• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

REMOVE ALL the Military Building Bonuses

DeletedUser22153

Proposal
Remove ALL bonuses provided by some military buildings (attack and defense).

Current System
The current version gave to some of the military buildings a particular amount of bonus used for all the troops to attack. I realize that one of those buildings (4x3, Strike Team Center) offers 4% of attack bonus. Others (6x6, Bohemoth Hangar) give a support of only 6%.


Details
I saw players who finished their tree in Arctic Future 4 and have more than 25 Strike Team Centers and just a few other buildings from Arctic. We can all do this. And the game will be a simple nonsense. Why we need all those new buildings you provide then?
Drawing a parathesis: One of the quests will ask you to gain control over a province. Well, with 30% from Tavern is is still not enough to defeat the ugly troops (with 35% bonus only!!!) you can find there. I had more than 120 attack bonus and I lost tons of troops. The only chance I have is to downgrade my military and start to build those Team Centers as an ultimate solution. This is what you want for this game?


Abuse Prevention
I see no potential for Abuse; Simply remove the bonuses of the military buildings.

Visual Aids
---

Conclusion
I don't have something else to mention.



Thank you for your time and consideration.






Hey,

Remove ALL bonuses provided by some military buildings (attack and defense). I saw players who finished their tree in Arctic Future 4 and have 25 Strike Team Centers and few other buildings from Arctic. We can all do this. And the game will be a simple nonsense. Why we need all those new buildings you provide then?
One of the quests will ask you to gain control over a province. Well, with 30% from Tavern is is still not enough to defeat the ugly troops (with 35% bonus only!!!) you can find there. I had more than 120 attack bonus and I lost tons of troops there. The only chance I have is to downgrade my military and start to build those Team Centers as an ultimate solution. This is what you want for this game?
In conclusion: remove all those military building bonuses. Add the bonus (if you like) to those units and nothing more. Recalibrate the fight in Continent Map. Thank you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Algona

Well-Known Member
IBTM/S

Maybe you are correct. Maybe only mass strike team is the way to go. But maybe you could try asking for help from the players before changing how the game works? Especially in light of how many players are still seething over the recent RG nerf?
 

DeletedUser22153

More or less I find the building of the Strike Team Centers in the same category with the power of the Rail Guns (who use to destroy almost everything was imagined in Arctic Future as a weapon). Please do not deny the fact that almost all the players who play their game on the attack will have many of those buildings in their cities. I find this annoying, unfair, and it came somehow against the new ages buildings. Why new buildings then? Why new military buildings if some of the old ones function way better and bring more advantages than many other new ones?
I vote for this drastic change because I cannot see the reason having military bonuses for buildings and military power for units. Having a military boost from buildings is a mistake in my view.
 

ITown

Well-Known Member
More or less I find the building of the Strike Team Centers in the same category with the power of the Rail Guns (who use to destroy almost everything was imagined in Arctic Future as a weapon). Please do not deny the fact that almost all the players who play their game on the attack will have many of those buildings in their cities. I find this annoying, unfair, and it came somehow against the new ages buildings. Why new buildings then? Why new military buildings if some of the old ones function way better and bring more advantages than many other new ones?
I vote for this drastic change because I cannot see the reason having military bonuses for buildings and military power for units. Having a military boost from buildings is a mistake in my view.
I just finished the Arctic GE with 93%/93% attack (no military building bonus). Using those buildings is a crutch, but if people want to cripple their alcatraz unit production with junk, I say have at it.
 

DeletedUser14197

I kind of think that if they remove all the bonuses from the military buildings, that those who have 25 of them, may be a bit upset. This game should figure some of these things out before they bring them here. I actually have 12 of them myself because I needed a crutch I guess to make it thru 3 levels of GE. Now with the rails nerfed, I doubt I could even win with the crutches. Maybe sometime I will try, but I got stuck on the 8th battle of level 2 one week and have never bothered trying again. I should finish level 1 this week, but honestly, I had a hard time winning the last section of level 3 before teh rails with nerfed, even though my great buildings are level 10 and I have 12 strike teams. So, for me, the only way I could probably win was if I built more strike teams and if I have space, it makes more sense to build strike teams than to have to continually dish out silver to get the extra attack bonus, besides I probably wouldn't get enough silver to get thru all 3 levels each week. For now, I have simply quit trying to do more than level one of GE, so have seriously considered getting rid of all the strike teams and quitting fighting in this city.
 

DeletedUser1753

He's basically saying someone is gaining an advantage by dedicating space to certain buildings and he doesn't want to dedicate that space so they're not allowed to have that advantage.

It's like complaining that I have more goods because I have built more goods buildings than he has so I should be taxed for that.
 

