alliance, 20 members. If you want more you have to buy "slots". I say give it a flat cost per 5. So say its 1b per spot for the first 5, then 2b each for the next 5, and so on. This should be in place once allinace tax/bank is in place.

Q4: see Q3.

Q5: I not sure what to say on this subject, as I don't think it should cost different prices depending on your size/income. However I do kinda like the idea of allowing players to pay for them over time. However I think that it still mocks those who saved for them the old fashioned way. I do have an idea of maybe a way to bank the kuwal needed for the project. IE commit kuwal to building the item, and only 1 at a time. You have to use it for that item, and if you cancel you lose 50% of what you put in so that players can't just use it as a bank. maybe allow them to put a % of each turn into it. I don't think army size should affect it.

Q6: I have thought about this a fait bit. I don't think it should be free. I think you should have to pay for the bombs that you use. Just like arming soilders. not sure the cost for the bombs yet. If you are hitting with a def, I think that your power should beat the def and what is left bomb the buildings, but only do enough damage as the % that got thorugh. So if only 10% of your bombers got in, then you should do 10% of the damage you would do if 100% got in. There needs to a cost for repair for the bombers, and also replacement of the bombs. If you are hitting 0 def, then it should you only have to pay for the used bombs. Also bombers should have a repair cost or an upkeep cost. I say a repair cost as if they aren't being used then no damage is done.

Q9: I have no issues with removing normal units. Nor the reduction in the cost of those units. I don't think spies/assassins should be changed.

Q12: I think it should always be avg army, cept that once it hits certin marks it doesn't drop back down. IE once it hits 10m, it now stays at 10m. If it hits 20m, it stays doesn't drop below that.

If I send my assassins into an enemy's turf to do their thing and half the enemy just end up in hospital, I'd have half the assassins executed for being inept.

Also, about the construction thing, YES that construction costs should scale based on size/income but NO that there is a required army size to build/use 'em.

Q1: Do you wish to see the Personal Transfer Ratio (PTR) to be reset to 0% for everyone.

Voted A for this simply to place everyone on a level playing field.


Q2: Do you wish the weapons upkeep to be removed completely from the game?

Voted C for this. I like the idea of an ongoing cost and maintenance of weapons seems fair.


Q3: Should there be a restriction concerning maximum alliance membership size or an income penalty for being in an alliance

Voted A for this but would have liked a forth option that allowed you to vote for both A & B combined.


Q4: If there must be a size restriction. How big should the restriction be?

Voted C (max 30 members per alliance) - I've seen SA's suggestion on using a % of active players. Personally I prefer a fixed size that won't fluctuate as it adds stability and also leaves room to increase the size if there is a large increase in active players. I chose 30 as it is a size I am familiar with and have seen work well with a larger player base than AW has.

I can see resistance from some as it will lower their Membership and Rankings as well as making communication harder. It does however leave options for Empires open so possibly something similar to Alliances could be set up for Empires to allow easy communication between all Alliance Leadership within the same Empire.


Q5: Airforce will be released within the next month, further buildings will follow shortly.

Voted C here as I was undecided. (Also there is a big difference between Don't Care and Undecided)


Q6: Should it be possible for airforce units to destroy value of a player without any costs if the defending player doesn't have any defenses, or should planes that attack and destroy buildings do so at some cost

Voted B here as there should be an ongoing cost. Will there be some consideration around defense and or other possible use of Aircraft in the future e.g. Fighters and Anti Aircraft weapons to defend against Bombers or Fighters that can support ground units.


Q7: To increase the pace at which wars can be waged and to reduce the power of a first strike, 50% of all attackers and defenders 'killed' during battle (regular strike missions) would only get "wounded", becoming available at a later time again. Weapons they used still be gone forever. Attackers and defenders killed by assassins would all get killed, just like the assassins used in the mission

Voted C here as I was Undecided. On further consideration Cutting down Losses and Having 50% wounded during Farming and Raiding could be a way to encourage more Farming and Raiding between Active players. It would also increase the gap between Farming and War.


Q8: If people vote for the update that 50% killed units get wounded instead. Do you support that 50% of all military units that get killed will be wounded (not only attackers and defenders, but also spies and assassins). This includes assassination missions and sabotage missions. Missions would be altered so that people who make a sabotage or assassination mission are not at an advantage nor a disadvantage due to this change.

I voted A here as it was the best choice but I wasn't really happy with it and I think it requires more discussion.


Q9: Remove normal attack and defense soldiers and make training/untraining of all military units cost the same, most likely reduce training cost of attack/defense units down to spy/assassins level. (And also most likely rename super soldiers to just attack/defense soldiers)

Another C vote as I was Undecided. The cheaper strike and defense soldiers are beneficial to new players but a single type of unit would be less confusing. Cost per unit may be a deciding factor.


Q10: Workers would get removed.

Voted C I dont care


Q11: Do you want the cost of all strike missions other than farm and raid missions be changed to 1 AT and 5 ST?

Voted B here as I do NOT want to see this change happen. War should be costly, if it is to cheep then you run the risk of players being over-massed or bullied and then loosing members.


Q12: Administrative Efficiency

Again C Undecided


Q13: If you were the admin of this game, what changes would you make to improve it? (this includes adding new features, changing or removing current features)
You can ignore this question, if you have no suggestions.

I made no comments here as I'm active on the forum and get involved in discussions here.

I would however like to see what others who don't come to the forum may suggest.

For question 13 I answered:

I d say:

1.) Increase the number of attack turns available per market turn to encourage more farming/raiding.