DeletedUser25166

We should remove all coin and supply boosts as well. How unfair
 

DeletedUser22153

He's basically saying someone is gaining an advantage by dedicating space to certain buildings and he doesn't want to dedicate that space so they're not allowed to have that advantage.
You know this is a false argument. I said it is totally out of the logic of a game to have military buildings from 4 eras on the map. So, then what is the purpose of going to Arctic Future if you TAKE A HUGE ADVANTAGE keeping those old buildings on your map? Why then this game offers so many new buildings if the space you use is mainly for those building. I saw cities with just one or two new buildings on, the rest being those Strike Centers. Did you find this natural? I am not, sorry.
 

DeletedUser1753

Thankfully we are still able to play the game the way we want to. Some restrict themselves to the original 16 expansions to see how far they can come, others stay in IA forever by choice and see how far they can come (points, GB, size, etc), some choose to have no military buildings but only goods and then there's those that keep old buildings because of a military boost.
I agree here with ITown that it's their choice to screw over themselves as far as for example traz is concerned.
I have seen cities with only houses and supplies, no event buildings for goods, no GB for goods, no military, nothing. And I just shake my head and move on.
Why is someone else's military boost, regardless of how they acquire it, a concern to you?
 

DeletedUser13838

You know this is a false argument. I said it is totally out of the logic of a game to have military buildings from 4 eras on the map. So, then what is the purpose of going to Arctic Future if you TAKE A HUGE ADVANTAGE keeping those old buildings on your map? Why then this game offers so many new buildings if the space you use is mainly for those building. I saw cities with just one or two new buildings on, the rest being those Strike Centers. Did you find this natural? I am not, sorry.
You mean like the monastery and watchfires? Or are those OK?

The real problem is that the military bonuses on barracks from TE-AF don't keep up with the bonuses from strike team centers or otherwise we'd build those barracks instead. For example the light unit from AF is 5x5 with a 7% bonus vs STCs which are 4x3 with a 4% bonus. I suppose I could replace 8 STCs (32% - ~17k pop) with 4 DDs (28% - ~20k pop) but i rarely use dragon drones either. At least I can use STs in the 1st level of GE and get some medals from that tower. Having extra DDs doesn't do anything for me.

Surrogate soldiers are the better unit and their barracks are 4x4 but they have no bonus and would require almost twice the pop of the STCs for the same space.
 

DeletedUser21322

Please place this in the proper proposal format. This can be found at the top of the proposal page.
 

DeletedUser22153

Why is someone else's military boost, regardless of how they acquire it, a concern to you?
Because if you build 25 Strike Team Centers in order to prove your power in AF is a nonsense and an abuse of the game system in my view. Did you see a connection with reality? I don't.
 

iamtheemperor

Active Member
Because if you build 25 Strike Team Centers in order to prove your power in AF is a nonsense and an abuse of the game system in my view. Did you see a connection with reality? I don't.
Does a dude in a green cloak who is trained in a tree and can transform himself into a helicopter have any connection with reality? Of course not, but I'd wager you've got rogue hideouts in your city.
 

DeletedUser15042

I love people who automatically think that anyone who does not play the game the way that they themselves want it to be played, are considered cheaters/abusers/wrong/etc.

Guess who the world does not revolve around!!!!!
 

DeletedUser14197

I love people who automatically think that anyone who does not play the game the way that they themselves want it to be played, are considered cheaters/abusers/wrong/etc.

Guess who the world does not revolve around!!!!!
You?

seriously, sometimes certain things do seem like they may be an abuse. Lots of people have on the forums considered many things abuses which are allowed by the game. Also, there probably has been a rare occasion where something people could do in the game, was actually not permitted. For example one can donate to someones gb in one city in exchange fore them donating to yours in another city. One is able to do this, but it is definitely not allowed by the game. So unless someone has read and understands all that is allowed by the game, it may be easy to not realize that certain things that in most games would be considered cheating are actually not cheating in this game. Some people have viewed skipping quests in recurring quests an abuse of the game where as I don't. Just saying. It is kind of rude to think that just because someone doesn't reason things out like you do, that they think the world revolves around them. It simply means they think differently than you do. If you had more kindness you could simply state your view and why you view it that way, and other may come to think like you do. But, really it isn't necessary to think like you do anymore than it is necessary to think like I do.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
I love people who automatically think that anyone who does not play the game the way that they themselves want it to be played, are considered cheaters/abusers/wrong/etc.
And bullies... Don't forget the bullies.

Guess who the world does not revolve around!!!!!
Me. Your loss, world.

Algona, beloved benevolent dictator for life as unanimously selected by the residents of Algona; slayer of the meek; trampler of rights; oppressor of the oppressed; and all around nice guy.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser26154

Algona, beloved benevolent dictator for life as unanimously selected by the residents of Algona; slayer of the meek; trampler of rights; oppressor of the oppressed; and all around nice guy.
download (1).jpg

You remind me of Douglas Adams with that quote, Algona.