2.) Remove the supply turns requirement completely from farming/raiding. They are unneeded - as even without ST being needed, noone will use the attack/raid option to mass someone (the original purpose of ST being included for the attack/raid options) due to the number of attacks which would need to be launched to match the damage done by the actual "war" options (i.e. assault) - which would require an insane amount of attack turns & would result in far heavier attack losses.

No ST for farming/raiding = More farming & raiding will happen if combined with more attack turns being available on the ingame market per market turn. Reducing massing costs will also makes wars cheaper and thus more likely.

ian wrote:2.) Remove the supply turns requirement completely from farming/raiding. They are unneeded - as even without ST being needed, noone will use the attack/raid option to mass someone (the original purpose of ST being included for the attack/raid options) due to the number of attacks which would need to be launched to match the damage done by the actual "war" options (i.e. assault) - which would require an insane amount of attack turns & would result in far heavier attack losses.

No, the original purpose of ST being included is that you couldn't just farm/raid 24/7 completely negating any potential losses you'd suffer during a war. meaning war would degenerate into "who can spend more time farming/raiding".

ian wrote:No ST for farming/raiding = More farming & raiding will happen if combined with more attack turns being available on the ingame market per market turn. Reducing massing costs will also makes wars cheaper and thus more likely.

How would you like to see "massing costs" reduced.
All I can see is the "war unwinnable" argument which is getting thrown at the other side of the fence

I am against the complete removal of ST cost for farming and raiding. As admin said it will become a situation of who can spend the most time ingame. Presently it would not be that big of an issue, but in time it would be.

As for the "unwinnable wars" being thrown at you, you know what a game is like when it reaches that stage. I'm not against the modifying of cost but just think 1/2 is ridiculous. You want to make wars cost 1/2 as much, and then return 1/2 of all dead men. You don't think that is a bit extreme?


By all means, open up the beta server, or use the now dead reset server and we as player will go to war like this game has never seen. Then we will have proof positive data to make a discussion on. I am not afraid to say I am wrong, or that I have ever been when I was wrong about something. The question is are you? I think I am correct in my assumption that cutting the cost of war in half, and then returning 1/2 of the dead to active duty will seriously diminish or cripple the ability of any account to win any battle by any other means than simply being more stubborn and refusing to stop fighting. The only way to win in SGW is to bore your opponent into submission. You Know this is true. Prove me wrong with real data and I will gladly embrace this new system with open arms, but until I have some reason to believe differently, I have no option but to speak my mind and my heart.



Oh, and I would just like to mention that to me personally, the most expensive part of war in the construction, levels, techs and most importantly the actual cost of weaponry. The ST and AT cost of war are about right to me. Its coming up with the kewul to train men and arm them that seems to be the biggest cost of war. What do you guys think about that?

I am not sure if you fully realize it, if yes then please consider this post not having been written.

Having 50% of attackers and defender return after battle as injured means that hunted assassins or income units will remain dead if killed.
Assuming defender and attacker benefit from this equally during massing of defense/strike, the attacker will benefit from this change when leveling the rest of the account (adding hunt spies mission would increase this benefit even further)

during war, cost for training and building weapons constitute the bulk of expenses, not having to train so many units all over again would save up some kuwal, which means you can rebuild and attack more often (i think i already wrote this somewhere so i might be just repeating myself)

Why would you even consider putting a cost on bombs? Is there currently a cost to purchase bullet/shells for our other weapons?
There's an upkeep cost, but no additional cost to make/buy ammo so why would there be one for bombs?

If you want to put a cost in for buying bombs, you need to put one in for bullets/shells, but surely you could say that would all come under the upkeep of the weapons?

Viper wrote:Why would you even consider putting a cost on bombs? Is there currently a cost to purchase bullet/shells for our other weapons?
There's an upkeep cost, but no additional cost to make/buy ammo so why would there be one for bombs?

If you want to put a cost in for buying bombs, you need to put one in for bullets/shells, but surely you could say that would all come under the upkeep of the weapons?

yes but bombs would be related to airforce, so yes one way of doing it would be with an upkeep, but there's a big difference between a passive cost and an active cost.

you'd pay for bombs if you use them, i.e. kill someone else's stuff.
you'd pay for upkeep even if you dont use it, i.e. you keep an airforce for defense purposes, just like you have a defense

Admin wrote:I am not sure if you fully realize it, if yes then please consider this post not having been written.

Having 50% of attackers and defender return after battle as injured means that hunted assassins or income units will remain dead if killed.
Assuming defender and attacker benefit from this equally during massing of defense/strike, the attacker will benefit from this change when leveling the rest of the account (adding hunt spies mission would increase this benefit even further)

during war, cost for training and building weapons constitute the bulk of expenses, not having to train so many units all over again would save up some kuwal, which means you can rebuild and attack more often (i think i already wrote this somewhere so i might be just repeating myself)

I'm not sure if you fully realize it, if yes then please consider this post as not having been written.

You just asked a barrage of questions with NO definite direction as to what will and will not take effect so there is NO way in God's green earth we as players can know a damn thing until you frickin tell us!


Now to the point you are trying to make, as previously stated, put it in AW2, in beta, in reset, or some other place so we can test it. You repeatedly refuse to address or answer my concerns about it becoming a case like SGW where you can not do enough damage within your limited abilities of AT and ST to effectively ever win a war or a battle.

Instead of forcing it onto every game in the damn franchise, why not bloody well test it on 1 of the three four branches(counting beta/test server)and we can all see and understand it better?

It's not as hard as it is being made.

agreed

Admin wrote:agreed

TY